as chairman, brought up a second special report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Motor Carrier Transportation Bill, as follows—

Report considered and adopted.

as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Crown Lands.

Report to be considered in Committee of the Whole House on 20th May.

I move—

The two main clauses of this Bill are 1 and 2. They refer to three funds, namely, the Railways and Harbours superannuation fund of 1912 called “The Fund,” the Natal public employees superannuation fund of 1897, and the new Railways and Harbours superannuation fund of 1925, called “The New Fund.” Two classes of railway servants are involved, viz., those retired on grounds of non-culpable inefficiency or retrenchment in terms of Section 11 of Act 23 of 1925. The change that is proposed under these two clauses is the following: Revenue will bear the cost of the annuity only until the member reaches the prescribed superannuation age, and not as at present, so long as the member draws his annuity. It is not sound that revenue should continue to bear the responsibility for these pensions after the particular servant has reached superannuation age, and I think the House will agree this is an alteration which is necessary. I may say it brings these three funds into line with the other pension funds of the railway administration and also with the Cape civil service pension fund, the Natal civil service fund, the Union pension fund and the Union service pension fund. We have consulted the Government actuaries, who have advised that the proposed change is necessary, because the present practice is not sound finance. We have also consulted the Superannuation Committee, which consists, as hon. members know, of ten members, five nominated by the administration and five elected by the different grades of the staff; eight members voted in favour of the change, five nominees of the administration and three of the elected members, and two were against. It must be borne in mind that the nominees of the administration have just as much interest in these funds as the elected members. Clause 3 simply seeks to legalize the retirement by the administration of servants on the grounds of ill-health or physical disability. We have had a large number of retirements under the law of 1925, and the law adviser has raised the question of the legality of these retirements. All we are doing here now is to bring the law into line with the actual practice. The other clauses, as hon. members will see, are purely amendments following on the administration of the super annuation fund. I may give further information in committee if the House desires, and there is no need for me to take up the time of the House with regard to that.

I think Clause 3 is more important than Clauses 1 and 2. The two members to whom the Minister referred who were against were representative of the running staff and of the artizans, and I think I will be able to show the Minister these are those who are going to suffer. I wish to draw attention to the circular which has been issued to explain the position, and to show how the staff, in certain circumstances, will suffer by this change. The men were asked to return the voting paper on the alternative basis by the end of May; up to the present there has been no voting by these people, and they feel that by the issue of this circular—issued by the headquarters office in Johannesburg—they have been misled and have no opportunity of being heard. They thought the whole scheme would be submitted to them and that they would be asked to vote on it; although it says at the end that the votes would be indicative of the views of those voting, but the final decision will be that of the administration.

Are you sure it refers to Clauses 1 and 2?

To the whole Bill. They refer to medical examinations—

With the leave of the House, I may explain that the circular refers to quite another subject, and does not deal with this matter. I do not propose at this stage to deal with that particular aspect. The clauses which we deal with here are quite separate from that subject.

According to the circular, the points put to the men are not included in this Bill. Will the Minister consider, in dealing with the amendment of the principal Act, the amendment of Sections 3 and 11? With regard to Section 3, there is some dissatisfaction expressed respecting physical disability. They want to know what is meant by “inquiry,” and what form of inquiry is intended. Supposing a shunter is injured, and he is given the position of a gatekeeper, is the district inspector to decide whether he is fit for a gatekeeper or not? They want to know exactly what their position is. In regard to Clause 11, we have the position of differential treatment between a clerk and an ordinary employee. The case put to me is that a clerk comes under the term “officer,” and an officer who comes into the service at 35 years of age can receive a pension or annuity. On the other hand, a shunter who comes into the service at the age of 35, after ten years of service, can get nothing. He has to serve 20 years before he gets a pension or annuity, which is different from the position of the clerk. They feel very strongly that the Minister should do away with differentiation. Take another ease. Supposing a shunter comes in at the age of 25, and he has 20 years’ service, which is the length of time he has to serve before he gets a pension. Then he cannot claim his pension, because he cannot get it until he reaches the age of 50. The dice seem to be loaded against the men, and an amendment should be introduced with regard to Section 11. If the Minister would change “50” to “45” it would meet the case It, would not make much difference after all, because those men who cannot claim their pensions now always get something from the administration, but they want to feel that they have a right to get their pensions. As far as the other point is concerned, I accept the Minister’s statement that it does not affect the case which I wished to bring up.

May I repeat the assurance to my hon. friend which I have already given, that persons dealt with under the circular he has referred to come under a different category. He has also raised the question of differentiation. I think he must appreciate that at this stage I cannot do anything in that regard. The House, in 1925, dealt with the whole question in a comprehensive manner, and at this stage I cannot hold out any hope of again dealing with that matter.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; to go into committee to-morrow.

I move—

The Government has long felt the necessity for adequate research into and study of the fuel resources of the Union, by an institute with the powers given in this Bill. In South Africa, where we have no petroleum wells, no water power, no natural waterways, the question of cheap power is really one of fuel research, and in particular of coal utilization and coal processes. We have fuel reserves in our oil shales and in vegetable raw material, but in the first instance the utilization of our 250,000 million tons of coal will have to be enquired into. The enquiry becomes the more urgent when we bear in mind that our insignificant 14,000,000 tons of coal production per year means that at our present rate of consumption it will be some 17,000 years before we exhaust even our known resources, and when we take into consideration that we are importing an annually increasing amount of mineral oil. For the year 1929 we imported 100,000,000 gallons of mineral oil, valued at over £3,000,000 sterling. It is hoped that the work of the institute will stimulate production, and will make possible several industries. It is hoped that it will make possible a coal by-products industry, a gas industry, and an oil industry, based, to some extent, on our oil shales and vegetable raw materials, but very largely indeed on our coal reserves. Finally, we hope that the work of the institute will make possible a chemical industry of specific products derivative from coal. Cheap liquid fuel, to mention only one of the hoped-for achievements of this institute, will undoubtedly occasion an industrial expansion on an unprecedented scale, and will also tend to the development of industrial and mining possibilities hitherto not considered feasible.

What about transportation?

Transportation is part of the industrial expansion. I think that these few words indicate the Union-wide importance of the principle set out in this Bill, and I hope that the Bill, with its provisions, will be as acceptable to the House, as it is to the coal industry, and as I hope it is to the general public. As regards the details of the Bill, I may say that the Bill in its published form has been before the House and the country for nearly twelve months, and I think I may say that no serious criticism has been levelled at it. In addition I have had the benefit of consulting the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) and I have obtained very valuable advice from him in connection with the Bill. We have agreed on a number of amendments which will constitute a distinct improvement of the Bill, and these I will put on the order paper for the committee stage. They will make the Bill more workable, and will remove certain difficulties in connection with Natal. Dealing with the Bill section by section, the first sections provide for the constitution of an institute which will be governed by a board of five members, who will be appointed by the Government, but two of them will have to be persons recommended by the collieries. This board will appoint a director and staff and a technical committee, who will supervise the work of the institute. The institute takes over the grading of coal, which has been performed by certain committees under the Coal Act, and this will provide a certain amount of revenue for the institute. Objections were raised that this might interfere with private practice, and there is a section, as amended, which will provide that the institute will undertake no work for outside persons, which can adequately be performed by outside practitioners. But where that cannot be done, every member of the public will have the right to go to that institute and at a reasonable fee have work performed which he may require to be done. As regards the financing of the institute and its work, provision is made in the vote under Mines and Industries for a grant of £30,000 for capital purposes. Running expenses are estimated at between £7,000 and £10,000, and will be defrayed by a levy to which the collieries have agreed of l/8th of a penny per ton on any colliery producing not less than 25,000 tons of coal per annum. The Bill inflicts—I use the word advisedly—a levy on every colliery, whatever its production, on the sale of every ton of coal. The hon. member for Springs has pointed out to me that it is useless to worry small producers—farmers and others—in respect of small amounts, and in consultation with the Government mining engineer, the number of tons has been fixed at 25,000 per annum. The levy of l/8th of a penny per ton on these other collieries will provide half the running expenses of the institute, and the Government, on the pound for pound principle, will provide the other half required. In addition to this source of income, the institute will be paid for the grading of coal. The remaining sections—some of which appear to be very drastic indeed—are taken over from the existing coal Act. They are sections not generally known. When I first looked at the Act, I thought we were going to ask Parliament to sanction provisions of an unusual character; but with very minor exceptions these are sections taken over from the coal Act.

I agree with the Minister that we should have this fuel board to carry on the work of the former coal grading committee, which was carried on under the Act of 1922. The clauses of this Bill deal generally with the grading of coal for export and bunkering purposes, and those clauses are taken over from the Act of 1922, and to that extent the research institute will be carrying on the work of the coal grading committee. That work will be the principal function of this institute. But in section 2 I notice that it will also carry on other functions. It will study and investigate the fuel resources of the Union. Here I think the institute, if properly conducted, may prove of immense value to the country. There is no doubt that our raw materials, our coal resources and other resources, give the opportunity for immense potentialities of development in this country, but these resources are not known. Taking our coal for instance, it is not known generally what the properties of our coal are; how far various types are suitable for power production, and this research is work which should be done in the Union. I know that experiments have been conducted abroad. Tons of our coal have been sent abroad for the purpose of conducting experiments, but this work can be done better and more cheaply in this country, and I do not see why we should not undertake work of that kind ourselves. That work is very important. The world ought to know what our coals are; what the various types are; what the constituents are—what can be done with them—whether they are suitable for cold distillation into oil fuel of one type or another. The investigation of our coals, and of their properties, will be one of the main functions of this institute. If this work is done properly, and the results are published, there is a possibility we may attract to our shores the enterprise and capital necessary to develop these great resources in which we are so interested. In this respect I think great services can be rendered by this institute. But I see that there is a third function entrusted to the institute—to undertake scientific and technical research on our fuels in general and our fuel bye-products in particular. Here I am somewhat sceptical about what it might be possible for us to do and to achieve. We know that experiments and research into the transformation and distillation of coal into oil fuel are being conducted in many other countries. There is to-day, I think, not a single department of research in the wide world which is being conducted with so much energy and with the expenditure of so much capital as this is. In many countries in Europe, on the continent, in England and in America, we know that bodies, corporations and even governments, are spending colossal sums of money in order to try to solve this problem of how to turn coal into oil fuel. Petrol is expensive, and the petrol resources of the world are limited and will become exhausted. Practically every Government and every civilized country to-day is deeply interested in this question of how to turn their coal resources into oil fuel. As I have said, these experiments are being conducted in the various countries, and large sums of money are being spent in connection with these experiments. These are the experiments, this is the research, referred to under this subsection (b), Clause 2—as scientific and technical research. As I say, I am myself doubtful whether we can usefully spend our money in experiments of this kind. I hope that the policy of the institute, the policy of the Mines Department and of the Government will be to go slow here. The work is being done elsewhere. I know of one great corporation in England which has already spent £500,000 in this form of research. In Germany, experiments are being conducted on a very large scale and on a successful scale. Naturally, in matters of this kind, if we are wise, we should await the results of the experiments conducted elsewhere. Other countries with resources and technical skill, which we do not have in South Africa, are conducting these experiments, and we may easily embark upon a series of experiments and lines of research which would really be a waste of time. I am glad to have the assurance from the Minister that we are not going to embark on lines of research which are better conducted elsewhere. We should largely confine our efforts to an investigation of the properties of our coal and oil shales and our other natural resources which may be turned into advantage. So far, I am in agreement with this Bill, and I am glad that the hon. Minister has consulted my hon. friend the member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) who has taken a very deep interest for many years in this work, and no doubt knows very much more about it than I do. So far, I agree with the terms of the Bill, but what troubles me to some extent is the machinery of this Bill. It seems to me to be very complicated.

That will be altered.

I am glad to hear from the Minister that the machinery is going to he altered. Let me sketch to the House, briefly, the machinery of the Bill which to me is very confusing, cumbrous and even clumsy. This Bill creates a research institute which will be a body corporate. The institute will consist of a board plus the director.

More than that.

I am very glad to hear that, because I may tell my hon. friend that I have looked at the machinery of this Bill, at the institute on the one hand, and a board on the other—and these two bodies have to work in together—and I have got myself into a muddle over the question, it seems to me, after all, that the problem is quite simple. We need not institute these various agencies, an institute and a board which runs it, and meetings of both being held and the whole complicated machinery which are quite unnecessary for the object that we have in view. I am glad to hear that the machinery is to be simplified. If this is going to be altered, and with the assurance which the Minister has given that there is no intention of embarking upon high falutin’ experiments I can only give the Bill my blessing and say I hope that the institute will prove a means of the development of our great national resources. We know that we have these resources, and other countries may know them generally too, but are not acquainted with the details. With this Bill and the money now being supplied to the institute, it will be possible to do exploratory work which will be of great value, and which may supply just the information which is wanted by capital in order to be invested in this country for the development of our resources.

I should like to know from the Minister whether his intention is to send this Bill to a select committee.

It is not necessary.

Then I want some details in regard to the Bill. I wish to refer to Clause 3 in regard to the method of the appointment of the board. I think there will have to be some amendments to the manner in which these holdings will be represented. Take, for instance, Natal. If three-quarters of the coal owners are to be taken as the basis upon which the members of the board are to be appointed, it is possible, under the present arrangement under Clause 3, that the Natal collieries may have no representatives on the board. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to agree to an amendment to Clause 3, so that Natal may appoint one member, and the Transvaal and the Free State together one member to the board. I think that is a fair proposition, because the Minister knows that there is considerable difference in the physical properties of the coal of Natal and that of the Transvaal. I have been asked by the Natal collieries to press the point that they would like representation on the board. Then there is another point which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister, and which I hope he will agree to accept. That is in regard to the surplus. If there is any surplus on the levy to be levied here, it may be used to defray the expenses of running the institute for next year or for other objects of the institute. It is felt that if there is any surplus, it should he used in diminishing the expenses of running the institute. “Other objects” may mean capital expenditure, and, as the Minister knows, the Bill lays down that the capital expenditure will be defrayed by the Government. I have been asked to bring that point to the notice of the Minister. Another point which is of importance is the question of grading. We are told that if there is a central grading it may affect the Natal collieries.

I have an amendment to that.

I have been asked to represent by the collieries that there should be a local grading committee.

A committee will not be appointed, but agents will be appointed to deal with it in Natal.

If we have the assurance of the Minister that there will be agents in Natal who will grade the Natal coal, then I think that that objection will fall away. Before publishing reports regarding the grade of coal, the colliery owners should be consulted. Obviously it would be unfair to publish such reports without first discussing the matter with them. These are some of the points which have been represented to me, and I am glad the Minister is prepared to meet them. On the whole the Natal coalowners are prepared to give the Bill their support. They feel that something will have to be done to find an outlet for our coal. Speaking as a farmer, I welcome the Bill, because it may result in the supply of a cheaper fuel for transport purposes on farms. At present the high cost of the imported fuel is a handicap on the use of mechanically-propelled vehicles and machines for agricultural purposes. The coal-owners feel that it would be a mistake to repeat in South Africa investigations into schemes for the extraction of oil from coal which have been made in Great Britain, Germany and America, but they would like the proposed institute to collect all the available information on the subject from all parts of the world, and they believe that this information will be of great value to those engaged in the production of coal.

Much as I welcome the Bill, I suggest that the better way would have been to have two measures instead of one. As the leader of the Opposition has pointed out, the first part of the Bill deals with scientific research. I do not agree with him that South Africa must wait and see what happens in Europe. The very efficient officer in charge of our investigations into the extraction of oil from coal convinced the mining congress that we have advanced a long way in regard to the researches that have been made into the potentialities of our South African coal. The first part of the Bill is concerned with scientific research, and this constitutes the most important section of the measure, as far as we are concerned, as it is our object to turn as large a quantity of our coal into benzol and oh as we possibly can. Our conditions are peculiar, as we have illimitable coal deposits from which we can extract tremendous quantities of oil, but we have not natural oil, so the Government should get busy at the earliest possible moment if we wish to obtain the oil power South Africa requires. The fuel research institute should have functioned last year when the House approved of the principle, but did not give authority for rendering the necessary financial assistance in order to carry out scientific tests. As far as we in South Africa are concerned, there is no question about the tremendous magnitude and potentialities of our oil products, provided that we can extract oil from coal on a commercial basis. Surveys have already been made, and the geological department can tell us how much coal we have that can be converted into oil. The House is being asked this afternoon to provide the means of carrying on scientific research on the lines to which I have referred. As far as the world’s oil products are concerned, it is not economical to attempt to put oil extracted from coal in competition with the limitable supplies of natural oil, as long as the oil wells continue to function. In addition to which, those financially interested in natural oil will keep artificially produced oil out of the market. The Government should assist fuel research, so as to bring coal oil into use in South Africa. Everybody on this side of the House was very much interested last year and the year before in the projects for extracting oil from South African coal, so that we should be in a position to compete against imported natural oils. I cannot understand why the Minister has mixed up this subject with the purely commercial aspect of the grading of coal. There is a good deal of animosity over this portion of the Bill, and I would like to hear from the Minister whether it is not possible even at this stage to divide the Bill into two sections—the technical and commercial. I am entirely in agreement with the Government in the introduction of this measure, but, as I have previously said, there should be not one Bill, but two. The coal owners themselves should carry the burden of coal grading. Any taxation on that coal they can carry themselves, but where it is possible for the Government to assist them with regard to rates, to enable them to put the coal in a position to compete with the outside world, we are prepared to do so. Commercial opinion might be divergent on the other part of the Bill, but the first part, we all agree that the Government can stand a good deal of public funds being spent on the turning of our coal into oil.

