I move—

In moving the second reading of this Bill I venture to express the hope that the House will find no difficulty in accepting it without much discussion. The Bill is an agreed Bill, that is to say, that all the parties who are concerned in the subject matter of this Bill have come to an arrangement and to an entire agreement as to the principles of the Bill and as to the way in which they should be carried out; and a select committee has reported this Bill without amendment. Hon. members who have read the preamble may at first sight be somewhat alarmed at the apparent complexity of it. The object of the Bill is to make it possible for the Rand Water Board to make adequate provision for the allocation and payment of what are known as “fixed charges” in respect of its undertaking. A Bill was presented to, and an Act passed by, Parliament last year also dealing with the activities of the Rand Water Board, and it may be asked why it is necessary within a year to come before Parliament and to require another Act to be passed dealing with its work. The reason is this, that although the Rand Water Board has got statutory power now to obtain the extra supply of water which it requires, it has not got power in the existing legislation to make provision for the “fixed charges” that will be necessary for the loan which is necessary to be raised for the works which are now contemplated. The House will know that the Rand Water Board is a corporation created by statute, and its object is to supply water to the whole of the municipalities of the Rand, together with the South African Railways and Harbours and the mines, and also what are called certain outside consumers. Provision therefore has got to be made in respect of the working costs and of the fixed charges which have got to be made and paid for. Until the year 1909 there was no distinction made under these two heads, hut in that year, in a statute adopted by Parliament in that year, it was determined to resolve the many accounts into two different parts, that is to say, the first, those dealing with interest and redemption charges, which are called “fixed charges,” and with which the Bill now before the House deals; and secondly, with working costs. The Rand Water Board gets its supplies from different sources, from Zuurbekom, from the Swartkoppies, and from the River Vaal above the barrage which is built on that river. The water supply of the Vaal River is liable to have abstracted from it up to 20,000,000 gallons per day. 5,000,000 gallons were taken up to the year 1923, and then 10,000,000 were taken, and last year 15,000,000 gallons were taken. It is now found necessary within a year to make provision to take the final 5,000,000 gallons, so that in the near future the whole 20,000,000 gallons authorized will be abstracted and used. The existing legislation enables the whole of this water to be taken out; but it makes provision as I say, only to have power to levy interest and redemption charges and working costs, which may be styled the “uniform rate” in respect of 15,000,000 gallons, and so the presentation of this Bill and the passing of an Act of Parliament have become necessary, the House will be glad, I am sure, to hear that during the short space of a year developments have been such as to require an extra 5,000,000 gallons daily supply to be provided for. The reason why legislation has not provided comprehensively for the allocation of interest and redemption charges in respect of the new money it was necessary to raise in respect of any further works from time to time which were necessary, has been this—there has been a conflict of interests in respect of the payment of the different propositions and of the sums of money necessary to be raised for these works. For instance, under the 1909 Act a simple provision was made for the interest and redemption charges—the fixed charges—that they should be divided into two parts and paid for as to one moiety, by local authorities, and as to the other moiety, by the holders of mining titles. This left all the outside consumers in a very happy position, because they were liable only to pay the uniform rate, and escaped the payment of any charges on interest and redemption. This was, of course, not quite equitable, as the outside consumers were taking very large quantities of water, so in 1914 authority was given to charge all the outside consumers a sum which would fairly represent their share of the fixed charges, but this was done simply by raising the rate which they would pay for the water. The uniform rate which has been fixed since 1914 has been 6½d. per 1,000 gallons, and it was resolved by the hoard, after consultation, that as the outside consumers are making no contribution towards interest and redemption charges, it would be fair to charge them as much as 2s. 6d. per 1,000 gallons for all that they consumed. Matters went on on that basis until last year, when a fresh loan of £171,000 had to be raised for undertaking the works of the board. It was resolved that outside consumers should in respect of that loan pay an extra special rate of an amount which the board might decide, but provided that it should not exceed a certain definite total. That left the amount that they were to pay at 2s. 6½d. of which 6½d. was the uniform rate, ½d. was the additional special rate in respect of the loan then being raised, and 1s. 11½d. was the special rate, raising the total amount paid per 1,000 gallons to 2s. 6½d. That is the position of the law at the present time under existing legislation. It is now necessary to undertake fresh engineering works in order to get the extra 5,000,000 gallons from the Vaal River, and this will necessitate raising a loan of about £600,000. The question is how are the fixed charges to be allocated in respect of this? The House will perceive that it is not always a very simple matter to determine the basis upon which this shall be done. For instance, the mines and the local authorities from time to time make varying demands upon the water supply. It is found that the mines can profitably pump up a very large amount of water, in the course of their mining operations, and they will be making a decreased demand upon the water supply on that account. A limit of 30 per cent. has been fixed by agreement, so that now it is proposed under the legislation which is embodied in this Bill that if the mines in any one year pay less than 30 per cent. of the fixed charges of this new loan, they shall contribute an extra amount which will in any event bring it up to 30 per cent. This is a provision which has been introduced to protect local authorities from an excessive demand for paying what may be a larger portion of the fixed charges than is deemed necessary. I could explain in detail the way in which these fixed charges work out, but I do not think it is necessary that this should be done on the second reading. If any question arises in committee, the matter can be dealt with then. The object of this Bill, therefore, is simply to give more authority with regard to the fixed charges in respect of the loan which will have to be raised for the purpose of carrying out the new works of the board. These provisions are calculated to do that in the most efficient way. As I say, we are all agreed and the necessary amendments to the existing legislation are embodied in this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

Clauses, preamble and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

I cannot allow the vote to pass without thanking the Government very much on behalf of the electors of Klerksdorp for all the help they have been given. I do not think there is a greater sin that ingratitude and I do not want my constituents to be guilty of that sin. We particularly want to thank the Government for the £520,000 that it has written off on advances to co-operative societies. My constituency would have suffered particularly severely if it had not been written off and for this reason I want to express our gratitude.

I just want to make a few remarks with reference to the 1½ per cent. which the Government intends contributing to the interest on farmers’ bonds. There are many small mortgagees who are poor people, I speak of widows and orphans whose money is invested on farmers’ bonds, and they have to get their income regularly because they possibly have to pay rent, or in the case of children the money is required for their education. Seeing that interest has dropped throughout the world they must also expect to receive less interest. The difficulty I foresee, however, is that the money now has to be drawn from two sources. The 3½ per cent. comes from the farmer, and the 1½ per cent. from the Government, and I fear this will cause trouble. I do not know whether it is a fact, but I understand that the system of the Government is for the farmers, first of all, to pay their 3½ per cent., and that then they must send proof to Pretoria, and then the Department of Finance will pay the 1½ per cent. As I have already said, the small mortgagees have to get their money regularly, and if there is any difficulty about the payment or if they have to wait long for the money, it will alarm them. I fear that when the farmers want money once more in the future they will find difficulty in getting it. Investors are always very shy when any system is complicated, and I feel the Government must adopt a very simple system and see that there is not much difficulty about the people getting their money, other-wise the farmers will find it difficult to borrow in future. Much of the interest is collected by the boards of executors for widows or children. Very often the boards of executors are themselves the executors in the estate and do the work for small remuneration. If that company has to incur a great deal of expense to get the money their charges will also rise, and the income of the poor people will diminish. Then I would like to know from the Minister according to what system he intends paying out the amounts so that the people may know where they are.

I do not want to let the chance go by of asking a question about the writing off of the £120,000 for the wheat farmers. There is a certain objection in connection with that section of the co-operative societies who, on the advice of a circular from the Land Bank, obtained loans from the commercial banks. Now it appears as if the co-operative societies who got money from those banks, who assisted themselves and did not run to the Government, will be penalized and not receive their share of the writing-off. I would like the Minister to see that the commission he appoints should examine the books of the societies and if they find that the books are in order that the societies who borrowed from the banks shall also receive their just share of the writing off.

I notice that the amounts set down for assistance to farmers are very substantial indeed and I am referring particularly to items A and B, providing for an amount of about £4,000,000. Now it is quite clear to me that these subsidies do not reach the hands of those who are living on the land. I suggest that the Department of Agriculture in consultation with the Department of Labour, should make it a condition for the acceptance and for the receipt of subsidies under both these heads, that an adequate proportion of civilized labour shall be introduced on to the farms. That may be a very far-reaching measure. Work on a farm is essentially work which is suited to the white man and it is essentially an undertaking which can be conducted on family lines. There is no reason why the whole of a family should not be employed on productive work on a farm, and if the family is too small, there is no reason why other families in the neighbourhood should not be introduced on to the farm in order to do the farming work. I see hon. members smile, but I take it that they have not grown up on a farm as I have done. I can assure the whole House that there is no labour on a farm which I am not personally prepared to do and many hon. members would be much better if they did some of these things themselves, too. We have to recognize that there is a very large proportion of the inhabitants of our land who are living in the direst poverty and who are migrating from the country into the towns because they cannot get any work on the land. I personally am continually approached by people who have not the means to undertake work on the land themselves and who want work to be given to them. Now the opportunity seems to me to have arisen for us to do something. I see no reason why those who, at the instance of the State, are receiving these very substantial means, should not put themselves out to do something for their own fellow-countrymen, for the youngsters particularly, and give them work on the farms which they are being assisted to retain and to work. Surely that would be very much better for the family and for the individual than giving these people work on the roads—work which would entail their moving about and living in tents— work which they feel they should not be called upon to undertake. There is very little intellectual or moral advantage in overseeing the construction of roads, but there is immense joy in growing better crops and improving the type of your stock. The family as a unit in our farming life should be re-established on a proper footing, and now is the chance of doing that. The attractions of the towns are great, and it would be well to give some counter-poise to life on the countryside. The disadvantages and the rewards of life on the countryside, measured in pounds, shillings and pence, are not as attractive to youth as are the possible rewards to be obtained in the towns. Something has to be done to right the balance. In the first instance, it should be impressed on the whole of the population that the life of the farmer is not merely a money-making scheme; it is a whole scheme of life, and must be accepted as such; it is a co-operative concern, in which family life and activities may form a basis to the great advantage of all. I would impress on both Ministers the importance of the consideration of this subject. I urge that advantage should be taken of the present opportunity to re-establish a very large portion of our population on the land, a proportion which would otherwise drift to the towns.

I would like to ask the Minister whether it is possible for the country school masters who live on the countryside to come under this scheme as well. I am now talking of the teachers in the Free State, whose salaries have been cut. There are several of them who have made provision for their old age by saving a little and investing it in bonds on farms. Perhaps it will be possible to bring them also under the scheme. Then I want heartily to thank the Government for what it has done and to assure it that its concessions will assist very many farmers out of their troubles. I therefore, want on behalf of the farming population to express my gratitude.

I want to make a suggestion with regard to sub-head (b) Interest Subsidies, £1,500,000. All sorts of questions can be raised on that, such as, will this man get anything, or will somebody else receive something. I suggest to the committee that we should not deal with this matter now, but wait until the Bill concerning it is laid before the House, which I hope will be done on Monday or Tuesday next. That would be a better time for dealing with all these difficult questions.

I am thankful for the explanation that the Acting Minister of Finance has given that we ought rather to raise questions in connection with the proposed reduction of interest on bonds on the debate of the relative Bill. Under Head “A” I want to bring up the export subsidy payable on mohair. The mohair farmer has been in the greatest difficulty for the past 2½ years. The price of their produce has dropped more than the price of wool or any other product. The drop has been so serious that it has probably ruined the 1,000 people who are engaged in the industry. They do indeed get the same export subsidy as is payable on wool, viz., 1d. a lb. But that 1d. a lb. on a price which has dropped to one-quarter of what it was before means that the total price is still so low that the people must go under, or that section which is dependent entirely on mohair. Now we have had the good luck during the past two weeks to sell three-quarters of the mohair which was still on hand from previous years. Although there was a small rise this mohair was nevertheless sold at an abnormally low price. The farmers, however, were unable to keep it any longer. They had to sell it, and the price was so low that the people were in the impossible position of not being able to pay the interest of 3½ per cent. on bonds. The bonds of the mohair farmers are not abnormally high, They did not speculate in land five or ten years ago, or buy it at high prices. But, notwithstanding the moderate bonds, they cannot pay the interest. They were obliged to sell because they had no other hope. I think therefore, that we can make out a case for those people who are engaged in an industry which has existed here for eighty years, in favour of their getting a bigger export subsidy. I hope that something will be done in that direction. These people come under the class who cannot pay the 3½ per cent. on their bonds, and for whom no provision is made in the concessions proposed by the Government. We know that people who cannot pay 3½ per cent. will get no assistance from the interest subsidy. I want, therefore, to emphasise that these people are practically in the difficulty that they will have to throw up the sponge because under this interest subsidy provision is not made for them, unless something is done for them in this respect. I, therefore, want strongly to urge that we should assist them also. They will be an asset to us in the future. According to the Government expert, there is a future to this industry which is now passing through a crisis in its existence. In 1934 times will probably improve and therefore I hope that the Government will consider measures to help the mohair farmers over the present depression.

I and many other hon. members have various points that we would like to bring up in connection with the interest subsidy. The acting Minister of Finance, however, thinks that it will be better for us to allow those points to stand over until the relative Bill is introduced. We would like to comply with his request, but on the other hand we thought that we might mention the points now with a view to the drafting of the Bill. I do not know whether the Bill has already been finally drafted. Be this as it may, I think it better to do as the Minister wishes. I would also like to say something about the export subsidy. I have learned from my constituents that there is great difficulty owing to the farmers not having as yet received the export subsidy on maize which they sold last year. The farmers sold the maize to the merchants. The merchants did not export it themselves, but they bought the necessary quota certificates. Now the department does not want to pay out the export premium to the people athough the required quantity of the produce has been exported. It means a good deal to them to get the export subsidy and I would like an explanation as to why the premium has been withheld from these people. I do not know why it is. They did what they had to do; the merchant complied with the requirements of the Mealie Quota Act, and although those particular mealies were not exported, they still possess the quota certificate to show that the required quantity has been exported according to law. Can the Minister tell us what the reason is for this, and whether there is any possibility of the farmers getting the export subsidy.

I am interested in the appeal made by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard), suggesting that the farmers employ more Europeans on their farms, but whatever may be said in favour of the argument of the hon. member, I hope he did not suggest that it be applied to my constituents. I represent 500,000 natives, all of whom are peasant farmers in a small way, and who are supposed to draw a subsidy on wool on the same terms as European farmers. I say they are supposed to. When this subsidy scheme was first introduced some of us showed the Minister why it would be impossible to carry out his proposals as far as native farmers are concerned, and to-day I wish to quote a few figures to show how unfairly the distribution of this amount is operating so far as native territories are concerned. We have 4,000,000 merino sheep in the Transkei, and I am referring to the Transkei alone. There are quite a number of native farmers in the Transkei who pay as much as £5 to a European farmer for a ram, so that you will understand that there are not many third grade sheep. They are all merinos. 1 asked a question in this House a few months ago, requesting to be supplied with the amounts paid in each of the magisterial districts in the native territories. I have a long list of amounts here, but I shall not read it all, but will quote a few average cases. In the district of Lusikisiki, Pondoland, there are 92,000 sheep, and the subsidy paid to the natives of that district was £49. In the adjoining district, where there is half the number of sheep, the amount paid was £1,437. Another district with 109,000 sheep received the amount of £39. Another with 120,000 sheep received £1,364. In one district one penny was paid per 30 sheep; in other districts one penny was paid for eight sheep, and in some one penny for six sheep, while in one or two districts the payment went up to 2½d. for one sheep. That is unsatisfactory. I have sheep of a similar type to the native sheep, and I know I get four or five times as much as the natives get in the way of subsidy, but I am sure we don’t grow four or five times as much wool as the natives grow. The total number of sheep in that area is 4,000,000, and the total subsidy is £15,000, which works out at about one penny per sheep. The natives get approximately 3d. or 4d. per lb. for their wool, and what they should have received is somewhere about 3d. per sheep. The Minister’s method of carrying out the subsidy is so impossible that they cannot receive it. The number of forms the Government require from the traders in connection with wool grown by natives render it quite impossible for the requirements of the Government to be met. A trader told me that he had given the whole thing up, because he could not carry out the Government’s requirements, and the result is that the natives are not receiving this subsidy. I think it is grossly unfair. The natives are probably the poorest section of the community to-day. It is only a small proportion of them that can go to the Rand. The Government refuses to allow more to go. I am not complaining about that, because there are 10,000 natives wandering about the streets of Johannesburg looking for work. If the natives of the Transkeian territories grow wool, they should receive the same treatment as the European farmers. But I ask the Minister whether he can change the method under which these natives are supposed to receive this subsidy. The native is getting 1d. for 30 sheep, whereas he should get 3d. per sheep. The natives cannot pay their taxes. Wool and tobacco constitute the only means of income they have to-day, and the present conditions are extremely bad in the native territories. I travelled 100 miles in my constituency recently, and I did not see a single bag of mealies in that stretch. There is going to be more poverty and starvation in that part of the country than they have ever yet experienced. I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, or the Minister of Finance, who is in charge of the distribution of the amount, to see that the natives get fair treatment, and that they get as much of the subsidy as they are legally and morally entitled to.

