I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. NEL seconded.

j Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. CONROY seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

Mr. CONROY seconded.

I would like to know from the Minister whether he intends to proceed with this Bill. It seems to me that this measure might remain over until next session. We want to nave some opportunity of enquiring into the matters it is proposed to deal with in this Bill. This is a special session which was never intended to deal witn a matter of this sort, and I hope that the Minister will make an amended statement, and say that he does not intend to proceed with the Bill this session.

In reply to my hon. friend, I beg to say that I certainly do intend to proceed with the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 15th June.

I move—

I think it will be much clearer if we say there, “from Springs to Nigel station”. Nigel is about six miles from the station, and for that reason it is desirable to make this amendment.

The Minister’s intervention last evening raised an entirely new issue, and his explanation differs radically from that of the other Minister. We have two Ministers speaking and two reports from the board, and now we come to the real reason for building this line. The Minister told us first of all that the object of building the line was for the transportation of marble chips from Marple Hall to Pretoria. If we look at the report, and what the Minister said later, it is stated there was a reasonable agricultural expectation. The board said that prospects had been opened up for agricultural pursuits, and it is anticipated that, with the railway built, cultivation will be developed on a large scale. The report says—

My point is that all the previous reports were quite uncertain as to what the agricultural production would be. The Prime Minister last evening told us there were real agricultural prospects in this district, and the main object was to serve the country, which would develop in connection with the Oliphants River scheme, which is to cost £1,000,000; but it will take many years before it can be completed—and it will be many years before this railway is required. I cannot see that there is any necessity for hurry. I move, as an amendment—

In other words, delete the second scheme altogether. I think we are justified in doing this, so as to enable the department to prepare a proper report on the full scheme. Until we have it we cannot say whether this scheme is a payable one or not, and whether it is intended to develop this particular district or not. If we have the full report from the proper authorities we may agree to this scheme.

I hope the Minister will see his way to accept this amendment. It would be extremely unfortunate if we were to have any division with regard to a line which is really required for the development of the country, and nobody, I am sure, would vote against it if it was shown that it was desirable in the interests of the country. But I do think it is unfortunate that the two reports we have had in such a short space should have omitted the very material factor to which the Prime Minister referred. It was clear, from the reports which had been issued, that the case for the building of this railway as a matter of business had not been made out. It is a pure matter of business whether this line should be built or not. The efforts that have been made to show more than one asset in favour of building the line seem to savour of having been stringed together for the purpose of bolstering up a scheme which was not justified. The only real asset is the contract with the Iron and Steel Corporation, and if this is to be the basis of the building of the line, surely the line should be such that the country should not be entailed in loss. If it is not that, it is an indirect subsidy to the corporation, and it should be done plainly and directly, and not by a side issue. Now that a case has been made out by the Prime Minister, surely the committee should have the real reason set out in the report, after due examination. At the present moment, so far as I know, there is no information before the committee where the actual course passes and terminus is to be. We should have the most complete information to justify the expenditure of what is, after all, a very considerable sum of money. I hope the Minister will take this into consideration and agree that it is in the country’s interests, as the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl) pointed out, that these facts should be clearly and definitely given. Certainly the irrigation scheme is not the case for this proposal.

