as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts (on Controller and Auditor-General’s Report, etc.).

Report and evidence to be printed and considered on 21st May.

as chairman, brought up the fourth report of the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements, as follows—

Unless notice of objection is given on or before Tuesday, 20th May, the report will be considered as adopted.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the select committees mentioned, viz.—

I move—

I do not think it is necessary to say anything on this motion. We have now got to the stage when it is advisable to take this step.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

I wish to congratulate the Minister on the way he managed to get the Bill through committee yesterday afternoon in the absence of the few people who had endeavoured to show an interest in the Bill at the previous stage. I plead guilty to having been absent, because I had been asked to meet somebody in the Lobby on the business of the House. I would have liked to discuss Section 17, in the hopes, even now, that instead of the Minister making the drastic change he intends making, there might have been some modification of that of the provisions of the Act of 1920, operating in two ways. That clause was not only one to inspire confidence in the public, but limited the further issue of notes, and that is what the Minister has rather overlooked. He has laid great stress on the fact that he will leave the security for the note issue very sound, but he has not dealt with the other point. I want to emphasize both points. The Minister said there was not only the 40%, but there were the assets of the bank. I will not question that for a moment. The charge is the only asset when the question of limiting security comes into force. I do not need to stress that point, and there is room for difference of opinion. What I am more concerned about is that the provisions laid down in the Act of 1920 were very efficient and were great safeguards against an over-issue of notes, quite apart from the mere security, and now we have that the 40% is the only safeguard as to the limit which may be imposed on the bank in regard to the issue of notes. I am not prepared, at this stage, to suggest amendments to the Bill, or move amendments to the clause, but I am not much moved by the precedent which the Minister has quoted with regard to banks in certain European countries, where the principle of the 40% has been adopted. After looking over the list, which the Minister kindly allowed me to do, I see that while one or two are on a purely 40% gold security, there are quite a number in which there were diverse conditions of security in addition to the 40%. I do not wish to go into that, but I hope the Minister will not yield hereafter, and not let himself into any idea of weakening the provisions he has made in the Bill on either of these two important aspects. These two points are the protection of the public with regard to the note issue, in the matter of security, and in regard to the limit imposed upon the bank as to the number of notes which the bank can issue. The serious trouble in 1920 will be remembered, and I do hope that the Minister will not allow the position to be weakened still further, no matter what precedents there may be.

In view of some of the remarks which fell from the Minister at a previous sitting I want very briefly to express my own hopes that the provisions of the Bill will be applied and carried out in a broad and generous manner, and that neither the Minister nor those who are responsible for the bank note issue will be deterred from carrying out the provisions of the Bill in a generous manner by any criticism that has been, or may be, offered. The difference between some of my hon. friends on the South African party benches and myself is that they are extremists and theorists on the subject of banking, and I am moderate and practical. They view with alarm and suspicion any of the operations of the reserve bank. I realize that however far we fall short of the principle of the State bank it is necessary to do something under the circumstances which now exist. I believe that it is as well to emphasize also the fact that the views that are continuously being expressed by some of our friends on this side of the House with regard to the bank of issue engaging in ordinary banking business are obsolete. An authority such as Dr. Vissering, who is not an advocate of a State bank, but who has made a study of these matters, in reporting to the Minister made the following statement. He said—

and Dr. Vissering continued—

I think that when an authority such as Dr. Vissering shows clearly that the view still generally accepted in South Africa that the reserve bank may not compete with other banks is quite obsolete, neither the Minister nor anyone endowed with authority as to giving effect to the provisions of this Bill should be deterred from giving effect to them. Under the Banking Act as it exists at present the bank of issue has the power, by raising its rate of interest, to restrict a policy of inflation, but unless the bank of issue has the power to engage in ordinary banking business it has not the reverse power to restrict deflation. If it is really to regulate and control the credit of the country it must exercise the power of embarking as far as is necessary on ordinary banking business. There is the other aspect that by that competition, by taking away a certain amount of business from ordinary private banks, it will force the ordinary private banks, in order that they may make a profit, to seek for other business, and in that way it will prevent them from carrying out a policy of deflation. It is necessary that the reserve bank should have this power, and it is necessary in the interests of the agricultural and industrial development of South Africa that that power should be exercised. I hope therefore that what I have said will be borne in mind, and that the bank of issue, although not embarking, as I would like it to embark, on all ordinary banking business, yet that the bank of issue will give effect to the principles of this Bill, and thereby will embark to some extent on that business for the protection of the public.

I am glad to see that the hon. member for Troyville (Mr. Kentridge) agrees that if the reserve bank, as a bank of issue, is to answer the purpose for which it was created it is not expected that the bank should do all kinds of banking business when it thinks it necessary and advisable in the public interest, in order to produce the desired effect on the monetary system of the country, to take the necessary powers to do that business. To attain this we are now giving these powers, as proposed in this Bill, to the bank. In the past the powers of the bank were so circumscribed that it was not able to do that business. In future, however, the bank will have the power to do certain banking business when it thinks it necessary in the public interest, as Dr. Vissering has shown, according to the quotation the hon. member made. With regard to the objection of the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) in connection with the cover for the note issue, I have already admitted that it is a particularly important alteration, but I cannot in the least agree with him that it is in the slightest degree a dangerous development, and a dangerous relaxation of the cover for note issue. We have not gone further than ordinary precaution. The hon. member is not entitled to say that it is a dangerous weakening of the security for note issue. I have shown the hon. member a list of other countries where similar provision is made for the cover of note issue, and the position is that the necessary position is either the same as we are making here, or much less. I repeat that when the Banking Act was passed were were ultra-conservative. Since then we have had more experience, and, like most countries, we have felt that it is not necessary to have a hundred per cent, special cover. We still say that the 40 per cent, gold cover must be maintained, but with regard to the special cover of commercial paper, the provision is removed, and we laid down that other securities and other assets can also serve as cover. The hon. member and the country need not in the least be afraid that we are abandoning a policy of carefulness. The hon. member fears that the Bill will lead to an over-issue of notes. But he is afraid of inflation. But inflation has nothing to do with the over-issue of notes. Credit can be given without there being an issue of notes. The banks simply increase the credit accounts of their clients. At any rate it was always possible for the bank to get commercial paper abroad as necessary cover when it wanted to issue more notes.

Why then was the provision made in 1920?

Circumstances were then entirely different. There was not a central body then with the special capacity of merely issuing notes. We had quite a number of banks that issued notes at discretion. Now, however, we have a special body which has a monopoly of issuing notes, and which, at the same time, has special instructions to protect the credit of the country. That is an entirely different position, and I therefore think that my friend is quite unnecessarily afraid that we are careless in making this amendment which we consider necessary in the interests of the country.

What is the cover of the Reichsbank.

The cover of the Reichsbank is also less than ours. As I have already said, we looked into the investigations of the financial committee of the League of Nations over which Sir Henry Strakosch presided, who was the inventor of this bank, and he is of opinion that it is apparently not dangerous to make such an amendment, because the advice that that committee gave to the central banks in Europe was not to retain the cover that we had here.

Circumstances are different there.

No, circumstances were not different, and we must remember that the object of that committee of the League of Nations was to create a sound financial position in those countries. Other countries are invited to assist those undertakings, and they would not have made the recommendations if they thought that the system of issuing notes was dangerous.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Hon. members will see that it is only a technical alteration.

Agreed to.

Clauses, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clauses 2 and 3,

On the motion of the Minister of Railways and Harbours certain amendments were made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clauses as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

On the motion of the Minister of Railways and Harbours an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments, which were considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move—

objected.

You may have noticed that I have an amendment on the order paper for this clause. I trust that the Minister will look at it very carefully before he refuses it. Perhaps I may point out that I propose to insert in line 11, after the word “trees” the words “or plants from which any commercial tanning material is obtained.” The hon. the Minister yesterday explained that the object of this Bill was to assist the wattle growers of the Union in overcoming certain abuses, certain corrupt practices, which have crept in in the disposal of their products by an admixture of inferior bark. The powers which the Minister proposes to take under this Bill are very wide. He has cast his net very wide to assist the wattle growers, but he takes power to deal autocratically with other trees than wattle trees. I feel that an amendment of the nature I propose will give ample powers to the Minister, not only to deal with wattle bark itself, but with trees or plants which can be mixed in and brought under this clause, so that the Minister can deal with them firmly. I hope that the Minister will give effect to the natural feeling of hesitation on the part of this House to at one stroke bring the whole of the forest industry of the Union Under the scope of this amendment to the Act. I would call attention to the old clause. When we asked the Minister on the occasion of the second reading why he took such wide powers, he said in his reply that he might want them by and bye. When we asked him in what direction or for what purpose he wanted the required powers, he was silent. I think he should tell us frankly what use he proposes to make of them, and how he proposes to apply them in the future. He read out Clause 11 of the old Act as justification for taking these sweeping powers. He said that the Governor-General may from time to time by proclamation prohibit the exportation from the Union without special permission of the Minister at any time of forest products specified in the Act. He then read out the different powers and described the conditions under which wood and other forest products shall be felled and collected, and other conditions which shall be observed as a condition precedent to the grant of such permission. It is quite sound to have the power to prohibit the export of forest products. We do not object to it, but to take further powers in regard to controlling sale, removal, etc. of all timber is quite a different thing. The Minister is taking enormously increased powers. We want to assist him in every respect, but not to give him absolute control of timber products in the Union in the way suggested in the Bill. I move—

It is the desire of all of us to help not only the wattle industry, but the forest industry as a whole. It is an industry which is growing considerably. I would remind the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) and other hon. members who are opposed to the wide powers proposed to be given to the Minister, of the enormous losses, running into millions sterling, caused by the havoc wrought among the eucalyptus trees by snout beetle. That damage, at the very least, runs into £4,000,000 or £5,000,000.

Deal with the snout beetle under the Riotous Assemblies Act.

This is a serious matter. Tens of thousands of eucalyptus trees have to be cut down before they reach maturity, otherwise they would have been killed as a result of the depredations of the snout beetle. On the other hand, if the Minister had the powers he is now asking for, he could have prohibited the removal of bark which contains the eggs of the beetle and thus held the disease in check, until we could have imported from Australia the snout beetle’s natural enemy. South Africa is a land of surprises, and we never know what new disease may assail it. The present Minister of Agriculture is not going to occupy his post for ever, and his successor may be the hon. members for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) or Griqualand. The proposed fine of £100 is out of all proportion to the immense damage that may be done by anyone breaking the regulations, and, in my opinion, the maximum fine should be increased from £100 to £500. I move—

The hon. member (Mr. Deane) says he hopes we will support the Bill because it is in the general interest, but I am opposing it on the ground that it is not in the interests of any industry to hand it over, lock, stock and barrel, to the charge of a single Minister. The hon. member has referred to insect pests, but they are adequately dealt with under the insect diseases law. The Minister wants to stop certain abuses, and to that extent we are prepared to assist him. Let me remind the Minister of what took place the other day, when we were discussing the Government’s competition with private transport. It may very easily happen that the Government may wish to curtail private timber competition, and we have had this precedent of curtailing motor competition with the railways. Under the Bill, the Government would have the right to curtail private competition with them in the matter of timber. We are prepared to assist the Minister to the full in regard to the abuse which has grown up in the wattle industry, but to borrow the metaphor used by our leader the other day, why should we take a steam hammer to kill a fly?

I wish to support the views advanced by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) bases the whole of his argument in support of the Bill on the wattle industry. There is a very strong feeling on both sides of the House against this continued legislation to give the widest autocratic powers to the Minister. Now, we have a new discovery—that the Bill is justified by the ravages of the snout beetle. Why should the responsibility for the whole of these autocratic powers be placed on the snout beetle? The Minister should go step by step, and when he can prove that there is a case for giving him wider powers, then the House will consider it. The order may be based on inadequate information; it may be information which cannot be checked at all, and without the man being given the least opportunity of showing why the order should not be made, he may have serious damage done to him. The curse of all this legislation is that whenever we have asked for these powers someone finds a reason why they should be given.

Surely you do not want adulteration.

No; I have supported the amendment to prevent this adulteration in wattle. Let the Minister see that the case made out by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) for his amendment is a reasonable one. We have objections to giving unlimited power to the Minister on information with which he alone may deal. I support the limitation moved by the hon. member for Griqualand.

I would like to point out to the hon. member behind me that the Agricultural Pests Act gives the Minister power to deal with timber of any kind, so we do not need that in the Bill at all. The fewer Bills a Government brings forward the better. I do not say the Bill is unnecessary, but that it is unnecessarily wide. The Minister is not only taking powers through the Governor-General, but he takes power to override his own proclamation. He alone can do it. [Clause read.] It shows he may give himself special dispensation, and surely that is going too far. The proclamation may be set at nought at the mere whim of the Minister. Let us keep to the object the Minister set out to achieve—to clean up the wattle bark industry—but to hand over the entire timber-growing industry to the Minister is giving him arbitrary powers, and going too far.

Let me say at once that my department has now for years been administering the Forests Act and has gone into the matter very carefully, and thinks that this alteration is necessary. Circumstances may arise which we do not now foresee. It may be necessary to take immediate action so that there will be no time to come to Parliament. The objection which has been raised here is one that we have heard recently in connection with nearly every Bill. It is said that the Minister will abuse the powers entrusted to him, and that too much power is being given to Ministers. When did all that take place? Can hon. members mention a case where Ministers have abused their powers? We are responsible people, and we know that we are responsible to Parliament. If a Minister abused his powers, then this House would very quickly bring him to account. Why then always bring up this objection that the Ministers are being given too much power, and that they abuse it? The difficulty has at present arisen in connection with the sale of bark. In future it may arise in another direction. It may occur that there is difficulty in connection with the sale of seeds. Silver wattle seed may possibly be sold for black wattle. The Minister must consequently have extended powers, so that he can take steps in such a contingency. I am very glad that the people who represent the industry, the people of Natal—and I must say that Natal represents 50 to 60 per cent, of the business—have not in a single instance said that they thought that I was taking too much power. Why then must hon. members make so many objections to it? The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) goes further, and says that it is not only necessary to protect the industry, but the weak provision must be made stronger. I feel there is a good deal in what he says. The person who sells bark fraudulently possibly makes a profit of about £3,000 to £4,000, and he does not mind paying a fine of £100. If the committee therefore is in favour of such a proposal, I am quite prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

I am surprised at the attitude of the Minister. The fine of £500 advocated by the amendment may possibly be just in the case of a person who sells wattle bark fraudulently, but it will not only apply to such a contravention, it will also apply to indefinite and unknown contraventions of proclamations which the Minister may issue, and which we have not yet seen, and which will not only refer to wattle bark. The Minister may possibly issue a proclamation in connection with blue gum trees, and we shall then be liable to a minimum fine of £500.