I am very pleased to see this Bill. I believe attention was first drawn to the urgency of this matter by my worthy predecessor, Sir Thomas Watt. The Minister being forewarned, is forearmed to meet the objections from Natal by the amendments he is bringing up, and this has disarmed some of us with regard to the objections we might have levelled against the Bill. His generosity is to be commended on having conceded these points, and we shall wait to see what these amendments are. I can assure him there is no serious objection to the principle of this Bill from the coal owners all over South Africa, and it is something to which they have been looking forward for some years past.

I am very glad to be able to say that the country welcomes this Bill if it attains the purpose for which we think it has been introduced, but I am afraid that we may depart from the great object of the Bill, viz., to see whether our coal and our slate can be turned into oil. As I understand the Bill, the intention is to make experiments with coal. I fear the result will be that experiments will not be made with slate. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said that we should leave the experiments to Europe, where a great deal of money is being spent in the matter. My difficulty is this. Even if Europe finds that our coal is suitable they will not tell us so plainly. Europe is fighting for its own hand, and we must fight for ourselves. I therefore fear that if we do not, ourselves, produce the oil we shall probably suffer loss. The public have looked forward to this Bill, so that the Government could make a proper enquiry whether we can produce oil from our slate, and our coal. A great deal of oil is used in this country, and we shall he satisfied merely with the production of crude oil. I therefore hope the Government will not be influenced by the hon. member for Standerton to give up experiments with coal or slate.

In agreeing with what the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has put forward, I want to give the House some information which may cause some satisfaction. The right hon. member indicated that it is high time that our coal enquiries, grading and testing of coal, should be done in this country, and he has given instances, or indicated, that on other occasions thousands of tons of coal have been sent many thousands of miles oversea, and that this work can eaily be done here. I entirely agree with this, and I want to tell the House that coking experiments carried on up to the present have given very good results indeed, while the results of experiments on coal sent overseas for this purpose have not been very satisfactory. It has now been ascertained that the coal during the whole of its sea journey was oxidizing, and that when it reached its destination it was not nearly so valuable and did not possess the same property as when it left South Africa. Local experiment has shown that Witbank coal is excellent, for coking purposes, and with regard to our iron and steel industry, that is news which will be received with satisfaction by the House. I can give the right hon. member the assurance, without in any way giving way to the fears expressed by the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. S. D. de Wet), that our research in this country will, very largely, not be original. We shall not conduct original research in respect of experiments which are made overseas in laboratories which are much better equipped than we can have them, and at an expense that is possibly prohibitive; but at the same time our peculiar South African circumstances will be investigated, and oil production from oil shale and vegetable raw material will receive the serious consideration of the institute. The only type of research we shall eliminate is that which possesses no distinct South African future, as far as we are concerned. It should be borne in mind that overseas large amounts of capital are being voted in connection with the hydrogenation of crude oil. All over the civilized world there has been hydrogenation of coal, but it has to be faced whether that of crude oil is not cheaper and a more satisfactory way of getting petrol than by means of coal. That is something which has to be faced by us before we go in for research with regard to coal. The provisions of that machinery have been altered in consultation between the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) and myself. I quite recognize the unwieldy nature of the provisions of the Bill, as at present framed. Shortly we have agreed that the institute shall be run by a board of five, and this board, as a board of directors would, will make all the necessary appointments. In other words, there will be one authority, and that authority will be the board, and every officer, including the director, will be responsible to that board. As regards the points raised by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) with respect to the method of providing for representation on the board, I am afraid that at this stage I am not convinced that Natal should receive separate representation. I think to emphasize the necessity for provincial boundaries in connection with the representation on the board of the fuel institute might lead to complications, but I am prepared to go into the matter in committee, although I understand that this particular section was approved by all the coal owners. The same applies with regard to the levy. The documents before me contain no record of any objection by any colliery when this matter was discussed by them. As regards the details of grading, the publication of the grade of coal of a particular colliery, I can only give the hon. member the assurance that there is no intention to depart from the method at present in force. We are taking over the provisions of the Coal Act of 1922. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) stated that our coal reserves have already been surveyed, and that all that is left to be done is to deal with the winning of oil from coal, and similar research work. I am afraid that, unfortunately, we have not yet reached that position, and one of the first things this institute will have to do will be to have a proper survey of our coal for grading purposes. We shall have to be quite clear as to the quantity of coal of each grade we have available before we can embark on hydrogenation on a large scale. Unfortunately, one of the first duties of this institute will be to have a proper survey of our various classes of coal. Provisions as regards grading were taken over to this Bill for the very practical reason that by taking over the grading we get the money which will pay for the expenses of this grading. Therefore we get by means of one levy the costs of grading, and a large portion of the cost of running this institute. That is the reason why the grading operations laid down under the Act of 1922 are taken over as a whole in this Bill. The hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Friend) expressed the hope that the amendments I am proposing would be satisfactory to Natal. I can give him the assurance that the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) was fully aware of certain difficulties that are to be met with as far as Natal is concerned, and the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) discussed these difficulties with the hon. member for Springs, and after that the three of us had a talk about them.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; to go into committee on 19th May.

I move—

The object of the amending Bill is to exercise control over the harvesting, export, and sale of wattle bark. As hon. members know, we have built up trade in wattle bark on what is usually called black wattle bark; we have done a considerable business in it for years, and in this connection I just want to give the export figures for the last five years. In 1925 the cash value of the bark amounted to £840,722, in 1925 £917,137. In 1927, when the price was very high, £1,359,652, in 1928 £975,069, and in 1929 £755,237. Now there are unscrupulous people who do not mind what happens to the trade, and export a different kind of bark which is very difficult to distinguish from the black wattle bark, viz., silver wattle bark. The silver wattle grows very freely on the highveld, and it is used there for firewood, and for stock shelters. While, however, the tanning value of the silver wattle bark is only 17 per cent., that of the black wattle is 35 per cent. Owing to the action of these unscrupulous people our trade suffers, and if we are not careful it will undermine all our trade in bark. The overseas buyers, when they get bark of the quality of 17 per cent., will be dissatisfied and the trade will be destroyed. When the Act of 1913 was originally drafted it was, I think, the intention for the Minister to retain the power of exercising control over the export, but when we tried to do so, and to see that each bark was exported under its separate designation, it was found that we could not do so in terms of the wording of the Act. The intention of the department is not to classify bark, but we only want to demand that if silver hark is sold it shall be sold as such and not as black wattle bark. There are people who ask why then the planting of the silver wattle bark is still permitted, but on the highveld it is a good tree for firewood and for shelters, and the bark is also saleable, although it is much poorer in quality and a different bark to that of the black wattle. The powers may appear drastic, but if we want to effect a trade we must take drastic measures. Section 11 of Act No. 16 of 1913 says—

1. (a) prohibit the exportation from the Union without the special permission of the Minister, of any kind of forest produce specified in the proclamation.
2. (b) prescribe the conditions under which wood or other forest produce the subject of the proclamation shall be felled or collected, the precautions to be observed in the stacking or seasoning of the same, and other conditions that shall be observed as conditions precedent to the grant of such special permission aforesaid.

Accordingly the Minister already has the power, but bark cannot be brought under the definition in the Act. When we look at the definition in Section 2 we find a long list of trees, a description of timber, etc., all of which are included, but only when on Crown land, or when found or obtained in private forests. The definition of “private forests” is however—

This provision, therefore, practically excludes all existing private forests, because there are only a few of the forests, the owners of which have notified that they are private forests. As we cannot, therefore, bring the product under the Act we must make the amendment to protect our trade against unscrupulous people. Most of our wattle plantations are in Natal, and I may say that the Natal people have for a long time been urging that these steps should be taken, because they are afraid that the trade will otherwise be ruined. There are also wattle trees in a large part of the Transvaal, and as the people have spent thousands of pounds on planting trees we must prevent the trade being ruined. We do not want to prohibit the planting and sale of silver bark trees, but only to protect our trade. I have got the support of 70 per cent, of the organized people in Natal, and I hope there will be no objection to the Bill. Fruit are specially excluded by Clause 1, because people might possibly be afraid that we will also bring them under the provisions of the law, hence the special exclusion.

This Bill is very necessary. The object is to prevent adulteration taking place to-day in regard to the wattle bark industry. The Bill is introduced at the request of the growers themselves. It is an industry which has a great future provided its standard of quality is maintained. Unfortunately, the standard of quality is suffering through the action of unscrupulous shippers who are mixing the two kinds of bark. The black wattle is grown for commercial reasons. It will only thrive in certain localities, for instance, Natal and part of the eastern Transvaal. The total extent of the acreage under black wattle is approximately 300,000 acres. The average tan content in this bark which makes it so valuable is 35 per cent.; the blue wattle or silver wattle is a tree that will grow in localities where the black wattle will not grow. It is not grown for commercial reasons at all, but as windbreaks in the Free State and for firewood. Whether it is black or silver wattle, the method of selling, that is from the growers’ side is—the bark is stripped and laid out in the sun after being cut into lengths of about four feet and the action of the sun causes the bark to curl inwards and take the form of a stick; hence the term “stick bark”, Anyone of experience can recognize the difference between black wattle-bark and silver wattle-bark in stick. But the unscrupulous dealer, knowing the tan content of the silver wattle-bark, pays only half the price for blue wattle he would have to pay for the black wattle-bark. It is taken to Durban, ground and desiccated, and detection is defied, because when it is ground, the appearance is practically the same. It is the unfortunate tanner in Europe who discovers the fraud. He costs his tanning operations on the basis of the standard of the raw material and if he assumes he is baying black wattle bark with a tan content of 30 per cent., the cost is 2d. a pound for his leather. The bark turns out to be an adulterated bark with a tan content of 15 per cent, and consequently his costs are 100 per cent, higher. He is losing 1d. a 1b. on that leather. The ordinary tanner in Europe of any magnitude tans 5,000 hides per week or 200,000 lbs. of leather, so a matter of £800 is lost to that tanner in one week’s work. Look at the effect it has upon an industry such as the bark industry. The depreciation of price is already apparent. The European tanner says that it we can really insure a tan content of the black wattle bark of between 30 per cent, and 35 per cent., then the bark in stick form on rail at any South African station would be about £8 per ton. The position to-day is that stick bark is £5 5s. per ton. Blue wattle is sold at about £2 per ton. The object of the Bill is not to prevent the man with the blue wattle from selling his bark as blue wattle. The object is, under the regulations, that the blue wattle bark sale is controlled by the Minister. When it leaves the grower, it can be traced until it is shipped. By that means if there is a matter of 1,000 tons of blue wattle bark sold, in the matter of shipping they must reflect 1,000 tons shipped. If there is anything less, the Minister knows at once that adulteration has taken place. We who are au fait with the wattle industry know that this adulteration is done by one or more firms, I think only one firm, in Durban. It is a matter of very great importance that through the unscrupulous commercial tactics of one or perhaps two firms, the whole industry should suffer. To-day, there is no means by which this adulteration can be checked. I know that some hon. members will say that the Minister has taken unto himself too great powers under this Bill. Well, the object of the Bill is to deal with the bark situation, but how do we know that some other situation may not arise in regard to our forests? Let us take the snout beetle. Is the Minister to come to the House every time he wants to take powers to deal with every forest trouble? Some new trouble may arise, in regard to the pines by some insect which is transported from one district to another. It is only right that the Minister, who is safeguarding the interests of the agricultural industry, should have such power as he is seeking now in regard to this particular trouble of the wattle bark. He should have power in other directions as well. This Bill is specifically introduced at the request of the local growers to deal with a serious situation. Why curtail the powers which will be of benefit in other directions, in a Bill of this sort? The wattle growers have suggested that in the Governor-General’s proclamation, a paragraph such as this should appear—

That is the extent to which the recommendations of the wattle growers go in regard to this Bill. I hope that hon. members who have fears in regard to giving powers to the Minister in other directions, will not raise that objection here. We want a drastic remedy for a drastic disease. Here we have one of the primary products in South Africa, the fourth on the list in value, and I am sure by the passage of this Bill, we shall be able to put a stop to this adulteration very quickly. There is only one criticism I have to offer to the Bill. That is in regard to the penalty of £100 or twelve months’ imprisonment of bark is 300 tons. Bark to-day is worth £5 5s. a ton on rail and when it is chopped up and sold in the European markets, on the continent or in London, it is worth £9 10s. per ton. A moderate shipment runs into £4,000 or £5000. What a trifling penalty £100 is. Why not increase it to £500? I do not think there is anything too bad for the scoundrel who jeopardizes an industry such as this. This is the one industry which has a marketable commodity with anything like a stable price to-day. Through malpractice, the price has been lowered. I hope, therefore, the Bill will receive unanimous support on both sides of the House.

I am glad that the Minister has introduced this Bill. I am one of the high veld farmers who grow black wattle trees, and I have had experience of the difference between the two kinds of bark. My hon. friend opposite wants to make the fine £100, and even £500, but it is necessary for the people first to learn the difference between black wattle and silver wattle trees. They are usually called green wattle. I had a large contract and then it appeared that there is quite a different name for them. The people on the highveld, however, do not know the difference between the two. I consequently export black wattle bark. I then saw that unscrupulous people were selling the bark of the green wattle, and selling it to Johannesburg, that was twelve months ago. Those who are well-acquainted with the trees can tell the difference, but, generally, the people do not know the difference. I then advised the people in my neighbourhood to be careful. I pulled off a bag full of the bark and sent it to Durban and asked if it was good bark. The answer was that it was good, and that I could send it to them, but when the truckload arrived there they informed me that it was not suitable. They found out in the meantime that there was a difference between the two kinds of bark and instead of my getting £11 a ton I only got £5. I want to point out that the position is serious, because that green wattle is planted on the highveld, the people do not distinguish, and wattle is wattle with them. If I might advise the Minister, then it would be completely to prohibit the removal of the bark of the green wattle and the planting of it. It is not a useful tree. It is said that it grows where black wattle does not grow. I have been farming with those trees for 25 years and I have 3,000 acres under black wattle, and I do not know that there is a distinction in toughness. The Black wattle grows on the highveld.

It does not grow in my district.

It is very cold on the highveld but it grows there. The distinction is very small as far as the growing power is concerned, but it is not worth while to infest the land with green wattle. It is a bush which always spreads further, and there have been cases where farms have been so spoilt that they can never be used again. It is a round bushy tree with dirty branches which are useless. It is not useful to sow green wattle on the high veld, and the danger always exists that it will spoil the market for good bark, there are always unscrupulous people who will be prepared to mix chopped up green wattle bark with chopped up good bark. It is then almost impossible to discover the fraud, but the tanning value of the bark will nevertheless be less. The Minister must warn the buyers in Durban against being cheated in this way. I know that the Minister is prepared to protect the quality and market of our produce, and he must also take serious steps in connection with this matter, because this is a product the prospects of which are good. On the highveld the wattles do not grow quite as well as they do in Natal, but still I think that the people who are struggling there on small pieces of land will do better if they plant black wattle. They will then possibly, after six years, have 300 acres under trees, and they can sell the bark and sell the wood to Johannesburg. That will pay them better than struggling with maize. The trees do not grow so well as in Natal, hut we have the advantage of being nearer to the Johannesburg market for the wood even if we are further away from the sale of bark in Durban. This Bill is necessary, and I hope the Minister will keep a vigilant eye on the matter, so that the chopped up bark is not mixed. We are running a danger of getting a bad name in that way.

I was alarmed when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) demanded a more ferocious penalty than £100, but we know, that his bark is worse than his bite. The point that strikes me about the Bill is that if the abuses with regard to wattle bark do exist, why not confine the measure to wattle bark only. I dislike the growing tendency of Ministers to take wider and ever wider powers. Take my own constituency of Barberton, which is becoming the premier timber district of South Africa. We grow practically no wattle there, but timber for industrial purposes. Under this Bill, the Minister can not only prevent the stripping of trees, but can interfere in all sorts of subsidiary industries. One company in the Barberton district is growing trees, and has installed machinery for making fruit boxes, sawing planks and pit props.

They are in your Bill.