I do not want my hon. friend to decide the question on what was said yesterday. It may be said at once, as to the fact that the board did not report upon it, that to my mind is perfectly natural, because my hon. friend must not forget that what I told the House yesterday is not yet a matter for general information, nor has the building of that scheme definitely been decided upon, and I said so yesterday. The position with respect to the irrigation scheme is this, that the advisability of constructing a reservoir there was seen about 1905, and a survey was made and a full report issued; the scheme would cost £800,000 or more. The water is there and the ground is also there—about 34,000 acres or 17,000 morgen, and on the whole—good ground. In the meanwhile, in order not to start with a big undertaking and to have about £1,000,000 invested, and then practically have to pay interest for a considerable time, it was decided by the Government of the day, which was before my time, that a smaller scheme—a diversion scheme—should be resorted to, using the ordinary flow of the Oliphants River, and for the purpose of extending cultivation by means of that, leaving it to such time as that water had been properly utilized, and then start the work of the building of the big reservoir. The time has come as far as that is concerned, and for the last two years more ground has been cultivated than the ordinary flow of the river could irrigate properly. For the last two seasons now the people there have had a shortage of water. It is attributable also to the extraordinary drought which prevails throughout the country. But at any rate, the limits have now been reached, and it is very clear to me and to the Government that we shall have to proceed with the building of that big reservoir very shortly; it would have been begun last year already if it had not been that the Department of Irrigation and the Irrigation Board had still been busy. As I said yesterday I went myself with the Minister of Finance and the Speaker of the House, who was then Minister of Irrigation. We went to see what the prospects were. There is not the least doubt in my mind that this is one of the most promising schemes in South Africa. As far as water supply is concerned, it is superior to anything that we have, because that reservoir will be filled for months in every year. Both the rivers drain a very large proportion—I am not sure whether it is not half—of the high veld, and are permanent streams, so, as far as water is concerned, there cannot be any doubt about it. At any rate, as far as I have ascertained, there is no fear to be entertained with regard to irrigation.

Will this be the best line for this particular scheme?

That I will not say. If I had been asked, “Would you advise the line to be built simply because of the development which is going on there?” I would have said, “Not at this moment; we might as well wait some years.” This, to my mind, is decisive, that if the line is taken to Marble Hall, then, as the report indicates, we shall already have sufficient freight to pay the expenses. There is the contract for the marble chippings. As far as that contract is concerned, I give hon. members the assurance that it has nothing to do with the Government, and it was not in any way suggested by the Government. It was done by the board responsible for the iron and steel industry without any influence being used on the side of the Government. The board has come to the conclusion that it is in its interest to have this marble from Marble Hall, rather than from anywhere else. I do not understand my hon. friend’s arguments. Even if you take it that the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) is correct that this is only another Government department—which we know it is not—then one must admit that the Government has a big interest in the industry; but suppose it was totally a Government department, then if the Government decided that it was in the interest oft the one department for another to do something for it, there is no reason why that should riot take place. But let us leave that, because it is a matter for the board, but, as far as the railways are concerned, the Railway Board has reported that the carriage of these chippings would alone be sufficient, barring £800 a year, to justify the building of the line. That, together with the fact that development must take place one of these days, at once justifies the building of this line, as I think any hon. member will admit. If hon. members think it will take a long time, I assure them it will not, and it cannot. Because, in regard to these agriculturists, who are to-day developing the country under the diversion scheme to which I alluded, the Government cannot allow them to be again exposed to the risk of another shortage of water this year or next year. We are simply waiting, we have been waiting for the last 18 months, for the necessary reports to come up. In these circumstances, I think my hon. friends are not wise in asking the House to reject this proposition, because I cannot help feeling that if this line is not built, it will be a very great pity, and these people will have to suffer. The railway will have to be built one day, and if this proposal is not carried out, it may be built at a time when the contract is no longer in existence, and when the iron and steel works have entered into a different contract. I do think the House would not be wise to oppose the building of this line.

I quite appreciate the arguments of the Prime Minister, but there is nothing to show us, in fact even he himself cannot show us that when this development has taken place, the railway will not have to be diverted again.

The only thing necessary may be to extend it by a few miles.