No, that is the maximum.

Yes, it is the maximum, but why so severe? It makes my objections stronger against the Bill. If we knew that the fine of £500 would only be inflicted for certain contraventions of an abuse in connection with wattle bark, it might pass, but we are also going to make this fine applicable in the case of proclamations which the Minister may issue in future, and we do not know how far those proclamations will go. I think such a provision goes much too far. Listening to the Minister, it seems to me that we may just as well abolish Parliament if we are to honour his views. The Minister asks why we do not trust him, and whether he has ever yet abused his powers.

Then move to abolish the department.

No, I say that if we adopt the Minister’s argument we might just as well do away with Parliament. The Minister’s attitude is that we must give the power to him, and trust him. He wants us to give him a blank cheque. These are modern tendencies of Ministers, and if we go on in that way then it would be unnecessary for this Parliament to meet. The Minister says that he is responsible to the people, and is a responsible person. He, however, forgets that we also are responsible to the public. I deplore this tendency which is to be seen in Ministers lately. Yesterday we had the farce here of a Minister saying that we did not have the right to cross-examine him.

One may not even say anything about his South African party, or else you have to pay £500.

I see the hon. member is speaking from the depths of his heart, and I sympathize with him. In any case, I hope the Minister will certainly not accept the amendment.

Yes, I will accept it.

Well, if the Minister accepts the amendment then I move—

I think we are making a joke of this House if we are going to accept suggestions such as these, and if we are going to allow a fine up to £500 to be imposed. What is the offence? A kaffir woman may move a bundle of firewood, and she will be liable to a fine of £500. I do not like the tone the Minister has adopted when he says: “Why don’t the Natal people speak?” We don’t object to the wattle industry binding itself hand and foot to the Minister if the wattle industry likes to do so, but we do object to the Minister applying these drastic provisions to the whole of the forest industry. When the colleagues of the Minister bring forward Bills we find them reasonable, and willing to accept moderate amendments, but the Minister of Agriculture will never listen to reason. At one time the Minister poses as an agricultural expert. To-day he is becoming am agricultural autocrat. I do not know where it is going to end. He takes up the attitude of an agricultural Mussolini. If he progresses far along this road, I think we shall eventually find his waxen image in the chamber of horrors. Many notable persons have been handed down to fame in that chamber. I think he is acting in a manner that is foreign to freedom-loving South Africa. Why apply this drastic legislation on the instalment system? Why not pass a Riotous Assemblies Act and provide for the deportation of all agricultural farmers who differ from the Minister? That is where we are getting to. These sort of regulations are not being applied to commerce and industry, and why does the Minister want to dictate to the farmer how he must pack, how he must ship, and how he must grow? There is nothing left to the farmer in the way of independent action.

What about butter?

But for having to address the Chair, I should be glad to answer my hon. friend. I daresay I have planted more forest trees than he has planted, excluding wattles. I am opposed to the general trend of legislation introduced by the Minister, and I am opposed to the rights and liberties of the farmer being taken away. I think it is time this House took up a firm stand against this “Mussolinism” of the Minister of Agriculture. If the Minister wants to control an industry he should confine himself to it, and not throw his net so wide as he is doing to-day, when he is taking in the whole of the forest industry. I know I am asking a very big thing indeed in requesting the Minister of Agriculture to be reasonable, but still, I am hopeful. I suggest that the Minister should meet us, and confine this provision to the wattle industry. I do hope we are not going to have the House made a laughing stock of by providing for a fine of £500 for an offence under this Act. That is going far too far altogether.

It is strange that hon. members opposite who know the least about afforestation talk the most about it. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) accuses the Minister of taking too large powers to protect a big industry, but when the Minister takes drastic powers to protect the hon. member’s industry, then he is a good Minister. Now, however, the Minister is called an autocrat if he does the same in the case of a different industry. I agree that drastic steps are necessary. The hon. member must not forget that we spend hundreds of thousands of pounds every year on afforestation, and that millions of pounds are already invested in our forests. It may be that a plague may unexpectedly break out during a parliamentary recess, and it will therefore not be possible to give the Minister the necessary powers. In such a case the Minister ought to be able to act, and if he does not do so, then the hon. member for Griqualand will be the first to accuse the Minister of negligence. The Minister is obliged to ask for these powers, and hon. members on this side will stand by him whatever the Opposition may say.

I think that is no argument to bring up in this House. Let the dairy industry manage its own affairs, but do not let the whole forest industry of the Union be the tail of the comet with the bright star of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) shining over the land.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) said that this Bill was to protect the percentage of tan in the wattle bark exported overseas. That is all that interests me. Insect pests can be controlled by the proper means, but if you want to guarantee the percentage of tan in wattle bark for export, that does not necessitate a forest Act. I think that a little amendment in the Act would serve the purpose.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Gilson put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Deane put and agreed to.

We want a statement from the Minister as to the position, and I do ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) to withdraw from the very ridiculous attitude he has taken up.

The hon. member does not understand the position. We are dealing with an industry that runs into millions, and a £100 fine for the offence of shipping blue wattle bark as black wattle bark is a trifling matter. They would pay it and do it every time. Surely the hon. member must be reasonable. It can be left to the courts as to the fine to be inflicted. When the bark arrives in Europe, there is no end of litigation in regard to arbitration. This would be a deterrent and put an end to it. I hope the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) will agree to this.

I appeal to hon. members to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz).

I would like to ask what happened to my amendment.

The hon. member did not bring it up.

May I ask whether the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) appeared on the paper. I heard you read my amendment clearly to the House, and I am surprised to find it has not been put.

I specially asked the hon. member to write out his amendment.

I started to write it out, but you put it to the House, showing that you understood it. Had you told me at the time, “If you do not put this in black and white, I cannot put it to the House,” I would have written it out.

It can still be put.

I understand the mover of the original amendment accepted it.

Yes, I did.

If this amendment is accepted there will be only a penalty in respect of wattle bark, and the real culprit, that is the man who has palmed off silver bark on the public, escapes scot free. This will really nullify the whole Bill. I am sorry that the Minister has so readily accepted £500 as a penalty, but it has been passed by the committee, and, after all, it is only the maximum penalty. I think it must be a very drastic case, and a case deserving of the severest condemnation in which the court will inflict the utmost penalty. In these circumstances, I think the penalty seems out of proportion to the generality of cases which will come up, and I ask the hon. member not to press his amendment. He can leave the matter there, and leave it to the good sense of the law courts to temper the fierceness of the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane).

I thought it was obvious that my amendment was meant to stultify the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane). I quite realize how lob-sided it would make the law, and I was rather surprised that the hon. member at the back (Mr. Deane) accepted it. I will withdraw the amendment. The hon. Minister of Justice asked me why I was hot and bothered about the amendment. It is because of the misunderstanding as to the amendment being put.

With leave of committee, amendment withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 2 and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment; to be considered on 19th May.

With regard to an account which appears in the newspapers regarding an arrangement that has been come to between the South African Iron and Steel Corporation, and the Union Steel Corporation, I should be glad if the Minister could make a statement to clear up the position, and tell the House exactly what has happened, and whether such an arrangement has been made or not.

I have been struck, during the last few days, by the fact that although the Board of Trade and Industries has drawn up numerous reports advocating increases of protective duties on practically every article that the man in the street in South Africa consumes, such as matches, wheat, sugar, boots, clothing—in fact it would be almost impossible to go into a shop in Adderley Street and not find something on which there has not been an increase of duty this session—none of these reports is available for public consumption. Nobody can see these reports, or read them, except members of this House, who can get them from the Clerk of the Papers. We can get a single copy of a report which is in the office of the Clerk of the Papers, to look at, but the public cannot. We can get a copy of a report, but not to publish, and therefore we cannot indicate to the outside public the reason for these duties of a most important and far-reaching nature which are proposed in these reports. I will outline the process which goes on. An industry seeking further protection, and every industry wants more, applies to the Board of Trade, which is composed almost entirely, if not in its entirety, of high protectionists. They apply ex parte in camera to this Board of Trade, and having obtained, as most industries do obtain, a favourable verdict towards their trade, it goes to a high protectionist Government, and to a high protectionist House, and right through the whole process there is never anybody to put the other side of the picture. These applications are made ex parte, almost in secret, and finally, when the report is made in which a particular duty is imposed, that report is placed with the Clerk of the Papers. Very often the Government comes forward with fiscal proposals in relation to a particular trade, even before the report is available to the members of this House. It has happened more than once this session. The Minister of Finance has got up and laid certain proposals on the table, and when we asked to see the report we find that it has not yet been translated, and therefore it is not yet laid on the table and not yet available to members of the public. Perhaps it would be too expensive to print every report of the Board of Trade, but when we have a report of major importance advocating an increase of duty, which will inflict an additional burden on the consumer, surely the press of this country, and the people of this country interested in this taxation, should have the opportunity of seeing it. One of the reports advocates a very heavy increase in duty on ready-made clothing. Another advocates a duty of 3s. 6d. per pair on certain classes of shoes. I should be ruled out of order if 1’ dealt with the merits or demerits of the proposal now, but I shall have the opportunity to do so later. It is elementary that the public outside should have the right to know what are the facts, the arguments, and the representations on which these recommendations are based. We read that manufacturers can come forward to the board and lay certain representations before them. They state the difficulties under which they are labouring. They accuse people outside the country of unfair competition and of dumping. Take the case of matches. They say that the Government of Soviet Russia is, in fact, dumping matches in this country, although they cannot prove it. The public at large should surely have access to these reports. Evidence is laid before the Board of Trade in secret, and is laid before this House practically in secret, and the other side of the case can never be presented. Supposing the manufacturers tell a lying story to the Board of Trade. I assume that the board would do its best to get at the real truth. Supposing the manufacturers of any particular industry did state a lying, or a partial, case before the Board of Trade. If the Board of Trade’s findings and the summary of the evidence before it, were actually before the public, it is possible that people would be able to come along and say, “You have been misled. The facts put to you are untrue, or biased, or based upon wrong information.” But that never happens. I suggest to the acting Minister of Mines that whenever important fiscal changes are based on the recommendations of the Board of Trade, the report of the board should be available to the outside public.

They are.

Can any responsible member of the public or representative of the press go to the Minister’s office and say they would like to see the reports of the Board of Trade?

These reports are laid on the table of the House and they remain the property of the House, but in all cases where important changes are made and any responsible person, or body, asks to no allowed to see the report, I say “Certainly.”

I understand the rules of the House debar a member giving to the press anything laid on the table that is not printed.

But the Government can.

Can I show the report on the match industry to the press?

I gave authority for the publication of the report on the sugar industry. There is no objection to any of these reports being given to the press.

In the case of important changes the report should be printed, as the commercial world is greatly interested. For instance, why should not the report on readymade clothing be printed and circulated to the country at large? I know the very last thing the Minister wants to do is to do things in a hole-and-corner way. The case for increased duties may be good or bad, but the public do not know the reasons for these changes. The Government is committed to a protectionist policy, and from its own point of view it would be good business to publish the evidence on which changes in duties are made.

The question of printing these reports is one of expense. In order to get publicity for them they are given to the press. I think a rule might be made that every report should be given to the press.

The Minister says that members have the right to these documents.

I never said so.

What did you say then?

I said that when a report is laid on the table an hon. member can copy it, and the Government may give it to the press.

Standing Order No. 278 is as follows—

What right has the Minister to commit a breach of privilege? The Minister has just confessed that he has the right to give the press the privilege of publishing these reports, when the rule distinctly says he cannot do it. Is a Minister not in the same position as an ordinary member? I ask the chairman’s ruling whether the Minister has not committed a breach of privilege.

No, certainly not, but the Minister can give any papers to the press.

If he does that is he not committing a breach of Rule 278? The ruling I want is whether a Minister is not under the same obligation as an ordinary member of the House?

A Minister can give papers in his possession to the press at any time.

In order to discuss the Government’s policy towards the gold mining industry I move—