I wish to say a word or two with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard). I disagree in toto with what he has said. I am not sorry, however, that the suggestion he made has been made by him, because I think it will tend to make the farmer sympathize with the industrialist. As we know, the industrialist has frequently been threatened that unless he employs a certain proportion of white labour, he would not get the bounty provided by the tariff. I hope farmers will realize what this principle will mean to them; if it is to be applied to them. If they do, they will have more sympathy with the industrialist. I must warn my farming friends that if it applies to industry, it must inevitably spread to the farming industry, and I hope we can count on the farmers to resist proposals of that kind. I want to refer briefly to sub-head E under Vote 20—rebate on railway rates, £175,000. I wish first of all to express my satisfaction, and that of every business man in the House, that for once in a way the railway user is not going to foot the bill for the rebate granted to a particular interest. It is a good principlé that it is from the consolidated revenue funds that a rebate is to be granted to the agriculturalist. In the past it has too often been an infliction on the unfortunate railway user, who has had to foot the bill, or a portion of it, for the benefit of the farmer. Therefore I compliment the Government on this, and I hope the establishment of this precedent will be one which will not lightly be departed from in the future. As to this proposal to pay railage for farmers, the acting Minister of Finance knows my views on that, I referred to it in my remarks on the budget. I would like to hear from the Government what the justification is for this particular proposal. If we are going to pay part of the railage on cattle to Johannesburg, we are going to have a much larger supply of cattle being sent there; this is recognized by the Government, which has established a committee under the Meat Control Bill to regulate and to ration the supply of meat, which indicates that they are quite satisfied that we are going to get more meat sent to Johannesburg. This means that some of the existing suppliers must forego part of their supplies, in order to make room for others from a greater distance. That being the case, and that it is going to cost the Government £175,000 to pay their half, it obviously means that it is going to cost the farming community a similar sum to rail this cattle to Johannesburg; and what is going to happen is that the farming community is going to pay £175,000 or thereabouts more for supplying Johannesburg with meat than it is paying to-day. The meat is not usually railed by the farmer at all, but by the buyer, or by the speculator, and, therefore, this sum will rather help the speculator than the farmer, because I do not believe the speculator will go to the farmer and say, “I am paying a little less for railage, and you can get the difference.” I believe he will pocket that difference himself. All that I would like to hear—and I am perfectly open to conviction on this matter—is the Government’s defence of this particular scheme. I fear, if we ration the market too much, we shall put up the cost of meat in Johannesburg, and I would rather see farmers helped in any other way than that we should raise the cost of meat to the poor people of Johannesburg.

I would like a little information from the Minister about the amount of £526,666, the amounts to be written off the maize pools. Hon. members who are interested in these know that we have two pools, the white and the yellow maize pool. The Government guaranteed 9d. a bag to the Land Bank in respect of the too high advances. Now the co-operative agency have exported considerably more maize this year, in respect of which we are voting, than what was their duty, and in the same way they have exported considerably less white maize than they should have done. In other words, the yellow maize farmers sold much more abroad at a lesser amount, and the white maize farmers got a much higher price on the South African markets. It amounts to this, that the yellow maize farmers had to make the inland market, to a great extent, for the white maize farmers notwithstanding the fact that the price of yellow maize on the South African market for the whole year was practically the same as that of white maize. The result is that the yellow maize farmers’ loss per bag was considerably more than 9d., and with a further result that the loss of the white maize farmers on the inland market was 2d. to 3d. I would like to know from the Minister how this amount will be divided up between the white and yellow maize farmers. If the amount is given equally then the yellow maize farmers will suffer still more damage, but if, on the other hand, it is arranged so that the white maize farmers are merely compensated in respect of their losses, i.e., 2d. or 3d. a bag, and the rest is given to the yellow maize farmers, then the damage or loss which the yellow maize farmers have suffered will be, to a certain extent, made up. I understand from the Land Bank that the amount will be distributed in consultation with the Government, and I would accordingly like the distribution between the two pools to take place in the way I have indicated, otherwise the yellow maize farmers will suffer still more damage than they have already done, because they had to create the market here for the white mealie farmers.

It will perhaps be better for me to reply at this stage because the debate may possibly be shortened. I want to tell the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) that the Government gave the Land Bank a guarantee of 9d. a bag. That amounts to £556,000. The Government hands over the money to the Land Bank and the co-operative societies have merely to make the necessary arrangement with the Land Bank. The Government hands over the money that has been lost, and the Land Bank and the farmers have to come to an agreement. Another question raised was that by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) about the mohair farmers. We know the price of produce, including mohair, is low, and the hon. member is now pleading for an increase of the subsidy on mohair. Let me tell hon. members that the Treasury is not a bottomless well, and that we cannot grant every request for an increased subsidy. The Government has assisted them and there has been a small rise in prices so that three-quarters of the produce could be sold. If the Government had not assisted they would have had far greater losses. The subsidy to the mohair farmers during the past year was about £26,000, and during the months of April and May a further £7,738 was paid. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. member any hope about increasing the subsidy because unfortunately we have not the money available. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. J. F. van G. Bekker) says that the way the farmers are being treated is unfair. I refer to those who sold their wool when we were still on the gold standard because they thought that we would remain on it. But if the Government had to give an extra subsidy to those farmers then it cannot remain with the wool farmers. The fruit, maize and tobacco farmers would also be able to demand an extra subsidy. And what about the shareholders who sold their shares before December? They will also be able to say that they suffered losses, and demand a subsidy because we have quitted the gold standard. Thus the hon. member will see how impossible it is for the Government to grant his request. He must not forget that the wool farmers have not come off so badly in regard to the subsidy. During the past financial year they got over £2,000,000, in April and May last £199,000, and altogether from the beginning they have got £2,850,000 subsidy. Now the hon. member says that they are not satisfied and should get an extra export subsidy. I think if he goes into the position that that would not be fair, and that it is, moveover, impossible for the Government to grant the request. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) complained about the strict conditions for obtaining the subsidy. That is true, but if my department does not keep very careful account, and does not strictly carry out the terms of the Act, then I may be held responsible for it. There was, e.g., trouble about the payment of the subsidy to maize farmers which we first of all only paid directly to farmers. They did not all sell through co-operative societies, but to merchants, and we said that we would not pay the subsidy unless it was proved that that identical maize was exported. But subsequently we decided that if the merchant proved that he had exported a quantity of maize equal to that delivered to him by the farmer, we would be prepared to pay the subsidy.

What about the man who has bought certificates?

Then the merchant speculated, and he must bear the consequences of his bad speculation. I am sorry but that man cannot be assisted. It is very unfortunate, but that is the position. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) made a strong plea about the unfairness of my department to the natives who produce wool for export. They are treated in the same way as the farmers of the European areas so far as my department is concerned. An export bonus of one penny a lb. is paid and if the native territory export 2,000,000 lbs. of wool they get the full subsidy on that quantity. My department, however, does not pay direct to the native, but to the Department of Native Affairs, which sees to the distribution. But hon. members can imagine how difficult that is, because one native comes along with half a bag of wool and another with a bag. What the Native Affairs department therefore does is to pay out the subsidy on the basis of the number of sheep or goats the native possesses according to circumstances. We are doing no injustice to them. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) raised the question of the subsidy which is given on the transport of slaughter stock to the big markets of the country. He says that it will lead to speculation in stock at the big markets. I think that the farmers are now in the position that they can themselves for the most part send their stock to the big markets of the country. They themselves send their stock to Johannesburg, where they have agents. We felt that the price of stock is so low that we ought to do something to increase it for the farmer. We could not reduce the railway rates and therefore the Treasury agreed to give the subsidy in order to bring about a reduction in the costs of transport to the farmer. If the effect is wrong, as the hon. member apparently fears, then the Government will of course at once consider the matter. It seems, however, to me that he fears that too much stock will be sent to the market. In Johannesburg the board of control is functioning now and it seems that just as much stock goes to the market as is required. The other markets are not yet controlled, but as for Johannesburg, I may say that the price is fair. It is not too much for the consumer, and there is a small rise for the farmer. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) raised an important point in connection with the wheat co-operative societies. Provision is here made for the writing-off of £120,000 on the amount advanced by the Land Bank to the society. The hon. member, however, points out that there were societies who stood on their own feet and did not get money through the Land Bank. They got it from other banks, and he asks whether the Government, if the £120,000 is not sufficient, will say that it will also allow writings-off on the advances by the other banks to such societies. I am not prepared to say that the Government will give an amount to assist the societies who obtained money otherwise than from the Land Bank. As I have already said, a commission is being appointed to make careful enquiry into the cooperative societies, and the scheme that is proposed will receive the sympathetic consideration of the Government. More I cannot say now. I cannot compromise myself any further on the subject.

Any scheme that will attempt to get farmers out of their difficulties will always receive the sympathetic consideration of this House, and it is in that spirit that the proposals of the Minister have been received here. I hope, however, that the Minister will use his best endeavours to render this scheme more practical than it is, so that at any rate it will tend to assist those who most require assistance. I am particularly interested in item B, under which an amount of £1,500,000 is to be paid out in respect of interest charges —this is the scheme under which the Government is to pay 1½ per cent. of the interest on bonds. Apparently it is intended to grant this subsidy of 1½ per cent. to all bona fide farmers, whether they require this assistance or not. I am not sure whether the provision would be statutory or only permissive. That is to Say, it is not clear whether any farmer will have the statutory right to apply for and get this subsidy of 1½ per cent., whether his financial position requires it or not. That is a point which should be made quite clear to the House before we are asked to vote this very large amount.

You will see all these matters in the Bill.

But we are voting the money now, are we not?

You are voting the estimated amount—that is all.

I want to point out that all this is somewhat inconsistent with the explanation that was given by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. The Minister said then that he was not in favour of a moratorium as it was too far-reaching, because it placed the bad debtor on the same footing as the good one. It is not unreasonable to paraphrase this sentence in reference to the farmer. It surely is wrong not to discriminate between the farmers who are in a good position, and those who are in a bad position. We might put it in this way—that it is a bad proposal to put the rich man who does not require help on the same basis as the poor farmer who needs help. The Minister of Finance, in his budget spech said, “The steps which we are now proposing must be looked upon as an emergency relief measure.” But where is the emergency in the case of a well-to-do farmer who is not being pressed by his creditors? And further on the Minister said that the present measures must, in the nature of things, be regarded as emergency measures. And then he remarked that no Government could maintain the relief of one class at the cost of other classes. One may say at the same time that no Government can come to the assistance of any class which is not in need of relief. We know, of course, that relief is needed by many people. We have this very serious position in regard to unemployment, which hon. members have dealt with, and which will again be dealt with at a later stage. I would like to know definitely, before we vote this large sum of money, whether any farmer will have the right to apply for this 1½ per cent. concession, whatever his financial position may be. Is it to be permissive, or what is it to be? Will it be at the discretion of the Government to grant this money or refuse it?

I would like to know from the Minister how the £120,000 voted for assistance to the wheat farmers is made up. The representations we made to the Minister were in connection with the amount of £230,000, which was calculated on the number of bags on the 30th September, 1932. But now the Minister mentions an amount of £120,000. We know that the Minister then told us that when there are such good co-operative societies, like the one at Lydenburg, which makes loans on its own account from commercial banks, it was very encouraging. We know of various cooperative societies that did so. It, therefore, surprises me to hear from the Minister to-day that the societies will not now be able to be helped, but that they must wait until the report of the commission comes out. Further, I would like to point out to this House that the assistance the Minister wants to give to the wheat farmers to-day is nothing worth talking about. If the figure 100 is taken for 1926 we find that the prices came down in 1927 to 87, in 1928 to 83, and in 1929 to 79. For the first half of 1930 it come down to 72, and in the second half to 54, but in 1931 it reached the low level of 43. Throughout the world we find to-day that attempts are being made to bring about an improvement in marketing. We also find that selling prices are being stabilized by all kinds of methods. In almost all countries there has been an increase of sales by co-operative societies of agricultural produce. In almost all countries we find agricultural banks, or similar institutions. We find that in 40 countries special legislation has been introduced in the last year or two to assist the farmers. The grant of £4,855,000 is therefore not such an unusual one to give to the farmers and primary producers, as it is known throughout the world that the farmers ought to be assisted and they are assisted. Take Australia, we find that in December, 1930, the Wheat Advance Bill was passed by which the commercial banks were guaranteed against losses on money lent to farmers’ co-operative societies up to 3s. per bushel. In the prairie provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta a Government guarantee of 15 per cent. was given in 1929 on the advances by the banks. In France the rate on wheat in 1909 was put up from 35 to 50 francs. In 1930 it was further put up 80 francs per 100 kilograms. We also find that a control board was appointed. I think that if we could appoint a control board here it would not be necessary for this House to vote money for writing-off purposes now. The great matter to-day is that we must have control over our produce. Although the grants by the Government have been well received I am astonished that they were not higher. In Great Britain you have the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931 by which producers can establish organizations. The organizations have control, inter alia, over the sale of produce. The Act goes very far and gives the board of control all the necessary powers to fix prices.

What vote is the hon. member talking on?

I am talking on the vote “Contribution to losses of the wheat farmers.”

That cannot be discussed now.

I raise the points to show that the steps taken by the Government can be entirely justified because they are already being taken in other parts of the world.

The hon. member can proceed.

We find that in Italy a State guarantee for agricultural products is given. The same thing is done in Japan. In the Japanese trade a minimum and maximum price is fixed. Is it too much for me to ask the Minister to introduce a similar system here? I would like to hear from the Minister how the sum of £120,000 is made up, and I would like to see that the institutions, which have got financial assistance and advances on wheat from the commercial banks should get assistance as in the case of the Land Bank.

Let me answer at once the complaint of the hon. member who has just sat down. In the first place he said that the assistance the Government was giving was not so wonderful, and that our assistance might be much greater and that other countries were doing much more, but if he carefully considers that we have a small population of less than 2,000,000 he will find that we are certainly doing a great deal in comparison with other countries which have a much larger population and that he is taking up a very petty point of view. My hon. friend wishes that the £120,000 should also be given to the commercial banks. No, the intention with regard to that sum is to assist the cooperative societies that have raised loans from the Land Bank. As I have already said, we cannot at the moment grant assistance to the co-operative societies who have borrowed money from the commercial banks. Their cases may be hard, and they have my sympathy, but the Government cannot possibly go further at this stage. It must wait until the whole matter has been considered. If we were to start now with the commercial banks we shall to-morrow have to do not only with the maize and wheat farmers but the tobacco farmers and others will also come for assistance in cases where they have borrowed money, and the day after that all the rest who have borrowed money will come. The Government has, therefore, decided that it cannot go further now before the co-operative societies have been enquired into, and recommendations have been made by the commission. I can assure you that the Government will consider their recommendations with as much sympathy as possible.