I am going to support the building of this line to Marble Hall. It has been questioned whether these iron and steel works need the marble chips from Marble Hall. It has been said that they could get them from somewhere else. The only other two sources of high-grade limestone available are both much too far away, and the limestone would be too expensive on that account. The limestone at Marble Hall is of great purity. Then it has been advanced that there is limestone at Pretoria, the dolomitic limestone. This is not so suitable for smelting purposes, as the purer limestone at Marble Hall. It is a magnesian limestone which in Europe and America is not regarded as being as satisfactory as the purer limestone found at Marble Hall. That is the reason why the iron and steel works have made this contract with the people who own the quarries, and have undertaken to purchase this quantity every year. There were some of us who originally objected to the establishment of the iron and steel works, but we are now launched on the scheme and we have to see it through. The contract for the marble from Marble Hall will be a step in that direction, and, therefore, I think the House would do well to support the building of this line. Further, I would like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. S. D. de Wet) which, I think, defines the line more clearly. There is intense activity going on in the area between Springs and Nigel, but I will not enlarge upon that, beyond saying that there is more shaft sinking going on in that area and will be in the next year or two than has taken place on the whole of the Rand for the last 20 years. New shaft sinking is one of the most significant features by which to gauge the expansion and further development of the mining industry.

One of the aspects of the building of this line which causes me some anxiety is the fact that no definite answer has been given by the Minister to the charge levelled by the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl) against the manner in which this scheme was prepared and submitted to the House. The Minister entirely ignored that aspect of the hon. member’s second reading speech, the definite infringement of section 130 of the Act of Union and the definite and most emphatic and pronounced infringement of the Railway Act of 1917 which certainly lays down the formula for the way in which a scheme for the building of a new line must be prepared for submission to this House. No such preparation has been made in this particular case. Why? The department has certainly not taken the trouble through the Minister to enlighten the House. I am surprised that the Acting Minister of Railways should have been prepared to permit this flagrant breach of the statutory obligations which are imposed upon his department. There is no question that this line will be built. There can be no question that the iron and steel industry was prepared to go on with the manufacture of iron and steel despite the fact that it had to pay railage a little higher than it would have to pay if this line was built from Marble Hall. When the industry was contemplated, the whole thing had been gone into very thoroughly; we were told it was a really sound business proposition, and that the necessary limestone was to be found within a radius which made it practicable to transport it over the railway line.

They are saving £10.000 a year on this.

The aspect of this contract which strikes me is that it is no contract at all. It never was and never will be, unless the Railway Department builds this line. That contract to me savours of this and of nothing else but that it is a bait put before the railway department for the purpose of constructing this railway line. I do not doubt that if the line is built to Marble Hall it will carry the 50,000 tons per year over that particular line. Whether the amount of 6s. per ton will be adequate for the carriage of this limestone is quite another matter and is one on which the railway department should advise this House. The feature of the whole ease seems to me to be that here is a contract, which really is not a contract; here is a contract which is adduced as an argument to this House to get it to authorize the building of this railway line. Why is that? Why should the iron and steel industry have entered into a contract with the railway department that it will send 50,000 tons of marble chips, provided they build a railway? If any other industry can establish an enterprise in that way, will the railway department be prepared to concede the same advantages? It seems to me that this contract is merely something brought before this House for the purpose of influencing it. We are not looking at the construction of the railway line in a practical business way. The whole thing has been submitted to this House in such a manner as the Acting Minister himself would condemn and I hope he will give the House his assurance that this will not happen again. One expects that from him. The Minister has said definitely that were it not for this contract, he would not have agreed to the building of this railway line. The whole question of the establishing of the iron and steel industry was gone into thoroughly some years ago—we were told that they were going to get their limestone from Taungs and now we are told that that is going to cost them too much money and that they cannot contemplate carrying the requisites for that industry over the lines that are already there and that a new line will have to be built. Then I also feel that we have here a very optimistic assessment of the revenue that will be derived by the department when the line is built. If this line is going through, and it seems that it is going through, then I fear that this contract has been the bait to get the railway line passed. I feel myself that the entering into of that contract and the production of that contract before this House savours of an attempt at undue influence so far as this House is concerned.

I accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. S. G. de Wet). As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. van Zyl), I regret that I am not able to accept that. In introducing this Bill I emphasized that one of the objects of this line was to carry this limestone and I recognized that as one of the most important functions of the line because the carriage of that limestone would assure to the Railway Department a definite amount of income. But now the hon. member for Sea Point seems to suggest that I failed to mention the other possibilities in regard to the line. The hon. member would have been one of my most severe critics if I had anticipated what the Irrigation Department was going to say about this scheme. I outlined the agricultural possibilities and I even went so far as to mention that there was a Loskop scheme, but I think it would have been entirely out of place for me to have overemphasized a scheme which at present has not even been definitely decided upon. The Prime Minister, naturally, was right in giving the House that information, but I very much doubt whether it would have been right for the Minister of Railways to have given that information. The hon. member for Sea Point wants this line to be postponed. If we agree to that, the undertaking of the Iron and Steel Corporation lapses. That undertaking is entered into provided the line is in operation 18 months after the 31st March of this year. If it is not in operation by that time, the undertaking lapses. In reply to the question whether this railway will be suitable for the irrigation schemes contemplated: The other scheme now in operation, the Hereford scheme, is within four miles of Marble Hall, and that is part of the Loskop scheme. An hon. member has tried to frighten me with section 130 of the Act of Union. I must say that I was not very much impressed with the argument and I was not certain whether the hon. member himself was impressed with it and personally I do not think that the section of the Bill referred to by the hon. member is ultra vires that part of the South Africa Act. So far as I know the same procedure has been followed in every case where a new line was contemplated. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen) again raises this question of the report of the Iron and Steel Corporation in which they said that they were going to get their limestone from Taungs. That is so. And then he goes on to argue that as they were going to get their limestone carried from Taungs at 11s. 3d., it was wrong for them to get it from Marble Hall at 6s. Why should they be condemned for trying to make their proposition even sounder by getting their limestone at 6s. instead of 11s. 3d. No one could expect the railways to say “No, if you get your limestone from Taungs, we shall make a few thousand pounds more.” No business man could possibly support that argument. 6s. per ton is the general tariff rate everywhere, and it would be contrary to the law for us to make any differentiation as between different persons.

I am always glad to see signs of repentance on the part of a sinner, and I think the railways and harbours have been great sinners in driving people on to using the railways from the more profitable and cheaper means of transport, and it ill-becomes the Minister of Railways after having chased motor lorries and motor cars off the road to chip someone because he points out that the railways would be better off in earning a higher revenue if the limestone came from Taungs than from Marble Hall. I am pleased to hear that there is going to be a reversal of policy and that where you can get cheaper transport in the development of any particular industry, that particular industry will be allowed to use that cheaper transport by making use of the roads instead of the railways. Nothing that the Minister has said has convinced me that anything that I had said before was wrong. Apart from the larger irrigation scheme, I say that this is a branch line which will not pay. But I want to refer to this larger irrigation scheme of which the Prime Minister spoke—I am sorry he has left the House because I want to put this question to him. I understood from speeches that were made by Ministers in the country, and I am particularly thinking of speeches that were made by the right hon. the Minister of Justice, in which he pointed out that these great irrigation schemes, involving tremendous amounts of money, very often did not pay, and that a policy of building those large irrigation schemes would have to be abandoned, while a policy of smaller dams on farms for which subsidies have been provided on the estimates before the House, was to supplant the old policy of large irrigation schemes. It is clear that that has been the policy of the Government. One hesitates, therefore, to act upon the supposition that one of these great irrigation schemes will of a certainty be adopted in the near future, especially as the Prime Minister considered that the scheme had not been, definitely adopted or accepted and as he gave no period of time within which he could assure the House that this scheme would be undertaken. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that we are driven to the conclusion that one must support or reject this scheme on the original basis. The additional inducement for building the railway, owing to a great irrigation scheme, must be rejected.

It seems to me that the Acting Minister of Railways is setting up skittles, in order to knock them down. The only real concrete reasons given with regard to the building of this railway were advanced by the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé). The latter has made me consider the position more carefully than any other speaker, and has made me hesitate about pressing my objections. I do not, however, in any way withdraw them. I think it is a bad scheme and will never pay; but if my hon. friend on my right (Col. Stallard) will allow me to say so, we have ventilated the position; we have lodged our objection, and I am now prepared to withdraw my amendment.