The Minister is going very much further than that Bill in regard to exports. My Bill states that the Minister may prescribe the conditions under which wood shall be exported, but that was merely a question of saying that unseasoned green wood shall not be sold to the public. I may be a tree grower on the highveld, and I have to run to some office to get a permit. It does seem unsound multiplying this red tape and increasing this bureaucracy; and the internal liberty of this country seems to be becoming more and more enmeshed in red tape. We used to be a country of individualists. I do not agree, because there have been abuses in regard to wattle, that we are now to give the Minister plenary power, power arbitrarily to interfere with all timber growing or selling. It would give him even power to interfere with the furniture manufacturing industry. I do not say he will abuse that power. At a later stage I intend moving an amendment confining this Bill to wattle.

While I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member, I must paraphrase one of his remarks, and say that the bite of this Bill is worse than its bark. We realize the importance of what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) has said; we know from our personal knowledge what the wattle industry is to Natal and the Transvaal, and we would be loth to do anything to interfere with that industry. We do not doubt there are abuses, and if hon. members who represent the wattle industry think that the best way of dealing with them is to hand themselves over to the Minister, bound hand and foot, with power to deal with the trees from the moment they are planted to the moment their wood and bark is sold; as they will do by this Bill, well and good; we shall not for a moment oppose that; but I am not convinced of that necessity for this legislation. You have the Agricultural Products Export Act of 1917 and the Grading Act of 1922. Those Acts give all power necessary to deal with the position.

If there is any objection I am quite prepared to withdraw the Bill.

I am not suggesting withdrawing it; we want to support it with modifications.

It does not look like it.

Those of us who are interested in timber growing other than wattle are not anxious to be brought under a Bill for which there is no necessity as far as we are concerned. I was rather interested when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) told us that the object of the Bill being extended to other products was in case of diseases—snout beetle and other diseases—and prevent their spread from one district to another. Have they not studied the Acts of this country? I want them to look up the Act dealing with plant diseases, and Section 14 of this definitely says that the Governor-General may by proclamation prohibit or restrict the movement of any plant or insect from one district to another; and the definition of plant is any tree, shrub and so forth. So the suggestion that this further power is necessary in this connection falls away. I go a little further than the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz), and I say that instead of confining this to black wattle it should be limited to any tree, plant or plants, from which commercial tanning materials are obtained. That surely is wide enough to satisfy the hon. member for Pieter maritzburg (North) and the wattle growers. Because wattle growers are apparently at the mercy of a gang of scoundrels who are adulterating the extract or the ground bark, we do not see why other people who have forest land should be brought under the powers given to the Minister in this Bill, which I think is going too far, and I do hope the Minister will accept a perfectly reasonable amendment to confine the object of this Bill to what I have stated. He always finds constructive criticism from this side. I hope the Minister will not take powers which will affect far larger interests which do not need legislation. I will move an amendment at the committee stage, and I hope the wattle growers themselves will see that they do not want to saddle timber growers with unnecessary restrictions, but have them on their own industry only.

I wish to say a word or two in support of this Bill, and I may say that I know something about wattle, having been in touch with the wattle industry for 25 years. The Minister knows it is absolutely necessary to give power to stop the adulteration of bark which is taking place. The result of this adulteration is that the wattle market fluctuates monthly and even weekly. This is a most essential Bill, and I cannot understand the objections taken to it. Unless steps are taken to stop adulteration, the industry will be ruined. There is plenty of competition. You have the quebracho from the Argentine, and other tanning materials in competition with wattle bark. It is absolutely necessary for us to put an article on the market which is not in any way adulterated. It is true that it is a most difficult thing to absolutely grade wattle bark, because, owing to variations in soil, you may have one bark producing 32 per cent, and another 40 per cent, of tannin. It all depends upon the soil and the area in which the trees are grown. The tanner overseas knows that it varies from 32 to 40 per cent, of tannin, but where it is adulterated with silver bark the adulteration cannot be detected until after the bark has been put into the pits. It is the tanner who makes the discovery, and who may suffer very severe loss, owing to his reckoning on a certain percentage of tannin which he does not get in the bark. The object of this Bill is to obviate this position arising, and to grant the Minister the necessary power to prevent silver wattle bark being mixed with black wattle bark, and the intention of the Bill is further that before a man transports, removes or sells silver wattle bark, he must get permission to do so. At present you have the unscrupulous exporter buying silver wattle bark at £2 a ton, and mixing it with the other bark, for which he pays from £5 to £6 a ton, and the result is that the ordinary wattle-grower suffers very considerably. When once the buyers of wattle bark on the other side can be assured that the bark is reliable, the market will be stabilized and a much better price will be obtained. I hope the Minister will stick to his guns, and insist on the passing of the Bill into law.

The Minister has devoted the whole of his speech to the subject of wattle bark, but the Bill goes further. The Bill says that the Governor-General may, by proclamation, prohibit the exportation from the Union, or the sale, purchase or removal from any place to any other place within the Union of any kind of forest produce. While the Minister has confined his remarks to wattle bark, I cannot for the life of me see why the Bill should deal with other things which have no association with wattle bark whatever. It has been pointed out by the member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) that there are dangers connected with other trees, and that in order to overcome those dangers they should be in eluded. I think that is a very unsound principle. We grow a tremendous variety of trees. I think it is quite simple to overcome adulteration without lumping in all our afforestation. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) suggests that silver wattle and other kinds of wattle should be prohibited by law, but in our part of the Union it is difficult to get black wattle to grow. We do succeed occasionally in getting the silver wattle to grow, and it is very much prized for ornamental purposes. Many people who grow wattle cannot tell you the difference between black, silver and gold wattle. I think we should try to discover some other means of stopping the selling of spurious bark.

I rise to support this Bill as it stands. Nobody has contended that there is no necessity for the measure. The only question raised is that of the wide powers given to the Minister. While there may be some justification for that objection, I cannot bring myself to believe, nor do I think, that the Minister will ever do anything injurious to the interests of people who grow trees or forest products. I cannot imagine what interest he would have in doing anything against the interests of these people. I think it is most necessary to give the Minister all these powers, because it is not always convenient, nor is it always possible, to bring up all these matters at short notice, or it may take months to get powers. I would ask hon. members not to put any obstacle in the way of this Bill becoming law. The wattle bark industry is a most important one, and the industry is suffering very badly because of the adulteration that is going on. No exported product can receive a fair price in the overseas market unless it is uniform and of standard grade. Up to now our wattle product has not been getting a fair price in overseas markets; in fact, due to adulteration, we are getting a price far below its value. It would be a calamity if this Bill was not passed to-day. The issues raised by members on this side of the House affect no principles that would be likely to do harm to anybody, and I appeal to hon. members to do nothing that might jeopardize the passing of the Bill.

I just want to reply briefly to a few remarks. The hon. members for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) and Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) are frightfully concerned about the powers the Minister is taking. Under the Agricultural Grading Act, which I introduced, the same objection was made, but a few days ago I was attacked because barley was not graded, now I ask for the powers which are already contained in the principal Act, but which I cannot exercise in consequence of the definitions. I refer hon. members to Section 11, which I have already quoted. How then can hon. members object? If this Bill does not pass, hundreds of people will probably be ruined who have put money into the business and bought farms to get a profit out of the wattle bark industries. I am astonished that hon. members who are not growers of wattle should now object. Some hon. members want to go much further, but I think the powers are adequate, and I only hope that hon. members will not let this Bill fail to pass. I hope also that they will not delay the Bill in committee, because I am not prepared to accept an amendment, except possibly that suggested by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) to increase the fine from £100 to £500. because I agree with him that if anyone carries on an illicit trade in the article he would possibly be quite prepared to pay a fine of £100 if he can make £1,000 profit. I am, however, not prepared to accept any other amendment. If hon. members want to wreck the Bill the responsibility will lie with them.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; to go into committee to-morrow.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

On the motion that the amendment be now considered,

I do not think it should be taken now, because a number of hon. members interested are, unfortunately, absent.

It is just a drafting.

Amendment considered and agreed to, and Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading tomorrow.

I want to raise a point on the native estimates which is of some importance. In 1920 we passed a Native Affairs Act which provided for conferences to be held.

We might move that this vote stand over until the next vote has been taken, if the right hon. gentleman wants to discuss a point of importance.

I am prepared to go on with the discussion now. I do not want to chop the votes about because it leads to a great deal of dislocation if the time table is changed too much. I want to raise a point of some importance. In 1920 we passed a Native Affairs Act, which provided for conferences being held from time to time, to which the native leaders, representative natives, members of native councils, and so on, would be called, where matters of interest to the natives would be discussed, matters of proposed legislation, economic questions, and every variety of question which might be of interest to the natives. Since the Act was passed in 1920, it has been the custom annually, until recently, to hold conferences. So far as I am aware, this native conference was held annually at Pretoria, where representative natives front various parts of the Union foregathered, and officials of the Native Affairs Department and members of the Government deliberated over their affairs. For the last couple of years this conference has not been held. The Government has omitted to carry out the terms of the Act, and the result has been that no native conference has been held for some years. A good deal of misunderstanding has arisen in consequence. I saw the other day, an emphatic denial by the Prime Minister that the Government had abandoned these conferences and did not intend to call them in the future. The very fact that the Prime Minister had to go to the length of publicly making such a denial shows that there is something wrong. I would press upon the Minister of Native Affairs to resume the old routine and to have these conferences, as a matter of routine, every year. For years we have held them. For a couple of years they have been in abeyance, and the fact that they have not been called has led to a great deal of misunderstanding, and become, in itself, a new source of grievance. Parliament had very good ground for making that provision in 1920, that there should be these conferences. Nothing is better for the relations between black and white in South Africa than that these conferences should be held, conferences where grievances are ventilated, where native questions are discussed, and explanations of policy are given to prominent native leaders, and where contact is maintained with them. Now, especially in the last few years it has become necessary, more than ever, to have these conferences, to maintain contact, and to explain our policies to the native leaders so far as that is possible. To my mind, the absence of these conferences during the last few years has been one of the main causes of misunderstanding and of the estrangement growing up between white and black in this country. The native likes to discuss his affairs. He likes to ventilate his grievances. He is not so very different from the white man in that respect. Perhaps he is only more so. He likes to discuss his grievances and let off steam, and when he has done so, no doubt he has the same feeling of relief that many of us have after we have expressed our opinions forcibly and strongly.

They let off more than steam.

If more than steam is let off, all the better. It is much better that the steam should be let off than that it should be dammed up and that we should sit on the lid, as it were, and an atmosphere of grievance and resentment should be growing up which, in the end, poisons the relations between white and black. A good deal is happening in the country which might very well be explained to the natives. They feel, at present, that they are out of touch, and that they are being left in the dark. They think that there is a set policy of ignoring them, and, to my mind, you can make no greater mistake than to conduct the native affairs of this country on the principle that the natives can be ignored, that they are of no account, and that it is not necessary to have these conferences with them. I found, in the days when I was in power, that the holding of this conference had a most beneficial effect. The conferences gave the natives a chance of airing their grievances, and putting forward their point of view. They gave the Government the opportunity to state their case, to explain their policy and to explain the measures that they were carrying out. Both from the point of view of the Government and from the point of view of the natives, it was most salutary to have these conferances. I am sure if we resume the old routine, the calling of these conferences, consulting with the natives on legislation, on administration, on taxation, on their economic conditions—if we should do that we should be going far to remove the atmosphere of sullenness and resentment and grievance which is at present being created. Of course, there are certain fundamental differences in the points of view between white and black, but 90 per cent, of the matters arising between us could be cleared up. They only need clearing up, and for the native to put his case and the Government to put their case, for good relations to be restored once more; but there must be this contact. We must not remain in the present state of being at arm’s length. The natives say they are not being consulted, and that the Government for one reason or another is ignoring them and is paying no attention to their point of view. I think that every ground of good policy points to the necessity for our calling this conference. I have on other occasions in regard to our native legislation proposed that the Government should keep in touch with the natives and consult them, but quite apart from the special franchise legislation before us, and looking merely at the general situation, it is absolutely necessary that we should keep in touch with the natives and have an annual examination of their views and our policies, so that there will be understanding, and from understanding there will be a spirit of sympathy growing up. I hope the Minister will give us the assurance that these conferences will be resumed. I assume that one reason why they have been abandoned was that the Prime Minister was also Minister of Native Affairs, and that the Prime Minister is overburdened officially. He had to carry a burden which made it impossible for him to attend to the details of any special department. To my mind a very beneficial and necessary change has been made by the Prime Minister divesting himself of the portfolio of native affairs. I hope the new Minister of Native Affairs will revert to the old practice of holding annual conferences, that native chiefs and leaders will be called to it, and all questions affecting the natives be discussed with them in the frankest and most open manner. Give the natives a chance to ventilate their points of view, and for the Government to state its policy. I think in that way it will be possible again to some extent to rebuild the old spirit of understanding and confidence which existed years ago. If the Minister is going to adopt that policy, and make that new departure, I am sure he will be taking a step which will contribute very materially to the betterment of the relations between Europeans and natives, which in the last few years have been growing steadily worse.

I have been in entire accord with what the right hon. member has said with regard to the native conferences. It is the intention to resume them, and I quite agree that they ought to serve a very useful purpose. The right hon. gentleman will understand that since the election there has been little time to go into the question, but it is my intention to go thoroughly into the matter and to resume these conferences.

The natives will appreciate the intention of the Government to resume these conferences. The natives set great store upon the Native Affairs Commission of 1920, and the native conference, which they call their Magna Charta. The previous Minister of Native Affairs certainly made a very serious error in failing to call the conference together after three years, thereby creating suspicion in the minds of the natives. They thought the Government was antagonistic to them, and were endeavouring to prevent the natives giving expression to their views. At the last conference at Pretoria, the native Bills were placed before them, and they adopted an antagonistic attitude to the Bills, and this has given rise to a feeling among the natives that because of that attitude the Government had discontinued the conferences. That is a mistaken feeling, but the Government should have immediately thereafter called the conference together as in the past and have given the natives an opportunity of expressing their views on the Natives Urban Areas Bill and other measures which concerned them. I am glad that the Minister has realized the necessity of calling that body together in future. With regard to the Economic Commission that is to be appointed, the natives would like to know when and where it is to sit. The “Blythswood Review,” the editor of which is one of the leading economists in the country, in the course of an article headed “A Commission on Native Economic Affairs,” says—

I commend that to the Minister, who I hope will recognize that the report of the commission will probably have a very serious effect in the solution of the native problem and of our future relations, economic and other, with the native races. If the report carries the confidence of the country, it should give the House the necessary information to enable it to deal with the question, and the sooner we deal with it the better. On the report of the commission will largely depend the future attitude of Parliament and country towards the natives. We want a report unbiassed by politics, and not dealing exclusively with the urban areas. The Minister has stressed the point that the commission will deal largely with urban areas, and that has given rise to a fear on the part of natives that conditions in the country will not be regarded as of very deep concern. The Transkeian general council has selected three natives to give evidence before the commission. I hope the commission will not only visit the Transkei, but other native areas, and I would like to see it also visit Basutoland and Swaziland, as the position of the natives in those colonies has some bearing on the question. In fact, I would like to see a Basutoland representative on the commission. In trying to reach a solution we cannot put aside Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland, as we must have a common policy, and there must be some reciprocity between the Union and the other areas in which natives largely predominate. The native has an idea that this Economic Commission is to relieve them from all their troubles; individual natives, I believe, who already complain of their wages, will write to the Minister to say that they want to give evidence. They believe it is going to bring about a general raising of their wages. I hope the Minister will deal with that point, and show that the commission is not going to deal with individual natives on a farm here or on a farm there, but deal comprehensively with the whole position from a to z. There is another matter with which I wish to deal, and that is the question of medical service to the natives. We saw a short time ago that the Carnegie Trust made an offer in regard to a medical school for natives, and that this offer has been turned down. I do think the Minister might give the House some information with regard to that. Already at Fort Hare a two years’ course for the instruction of medical students has been instituted, and these natives are asking what of their future. The matter was brought up in the Transkei General Council, and there was a motion, I understand, to make a grant to students to go to England, but this was turned down owing to lack of funds. The matter of making future provision for them is causing a good deal of discussion amongst them. Conditions of health in native locations are not what they should be, and they think they should have more medical attention from their own people. There is, further, the question of native education. A proclamation was issued in 1928 fixing a scale for native teachers in the Union. There was a minimum rate, and it made provision for increases, but these increments have not been paid. Natives who have put in 10, 12 or 14 years’ service are receiving exactly the same salary as the native who comes into the service to-morrow. I hope the Minister will give some information on that point. It does seem strange to me that a scale of salaries should be shown to operate from the 1st April, 1928, and give the native the idea that they would be operative, and yet have not been put into operation. I hope the Minister will receive the necessary funds from the Minister of Finance to enable him to carry out the provisions of the scale proclaimed by his department.

There is a matter which I raise here from year to year. It is the small advantage which the farm natives get from the poll tax they pay. As an economic commission is now being appointed, the importance of which none of us can over-estimate, and as the native poll tax is practically a tax on the employer because the farmer pays it, and we all feel that the farm native has practically no benefit from that poll tax, I want to ask whether it is not also a matter that the Minister should refer to the commission of enquiry. The stipulation is made that one-fifth of the proceeds of the tax must go for education. The farmers do not object to paying the tax for the native, because his wages are small, but they feel that the farm natives get practically no benefit from it. Is it not possible to let the farm natives pay in proportion to the benefits he gets, in comparison to the benefit that the urban natives and the natives in the native territories get from it? I think that the farm natives ought not to pay more than the relative advantages that they get in comparison with what the other natives get. This is a matter which, in my opinion, the Minister ought to refer to the proposed commission.