To-day the mining industry is the one bright spot in South Africa. There is universal depression in other industries and in other branches of mining, such as diamond mining, as the result of the world-wide depression, but the gold mining industry continues to plough its way steadily along, steadily month after month it turns out £3,000,000 worth of gold and spends in the country roughly £2,500,000, which helps to keep South Africa going in this time of depression. Therefore, the gold mining industry deserves to receive every consideration. The reason that that industry is in this position is that gold has a standard value, thanks to the adoption of a gold standard by all the civilized countries of the world. If it were not for that the position might be otherwise. We have seen recently how the fall in copper has affected prices in the copper industry and ruined a number of copper mines. The gold industry is not in that position. Gold can be sold only for the price at which it is being sold by the gold mines to-day. It has been mooted that we might do what the diamond mines do, and sell the produce at a higher price from time to time, or put an export duty on gold. It is said, since gold is the standard of the world and on account of industrial expansion and the need for an expansion of credit, there seems to be a shortage of it, and it might be thought that it would mean an enhanced value of the product. People argue, if there is to-day such a demand for it, why continue to sell it at 85s. as we have done in the past? The reason for this is a very simple one; when we sell gold we do so to exchange it for another product—the pound sterling— which is based on gold, so when selling gold, we either exchange our product for another product which is also gold and has the same value, or for credit, notes or other forms of credit which are based on gold, and therefore exchange gold for gold, and we cannot get more than 85s. In fact, what we do when we coin gold into sovereigns is to take a definite amount of gold, put a stamp upon it, and in the name of the King say that it contains so much gold. For that reason we cannot raise its price above 85s. an ounce. In the case of diamonds, when you raise the price from time to time, we are selling diamonds for gold; if we were to sell them for other diamonds or currency based on other diamonds, we could not raise their price. It has also been pointed out that in 1919, after the war, we sold our gold at an enhanced price, at a premium, when there was a demand for it; and it is asked, why should we not do so now? In a case like that, might I point out, we were not selling gold for gold, but for other currencies; the currency of Great Britain at that time was not gold, nor was it in South Africa at the time; we were buying paper with our gold, and that paper had depreciated. We could then get a premium of over 30 per cent. As deflation set in prices dropped, and the premium disappeared; gold assumed its normal value. I trust the Government will not be led astray by any idea that we are able to sell our gold at a premium again, or put an export duty on it. The most important element in respect of our gold industry is the supply of native labour. It is always necessary to add to it to keep the industry at its full capacity, and to make the profits it ought to earn. It may be thought that if the normal requirements of a mine are about 5,000 natives to enable it to work to its full capacity, little injury would be done to it by a reduction of 10 per cent, of that labour supply, and that the profits would fall by only 10 per cent. That is a pure fallacy, and is merely an abuse of arithmetic. The facts are quite different. The case was put before the Low Grade Mines Commission in 1920, and in the case of the Village Deep it was proved that if 60,000 tons was the capacity per month, they would be making normal profits with a labour supply of about 4,500 natives. If the native labour supply dropped, so that the tonnage was 50,000, the profits of the mine would disappear entirely, and it would be able just to meet expenses. Below 50,000 tons, and a smaller native labour supply, there would be a loss. For a comparatively small number of natives, not amounting to 10 per cent, of the complement, the whole of the profits of the mine could be won, and it would make all the difference between working at a loss or at a profit if the supply increased from 90 per cent, to the normal of 100 per cent. That shows the necessity of keeping up the labour supply at all times. The Government, a few months ago, appointed a departmental committee consisting of officers of the Mines Department and of the Native Department, and this was to enquire particularly into the adequacy of the native labour supply of the mines. It is stated that in the meantime this committee has reported to the Government, and what I would like to ask the Minister is whether this is correct and whether the Government intends to publish this report, which will be of the greatest interest to the mining community. If the Minister is not able to do so, is he able to make it accessible in any other form, or inform the House what its contents are, and further, whether he or the Government proposes to accept any of the recommendations of the report. Will he inform us what they are? I assure him this is a matter which is regarded with the greatest interest by the mining industry, and it would welcome a statement from him on this point. Generally, I invite the Minister to make a statement with regard to the native labour supply, and if he is unable to do so, the Minister of Native Affairs might be able to supplement his statement. What is required is a reassuring statement with regard to this; there is a general uneasiness about it. At the present moment the industry has a sufficient supply of native labour, because the natives of our own territories have been coming in. They are coming in in much larger numbers than ever before, since February. It is the usual season of the accession of numbers from our territories; the number is unusually large at the present time, and the labour supply on the Witwatersrand is adequate. But in course of time towards the end of the year, it is likely as usual that the supplies from this source will be diminished, and then we shall be looking round anxiously again for other natives to supply their places. The number of Portuguese natives is to be diminished under the Portuguese treaty, and this shortfall has to be made up from other sources. There are various restrictions against recruiting in other territories, and the question is whether the restriction regarding tropical natives might not be removed. The medical reasons which caused this regulation to be enforced no longer exist. Medical opinion is that the fear of pneumonia which led to this restriction does not exist any longer, and this medical opinion is of such standing that it carries the support of the medical profession anywhere in the world. There are also sundry other restrictions on the recruitment of natives in other territories, and I invite the Minister generally to make a reassuring statement with regard to the policy of the Government in this respect. The next point I would like to direct the attention of the Minister to is that the expansion of mining on the Witwatersrand. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), when I moved for an enquiry into low grade mining, said that he would have favoured the motion if it had been one asking for an enquiry into the expansion of mining generally. I give him now an opportunity of supporting that. The expansion of mining on the Witwatersrand is still possible. The Government has, for the last 10 or 15 years, had large areas to dispose of in the way of mining leases. Many of these have been leased, and many of them have turned out successful mines. In the central Rand there are very few areas which remain to be leased, and we cannot look for expansion to any considerable extent in this locality. On the far east Rand there are still several farms which offer possibilities; I refer to farms in the neighbourhood of the Nigel Mines, and northwards in the neighbourhood of Springs. The position at the moment is that these areas are not particularly attractive, but they have their possibilities, and it may be that if proper encouragement were given mines might be developed on them, and prove payable. People with capital should be encouraged more than is possible at the present moment under the Mining Leases Act and the mining laws. The way in which mining titles can be claimed to-day is threefold as far as the Witwatersrand is concerned. In the first place, the holder of mineral rights of a farm not yet worked can take out a mynpacht, which is one-fifth of a farm. In the second place, the Government can lease the whole of the remainder of the farm, when proclaimed, to the owner of the mynpacht, or any other party which may come forward with sufficient capital, on such conditions as may be agreed upon, after tenders have been called for, or by private treaty. The third method is by public pegging. Claims are pegged out in blocks of 50, and then are amalgamated. The policy of throwing areas open to public peggiing on the Witwatersrand has been abandoned for many years. The only two forms of acquiring title are the mynpacht and the leasing of ground by the Government. To encourage the holder of mineral rights to explore his ground, in certain cases, where the indications are not too favourable, there is provision under the present law, the law of 1918, which provides that the owner of the mineral rights of a farm can, when pegging out his mynpacht, apply to the Government for an additional area. The idea is that where the mynpacht is small, by this additional area he will obtain an area large enough to constitute a mining proposition, the whole object being that the great risk accompanying such a mining venture will be diminished by spreading the risk over a larger area. It will be obvious that where the gold is distributed in patches—what we technically call “shoots” or streaks—which only form a portion of the area, you require a larger area than usual. It may be that only 50 per cent, of the area contains payable reef, or it may be only 30 per cent., and therefore a considerably larger area is required to furnish the tonnage such as would be needed for a mining proposition. The exploration of the ground on the far east Rand is expensive, and unless carefully undertaken, very large losses may be incurred. In the case of the first Daggafontein company, they spent enormous amounts of money, many hundreds of thousands of pounds, and they did not, as a result of two shafts and subsequent exploration, locate a payable mine. Thus the whole of that money was practically lost. After an experience like that, other people with money to invest are chary of undertaking a similar risk. What is required is that we should give a little more encouragement than there is under the present Mining Leases Act. The two points I should like the Minister to turn his attention to are these: that, in the first place, where the Act at present says that where the holder of mineral rights takes out his mynpacht, he shall then apply for the additional area and demarcate it before he undertakes any exploratory work, should be modified. The holder of mineral rights should be allowed to explore the ground first, and then to indicate that he requires his mynpacht and his additional area in such and such a position, so that he can locate his areas in a better position than by going blindfold. The risk is too great to ask these people to incur when they go blindly into it. They want a certain amount of latitude which present conditions do not allow. It is true that the additional area gave the holder of mineral rights quite a fair scope. If he has 1,000 claims he can apply for another 2,000 and ultimately get 3,000 claims. The grant of this additional area is bound up with the consideration that the share of profits to the Government is laid down in a schedule in the Act; a schedule which was based on the scale of profits paid by the Government Gold Mining Areas, one of the richest propositions on the far east Rand. This was made obligatory on the Government; that is to apply this scale to the additional areas. It is true the Act says if the Government sees fit, a lower scale can be adopted than under this schedule and the Minister can agree to it, but he has to come to Parliament for approval. This approval is the one thing that, unfortunately, stands in the way. It will be appreciated that no Minister is likely to come to this House for such a small matter as the alteration of the scale and be harassed here in the usual way. It is not a thing he likes to do. It would be better if the law were amended to make the situation easier, so that the matter could be decided by the Minister without coming to this House. The safeguard, in every instance, is that the Minister acts on the advice of the Mining Leases Board, constituted of several head officials of the Government, and the board goes into the matter very thoroughly with the Mines Department and the owner of the mineral rights, and after going into the matter so carefully, there is little fear that the Government would agree to a scale which was not satisfactory.

Would it not make the Minister too autocratic?

I will ask the Minister to consider whether it might not be advisable to encourage capital by this means. I have spoken of the possibility of the far east Rand. I would like to say that elsewhere there are also possibilities. The continuation of the main reef eastwards is well known to-day. It gets thinner and thinner as it goes on, and broken in parts, and partly buried under other formations, and nobody has ever located a payable mine on these areas in the Heidelberg district. That does not prove that a payable mine will never be located in that district, and if ample opportunity were given to capital to investigate this matter on a large scale, with sufficient reward to be provided by an alteration of the law, it may be possible that payable mines will be found. The gold runs in patches, and perhaps only requires exploration on a large scale to find payable mines in this area. That is the position in the eastern extension. Now the main line of reef runs east and west. Its western continuation has not yet been definitely proved. After Randfontein the reef is faulted and disappears, and nothing has been found beyond. The Witwatersrand formation becomes buried under a younger formation, a banket several thousand feet thick, and discovery is very difficult; when you have to search for a lost reef under a banket 2,000 feet thick, the location is not simple. It means a lot of boring which may mean the loss of all the money and capital involved. The position at the eastern end is different; the reef is poor and more patchy, but on the west the formation is still very strong where it ends against the fault. Where it leaves off at Randfontein the reef is of promising value, and If the continuation is found in this area it is quite likely that it would be payable, and that payable mines might be located in this district. I suggest that here the encouragement of capital to come forward might be similar to that indicated in the case of the east Rand, so as to minimize the risk which it would run. I would like to know whether the Minister is prepared to go into the question of amending the law. I do not expect any more from him, but the amendments might be a matter for investigation during the recess. I notice there is an amount of £3,000 towards New Kleinfontein. I presume this is carrying into effect the policy of the Minister to assist the mines in accordance with paragraph 71 of the commission on the New Kleinfontein mine. One section of paragraph 71 reads—

What I would like to know from the Minister, and what is not clearly expressed, is if the mine, after incurring a loss for three months and then getting reimbursement from the Government, continues for another three months, making a profit during that period, and thereafter again sustains a loss, is it the intention of the Government to continue paying for any period of loss? I would like the Minister to inform us on that point. I may point out, incidentally, that this sum of £3,000 is welcome, but it is only a drop in the ocean. I have, on a previous occasion, indicated that in indirect revenue the Government receives on account of the working of the New Kleinfontein mine probably no less than £100,000 per annum. The mine does not pay that. Other people pay it in some form or other. It is due to the fact that the New Kleinfontein mine spends £600,000 per annum in producing its gold, and the expenditure of that money leads to this indirect revenue of £100,000. If by the loss of the mine, or the shutting down of the mine, £100,000 were lost to the state per annum, the mere return of £3,000 seems woefully inadequate. I should like to refer to the question of the Low Grade Mines Commission, which the hon. Minister indicated some time ago was going to be appointed. I should like to ask whether this is going to be constituted at an early date? I suggest that the matter is of considerable urgency, and I should like to ask the Minister to inform the House what he proposes to do, when this committee will he started, and what its possible constitution may be? I should like to warn the Minister on one point. It has been stated in this House that the industry has not asked for any enquiry into the low grade mines. I do not want to go into the low grade mines discussion over again, which we had a little while ago. I would draw attention to the fact that the mining Houses are not very much interested in low grade mining. There is no profit in low grade mines, and there are no dividends to be got from them, and the low grade mines, if they were there, would only divert native labour, which is always scarce, from the profit-earning mines, or the mines from which dividends can be earned, to other mines from which little or no dividend can be expected. Therefore, I think that the leaders of the industry may be absolved if they are not too enthusiastic upon this question. But the whole of the rest of the community is most vitally interested. Everybody else depends on the Witwatersrand and very largely the country relies not so much upon the amount of the dividends that are paid, but on the money which is distributed by the mines. It does not make any difference to them whether a mine is paying or not. The money is distributed whether a mine makes profits or not. The New Kleinfontein mine spends £600,000 per annum in producing its gold. If it makes a profit of £100,000 or £200,000, the extra revenue would be welcome to the shareholders, but the rest of the country depends upon the £600,000, which is actually spent in wages to native and to white people and in stores. The spending of that money is of importance to all the other people who are not the leaders of the mining industry. It is the duty of the state, as representing all those people, to step into the breach, and institute this enquiry and formulate some scheme of relief, if possible. I should like to say this on behalf of the leaders of the mining industry. I am sure that any measures devised to continue low grade mining or to enable the mining of low grade ore, will be heartily supported by them. I am sure that they are as patriotic as anybody else in this respect and would like to assist the Government and the community to the best of their ability. Finally, I should like to refer to a remark made by a member of the recent mining congress. I refer to a remark made by the Canadian delegate when he decried the attitude of the Government towards mining in South Africa. His statement was to the effect that it seemed to him that possibly this was the most highly mineralized country in the world. But he would not care to put any money into this country, because he said that once you had opened up a payable mine, the Government stepped in and took the cream of everything and left little or nothing for the unfortunate owners of the mine. I think that it is an overstatement of the case. But it does indicate when a stranger comes to our shores, that he finds that the mining industry does not receive that sympathetic attention from our Government that is its due. He apparently thinks, and many other visitors think, that the mining industry should be looked after more sympathetically, and should be regarded as one of our own industries rather than as a stranger industry. The Minister of Mines especially should behave like any other Minister, like the Minister of Agriculture, for instance, and take mining under his wing, and foster it as much as possible. As my text I plead for a more sympathetic attitude towards the mining industry. I would like to instance how the mining industry is indifferently treated by the railways. I give as an example in this respect that mining machinery is carried at a rate which is 60 per cent, higher than similar machinery is carried for the agricultural industry. Differentiation is made in favour of the agricultural industry as against the mining industry. That does not conduce towards cheap mining or to the expansion of mining on the Witwatersrand. I think that attitude might be changed. I would in particular like to indicate that the mining industry to-day on the Witwatersrand is not a foreign industry. It is true that there is a large amount of foreign capital still invested in it, but the people who control the business and manage it very largely, are our own people and our own sons. It is our own people who are working the mines. They are not strangers. It is in every respect a home industry, an industry that is ours, an industry of which the members of the mining congress expressed the greatest admiration. It is a branch of the mining industry which has won the admiration of the whole world, and of which we can be well proud. I, therefore, once more press for a more sympathetic regard towards this industry. I have indicated the various points upon which I would like the hon. Minister to make some pronouncement. I now ask him to inform the House on those points.