With leave of committee, amendments proposed by Maj. van Zyl withdrawn.

I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by Mr. S. D. de Wet—

Unless we say something of this sort, it might be thought to apply to a police station.

There is no police station there.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. S. D. de Wet, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment, which was considered and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I move—

This is a Bill to give effect to an agreement entered into between the Government of the Union of South Africa and the Government of Southern Rhodesia, for the prevention of the levying of death duties under the laws of the two territories in respect of the same assets. It is very undesirable that property should be taxed in both countries, owing to the death of the owner in one country or the other. After consultation between officials of both countries, an agreement was drawn up, to avoid that, and this Bill is now introduced in order to give effect to the agreement, and a similar measure has passed this year through the Rhodesian Parliament. The Union Death Duties Act of 1922 imposes a tax on movable property; physically situated outside the Union, if the owner dies and was ordinarily resident in the Union. That has caused some overlapping. This Bill now provides that this shall not apply. The Bill further makes provision for the abolition of duties on debts when they are secured by mortgage bonds registered in the Union and Rhodesia, provided that the debt can be recovered in one or the other countries. The Bill further provides for assigning to Southern Rhodesia, if the deceased person was ordinarily resident in that country, a debt which can, in the discretion of the creditor, be recovered either in the Union or in Southern Rhodesia. Similarly, with life policies; if they were recoverable in either country for the purposes of our Death Duties Act, they will be regarded as an asset in Southern Rhodesia. Also any shares belonging to a deceased person, who is ordinarily resident in the Union, which are required to be registered in Rhodesia in order to effect transfer, will not be included for death duty purposes. Supplementary to that, the registration of shares in the branch register is to be regarded as registration in the main register, so that registration in the Salisbury branch, for instance, will be regarded as registration in the head office. These are the main conditions of the Bill, which is intended to carry out the agreement made between the Union and Rhodesia, and it will come into effect as soon as similar legislation passed by the Parliament of Rhodesia is promulgated.

I want to take advantage of the fact that this Bill is introduced in order to bring to the notice of the Acting Minister of Finance a very anomalous state of affairs in connection with death duties in regard to life policies. An instance came to my notice some months ago where a civil servant, living in Nyasaland, took out certain endowment policies with a prominent South African company in favour of his children. He died in England, and at no stage of his life did he ever live in South Africa. All that he ever did was to take out endowment policies on the lives of his children with a South African company. Yet when he died, the Master of the Supreme Court ruled that there must be a South African administration of his estate, and the payment of South African death duties. How is it possible for our South African life insurance companies to carry on their business beyond the borders of the Union, and to ask non-nationals of South Africa to take out policies with them, if the policy of the Union Government with regard to death duties is such as to demand that in a case like that there must be all the legal expense of administration of the estate in this country, and the payment of death duties as regards those policies. A life insurance policy is ruled to be a movable, and inside the Union of South Africa, and therefore the death duties must be paid as at the date of the testator’s death. I do not expect the Minister of Finance to do more than promise to have the matter looked into, with a view to a Bill being introduced at a future date. It is not fair that the heirs of an English national, domiciled in England, dying in England, simply by the fact that he takes out a policy with a South African company should be put to the bother and expense of having administration of the estate in this country and liability for payment of death duties. I hope that attention will be given to that aspect of the matter. Anybody outside our borders who takes out an endowment policy with a South African company does so at the present time with the knowledge that on his death his heirs and administrators will be compelled to have a separate administration of his estate in this country and will be compelled to pay death duties in South Africa.

With regard to the point raised by my hon. friend, of course it has nothing to do with this Bill. The point that he raises does not affect only policies of insurance; the same principle would also have to be applied to all movable property.

Then you put a premium on persons not insuring with South African insurance companies. It is only a fiction really that there are real movables in such a case. He has no real movables.