I think we all realize that it is essential in the interests of this country that we should try to cultivate or recover that spirit of confidence of the native in the European which he had some years back. Their confidence in Parliament has been tremendously shaken, and in other respects they have a considerable amount of justice in considering that they are not receiving the sympathy they should be receiving, I would like to identify myself and support the suggestions made by my right hon. leader (Gen. Smuts). I think that that is the only safe course which is open to us to follow. The native is very susceptible to sympathy and keen in finding out whether such sympathy is genuine or not. I want just to draw attention to one or two local matters. The first one is in regard to the medical attendance which the native in Herschel lacks so badly. We have a considerable area, 60 to 75 miles in length, with a population of at least 40,000, and we have one doctor—which is quite inadequate. Efforts have been made locally to raise funds for a hospital, towards which I have been sympathetic, and I have done what little I can to encourage them to supply this need. I should be very glad if the Minister would direct attention to that want. Another matter is the question of erosion to which I have referred on previous occasions. I really think that unless something is done, the whole of the possibilities of that district will gradually disappear. The mountain slopes are being denuded of soil. Is the Minister prepared to take steps to advance agricultural and pastoral pursuits there by assisting in the direction of the paddocking of certain areas? No opportunity is given to the natives of checking erosion. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister in regard to this matter.

I take it that one of the most important of the duties devolving upon the Minister is to see that justice is administered to the natives, but certain cases have come to the knowledge of hon. members which point to the necessity for the Minister to have a very serious consultation with his colleague with regard to the administration of justice as far as the natives are concerned. On Tuesday last a question was asked in this House with regard to two cases tried at Grahamstown, and the House was informed that, although the facts were apparently similar, a native woman was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and a white man was let off.

Order! I do not think the hon. member can deal with that. It comes under Justice.

I asked whether it is not the duty of the Minister of Native Affairs to see that justice is done to the natives. If that is so, I submit that I am entitled to ask him to hold a conference with his co-Minister, and see that justice is done.

No, I cannot allow that.

The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has asked the Minister to make a statement in regard to the appointment of the proposed economic commission, I should like to ask the Minister whether, in making that statement, he will also touch on a point which I have every reason to believe is connected with it. Some time ago the Wage Board made certain recommendations with regard to the Kroonstad area. It appears to be the impression that this matter is being held up until the commission referred to has reported. I hope the Minister will tell us what the position is. This question of the Kroonstad award is of very considerable importance and interest from many different points of view. There is also another point upon which I hope the Minister will make a statement, and that is the question of the native development account. This account was established, I think, about five years ago, and into it there is paid annually a fixed amount of £340,000 in respect of native education, and also one-fifth of the amount of the general tax on natives. The purposes of this account are firstly the provision and maintenance of educational facilities amongst natives, and secondly the advancement and furtherance of the welfare of natives. I want to ask if the Minister will tell the committee whether he is satisfied that the resources of this fund are adequate to meet the claims upon it. I think there is reason to make the statement, that in the past it has not been found possible to meet from this fund the requests put forward by the various provinces in connection with the development of native education, and I believe it is also correct to say that practically nothing has been spent out of this fund for any other than educational purposes. I have noticed in the auditor general’s report that recently certain very small amounts have been made available in connection with hospital accommodation for natives, but I understand that generally the policy of the Native Affairs Commission, and the commission administers the fund, is to provide practically nothing in this connection, for the very good and sufficient reason that there is very little money to provide. It has been previously pointed out that it is very important that more should be done in connection with the provision of hospital facilities for natives, and I think it is generally realized that as long as we leave this matter to the unaided initiative of the provinces, very little is going to be done, that unless some action is going to be taken by the Minister, through this native development account, the present unsatisfactory position in regard to hospitalization as far as the natives are concerned, is likely to continue. I would like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that the present resources of the fund are adequate to meet the calls which may fairly be made upon it, and if he is of opinion that the resources of the fund are not adequate, will he tell us whether the resources of that fund will be extended? There is a very general impression abroad that when the general tax was made uniform throughout the country, and a certain proportion of that tax was set aside for payment to the native development account, it was understood that the Minister of Finance would take the first £900,600, and leave the balance for the native development account. This year, however, the Minister of Finance is expecting to derive £975,000 from the native tax. The impression exists that such an understanding as that I have mentioned was accepted at the time. I do not say there was such an understanding, but if there was such an understanding, and if that understanding is honoured, then an additional amount of £75,000 would be available, and the Minister would be able to do a great deal more not only for the development of native education, but for other native purposes. I raise this point because it is one of considerable interest, and I hope the Minister will give us a statement on that point and also on the other point I raised as to the Krooustad wage determination.

I want to refer to the question of hospitalization for natives. In my constituency there are several locations, and it is computed that some 100,000 natives live in the constituency. This matter has been forced on my attention, as there is practically no organization and nowhere these natives can go for hospital treatment. I went to Pretoria to see the Minister. I made an appeal that the hospital given up by the Indian Affairs Department should be utilized for natives, and I was told that it was purely a provincial matter. I would suggest that hospitalization, so far as natives is concerned, is too big a question to be handled purely by the provincial authorities. When we consider the huge native population in these areas, it seems but natural that the Native Affairs Department alone can fulfil our responsibilities in this connection to these people. Recently a new tendency has been noted of natives desiring to go to hospital for confinement. I think the time has come when, in view of that tendency, the Native Affairs Commission should take up this matter, and also consider it from a point of view of training native women as nurses. This is an important matter so far as native welfare is concerned, and one which, I think, the Minister should deal with. I make a strong appeal to the Minister. We now think that if the Native Affairs Department will establish hospitals in native areas it will confer a huge benefit on the natives. If we create native hospitals it will prove of untold benefit in the direction of native welfare, and afford means of training native women nurses.

There is so much talk about injustice to natives, but sight is lost of the fact that in many respects they are treated better than white people. When the white man has to pay his tax he knows that he must do so within a certain time or pay a fine. The native, however, is not penalized if he does not pay his tax, and the Department of Native Affairs, as well as the Department of Justice, has to spend a great deal to collect the arrear money, and if they eventually succeed in bringing a native before the court, possibly after he has failed to pay his taxes for five years, then he merely pays his tax and can go away free. This occurs in many instances, and unless there is some sanction to make the native understand that he must not remain five years in arrear with his tax he will never pay punctually. He knows that if he is arrested he will merely have to pay his tax, and in the meantime he keeps his money in his pocket. I think the Minister will agree that that is not desirable. It will contribute a good deal towards the department recovering its taxation better if an end is put to that state of affairs.

I, too, would like to stress the point raised by the hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) with regard to hospitalization of natives. For various reasons they seem to be contracting diseases and losing the fine stamina they once had. We have natives coming hundreds of miles to Addingtion Hospital for treatment. The present position is that the provinces have to administer the hospitals, but they cannot tax the natives, and they have no funds to build hospitals for the natives in this respect. I do not see why the Minister cannot put a sum on the estimates for hospitalization of natives. In the Transvaal province a tax is levied on natives in the shape of pass fees. This amounts to a very large sum every year, about £400,000. The Government subsidises the provinces with regard to educating the natives, why cannot the Government subsidise the provinces for the purpose of providing hospital accommodation for natives.

I would like to draw attention to the significance of the figures appearing on page 197. Under the heading “H, grants for industrial purposes,” shows an increase of £300, from £200 to £500, and the relief of distress £1,000 shows a decrease of £250. It seems to me that there is a significance attached to this, and I should like to ask the hon. Minister to express his opinion about it, and say if he concurs with me. It seems to me that if the grants for industrial purposes could be increased, the grants necessary for the relief of distress would proportionately become less. This sum of £500, the grant for industrial purposes, is pathetically small. I want to know, and I hope the Minister will tell us, whether any definite scheme is being put into operation for the encouragement of home industries, the extension of home industrial work amongst natives in their locations. There are, when all is said and done, many forms of small industries which can be satisfactorily and profitably extended to native locations. There are such things as basket-making, knitting, weaving, pottery-making, furniture from natural woods, and so on. It appeals to me very much indeed, under the existing circumstances, where the greatest need of the native is a greater spending power. No one whose life has taken him amongst the natives in the locations and who has seen the mode of life that they are compelled to follow can come to any but one conclusion, that the economic need of the native is the greatest need. Anything that can be done to improve his purchasing power is very desirable. It seems to me, although it may be a small thing, that it is a very important one. I hope the Minister will tell us that his intentions are to enlarge this figure of grants-in-aid of industrial purposes, and that he intends to develop a well-thought-out, carefully prepared, plan, for the encouragement and establishment of minor industries amongst the natives. It seems to me to be potential of good. I hope the Minister will think it over seriously.

It is reassuring to find that the Minister has promised to resume these conferences with the natives in the future. I hope it will be on an extensive scale. Other speakers have expressed the benefits of these conferences to the natives. I suggest to the Minister that he himself and his staff are likely to receive considerable benefit too. I think that these conferences will render their work much easier if they are able to get the native view brought to bear upon it, and conveyed to them more frequently in the future than it has been in the past. It is not generally known, except by those who are in fairly constant touch with the natives, what shrewd people they are. I have many meetings with the natives in my own constituency, and certainly the questions they ask me, of a political and economic nature, are such as to display very considerable knowledge and aptitude with regard to matters which interest them. I am sure that the Minister will have the same experience as time goes when he comes more and more into contact with these people. Again, the Minister will find out through these conferences that, after all, the native question is very largely an economic one. The natives are not politicians in the ordinary sense, but they can, in conversation, convey their ideas to the Minister very clearly. I should like to know, when the Minister replies, what is the amount that it is calculated is received from native taxation through the customs. We have it, of course, in the estimates of revenue, that the native tax amounts to £975,000 a year, to which must be added native pass and compound fees to the tune of another £50,000, making a total of £1,025,000 altogether. It will be interesting to know, if the Minister can tell us, what is the amount, in addition to this, that it is calculated is received from the natives through the customs and other forms of taxation other than direct taxation. When he has got that information I am sure the figures will be very interesting, and it may move him to work on the lines suggested by previous speakers and pay more attention to the means of preserving the health of the natives. We find that the native mortality in this country is from two to four times, according to the district, the European mortality. That should not be. From two to four times is a very large increase on European mortality. But native infantile mortality is very seldom less than five times the rate amongst Europeans. Now to put it on the lowest grounds, apart from humanitarian principles, that is non-economic. Ruskin says that there is no wealth tut life. If life is needlessly lost like that it is a very bad thing for the country that this native mortality should be so great. The means of countering that will have to be gone into very carefully. It is obvious, on these gross figures, that it is a very urgent matter, and delay in dealing with it cannot but be attended with very great significance to the country. I am sure that even on that point the Minister, through more frequent contact with the native, going into these matters very carefully, will find his task very much easier. On those two points we would be glad to have some information from the Minister when he replies.

In regard to the item “native agriculture” on page 200, I am very glad that the Minister has been able to double the amount of money provided last year in the direction of encouraging native agriculture. I am glad because I am in almost daily contact with native farmers, and I am more than ever convinced that the economic basis of the native life is largely agricultural and livestock. Whilst I welcome this increase of £3,400 on this particular vote, I wish to offer some criticism upon the direction in which that increase appears. I note on this return, that the new appointments consist of one assistant director, two assistant director principals and one extension officer. No increase has been allowed for in the direction of agricultural supervisors. Those are the men, as I know them, who do the field work of the Agricultural Department amongst the natives. They are the men who do the donkey work of this particular department. At the end of last month a conference was held in King William’s Town on native agriculture. The importance of it may be judged by the fact that it was attended by the president of the appeal court, the director of agriculture, the chief native commissioner and sub-native commissioners. At that conference, four subjects were dealt with in this order, which is probably the order of importance. The first was the question of overstocking of the Transkei and Cis-kei native areas. The second was agricultural education, which was followed by the agricultural census, and noxious weeds. I only propose to deal with the question of over-stocking. From the figures given at the conference, taken from the census of native-owned stock, it appears that King William’s Town, which may be taken as typical of the Cis-keian areas, can safely support one sheep per morgen. The actual stock carried was two sheep per morgen, showing that it is over stocked by approximately 100 per cent. The native commissioners are doing their best to induce the natives to reduce the number of their stock in accordance with the carrying capacity of the country, but unless you can show the native that he is going to reap the same profit from ten good animals as from 20 poor ones, you will not succeed. The native commissioners (Orde (of K.W.T.) Beale and Apthorp) are doing wonderful work in the direction of getting natives to improve their sheep by the use of superior rams—that is, superior from the native point of view, and Mr. Orde, in particular, has bought rams at from 30s. to £2 apiece and has distributed them on a system of loan to the natives, who are required to pay the cost from the money derived from the wool. I have given natives a number of rams and the resultant improvement in their sheep is extraordinary. I hope the Minister will extend that system, as I suggest that it will do three things —improve the economic condition of the native, reduce over stocking and thereby benefit the whole country. The Minister visited the King William’s Town district during the recess. He left behind him a very excellent impression as a very sympathetic “great father of the natives.” There is no better way by which he can consolidate that good impression by assisting the natives to improve their agriculture and livestock.

I should like to call the Minister’s attention to certain provisions in the Native Administration Act of 1920. The law which is applied to natives in the Free State, especially on the countryside, was always the white man’s law Under Section 28 of the old Free State Marriage Act, provision was made that when a native woman deserted her husband, or a native deserted his wife where a lobolo contract had been made, then the deserted spouse was entitled to the children. That is the only case where the old Volksraad of the Free State made provision for the special case of a native custom. Many of those cases came before the courts, but that old Free State Act was repealed by the Native Administration Act of 1927, and nothing was substituted. Consequently we find that nothing can now be done on this matter in the Free State. The intention of the 1927 Act was to establish native courts in the Free State, and that is why this clause of the old Act was repealed, but that intention has practically not been followed up. In the whole of the Free State only two native courts have been established, but for the rest, which have no native courts, no provision has been made. This brings me to another matter, viz., the manner in which justice is done as between native and native. It is not calculated to raise the prestige of the European with the native. It is said that the native on the farms is free from his tribe, but certain customs such as the marriage bond of the native actually do continue. I am not talking of the towns and villages, but of the countryside, and I can say that on the countryside there are still about 90 per cent, of native marriages not Christian marriages, but lobolo marriages. We have never acknowledged those marriages, and it is not my intention to urge that they should be acknowledged, but there are many cases where we must take account of the consequences of these marriages. Take, e.g., the case of a native bridegroom who has paid a lobolo of seven cattle for his wife, he sends his wife back and demands the return of his cattle, but under our law he cannot get them. The magistrate will have to decide that the marriage was an illegal bond. Such a native will certainly not get a good impression of the justice of the white man.

The hon. member cannot debate it as it will require fresh legislation.

No, that is not necessary, because the law exists, viz., the Act of 1927, and all the Government has to do is to establish native courts under that Act. Unless a native commissioner is appointed, and a native court proclaimed, the 1927 Act does not come into operation. It is said that native courts are not necessary because the natives have been removed from their tribal relations, but at any rate on the countryside the native still lives, in many respects, in accordance with old tribal customs. To-day we are not doing justice to them. We try to impose the white man’s law on the natives, and to force it on to them, but that law is not applicable. When a native goes to the court to demand the return of his capital then the magistrate will dismiss the claim, because he will say that it was the result of an irregular connection. He will not deal with the native’s case. In that way the white man loses his rights and his prestige with the native, and the impression gives ground that the white man’s law does not do justice to the natives. We must provide that natives in such cases shall have the right of bringing a civil action to recover his property when the agreement is broken. On the countryside in the Free State there is practically not a head of cattle which is not subject of the lobolo system. Differences arise and the white man’s law does not help the natives out of their difficulties. For this reason I say that there must be native courts to hear the cases under native law. Why can Natal, the Transvaal, and the Transkei have native law, and one province, the Free State, not? Why must injustice be done to the native. I hope the Minister will go into this matter especially into the case of desertion under the marriage law.

I would like to again emphasize the importance of the industrial education of the native. Their future depends greatly upon it. It is essential that the Government take action of the kind that will be calculated to keep the natives in the reserves as much as possible and not force them into urban areas. I want also to touch upon the question of prisons. I believe the native is becoming a criminal to-day to a greater extent than he should. It is so easy to get a native into gaol. If he happens not to be carrying a pass he is put into gaol. If he takes part in a small fight in a native location he is fined, with the alternative of a term of imprisonment. The consequence is that the native has not as much respect for gaol, if I may put it in that way, as he ought to have, and I think the Government should take this matter into consideration. I should like to have a census taken of natives who have been put into gaol for minor offences. Until the native is made to realize that the mere fact of his having been in gaol is a disgrace, things will become worse. Farmers have stated that if they leave anything about the farm it is immediately stolen. The demoralization of the natives in this way by forcing them into gaol is one of the greatest and gravest dangers we have to face. I think the Minister might enquire as to whether there is not some more suitable punishment which might be meted out to incipient criminals. When young boys and girls are put into gaol they come into contact with a hardened type of criminal, and then gradually become criminals themselves.