The hon. member who has just sat down has pleaded for consideration for the mining companies. I plead for consideration for the mine workers. I am very diffident in moving a reduction of the Minister’s salary in his absence, and particularly in his absence the cause of which we so much deplore. Nevertheless, it is my duty, in the interests of my constituents, to move—

in order to discuss the policy of the department in connection with the issue of the recently-issued mining regulations. Now, these regulations are of very great importance to the whole of the country, inasmuch as they provoke a clash in the sentiments and traditions of the people on the coloured question. In the north we have distinct desires for a social and economic colour bar. In the Cape Province there is a different outlook, and the coloured problem is so enmeshed with the whole fabric of life here that the competition of the coloured man is really unnoticed. Speaking for myself and for my constituents, I say that we accept the position and the opinions in the north on this point, and, although we have nothing to do with what happens in the Cape, we resent any suggestion of Cape ideals being transformed to the north, or the question of equality between colour being brought about such as exists in the Cape at the present time. It is for this reason that the men on the Witwatersrand are very bitterly disappointed by these regulations. The mine workers fondly hoped the regulations would stabilize the position of the white worker, but the regulations are so altered that the colour bar has entirely disappeared, and the European, who looked to the Government to protect him, will be keenly disappointed. In order to put the matter fairly before the House it is necessary to mention a little ancient history inasmuch as during the period when mining was carried on under the late Boer republic, and some years subsequently we had what was considered to be a legal colour bar which provided that all skilled work on the mines should be done entirely by white workers. These regulations were first contravened during the great war, it may be said by mutual consent, as many of the mine employees enlisted, and natives were brought in to do such work as drill-sharpening and kindred trades. Shortly after the termination of the war, the South African Industrial Federation made what is known as a status quo agreement with the Chamber of Mines to ensure that there should be no further encroachment by natives or coloured men in work previously regarded as exclusive to Europeans. The strike of 1922 was one of the efforts of the Chamber of Mines to abrogate this agreement, although the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), the then Prime Minister, several times during the strike denied that there was any intention of abolishing the colour bar regulations. The strike was won by the mines, who adopted the policy that might is right, and proceeded to employ as many natives as possible. I know of an instance in which a mine manager re-employed a number of white drill-sharpeners, but had to replace them by natives on a peremptory order from his head office. All this time a colour bar was presumed to be in existence, and the Government was blamed for not enforcing it. However, a bombshell broke in 1923 when a mine manager on the west Rand was prosecuted under the regulations for employing a native to drive a locomotive, and was convicted by a magistrate. On appeal to the higher court, the regulations were ruled to be ultra vires on the ground that the Government had no power to make regulations discriminating between different races. This decision left the Chamber of Mines complete masters of the situation, and men who had lost their jobs—and others who feared that they would be treated similarly—commenced an agitation for an amendment of the law. That agitation played a big part in the 1924 election, On the present Government coming into power, the then Minister of Mines and Industries promised to introduce a Bill to restore the colour bar and protect white workers. Incidentally I may remark there would be no need for a colour bar if the mine workers were efficiently organized and could demand wage agreements as in other industries. The present Government brought in a Bill in 1925 to amend the Mines and Works Act, power being sought amongst other things to restrict particular work to certain persons, and to apportion particular work as between classes and persons. To the lay mind these provisions were perfectly explicit, and the mine workers felt that their position would be secured. It will be remembered that there was a tremendous controversy in the House, and we had an all-night sitting on the Bill before it passed through this House only, however, to be rejected by the Senate. Eventually, the Bill was passed at a joint sitting. That was nearly four years ago, and the regulations to make the Act effective have just been promulgated. Now, apparently, it is found that only amendments dealing with matters of safety and health can legally be enforced, for the apportionment of work—the crux of the whole question—has been loft untouched, and one wonders why, if this was all that could be done, the Government was prepared to spend so much time and money in doing it. The new regulations do not improve the position of the white worker, but make it much worse. There is no stipulation that natives may not do work they are now performing, but there is an open invitation to the mines to employ more coloured men, because the regulations place coloured men on the same level as Europeans in every sphere of mining activity. Formerly it was provided that all the responsible positions on a mine had to be filled by Europeans. The amended regulations, however, stipulate that these positions in future are limited to so-colled “scheduled persons,” and may be Europeans, Cape coloured, Cape Malays, Mauritian creoles or St. Helena persons.

Do you object to that?

I do, very much.

Do you speak for the Labour party?

I speak for myself.

The Labour party no longer exists.

None of these jobs reserved for this select group have ever before been performed by other than Europeans, so the change is entirely to the disadvantage of the whites, and a gesture of goodwill and invitation to the coloured people I have mentioned. It is now the law of the land that any position on a mine from a manager to a banksman may be held by a coloured man who may have the direction of Europeans and be responsible for their work and safety—an entire reversal of the previous order of things. It has always been contended as evidence of the necessity for a colour bar that white men are essential in charge of mine workings in case of threatening or sudden accidents, so that the natives would take their instructions from someone in whose judgment they had confidence. This position would be entirely altered with coloured shift bosses, for whom the natives would have little respect, while to ask white men to work under coloured bosses would promptly lead to serious trouble. As an underground competitor with the white man the coloured man may not be a serious factor, for it is unlikely that many could pass the present severe physical test, but they are now offered opportunities previously denied them, and they may wish to take advantage of them. In justice to the mines, it is only fair to say that up to the present they have not shown much inclination to recruit coloured labour, but this is no guarantee of what they might do, nor will it allay the disappointment that legislation which was expected to protect the white worker has actually increased the competition of the coloured man and the native, and the European will, in future, find it still harder to maintain his standard of living in face of this new competition. What I want to ask the Minister is: is the Government satisfied with the position, or is it going to take some other action? Is some other action not mentioned in the regulations contemplated? We understood that the delay in promulgating the regulations was due to an understanding that the mines would not employ more natives on skilled work, and that there would be no further encroachment made on whites by the natives. Is that understanding still to be maintained, and, if it is, I would tell the Minister that the white workers are not satisfied, and they want to know whether the Government is going to do anything to win back the position retained by them as before the great war—that all skilled work is to be done by the white worker. If there is no understanding between the Government and the mines, are we to conclude that the mines are to become a law unto themselves, and I would like the Government and the committee to realize what an impossible position this would bring about from the labour standpoint, and the consequences might be very serious. We have numerous white boys apprenticed throughout the country with a view to subsequently taking employment on the mines, and they are only wasting their time if, when they come out of their apprenticeships, they find their job handed over to natives, which is quite possible under the present regulations. Then we have the case of private firms which are doing work for the mines, and who are paying wages which are fixed by industrial agreements, but the mining companies can, under these regulations, take this work away and do it with coloured and native labour, and as these subsidiary companies could not compete, a large number of European artizans would be thrown out of employment. The mines are doing very well just now, and, as a quid pro quo for the right to mine the state’s minerals, should be compelled if they are unwilling to employ as many Europeans as possible. At the present time there are no fewer than 40,000 natives employed on surface work of the mines, and quite a number are doing work which is really skilled work, and was formerly performed by Europeans. What is the Minister going to do to rectify this position? No one knows better than he does that the disastrous strike of 1922 was brought about to enforce the claim of the white man to a monopoly of skilled work on the mines, and the men have been expecting these regulations to satisfactorily settle this question. Instead of doing this the regulations affirm that the attitude of the men in the strike was not worthy of support. If the Government does not do something to rectify this matter, it is looking for very serious trouble, because the men on the Witwatersrand do not want this position to continue, and, if it does, there will sooner or later be another eruption.

Are you inciting them?

The men must protect themselves, and, although in the time of industrial peace many of them have foolishly neglected their trade organizations, I strongly advise them to awake and organize, for they will get little help from the Government if the regulations are a reflection of its policy. Having ventilated my objections to the regulations, with the consent of the House, I now wish to withdraw my amendment.

I should like to associate myself with the views of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) with regard to mining regulations. We notice in chapter I of the regulations under the interpretation of words—

In regulation 143, chapter 13, it is further provided that houses must be available where white persons, when they have finished working, or when they start work, can change their clothes. According to the new regulations, coloured persons will now also have the right of dressing themselves in the same place as the Europeans, and also to go in the same bath with the Europeans. For that reason I want to enter my protest as well, on behalf of the European miners of the Witwatersrand, because it is a thing we have never yet heard of, and we object to coloured people having the right to make use of those amenities to which Europeans alone have, up to the present, been entitled. I want to point out that the coloured people to-day are employed on work in the mine which they could not do before, e.g., carpentering for safety purposes. I want to call the attention of the Minister and the House to the fact that since the Crown mines test case in 1923 the number of accidents in the mines has now gone up from 3,300 to 7,634. That was in 1928, and we have not yet got the figures for 1929 and 1930, which will probably be still larger. The figures that I have quoted are to be found in the annual report of the Government mining engineer. That is the direct consequence of the employment of coloured persons to take safety measures. I say that it is scandalous that such work is given to coloured persons; work on which the lives of Europeans, coloured persons and natives are dependent. The regulations, too, are not an improvement, in my opinion, but they are worse than the old regulations, and it is intolerable for the Europeans on the Witwatersrand. In this respect nothing counts with me except the interests of the Europeans who work in the mine, and I ask where is the promise that the Transvaal should remain white, if we go so far as to give coloured persons the right to dress together with Europeans, and to bathe with them. We even go so far as to put the lives of the Europeans in the hands of the coloured people by allowing them to take the safety measures. I think it is the greatest duty of the Minister of Mines and Industries to see that the regulations should be cancelled, and that an amendment should be made. During the election it was stated that these conditions would result from the new regulations, and when I saw it in the Government Gazette I could hardly believe my eyes.

The hon. member cannot discuss the rights of coloured people now, because it is laid down under the Act, and cannot be changed except by fresh legislation.

I am only discussing the mining regulations, and I think I am entitled to say what evils are arising out of them.

The hon. member can discuss the regulations insofar as they can be altered by the existing Act, but no more.

I should like the Minister to tell me where an alteration in the law is necessary, and where not, but it is certain that something must be done about the regulations. The position is intolerable for the Europeans, and they cannot, and will not, stand it, and I agree with them in their attitude. I have indicated how their social surroundings are being demoralized by coloured persons being allowed to dress themselves and bathe with the Europeans. Their lives are even endangered by the fact that coloured shift-bosses can be appointed, and that coloured people may have to look after the safety of the mine.

I want again to point out that those are matters which are laid down by law, and the hon. member cannot therefore discuss it.

I will, of course, submit to your ruling, but I only just wanted to point out that I protest against such a state of affairs. I hope the Minister will alter the regulations, unless I have read them wrongly, but I do not think I have. Then I would like to ask the Minister what has become of the promise which was given to the silicotics and unemployed on the Rand in connection with the new iron and steel industry. Those people were promised that they would be the first to get work there, especially the silicotics. I understand that the first contract which was accepted to do the preliminary work was done by coloured people. Let me say that it is a terrible disappointment to those people to see that that promise is not being carried out, and that the work is now being done by natives. I understand that the board which controls that business have such large powers that they can use native labour without asking the Government. I want the Government, where possible, to see that that is prevented, and that the promise to the silicotics and unemployed is kept. The position of the silicotics on the Rand is scandalous, and it is sad to see how they have to starve, and the only hope that they have of getting work is now being taken away from them by the very bad position in connection with the iron and steel industry. [Time limit.]

Some very important points have been dealt with, and I would like to reply to some of them before they accumulate. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) is not in his seat, but the question he asks is of such general importance that I will reply to it. The hon. member wanted to know what the agreement was between the South African Iron and Steel Corporation, and the Union Steel Corporation of Vereeniging. The arrangement arrived at between these two corporations comes down to this, that the share capital of the Vereeniging concern is reduced to 6s. 8d. in the £. A new issue of 250,000 8 per cent, cumulative, participating, preference shares will be made, of which the South African. Iron and Steel Corporation will subscribe half, and the other half will be subscribed by an investment company. For its share in this agreement the South African Iron and Steel Corporation retains the controlling interest in the Vereeniging concern. The result will be that the future of Vereeniging is assured, and the future of Newcastle is also assured. Newcastle is part and parcel of the Vereeniging concern. Experts have gone into the question very closely, and have come to the conclusion that by this introduction of £200,000 or £250,000 of new capital, the whole concern will be put on a sound basis, so that we can confidently state that the future of Newcastle and Vereeniging has been assured as a result of this contract. This new arrangement will in no way interfere with the future of Pretoria Pretoria will possibly be on a slightly larger scale than was contemplated in the German report, the reason being that our imports since that date have increased to such an extent that even with Vereeniging and Newcastle working to full capacity, and with the Pretoria plant slightly larger, we shall satisfy less than a third of the requirements of the Union. The placing of Vereeniging in a sound position will also have the result that the tube works of Messrs. Stewarts & Lloyds at Vereeniging will be able to obtain the necessary steel at the contract prices agreed on. So that that subsidiary industry at Vereeniging will share the benefit of the arrangement come to between the Vereeniging concern and the South African Iron and Steel Corporation. The South African concern obtain complete control of the Vereeniging concern.

See where you are getting to.

I am surprised to hear this from the hon. member, considering the wail that we listened to from him that we were going to kill Vereeniging. Vereeniging will run itself, but we will so co-ordinate the activities of the two that waste will be eliminiated.

made an interjection.

We are quite satisfied in giving the hon. member this assurance, that his opinion of the value of the assets can hardly compare with the opinion of the experts who have gone into the value of the works.

Who are the experts?

Would the hon. member like their qualifications as well? I can give the hon. member a list of the consulting engineers of the board, most of whom have been engaged on this particular work. Their names are very well-known throughout the iron and steel industry. At one stage hon. members were wailing on account of Vereeniging. Now that the future of Vereeniging is assured, they are not satisfied. There is no satisfying some people. Vereeniging’s difficulty is now, it requires assistance at this stage before there has been any competition from Pretoria. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kolzé) dealt with some very important points indeed. He raised the question of native labour. It seems that this question as affecting mines is chiefly one affecting low grade propositions. I am not prepared to suggest that the Government is prepared to intervene on behalf of other than low grade propositions so far as labour is concerned. So far as those low grade propositions are concerned which the hon. member dealt with very fully on another occasion, before we can express an opinion, much less lay down a policy, we should await the report of the Low Grade Mines Commission about to be appointed. Very shortly we hope to appoint a commission on which the Chamber of Mines will be represented, and the rest of the personnel of which will, I am sure, command the approval of the public at large and of everybody connected with the low grade mines.

Can you tell us the names?

When this commission is appointed we will announce the full personnel. The hon. member for Springs will realize that on the question of our treatment of New Kleinfontein our whole acceptance of that report shows that any report from such a commission will receive sympathetic consideration. As regards the three, monthly period, it is the intention of the Government to assist the mine along the lines provided for in the estimates, whether or not there has been an intervening period of profit. Assistance will be forthcoming for a subsequent period of loss following after a period of profit.

made an interjection.

The hon. member has not read the report. The commission consisting of the Government mining engineer, Mr. Roberts, and another gentleman representing the mine, agreed that this was the way to assist the mine. If Mr. Roberts does not know what the mining industry wants, if is a very sad state of affairs. I think it should be a pleasant shock to some hon. members if the House agrees to this £3,000. The hon. member for Springs put a question in connection with the inter departmental committee. I am sorry it is not possible to give him access to the report, and it cannot be made available to any hon. member outside the Government, but insofar as the native labour position is concerned, the Low Grade Mines Commission will go into that position. Any reports it makes will be entitled to respect. In regard to amendments of existing legislation, this is certainly a matter the Minister of Mines and Industries will consider. Apart from the features mentioned by the hon. member, there are others which may call for amendments of this legislation. In the same way as we had to consolidate the diamond laws in the various provinces, we shall have to consider consolidating the gold laws of the various provinces, and these amendments would approximate to the amendments suggested by the hon. member. The hon. member referred to a painful incident during the visit of certain overseas visitors—the remarks of a Canadian. That Canadian delegate, I believe, stood alone in the expression of opinion, and I think I may say everyone would agree that the remarks were in the worst possible taste. The hon. gentleman raised the general plea for more sympathetic treatment of the mining industry. Is the hon. member suggesting that the mining industry is receiving from this Government less sympathetic treatment than it received from the former Government? If this has been the state of things for the last 15 years, I can only say that all these drastic changes suggested by the hon. member in regard to railway rates are questions we shall have to go into very carefully. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) raised a burning question on the Rand at the present moment, but largely based on a misunderstanding. The colour bar Act passed by this House does not make a distinction between white and colony. It merely safeguards the position of the mine workers as regards the natives. That is the present state of legislation, and ever since 1923 the miners have had no protection at all against the native—the mines, if they so please, could hand over all the skilled work on the mines to natives, and in that respect the mine worker on the Rand is to-day in an infinitely better position than before the Act, because that danger has definitely been eliminated. He certainly cannot do that under these regulations. If the hon. member will study these regulations he will find that certificates of a very extensive character are provided for, and under these certificates it will be quite impossible for any native to do the skilled work which the white man does.