It may be a fiction, but it would make a considerable change in the law if we were to hold that movables situated here must be regarded as domiciled where the person died.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

May I say a word or two with regard to what the Minister has said? The point is surely this, that a would-be insurer, if he knows that, if he takes out a policy in a South African company, it will entail all that expense at his death, he will take care not to insure with a South African company, and will insure with an English company. In this case the insurer was an Englishman on service in Nyasaland. If he had taken out those policies with an English company—

The hon. member is out of order.

But because he takes out a policy with a South African company he pays South African death duties, and his estate is administered in South Africa as well?

What about South African insurers insuring with an English company?

I do not think that if anyone lived in South Africa and took out an English policy it would involve the administration of his estate in England.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses, preamble and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question with regard to the suspension of the Mealie Quota Bill. I understand that the Minister has announced that the provisions of this Bill, under which 50 per cent. of the maize has to be exported overseas, are now to be suspended. Mealies which were purchased in March of this year would, under the provisions of that Act, I understand, have to be exported during July, and mealies purchased in April would have to be exported in August. I would like to ask the Minister if he would be good enough to make a statement with regard to that, and also what is the position with regard to mealies purchased during May—last month—whether they come within the operation of the old Act, or whether they are under no such obligation.

I want to take advantage of the longer period, Mr. Chairman. As I said the other night, I am indebted to the Minister of Agriculture for his courtesy in replying to me on the question I raised on the wheat commission, but I am afraid, if this commission is to investigate the whole co-operative movement, wheat, mealies, and so forth, the ground to be covered will be too great to give them the necessary time to investigate the wheat problem. The wheat industry is one of the most important agricultural industries in this country to-day, because up to now it has been possible for wheat farmers to make a decent living and to be self-supporting, not coming to the Government for actual subsidies, or for direct contributions, and it has supported a large number of decent-living families up to now. The department cannot give me recent figures. The last figures the department can give me are those of 1923, and then they were 18,311 farms—not farmers— growing wheat, and that was 10 years ago. We know how it has been developed since then. It is calculated there are 1,300,000 morgen under wheat, not all grown at the same time, as there is the rotation of crops, but 1,300,000 morgen has been ploughed over. The average value placed by the officials on this ground at today’s prices is £7 to £8 per morgen, that is to say the capital invested at to-day’s prices in wheat land alone is between nine and ten million pounds. From 1917 to 1928 wheat farms were sold at from £20 to £30 per morgen, that is for the whole farms. The whole farm cannot be ploughed so that the wheat land averaged £25 per morgen. It has been grown in areas where the rainfall is more or less regular and the result is that you do not have the appalling losses and set-backs through drought. It has given a livelihood to thousands of people. I have been trying to find out what the approximate figures are but I have not been able to get them. If I may give a personal example; I am not a big farmer but on my farm there are 160 white men, women and children and 50 coloured people. For years they have been living out of this industry. This will give some idea of how closely wheat farms are settled. I feel it warrants extra expenditure to appoint a separate commission to investigate the wheat industry. It is essential that that enquiry should investigate four main points: One, how much land can be put under wheat; in some areas the surface has not yet been scratched; two, how much wheat can be produced; three, what is the average surplus, if any, we can expect in say, the next four or five years; and four, whether there is any sub-economic land likely to be brought under wheat in view of the present comparatively high price. To investigate along these lines it is going to take several months for a commission doing nothing else, and therefore a commission which is going into maize and other matters, will not have the time to do it. If legislation is to be passed to save the industry a totally different aspect will be given if the future surplus is to be much more than it is to-day. If it can be estimated at 100 per cent. more than consumption a totally different aspect will be produced from what it would be if it were merely 20 per cent., or in normal years, a small surplus or shortage. A scheme which might save the industry in certain circumstances might prove dangerous in others. To save the situation a separate commission should go into the matter consisting of two farmers who know all about wheat farming and