You cannot put them in an hotel.

There is no necessity for that. There are surely other methods of punishment than that of putting him into gaol and allowing him to consort with hardened criminals. Then I wish to raise the question of compensation to natives for accidents on the mines. A native I know lost his leg at the hip and received £20 Compensation. He is now incapacitated from earning money. I brought the matter before the Minister, and he said that he would go into it, and that a Bill would be framed. I think that where serious accidents are concerned what might be done—

The hon. member cannot deal with the need for new legislation; all he can do is to ask a question of the Minister.

It is purely a question of regulating the amount. The amounts are not fixed under the Act. They are fixed by the Director of Native Labour. I think that this matter does fall within the sphere of the Minister, and does not necessitate further legislation. There is a further matter which is causing much dissatisfaction in the Transkei—the prohibition of movements of stock owing to east coast fever and other regulations. Natives are prevented from selling their cattle, and they are forced into the urban areas to earn money and we have an outcry from the Europeans. In one instance three cattle were eventually sold at a definite loss to the owner of £5 12s. 6d., because he was not allowed to send his cattle from one district to another. He was offered £12 if he could remove them to an adjoining area. This is creating a lot of trouble and feeling among the natives. They are much concerned about their stock and their women— I sometimes do not know which comes first. The Minister should recognize that the natives are being penalized to-day in many directions by these restrictions, and not only by the Minister of Agriculture—I know that he is harsher than the Minister of Native Affairs—and I hope the Minister will see that these conditions are ameliorated. I would like the Minister also to tell us about the work that Mr. Thornton, the director of native agriculture, is doing. I understand he is doing good work as far as natives are concerned, and I hope the Minister will tell us about this matter for the information of the natives.

I would like to ask the Minister whether it is possible to assist the natives in regard to the poll tax. Some of them do not have regular employment, and they are arrested because they have not paid the tax. Now, with regard to the farming community, certainly the farmers pay the tax themselves. That is so in my case. The natives have not got sufficient money for they do not receive as much as they get in the towns. I appeal to the Minister whether it is not possible to make an arrangement by which they can pay this income tax by instalments. If it were possible, I should like to see it done away with altogether. At all events, I appeal to the Minister to see to it that not so many are put into gaol, because they do not have the money and cannot find it. It means some cost to the Government to keep them there for two or three weeks or a month when they are sentenced for not paying the tax. If it be possible, I should like to ask that, before very long, we should get the names of this economic commission which the Minister has promised will be appointed to go into the various grievances of the natives in this country. If he appoints a commission which will go thoroughly into the matter, he will do away with a good deal of the dissatisfaction which exists to-day, and the feeling on the part of the natives that they are being down-trodden instead of being supported, as they should be, by the whites, who are the stronger and who can teach them much, especially in regard to laws of this, nature. Something has been said in regard to hospital accommodation; that is a real necessity, particularly in the larger towns. In connection with hospitals in the larger towns, where there are, of course, native wards, native girls should be trained as nurses. That would make a wonderful difference to this country where these people go about and assist one another. There is another matter. That is the treatment of the natives by the police. I believe that a great deal can be done by the Minister of Native Affairs, if he wishes to do it, to see that there shall be some alteration in this, matter. It is a scandal, particularly in the country districts. Where these men must go to gaol, they, of course, must go, but there is no necessity that they should get a hiding as well after being arrested. That is being done, I can assure the Minister so far as natives are concerned, in my district. If a man is arrested, let him go quietly to gaol and be punished for anything he has done. I hope the Minister will make enquiries into the matter and I will give him some direct cases if he wishes it. It he makes an enquiry, he will probably get the matter adjusted. Then the question of native agriculture was raised. I hope something more will be done in this connection. There is no doubt, particularly in the Transkei, that a great deal can be done. In the Cape Colony, lower down, I am afraid that nothing very much can be done. If they are taught better methods in the Transkei they will become more useful to the farming community when they take up their jobs, where agriculture is more studied, particularly on irrigation farms in the south where things are more expensive, and where we find that the ordinary man is not capable of doing the job. I appeal to the Minister of Native Affairs to see what can be done, particularly in regard to this question of taxation. These men are taxed up to the hilt. It does not matter what a native wears, he is taxed. His particular style of blanket is taxed more heavily than the European, and the native suffers a disadvantage. If the Minister goes into these matters, he will be able to assist people who deserve it, and who wish to work and obey the laws of the country. I trust he will do this, and also that we shall have an opportunity of hearing the names of the members of this economic commission which, I am certain, will do a great deal to assist the native community.

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

I wish to refer to a matter which is responsible for a good deal of dissatisfaction among the farmers in Natal, in regard to which I have had conversations with the Minister. I need not give specific instances because I have already given them to the Minister. I refer to the presence of native-owned farms in European areas acquired by natives before the Native Land Act of 1915 came into operation. European owners of adjoining farms find it very difficult indeed to carry on their agricultural pursuits owing to depredations by native-owned dogs and to disappearance of stock by theft attributable to the presence of large numbers of natives of bad character on their farms. The Natives Land Act makes no provision for the protection of European farmers in such circumstances, and there is no legal enactment under which the evil can be prevented, and I am raising the matter now in order that the Minister may consider the advisability of introducing legislation to deal with the problem. The main source of income from these farms is derived from taking in of rent-paying native tenants. This results in the congregation of a very undesirable type of native on these farms, loafers and natives of bad character succeeding in finding a refuge there. The Minister can imagine the result as far as the adjoining European farms are concerned. This unsatisfactory state of affairs is common throughout Natal and is not peculiar to my own district. I hope that something may be done to remedy this crying evil; there certainly should be legislation to rectify it. I ask the Minister if he will make some statement with regard to this in order that those who are feeling the effects may know that there is a prospect of effective steps being taken.

There is much confusion of thought if not an utter misconception amongst natives with regard to the native development fund. I candidly admit that I myself was very much fogged with regard to these finances, and it was only after seeing a financial statement published in the Government Gazette, where details are given of the receipts and expenditure, that the whole position became absolutely clear to me. Natives have some wonderful ideas as to the amount they pay in direct taxation under the Act of 1925 running into millions. The figures show that the revenue from Union Government grant towards native education is £340,000, and from their general taxation £237,262, whereas on native education £325,200 is spent in the Cape Province, £94,062 in Natal, £80,600 in the Transvaal, and £33,400 in the Orange Free State. The confusion is due simply to these people not being in possession of the figures. Few Europeans, in all conscience, study the Gazette, and what about the native:—their number who even see the Government Gazette is infinitesimal. I would ask the Minister if it would not be possible for his department to circularize this financial statement, not to every native, but, at all events, to the native councils and chief representatives of the native people, so that this information can be disseminated amongst them. Act 41 of 1925 was the first Act stating that direct taxation should be imposed on these people for their benefit, and the amounts utilized for native administration, and the native development fund. There are a good many wrong statements made and ideas amongst the natives how this amount is being spent. They would very much appreciate it, as was the statement made by the Minister at Kingwilliamstown when he said he would consider circularizing amongst them in their own language regulations which apply to and affect them. The regular publication of this statement will, I am sure, be welcomed, and, in my opinion, interfere to a large extent with the activities of those agitators who go about amongst the natives telling them all sorts of fairy stories about the exorbitant amounts being collected from the natives from this tax and how the amounts are being spent, and which must have a very unsettling effect on the native mind. I do appeal to the Minister to meet the wishes of the natives in this respect.

I should like to call the Minister’s attention to something which causes very great dissatisfaction amongst the farmers in the northern Transvaal. It is that the native commissioners during the past two years—I do not believe it happened before then—have given consent to natives leaving the farms, probably the travelling passes to go to Government farms We have accused companies of doing native farming, but here the charge is that the Government is doing precisely the same things. Those natives do not go to the native locations, but to Government farms. I admit that the farms come under the area which it is proposed in future to make native territories, but they are now Government farms, and the commissioners allow them to go there. The result is that hundreds of natives leave the farms and establish themselves on Government farms. The Government is, therefore, itself giving land to the natives, so that the argument is used that the Government itself allows farming by natives on its farms.

I would like to enquire from the Minister what he is doing with regard to the block grant given to the provincial councils for native education. It is laid down that direct taxation, as far as the natives are concerned, is to be used for the natives. In 1927-’28 £1,184,000 was collected from the natives by way of taxation, and £487,000 spent on education of the natives. I would like to know what has become of the balance. In the Cape Province alone there are about 1,600 native teachers who are getting anything from £6 to £9 per month. A teacher cannot live on £6 a month. Some have matriculated and have been teaching for from 15 to 20 years. When you compare that with what a native policeman gets, the latter gets about £8 a month from the commencement of his service. I would like the Minister to say that the provinces will get a larger grant. Several hon. members touched upon native nurses for native hospitals. We are all agreed to this. The native is subject to the same diseases as the European, and you desire native nurses to look after the native patients. The nurse must be an educated person; she has to be enlightened; she must study; and she has to pass examinations to become fully qualified, otherwise she is of very little use; and the facilities for native girls to study beyond standard VI are too few. This is one of the reasons why European nurses have to care for native patients. I hope the hon. the Minister will make a note of these matters.

I have allowed some latitude on this question, but I cannot allow any further discussion, as it comes under the health vote.

Although the Minister is probably tired of listening to complaints, I cannot help having to bring a complaint to his notice. Complaints are repeatedly made to me that natives are leaving the farms, and get passes from the native commissioners, or at the magistrate’s office to go and work in Johannesburg or elsewhere, and I should like to know from the Minister whether the native commissioners or other officials have the right to issue such passes without such a native having a pass from his master.

I would like to plead with the Minister to raise the status of the higher officials in his department. I have heard native commissioners in northern Zululand, men of ability and high character, complain that there was not much scope for them, and that they could see more chance of promotion in the Department of Justice. That seems to me quite a wrong state of affairs, and I think it is inimical to the best interests of the state. I consider that outside the Prime Minister’s department and that of the Minister of Finance, the portfolio of native affairs is the most important in the whole Cabinet. After all, he has the good government of five-eighths of the people in his charge, he wields almost despotic power in many ways, and his discretion has to be exercised almost every day in the interests of good government. The future of South Africa depends very largely upon a wise administration of the Native Affairs Department. This portfolio was held by the Prime Minister in the past, but the multitudinous affairs which the Prime Minister has had to attend to prevented him from continuing to hold it. For some years now the department has been the Cinderella department of the Union, but it ought not to remain so. I consider that the chief native commissioner of a province, or the chief magistrate of the Transkei, holds a more responsible position than the chief magistrate of a city. These higher posts are important links in the good relations between the natives and the Europeans. We can create any machinery we like, and we may set up any office, and set out on any path of progress we like, but it is individuals in responsible positions in this department who must translate our policy into active practice. Let me point to a particular instance as an illustration of the position of these officials to-day. Take the chief native commissioner of Natal, He has to exercise control over a very large area, stretching from Pietermaritzburg to northern Zululand, and right down towards the Cape. Yet he has no motor-car, and he cannot get about. That seems to me an extraordinary state of affairs. We can buy a motor-car for a railway commissioner to travel to look for a potential railway, but an official of such importance as the chief native commissioner of a province, who requires to be at any spot at any particular moment over a large area, we fail to provide with transport. I think we should consider if something cannot be done to create in the minds of the officials of this department a real desire to progress and remain in that department. We should make it a career for young men who make a study of native affairs. There is another matter of a local character which I wish to raise. A rather large number of natives live in the Nduku Nduku Forest Reserve. They have lived there in peace and quietness since the days of Chaka. To-day they are being disturbed. The forest department is placing a tax on these natives of £2 a head in addition to their development tax. There is no real reason for it. The forest is of very little commercial value, and the department has imposed this tax upon them ostensibly for the purpose of driving them out. The larger part of that reserve is not likely to be developed for many years to come, and it seems a particular hardship upon the natives that they should be compelled to pay a £2 tax in addition to their ordinary tax for the privilege of living in a place which is not required for any other purpose. I would like to join my voice to those who have spoken about the need of hospital accommodation. We have spoken of this matter annually for some years. Native hospitals were established in connection with the Indian hospitals along the Natal coast, and those hospitals have been closed down. There was a large amount of money remaining over in the Indian trust, amounting, I think, to about £100,000. Perhaps it is in the bank at interest, but I think it would be a good thing if that money were used to provide hospital accommodation for the natives. The money is locked up, and is of no use to the Indians, and it might be put to that very useful purpose. There is another matter I should like to raise, and that is in connection with the native agricultural vote. I notice that under vote E there are certain posts which have been paid for out of the native development fund. Why on earth should the native development fund be used for this purpose? The natives pay taxation through the customs, and surely a small amount like this, or the amounts necessary to provide for a director and assistant directors, etc., in connection with native agriculture ought to form a charge upon the state. [Time limit.]

I agree with the last point raised by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). The development fund is not only destined for educational purposes, but for the welfare of the natives generally. With regard to the point raised by him under “E”, as to the first item being recoverable from the native development account, that is a mistake. Only half the amount is recoverable from the native development account. As regards the other item, it is reasonable that it should be charged to “native agriculture”, Certain items for “native agriculture” figured on the estimates last year. A number of these items are reasonably chargeable to the fund, and that is the reason why they appear. I will deal with the question of hospital accommodation later on, although it does not fall under this vote. It falls partly under the health vote and partly under interior. As regards the question of the Nduku Nduku forest raised by the hon. member, the £2 paid there is the same as that paid by any native who lives on Crown lands. The land occupied by these natives was required for afforestation purposes and land elsewhere was offered to them. They refused to go, and, as a result, rather than move the natives, the ordinary rule which is applied to all natives living on Crown land was put into operation. All natives living on Crown land in Natal pay £2 per hut per annum as laid down by the Natal law. The hon. member has raised a question as to the status of officials. If he compares the salaries of officials with those of justice, for instance, I do not think there is great cause for complaint. Take, for instance, the four chief magistrates in justice whose salaries are fixed at £1,300, £1,200, £1,100 and £1,000. If you refer to the four chief native commissioners, three get £1,050, rising by £30 to £1,300, and one £950, rising by £30 to £1,100, so there is not such a great discrepancy there. Other magistrates rise from £825 to £900, which is the same as that allowed for native commissioners. And so one might go through the list. A comparison of posts in the two departments compares very favourably. With regard to the native commissioner of Natal, the point has been raised as to whether his emoluments are sufficient. The matter has been submitted to the Public Service Commission, who have not seen their way to make any alteration. Then the hon. member has unwittingly said something which might be misleading, that the chief native commissioner in Natal has no motor-car although he has to visit various parts of the country, as if he would have to pay the expenses of his transport. If he is on official business he can always obtain a car, and it is paid for. The present system is likely to continue, and it is found more advantageous to pay for the actual transport by a garage car which is hired and paid for. It is more economical to pay for a car than to supply the commissioner with a car. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys) has referred, I take it, to four-fifths of the general tax collected from natives. The hon. member must be aware that the law fixes the tax of 20s., four-fifths of which goes to treasury and one-fifth to development fund.

†*The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) discussed the matter of gasses for farm natives, which are issued by commissioners for natives to go to Johannesburg and other large centres. I only want to say that the question of passes is under consideration, and I hope that we shall be able to draft pass regulations shortly. With regard to native commissioners, who issue passes to natives travelling to Government farms, I may say that they are only given to natives who have travelling passes from their masters; only those natives are allowed to travel to Crown land. I do not know whether it is a fact that hundreds of the natives are leaving the farms. Hon. members must, however, remember that if no trek passes are issued and it is difficult, or impossible, for natives to get employment, it would be unreasonable of the commissioners to refuse such travelling passes, although there may possibly be room for them on Crown land. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) again referred to natives on farms, and their claim to a grant from the development fund. He asks what can be done with regard to the education of natives on farms. The hon. member will realize that it is an extremely difficult matter. We not only have to deal with the owners of farms, but from the nature of things it is difficult to take proper and effective measures. I would like to know what he would suggest. Exemption from taxation is a matter for the Minister of Finance. It would mean an amendment of the law which provides that one-fifth of the poll tax shall go to the native funds, and the rest to the treasury. Legislation would be necessary to give relief in that respect. The commission which is to be appointed will be able to go into all the economic points with regard to natives. I shall make a statement later in connection with the commission. The hon. member for Carolina (Mr. W. H. Rood) spoke about the payment of taxes by natives. I know that difficulties arose, and a discussion ensued between my department and the Department of Finance. The position is that a great part of the tax is lost to-day. When a native is two or three years in arrear, and he is found without a receipt for the tax that he ought to have paid and is then brought before the court, he is not fined, the arrear tax is also not collected, but if he merely pays the £1 for the current year he is set free without any fine or punishment. Many of the natives have already become aware of this, and they wait until they are brought before the court to pay. Probably the Act will have to be altered in that regard. The hon. member for Lindley (Dr. Conradie) referred to the application of the Administrative Act of 1927 in the Free State, and he pointed out that there were natives who, in certain cases, lived there temporarily under unfair circumstances, because there are no native courts there. The matter is being considered now. Correspondence has taken place, and magistrates in the native territories have been consulted with regard to districts where the position is difficult. It was originally felt that there was no necessity for the establishment of such courts. The matter was, however, brought up again, and I will go into it.