There are dozens of skilled jobs which are not certificated.

That can be gone into. These regulations have been framed after the fullest consultation with everybody concerned. I do not suggest they are perfect, but if it is found necessary in future, further amendment can be considered. As regards the position of coloured people and others that have been mentioned, we have laid down a certain principle in the Act. I am quite certain that, although the mines may legally be entitled to supplant white men by coloured men, in the interests of the business of the mines themselves, they will not be prepared to do so. I am quite certain that the mines, so far, have not availed themselves of this position, and they have no intention of doing so. If hon. members know of any departure from the existing practice, the department will be always pleased to hear of the details of any such departure, because the Government, whatever the legal position may be, is interested in seeing that the good relationship between employer and employee, which has been a feature of the last two years, will be maintained. If there are any cases in which the practice followed hitherto has been departed from, I am certain that the department will be pleased to have such details.

What do you mean by “hitherto”?

Ever since we passed the colour bar Act a certain state of affairs has obtained. I am quite certain that no mine manager in his senses, whatever the legal position, will see to it that there is only one change house. No mine manager who does not want to precipitate a strike will see to it that there is only one change house for whites and coloureds. I do not think that the legal position under these regulations need be overemphasized. We have the actual position, and I am certain that the mines will have the good sense to see that that actual position is maintained.

What guarantee have we of their sense?

There was no safeguard before, even as regards the natives, until we passed the colour bar Act, and since then there were no regulations to prevent it, but the mines have definitely prevented it. We have a law which creates a certain position at the present time and the regulations have not added one iota to the rights of the coloured man, neither have they taken away from the rights of the white man. The regulations express what is set out in the law and what has been the legal position for the past four years.

Does the Minister admit that these regulations do not improve the position of the white man?

They leave it exactly where it was before the colour bar Act. The Act laid down the principle which this House, in a joint sitting, accepted. That is the present legal position. It is no use blaming the regulations. The regulations cannot go beyond what the Act permits. In any case, I am certain that with the present state of our industrial legislation it would be quite impossible to take a coloured man and employ him at lower wages to fill the position which a white man is occupying. That is out of the question.

It has been done.

If the hon. member will draw the attention of the Mine Workers’ Union and of the department to such cases, we shall see what can be done. I am certain that the mines would not think of introducing such a policy in their own interests.

I will get some cases.

The hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) dealt with an extremely important matter, and the answer to that question at the same time includes an answer to much that was said on the opposite side when the Iron and Steel Industry Act was passed. He asked how it came about that the first contract in connection with the levelling of the ground for the iron and steel factory was not given to Europeans but to natives. The reply is that although the Department of Labour did its utmost to induce the board and the contractors to employ white labour, we were not successful. The Government was, and is to-day still, prepared to pay any reasonable difference under the “Labour” vote between what natives would receive and the cost for using white persons for the work. Because, however, the board is absolutely independent and the big contractors do not usually show very much sympathy towards the employment of white labour, we did not succeed in persuading the contractors to use white labour. The Minister of Labour did his utmost. Then the hon. member quoted figures in connection with accidents. Fortunately the hon. member was wrong, because the accidents in the mines have dropped from the percentage of 2.63 to 2.29 per thousand. As for accidents, the hon. member is apparently correct, because the total number has risen, and was larger last year, but it includes kinds of accidents which were never reported in previous years, and in reality the number of accidents was less in 1929 than in 1928.

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

I am glad that the hon. Minister has replied in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin). It is undoubtedly a matter which is causing very serious concern.

On a point of order, I just want to point out that the figures given in the year book contradict the Minister’s statement.

This is undoubtedly a matter which is causing very serious concern. I feel that I am satisfied that the hon. Minister and the Government will, so far as the Act, is concerned, carry it out strictly. The hon. member for Boksburg must not forget that we have all been parties to the colour bar Act. We passed that Act with our eyes open, and provided under it that the coloured man should be placed in the same position as the European. We argued that we were giving a charter to the coloured man of South Africa, It is not much good at this stage, seeing that we were responsible for the Act, to raise the question now, because I realize that the regulations can only be carried out in terms of the Act. I hope the Minister will see that if a coloured man applies for an appointment on the Rand, the same rigid medical examination through which the white employee must go, shall be applied to the coloured man. I think the application of a medical examination is going to be a very important safeguard and security to the white miners on the Witwatersrand. I think that the other direction in respect of which the Minister and the Government should take care and give safeguards is that a definite minimum wage should be laid down for particular jobs, regardless of whether those jobs are done by white men or coloured men. There should be a definite wage for the jobs on the present standard of white employment. I am satisfied, then, that so far as the mines are concerned, the miner will be adequately protected. I hope that the Minister will see that such a guarantee will be given. The points are that there shall be a medical examination the same as the white man, and a minimum wage, regardless of colour, based on the present wages of white men on the Band. Has the Minister received the report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission, and does the commission propose to give serious consideration to altering the present method by which lump sum payments are given to sufferers to a system of pensions. I notice that no provision is made in the estimates for the appointment of trade commissioners in Rhodesia and South-West Africa. I hold that without such appointments, it is impossible for us to develop our African trade to the fullest possible extent. Whilst the imports into South-West Africa totalled £1,780,000 in 1923, and £2,890,000 in 1928, the imports of manufactured goods from the Union actually fell from 36 per cent, of the total imports in 1923 to 26 per cent, of the total imports in 1928. It is only reasonable that the Government should have a trade commissioner in the mandated territory to see that everything possible is done to enable the South African manufacturer to obtain a decent market. On the estimates is the item “grant in aid to the pan-African exhibition, £155”. That seems a paltry sum for an object of such importance. Having a regard to the general desire felt in all quarters of the House that our trade in Africa should be developed, will the Minister kindly tell us what has happened in connection with this exhibition?

I want to raise one or two points, and I am glad that the Minister of hands is present, as they affect his department. The gold law of the Transvaal has proved remarkably successful as far as the Rand is concerned—it is a magnificent law for that region —but let us see its effect on outside workings. If a district is found to be mineralized, it is practically lost as a mining field. So far as I know, all Government land in the Barberton district is deproclaimed; the result is the Government give out land on temporary lease.

Twenty-one years.

That means that a man never feels it is his land.

Is the hon. member discussing administration?

I am discussing outside mining.

The hon. member is discussing the Act; that cannot be discussed.

I am discussing the Minister’s policy on outside grounds. I have had, in Barberton, a man coming to me and asking me whether the Minister cannot give him title to the land. He goes to the Minister’s department and asks whether it cannot be deproclaimed. They say there is a possibility of minerals. You are closing it to mining and to agriculture. I have never known a farmer holding freehold surface rights object; it gives him a market for his products. The net result of the present provisions of the gold law is a locking up of vast areas of land, not only to agriculture, but to mining too. We are driving away mining capital from this country owing to the fact that our mining law was for the use of 𠄔

The hon. member cannot discuss a change in the law.

I am discussing a change of policy; I am not suggesting the law should be altered. I am suggesting that the Minister of Mines and Industries, and the Minister of Lands, ought to discuss the giving to these people of freehold title. My experience is when two departments get together nothing ever happens. Inter-departmental loyalty is very strong, and I have never known one officer giving up anything to another department. But it hits the public. If these lands are not deproclaimed, freehold titles should be given.

With reference to the vote for diamond diggings on the estimates, I want to say a few words about the diggings. I am very glad to see that the Mines Department has decided to proclaim more farms in Lichtenburg in the western Transvaal. It will immediately be welcomed very much by the poor and oppressed people on the diggings. It is a great pity that the proclamation of farms has always been delayed until the matter has almost reached the lips and the people have almost died in misery. I do not want to be unfair to the department, we know that the departmental machinery moves slowly, and that is possibly the reason for the delay. If hon. members, however, really understood what the conditions on the diggings are, if they knew how the people suffer the greatest distress, then they would agree that steps ought to be taken in time to assist the people, and that in such cases we ought not to allow matters to go to extremes, and make the people suffer so much. A little while ago representations were made to the department to throw farms open. There was no legal question to prevent it, but what do we find? A whole group of small technical difficulties are dug up, which the people outside hardly understand, to prevent the grounds being thrown open. I want to appeal to the Minister to consider the interests of these people, seeing that the officials apply the cold letter of the law, and probably rightly, and to make more ground available, because the people are poor and oppressed. I would like to tell hon. members that those people are actually starving. Large robust men have to tighten their belts. Their trousers hang like bags on them, they are lean, and their eyes are deep in their heads. Often they live in a little house of sacking, and they have no food; not even mealie-meal. It is possibly not the fault of the officials, but the fact is that the people are in that condition, and if there are immediate steps which can be taken to give them relief then we must do so at once without technical objections being raised in a more or less obstinate way. Terrible conditions prevail there, and it is only when one has seen it oneself and had a little personal experience of it that you realize how deeply unhappy those people are. I have also been informed that there is a strong view that the diggings are more of a curse than a gain to the country, perhaps that is the reason why little attention, not even the necessary attention, is given to that section of the population. Those people are under an entire misapprehension, and their view is a complete misunderstanding. The diamond fields were a safety valve to the country, because they were the refuge of many people who had no other livelihood. A little while ago it was stated that the alluvial diggings produced £150,000 a month. During the last year the monthly yield was not less. Just think what it means that, owing to those people, £150,000 a month is brought into circulation by their producing an article which brings that money from abroad to us. That money circulates amongst them, and in the country, and therefore I say that the diggings are one of the safely valves of the country.

The hon. member must not make another budget speech. He must confine himself to the policy of the Government in connection with the vote under discussion and to administrative matter.

I only want to say that that is the revenue which we get from that source, and therefore we must give those people every opportunity to carry on their business so that they can attract capital from abroad and circulate it in our country, and amongst themselves to improve their deplorable lot. The matter is not always looked at from this angle, with the result that there is misunderstanding about the actual position. The state of affairs is so bad now that if immediate action is not taken then we are really committing a crime against those people. As I have said, there is the official intimation that the farms will be proclaimed. I was concerned in the matter, and I want to ask the Minister that it should not remain at an official intimation. The Minister must make his influence felt to have the proclamation prepared and signed, so that the farms can be proclaimed without delay. He must give instructions to that effect, because it will be unjust to those people if they have to enter upon the cold winter without assistance. There is also another matter in connection with the policy on the alluvial diggings I want to say a few words on, viz., that in the case of differences which arise between diggers in connection with the pegging of claims, the size of the claims, or the exact location of the claims, there is machinery which is very unsatisfactory, and I should like to know if it cannot be made more effective. Not so long ago there was a big dispute about the possession of certain claims, and the mining constable made his appearance. [Time limit.]

I have been glad to hear what the Minister had to tell us in connection with steel works. I am glad the House managed to squeeze a little reluctant information from the Minister as to what has been happening in regard to the steel industry. I want to ask one or two further questions in regard to the reply by the Minister The Minister gave us details of arrangements made between the Government Steel Works and the Union Steel Corporation. Apparently the shares are going to be taken over at 6s. 8d. per share. At the time the negotiations were in progress these shares were standing in the neighbourhood of half-a-crown a share. The shares of the Union Corporation have shown a steady decline in the last few months. It is fair to assume that if we had waited another month or two, the shares would probably have been a good bit below 2s. 6d. But the shares which were standing, according to the market, at 2s. 6d. per share were taken over by the amalgamation at 6s. 8d. per share, a watering of the capital to the extent of from 9d. to 4d. I know what hon. members of this House would say if any private corporation had watered its capital to that extent, but it looks as if the hon. the Minister had been guilty of that offence. Our concern in this matter is all the greater because, after all, we are rather prejudiced in regard to this particular corporation. In 1927, when this Steel Bill was put through, I noticed that the hon. Minister, then member for Zoutpansberg, was good enough to give the House some information regarding this Union Corporation. I will tell the committee what he said: “It is also illuminating in that connection that a farm purchased by Lewis and Marks for £15,000 appears in the books of the Union Corporation at something between £150,000 and £170,000.“This simply shows how these private concerns fix figures to suit themselves, and the public, of course, has to pay the piper. It is very significant in connection with the share dealings of this particular corporation, to say that I have been informed on very reliable authority that it is absolutely impossible to obtain any information on the Johannesburg share market. There must be some reason for it. If you cannot get any information about anything, according to the then hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) there must be a reason. I emphasize that, because in future when we ask for information about the steel works, and are refused, we shall be entitled to say that “there must be some reason for it.” To quote the Minister further, “Coming to the second point, I have to consider the position at Newcastle. According to Dr. Wagner the Newcastle works, from every point of view, are a menace to the community. The Newcastle works which we are taking over, are part and parcel of the steel works, and are, according to the hon. the Minister, a menace to the community. Again, he says it is difficult to find a more strong condemnation from an expert. When one inquires into the working costs and ore reserves, it is obvious why these expressions are used.” That coming from the Acting Minister of Mines in 1927, is it not natural that we should be a little bit anxious bow, when we have the Minister of Mines taking over that corporation, and paying 6s 8d. for shares which are worth 2s. 6d.

Cannot the hon. member understand that the Government has nothing to do with that?

You are prepared to take any credit for any successes which accrue in these works. But we on this side of the House hold the Government responsible for every penny of the taxpayer’s money which is handed over to this corporation. It is no good pretending to get behind that. If they do not give us information, there must be some reason for it.