I would like to say something in connection with the export subsidy, notwithstanding what the Minister of Agriculture has said in reply to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer). I just want to point out that at the time we passed the Act on export subsidies the Minister of Finance said that the reason for the subsidies was because of the low prices. Now we find to-day the position of the mohair farmers, I am not talking of the wool farmers, because, although their prices are below the ordinary selling price, they, nevertheless, get a fair price, but the mohair farmers get no more than 3d. to 4d. a lb. for their mohair, they cannot possibly continue farming at that price, and I hope the Minister will understand it and will protect them against the low prices. Then I come to the question if it is not possible to pay a higher subsidy on mohair.

It is impossible, my friend, I have already said so.

But possibly if we persist the Minister may see a chance of doing something. The people appreciate what the Government has done, but we find the position very difficult, and they are not even able to pay the 3½ per cent. interest on their bonds. I can mention cases of people who up to two years ago were never in arrear with their interest, but who cannot pay now. They cannot sell their mohair, or if they do so it is only at 3d. a 1b. If they are not assisted they will all be ruined, and this is surely the last thing the Government wants to see. As the Minister said, they are being met to the extent of about £34,000. That is not much and I would like the Minister to consider the increase in the subsidy on mohair.

I do not think anybody will deny that many of our farmers are in desperate straits, and anything that I may say on this matter is not meant in any way to interfere with the help the Government proposes to make the farmers who really need assistance. What I do object to, however, is the method by which the Government intends to assist the farmer. Why should people who have saved money for years be compelled in their old age to lose the benefits of their thrift? There are many people who, by the exercise of strict economy, have been able to leave their dependants, say, the sum of £2,000, which was invested at 6 per cent. on mortgage. Now they are told that the rate of interest must be reduced to five per cent. Let hon. members imagine what that serious reduction of a small income must mean, say, to a widow with four or five children. I was glad to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl). The late Government, towards the end of last year, paid five per cent. per annum in interest, for if you bought a 12-months Treasury bill for £1.000. you could get it for £950. Now, however, the Government says if you have money invested in a farm mortgage at six per cent., you must be content to receive 25 per cent. less. Last year anyone who lent money on a bond paid a surtax of 7 per cent. if the mortgage rate were 6½ per cent., which is the average rate charged in the Cape, and also, I believe, in the Free State. A man receiving 6½ per cent. on a fixed interest bearing security had to pay a surtax of 7 per cent. Now the Government wants to receive 25 per cent. in the ease of people who have lent money on farms at 6½ per cent. That certainly requires a good deal of explanation. If we have to suffer these things under coalition, then God help the rest of us ! It seems to me to be a terrible thing that we should be mulct to the tune of 25 per cent. Companies which loaned money on farm mortgages are to be punished in this way, have at the request of the Government assisted farmers who fell into arrears with the payment of the interest on their mortgages. In no case will it be found that any reputable company has brought pressure to bear on the farmer unless it was known that he did not want to pay at all. The position to-day is so bad that I am afraid a number of farmers will not be able to pay even the 3½ per cent. that is talked about. We are told that if anybody gets more than the rate of interest now to be allowed, it will be reduced to 5 per cent. It seems to be iniquitous. Where is sanctity of contract, if this is the way people’s contracts are to be treated, and if, within six months, they are to be obliged to lose so much of the amount due to them? A difference is made as between one man and another. If a man does a little farming and some business as well, then he does not get the benefit of the subsidy. We want to help the farmer because the business man depends on the prosperity of the farmer, but I cannot see why a man who has worked for years should suffer in the way proposed. There are bonds which have been fixed for a period of years. What is going to happen in those cases? It seems to me that we are making new laws by a side issue. Then I would like to say that the acting Minister of Finance asks us to wait until the Bill comes in, but if the Bill is to be introduced one night and put through in a hurry—where are we?

To what legislation is the hon. member referring?

I am referring to the statement of the acting Minister of Finance, made by him this afternoon. He asked us to wait until we receive the Bill, and we are told that by Friday or Saturday next the House will rise. Is there time for us to go into such a. Bill? It is unfair. I cannot see why we should be asked to delay. If the Bill had been before us to-day I could understand the request being made that we should wait until we could study it, but seeing that it is not before us. I think the request is unfair. I must protest against depriving people of 25 per cent. of their interest. I don’t think we should tax the poor man and his family in the way in which the Minister’s proposal will act. Unfortunately it is generally the man in the towns who has to lose the money. I hope that when the Bill is brought before the House, this matter will be sympathetically dealt with.

I want to ask the Minister whether it has been brought to his notice that the payment of the subsidy has been one of the contributory causes of low prices being realized for grapes overseas. It is said that owing to the collapse of internal markets, and the low price of grapes, there was a natural inducement to the grape producer to export what grapes he could. As a result, coupled with the present grading regulations, a large quantity of grapes was put upon the London market, which was not up to the export standard. Not only were prices depreciated, but the whole position of the grape producer in South Africa was endangered. The hon. the Minister knows that the Empire Marketing Board advertises South African grapes. When a man goes into a shop and buys South African grapes, and finds that they are not up to standard, he has finished with them for good and all. It is felt by a large number of the grape producers, especially those who export the top grades, that the whole of their market is being endangered, and they also feel that the payment of the subsidy has had the effect of increasing that danger. In view of the fact that the subsidies are being continued, will the Minister see whether the grading regulations are sufficiently strict, to make sure that the very natural inducement of the grape producer to export all he can is not liable to endanger the market in England.

I want to make a reference to item D, “Contribution to meet Deficit on Wheat Pool, 1931-’32,” £120,000. There is nothing perhaps which is discussed more in this country at the present time than the price of bread, and probably nothing has been discussed more during recent months. This vote reflects very considerably upon that article. I take it that this vote of £120,000 is to make up a deficit in the wheat pool through late sales, or something of that character, but whatever it is we may take it that though the price of bread in the Union may be high now, this £120,000 has really got to be added to the price in order to get at the correct cost. I have just got some recent figures from Pretoria, the latest comparative figures officially compiled. In the case of South Africa there is a higher cost of living than in any other part of the commonwealth. It would be interesting to look at the price of bread at the moment. The official information I have is that bread offers the most conspicuous example between the Union and the rest of the commonwealth as far as the cost of living is concerned, while the price in South Africa is 6.3d. per lb., the price in the United Kingdom is 3.7d. While it is 2.35d. in Australia, 2.96d. in Canada and 3.8d. in New Zealand. Now it is well not to forget entirely, at a time like this, the history of this wheat question and the cause of the present price of wheat. It was in 1930 that the claim was made for an increased duty from 4s. 4d. to 5s. 8d., but while the Minister of Finance then declined to meet the demand, because he felt it was the duty of the Government to protect the consumer as well as the grower, he subsequently, in March, increased the duty to 5s. 8d., and this was added to the price of No. I wheat, which was fixed at 22s. 6d., and flour was to be imported not under 37s. Now the point I want to make is that, although that price was fixed in March, 1930, the prices of all kinds of produce right throughout the country continually fell, but there was no interference with the price of wheat. In March, 1930, the price of wheat was 48s. 6d. per quarter, c.i.f,, South Africa, or 16s. 6d. per bag of 200 lbs. But when we come to September, 1931, we find that the price went down to 12s. 6d., and that flour had a similar reduction, but the price of No. 1 wheat protected was not interfered with and still stood at 22s. 6d., with flour at 37s. Now the prices have fallen again and again, and to as low as 7s. 9d. on the Liverpool market, but no change has been made whatever, and no attempt made at a reduction in the prices of wheat and flour here. The point to remember is that the wheat farmer has had a much greater protection than any other farmer in this country, and if the protection of the ordinary farmer has not been sufficient, then I suggest that the wheat farmer has certainly had too high a protection. What. I suggest the Government should have done is that as the prices of all other produce receded and as prices in the wheat market of the world fell to a very great extent during practically two and one-half years, surely there should have been some adjustment made in the price of wheat here; in other words, you have allowed every other farmer in this country, with the exception of the wheat farmer, to meet falling prices, and all the time the wheat farmer has been getting 22s. 6d. per bag for wheat and 37s. for flour, although the price of wheat has come down almost 50 per cent. Surely it was the Government’s duty and a fair thing to have said that, while during these two and one-half years all other farmers were suffering, why should the wheat farmer be considered a separate and distinct entity and maintain a price so far above world prices, when world prices have fallen. I suggest and I maintain that this price of 22s. 6d. had a bearing in March, 1930, on world prices, and it was fixed in reality on the Australian price; but when prices have come down two-thirds or lower, the Government should have re-considered the price of wheat. What I want to ask the Government is, what is it going to do with this matter now? I am not opposing so much the amount that is to be voted as looking for a declaration of policy which will protect the public, and not place the wheat farmer in any better position than the other farmers of the country.

I first want to thank the Government for this £120,000 they j are giving as a contribution towards losses on wheat, sold through the pool, and I hope that nothing will have to be paid back on the advances made to wheat farmers. Let it be perfectly clear. Thousands of wheat farmers joined the co-operative societies on official advice—on the advice of the Government—and due to that fact, they saved the market from collapse, and if they had not done that all the other farmers would have received a very low price for their wheat. If these farmers are forced to pay back any part of these advances when they did not expect to have to do so, not only the smallest, not only the poorest farmer, but the perfectly solvent farmer, is going to be ruined, because he is held jointly and severally liable. The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) suggested that part of this amount could be used to pay back loans made from the commercial banks. We co-operative farmers were told that we should try to stand on our own feet; and therefore we went to the commercial banks for loans for advances on exactly the same basis as others went to the Land Bank, and in some cases, as I am reminded, at a higher rate of interest; and now it is absolutely unfair to penalize these people and say to them that they shall not get any portion of this contribution, because they happened to do it through a commercial bank. At least, it should be done pro rata. I am sorry the Minister will not guarantee that the loans made through commercial banks should be treated on the same basis as those made through the Land Bank. A portion of this amount should be given to the commercial banks to allow any loans made through them to be written-off. I honestly feel it is an outrage to punish these people simply because they borrowed from the commercial banks. How can the Minister penalize one section of the agricultural community and allow one portion to have the whole written-off, and allow another section in the same state to be ruined? I want to support what the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. S. Becker) said. This scheme is surely one which is out to save the wheat farmer, and if it is to save the farmer is it fair to allow one section to go under and allow another section, who borrowed on the same basis and for the same purpose, to go under? I understood from the Minister of Finance last session that nothing would have to be paid back on these advances. The co-operative farmers got only 17s. 6d., therefore 3 or 4 shillings less than those who were outside the pool. The co-operative societies prevented the market from collapsing, and because they did that they are to be penalized. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) said that this £120,000 was evidently to be added to the price of bread. Let me tell him that this sum is mainly interest on money borrowed to pay advances to co-operative farmers and thereby prevent flooding of the market. As hon. members know, we had to keep wheat off the market, and the co-operative farmers jointly and severally borrowed the money from the Land Bank and commercial banks, and one of the largest charges will be that of interest. It was largely to support the market that this money was borrowed. Then the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) refers to the price of bread. He says in this country it is 3.6d. per lb., and in England only 1.7d. If you expect our farmers to produce wheat at 1.7d., it would be slave-grown, to compete against dumped or slave-grown wheat, which makes the price so low in England, then it is nothing more or less than sweated labour. The point is this, that if we farmers gave our wheat for nothing, the urban consumer would still have to pay 5d. for his loaf. If the townsman wishes to have his bread delivered every morning, wrapped in grease-proof paper, at a certain hour, and thereby increasing cost of delivery, that is his business, and he must not mind if he has to pay for it. There is only 2d. worth of wheat in the 2 lb. loaf. The hon. member also said that wheat prices had fallen all over the world, and that ours should have fallen pro rata, whilst we still get 22s. 6d. Let me tell him I would like to know any wheat farmer who, in the last year, got 22s. 6d. for a bag of wheat. It has been sold down to 15s., then to 14s., and even down to 12s., and the hon. member ought to know that. As for wheat prices adjusting themselves, they have adjusted themselves from 22s. 6d. down, in many cases, to 15s. [Time limit.]

I just want to remove a misunderstanding which may be created by remarks of the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl). The hon. member says that co-operative societies there exist owing to the encouragement of the Government and the department, but the hon. member forgets to add that the Government and the department always went on the principle that co-operative societies must be run on sound business lines. I do not want to talk here today about co-operative societies, and hoW some of them are managed, because it would make the hair of my hon. friend stand on end.

Go ahead.

He knows that when a business is run on nonbusiness lines it cannot generally be expected from the country, when mistakes are made, to pay for them. We must, therefore, see to it that people are not allowed to become a burden, owing to their constantly failing in their own business, and our having to help them.

Have there not been failures by the Land Bank?

As I said, I do not want to discuss co-operative societies because my hon. friend’s hair would stand on, end. The whole matter will be enquired into and sympathetically dealt with by us. My hon. friend must not create the impression in the House that the societies can just make failures and when they have done so they can run to the Government. I therefore feel that hon. members who talk so much about writing-off, after what the Government has already done for the farming population, are not creating a nice impression. If we are going to agitate in this House what can we expect in the country? It really looks a little like ingratitude for what the Government has done.

I would like to know from the Minister whether, under this amount of £2,500,000 for export subsidies, the subsidies for the export of tobacco are also included. The Minister will remember that representations were made to him by the tobacco cooperative societies to give subsidies on the export of tobacco as well. I hope the Minister will be prepared to discuss this matter with the tobacco co-operative societies shortly because it is of great importance to them. As the Minister has already said, the people must not look out for alms, but the tobacco farmers are an especial case, they have got to the stage that they have to find an overseas market. We cannot sell everything locally and will have to export. At present the only market is the continent of Europe and prices there are very low. We should be able to find a market in England, but then we would have to deliver regularly, but even if we want to get that market a small export subsidy will be required and if we get it for a year or so I am convinced that the tobacco farmers can create a market abroad. This is of great importance because this branch of agriculture, as such, keeps proportionately more people alive than the other branches. The Minister also is much interested in tobacco farming because many of the settlers are tobacco farmers. I am convinced that the Government must search for a way out in this direction in order to enable the farmers to find a living. But then it is necessary for us to export overseas, and we can only get a footing after we have got support by way of a subsidy for a certain time. At present the tobacco farmers are forced to export by the Tobacco Quota Act. I welcome that Act, but if the tobacco farmers have to export then they will have to be assisted in the special circumstances. The production was fairly small last year, but there are still such large stocks unsold that they will have to export. If they get no subsidy they will be very badly off, and I want to point out to the Minister that it would greatly assist if he would only give the export subsidy to co-operative societies. The Minister will have to pay out less and the co-operative societies will have better control over the industry. I hope the Minister will consider the matter, and discuss it again with the Minister of Finance.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the payment of subsidies in future. I want to point out that there was much delay in the past in paying out the subsidies, especially in some parts such as the north-west where the people live a long distance from the towns and post offices. They are, of course, very much disappointed on coming to the village, after they have received notice that the subsidy will be sent to them on a certain day, to find that the cheque is not there. This did not happen in one case, but in many cases, and it caused much disappointment and inconvenience to the people. Especially in connection with the interest subsidy I hope that the delay will not take place as in the past. I feel that I must also to-day plead and appeal to the Government on behalf of the wool farmers in those parts. I think the Government should consider the circumstances and difficulties in which those farmers are and that the subsidy on wool should be increased temporarily until such time as things improve. The Minister may smile and he will probably say that he can do no more, but those people have lost many sheep owing to the drought and their incomes have so diminished in consequence that many of them have for the time being no incomes. They are going under, and we must assist them in one way or another. It is no use reducing the people’s interest and giving them contributions if they cannot properly sell their produce. The only way, therefore, is by assisting them with an increased subsidy. That section of the population is having the worst time. There may be other parts which are more prosperous, and which do not have such a bad time, and do not need it so much. That is no reason why they ought not to be helped. I want to ask the Minister, for a time at any rate, to give those people a larger subsidy. I have already brought to the notice of the Prime Minister the troubles of the manganese industry, which is also in a very bad state at present. However, I want to ask the Minister concerned whether the time has not come to subsidize that industry better. As the Minister himself knows, the subsidy of 10 per cent. was reduced some time ago to 7 per cent. This is not the time to reduce subsidies, but, as everyone will admit, to increase them. I want earnestly to appeal to the Minister not to allow the industry to be entirely ruined. He can only prevent that by giving them a better subsidy, and I hope he will give the matter his serious attention and consideration.