†The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has raised the question of native farmers where natives are able to lease farms from the owner and congregate on these farms. I am afraid that, as the law stands to-day, nothing can be done, but the whole position can be dealt with under the Native Land (Amendment) Act, which we hope to get through the House. As things stand at the present time, I do not see that anything can be done. I do not know if the hon. member has anything to suggest. The same applies in regard to the depredations of dogs and the theft of stock. Those are matters really for the police, and if the hon. member can suggest means by which these difficulties can be overcome, they will certainly be taken into consideration. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) has suggested that the accounts of the development fund, which are issued annually, and published in the Gazette, might, with advantage, be circularized to the councils; and he also suggested that they might be published in native newspapers. That matter will receive my consideration. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) has raised the question of the payment of the poll tax, and has suggested that the payment of this tax might take place by instalments. As I pointed out to the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé), there is very great difficulty in getting this tax in at the present time, because, if a native is in arrear, I understand he need not pay, and if he is brought before a magistrate for non-payment, there is no fine to be paid, and no interest to be paid, and all that he need pay is the tax for the current year, and he is absolutely free. So that the position is that, until the native is brought before a magistrate, nothing can be done to get the tax from him. The matter has been under discussion by the Department of Finance and the Native Affairs Department, and possibly something will be done in order to put that right. In regard to the question of payment by instalments, I am afraid that that will be a very difficult thing to administer. I do not think, on the whole, that very great hardship is done to the natives if they have to pay this £1 per annum. The hon. member has asked me a question in regard to the economic commission. I hope, within the next few days, to make public the names of the members of that commission. The hon. member has also raised the question of the treatment of natives by the police. I am quite sure that, if the hon. member were to report any case of mal-treatment by police officers of natives, on their arrest, to the Minister of Justice, the matter would receive consideration. I am afraid that I am unable to do anything in that direction as the police do not fall under my department. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has also supported the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) in regard to the utility of these native conferences. I have already stated that it is my intention that these conferences shall be resumed. The hon. member has also pointed out that the native question is largely one of economics. That also is a question that the commission appointed will deal with. The hon. member has also asked me to give him the figures in regard to the amount of native taxation through the customs. I am afraid that I cannot give him those figures. After all, they would be, in any case, mere guesswork from the figures that would be available. I take it that a fair estimate of this taxation will be made by the commission, which I have already referred to The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Borlase) has referred to the increase of grants for industrial purposes. The position is this, that the increase of these grants is more in the nature of helping shows, and so on, where native industries and cattle and sheep, etc., are brought annually. I may say that these shows are becoming quite a feature in some parts of the country, and I think they are to be encouraged in every possible way. As far as the decrease in the relief of distress is concerned, the reduction there is a reduction in the transport. The hon. member and various other hon. members have dealt with the medical position at Herschel, and have pointed out that there is only one doctor available for the whole district. I am afraid that is a matter which falls under the Minister of Public Health. The hon. member also dealt with the question of erosion. The question of erosion not only in Herschel, but throughout the country, is having the serious consideration of the department. Mr. Thornton, the director of agriculture, is also directing attention to this position. After all, the question of erosion is due, to a very large extent, to over stocking, and every effort is being made to bring the natives to realize the advisability of the proper stocking of their farms. This question of erosion and over-stocking formed the subject of discussion at the conference referred to by the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. Baines) recently, where a very representative gathering took place, and this question and others were discussed. I do not think that any tangible result has come about from that conference. At the same time, I am certain that it has served a very useful purpose in co-ordinating the views of the various delegates who attended the conference. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has raised the question of the justice done to the native. That is a matter for the Department of Justice, but where an obvious injustice has been done to natives it will certainly have the attention of the department. The hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. Baines) has drawn attention to the expansion of the agricultural vote. At the present time, the system is to train native demonstrators who will go to their own people and endeavour to inculcate them with ideas leading to the improvement of their methods of farming and to make better use of their land. With regard to the question of improving the sheep farming of natives, I agree that that would not only be to the benefit of the natives but also of the Europeans. I agree with the hon. member that everything should be done to encourage a better type of sheep farming. Mr. Thornton has been right through the native territories. He has reported on the position in practically all the native areas throughout the country, and now that his preliminary survey has been completed, he will be able to set about carrying out some of the ideas he has formed in order to better the agricultural position in the native territories, not only from a pastoral point of view, but also from the point of view of cattle and sheep. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) should have directed his question with regard to the Wage Board to the Minister of Labour, but I may say that the question of the Wage Board taking cognizance of disputes between employers and native employees is one upon which there is a great difference of opinion. However, it is one of the subjects which will be investigated by the commission which is to be appointed. As I indicated in the Budget debate, we have decided to appoint an official attached to the office of the director of native labour in Johannesburg, and it will be his duty to proceed to any part of the country where necessary to bring about a better state of feeling between employers and native employees. An official who has had experience in Natal and the Transkei will do this work, and I hope his efforts will bring about improved relationships between employers and their native workers. Later on we shall have to decide whether the Wage Board shall be the body to which disputes of this kind shall be referred, or whether another body shall be put up in order to deal with these matters. The hon. member asked me for information regarding native development, and whether the native development fund is adequate. I do not think I have ever known any fund to be adequate to meet requests for any purpose. With the growing needs, it is almost impossible for any fund to meet all requirements. When the 20s. tax was imposed, it was decided that one-fifth should go to the native development fund in addition to an annual grant of £345,000 from the central fund, and in addition, there are local taxes and quitrents. The idea was that the local tax should be returned to the district in which it was collected for the welfare of the natives in that area. Before giving further details with regard to this fund, I will give some idea as to the native educational position. Cape Province: 1926-’27, 1,604 schools, 117,880 pupils; 1929-’30, 1,726 schools, 131,915 pupils. Natal: 1926-’27, 553 schools, 37,900 pupils; 1929-’30, 698 schools, 47,425 pupils. Transvaal: 1926-’27, 394 schools; 43,176 pupils; 1929-’30, 588 schools, 67,254 pupils. Orange Free State: 1926-’27, 194 schools, 17,701 pupils; 1929-’30, 203 schools, 22,333 pupils. So that hon. members will see there is a substantial increase in the number of schools and of pupils. For last year the approximate expenditure on native education is £340,000, grants from the Union Government, and £251,447 from the general tax. As far as agricultural education is concerned it is, salaries of staff and labourers £800, agricultural stock, land, buildings, livestock, books, equipment, fencing, and furrows, £12,100; field demonstrators, £7,500; transport and subsistence £600; miscellaneous £200; grants to hospital £450; amount repaid to the Treasury for loan advances, £25,560. A total is to be spent of £638,882; from local taxes, expenditure on local matters, £255,786, making a total of £894,668. Now the income is estimated from all sources to amount to about £853,000, which means our expenditure is estimated to be some £50,000 in excess of our income. The excess has been met out of the reserve fund of £167,000 built up in the four years which have passed, and it is expected if our rate of increase continues as at the present time the reserve will be finished by about the end of four years, and by that time the loans to the Treasury will have been repaid, and we will have an additional £25,600 to add to this amount. It is also estimated, of course, if the taxation increases, and the general tax increases as we hope will be the case, we will be in a position to meet the obligation. The hon. member will understand that as things are at present the position is not satisfactory, and the question will have to be taken into consideration as to what means shall be adopted to put that matter right. The hon. member is open to have any other figures he may wish to have. He is mistaken if he thinks that all the money from the development fund is destined for education.

No, I asked a specific sum should be used for hospitals.

I am afraid in the present circumstances where we have been compelled this year to confine the amount from the development fund to the subsidy to the provinces of last year, we are not justified in spending any money as far as hospitals are concerned, especially where they are a matter which falls under the province; and the Health Department do not think we are in a position to deal effectively with them, as far as these are concerned, from that fund. We endeavour to meet the position as far as agriculture is concerned, and hope to increase that in the future. We are not able to increase the grant to the provinces for education.

It is stationary?

Yes, practically.

And likely to be so for some years?

That depends on the income we derive from some other direction. The hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) also raised the question of hospitalization, as he called it, and the training of native women as nurses. I am afraid, as we stand at present, it is impossible to do anything on that account, as the funds stand. Whether the matter will be taken up by the health department or in some other way I do not know at the present time. There are grants made to certain hospitals where native nurses are being trained, but nothing much can be done in that direction. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has also spoken with regard to the economic commission. It certainly is not going to investigate individual cases; it is going to investigate the general position of the native, and as far as the economic position is concerned, will have the widest powers to investigate any phase of the economic position in the country. The hon. member has raised the question of the grant of the Carnegie Trust of £65,000, in order to erect certain buildings at the Johannesburg University, coupled with certain conditions of upkeep. That provision they have been unable to accept; I understand the money may be utilized in some other direction, and that question has still to be considered.

Why not?

Because in the first place I doubt whether it is expedient at the present time, and also we are not prepared to make further commitments.

What about those students at Fort Hare?

That is a question which will require consideration. I do not know whether they will be admitted to the university, but at the present time we are not prepared to go in for that branch at the Witwatersrand University to train native doctors. With regard to the increment in the salaries of native teachers to which the hon. member referred, an increase will be granted this year to those of five years service. The hon. member has raised the question of prisons for natives, and although that is not a matter that ought to be raised on this vote, I may say that to a certain extent I feel considerable sympathy with the view that there ought to be discrimination between crimes and ordinary offences. The question as to whether there should be discrimination in that way is a matter which must receive consideration. The hon. member has also raised the question of the removal of cattle. There are two phases of the question of the removal of cattle. There is the question of the removal of cattle from the territory, in which the Minister of Agriculture is concerned, and there is the question of the removal of cattle from one district to another. The natives are averse from the removal of cattle from one district to another. The basis on which permits are in some cases given is where the cattle can be transferred from one district to another in order to conform with some native custom or other.

I wish to again refer to the question of native prisoners. I would like to point out that all our magistrates in the Transkei fall under the Minister’s control, and not under the Minister of Justice, and I think I am in order in raising the matter here. I am glad that the Minister in his reply expresses sympathy with the opinion I put forward. I say that each time you put a native, particularly a young native, into gaol for a technical offence, you make that native more and more a potential criminal. It is so easy for these natives to be put into gaol and to become criminals and a danger to the country. If a European commits a technical or minor offence, a young European, there is the First Offenders Act, or there is a reformatory to which he can be sent, or he can get a suspended sentence. A magistrate does not consign a European youth to gaol for a technical offence. I think the Native Affairs Department should look at the matter from that point of view, and see if some other methods of inducing the native to obey our laws cannot be devised. With regard to stock in the locations, the Minister said that every effort is being made to reduce this stock. I think every member realises that the increase of stock in these locations is a danger to the natives and to the country. The whole country is being overstocked. I would like to know what effort is being made to reduce stock amongst the natives. The only effort I can see is made by a Higher Authority in the form of drought. Last year in the Transkei alone it is estimated that £750,000 worth of stock, which might have been sold, died through overstocking. The natives might be encouraged to become meat eaters. The Minister has the power to deal with this matter by proclamation. The natives rarely kill their stock except when a sacrifice is made, and that is usually a goat. I suggest that the Minister consider a system by which traders and natives would be able to slaughter stock and sell it without having to take out a butcher’s licence. I believe that would help, and that it would result in the native gradually becoming a meat-eating person. It would also be appreciated by the native, and it would help very largely to reduce the large number of stock, especially goats, which are flooding the whole of the Transkei. As regards the native development fund, it is disturbing to realize that practically the whole of this amount is taken up by scholastic education. Some natives seem to think that if they became educated in the same manner as Europeans that will solve all their problems and relieve them from all their ills. I regret that there will not be sufficient funds available for industrial and agricultural education. The Minister may be surprized to know that there are 40 farmers’ associations amongst natives in the Transkei, and undoubtedly the natives in the Transkei and Ciskei have an urge towards agricultural education, and this should be encouraged in every way. I think the department should devote more funds to assist both agricultural and industrial education. If this native development fund is only sufficient to meet the scholastic educational needs of the natives, I hope the Government will try to find some other means of assisting them in the direction in which they should travel, and that is in the agricultural and industrial direction as well as in educational. I wish the Minister had given us more information about the Carnegie offer. He tells us an amount of £65,000 was offered on certain conditions and that the offer had been turned down. That has appeared in the newspapers. The natives want to know why the amount has been turned down, and the conditions on which the grant was made. I hope the Minister will give us some further information. He must realize that the Carnegie Institute has taken a great interest in the natives of this country. It made provision for Dr. Loram to visit America last year as well as the Assistant Director of Native Agriculture in the Transkei, and this year it has made provision for visits to America from Mr. Ballender and others interested in native matters. I am sure the Government is ill-advised in not taking the natives of the country into its confidence and giving a full account of the offer, the conditions and the reasons for refusal.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 38, “Irrigation,” £251,674,

I just want to ask the Minister to give us a short statement of the Government’s future intention in regard to irrigation. We have had very great expectations about great national irrigation schemes, particularly in my district. Now there is a rumour that the Government does not intend to build large schemes, but will give full attention to smaller schemes. It was a great disappointment to the country, and particularly to my district to learn that, and I shall be glad if the Minister will say whether it is true, and if, e.g., the Kromellenboog scheme will not be carried out. That would cause great disappointment.

I should like to ask the Minister what the position is with regard to the intention about encouraging small irrigation works, and also, e.g., the putting up of windmills. I think that there was a promise made to that effect some time ago, and I think the intention was to allow payment to be made over ten years. Does the Minister intend to carry it out?

I want to ask the Minister what steps have been taken with regard to making full use of the Irrigation Commission appointed some time ago. I want to know what has been done in the way of securing co-ordination between the various departments. When the Act was passed providing for the Commission, one of the main things we expected it to do was to secure co-ordination between Departments of Irrigation, Lands and Agriculture. At that time there was very little co-ordination, and I do not think there is very much more now. I would like to know whether the Irrigation Commission and the heads of the Departments of Lands, Agriculture and Irrigation have had meetings of any kind to work out some scheme of coordination of their activities. Their functions now overlap or clash, and they come into especially close contact in connection with the Hartebeestpoort scheme and we should like to see some definite correlation in their activities there. We feel that there is not that friendly co-operation between the Department of Irrigation and the others mentioned which there might be, and that there is room for vast improvement in that regard, and that co-ordination of effort was supposed to be one of the functions of the Commission. I would also like to ask the Minister about the boring machines; whether the department is equipping itself more fully with oil-driven machines, as compared with steam-operated ones. The difficulty with steam is that water is very often hard to get, not only in the arid areas, but also in parts of the heavy rainfall areas. I also want to refer to the £11,500 put down for maintenance of irrigation works at the Hartebeestpoort scheme. How much of it is recoverable from the Departments of Lands and Labour, under whom those schemes have been settled. If it is not recoverable, I would like to know why the Irrigation Department should have been saddled with the whole of that cost. So also in regard to £4,000 for irrigation works for other departments; also what those departments are, and where the work was done, and for what purpose, and why the Irrigation Department should bear the cost.

I should like to call the Minister’s attention to the vote for bores. As he knows, it is one of the great questions in the three parts of the western Transvaal, and I called the Minister’s attention during the budget debate to the fact that the number of bores was very limited. In the two districts that I know very well I met the magistrates and they told me that the number, of bores was so limited that for the next two or three years they would not be able to grant all the applications. As the Minister knows, there is not much water on most of those farms, and I want to ask the Government to further increase the number of bores. We know that they were considerably increased the previous year, and yet the number remains too few in those dry areas. The great difficulty is that those farmers who have no boreholes have to drive their stock far away to water holes, with the result that the stock get into bad condition, and erosion becomes worse. This is a great national problem, and the Government ought, for this reason, to assist the farmers to get more bores. We are very thankful to the Minister for the reasonable regulations which were introduced last year about bores, but we feel that the farmers who carried on for five or six years under the old regulations are placed in an unfair position. I brought one case to the Minister’s notice of a farmer who carried on with dry holes for five years, for which he had to pay about £500. I would like to know if something cannot be done for persons in that position. Another matter which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice is in connection with the irrigation dam at Schweizer Reneke. So far we have heard nothing about the intentions of the Irrigation Department with regard to that dam. It is already an old question because in 1899, before the second war of independence, in the old republican days, a start was made with that dam, but then war broke out and the work was stopped. Subsequently the Government instituted further enquiry, and in 1920 they intended to build a dam. Then again there was a little trouble with the landowners who would lie below the dam. Now, however, all the difficulties have been removed, and the Irrigation Commission have found the ground very suitable. We therefore hope that the Minister will attack that scheme designed so long ago. The dam will cost £31,000, and will give a living to some hundreds of people and will also assist the village. We have no irrigation dams in the western Transvaal as yet, and I hope the Minister will give his earnest attention to this.