There are one or two other points in connection with the steel works that I wish to mention. I understand that, in addition to the ordinary shares, in the Steel Corporation, there are £300,000 worth of debentures. The Government’s steel works have taken only preference shares, and it is not satisfactory to find that we have a debenture debt hanging over our heads. I would also like to know who are the holders of these debentures. I hope they are not the firm the Minister disapproves of which sought to show their assets at £170,000 when they were worth only £15,000. Now the Minister holds that they are worth £66,000. The only other point I wish to raise is as to the appointment of a director to represent the private shareholders in the steel corporation. Is it possible for the Minister to arrange for other people to obtain shares in the Union Government’s industry, and can he make it possible for members of Parliament to obtain shares? I would like to have one or two shares, not as an investment but to enable me to obtain information as a shareholder regarding the disposal of money. I have voted as a member of Parliament. It appears to me that the shareholders of this corporation are going to have a very considerable advantage over members of Parliament. Not only have they had £500,000 from us, but the Minister of Finance has committed the taxpayers to underwrite the issue that is shortly to be made to the public. I hope the Minister will supply us with the very fullest information, for we are just as much in favour of having a steel industry as the Government is.

You do want the industry?

Yes, of course we do.

That is new.

I made it perfectly clear on the last occasion that we wanted this industry if it can be made to show some sort of economic result.

Then why did you oppose the establishment of the industry?

Our party never opposed it, we only opposed the methods by which Government proposed to found it, and we are still opposing those methods. It is rather interesting to mid that the Minister of Mines has completely changed his attitude in regard to private steel undertakings, and is veering round to the view held on these benches in 1927. Every word he said in 1927 on this subject has been controverted. If we do not get information, we are going to press for it on every possible occasion, so that it will simplify matters if the Minister will give us the information. After all, it is the taxpayers’ money that is concerned, and we as their representatives are entitled to some information as to what has happened to the taxpayers’ money. It is true, that periodically the chairman of the Steel Board meets the press and makes a statement, but we want something more than that.

I just want to say a few words in connection with the policy of the Government regarding the diggings. In the first place, I think that much unnecessary trouble and expense is caused to the diggers. I am thinking, e.g., of the renewal of diggers certificates. The regulations laid down that everybody must come in person to renew his certificate, and this, in my opinion, causes unnecessary expense. The digging community consists, for the most part, of poor people. Now the poor man has to come himself every year to renew his licence. I consider this is unnecessary, the certificate is legal, and whether the person goes himself to the office, or sends the old certificates by a third person for renewal, amounts to the same thing. Now, however, the poor digger first has to travel thirty or forty miles to renew the certificate. It is possibly said that this is to stop criminals so that they cannot stop away, and send a letter to another person. This does not remedy matters, however, and the criminals can be got at in another way. I want also to point out that applications for licences when a farm is proclaimed must also be fetched personally by the applicant. I am in favour of him going personally, but then I say that the condition of the poor people must be properly borne in mind. The last farm, e.g., that was proclaimed, viz., Bruidegomskraal, in the district of Ventersdorp, was the cause of difficulties. Only one place was indicated for applications to be made, and that place was 25 miles away from the farm which was to be thrown open, and about 130 miles from Lichtenburg, where many of the poor diggers live who want to apply for a claim. When they have gone to the expense of applying then it often happens that they do not get a claim, although there is an office right opposite their door. I have often been to the office in Pretoria and said that if nothing else could be done then at least three places should be indicated where applications could be made. That was refused. It is said that the expense is too great, or that they have not sufficient officials, but there is an official at work on every digging, and on every proclaimed farm, and why cannot the application be made on the various proclaimed places? The people have sometimes to sell their tools to get to a place in order to make an application, although there is an office in front of their door, or in the immediate neighbourhood. Then I want to say something about the small pieces of owners’ land which are still in existence to-day. It is said that they are too small to be proclaimed. When I spoke about it before it was said that they could not be proclaimed, but to-day it appears that the owners of the small pieces of land cannot get them proclaimed because there are too few claims. The ground is unproclaimed and no one has the benefit of it. I have already objected to this. Another point is the claims that are still unproclaimed on the reserved ground Welvediend, Hendriksdal, and Delareystryd. It is now three years since the new Act was passed, but that valuable ground is still closed. It is not yet known who it belongs to and I should like to know what the policy of the Government is. Does it belong to the diggers, to the owners, or to whom? An end must come to it. If it belongs to the company, then give it to the company to work. If it belongs to the Government give it to the diggers who are living there in poverty, while the valuable ground is unworked. This state of uncertainty cannot be allowed to continue.

This afternoon two motions were submitted for a reduction of the salary of the Minister, one by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) and one by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Mc-Menamin). It must be something unusual for a member of a party pledged to support the Government to introduce a motion of no confidence in one of its Ministers, but although the action of the hon. member for Boksburg has rather cramped the style of the legitimate Opposition, I do not think the hon. Minister will be unduly disturbed by this further evidence of the waning allegiance of the Labour party. I would, therefore, rather go back to one of the points touched upon by the hon. member for Springs, who spoke of the prolongation of the life of the gold mining industry as a result of the possible extension of its field of operations. I should like to add what might almost be called a footnote to that, and go on to ask the Minister whether he can make us any statement as to the information at present available in regard to the probable life of the gold mining industry in the light of such developments as have already been undertaken. It will be admitted that this is not only a matter of very great importance to the city of Johannesburg, but also to this country as a whole. Even at this present moment this country is realizing the tremendous importance of the gold-mining industry as a stabilizing factor at a time of depression. There are two important factors in the economic position of this country. One is the possibility of retarding the decline of the gold-mining industry, and the other is the possibility of accelerating the growth of other important industries which might take its place. Therefore it is most important that we should watch developments in regard to the future of the gold-mining industry, and that all the necessary information should be laid before us. This has been done in the past. It was done in 1925 as the result of a report on the far east Rand prepared by the Government mining engineer of those days, now the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé). In that report he estimated that there was still a total tonnage of 310,000,000 tons to be milled on the Witwatersrand, basing that estimate on the then existing mines. Then two years later, the present Government mining engineer submitted a report on the far east Rand, and he put forward rather more optimistic figures. His estimate, although some 18 months had elapsed, and something like 50,000,000 tons, I suppose, had been milled, was that the tonnage remaining to be milled then was almost 330,000,000 tons. That higher estimate is accounted for partly by the fact that in the meantime the claim area of the existing mines had been considerably extended, and partly by the fact that certain factors had been disclosed in the meantime which seem to justify greater optimism. Since then we have had no further official report on this matter, but last year the Government mining engineer, in his capacity as president of the Chemical Metallurgical and Mining Society, made the statement that there was then still—although a further two years had elapsed—a tonnage to be crushed in the neighbourhood of 320,000,000 tons. I am sure that we all hope that the Government mining engineer had firm grounds for putting forward this more optimistic figure, but it is as well that we should keep before us this point, that that seemingly high figure of 320,000,000 tons represents only eleven years’ working of the present mines. That does not mean, of course, that the mining industry will cease to exist in eleven years, because the shrinkage will be gradual. The Government mining engineer’s figures in regard to that shrinkage are of considerable importance. He estimates that by 1935 the shrinkage will be 13.6 per cent.; by 1940, 51.4 per cent., and that in 1945 it will be 78 per cent. The significant figure is that jump from 13 to 51 per cent, between 1935 and 1940, and it will be just in those years that this country will probably be experiencing its next period of depression. If that period of depression coincides with a rapid shrinkage of the gold-mining industry, the position may be very serious indeed. However, my main point is this, that it is most important for us to keep track of these movements, and to watch happenings which may have a bearing on the possibility of the prolongation of the life of the mines. In all other respects, we take stock of the position. We take stock of our agricultural position, and we take stock of our manufacturing position. Surely it is common prudence that we should take stock at fixed intervals of our position in regard to the gold mining industry. It is the more necessary because in this matter we are dealing with what is essentially not an exact science. It is quite impossible for the Government mining engineer, or anybody else, to give exact estimates at any one time. Estimates have to be corrected from time to time. This is a matter which is important to us, because after all, we can, as a Parliament, play some part in extending the life of the mining industry. Our action, of course, is not the only factor. There are the factors provided by nature. After all, we have very far from fully explored the gold mining possibilities of the Witwatersrand area; and nature has been so kind to us in the past that we may well hope that it will prove kinder in the future than a sound conservation entitles us to assume. There is another factor, the factor of the work and ingenuity of our engineers and our scientists. This country owes a very great debt indeed to the work done by our scientists and mining engineers and the administrators of the gold mining industry. But when these factors are allowed for, the fact still remains that a great deal can be done by the Government and by Parliament in this connection. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) and the hon. member for Vrededorp (Maj. Roberts) have both spoken here this afternoon about the colour bar Act which was passed in 1925 by both Houses. It has taken four years to prepare the regulations, and the Minister gave the assurance that nothing would be altered. That has been done. The hon. member for Boksburg mentioned the coloured persons, but he ought to know that they were never excluded, but only the natives. The Act was passed to see that natives should not take the place of white men, and I must say that it has helped very little. After the 1922 strike natives were employed in the place of whites, and is still happening to-day, because they are still occupying the places of whites to-day. The white miners have a grievance about this. It has happened, e.g., in connection with drill sharpening, which could only previously be done by Europeans, because it is skilled work, and it is to-day done by natives. So in many cases engines are run underground by natives, and it has continued up to the present. Notwithstanding the regulations which provide that natives may not be employed as skilled labourers, the law is not applied. Another point that the miner feels very much is that the Wages Board under the Wages Act have introduced scales on the mines, and no one to-day can deny that those scales are lower than those of the white persons who are in the employ of the municipality. The miners feel aggrieved that the people working for the Johannesburg municipality on the surface, and having other privileges, such as a fairly good pension, while the miner, himself, has to work 4,000 to 5,000 feet underground, and gets less wages than the people who do the healthy work on top. After a miner has worked for ten or twelve years he is, as usual, discarded like an old shoe. If the man in addition has not developed the dreaded miners’ phthisis then he is discharged with a month’s wages. The miners feel that they are not being treated justly. With regard to miners’ phthisis, a commission was eventually appointed to make an investigation, and I want to ask the Minister when he expects that commission’s report. We all thought that a full enquiry would be instituted this session, and that a report would come before the House during this session, so that any defects in the law could be amended. We have now reached the last three weeks of the session, and we have not yet got any report. It is a great pity, because I can assure the House that those people worked very hard. We all feel that the position of those people is not what it ought to be.

The hon. member cannot now discuss legislation.

I am talking about the application of the law, although I must admit that its amendment is necessary.

Order! The hon. member cannot recommend any amendment of legislation.

I submit to your ruling, but, however that may be, I am talking of the application of the law, and I am sorry that I cannot now make a budget speech, but I think that I have now brought the matter clearly before the Minister.

I see that the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) and the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) are not here, so I will proceed to the remarks of the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Swanepoel). He referred to the promised proclamation of certain further diggings. I would like to confirm what the hon. member has already said about the proclamation of additional ground which is under consideration. What we are probably going to throw open are the Lichtenburg town lands, and three portions each of Vlakteplaas, Witstinkhoutboom, Rietvlei and Morgenzon. I will bring to the notice of the department what he has said about the necessity of expediting the proclamation. The hon. member further spoke of the poverty and suffering on the diggings. The department is aware of it and will see that a sum is put on the estimates for emergency relief on the diggings. That money will be used by the mining commissioners in cases of direct starvation. Food and blankets are given to such people. The hon. member is probably also aware that we supply certain hospital accommodation for which the Union Government bears nine-tenths of the cost, and the province a very small share. If the hon. member will inform me of the cases where people are suffering from hunger I will bring it to the notice of the mining commissioner, to whose discretion each case must be left as to whether anything more can be done. The hon. member also spoke of the regulations in connection with differences between claim-owners and the machinery for settling them. There have previously been complaints that the system was not working satisfactorily and the matter will receive consideration.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) dealt with the explanation I have given as to the contract between Union Steel and the South African Steel Works. I take it it is entirely my fault I did not make myself quite clear, but I thought the House had followed me that there was no question of buying any shares whatever. The shares were written down to 6s. 8d., and, for the sum of £100, or perhaps £125, it acquired control of preferent cumulative shares, and in that way it obtained control of the Vereeniging concern. There is no question of buying any of the present shares out and out, and the market prices quoted by the hon. member are no criterion, because the shares will now have to be viewed from the standpoint of a completed agreement, and we shall have to see what the result will be between the Union Steel and the South African Steel Works. They have put the company in a sound position by providing £250,000, and it is only after these changes have been made that we can see what the position really is. I quite agree that if you paid 6s. 8d. for shares worth only 2s. 6d., it would be absurd. It has cost £100 or £125 to acquire control of Vereeniging, and if hon. members contend that that sum is too much, that is a question about which argument is possible. The question of the value of the shares standing at 2s. 6d. seems to take the case no further. What hon. members always pleaded for in this House has in fact happened. We have given the Steel Board a free hand. They have the best technical advisers and financial men, who have placed their services at the disposal of the board. The board has a free hand, and, although the Government may be criticized for appointing the board—although members may criticize the actions of the board —in pursuance of the promise given by the Government, we have given the board a free hand. They entered into this contract, which seems to me to be a contract which may be defended in every way. The hon. member quoted what I said about Newcastle and Vereeniging. It seems to me that the facts have shown that I was correct. They have shown that Newcastle and Vereeniging have entered into negotiations to make a contract with the Steel Board. If the hon. member, instead of quoting small extracts from my speech, looks at the speech as a whole, he will see that my criticism of Newcastle was based on the report of the output and the geological possibilities. At the end of the speech, I made it quite clear that the attitude of the Government was that Newcastle and Vereeniging wanted to come in and agree, and the position was that if they wanted to negotiate, they would be met halfway. That is the fact. The hon. member refers to debentures. The Vereeniging concern has debentures but that will not affect the position. The Steel Board has got control. It has paid a certain price for that control, and it has got that control.

Did they buy the debentures?

I do not see how the debentures can affect the control. I have to learn that the debenture holders are in a position to dictate the policy of the company. If there is that kind of debentures, I have never heard of them. It may depreciate the assets, if there are debentures, if the company has debts, but I fail to see how that can affect the control of the company or its activities in the future. Then the hon. member referred to the fact that Mr. Liesk is a director. He is a director. He represents the shareholders whom we bought out when the old Steel Corporation was taken over. Hon. members know, or I presume they know, that the Act more or less provides for it, when the assets of the old Steel Corporation were taken over, and a certain amount was to be paid in cash. It has been paid in cash, and a certain number of shares were to be allotted.

Has it been paid in cash?

Yes, it has been paid in cash and the balance has been paid in shares. These shareholders have certain rights as shareholders, and notwithstanding all those rights, they have nominated Mr. Liesk as their representative.