I want to add a few words in connection with the amount of £120,000 for the wheat farmers. The Minister of Agriculture was rather hard on the co-operative societies. It is true that all kinds of mistakes were made, and I think it is unfair to put all the blame in this matter on the co-operative societies. They had a very hard time owing to many people not joining up, and now the Government is blaming them for not having got better prices. The department of the Minister told the farmers: “Join the societies then you will get 22s. 6d. a bag for your wheat.” Very well, the people joined up but the large majority did not do so. The co-operative societies complied with the Minister’s request, and a considerable number of farmers joined them, but then those outsiders came and sold under the price and spoilt the market. You can say what you like to those people, but we cannot put the blame on the shoulders of the co-operative societies. Let me give a concrete case of a co-operative society in my own constituency. They said that they would be very glad to get 22s. 6d. for their wheat, and they followed the advice of the department. The society received 135,133 bags of wheat on which they got an advance of £116,615, they kept the wheat because they wanted 22s. 6d. for it as they were advised by the department of agriculture, in the meantime interest accumulated. I am taking the position up to the end of last November, and now another six months have passed. The interest has accumulated to £5,938. Storage was £4,504, and handling charges about £2,000. Therefore, at the end of November the costs were £12,442 on an advance of £116,116, or nearly 12 per cent. At the end of May this year the cooperative society had 77,000 bags still on hand, and now the Land Bank demands that they must pay before the 30th June. I mention these figures to show what a difficult position the societies are in, and it is unfair to throw the blame of all this on them. They waited for a price of 22s. 6d. and, as the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) said: “Show me the farmer who got 22s. 6d. for his wheat.” Is it the society’s fault? No, it is partly the fault of the farmers who did not join up with the societies. I admit that it is their fault, but the Minister cannot blame the societies. Now you have the Government and the Minister giving them £120,000. It is not a present to the members of the societies to put in their pockets, but it is to prevent their having to pay in anything further on the 17s. 6d. which they got. Instead of the members of the cooperative society getting 22s. 6d. for their wheat, the Government has now given £120,000 to prevent them having to pay anything more on the 17s. 6d. The man who has been riding on the backs of the co-operative societies got 20s. 6d. or 21s. 6d. for his wheat. It is partly his action which has made things go wrong. But I say definitely that it is not fair to come here and to accuse the co-operative societies that it is them who have made things go wrong. They have done their duty, but have been left in the lurch because there were so many farmers who did not join the societies. Now the Government comes to assist them in this way and we are very thankful. We hoped that the Government would do something more and I want to repeat an earnest appeal to the Government to make a larger amount available to compensate the societies for their losses. But, nevertheless, we are thankful for this help. There is, however, a considerable amount of uncertainty about the matter. How will the £120,000 be paid out and administered exactly? There is considerable lack of clarity on the subject and I shall be glad if the Minister can give us information as to how it will be distributed.

I just want to give another explanation. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) has made a tremendous defence for the co-operative societies. Those mentioned by him were possibly conducted on proper business lines. I do not deny it but let me tell him that there are societies that are not so conducted. A certain society accepted 300,000 bags of wet wheat which was eventually sold at 10s. or 12s. per bag and is the taxpayer now to pay for that? No, the Minister may not say such things but hon. members can talk quite freely. The hon. member goes further and says that the Minister held out the prospect that the farmers would get 22s. 6d. for their wheat. It is said that the Minister stated that the farmers should hold their wheat and they would get it. When did the Minister say that?

The reports of your department in the newspapers said it.

An agreement was entered into with the millers in 1930. It was for one year, and for that year the farmers got the prices they were entitled to. Thereafter the price was not fixed. There was a conference with all the millers who proposed a scheme which would mean that the price of wheat would be from 18s. to 20s. The co-operative societies said that they did not want to negotiate further because they wanted the price to be 22s. 6d. The Transvaal then withdrew and it is not in trouble now. The Transvaal saw that the societies and the millers had not come to an agreement, and they sold their wheat. Now all those things are projected on to the Government. I am not prepared to take the responsibility for it. It is not the fault of all the co-operative societies. Some of them are run on proper business lines, but this certainly does not apply to all. The time has come when we must have a proper enquiry into the societies so that we can try to put them on a sound business footing. The hon. member further asks how we intended to distribute the £120,000. The Land Bank advanced the money and the money will be given to the Land Bank to distribute. There will probably be cases where the one society has promised more than the other, but that is a matter between them and the Land Bank. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) asked for the increase of the subsidy on wool. I have already said that the farmers for the period the subsidy was enforced received £2,850.000 for wool. That is what the wool farmers received. Prices of wool are rising, and does the hon. member think that the Government is an inexhaustible spring which can always add something to the price the farmer gets? I can assure the hon. member that the Government has carefully considered all those things and cannot think of granting anything of the sort. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) asked for the increase of the subsidy on tobacco. Last year when we passed the Export Quota Act with regard to tobacco it was said here that all would be right if the Act went through. The tobacco farmers said that they had a market in Europe and if they could only export the surplus then they would find themselves in a land flowing with milk and honey. Now the hon. member comes and says that if the Government does not intervene and give them an additional subsidy, the tobacco farmers will be ruined. The Government has considered that matter also. The ordinary subsidy will be paid but the Government cannot consider the increase suggested.

I am very glad about the assistance the farmers are getting. We must be very thankful for what we have got in view of the circumstances this country and the world are in. I do not say that the Government does not deserve criticism but we must admit that we have been assisted beyond our expectations. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) has said here. The Minister said that when the Acton the export quota for tobacco was passed he thought that everything would go well. He must remember that no Act can be administered without money and the tobacco farmers have no money. It is not an industry that produces food in this country, but it supplies an income to many of our settlers and occupiers of small pieces of ground, and if the Government does nothing for them then still more of them will go under. What I would like to bring to the notice of the Government is that my wheat farmers complain that not only are the prices so low, but their greatest complaint is that they reap too little wheat. Therefore I would like to bring it to the notice of the Government in order to try to assist the wheat farmers in the Transvaal. They all have small holdings and have accordingly to work the same ground over and over again. The soul of that land is fertilizer and there is none. The people have to import it and they cannot do it because they are too poor. Owing to the land not being fertilized they get no harvests. I, therefore, want to ask if those people cannot get any help. We have already approached the railways to lower the railway rates on fertilizer and they have done so. We do not expect any more assistance from the railways because we cannot expect them to carry the fertilizer free. What we want to ask the Government is to consider the payment of the carriage on fertilizer for a few years. We have fertilizer in our own parts in the low veld. I tried it on my ground and it does very well, but the farmers are too poor to import it. The price of fertilizer is not too great and the farmers will be able to pay it, but they cannot pay the railway rates. We, therefore, ask the Government to pay the railways for a few years to carry the fertilizer free.

The hon. member cannot now discuss that.

The Minister will be glad to hear that I am not going to move anything that will cost him anything extra, but that I merely want information. It was found at the start, when the export subsidy was being paid, that some buyers tried in an improper and illegal way to get hold of a part of the subsidy which was due to the farmers. There were complaints and the Minister instituted an enquiry to see if it was not possible to put a stop to the attempts of those merchants. The Minister probably learned that it was not possible to prosecute the people, and in order to frighten them read out a list of names of the people in the House. It was a list of names which looked like a list of names of suspected immigrants. What I want to know is whether the reading of the names, and the fact that it was published, had the desired effect, and whether any further complaints have come in about buyers who tried to get hold of money due to the farmer in an improper way.

I wish to confirm the remarks of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson). We find that owing to the subsidies paid to the exporters of grapes a very large quantity was shipped this season in excess of that sent overseas in previous years. As a result the market price dropped considerably. It was due not so much to the large quantity as to inferior quality. The standard is lower this year, due partly to climatic conditions, and, as a result, the market fell considerably overseas, and the producers of good quality grapes suffered very considerably thereby, The subsidy is not paid on the amount realized, and there is no distinction between a man who grows first-grade grapes and a man who grows an inferior grade. That is obviously wrong, and I think the Minister should consider the question of paying the subsidy on sales results. We have to consider also, the question of the competition from the Argentine, which is becoming a serious thing for our grape industry. Unless we continue to export high-grade grapes, we are going to lose the valuable market which we have built up.

Hon. members have brought up the question of the subsidy on grapes, and I am asked whether I know that a large quantity of grapes of a very low standard have been exported, I am aware of this, and we are going to lay down an export grade in future, because I cannot sit still and allow our whole trade to fall to the ground. We are having a conference with some of the principal growers at present to discuss the whole position, and I can assure hon. members that we are going to lay down a definite standard. Those who do not come up to that standard will not be allowed to export.

†*Let me just answer the question of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Air. Sauer). He said that there were certain buyers who wanted in an improper way to get hold of a part of the subsidy paid to farmers. No steps were taken against these people, but at the moment it looks to me as if the publishing of the names has had a very good effect. Some of the firms subsequently wrote to me and proved their innocence. I think the step, therefore, had a very good effect, because so far we have had no further trouble. Then it was asked whether it is possible to increase the subsidy to the manganese mines. Let me say that I have never yet been so disappointed as at the action of the manganese mines. The Minister consented to them also falling under the Subsidies Act. We received representations from ministers of religion and other people and eventually agreed that the subsidies that were paid to mines should be of retrospective force. We, however, imposed the condition that the mines should employ Europeans. But what happened? As soon as the mines had the subsidies in their pockets they closed down. I am, therefore, not at all prepared to think of giving an increase in subsidy to those mines.

I am very sorry that public money must be given to-day and an amount of £120,000 in fact to pay the losses of the wheat farmers. It is due to a few mistakes that were made, and chiefly to a misunderstanding. The wheat farmers trusted to an honourable agreement which was not a legal agreement. Co-operative societies were established relying on it, especially in my constituency, where they thought that they would get 22s. 6d. a bag. The Land Bank, presumably in consultation with the Government, paid out an advance of 17s. 6d., although, according to the Act, only 60 per cent. of the market value could be paid out on the article. The third set-back which they had was that weevil got into the wheat in the elevators. Although I am thankful for the assistance from the Government, I am sorry because it was not necessary if the machinery was in order. The country is ripe for sale through one channel, and there is no branch of farming which has not yet demanded an opportunity to sell solely through one channel. If it had been introduced two years ago into the wheat business then it would not have been necessary to-day to make this amount available. But the farmers found when the time came for marketing the wheat that wheat was coming in from Basutoland which was sold at 18s. 6d., and non-members of the societies sold their wheat at £1 and £1 1s. a bag. The members remained loyal and did not sell under 22s. 6d. The Minister will now have to choose whether he wants to make co-operative societies in South Africa or break them for good. There are already many co-operative societies which have resigned from Sasco; we are all prepared to withdraw our resignations provided legislation is introduced requiring wheat to be sold through one channel.

The hon. member cannot discuss co-operative societies as such, but merely the deficit which has to be made good.

I just want to point out that if it had happened before then it would not have been necessary to take this £120,000 out of the Treasury to-day. Moreover, all our elevators should be thoroughly cleaned; if that were done, then that amount would not have been so high to-day. The question is whether it is not time to test a system to clean the holds of the grain elevators to make them absolately clean, then we shall not again suffer similar losses. If there is trouble the grain ought to go over a sieve and be properly blown out, then experts should fix what process ought to be used to keep the grain permanently free from weevil. Just to show what confidence we had in the co-operative societies I want to point out how from time to time it was urged that our societies in the Free State should maintain the price at 22s. 6d. There was a demand made, e.g., on the 14th December, by the Department of Agriculture on the farmers which appeared in “Die Volksblad” of the 16th December, 1931, saying that an appeal was being made to the farmers to co-operate. The Government clearly said that sales should not take place at 19s. or 20s., but that the price of 22s. 6d. should be maintained. If the machinery had been adequate then the farmers would have got the right price. This is the opportunity for the Minister of Agriculture to make a great success of co-operation or else to break it, because the farmers can no longer co-operate under these circumstances.

We have heard a great deal to-day of the wheat question and the losses sustained by the wheat pool. I am sorry that, owing to my scant knowledge of Afrikaans, I have not been able to follow all the speakers, but, as far as I can gather, there is a feeling abroad that extra compensation should be paid to the farmers. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) informed us that the price of wheat was 22s. 6d. That was the price two or three years ago, but not the price to-day. He also gave particulars of the prices of wheat two or three years ago in England, and it is quite true that in 1929-’3O the price was between 40s. and 50s. a quarter in England. As a matter of fact, in August, 1931, before England was off the gold standard, the price in Liverpool was as low as 7s. 4d. per bag of 200 1bs. To-day, with England off the gold standard, and with a slight improvement in world price, it is 10s. 4d. per bag for Argentine wheat. The hon. member also referred to the high prices of flour and bread. Naturally, the price of flour is based on the price millers pay for wheat, and the price of bread is based on the price bakers pay for flour. The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) has told us of the tremendous losses which have been incurred by members of the wheat pool. As far as I can gather, all the losses have been incurred by members of the wheat pool, and I am not aware that there have been losses on wheat sold through the usual channels.

Naturally; we have made the market.

An agreement was made at Pretoria, in 1930, when millers and farmers met, that the price should be stabilized at 22s. 6d., which agreement held for one year. The millers who were party to that agreement loyally observed it. The trouble came in the following year, when millers and farmers again met at Pretoria, but were unable to come to an agreement. Why were they unable to do so? Because they did not have a common body, and they were not united. The millers present represented only themselves, and many small millers were not represented. Many farmers sold under the prices which were fixed, and millers who were not parties to the agreement were able to purchase wheat at much lower prices elsewhere. As to the 1931-’32 crop, the pool still insisted on getting a price of 22s. 6d., although, under prevailing conditions, world prices had dropped. Unfortunately, for the farmers in one way, the crop was a record one —the first time in which South Africa has grown a crop of wheat which is in excess of its requirements. Owing to unemployment and poverty, many poor people used substitutes for wheat and flour, and that naturally reduced the demand for the farmers’ wheat, and prices dropped. Those farmers, who the hon. member for Bredasdorp told us sold direct to the millers and dealers, got 3s. more per bag than the farmers who sold through the wheat pool, and they got 21s. cash, whereas those who were members of the pool got an advance, in some cases, of 15s., and in other cases, of 17s. 6d., expecting later on that they would get a further sum of 5s. per bag. Unfortunately, through the mismanagement of the pool and other causes, that extra price was not forthcoming, so we are faced with this fact to-day that the farmers who sold through the ordinary channels which were in operation before the pool commenced, got 3s. or more per bag more than those who sold through the co-operative societies. It appears to me to be a case of heads and tails. Heads the pool wins, and tails the taxpayer pays. Why has the pool not been a success?

Because there was a surplus.

That is very true. The point is simply this, that instead of selling their wheat in the early part of the year they preferred to store it away and to hold out for much higher prices. As a matter of fact, 40,000 or 50,000 bags of wheat from the Caledon and the Bredasdorp districts had an excess of moisture, and could not be stored in the elevators. That wheat was left at the quarry stores in the docks, and left so long that it deteriorated in quality, became infested with weevils, and was afterwards sold at from 12s. to 18s. per bag.

Was there a market for it?

Yes, an offer was made to the pool of 20s. 6d., but was not accepted. I myself later on bought a quantity of that wheat. The explanation I have given is one of the reasons why the pool has lost so much this year.

We have had a very full discussion on this matter, and I hope we shall be able to come to a vote. I have only one question to ask, and that is in connection with the liquidation of the liability of the maize cooperative societies. I quite agree that the Government have taken a wise course in meeting the heavy losses of the maize co-operative societies in the Transvaal, and I can see no reason why the vote towards the unavoidable losses of the wheat co-operative societies should not also be approved of. At the same time I want to mention that in other parts of the Union there are similar co-operative societies, on a smaller scale it is true, that are in a precisely identical position, and I hope when the co-operative societies’ enquiry has taken place, the Minister will consider these cases and deal with them in such a way as to enable the societies to continue with some hope of success. I have a letter received this afternoon from Natal which says—

I think these” intolerable loads” are due to the depression unfairly placed upon the societies through the catastrophic fall in prices.