There is no doubt that many hon. members do still expect great wonders in this country from irrigation. I should like to ask the hon. Minister to give us some idea of what his future policy is in regard to the development of irrigation in this country. In the few words I am going to say, I do not intend to touch upon anything which will infringe on the work being done by the present select committee sitting upon the problems of our present schemes, or anything to do with relief or the future development of these schemes as later on we will deal with these. I wish to give my ideas in regard to our future irrigation policy. I consider all the work done and the money we have spent in the last few years on these huge irrigation storage works that we have put up, has been absolutely money spent as an experiment. It has been a costly experiment but, at all events, we have to-day the experience of what value these works will be to us in the future. From that experience, no doubt, we shall not make the mistakes we have made in the past. I do not think that anybody can dispute the fact that these big works that we have put up have been a failure. Very little is to be expected from them in the future. In the first place, the expenditure of huge sums of money has not been justified. In the second place, the water we have held up and which is available for irrigation, has proved to be inadequate. In the third place, due to silting, the lives of these big works are going to be very short. After they are silted up, I am afraid that very little of an asset will be left for the money that we have expended on them. There is no doubt that if we had been guided in the past by the experience of the old farmers in this country, we would not have gone as far wrong as we have in being led astray by the irrigation engineers that we have employed to give us advice on these big questions. In the past, we depended almost entirely upon flood water, and the works were inexpensive and the results justified for the money spent. In a country like ours, there is no doubt that, under flood water schemes, and when I talk of flood water schemes, we can hardly think of our present storage schemes as anything more than that in the not far distant future, as it will be a very short time in the life of the country, before these schemes revert to what they were in the past—only flood water schemes. Under these schemes, we cannot go in for fruit culture, and any developments that can bring you good returns. With regard to the schemes in the drier parts of our country, we can only expect development on stock farming lines. That is using the water for flooding our veld, and improving our pasturage or growing lucerne which, fortunately for us, is a plant which will stand long periods of drought and shortage of water. I am afraid these are the lines which we will have to develop on in the future. Another way in which we should develop, is to develop small schemes for individual farmers. There is no doubt that the stock farmers’ small schemes are payable, evert with a small area of ground. The results obtained from working small areas on each farm are always successful and pay well for the money expended. Unfortunately, when we come to the question of closer settlement, our difficulties are increased. I think in the future, the Government should encourage in every way possible, even in the way of subsidies, the building of small irrigation schemes on individual farms where stock farming is carried out by the farmers, so that they can make use of the crops grown by those schemes for their stock. With regard to the bigger schemes, fruit culture and crops of that description, I think we should devote our whole attention to our permanent rivers. In the past, these permanent rivers have been absolutely neglected. In the past our permanent rivers have been neglected, especially in Natal, where we have a number of wonderful rivers, which to a small extent have been developed by private enterprise, and the people living on them have a bright future. At some of these places you could not buy irrigated ground under £300 or £400 a morgen, as the people there make a good living on a very small piece of land. Certainly the Government should investigate the possibilities of our rivers with water. It is difficult to discuss schemes which are now under consideration in select committee so we shall have to wait until the committee makes its recommendations. However, I ask the Minister to help farmers to build as many small schemes as possible by advancing money at a low rate of interest or a subsidy. The only way beneficially to use lucerne is to feed it to stock, but the position of the man who grows lucerne to-day with the idea of selling it, is a hopeless one. [Time limit.]

There are a few small points that I would like to bring to the Minister’s notice. There are certain dams surveys of which were started years ago. The department states that it has not sufficient staff to complete the surveys. In a certain sense this is unfair towards the people who live below those dams. We find that the survey was started eighteen years ago. The furrows of the people afterwards washed away, but they did not repair them, because they thought it would not be worth while, as the dam might possibly be built. I am thinking of a case in my constituency where a survey was started eighteen years ago. Is it not possible for the Government to find the necessary staff, so that the survey can be completed, and the people can know where they stand? Moreover, we, and I think the whole country, will be glad to learn from the Minister what the policy of the Government is in connection with the building of dams. Hon. members do not know what that policy is, and as the hon. member for Boshoff (Mr. van Rensburg) suggested, it would be very desirable if the Minister could give us the information. With regard to Government bores, I want to point out that the farmer has to transport the bore when he wants to use it, as well as all the accessories. It may happen that two wagons are required to remove the pipes of the bore, although all those pipes are not necessary. Can they not be left at some place in the village, so that the farmers need only transport what is required for their holes? It means much trouble, and great expense to transport the whole of it. Only what is absolutely necessary ought to be transported. There is another point, viz., that a difference is paid in the price the farmers have to pay for Government bores and that which paid by municipalities. In the case of a municipality the charges are higher. The department of Public Health requires municipalities to make proper provision for water in the locations. They must bore, and when the Government bores are in the vicinity I think they ought to be charged on the lower scale, in the case of the municipalities.

Why?

Because the boreholes are required for the people in the location. The municipality likes to keep the location as clean as possible. It is not only in the interests of the village, but in that of the whole district. I hope the Minister will favourably consider this. He asked me the question why so unexpectedly that I think he is beginning to feel that there is something in the request, and I hope he will make this concession to the municipality.

I do not want to discuss our general irrigation policy, but to refer to two or three points. I notice that the vote for the Reconnaissance Survey has increased from £16,365 to £23,897. Is that increase due to any particular survey or is it the result of general expansion. Can the Minister tell us if the department have a sufficient number of boring machines to carry on the work and meet the demands for boring, and whether the department has made any experiments with South African boring machines? I understand a machine is being built at East London and I would be glad if it could be tried by the department. I should like to know what has become of the vote for soil erosion survey?

It has been transferred to the agricultural vote.

I trust the amount has not been decreased. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) on the Irrigation Commission, I want to emphasize the point he made—the necessity of the co-ordinating and the interlocking of the Irrigation Department —on the technical side, the Agricultural Department, and the Lands Department, so that these three bodies can be brought together as one harmonious whole. I want again to express my opinion that the commission is doing excellent work. We have two public servants at the head of the Irrigation Department and the Irrigation Commission possessing an unrivalled knowledge of their job. I would like to see the closest co-operation between these two branches of the Minister’s department—the Irrigation Commission and the Irrigation Department. I would like an assurance from the Minister that that commission is functioning as laid down in the Act. I think that commission serves a very useful function in being a buffer between the Minister and the demands which are made from not always the best informed people for irrigation schemes. It has been the experience of any country which has irrigation works that such a buffer is necessary. I would like the Minister to consider the judgment given by Mr. Justic Louwrens in the water court with regard to protection cases, and ask him what is the implication of the judgment on any storage reservoir applying for protection against works above them. To me that judgment is rather upsetting to my preconceived ideas of what is required in these cases. Irrigation for the moment is under a cloud—a rather dark cloud as far as results are concerned—and I do not want the Minister and the House to lose sight of the excellent work that is being done by the department—I know the Minister does not. The public condemn the Irrigation Department on the partial failure of some schemes, but should not lose sight of the good work being done, particularly by circle engineers in ordinary cases for farmers—this work is always going on although the general public hear nothing of it.

I think that a large section of the population of the country was undoubtedly very glad when the Minister of Irrigation recently announced that it was the Government’s intention to proceed with the building of irrigation works, notwithstanding the fact that hitherto most of our irrigation works from a purely financial point of view have possibly been failures. When we speak of irrigation works that had already proved failures, then I think that we must not become frightened too soon. If we look at Australia and America we find precisely the same position prevails there. When they started big schemes there it appeared that most of them were a financial failure, but in the course of time the farmers got more scientific knowledge with regard to the working of land under cultivation, and they also learned what sort of produce and what kind of farming gave the largest profits with irrigation. Subsequently, therefore, the position improved, and I am convinced that South Africa also, in the course of time, will find that if we go on courageously irrigation work can be carried on at smaller loss than it has to-day. One of the reasons why so many of the irrigation works are failures to-day is the fact that there was not sufficient water for the irrigable surface area. Very many schemes were laid out where the flood water and the rainfall were not adequate. The Director of Irrigation appears, possibly quite rightly, a little pessimistic with regard to irrigation in the future. In a review which he gave a few years ago at Graaff Reinet to the Irrigation Congress, he dealt with more or less all the large schemes possible, but what struck me in reading the report was that he practically confined himself to schemes possible along the Orange River and the Vaal River. In the northern Transvaal, and possibly also in Natal there are, however, fairly large rivers which he apparently completely overlooked. I do not know whether a proper survey has already been made of possible irrigation works in the northern Transvaal. According to my information not much has been done as yet in that direction. If my information is correct I want to ask the Minister if he will not see that in the near future a proper irrigation survey is made in the northern Transvaal. Apart from the Crocodile River, where we have a large irrigation work, there are other fairly large rivers like the Palala, Matlabas, Magol, and the Nile, which lower down is called the Magalakwyn, while in the northeast Transvaal there are quite a number of other large rivers which, as a result of a fairly high rainfall, are often in flood during the summer months, but which, apart from the ordinary flood water, have a large permanent supply of water for at least nine months in the year. There are, therefore, possible schemes, and no lack of water. If it appears that there are spots for building dams and sufficient ground, there will be sufficient water in the rivers. I shall therefore be glad if a careful and proper survey is made in connection with these rivers, and also other rivers in the northern Transvaal.

On page 10 of the select committee’s report it states—

It is obvious that one of the gravest aspects of our irrigation schemes is the silting up of some of the larger reservoirs, particularly in some of the Karroo areas. There is a very great fear that some of the large areas will become useless in a few years. I think it is time for some candid statement to be made with regard to these schemes. The disappointment of the settlers will be very great if these reservoirs become useless, and much distress will result. I do not think it is fair, if the Department has information, which gives it reason to believe that the dams will be silted up before very long, for that information to be withheld. We may have at last to turn these into flood-water schemes. I am aware that this was the bugbear of engineers when these schemes were designed, and that they took every precaution possible, with sluice gates, etc. It is desirable that the facts be made known. If the expenditure has been lost, we must cut the loss, and it is important that those who depend upon the water should be apprized of the facts of the situation. If the fears entertained are ill-founded, and the fears exist, then it is right that these fears should be dispelled. If they are well-founded, then I think it is highly desirable that the settlers should know the truth. In that case, they must be prepared to cut their losses. I hope the Minister will be able to make a statement to-night, and I would suggest that the time is over-ripe for greater candour. I am only suggesting that where the observations made lead to certain definite conclusions, these conclusions should be made known. Naturally there are many schemes to which these observations do not apply, but I am afraid there are a great many others to which they do apply, and that the fact that a certain amount of silting up is going on is causing dismay. No one knows definitely except the department, what silting up is going on.

I do not think it will be necessary to say much about this vote because we shall probably have an opportunity later to deal with it more fully, but I just want briefly to deal with a few small points. In the first place it struck me in connection with the point mentioned by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) that there were certain difficulties caused to the irrigators because they had to pay the various departments. Perhaps it will be possible so to co-ordinate the various departments that the payments can be made to one office. It would greatly facilitate matters for the irrigators. I understand that it might possibly cause difficulties owing to one department having to meddle with the affairs of another department, but if it is possible it would be a great convenience to the irrigators and possibly also to the departments concerned. With regard to bores, I would like to point out that there is a deficit of about £60,000 in connection with them. I think the country ought to know this, and I am certain that the country appreciates very much that the Government is doing so much to assist the farmers in this respect, because it means a great deal to the country. It would not be right and fair to ask the Government now to make the deficits still larger, but I think there was a scheme a little while ago enabling the farmers to get loans for boreholes from the Land Bank on the same basis as for fencing. If this is so, it would greatly assist and encourage the farmers. Then I want to praise the Irrigation Commission. I do not think the country realizes what great services they are rendering us. That commission was appointed when we had Built a large number of irrigation works which unfortunately, owing to circumstances over which the Government had no control, were not at all economically sound. The Commission was then appointed to make enquiry in order to put the schemes on a sound basis, and the work it has done is not realized by the public. The Irrigation Commission made its investigations and we shall have an opportunity later of seeing how much it has done. There is another point which I would like to bring to the Minister’s notice in connection with the irrigators at the schemes. I Unfortunately many irrigators have been driven in that direction owing to their necessity, although they actually had a different vocation. They were partly stock farmers, who do not understand that intensive irrigation farming. They have had no experience of it, and I want to ask him if it would not be possible for the department in consultation with the Department of Lands to assist them with advice. We know that most of the schemes are economically unsound, and the settlers have a very hard time. To enable those people to repay the money to the Government I think it is no more than right that the Government should give them advice. It will greatly assist them to make a success of the irrigation schemes. The schemes have not been a success in the past, and although the Government will possibly lose on them I still feel that the schemes will greatly benefit the country. At places where formerly possibly ten or twelve families lived we to-day find 100 to 150 families, and in my opinion the irrigation schemes would be a great asset to the country. The Government must give the people advice in order to enable them to make a success of their work.

I am sorry to see the utter lack of interest being taken in this important vote on the other side of the House. All through this discussion, there has been one Nationalist farmer sitting in this House—now there are three. They were talking about irrigation during the elections. It would seem that the topic is only of use during election time.

There were two farmers present.

Well, we will call it two— I am prepared to be generous. At the next election time, we shall again hear of these wonderful irrigation schemes. I wish the very gullible supporters of that side of the House were here to-night. I rose to express the hope that the Minister will tell us what is happening at Hartebeestepoort. We have never yet had a Minister who will tell us what is happening down there. There are three different Ministers of three departments pending money at Hartebeestepoort. The Department of Irrigation seems to be spending the least money there. We are spending £139,000 on Hartebeestepoort this year, and we have had, so far as I am aware, no explanation as to what is going on. What are we getting for the money? If the remarks one hears be true, the extravagance and waste and negligence have ben terrific, not on the part of the Irrigation Department—their part has been a relatively small one. I want to know what the Labour Minister has been doing at Hartebeestepoort, and the Minister of Agriculture. Are they now completely frozen out of it? The vote this year is £182,000, and the Department of Lands is now taking over there. I see the Lands Department is spending £45,000, Agriculture £82,000, and Irrigation £11,000. Who is running Hartebeestepoort, and what exactly is being done? We are spending all this money on salaries and wages and subsistence and transport apparently to maintain a large army of pals. £139,000 is going to salaries and wages and subsistence allowances and the Lord knows what—

On a point of order, I do not think the hon. member can discuss matters outside this vote. He cannot drag in what the Labour Department is doing.

I am discussing the policy of the Irrigation Department—three Ministers are running it—and we are entitled to cross-examine them—

You are not entitled to cross-examine any Minister.

Indeed we are. If hon. Ministers think they are above the law, we shall soon tell them they are not. Of course, they can be cross-examined. That is what they are here for. The hon. Minister is quite young in his experience as a Minister. That is our function—to cross-examine—and I am going to cross-examine the Minister.

May I just state that the discussion is on the vole before the committee? I find it difficult to draw the line, because the vote here allows a wide latitude, but I do not think the points raised by the hon. member are quite relevant.

I submit to your ruling, but one must refer to other Ministers who are spending money in regard to this irrigation scheme. I am cross-examining the Minister, whether he likes it or not, as to how the department is run, how many people are there and how this money is being spent.

Where is that?

The hon. Minister is trying to burke discussion. You ask me where I get £139,000? On the three votes on which the three Ministers are administering the place. It is very pertinent to the discussion. The three votes are correlated. It is difficult to discuss the scheme under three separate sections. They are not in water-tight compartments.

made an interjection.

Another member objects to cross-examination. That only shows that somewhere there is a nigger in the wood pile. I would have thought that the Minister of Finance would have been the first to tell us why £139,000 is being spent on a non-productive scheme. They are all using the same water, but none of them producing anything.

I am the last one to burke discussion.

May I cross-examine?

Only on the proper votes. I am responsible for the compilation of these votes. I may inform you, sir, that, so far as the irrigation vote is concerned, its only function here is the maintenance of irrigation, and if the hon. member wants to discuss the position in regard to irrigation, he may do so, but discussion of the Labour Department and the Department of Agriculture is quite out of order.

The hon. member can discuss only the vote before the committee.

I hope the House will realize that when you have such a scheme as this, like a jig saw puzzle, under three departments, no one knows where these departments begin or end. That is the information I am trying to get this evening. I do not know where each man’s functions begin. The three Ministers seem to get it each way. If I start with the Minister of Labour, they refer me to the Minister of Lands. If I go to the Minister of Lands, I am referred to the Minister of Irrigation. He is at the end of the queue. There is no one else I can see than the Government garage keeper whose vote is next.