*The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) spoke about the renewal of diggers’ certificates. Unfortunately the law provides that the person must apply in person, and I fear that we cannot assist in this respect. The question of licences will be gone into by the Department. As for the reserves Welverdiend, Hendriksdal, etc., I must say that the matter is still complicated by many legal difficulties. The exact position and rights are still very dubious. The Department is trying to come to a decision, and as soon as the points are settled we shall, of course, be able to consider what ought to be done.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) put a question which seems to resolve itself into this, whether the Government mining engineer is still as optimistic as he was sometime ago when he indicated that the gold to be extracted from various sources on the Witwatersrand gold fields, and outside districts, was of a value, or probable value, of 1,000 million pounds. I understood the hon. member to ask whether the Government mining engineer had any other or further facts upon which to base such an estimate. I will tell the hon. member how the Government mining engineer arrived at this figure of 1,000 millions. He took as estimate of the tonnage still to be mined from the present mines and from the new mines. The total for the Band is 500 millions. For the outside districts, it was another 180 millions, making in all a total of 680 millions, which, I understand—I am not banking on my arithmetic in this connection— works out at a sum of 1,000 million pounds. That is tonnage converted into pounds. As regards the alleged optimism he displayed some time ago, I can tell the hon. member that no new geological information is available, but certain factors have been disclosed and certain features have appeared from the working of certain mines. For example, the East Geduld developments show a grade of ore and it reef width and a percentage of payability which will justify the expectations attached to that particular mine, namely, the expectation that a large gold mine will come into existence in this area. These East Geduld results also show that, as regards the undeveloped area lying to the east of this property, in the direction of Groot Vlei, optimism is also justified. Since the Government mining engineer’s report, the Kalkfontein mines have acquired an additional area of 778 claims. They have started work and are getting fairly satisfactory results. Further, since the report was written, the Modderfontein East have acquired by lease 575 claims, and have gone in for development work showing that the directors, at least, are satisfied that there are great possibilities. The Rand collieries have acquired by lease 1,100 claims. They have dewatered the mine and have restarted development. On the further East Rand, development has progressed more or less as was anticipated, and as the Government mining engineer had in mind when he made that forecast.

*The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Pretorius) rightly stressed the conditions which have arisen owing to the colour bar Act, and that the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) had assisted in passing the Act through the House. The hon. member mentioned that natives were doing skilled work, and I shall be glad if he will discuss the details with me. In the meantime I can give him the reassuring information that the figures for 1925 in comparison with those of 1924 show good progress with regard to the employment of white workmen. In 1924 there were 17,006 Europeans in the mines, and 173,454 natives, while the figures in 1928 were respectively 19,254 and 188,000. In proportion the number of Europeans has, therefore, increased by a larger percentage. As for the miners’ phthisis commission, a preliminary report has been received by the department which is now being dealt with and translated. The commission has still to obtain further data in connection with certain important points which the miners lay special emphasis on. As soon as that work is completed, the full report will be published.

I am very grateful to the hon. Minister for the statement which he has made in reply to the points I raised. Some of the facts that he has mentioned are undoubtedly of very considerable importance and of great value in their bearing upon the statements of the Government mining engineer which I quoted. First of all, the most interesting thing in his statement is his reference to developments on the far east Rand as they point the way to developments further east. I think he would wish us to infer from what he said of the promising development on the East Geduld, Daggafontein and Modder East properties, that the day is not far distant when it will he possible to consider the question of leasing areas on the Groot Vlei farm, and possibly still further east. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that indications point in that direction. There is a further point I wish information upon, in regard to which the Minister has hardly touched. What I was really aiming at was that this report in its entirety should be revised, and a new report on similar lines be submitted at regular intervals. The point is not merely the question of the total tonnage of ore which can still be milled, but also the probable rate of shrinkage of the existing mines. I hope the Minister will take steps to secure the preparation of another report, at a fairly early date, on similar lines to that of the very valuable reports issued in 1925 by the late mining engineer, and issued in 1927 by the present mining engineer.

I am thankful for the information given by the Minister. I want to say something else in connection with disputes on the diggings, and mention a special ease in the hope that it will assist in future to prevent such cases. I am thinking of a case in connection with which an appeal was noted under Section 69 of the Precious Stones Act. The constitution of the court was particularly disappointing to me. Instead of the mining commissioner concerned getting two bona fide diggers to assist in deciding the matter, I found that one of the two members was the manager of Lewis and Marks, and the other a well-known company agent and prospector. The procedure followed at the sitting of the court was not exactly satisfactory. No one can say that it could satisfy any person concerned in the dispute. This is a grievance with the diggers, and it undermines their confidence in the administration and the Government. Then I also want to refer to the sanitary services on the diggings, which are far from effective. Large sums are spent on them, and we are thankful for the attempts to improve the position. The position has, indeed, been much improved, but it is not at all what it ought to be yet. I am, however, much disappointed at the charges the trading community make on the diggings. Whether a man has a business with a stock of £10 or £20 on which he makes 10s. or £1 profit, or whether he makes hundreds of pounds a month of profit with a stock of the value of thousands of pounds, makes no difference to the charges; he has to pay £1 per month for the facilities. So far I have criticized, but I now want to suggest something. The prospecting regulations are, of course, a little severe, but elastic enough to make it possible for people to prospect farms profitably, and to make them suitable for the diggers. Some time ago I suggested, instead of restricting the owner to 7 feet by 7 feet or a little larger, to give the mining commissioner the discretion to alter it. Hon. members who are acquainted with prospecting will agree with me that the 7 feet by 7 feet system works very unsatisfactorily. I, and others, have therefore suggested that the prospector should be allowed to make a trench of 30 feet by 7 feet, and if there is no desirable result, then he must be allowed to make a trench of 30 feet by 7 feet at right angles to the first. The result of the present regulations is that very few farms are prospected, in consequence of which the diggers community suffer. If more farms were available, and we had a sympathetic Government who will throw the ground open, then the diggers will have a livelihood. Larger incomes will be made, and there will be more safety valves for unemployment in our country. There are members who will say that there is an overproduction of diamonds, and we must therefore hasten slowly, but there is also an over-production of wool, maize and other produce, and we do not, for that reason, say that the farmers must stop producing. The diggers have just as much right to carry on their calling as any other part of the community. I therefore hope the Minister will be sympathetic towards this industry, and will, as far as possible, give effect to what I have suggested here in that direction. If the board for the alluvial diggings functions properly then matters will be much improved. But if ever there was a third wheel in the scotch-cart, then it is this hoard. It sits very seldom, and when it does nothing apparently results. If the board is to continue in that way then we may as well abolish it. The press is no longer allowed to be present, and I think the Minister is making a great mistake in that respect. It immediately raises suspicion, and leads to a wrong idea of things which causes unhappiness amongst the people. I cannot see why the deliberations of the board should not be published to the diggers through the press, nor can I see why the board’s recommendations are not adopted. I hope the Minister will use his influence powerfully to put things right. [Time limit.]

I would like some information from the hon. the Minister with regard to the old Free State title farms in Griqualand West. The Minister knows there are about 170, which at one time belonged to the Orange Free State Republic, and many years ago were transferred to another province— Griqualand West. To satisfy them the farmers were made a definite promise by President Brand, and the then Colonial Secretary, the Earl of Carnarvon, who stated in a letter that so long as these farms remained under British protection their rights would be maintained. Under the Precious Stones Act these rights were taken away, but later on were restored to some, whereas the rights of others were not restored. Those who had rights restored had to comply with certain conditions, that if they discovered precious stones on their farms, in a manner satisfactory to the Minister, before the 1st April, 1927, they would be granted an exemption certificate, but the others who were bona fide farmers and who did not bother about mining or digging did not have their rights restored. There were about one dozen or more, and it is for those I am pleading. They contend they have been wronged and an injustice has been done them. The Minister may say they have the same rights as any other farmers in the Cape as to prospecting, but they have had a special document given to them when they were taken away from the Free State Government. I would just like the Minister to explain the matter and to give them some relief. These farmers feel that their farms have depreciated.

I do not think this can be dealt with now.

There is another matter I would like to raise, and that is with regard to the smelting of manganese. The Minister knows that large deposits were discovered in the Postmasburg area. It takes, I believe, one ton of coal to treat five tons of manganese. Arrangements have been made at Colenso to treat this manganese. Why should five tons of manganese be sent there to be treated with one ton of coal? Why should not the one ton of coal be sent instead to treat five tons of manganese? I would like an explanation from the Minister.

There are some points on the estimates on which I would like further information. There is the item O 1, district mining development, £3,500. which appears to be new on the estimates, and has been missing for many years. In what manner does the Minister propose that to be spent? I welcome it, I may say; and it is a step in the light direction. With regard to the state alluvial diggings, I notice that there is an amount of £42,500 for police for the present year, whereas last year it was £20,000. There are no fewer than 118 members of the police who will be employed on the state diggings in Namaqua land compared to 55 last year. It seems a very large force, and perhaps the Minister may be able to explain why such a large force is required this year as compared with what was deemed to be ample last year. I am glad to see with regard to the state alluvial diggings that the salaries of which this side complained so bitterly as being so extravagant, have been considerably modified. I see that the manager, instead of getting £3,500 as he got last year, has been reduced to about £2,000, a much more reasonable amount, and the other salaries are in proportion. These figures show that the Government has taken the advice given by this side of the House. I notice that item Q, diamond control advisory committee, is put down at £10,000. The salaries of the three members are £1,500 each, which would account for £4,500. On what is the balance to be spent? Then there is item R, expenses of diamond valuation office, £7,000, which is an entirely new item. Previously we have had these diamonds apparently valued for nothing; will the Minister explain, if it was done for nothing when there was a larger value of diamonds, why should £7,000 be put down now? Then there is the small item under G 1, inspector of underground contracts, under the Government mining engineer’s vote, for which the sum of £700 is set down. I would suggest to the Minister that this office is one that could safely be abolished. When I was Government mining engineer, we had a similar officer who was kept on for two years, and it was found that keeping him on was a waste of money. The idea in appointing this officer was to see that the underground contracts as between the managers and the miners were faithfully observed. It was at one time alleged that the miners were paid short. After measuring the work for a couple of years, the only difference we could find was that a few miners had been overpaid. I suggest that this item might safely be deleted. It is an unfair reflection upon men of the status of the managers to suggest that they would pay the men short, and upon a reputable profession, the mine surveyors, that its members would lend themselves to such fraud.

I want the Minister to be good enough to give the committee some information on the diamond cutting industry, not so much on the smaller factories in various parts of the Union, but more particularly with regard to the diamond cutting industry under the agreement with the firm of Rosenstrauch and Korbf. This is an agreement with which I have no fault to find. If anything is to be said with regard to the agreement, it must be congratulatory rather than otherwise. Under that agreement the Government under certain conditions undertake to provide certain diamonds for this factory. I would like to know if the conditions have been carried out, and whether it will be easy for the agreement to be carried out in the future, now that the diamonds from Namaqualand and other fields are perhaps getting scarcer than they have been. I should like to know if the factory has been successful in regard to the carrying out of the agreement, particularly with regard to apprentices. The agreement provides that 100 apprentices shall be trained as diamond cutters in the first year, and 100 in the second year, 150 in the third year, and the remainder in the fourth and fifth years, Though the loss in export duty seems large. I would suggest that it is as satisfactory in that regard as any other secondary industry in the country. Whatever is the cost to the country, this industry is wanted more than any of our other secondary industries inasmuch as it will be 100 per cent. South African. I notice that the loss to the country is about £150,000. When we take the estimate of the wages at £180,000 it is clear that the cost to the country may be considered satisfactory. It is of great importance to the city of Kimberley. That community has been shrinking for a number of years, and one would like a reassuring statement that in the present position of diamond cutting in the Union, this factory will be supported by the Government. We would also like to know whether the future is as bright as could be wished as regards that particular industry. The main thing is that we want to know why extensions of the factory have not been made in terms of the agreement, and why the number of apprentices has not been up to standard. About two years have elapsed, and there ought to be 200 apprentices at work. Although the factory has been enlarged to a small extent recently, I do not think provision is made for 200 apprentices. What does the Minister propose to do to see that the agreement is carried out?

To avoid possible misunderstanding in connection with what I said about that diamond board, I should like to say that it is not my intention to create the impression that that board must actually be so ineffective, or that the composition of the board is not a good one. What I wanted to say was that the limitations are of such a kind that that, hoard is rendered useless. The previous Minister of Mines and Industries, at the time when the board was created, said that it would have certain powers under the law, but we now find that the board has no powers. I now come to another point, one in connection with the labourers that work for the Welvediend Company (Messrs. Carles and Donaldson). There are very great difficulties because under an agreement previously concluded by the company the labourers there received about 7s. 6d. a day as wages, now a change has been made, and those hardened labourers are now advised to do piecework which makes it possible for some of them to earn only 2s. 6d. a day in many cases. I want to ask that we should try to assist those people because they are in very great trouble. I also have the unpleasant duty to refer to the appointment of Mr. Bevers so the board in connection with the control of the sale of diamonds. I do not want to say that it is a very undesirable appointment, hut only that I am very glad that that appointment has nothing to do with the alluvial diggings. It is very unfortunate for that, gentleman that everything he tries to do to assist the people on the diggings has injurious results. The results have been so in furious that the people on the diggings there think that he will be able to do nothing good for them. Therefore, they are glad that he has been appointed to that board which has nothing to do with the diggings, and I will let it rest there.

I want to raise the question of the Government policy in connection with the organization and development of secondary industries. We have been handicapped in discussing this question inasmuch as the statistics are very old. The last published statistics are for 1926 ’27. Last September, the hon. Minister for Mines and Industries, when addressing the annual convention of the Chamber of Industries at Port Elizabeth, on this question, made some remarks with which I want to deal. He quoted certain figures and gave an indication of the progress and development of secondary industries in the country. In dealing with this question he stated, amongst other things, that the world wide depression subsequent to the war also affected our secondary industries. With the return of normal development towards the beginning of 1924, and also in view of the sympathetic policy of the Government, he stated that secondary industries had made marvellous improvement, so that mining could not be regarded as the sole basis of our economic life. I do not want to detract from the importance of secondary industries in this country, but when important statements are made, it is only fair that the credit to those responsible for building up these industries should be correctly apportioned. Including the figures, he made this statement—

That is only a portion of the story. When showing the progressive increase, he missed what might be termed the peak period in industrial output which was in 1921. In that year, the gross output of industries in this country reached £98,000,000 which, allowing for the decreased value of the currency, represented £90,000,000. I want to show how there has been a steady progressive increase in the output of industries in this country and that the policy of the Government has not been responsible for any abnormal output, at all. In 1923, the increase in output was 7 per cent., in 1924 5½ per cent., in 1925 7½ per cent., in 1926 7 per cent, and in 1927-’28 9 per cent. That showe I that during this period there has been a steady, progressive increase in the output of industries. There has not been any abnormal increase in any year and the output of industries has been maintained on a sound foundation which was laid down by the industrial policy of this side of the House a new years ago. I want to deal with specific instances with which the Minister dealt, as they are important to-day when the Minister is being pressed for the protection of certain industries. The Minister of Mines said—

In 1926-’27, the total output of these industries which the Minister quoted as showing satisfactory progress amounted to £39,953,000. For 1924-’25, which was the last year before the new tariff introduced by the Government when it came into power, the output of these industries amounted to £33,594,000, just £6,000,000 less than the next two years. There is one important factor in connection with the increase. The output of the sugar refineries of this country amounted to £3,893,000 in 1925, against £5,555,000 in 1924 and the grain mills produced £1,000,000 more; that is, nearly half of the increase was accountable to primary products of this country. Now, the Minister also spoke very proudly of the way their policy had created flesh European employment, had given a great deal more employment to people in this country, and he was proud of the fact that he had increased European employment. He stated—

I find, when I take the same table of European employment, that if I take the increase of 1924 over 1923 the increase was 8 per cent., and the increase for 1925 over 1924 was 7 per cent. [Time limit.]