After what the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) has said, I am sorry that I cannot leave the matter there. He wants this committee to believe that we consumers of bread in the Union have to pass through a terribly bad time. Is he aware that for years and years flour was never so low as it is to-day? The misfortune is that the biggest bakeries in the big towns are controlled by millers. Notwithstanding the low price of flour, we find that the price of bread in Cape Town has risen a 1d. I also want to ask the Minister of Finance, when permits are being issued for the importation of wheat, that they shall only be issued for a fixed period. After a fixed time they should lapse. What do we find at present? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Havenga) meant very well in allowing wheat to be imported in December from fear that there might be a shortage of wheat, but, according to the permits which were issued, we find that between October and December, 1931, 198,530 bags of Australian and Canadian wheat were imported. That is one of the difficulties we had to contend against. In 1932 we had a surplus of 2,000,000 bags, and that was added to by 512,790 bags of Australian and Canadian wheat which were imported, plus 150,000 bags from Basutoland. If the permit stated when it lapsed I feel certain that the fear of the deficit would not have existed at the end of 1931. We find, however, that from January to December, 1932, wheat was still coming in constantly. I am not speaking here of the authorized hard wheat from Canada, but of Australian soft wheat. It is when the surplus was there that we had the so-called bad business of which the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Chalmers) spoke. It was not so much bad business but the result of the way in which the permits were issued. At the time of the surplus between January and December, 1932, a further 314,260 bags were imported plus the 150,000 bags from Basutoland. I also want to suggest that when the danger of shortages or surpluses arises the Government should consult the recognized channels. If those channels were recognized then we could have given the Minister the assurance that there was not the surplus which there was said to be.

I would like to refer to two points which come under this vote, viz., Head B (C.1). I do not know whether this is the appropriate time to do so. Provision is made in the estimates that the Government will assist the debtors on bonds over farms by a reduction of interest. Why cannot the rate of interest also be reduced on urban property? There are many of our townspeople who have bonds over their property and they have to pay a very high rate of interest. It has been brought to my notice that they have to pay up to 8½ per cent. We know that money is lying idle on the market to-day. The banks, however, are not prepared to increase the rate of interest, they are bringing it down to-day. No interest is paid on money under six months while half per cent. is paid on money which is invested for under twelve months and two per cent. on money over twelve months, while building societies get up to 8½ per cent. for money they invest in urban property. The Government will do a tremendously good thing if it applies that interest to towns as well. As for the amount to the maize farmers, we can say that the drought has been a “blessing in disguise.” This year at least the farmers are going to get a fair price for their maize because there is not going to be an over-production, but they will get good years again and there will be further surpluses. There is only one basic cause of the problem which has to be got rid of, and the Government would not have been required to pay the amount of £526,666. The problem can only be solved if all the maize goes through one channel. That is the only solution. The big farmers with their tractors and machinery are the men who make it impossible for the small farmers to exist. It is usually the small farmer who reaps from 500 to 1,000 bags who has large families and is suffering. The people who reap the 1,000 bags make it impossible for the small farmers to exist. The rich farmers do not belong to the co-operative societies, and have always hitherto made a convenience of the other farmers. To-day the Government has a ! chance of its life to get control of the production of those farmers if it does not apply the methods of selling everything through co-operative societies. I hope the Quota Act will never again be applied.

The hon. member cannot debate the matter as it requires new legislation.

I am sorry that I cannot refer to it, but just because the legislation was wrong in the past we have these difficulties to-day of the co-operative societies not being made to pay. Co-operative societies can fix the quota of the sale of a certain number of bags of maize a year, and the sale can take place as the trade requires. I am fortunately also one of the farmers who will possibly get a few shillings in consequence of this amount which is being voted. We are very grateful to the Government for it.

I hope in any case the debate that we have had on this vote will probably do for the whole Agricultural Vote. Just allow me to say that 1 am very sorry about one thing. I would have thought that hon. members and the people of the Union of South Africa would have been thankful when a vote is put down amounting to £4,855,000 for assistance to the farmers which practically comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers. But what have we heard? We have heard criticism from one side and the other. I really thought that hon. members would feel more responsibility. There is an obligation on each of us and we must be careful that we do not ask for irresponsible things in the House. The hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) asked that the interest on urban property should also be reduced. I have already given my answer on that point that it is not possible for the Government to go so far now. The hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. S. Bekker) asks if there is still wheat coming into the country. Yes, but will the hon. member tell us to determine the treaty with Rhodesia at once, or immediately to do the same with the Basutoland treaty. If we want to be irresponsible it is very easy, but what will become of our trade interests, e.g., those of our wine farmers and other farmers who export produce to Rhodesia? Our trade balance with Rhodesia is in our favour instead of with Rhodesia, but because wheat is now coming in from Rhodesia the Government is blamed for permitting it. If we want to segregate ourselves we can do so, but it must i be remembered that we are an exporting country and not only an importing one. If we want to isolate ourselves what will our position be towards Great Britain and other countries to which we export I Hon. members really must be careful and remember that the things that are said in this House are heard in other countries and we really should keep ourselves free from these petty matters.

†The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has also raised the question of other co-operative societies, which are in the same position as the wheat co-operative societies. The commission to be appointed will go into all these matters, and whatever can be done we shall do to meet these societies. We have already asked the Land Bank to look into matters and see what can be done.

I have risen now because I think there is much more hope of my being able to address the chair than if I wait until the end of the debate. That, at least, seems to be my experience so far. As an old member I have learned something from a new one. It appears to be a most desirable and highly successful practice to start addressing the House from that side, get an innings there, and then come over to this side and get another innings. Now I want to approach this vote from an angle entirely different from that which has been taken by other members. First of all, I want to congratulate the acting Minister of Finance. He seems to have fallen very easily into the ordinary ministerial routine. How naively did he suggest to the House “For goodness sake don’t deal with these questions of detail now, we are only passing the money now; wait until, the Bill comes up.” I can assure the Minister that he will catch very few old members in that net. Our experience has been that after having voted the money as a result of the persuasive notes of a Minister, when the Bill comes along, there is no opportunity for criticism at all. Hon. members will be foolish indeed and very misguided if they do not thrash out all the details of their objections and criticisms at this stage of the proceedings, rather than wait for the Bill, when they will be closured. Now I want to say that the manner in which this money is being allocated is a complete waste of that money. I know that my farmer friends here will acquit me of any lack of sympathy with the farming industry when I deal with it in that way. I am as anxious as anyone to see our farming industry put upon its financial feet. I must first of all draw attention to the criticism that was levelled by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson), in order to show what I am driving at. The hon. member talked about the price of bread, and as a result of the price of bread being so high he says that in consonance with all the other falls in the prices of other commodities, farmers must also be prepared to agree to a reduction in the price of wheat. That is the effect of what he said ! I want to remind this House that the price of wheat was fixed by arrangement with the Government several years ago, long before the depression, and it was fixed because then your South African wheat farmer could not make a living on the thin price which he was receiving, and it was then admitted by all that the price of 22s. 6d. per bag, which was agreed upon, was a fair one when everything was taken into consideration, and was not over the odds. My hon. friend has to understand that the price of bread does not depend altogether on the price of wheat. My hon. friend will be one of those who to-morrow will go into the countryside and say “What we want is to increase the commodity prices”, while here he stands up urging the reduction of the commodity prices, or one of them. He should put his finger on the spot. We have asked this and other governments to get at the real key of the situation, and that is the control which is held by the milling industry, the middleman between a farmer and a consumer. It has been proved that the price of wheat has fallen considerably, but there has been no diminution in the price of bread. That proves two things; one is my original contention that the price of wheat does not have very much effect on the price of bread. Further, that the fixing of the price of bread rests with somebody else than the farmer—the great middle section, the group of persons or industry which intervenes between the farmer and the consumer. I refer to the milling companies. They keep up the price of bread. In Cape Town nearly all the baking concerns are actually owned by, and worked by the milling companies themselves. If a baker were independent, the price of flour might be a consideration in determining the price of bread, but the price of flour is settled by the millers and the consumer has to suffer. You have to put your finger on the milling companies before you can get a reasonable price for bread. I say you are wasting money; you are asking the House to contribute £2,500,000 in the form of export subsidies, thereby inducing our farmers to depend on overseas markets regardless of the fact that our overseas markets are suffering more from a purchasing point of view than is even our very much depreciated South African buying market. We should be turning our attention to developing our home market. I ask any farmer if he is coming out on his export business, even plus his subsidy. I guarantee that the farmers will agree with me that they are not doing so well with their export business as with their home business. I know the Minister will say: “This is another of Madeley’s King Charles’ heads”, but I shall never tire of stating what I believe to be the main reason for the present unfortunate state of affairs. Let us make the whole of our South African population a purchasing one. But you do not do that, for you are restricting the consumption of the South African market by restricting employment. An additional disadvantage of the export trade is that you have to pay shipping freights, and then one must not forget that the depression overseas is greater than it is here. Then there is the question of the interest subsidies, amounting to £1,500,000, in order to help the farmer reduce the amount he has to pay in interest on the mortgage on his farm. I quite agree but I advance, this point. You should make it possible for a farmer not to pay any interest at all for two years, and thus give him a breathing time in which to enable him to get on to his feet again. [Time limit.]

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 21, “Mines,” £387,389,

I want to give you notice, sir, that I desire to take advantage of the 30-minute rule. I want to express the utmost dissatisfaction with the attitude of the Government towards this question of miners’ phthisis. I know that it is very difficult for the Minister —I appreciate his difficulties. The Minister has come into a new job, and perhaps he has not got rid of all his old ideas. He has not been able to assimilate the ideas of the department, and he has got to forget his own ideas. I know that the Minister, or his department, have a bill in contemplation with the object of dealing with this question. I know that he proposes to place this Bill at the disposal of the men’s organizations for their consideration. I know he is going, to do that, and I thank the Minister for it; but what I am expressing dissatisfaction at, is the fact that the people who are suffering and dying daily, and their dependents, who are suffering through delay, are to get no relief this session. I maintain that the Minister has no right to allow this House to cease its labours while that work remains unaccomplished. What is wanting is the desire to do it this year. I do not mean the Minister’s personal desire, but the desire of the Government to do substantial justice to these people, a substantial justice which is many years overdue. They ask these people to wait until next session. It is too much to ask those poor people, who are labouring under great disabilities, to wait till next year. Many of them, unfortunately, will be dead before that time. Why are they asked to wait? Because it has been determined by the powers that be that this session shall be one only to pass the estimates. What right have they to decide that?

The hon. member is asking for legislation now.

No, I am not dealing with legislation at all. I have a right to draw attention to the fact that legislation is promised, and to the fact that it is delayed. I am objecting to the delay. I am not asking for the legislation.

I understand the hon. member is asking the Government to introduce legislation. I cannot allow that.

I am drawing attention to the foolishness of the Ministry and the callousness of the Ministry in delaying this legislation. Leaving that aside altogether, I want to know what right the Minister of Mines has to ask this committee to merely pass the estimates, and not to go into the ordinary work of an ordinary session, and in reinforcement of my argument I am pointing out that, owing to this decision of the Government, we cannot have this legislation, which is long overdue, and which, in the interests of the people who are suffering, should be passed. I am not going even to appear to transgress your ruling any longer. I do not know whether the Minister will take any consolation in the fact, but it is a fact, that he has my sympathy. I found most interesting reading coming down in the train this morning—all the forceful comments passed on the Minister by those who have hitherto been ranged behind him as silent supporters, To a certain extent, he has my support. All these commentaries which are coming along are coming, most of them, from the South African party executive committees on the Rand, which are easily worked, as he knows quite well, from his own experience—and all flum, if I may use that word. The people of the country are not very much concerned, and they are not accepting the statement of the Chamber of Mines. My hon. friend can go on his way rejoicing. I am going to get at him from another angle, and point this out—that the time has arrived for him to take a very firm stand and say to these people: “If, in order to wield the big stick and to get your way in lightening (what I call still too light) a tax, you are not prepared to work your low-grade ore on your high-grade ore mines, and refrain from opening your low-grade mines which have now become high-grade mines, I will, as Minister, take my courage in my own hands, and take over these mines under the Gold Law.” Call their bluff! I will write it out for him, and he can copy it out and send it in circular form. He can say, “I am standing on my own feet, and if you do not like it, you can do the other thing.” It has come to my notice, and it warrants serious investigation, that the mines are contravening the spirit, at all events, of our industrial legislation, and in one instance, they are employing an abnormal number of apprentices to journeymen in the skilled trades. I can give him the examples, and he can enquire into them. In some cases the number is ten to one, and my hon. friend, I know, will not allow that to continue any longer. Miners underground are finding great difficulty in carrying out their work according to regulation, and the reason for that is that more and more is being piled upon them—more and more different sections of employment are being piled on individual men. Whereas in the old days, not so many years ago, a miner was a miner, and a miner only, and a skilled man, working a machine; later on he had to work three machines. To-day he has to be his own lasher, his own trammer, and his own track-layer, and in addition he has to work four or five places in the mine, many of which are far apart from each other. It is an obvious physical impossibility for the miner to get over the number of his places, let alone superintend his work in the proper fashion. Now that is bad. It is bad for the miner individually, it is making unemployment worse than it was before, and in addition my hon. friend knows quite well it means he must break the regulations in order to get through his day’s work. What I am going to suggest to the Minister is that he should appoint working-men inspectors. I do not mean as a substitution of, but in addition to those men who are known as Government inspectors today, men who are working in each shaft. You could make them inspectors and protect them against discharge. Of course, you must have a guarantee; he must not be allowed to slack or anything of that sort. If you have a man who has to work there on the job every day and all day, he knows how these things are done and can be done. Let him have direct access to some authority, and I am prepared to guarantee that it would at once stop these things that are going on. I want him to be doing his ordinary work. He would be doing his work for the mines, but he would have authority, as an inspector, to report breaches of the regulations whoever it might involve, whether the mine manager or anyone else. My hon. friend, I am afraid, has had no experience of mines so far, but it is a fact, even in my own experience, that every man on the mines knew when the inspector was coming. Yon know when that inspector is coming, and what is more, if by any chance he appears suddenly at the shaft-head, that unfortunate clause in our Mining Regulations Act, which says he may go down provided he does not impede the work, prevents him from going down at once, and opportunities are given to the underground staff to prevent his inspection being effective. I think we can get over it in this way, by having a man as inspector who is down the mine all the time and who, if the Government protects him, cannot possibly be discharged. There is another point. Of course, this involves legislation, and I am not going to enlarge upon it beyond saying that the time has arrived for the Minister to start with the reduction of hours of labour by statute on the mines. That is the best place to make a start, and then let it extend from there elsewhere until you have the unemployed usefully employed, and spending power created for the purchase of the goods of the farmers. I understand, I was very pleased to see it, that on a former vote hon. members in various quarters of the House raised the question of convict labour. I appreciate the fact that it has been raised. I have done so myself on many occasions, and I am going to do so again. I believe the reply that was given to those hon. members who raised the matter was that even if convict labour were not employed, it would not increase employment. Well, I cannot understand it. It sounds like trying to square the circle. If you are employing convicts on certain work, and if you then discharge them, or rather prevent their further employment on certain work, that work must be done, and it seems to me highly logical that other people must be employed in their places. I must mention the name of a mine on this occasion, although I do not like doing so. On the duces beyond lemons I cannot see. Be this as it may, that farmers’ union has a representative in Johannesburg.

Can the hon. member explain to me what this has to do with the vote under discussion?