When the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) rose I expected him to speak of irrigation, but it seems to me that he merely smote his breast with the idea that he was a very wonderful fellow. I can assure the hon. member that I, and thousands of others, do not share that view of him. I want, however, to bring a small point to the Minister’s notice, and that is the great need there is for development in my constituency at Lindleyspoort. I heard that that irrigation work was not to be proceeded with. I hear that the idea exists that there will not be much water. I want, however, to point out that the river brings the water about thirty miles, before it comes to the place where it is proposed to build the dam, and that it also has tributaries. It was surveyed ten years ago, and I think that if only the dam is built there that thousands of morgen of the best and most fruitful ground in those parts will become available for intensive cultivation. That will in part solve the unemployment that exists there, and keep the people alive. Thousands of people are streaming into the towns and villages to-day looking for work, but in that way they can be kept on the land. There is another matter I want to mention, viz., the necessity for writing off sums in connection with the dry boreholes. I know of cases where £5 a day was paid but nothing but dry, waterless holes were obtained. I know of one case where a man had two strips of ground and had to sell one of them to pay for the dry boreholes. I think the Minister ought to go into this and see if he cannot assist the people.

Speaking on the question of the policy of irrigation in this country, I think that the irrigation policy of the Minister of Irrigation is certainly on a sound basis, when he introduces, or is to introduce, the principle of a subsidy. We find that irrigation in this country cannot do with anything else than a subsidy. The subsidy has been introduced in most countries in the world, and it is time that we in South Africa introduced the subsidy also. At the same time, while we are introducing a subsidy, and while the subsidy is certainly a very sound principle, we must look to the future. We are dependent upon the revenue of the mines to a very great extent. The mines, however, are not going to last for all time, and we must look to new schemes. We must look to our perennial or our permanent rivers, to the Orange River and particularly to the Vaal River. Prosperity in this country does not depend upon systematic spoon feeding of tens of thousands of people behind closed doors. It depends upon immigration and irrigation to a large extent. Progress depends upon a strong and virile agricultural population, and I am afraid that we have not got that strong and virile population to-day. What we want are people from the Nordic countries and sandwich them with our own people to the advantage of both races. We can never invite people to come to this country while we have not got suitable land or cheap land and while we have got no water. I contend that the best of the propositions in this country to-day have not yet been touched. I have noticed, and I bring it again to the attention of the Minister, that we have got examples of irrigation schemes on paper that have been drawn np by technical men. Those technical men are very efficient, but we find that most of the schemes are in three colours, in green, yellow and red. The green indicates good soil, the yellow is poor soil, and the red is unsuitable soil. But the green, which is good soil, we find in very small patches, and the soils which predominate are red and yellow. Certain soils are lacking in certain directions, but experience has shown that if they are irrigated with water heavily loaded with silt they become valuable in a very few years. I know a man at the Sundays River Irrigation Settlement who finds that after a single watering his furrows are coated with a deposit of silt six inches in depth. On the Orange and Vaal Rivers you get even better deposits of silt. We want irrigation schemes on our permanent rivers, and we also need smaller schemes costing, for a barrage alone, from £5,000 to £10,000. If the Minister constructed schemes of this size also instead of large schemes costing £2,500,000 it would be very much cheaper and sounder in the long run. Very often these large schemes, the barrage alone of which involves the expenditure of about £800,000, are unpayable from the very start. These immense barrages look like enormous battleships in dry dock, and when the river comes down the general experience is that either they are washed away or, in the course of years, they become silted up. I dare say that in 30 or 40 years’ time some of our big barrages will be rendered useless owing to the enormous accumulation of silt which is deposited when the rivers come down. The Minister will never regret constructing schemes along the banks of our never-failing rivers like the Vaal and the Orange, and I am convinced that after our present experience of unpayable irrigation schemes the payable schemes of the future will be found on the Vaal River, and the sooner this is realised the better.

I would like to ask a few questions about the Irrigation Department. The first is with regard to the surveys which were made between Hopetown and Prieska on both sides of the river, and at about the level of Douglas. Has that survey been completed, and has a report been made on it? There are many diggers that are having a hard time on the diggings, they want to get away from there, and they are watching this survey in case work should be started. The second question is in connection with the policy of the present Minister about boring. His predecessor mentioned a little while ago a scheme to make a concession in cases where the boring was unsuccessful, where the holes were half or entirely dry. There are people along the Langberge who have to farm, and they are not rich people. They would very much like to know what the position is going to be. My third question is about the distribution of bores There is a great demand for them, and when I go to my constituency I am asked about their distribution. I do not know how man; bores there are in the country, and I would also like to know whether the Minister follow a definite system in distributing the borest various parts of the country. If not, then want to suggest that the country should be divided into various areas, and that the bore should be distributed according to areas, so that everybody can have a chance.

I was talking to Sundays River owner the other day about the properties on the Sundays River, and I said “You will not see these silt up in our lift time.” He replied: “You will find out i 25 years.” The best proposition came from my hon. friend over there when he talked about soil erosion. I hope the Minister will tackle this problem, otherwise all our schemes with be useless. It is one of the biggest problem we have to face. I want to speak on the losses on boring. I am not at all concerne about the losses, provided we help those farmer with what I call intensive dry farming. Take some of the millions lost on irrigation and spend it on intensive dry farming, and I believe you are going to solve the very serious probler in the country to-day. I asked a question little while ago about boring losses, and suggested a subsidy with a maximum proviso. Since then I have received a letter from the Uni Water Boor Kontrakteurs Vereniging, which states—

Why cannot the Government subsidise then private contractors? You know exactly what you are going to lose, and if you lose less than you are losing now, more bore-holes can be drilled.

I would like to ask then Minister whether he still intends shortly I have a survey made of the Loskop scheme I do not know whether the Minister his been there himself, but I can assure him this it is one of the most attractive places is the Union.

Hear, hear.

Yes, the hon. member can ironically say “hear, hear,” but it is a far that it is one of the most attractive places the Union, because even during the war Lon Milner’s eye fell on that scheme. Practical during the war he had a survey made, because he saw at once that it was the best plan for a dam. That dam is now on the programme, and we are looking forward to the survey of it. I want to invite the Minister to come out and see it for a few days, and then he will have the same opinion that Lord Milner had. Then I want to ask the Minister if he will not reconsider the Blood River scheme. The Minister rejected it last year, but he was then possibly a little new in office, but if he would now come and look at the Blood River scheme he would certainly reconsider it. Then there is the Roos-Senekal scheme where the best people in the whole of the Union live, they are a group of the old voortrekkers, and they brought very serious complaints to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture when he went there. The Minister promised to lay the matter before the Minister of Irrigation, but he probably never delivered the message. I want quite seriously to invite the Minister to come and see for himself. I will take him round and when he returns he will certainly see that it is necessary to attack those schemes, and to meet the objections.

I have heard a number of rumours and reports about intended irrigation development on the East coast, and I should like the Minister to give us some information on the subject. We have had very little attention paid to the irrigation possibilities of the East coast. A very large part of the amount of this vote is spent on the Administration of money advanced on irrigation works. We have written off millions on irrigation schemes, chiefly in the Cape, and I think it is time attention was given to where rivers perennially exist, and where irrigation would be a success. We have a river for every six miles of coast in Natal and Zululand, and we also have the second important industry in the Union, which could increase its yield enormously by means of irrigation, if irrigation is possible. We have no data as to whether irrigation is possible or not, and we have no expert in the department who is able to advise on the matter in connection with this industry. I have suggested that one of the experts of the department is to be sent to Hawaii, or Java, or some other cane growing place to get information as to what can be done.

I do not want to object to it, but in the past much money has been lent to irrigation boards to build large dams with the result that large losses have been suffered, and to-day large writings off are requested. The matter is being dealt with by the Select Committee on Irrigation, and I do not, therefore, want to go into that now, but I just want to ask the Minister to consider whether the time has not come to give more attention to the starting of irrigation schemes by the State in the interests of the inhabitants as a whole, and in that connection I want particularly to draw attention to the middle northwest. We have heard about perennial rivers like the Orange River and the Vaal River, but in my constituency there is also a perpetually running river where with a few embankments much water could be collected and conserved to be used by the inhabitants in dry times. I am thinking of Aspoort. I would like to know what has become of the enquiry at Aspoort. We have a narrow poort there where with the expenditure of a comparatively small sum, it would be possible to go a fairly large conservation dam, from which in dry times a large surface area below the dam could be irrigated. The Aspoort water comes from the cold Bokveld where the rainfall is higher still than in Cape town. The rainfall in some parts there is from 40 to 50 inches a year. There is still another advantage in the scheme; the ground below Aspoort can be bought to-day at à low price. I think that the Government will be able to buy the ground below the dam which they would have to build there at an insignificant price in comparison with farms along other rivers. In addition there are also in my district the Visrivier, the Rietrivier, and the Tankwa, but I want to-night especially to stress the Aspoort scheme and also to urge the Government to consider whether the time has not come to build such schemes with comparatively small sums, £100,000, or at any rate a few hundred thousand pounds, rather than to establish the settler who can buy land under section 11 of the Land Settlement Act, or in some other way, while the Government retains control over the whole scheme. In this way the speculators will be kept out. In the past we have often seen the speculators making great profits in respect of such ground. If the Government builds a dam itself, buys the ground, and keeps control of it, it can be held for the benefit of the bona fide settler, who is prepared to develop a small piece of land, and who can make a living out of it. I want to emphasise this, and especially to point out the need in my constituency where the people are very long-suffering and patient, but deserve special consideration.

I would like the Minister to state clearly whether he agrees to the system of subsidies in connection with private boring. I thought legislation would be introduced to provide for it, but now I understand it can be done by way of regulations. I think it would be a good thing if the Minister explained the exact position I see here that there has been a loss of £60,000 on boring, and this notwithstanding the fact that more is paid for Government bores than for private ones. I cannot understand it. I think it is a good policy to give subsidies for private boring. It is a matter which is constantly being debated in this House. With regard to subsidies for irrigation works, I hope the Minister will take this opportunity of clearly telling us what his policy is in connection with irrigation works. In the past we have had to write off millions on irrigation works. I think it would be a sound policy for the Government to leave it to the farmers to build the dams, and to give them a subsidy for them instead of subsequently having to write off money on the works. I know of an irrigation work in Somerset East which cost £47,000, and all except £3,000 has been written off. I am certain that if farmers had built that dam and if they could not have got the money from the Land Bank, but if it were done privately with Government help, that they would have built it for a few thousand pounds.

Is that the dam at Blyderivier

Yes.

Under what Government was it built?

It was built by the S.A.P. Government, but it is not a party matter with me. With me it is a matter of wasting money, and I do not want us to go on in the same way. As the Government has to write off, I think it would be better to pay a subsidy to the farmers who want to build dams rather than subsequently to lose millions. Under the present system we have got a few large dams in the country, but we require dams everywhere large and small. Everywhere where there is a suitable place for a dam one ought to be built. If the subsidy system is adopted then private people will build the dam, and contribute the largest shale of the capital, so that more dams will be built in the country.

I have already made a statement with regard to the policy of the Government about subsidies. It is the intention of the Government instead of subsequently writing off to fix the amount which shall be recoverable from the irrigators on the irrigation works, and the rest of the expense of such a work will be allowed by way of subsidy

Does that apply to small and large works?

To all works, excluding those which are started by individuals. We have not yet gone into that question. The hon. member also referred on a previous occasion to the irrigation work at Blyderivier. I think the position was that the persons concerned had their own engineer. They had the work in their own hands, but the position was that the Government engineers subsequently had to complete the work. The department was not responsible for that mistake, but the engineer who was appointed the irrigators was.

Whom did they get the money from?

From the Government, but that makes no difference. The question here is, as the hon. member says, that the higher cost was the fault of the department. I only want to show that it was not the fault of the department, but that of their own engineer.

The embankment once washed away.

Yes, the example chosen by the hon. member was certainly not a good one. With regard to the subsidy for boring, I will make a statement shortly. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) asked me a question about the survey at Aspoort. I may tell him that a further survey was made recently and there were also certain observations in the air, but much more information is required, especially in connection with the nature and quality of the ground. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) mentioned the survey at Loskop, Bloedriver, and Roos-Senekal. As for the Olifants River valley, a start has already been made with a small work, but the Irrigation Commission thinks that we ought first to see how irrigation answers there, and what the result is before we go further. I am therefore not prepared to go on immediately with that work. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) spoke of the irrigation works at Hopetown and Prieska. It will still be necessary, first of all, to get additional information before anything can be done. I have already dealt with the question of bores, so that I need not repeat myself. With regard to the increase of the number of bores, hon. members know the system we work on, viz., where a number of persons in a certain district apply, a bore is sent as soon as possible, but owing to the number of bores we have, and the applications that are made it is not always possible to comply with the demands as quickly as we would like to. I may add that I have given instructions to send a bore to dry areas, even if no application has been made, because it has been pointed out that when the farmers see the work of a bore, they will apply for them. We will now, as an experiment, send a few bores to dry districts. The hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Verster) referred to the Lindleypoort scheme. The hon. member knows that the Irrigation Commission went there, but unfortunately their report was not favourable, so that for the present we cannot go on with it. The hon. member also spoke about dry boreholes. Provision will be made for this in the regulations I hope to publish shortly. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) and other hon. members spoke about the co-ordination of the three departments concerned, viz., Lands, Agriculture and Irrigation, especially in relation to the payment of the money by irrigators. Provision will be made for the payment in future through the Land Bank. Provision will also be made to make it possible for the Land Bank to give loans in connection with bores, so that farmers who want to bore on their farm can get advances. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom suggested that surveys should also be made of all rivers suitable for irrigation in the northern Transvaal. These are all matters which the department will go into. With regard to what an hon. member said about the system of people being sent for preliminary surveys, viz., that it is a wrong system because it arouses a hope among the farmers and they are then disappointed if the dam is not built, I want to say that if we are to assume that such a preliminary enquiry raises hopes with the farmers, then it is possibly better to have no preliminary investigation made. It will possibly be better to confine ourselves to a definite scheme and only when they are complete to start with other schemes. I shall then have to ask hon. members to be patient until such schemes have been completed. The hon. member for Boshoff (Mr. van Rensburg) asked if we would not go on with the large schemes. We shall not be able to do so in the immediate future. It will possibly take a few years more before we could attack such a scheme. It is impossible at the moment because there is not sufficient information available about the scheme. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Sauer) suggested that we should only go on with the smaller irrigation works. It will not be possible to confine ourselves only to the, small schemes, but they will, of course, also be considered. The points mentioned by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Wentzel) have already been dealt with.

†The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) has dealt with the question of co-ordination between the various departments, and asked what the Irrigation Commission has been doing. It has its hands very full indeed in investigating existing schemes, and reporting to this House in order to enable it to place them on a proper footing; and as soon as these enquiries have been completed the commission will be able to give its attention to other matters which require its attention. The hon. member asked whether we are increasing the number of our oil machines. I may say we are transforming, as far as we can, the machines working by steam to oil machines; the number of steam machines is decreasing and of oil machines increasing. The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Baines) asked me for an explanation of the increase in reconnaissance surveys. This is not a special investigation, but is with a view to accelerating in regard to the building of schemes, and we thought it necessary to increase that party by two. The necessary schemes will thereby be expedited. The hon. member asked whether there are enough boring machines. Well, of course, we can do with more, but the hon. member will know we are building these machines in our own workshops at Pretoria, and they are South African. Although I have been approached on several occasions by private manufacturers, it has been found where we have embarked on building our own machines they are much more serviceable than any others built in South Africa. We though it better to proceed on those lines rather than having machines built outside. The hon. member also spoke with regard to the coordination of the various departments. They are working in close co-operation, and possibly we may even do something more in that direction in future. The hon. member has enquired with regard to the judgment recently delivered. The effect of that judgment is to affect upper existing works against lower works, which may be built later, and it is just a question as to whether that is a desirable position. If I am not mistaken there is some provision to that effect in the proposed Irrigation Bill. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) has dealt generally with the schemes, and pointed to the flourishing condition of certain schemes in Natal. He has referred to the Muden Citrus Estates, which certainly can be taken as an example of what can be done in the way of irrigation. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has dealt with the question of the silting up of various schemes, but that matter is closely connected with the investigations of the committee upstairs, and I do not think I can deal with that now. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) has suggested that we should give more attention to perennial rivers. To a very large extent I agree with him. As to what is to be done in the future the hon. member had better wait until we see what the loan estimates produce. One small scheme of £25,000 on the Umkuzi River has been authorized as a minor work, and it is expected that no, subsidy will be required. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys) has dealt with some points which I think have been covered by what I have already said. I do not think I need deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz). The hon. member takes up an attitude which is typical, namely that he is there to cross-examine. I do not think it is the duty of any hon. member to cross-examine Ministers. We are here for discussion, and not for cross-examination of one another. I may say that the item relating to the Hartebeestepoort Dam is entirely in connection with the maintenance of the works. If the hon. member had turned up the details of the vote, he would have seen that there is the payment of the engineer and water bailiffs in connection with the distribution of the water and collection of rates, and that it has nothing to do with land settlements or labour settlements.

Vote put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee to-morrow.