I take this opportunity of asking the Minister to give this committee any information he can with regard to the report of the Fisheries and Harbours Commission. It was inaugurated in 1924, and from that time until 1929, there have been nearly eight, volumes of this report. Last year the report was finished, and I think there are certain people in this country who want to know what the Government is going to do in regard to the recommendations contained in that report. I think this country has not taken enough interest in the tremendous resources lying outside the coast belt of the Union of South Africa. There are other countries outside the Union which are beginning to day to realize that in the southern hemisphere the ocean around the Union of South Africa is valuable, and behave I am right in saying that, in a short time, a floating factory from a nation in the north will be coming down to turn non-edible fish in the seas round this country into by-products to Be taken back to Europe. The object of this Fisheries and Harbours Report was, I think, in the first place, to enable the Government to form some opinion upon the merits or otherwise of these harbours and to encourage the fishing industry outside the greater ports of the Union. So far as I, and the constituency I represent, are concerned, we have along the south coast line certain villages and townships which will be very much affected by the recommendations contained in this report. Now we have this report published. It is public property, but up to now we have had no expression of opinion from the Government as to what they intend to do with regard to the recommendations the report contains. I must admit that, within the last two or three months, the question of the opening up of harbours has come forcibly before me. When I was down on the south coast not long ago, this question of opening up Port Shepstone harbour was evident on all sides. We were all told that the Government was very interested in the development of Port Shepstone, and this has, in many ways, raised the hopes of many people who are fishermen at Port Shepstone. I think the hon. Minister will remember the history of the fishing settlement at Port Shepstone. Forty years ago certain Norwegian families were brought out by the Government of Natal for the specific purpose of fishing along the Natal coast, and the Natal Government spent between £70,000 and £80,000 in attempting to open a harbour at Port Shepstone. It was not a success. They were given the alternative of accepting a railway to be built to Port Shepstone which they accepted. I think we all, on the south coast, realize that if they accepted the railway the matter was finished, and that we could not expect any more. But since this report has been published and since the recommendations in the report have found their way down amongst these people, they do expect, and they were encouraged to expert, certain expressions of opinion from the Government, as to whether they are to expect the opening up of this harbour, which this report recommends. I appeal to the Minister to let us know whether the Government intends to carry out any of these recommendations which not only affect Natal and the south coast, but also affect the whole of the Union from the coastline of Portuguese East Africa to South-West Africa. I am sure that the people who are concerned to a great extent with the opening up of these small fishing harbours in the country will be grateful if they knew that the Government had, at least, some intention of carrying out the recommendations contained in this report.

When I had to sit down I was quoting certain statistics in regard to the increase of European employment. I am afraid that the Minister will have to be a little patient.

This is not a budget debate. Is the hon. member addressing the committee in connection with the policy of the Minister, or in connection with the vote or administration?

Do I understand you rule that I cannot be allowed to discuss the matter of the Board of Trade which is responsible for the issuing of this statement?

The hon. member can discuss that in another debate which will be held later.

I am dealing with the question of the organization and the development of industry as set out and recommended by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade comes under the vote of the Minister of Mines. As they are responsible to the Minister for the organization of secondary industries, surely this is the proper place to discuss it?

[Inaudible.]

I wish to say that the organization and the development of industries have been progressive for many years in this country, and it is not due to the policy which has been initiated, and which the Board of Trade is carrying out to-day. That surely is relevant?

That has to do with the past policy and not the present policy.

The Board of Trade have made recommendations and reports on the question of industry. They are making certain definite recommendations to the Government in connection with the development of industry. I submit that that policy which has been in stituted is not, necessarily sound, because I can show that the development which has taken place in the last 8 or 10 years proves that industry has been progressive, and there has been a steady upward curve since the present policy of the board was instituted. I have a few figures on this question of employment. It bears out the point that the curve has been a steady increase. For the year 1924 over 1923 the increase was 8 per cent. For the following year it was 7 per cent. In 1926 over 1925 it was 7 per cent., and for 1927 over 1926 it was 6 per cent, and for 1928 over 1927 it was 5 per cent., showing that the ratio of Europeans employed has been steady right the way through for the last six years before there was any change, or before the Board of Trade, as at present constituted, was in any way responsible for increasing employment in trade. The figures for the total employed in the Union are, as a matter of fact, not quite so good. The increase for 1924 over 1923 was 6 per cent. For the following year it was 4.7 per cent. For the following year it was less than 1 per cent., and in 1928 it was 2.5 per cent. That, shows that the industries in this country were established on a firm basis long before the present Government came into power. I want to submit, as a very dangerous point, that owing to this present policy we are proceeding along lines which are not at all sound. In spite of the very optimistic reference of the Minister when he pointed to the increase which had taken place in certain industries which I have already read out, he mentioned the building trade, clothing, tailoring, grain mills and sugar refineries—in spite of the fact that he showed that very excellent progress had been made in all these industries, I find that the Minister of Finance has tabled, and we shall discuss next week, proposals for an increase of protective duties in no less than five of these industries, which it is claimed are making such magnificent progress.

You will have the opportunity to show your magnificent sympathy with them.

I hope to deal with that next week. Constantly increasing the tariff at every opportunity is not necessarily the line that should be followed, and if the Government looks into its own trade returns it will find a comparison which contains facts going to the very root cause of the trouble in some of our industries. The Minister, in dealing with that subject, pointed out that although the gross output per employee was lower in South Africa than in Canada, New Zealand and Australia, since 1923, the rate of output has been becoming appreciably higher in South Africa, thus showing that our industrial labour is becoming more efficient. The Minister did not quote statistics which very materially bear out his contention. I submit that if we triad to increase efficiency in industry by following the example of other countries which have gone through the same mill, we would find a solution of a great deal of our troubles. I hope the Government will give some indication whether it is their intention to continue along the lines of trying to find methods of improving the output per capita than forever pandering to the claims that every industry makes for increased assistance and protection.

In the Budget debate I requested the Minister to give us an outline of the Government’s policy in regard to secondary industries. I received no reply, but I hope on this occasion that I shall meet with a greater measure of success. The question of secondary industries is of very great importance to the town I have the honour to represent, and we feel that it requires more forethought and consideration than it has received up to date. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have a definitely-thought out and well-prepared plan of any sort?

The hon. member is out of order. The rules state that there can be no continuance of the Budget debate when the House is in Committee of Supply on the estimates.

I bow to your ruling. Mr. Chairman, but I am asking the Minister to give us an idea of his policy on the secondary industries.

The question was put to the Minister and he replied.

May I not develop it at all?

No.

I am sorry it is necessary for me to intervene once more in this debate. I would not like the Minister to run away with the idea that he impressed the members on this side of the House by his rather ingenuous method of handling company finance. In order to understand the nature of the transaction, the Steel Corporation has entered into, with the Union Steel Works, I would like to quote a few figures. The Union Steel Corporation’s original capital of £900,000 has been written down to £300,000 which is equivalent to 6s. 8d. a share. To that is added £200,000, half of which was furnished by the Government and the other half by the Steel Corporation. This made a total of £500,000, the Government Steel Works subscribing £100,000 at par or one-fifth of the whole. But this £90,000 should not have been written down to £300,000, but to the market value of the shares. The Minister very surprizingly says that he is entitled to take the market value of the shares after the £200,000 had been put into the company. This is the first time I have ever heard such a contention. The £900,000 should have been written down to 2s. 6d. a share—equivalent to £110,000. To that you can add the £200,000 making a total of £310,000, of which the Union Steel Works owns one-fifth or £62,000. Therefore the Union Steel Works have made what is called an excellent bargain with the Union Steel Corporation by buying shares worth £62,000 for an expenditure of £100,000. If that is the practice of the Union Steel Corporation, its life may be merry but it will be a very short one.

I have put to the Government mining engineer the suggestion of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Hofmeyr) that the data in regard to ore reserves should be brought up to date, and he agrees that a triennial survey is feasible and possibly desirable, and he will go into the matter.

*The suggestions of the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Swanepoel) will be considered by the Department. With regard to the position of Welverdiend, the Government is negotiating with the company. The old contract as to the wages the people receive has lapsed, and a new agreement must be entered into. The Government will do its best for the people.

The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Humphreys) dealt with the so-called “Free State titles.” It is not the correct way to put the position to suggest that these owners have been deprived of some of their rights. What has happened is that the Precious Stones Act passed a few years ago, put all the provinces on the same footing, namely, that all precious stones are vested in the Crown. That principle was recognized in all the provinces with the exception of the Cape. They had special exemptions. Certain areas which had been prospected before the 1st of April, 1927, received an exemption, because they had already been prospected. In the same way, an area prospected before the ban on it was published in the Gazette obtained certain rights, and people obtained pertain rights to prospect them. They were granted certain certificates. The whole question was very fully debated in this House in another place, and on various other occasions, and the Parliament of the day decided that this exemption was all that should be granted to these titles. For the rest, the owners of these titles are in a very much better position than those in the Transvaal, the Orange Free State and Natal, because on the proclamation they obtained two hundred claims, whereas in the Transvaal an owner got only 60. The fact that their rights were interfered with by an Act of Parliament was regrettable, as far as the owners were concerned, but Parliament came to that decision; and I am afraid the Government can hold out no hope of an alteration of the position. With regard to manganese, it is a concern of a private company, and the Government has no information as to the intentions of that particular company, but it has appeared in the press, and the hon. member mentioned it, that Colenso had been considered, and there is a possibility—I am speaking without any particular knowledge of it—that Colenso, which is a good site as regards the supply of electricity, is considered more suitable for the work, for the process which manganese has to undergo than the mine itself.

There is the question of haulage.

That is for the company to decide, whether they should haul the ore to Colenso or the coal to the mines; it is something on which the Government can give no information, and over which the Government has no say. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) raised some points on the estimates. The £3,500, district mining development, is intended to be an advance to certain mining companies which will enable them to take their supply of current. As regards the police vote at the diamond diggings, the police were put on the same footing as the other employees by getting something in the nature of a local allowance, which accounts for a large proportion of the increase. It was found necessary that the police should go through the surrounding areas, so as to ensure that safety to which our diggings are entitled. For a considerable period last year, the diggings were not worked, and the same number were not required as are required to-day, when the work is proceeding on a fairly large scale. The amount for the diamond control committee includes salaries, staff, subsistence, transport and everything else necessary to enable it to exercize its functions properly. The amount of £7,000 for valuation is to provide for accommodation, staff, transport and so forth. The hon. gentleman is wrong when he says this work was done for nothing last year, because £4,000 was paid by the State diggings. As regards the underground inspector, he is right when he said it was due in his day to complaints from miners. Some nine complaints reached the office of the Government mining engineer, and very strong pressure was applied to the office to appoint this inspector as a temporary officer. If these complaints are not well founded, and there are no errors, the time may come when that post will be abolished. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) dealt at great length with what the Minister of Mines and Industries said at Port Elizabeth. If I agree with every word he says, I do not know what there is to be replied to. He claims that the South African party should claim all credit for the industrial development which has taken place, or a fair slice of it. This is hardly the time and the place to argue that particular point; it does not touch any of the votes. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) raised a rather important question with regard to Messrs. Rosenstrauch and Korbf, and wanted to know how they were getting on with regard to the number of apprentices. They have 150 apprentices, and there should be 200 before the end of this year; but I may say, in view of the present depression and the fall in the price of diamonds, it is not likely that the Government will hold them to the strict letter of the contract for this particular period. For the rest, they have complied with the terms of their contract, and the Government is satisfied with the way they are carrying it on. The Government can give the assurance that they and the other cutters will receive whatever they require in the way of stones. The difficulty is that some of these cutters would like their pick, which is impossible; but in the new valuation office, parcels will probably be arranged in such a way that the cutters will have less reason to complain, whether the present complaints are fancied or real. The conviction the Government has is that the cutters have been treated very well indeed. The hon. member for Natal (Coast) (Mr. Reynolds) raised the question, and a very important one too, of the report in connection with the fishing harbours. The experts are at present considering that report, but it involves quite a lot of expert knowledge, and what is worse, it may involve quite a fair amount of expense—a consideration which may hold up good intentions. The Government in that connection, the hon. member will see, looking at the amount provided in the estimates, is by no means unmindful of the possibilities of our deep sea fisheries, and amongst other things, we are providing £26,000 to replace the old fishery survey vessel, the “Pickle,” and annually a large amount is spent in connection with fishery survery. As regards the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Borlase), his request was that I should state our genera] policy as regards secondary industries. If I do so, I am afraid I would be guilty of the same lapse for which the hon. member was pulled up—making a second budget speech. If he would indicate any special industry, and say whether the Government might assist that, I might be able to say something about it. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) may have a very good point for discussion with the Steel Board. I am not here to justify all the figures in connection with that particular business deal because, as I have told the other side of the House, we definitely undertook to give the Steel Board a free hand. If the hon. member knows anything about the negotiations which went on before that Steel Board came into being, he would probably come to the conclusion that £100,000 for control of this institution is not an overpayment. No doubt, this matter will be further gone into when Vereeniging is in working after the new arrangements have been made. I want to indicate to the hon. member that while he may juggle with the figures the Steel Board has taken the precaution of getting the very best of advice. They have an advisory committee upon which the following gentlemen serve: Messrs. Rees, Benson, Hollins and Berry. The Steel Board is in a position to call upon the services of people well able to tender advice on these matters.

I would like information with regard to the salt industry. The Minister knows that this is an old established industry and that to-day it is in a very parlous state.

There is a comprehensive report which I have just laid on the table on the whole industry.

The producers are selling salt at as low a figure as 2s. 3d. per 200 lbs., including the bag, which costs 9d.

I will give the industry protection. I hope you will support it on Monday.

I will accept.

I withdraw my amendment.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Sir Robert Kotzé withdrawn.

Vote, as printed, 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 on 19th May.