It is in connection with the mining commissioner in Johannesburg who is entitled to issue permits to persons to sell produce in the native compounds. The position, so far as can be seen, is the permits are only issued to a person who is prepared to make the declaration that he is acting as a sub-agent of the agent of the Bathurst Farmers’ Union. The case I want to mention is that on one of the mines one of the persons did not exactly carry on business as was expected from him. He did not only use the produce of the agent in his business, and things were made so unpleasant for him on the mine that he was compelled to leave. In the first place, the manager of the mine notified him that he had sold a loaf of bread, and that he was found guilty and fined £3, and that he must no longer frequent the compound to do business. He took up the case, but we were sent from pillar to post. The manager of the mine said that the matter was in the hands of the mining commissioner; the latter, in his turn, said that he had no objection to the issue of the permit if the permission of the mine manager could be obtained. The one puts the blame on the other and the result was that the person got into a hopeless position. He had many outstandings on his books, but meanwhile the natives had gone away and he could not collect them, nor has he yet obtained the right to go back and trade there. I just want to ask the Minister, inasmuch as the position is being abused, whether he will give instructions that the persons who can sell produce in the mine compounds should be confined to silicotics. It must only be a silicotic who can obtain a licence. I shall be very glad if the Minister will consider this, and give the mining commissioner instructions that in the future he shall only give permits to silicotics to trade in compounds. It must be exclusively their prerogative. It will also be much more satisfactory if those persons have to take out their licences at the ordinary licensing office with the consent of the mining commissioner. I think that that can be given under the Act on fresh farm produce. That will help the people out of the trouble so that they will not sell some article or other which they are not entitled to sell. If anybody is not allowed to sell bread why should he have the right of selilng a tin of condensed milk? If he can sell green mealies why cannot he sell cooked mealies? He may not sell sugar, but he can sell milk; not potatoes, but pumpkin; he may not sell tomatoes. The law is very strange. [Time limit.]

With regard to the Minister’s statement as to what is to be done for miners’ phthisis sufferers—that he was going to make an ex gratia payment out of the funds of the Phthisis Board, this payment to be made pending the drawing up of a Bill which was to be presented to Parliament next session—I would like to ask him to give this committee further information as to how much these payments will be, and what qualifying circumstances will be required for the sufferer to establish his claim. I would also like to tell the Minister that these poor men who are in the ante-primary stage and are forced nevertheless to continue work by force of circumstances are deserving of our sympathy and generosity. The phthisis sufferer who is in the ante-primary stage and can find no other work has no alternative before him, and he must either continue work and contract this disease to a greater extent, without hope of further compensation, or he must starve. The country regards this problem with the utmost seriousness, and the hundreds of phthisis sufferers on the Reef today constitute a grave social problem. Perhaps the Minister is not aware of this fact, but I would like to tell him, that he personally enjoys a good reputation amongst the mine workers of the Witwatersrand, and is regarded by them as a very fair and able administrator; but their opinion of him in future will depend on what he is going to do for them now and in the immediate future. I believe the electors of Yeoville are preparing a very warm reception for him, but I will tell him that that reception will be cold compared with the reception he will get from the mine workers of the Witwatersrand if he does not do something in the immediate future for this class of sufferers, for which I have spoken.

I want to ask the Minister about the increase of this vote by £46,000. The explanation given is that £33,890 is due to new State alluvial diggings. I want the Minister to inform the committee why it should be necessary, in view of the decreased production, to increase this vote by this amount. On the main vote itself, I see under the heading of the engineering division there is an increase of £5,000 over last year, after allowing for the temporary reduction, and I see there is an amount included of £1,600, allowance to deputy inspector. I should like to have some explanation what this amount is for. Then on the next page (61)—El—I see there is an increase there of £1.600 mainly for the secretary for geology. What is the reason for this increase?

With reference to the speech of the Minister of Mines made in Kimberley shortly before the election that it was the policy of the Government not to proclaim new ground, I would like to ask the Minister what the present policy of the Government is, because the speech made a great sensation with the diggers. The ground at present available to the diggers is mostly worked out, and comparatively rich diamondiferous ground has been discovered so that the diggers would like to know what their prospects are. There is amongst them a great lack of diamondiferous ground, and they would like to know whether the Government is not going to throw open any farms in future when the majority of the diggings are practically worked out. I want to ask the Minister please not to be too conservative in this connection because want amongst the diggers is very great, and the availability of decent farms with diamonds will be a great help to them. If all the people who are now on the alluvial diggings were to go away the State would, I fear, have to feed all of them. I also want to point out that some of the poor farmers possess licences and that they at certain seasons of the year, when work on the farms is slack, go to dig. It is a way out to them in these times.

I should also like to call the Minister’s attention to the extremely parlous conditions on the diggings. The diggers are very grateful for the assistance already received from the Department of Mines, but it is not enough. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we have about 1,400 or 1,500 very needy families to-day on the alluvial diggings of Lichtenburg. They are living in unhealthy, tumbledown, corrugated iron houses, are practically without blankets and most of the children are underfed. How they are to get through the winter just started is a riddle to me. Previously the department issued blankets not to all, but in groups; on one occasion one group and the next time possibly another group got them. I do not know whether this is being done again this year, but according to my information up to the present it is extremely difficult to get a single blanket there this year. Then I want to say something in connection with what the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. L. M. Wentzel) mentioned, viz., the speech of the Minister at Kimberley. The diggers inferred from those remarks that they were no longer to get new fields. I do not think that inference was quite correct from what the Minister said. I do not think that that was the Minister’s intention. But suppose that the Minister thought we should reduce the number of fields, then I want to tell him that simply to reduce the fields by cutting off the sources of supply would, in my opinion, be nothing less than criminal. In other words, if we do not make further provision we cannot take away the sources of income of these people. I do not think the Minister intended it. There have been other complaints in connection with the proclamations of new farms. Difficulties are placed in the way of the diggers in taking part in the granting of claims when new farms are proclaimed. Recently a new farm was proclaimed in the district of Wolmaransstad and I think that difficulties were obstructively put in the way of the people of Lichtenburg in preventing them from participating in the grant of claims on that farm. The people are obliged to go to the mining commissioner at Klerksdorp or at Bloemhof to make application. Then on the day the lots are drawn they must go there again in the hope of drawing a lot. I think this policy is very wrong. Why cannot the people just apply at Lichtenburg and their application be sent on from there to the fixed place. Then the people can go there and if they are fortunate enough to draw a lot they are present to work the claims. Of course the objection will be made that the people are at Lichtenburg where provision is made for certain of their needy dependents, and if they are allowed to go to another field those conveniences will not be available on those new fields. I think this is a reasonable argument, but if we prohibit people from going to another field we compel them to remain on the Lichtenburg fields, and if we compel them to remain there what are we going to do for them? I say we must try to help the people to get away. I have already shown that we have at least 1,400 to 1,500 families on the Lichtenburg fields, and the people must be provided for. Another proclamation is that of Swart ruggens. I understand that people can there apply and obtain diggers’ certificates, who have never yet been diggers in their lives. I understand that the local minister of religion has obtained the right for his needy people to go and dig there. I want to ask the Minister whether it is fair to the old diggers who have been digging for years at Lichtenburg. Then I want to ask the Minister is he going to exclude from going there people who have been digging all their lives? I understand that that is the policy which is now going to be followed. The mining commissioner, himself, told me so, and I hope the Minister will use his influence not to allow that injustice to be done to the old diggers of Lichtenburg. Another aspect of the matter is, if we allow more people who have always earned their living on farms to become diggers, what are we going to do with these people later on? We already have too many people on the diggings who are in need, and are we now to encourage more people to go there? During the last few months the number of families at Lichtenburg has considerably increased and they are mostly farmers’ families who have come there from the farms. If we are going to permit it, what about the Minister’s statement? The Minister said that so long as the depression lasted no more new farms could be proclaimed. There are also anomalies in the administration on the diggings. A great distinction is sometimes made between different diggings. Take, e.g., such a thing as the sanitary fees which have to be paid. In Ventersdorp the merchants pay 10s. a month, in Lichtenburg they have to pay £1. What ground is there for the distinction? It will be said that the people at Lichtenburg do better business because that is a bigger digging. I dispute that because at Ventersdorp the diggings are possibly a little smaller, but then there are less shops and transport is cheaper there. [Time limit.]

I should like to add my voice to those of other members who have spoken on the need for an early bringing in of the amendments to the Miners’ Phthisis Act, which are urgently required. The Act as it is is a very satisfactory Act, but there are some small amendments which are required. These have already been drawn up and are urgently needed, and I hope the Minister will not delay in bringing them into force. Then I want to refer to some items under D1 on page 60. There is a total increase in expenditure of £5,200. Ten deputy inspectors are provided for at an expenditure of £9,960. There is an increase of £4,000, yet the inspectors are increased only by two. It does not seem to tally.

It is an increase for the old inspectors.

Are they all getting back increases?

No, it is not that.

Well, it is rather peculiar that it seems to be only these two inspectors who have been increased to this extent. Then the amount for inspectors is reduced from £7,780 to £7,540, perhaps the Minister can give an explanation? Mine sub-inspectors are also reduced from £3,990 to £3,550. The next item I want to refer to is under item (e) on the following page, and I want to express satisfaction at the extension of the geological survey division. I regard this expansion as being long overdue. Then I should like to draw attention to the low salaries which the Minister is paying to his mineralogists. One man is getting a salary of £280, going up to £340, which for a scientifically trained man is ridiculously low. At the bottom of the page there is a point in connection with the International Geological Congress. I regret to see that there is no reference to any grant to the Geological Society of South Africa for publications. In previous years, the Geological Society of South Africa has had a grant from the Government, because it assists in the publication of papers read by members of the geological survey. Now the Government has recognized this in the past, and I suggest that the Minister might consider the question of making a grant to them again. It is not a large amount which is required. I believe it was £100, then £50, and now it has disappeared altogether. On the following page, 62, item (h) is in respect of the miners’ training schools. I would like the Minister to give us some information about the position of these schools at the moment. If he will give us the number of apprentices who have successfully passed through the schools it would be of great interest, because I understand that these schools are assuming a greater and greater importance on the Rand, and some information from the Minister on the subject would be of interest. The next item I wish to refer to appears on page 63, dealing with the State alluvial diggings. I notice with a good deal of uneasiness that there are very large increases for plant and machinery in those items. In the middle of the page there are four items for the purchases of plant and machinery, and there are other increases there to a total of £18,000. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is intended to increase the production of the Namaqualand diamond mines.

I would like to ask the Minister if it would be possible to find other forms of employment for phthisis sufferers, and in this connection I just want to refer to one particular form of employment which these men used to undertake. In the past, quite a number of these men used to go in for transport work, they used to have motor buses and things of that kind, but as a result of the action of the Road Transportation Board they have been deprived of their means of livelihood in that connection, and large numbers of them are out of employment now. It is only the mines and the municipalities of the Witwatersrand that have provided any kind of employment for these men, and in view of the fact that it is largely due to the sacrifices made by these men that the country is to-day able to secure such a large amount of money from the mines, I consider that something should be done to relieve these men in the very unfortunate position in which they find themselves.

I would also like to know from the Minister what the Government’s policy will be in connection with the proclamation of alluvial diggings, especially in the native territories. I do not want to advocate the Government proclaiming new places so that farmers and unemployed can go there to dig. But I do want to plead on behalf of the small man and the groups of diggers who are already on the diggings and who have practically become professional diggers. They have practically no living anywhere else, but only make one on the diggings and it is not that they are wanting to use an opportunity to which they are not entitled. The beginning of the diggings was in certain native territories, as in those near Mafeking, where people were already allowed to dig, and it is particularly for them I want to plead. Those people do not take out so much that they will become a danger to the diamond trade on account of too great production. They only make a poor living. I, therefore, hope that the people who are already there, and who are not farmers or people who have gone there, will be assisted. I would like to know from the Minister what the Government’s policy is in this connection. To give the people a chance there will help to a certain extent with the relieving of unemployment in our country, because if the people are left there and cannot work, if they stop at a digging which is worked out, then they in any case become a burden to the State. They go to the magistrate and get rations which come from the Treasury. I hope the Minister will assist us in those parts, even if it is not on a great scale, then still a small scale will help.

I want to make a few remarks about the diamond position and the diamond mines. In the first place, I should like to thank the Minister for the very full information which he has given the House and the country in reply to questions, and also for the equally full information which he has given with regard to the arrangements with the producers, whereby Kimberley will be in a measure the centre of all business in connection with diamonds. I can assure the Minister, as a very old Kimberley citizen, that Kimberley, in its present plight, will appreciate very much the assurances that have been given. I fully recognize, as the Minister has put to the House, that the position of the diamond industry is a delicate one, and I can assure the Minister that I shall not, in my remarks, say anything that may render that position any more difficult. The closing down of the diamond mines is due, no doubt, very largely to the economic conditions of the world. In our revenue figures we have estimated that only £100,000 will be received during the current financial year from the export duty on diamonds. This seems to suggest that a very big reduction in the export of diamonds is anticipated. I hope the amount of £100,000 will be found to be a very great under-estimate, for one can hardly conceive a position in South Africa when we would export only £2,000,000 worth of diamonds in one year. Most of us remember when our annual export of diamonds was £12,000,000. This shows the vast change that has taken place in recent years in what used to be one of the Union’s staple industries. I have a report on the diamond position which I think will throw a little light on the subject. I will read some extracts from this report—

What hope, under the circumstances, is there for a city like Kimberley, or places like Jagers-fontein and the Premier Mine, for the resumption of active mining in the near future? In the past a very large amount of capital was essential for the carrying on of the diamond industry; it was so from the days of Rhodes until quite recently. Now it would appear that that capital is not forthcoming, and even if there were the desire or willingness to resume diamond mining operations at an early date, it would be found that the capital formerly associated with diamond ventures, had disappeared. The report proceeds—

Cannot something be done to meet this alarming situation? I knew of no one more competent or desirous of solving the problem and of relieving Kimberley’s distress than the Minister in charge of this Vote. It does appear to me that there is only one hope, and that is the holding of a conference, not only between the Government and representatives of the diamond mines in the Union, but a conference between the Governments of the Union, Angola and the Congo. If the two latter countries are able to supply the whole of the world’s requirements of diamonds, I see no hope whatever of the Union obtaining its share of the trade.

Cheer up.

I believe the citizens of the diamond city require a great deal of cheering up in these distressful times. If there is anything at all in equality of sacrifice, then the Kimberley mines should be opened now, because the people of Kimberley have suffered far more than I can tell the Minister to-night and he knows conditions very well. [Time limit. ]

I want to say a few words in connection with the diggers and farmers on the diggings. I think it is very necessary for us to restrict the digging population, and we have found in the past that people coming from farms to dig remain there and subsequently become quite poor. We must in future restrict that digging population as much as ever possible. It is no use restricting ground, and to allow the number of diggers to increase. By restricting the ground we are the more impoverishing the people. We must get the people ground. They must have the necessary ground on which they can make a living. The number of diggers must be restricted, but the necessary ground must be given so that those that are there can make a living. I assure you that if we continue with the system we have hitherto followed we shall in future have to give that whole population food because the fields there are worked out. The people have to struggle there now to try and get something out of the little bits of ground and as soon as a new farm is proclaimed the people troop to it. We must try to prevent that.

After the very lugubrious speech of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson), I would like to know if the Minister is more cheerful with regard to Namaqualand. I see that there is a 30 per cent. increase in the expenditure, but that the amount of insurance remains the same. I would like to know why there is such a large increase in Namaqualand, whether it is in the ordinary course of development, or if it is being spent on account of the very large amount of unemployment, so that employment may be found for the unemployed. I see also that a large amount is being spent on police in Namaqualand. I would like the Minister to tell us the position with regard to illicit diamond buying, and whether that successful trade is being carried on as successfully as previously, or whether it is less profitable.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has asked why the Miners’ Phthisis Bill is not introduced this session. He explained to the Committee that he was not pleading that the Bill should be introduced, but that he was asking why the Bill had not been introduced. Well, it has not been found possible to deal with the many difficult questions connected with the introduction of such a Bill in time for the measure to be dealt with this session. The session is intended to be a short one, and it is the desire of the Government and of most of the members of the House that the session be short, but the intention is to bring the amending Bill before the House next session. Then he raised the question of certain mines employing an abnormal number of apprentices, as compared with journeymen. In some cases 10 to 1, he said. The hon. member also said he would supply the names of the mines.

Will you look into the matter?

Yes. Then the hon. member raised the question of the miner doing more work than in the past until the amount of work had become unreasonable. I brought that to the notice of the Chamber of Mines, and they said they were willing to inquire into any case that might be brought to their notice, but that so far it has not been established that there was foundation for complaint.

It is their policy.

I promise to go still further into the matter, but the intention is that the miner is not required to do more than he reasonably can. Then the question of the appointment of working men inspectors has been raised. I think it might be a mistake to put an ordinary miner on to the job of acting as an inspector, but there is at the present moment a welfare officer appointed who was previously an officer of the Mine Workers’ Union. He was recommended for the appointment by the union, and he is now carrying out his duties. Reference has been made to the inspectors of the Mines Department. I have never had any complaint that these men are not carrying out their duties impartially and honestly.

I said that it is impossible for them to carry them out. Warning is conveyed down below.

I am not prepared to say whether that is so or not. In practice I don’t think it has ever been denied that they carry out their duties properly and deal with any breach of the regulations, whether committed by a miner or an official of the company. With regard to the question of convict labour on the mines, I believe there were convicts employed on the Cinderella, but it seems to me an undesirable principle that convicts should do work which can be done by ordinary men. The hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. S. D. de Wet) asked that a mining commission’s office be established in the Heidelberg district. There was a mining commissioner’s office there some time ago, but it was shut down because there was not enough work. I know that very important developments are expected in the Heidelberg district. I hope they will turn out to be as important as they arc expected to be.

There is considerable expansion.

I know there is considerable expansion, and from the advertisements of new companies being formed, there is more development to be expected; in any case, that matter will be reviewed, and if it appears there should be an office there it will be done. An hon. member touched on the matter of geologists. It is not considered desirable that geologists in the employ of the state should be available for reporting on private properties. It is very undesirable that the state’s approval should be granted to any private project.

You may prevent a swindle.

It takes more than a geologist’s examination to determine whether a gold field is going to be valuable or not. Many a “good mine” is spoilt by being opened up. The hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. S. D. de Wet) also raised the question of amending legislation to the gold law. Well, I introduced a Bill the other day, which will not be dealt with during this session, but is intended to be considered by the public during the recess in order that it may be brought in next year, and carried through, and it will give some encouragement and provide facilities for the opening up of new fields. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Zeeman) complained about the treatment of persons on the mines who were selling farmers’ produce. Well, the present law allows the sale by hawkers of certain classes of agricultural produce. The hon. member referred to the difficulties a certain person had experienced. I do not know what the case is— I have not been able to go into it—but if he will let me know the facts, I will go into them. Some of the difficulties to which he referred will be removed when the new gold law is passed. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Bouwer) referred to explanation with regard to miners’ phthisis compensation, which I made the other day. I was not able to tell him what payments were to be made, because the Phthisis Board has to enquire into the circumstances of the person concerned; ex gratia payments will be made only in necessitous circumstances, and as the board considers necessary for a man to keep his family on. The hon. member mentioned the hardship imposed on these men who were warned that they had miners’ phthisis at an early stage, and went to work in the mines in order to maintain their families. One must necessarily have every sympathy with these men, who are in a difficult position. If a miner has left a mine and got compensation in a lump sum, it may not last long; if he remains on the mine he may risk his life. The whole argument with regard to this compensation was to avoid as much as possible the waste of human life, and the object was that it should be made worth a man’s while to come out of a mine as soon as he had the first stage of the disease in order as far as possible to save human life. If we were allowed to remove this from the law, what are we to do about the thousands of men who did take warning and came out, and lost their wages for all these years? It is a very difficult question naturally, which we are going into now. Some hon. members urge it should be left with the men to decide whether to remain on the mines or to come out on a small compensation. Hitherto the object of the law has been to avoid as far as possible an unnecessary waste of life.

Give them all a pension.

Yes, “give them all a pension.” The hon. member must know that to give every man a pension who has the slightest touch of miners’ phthisis, a pension on which he and his family could live, would be to impose an impossible burden. Then the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) asked me about the increase in the vote with regard to the alluvial diggings, and that has been asked by several other hon. members also. I want to say at once that it is not the policy of the Government to increase the sale of diamonds from the State alluvial diggings, beyond what is necessary to cover the actual cost of working these diggings. The additional expenditure provided for here is under various heads; one head is the replacement and maintenance of plant and machinery, and the increase there is to provide for the maintenance of the crushing and washing plant, new machinery, £1,600, pumping plant, replacing worn-out tools, and so forth. There is the purchase of a mechanical shovel, maintenance of transport and purchase of vehicles, £1,500; there is general inspection and field staff, £3,000. There is an increase in the personnel provided for, and that is in order to some extent to provide additional employment; but that does not affect the sale of diamonds. It may mean greater production, but it is not intended to affect the sale of diamonds. Then the hon. member asked for details with regard to the increase of inspectors. Provision is made for two additional deputy inspectors of mines. And there is an additional assistant inspector of mines. It is intended to employ two or possibly three additional inspectors for the purpose of the development of our base metal industry overseas, attaching them to our trade representatives in England and elsewhere, so that they may bring to the notice of people who may be induced to trade in our base metals what we have to offer. They will look after the selection of base metals at South Africa House, and will give demonstrations, in order to increase our market in base metals overseas. That results in an increase in salaries, and in an additional £2,500 provided for the allowances of these officers. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. L. M. Wentzel) referred to the remarks I made at Kimberley in regard to the proclamation of alluvial diggings. What I said in regard to that was that during the present depressed condition of the diamond market it was not the intention of the Government to proclaim new alluvial diggings to an extent which would materially increase the amount of diamonds being put on the market. As existing fields become exhausted, and more provision has to be found for the diggers, new ground may be opened up, but it is not intended to make new proclamations on a scale which would add materially to the amount of diamonds put on the market. The reason for that is simply this: that every increase you make in the output of alluvial diamonds is one more nail in the coffin of the mines at Kimberley and elsewhere. The idea of the Government is to do everything in its power to facilitate the reopening of the diamond mines at Kimberley and elsewhere. In that connection, I may refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson). He certainly took a gloomy view of the future of Kimberley, and I certainly think it requires a great deal of optimism to look forward to its future. The hon. member referred specially to the diamond fields now being operated in the Congo and in Angola. Unfortunately, these are not the only ones; there are others also. The protection, if it may be so called, that we have in regard to these discoveries is this: that it is in nobody’s interest to force diamonds on to the market at the present time. Anyone who is concerned with the diamond trade knows that to force an unlimited quantity of diamonds on to the market at the present time would simply ruin the diamond trade, and ruin any hopes of possible recovery. These producers know that as well as we do. There has recently been discussed between the Government and those interested in diamonds the question of diamonds put on the market from outside sources being limited. That at present is a private agreement between those operating in those fields and the diamond corporation. How long it will last we do not know. So long as it provides effective control, it seems better to do it that way than by international agreement. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Swanepoel) referred to the condition of things on the diamond diggings there, which, he said, were very bad. One realizes that they are very bad. The mining commissioner there is charged with the duty of seeing that the diggers and their families are not allowed to starve. Rations and other necessities are dealt out by him. I do not say the commissioner is able to do everything that they expect to be done, but he does what he can with the resources at his disposal. If the hon. member will bring to my notice any cases where the articles are inadequate—not enough blankets, for example—I will see that it is gone into. Then he referred to the proclamation of ground at Swartruggens. A proclamation is about to be issued within the next few days. He complained about the restrictions on the number of diggers who will be allowed to take up claims there. The extent of ground that will be available to be taken up by diggers is limited. What the Government wants to avoid is that the large population of people there should go flocking to the diggings, hoping to get claims and being unable to get claims which they can possibly work, and the Government would then have them on their hands. That is why restrictions are being put on in regard to the selection of the diggers who will be allowed to compete for claims. The hon. member, I understand, is dissatisfied with a certain class who are being allowed to compete. That is a matter I will look into. Then he raised the question of sanitary fees. I do not know how that disparity can be justified, but I will look into it. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) raised a question with regard to the miners’ training school. He asked for some figures to show what is being done at the school, and I should like to give the committee that information. In the year 1929-’3O the number of boys who qualified was 193; in 1930-’31 it was 233; in 1931-’32 at was 274; and in 1932-’33 it was 285. At the present time some 515 boys are being trained at the school.

Are they all being absorbed?

Yes. They are all South African born. They are given a very full training in all branches, including mining regulations and “safety first,” and they are readily employed by the mines, on account of the thorough training. This position is likely to continue. I think that is a satisfactory picture of what is being done at this training school, and it shows that it serves a useful purpose. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) asked if other forms of employment could not be found for miners’ phthisis pensioners. I shall be extremely glad if any company, which has any employment to offer, would give their attention to this need, because it is very great. We have large numbers of men who have been turned out of the mines, on account of contracting phthisis in the early stages. They have had a lump sum compensation of £300, £400, £500 or £600, but in many cases the disease has not progressed further; they have not been able to find other forms of employment, and the compensation has been soon exhausted. They swell the ranks of the unemployed on the Witwatersrand, and they are a class of men for whom it is most difficult to find employment. And I think that it is the duty of any firm that can give employment to these men to give them a chance. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) has raised a question about Namaqualand. I have already explained the reason for the increases there, and I pointed out that those do not involve any larger output of diamonds from Namaqualand, although it may be that more employment will be provided. In regard to I.D.B. there is a general opinion that I.D.B. is going on in Namaqualand on a large scale, and from time to time one hears of people being arrested and convicted, but the police complain —I will not say with justice—that there are certain parts of the country where it is impossible to get a jury to convict a man of I.D.B., even if he confesses that he is guilty. They simply refuse to believe it. A great deal of pressure is being brought to bear on me to get some alteration of the law whereby cases of this kind can be tried without juries. That would mean rather a serious change in our criminal law. In any case, I give these cases for what they are worth.

I was just showing that a distinction is made between the fees paid in one place and those in another. I am glad the minister indicated he would go into the matter. That is, however, not all that I wanted to say about it. Even the poor and impoverished buyer has to pay the high fees, and as relief has now been given to almost all the needy classes I think that the time has come for some relief also to be given to this class. The Minister has replied in relation to the restrictions that are being put on the proclaiming of the diggings, as e.g., at Swartruggens, to the effect that it is the intention not to allow the people to flock to the diggings, and yet an opportunity is given to new people to take part in the lottery for the grant of ground. I would like here very definitely to bring to the notice of the Minister that a great injustice is being done. I want to stress it and I want him to try to remedy it. Electors from Marico and Rustenburg are for the first time being allowed to take part in the lottery to get ground in consequence of the representations made to the Minister’s predecessor. Does he consider it just that the electors of Marico and Rustenburg should be allowed to take part in the Swartruggens lottery when the professional diggers of Lichtenburg are excluded? I want to ask the Minister and this committee if they can vote for this Vote if such an injustice is permitted. Those people from Marico and Rustenburg can take out new certificates for the first time and participate in the lottery, but people who are next door and are professional diggers are denied the right. I do not think that that can be justified and I think it is very unjust to allow such a thing. I also want to suggest that attempts must be made to keep up the price of diamonds as much as possible and I would like to indicate how that can possibly be done. I am glad that a certain agreement has been come to between the Union producers, the diamond syndicate and the people in South-West Africa. I am also glad that the quota restriction has not been applied to alluvial diggings. But just like other hon. members I want to draw attention to the foreign producers in the Congo and Angola. I think it will be better if an agreement can be entered into with those sources of production. I understand that the producers named have already obtained a firm footing in the overseas market because they sell the diamonds much more cheaply than the Union, or rather than the syndicate sells our diamonds. If a better understanding is not come to then the Union producers will probably lose their hold on the world market. The Minister himself knows that all the diamonds from the Union, even from the State diggings are sold by the diamond syndicate, and only recently it appeared that the syndicate was not using its monopoly exactly in the best interests of the Union producer, especially of the alluvial digger and possibly also of the State product. The syndicate did not act in the best interests of our product. I hope the Minister will take steps not only to obtain the agreement I have indicated, but that he will go so far in the interests of the industry as to get our own selling office overseas for the Union product. I do not think that the whole monopoly should be given to the diamond syndicate. It should be more in the hands of the Government and under proper supervision. I also want to ask whether the Minister will not be prepared to re-appoint the diggers’ committee of Lichtenburg. The committee ceased to exist not because it was laid down as policy by the previous Minister, but that the committee should not exist. The time was expired, and when the re-election was to take place there were troubles at Hendriksdal and Delareystryd when a partly unauthorized digging took place and there was great dissatisfaction. Recently a deputation went to the Minister to request him to reinstate the committee. I hope the Minister will have no objection to that. Before I sit down I want again to repeat that I hope the Minister in connection with the participation in the lottery for the ground of Swartruggens, will not allow a distinction to be made to the electors of Marico and Rustenburg and those of Lichtenburg. I cannot understand how such a thing can be justified. I appeal to the Minister even at the eleventh hour to give the same chance to all the professional diggers who have, since 1928 and before it, been in possession of diggers’ certificates.

I would like to refer to the importation of natives from Portuguese territory for work on the gold mines. There is a very large number of natives in the Union today who are unable to obtain work anywhere, and I think that condition applies not only to my own constituency, but to other parts of the Union. Some years ago a treaty was entered into between the Union and Portuguese East Africa, under which a certain number of natives were allowed to be recruited in Portuguese territory for work on the mines. It is true the number of these natives has gradually been reduced. Eighteen months ago they totalled 66,000, whereas now the number is only 46,000. I understand the Mozambique convention will come up for reconsideration in a few months’ time. I think Government should take stock of the position, and ascertain whether we have not sufficient natives in the Union, or at any rate in British South Africa, to supply the requirements of the gold mines. Many of our diamond and coal mines are practically closed, so that now there is only one avenue of labour for natives who wish to work and that is on the mines. In my own constituency there are probably tens of thousands of natives available for mining work, but owing to the surplus of native labour now obtainable, they cannot get work. The Government should ascertain what surplus native labour there is in the Union, and it should be arranged that in future the mines should draw their native labour supply only from British South Africa.

There are a large number of concession stores on the mines along the Reef, but not a single ex-miner holds a concession store, or is employed in one of them. Is it not possible in the future to give an exminer an opportunity of obtaining a concession store?

I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), seeing that I represent a constituency where the question of native labour for the mines is a very vital one. We think something should be done to give every possible opportunity to the natives to obtain work, not only to enable the natives to maintain themselves, but to obtain means with which to pay the taxes imposed upon them by the Union Government. The gold mines can obtain all the native labour they require within the borders of the Union, and active recruiting for the Rand has been reduced to an absolute minimum in the Union. It is felt that the Government should make very careful inquiries into the position, with a view to finding out whether it is not possible to prevent the introduction of native labour from outside our boundaries. At the present time a large amount of money that might be circulated within the Union is leaving it, while our natives are unable to find employment. The position is very acute owing to the drought, and natives, as well as Europeans, are suffering through the lack of employment. Although the argument has been advanced in the past that when crops are good there is not sufficient native labour available for the mines from within the Union, we contend that of recent years the position has changed very considerably. The native has been feeling the economic pressure; he has been civilized, and his needs are now very much greater, and he finds that he requires more than a few bags of mealies. He needs more in the way of clothing, and he requires a different class of food to that with which he was formerly content. The natives feel that they should have the first preference to do any work that is to be done in the Union. The matter should be investigated very carefully by the Government.

I can assure the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) and the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gray) that the matter they have brought up is being very carefully inquired into. As I told the House the other day, a departmental committee is sitting inquiring into the position in regard to the Mozambique Treaty. It is one of the most important matters that have to be considered—how do our mines stand in regard to the need for Portuguese native labour? If we can be independent of that, we should undoubtedly be in a much better position, for we have to concede very valuable privileges in return for the right to recruit native labour in Portuguese East Africa. Enquiry is being made whether the number of natives required by the gold mines can be found elsewhere, possibly by removing the restrictions on the recruiting of native labour north of latitude 22 degrees south. Naturally it is to the interests of the Government to see that our Union natives get as much employment as possible. It was felt that up to recently the supply of Union natives was quite inadequate, but recently owing to the closing of the diamond mines and bad seasons the employment of the Union native on the Rand mines has very largely increased, and that has led to a corresponding diminution in the number of Portuguese natives. In 1929 the number of natives from Portuguese East Africa employed on the mines was 83,700, but on April 30, 1933, the number had been reduced to 47,000, so that hon. members will see that there is no idea of giving preference to Portuguese natives. On the contrary, as the supply from within the Union has been increased, so the employment of Portuguese natives has been diminished. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) has raised the question of concession stores along the Reef. Under the law these concession stores are put up at auction and very large sums are bid for the right to obtain one of these concession stores. They are given out to the highest bidder. There have been openings for ex-miners in the way of selling fruit, and other things, and further facilities will be given wherever possible. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Swanepoel) raised the question of the re-appointment of diggers’ committees. The reason why elections have not been held for the appointment of the committees which have expired is that the department was satisfied that the committees no longer served the purpose contemplated in the Act. In certain cases very serious irregularities took place. Members of the committees used the position they obtained to their own advantage, and to the disadvantage of the diggers. The diggers up to now have shown very little interest in these committees. It was decided that when the term of office expired steps should not be taken to re-elect them. The mining commissioners and the magistrates and their officials look after the interests of the diggers, and do the work which these committees would do if they did their work efficiently. I am perfectly willing to consider representations on the matter, if there is any demand for the re-appointment of the committees.

There is another small point in connection with the diggers’ committee to which I want to call the Minister’s attention. This is the first time that I have heard of the re-appointment of the diggers’ committee being doubted. In the difficult circumstances at the time the election was to take place I was one of the individuals who requested the then Minister and also the department to postpone the election for a time. We never thought that that would be regarded as an indication that the services of the committee would no longer be necessary. I hope the Minister will be prepared favourably to consider the reappointment of the diggers’ committee if the diggers ask for it. The point I really wanted to bring to the notice of the Minister is the discoverer’s rights in Namaqualand, which have been referred to. I want to ask the Minister if we are not already allowing sufficient owners’ rights to be worked in Namaqualand, whether the mines and the alluvial diggings have not already suffered enough owing to overproduction in Namaqualand and whether he will not say: “No, I will now never consent to the working of properties there.” The Minister nods affirmatively.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 22, “Native Affairs,” £357,472,

. I have been in this House for ten years, and during that period we have had three Ministers for Native Affairs. The Prime Minister held the office, and then we had a gentleman from Natal, the present Speaker, and to-day we have a Minister from the Transvaal. I suppose the day will come, if we live long enough, when the Cape will come into its own, and we shall have a Minister from the Cape. My native constituents have asked me to congratulate the present Minister and to express the hope that ne will have a pleasant term of office. The natives call him their father. We know that they called the Prime Minister that, and that they called the present Speaker their father. They look to the Minister to protect their interests, inasmuch as they feel that their interests do not receive as much consideration as they should receive. The present secretary for Native Affairs has the confidence and respect both of the natives and the Europeans. I understand that his period of office is likely to come to an end during the next two or three weeks, but considering the changes that are coming about in regard to native policy we hope he will remain in office for a time longer. Last year we had the report of the Native Economic Commission placed upon the Table. We know that that was a very representative and a very large commission, and that it travelled through the country and made certain recommendations. I would like to know whether those recommendations have received consideration, and, if so, what particular recommendations are going to be carried out. I am sure that the country would like information in regard to that matter. The point that I think is raised in the Economic Commission’s report is chiefly with regard to native education, and the grant from the development fund towards native education. As we know, the administration of native education is in the hands of the provincial councils, but the financial provision has to be made here— a very unsatisfactory position. The result is that native education is remaining stagnant at the present time, and there is practically no development. I know in my own area in some districts there have been no new native schools opened during the past five years, and some schools have been closed. The past Government has taken up the attitude that natives should be developed on their own lines, and I think the time has come to make better provision for their education. Out of every pound tax 4s. is contributed towards the native development fund, and I wish to appeal, at this stage, for a review of the position, as I do not think this 4s. in every pound is sufficient to meet the necessities and the demand for development generally. I am dealing not only with educational development, but with the general development of the native in this country. As we have stated in the House before, large numbers of natives are coming into the towns, who are forced, by economic conditions, to seek work there, and they cannot obtain money in their own areas. They drift to the towns; and there are those who become a menace to the white people. I think the time has come for the Government to take into its most earnest consideration the development of the natives in their own areas, in order to enable them to make a decent living. I see on the estimates a sum of £1,000 is provided for relief of distress. I want to ask the Minister whether he thinks that amount is sufficient. Has he not listened to the appeals which have been made in the House on behalf of the European farmers? We have a sum of £4,000,000 provided for their relief, and if these conditions of drought and starvation prevail amongst the European farmers, what about the condition of the natives? They are living under exactly the same conditions, and we find a paltry sum of this nature put down. I think the Minister must realise that the economic conditions of the country are such to-day that there will be a very serious demand made on the exchequer for native relief. I have never appealed for the feeding of natives, and for poor relief for them, on the lines we have done for the European. It would be tragic if we had to do so for the natives. I believe that so long as the native can work and earn a living, so long he will be prepared to do so and pay his taxes. I have lived in my constituency for 50 years, and can remember 45 of them, and I say that never have conditions been so serious there. I am informed that farmers in the Wodehouse district and other districts are complaining that natives are thieving. I heard yesterday in the House the same complaint from farmers bordering on the Herschel district and Basutoland. Unless something is done to relieve distress amongst the natives, we will be faced, before long, I am afraid, with a very serious tragedy. I hope things will not be so bad as I have adumbrated here; but we have to do something within the next six months. I would like a little information on a few other matters. What has happened to the advance of mealies made to natives in Natal? That was the year before last, under the previous Minister. There was some distress in northern Natal, and mealies were provided. I made some enquiries, and I found out that the traders there were able to cope with the position, and could provide mealies at reasonable prices. I hope the Government will see that our traders will be able to obtain mealies at a reasonable price for distribution amongst the natives when conditions of distress do arise.

Order. The hon. member’s time limit has expired.

I asked for 30 minutes.

The chair did not understand that. Is there any objection to the hon. member proceeding? There being no objection, the hon. member may proceed.

I have not heard of traders charging natives unfair prices in the Transkei; on the whole they get a fair deal. I hope the Minister will consider what I have said tonight. I understand that in the Northern Transvaal, when there was distress amongst the natives, irrigation schemes were started. I hope the Minister will take that aspect into consideration, in my area also. We know that farmers are asking that natives living on their farms should be relieved from paying poll tax. I have spoken to farmers from the Free State, and they say conditions are such there that they are unable to pay the natives, and are allowing the natives to do no work whatever. How, under such conditions, do you expect the natives to pay poll tax? Such conditions prevail in other parts of the country also, and in my own constituency also. Writs are issued, and cattle are seized. I hope the Minister will consider the matter in the same way as he does with European farmers, and allow the natives every latitude. I do not wish to refer to the treatment of white farmers, as compared with natives, the position being wholly different. White farmers treat their natives well in times of distress. But I want to ask whether some relief will be given to bona fide natives who own farms, as is given to Europeans who have farms —as regards bonds on these farms. There are quite a considerable number of natives, old natives, who in the Cape were given farms, and by reason of death of their heirs have had to borrow money to pay out other heirs. I had one case where a native had to borrow £1,000 to pay out the heirs. He is in the same position as the European farmer. Whatever alleviation is extended to the white farmer, I hope will be extended to the native farmer. A native looks to the Minister, as I say, as a father, and looks to him to protect him. There is the matter I raised on a previous vote, and I was told it was on “native affairs”—I refer to the question of the wool subsidy. I do not say the department is to blame, but it does show that there is something unfair and wrong when in one particular district the native is given one penny subsidy for 30 sheep. It shows there is something wrong, because the average weight of wool from the native sheep is between 4 lbs. and 5 lbs. The average price has been between 3d. and 4d. I want to ask if the Minister will not go into this question with the Minister of Agriculture to see if the natives cannot be given fair play. I worked out the figures and, while European farmers are getting £1,500,000 on 40,000,000 sheep, the natives with 4,000,000 sheep are getting £15,000. I think if the Minister would go into this matter with his department it would solve the whole difficulty and enable the natives to get the fair proportion of these subsidies which is their due. Another matter which I raised in this House when I first came here nine years ago is the east coast fever restrictions. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller), the late member for East Griqualand and myself interviewed the Minister of Native Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture just after the coalition move, and we were promised definitely that in the course of two or three weeks the Minister would relax these restrictions. He promised he would write to me, but we have not received a reply yet. I am speaking of the relaxation of east coast fever restrictions in the Transkei, so that we can get rid of our cattle. Thirty or forty farmers round me have never had east coast fever on their farms, and yet we are tied down by these restrictions, and unable to send our cattle out. The natives in the Transkei are the best taxpayers in the Union. Now, however, there is absolutely no money in circulation. They cannot sell their cattle and their wool fetches very low prices. To-day they are being sued right and left for taxes. Recently, I saw 30 head of quite good cattle sold for £20 by the deputy-messenger on behalf of the Government. The native is not being treated fairly. In a certain district I represent, they grow a little tobacco, just an occasional bag which they sell to traders for a few pence per lb., and now the Government comes in with the tobacco quota. Yet it is impossible to export this tobacco. They do not compete with the tobacco of the white farmers, as it remains in the Transkei. It is traded amongst the natives themselves. The result of this will be that the traders will simply refuse to buy the tobacco, and the unfortunate native will be left without any money to pay his taxes. I hope that the Minister will try and alleviate these conditions. I should like to know what is happening in connection with the trading licences supposed to have been given to natives in the Free State and other areas. Some two years ago provision was made in this House for licences to be given to natives trading in native areas and locations. I want to know if it has been extended right through the Union. I have seen frequent references to it in the papers, and I would like to know what the policy of the department is in the matter.

I would like to refer to the question of native relief. We have heard eloquent descriptions of what is taking place in the Free State and in other rural areas, and I believe it. The district of Herschel is a densely populated area, drought-stricken, and the natives there are threatened with absolute starvation in many cases. Their crops have been failures and the soil is so drought-stricken now that it is impossible to go in for any further cultivation. Unless they are given help, either by the Government or by traders, a very serious catastrophe is going to occur. I discussed the matter with the magistrate in Herschel a little while ago and suggested that something should be done for these people which would enable them to earn a little money on which to live. Gen. Smuts in a speech in the Transvaal some time ago suggested that a scheme would be introduced by the Government for the purpose of arresting soil erosion throughout the country, not only in European areas, but in native areas as well. I would like to know whether some useful relief work could not be provided in the area of Herschel. I would suggest that it might be provided in the way of stopping shuts and in other ways arresting soil erosion. The magistrate appreciates the menace which is threatening the district and the natives there. I want to urge upon the Minister that something should be done. These people are unable to get employment. They go in streams down to the magistrate’s, office to obtain passes for work on the Rand, but only a limited number get them and the others have to go back disappointed arid despondent. There is no employment for the natives anywhere. You see them along the roads in European areas looking for employment, but there is nothing to give them. It is difficult to realize what is going on and unless the Government provides some relief work we are in for a most serious time in that respect. Then I also want to refer to the matter of taxation. No taxation has been remitted to those natives, as far as I know. In many cases, arrests have been made and people have been punished for not paying their taxes. Then they go back to their homes and they are in exactly the same position as they were before, still liable for their taxes. I really feel that the Government should treat the natives with some leniency, especially in times like these, because their position is infinitely worse than that of the Europeans. The Europeans get relief and some provision is made for them, but nothing or very little is done for the natives. It is not right rigidly to enforce taxation on these people when, obviously, they have not the means of earning the money. I appeal to the Minister to be sympathetic.

I wish to support my hon. friend the member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) in the appeal which he has made to the Government. We both represent large native areas, and come probably more directly in contact with the question than most other members of this House. One fears that there is almost a chilly atmosphere when one raises the native question, but I want to say that I am just as proud of representing the natives in this House, as I am of representing the Europeans, because I do feel that we have a duty to the under-dog. Before I deal with certain points I wish to take the opportunity of referring to the retirement of the chief magistrate of the native territories, Mr. Welsh. He played a great part there. He upheld the prestige of the white man among the natives, and he enjoyed the respect of every section of the community. Unfortunately he had reached the retiring age, and, according to law, he has now gone into retirement. That retirement met with considerable regret at the hands of every section of the natives in the Transkei. He played a great part in the amalgamation of the councils of both Pondoland and Tembuland. Several natives have made an appeal to me to bring to the notice of the House his valuable services, and to request the Government that these valuable services should not be lost to this country, that these services should be made available at some future time if occasion occurs, and they should not be lost sight of, because the natives have the greatest confidence, not only in his ability but also in his sense of fairness and justice. Like the hon. member for Tembuland, I think it is to be regretted that at the same time his half-section, the secretary for native affairs, Maj. Herbst, is also about to retire. It is almost a calamity that we should now be losing the services of this gentleman after his long experience as a native magistrate. He knows the natives’ wants, he is practical and the natives have the greatest confidence in his fairness. I support the appeal that the Government should try to pursuade Maj. Herbst to continue in harness. I should like to know what action the Government intends to take in regard to the recommendations of the Native Economic Commission. The natives have studied that report more than I expect the Europeans have studied the Bible. The native is thoroughly acquainted with all the recommendations of the commission, and is looking to the Government to see what it intends doing in connection with them. It is a very elaborate report, and contains numerous recommendations. Particularly do I wish to ask what grants the Government proposes to make to encourage native agricultural development, especially in regard to native agricultural shows. I had the privilege of opening the native agricultural show a few weeks ago at Butterworth. The show was entirely financed by the natives, and it had 1,500 exhibits, including cattle, poultry, horses, sheep, etc. I was astounded to see the development that had taken place in regard to poultry, which compared favourably with that at any European show I have visited in South Africa. The produce was a distinct advance on that shown in recent years, thus showing that the natives have realized that it is to their advantage to cultivate their ground well and to use the best seed. I hope every assistance will be granted to the natives to encourage them to hold agricultural shows. Grants are continually being made to European agricultural shows by the provincial councils, but not a cent is given to a native agricultural show to encourage the natives in their laudable efforts. The Minister may say that my next topic is a “King Charles’ head” with me, but I do wish to know what policy the Government intends pursuing for the training of native nurses. Opportunities for doing this can be obtained in the hospitals along the Witwatersrand. There is urgent need in our municipal locations for qualified native nurses, and there is a considerable amount of objection to European women being employed to nurse native men. The matter of the grant of £1,000 for the relief of distress has been referred to. I wish to quote from a letter I have received from a very influential native, who writes—

The time has come to make a survey of the available native labour supply. I have been in various towns in the Transkei at the end of a month, and I have seen hundreds of able bodied natives applying for passes to enable them to seek work, but only a limited number of passes was issued; sometimes five, ten or 15 passes when there were three hundred, four hundred, or five hundred natives desirous of getting them. It is not charity the natives ask for, but for the right to work. If a survey were made of the available native labour supply, the old idea that the native will work only in bad seasons will be dispelled. With increased taxation and with his limited opportunities of earning cash, the native is obliged to go out and seek for work, to find money with which to pay his taxes and to support his aged parents. The survey will show that it is not necessary to go to Portuguese East Africa in order to obtain labour for the mines. I should be glad of an explanation of the item concerning the special grant that is being made to the Transvaal provincial administration of £2,000 for native education. [Time limit.]

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) in the expression of opinion that the services of Mr. Welsh, the chief magistrate of the Transkei, should be retained.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee on 12th June.

I want to draw attention to Standing Order No. 38, which states that when this House adjourns hon. members are to retain their seats until Mr. Speaker has left the chair.

Motion put and agreed to.