land, two millers or business men and one man thoroughly acquainted with the co-operative movement. An hon. member said the other night that the trouble was due to the millers’ and farmers’ agreement not being a legal document. He suggested it was a gentleman’s agreement. The breakdown was due to the action of those who took most of their wheat from outside the pool and left the pool to nurse the baby. So far from being a gentleman’s agreement, it appeared rather a cad’s agreement. The whole question of wheat co-operation would have to be investigated. Thousands of people joined the co-operative societies. Now through no fault of their own, they are carrying the whole of the industry on their shoulders and maintaining prices and because of this they are to be ruined, being jointly and severally liable. The Minister has said, I think quite fairly, that a lot of the trouble was due to the bad business methods of the wheat pool. But because a few leaders, without any experience or business training, suddenly forced to handle an industry worth millions, because with the best intentions they happened to make mistakes, is that any reason why all the wheat farmers should be ruined? I would just like to appeal to the Minister not to persist in throwing at our heads the mistakes made by the co-operative societies. It is true, as he said, that wheat was received containing too high a percentage of moisture, and it is true that some could have been disposed of earlier and at better prices. His criticisms are fair, up to a point. But does he not remember learning in his school days the dynamic law that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? If this is going to be thrown up at the wheat farmers on every occasion, it is going to be resented and it is resented. We are not the only ones who made mistakes. The most serious mistake was made by experts. It will be remembered that last session I brought up a motion pointing out that 600,000 bags of wheat had been imported and £229,000 had accrued to the Government in subsidies. But when I realized that the bona fides of the Government might be attacked, I withdrew the motion. The point is this, that we have been most careful to leave this question of the 600,000 bags and the money accrued to the Government, out of our discussions with the Minister. We have done all we could both inside and outside the House, not to bring it into our discussion because we feel that these recriminations can do no good. If, however, the Minister himself insists upon bringing up the mistakes made by the co-ops. every time, and insists on blaming us for all the trouble, he must expect us to bring it up too. The Government makes mistakes in good faith, so do all of us, but the main cause of the trouble was that 600,000 bags of wheat were imported, and that not only created a big surplus last year, but it will be carried over this year, and it will go on being carried over until we have a shortage of 600,000 bags. Until that time, that amount will be carried forward from year to year, and it will increase the reserves which we hold. The fact is, that wheat was stored with too much moisture—we admit that and we admit that it went bad as a result. But had the millers not had those half-a-million bags nothing of the kind would have taken place, the millers might have been able to take our wheat earlier, and then it would not have gone bad. I don’t want to go into all this again, I only want to appeal to the Minister to drop this contentious side of the case, because his recriminations won’t help us. We have tried to restrain our friends from using these arguments. Let the Minister do the same, let bygones be bygones, and let us try to save the position for the future, and do not let us refer to the mistakes of the past. I give this advice in all sincerity, and I sincerely trust that the Minister will accept it in the spirit in which it was meant. Now I just want to warn the House that the co-operative farmers who got 17s. 6d. and 15s. for first-grade wheat, or even down to 10s. as an advance, are in a difficult position if they are to be forced to pay back any part of this voorskot. You will not only ruin the small and poor farmer, but you will also bring down the man who is solvent to-day, he will have to pay back large sums of money at a time when he cannot do it. If the farmers are forced to pay back to the co-operative societies any part of the 17s. 6d. you are going to start ruining the small man first, and, you are also dragging in the bigger farmers. I know the Minister of Agriculture is opposed to compulsory co-operation. Well, there is a lot to be said for it and against it. But he will not be opposed to a suggestion of selling through one channel.

What is the difference?

It is thought that the terms are synonymous, but they are not. To force farmers would mean that they would be driven into unlimited concerns, and that would be very dangerous; but to make all the grain go through one channel is entirely different.The security given will be on the produce only, and the money will be borrowed on the value of the produce alone, and the amount of the produce available in any one year will decide how much can be loaned on it; if there is a surplus a lower advance will be given. If there is a normal crop a higher advance can be given. If every miller, every buyer of wheat were forced to take out a buyer’s licence and the price were fixed say at 20s.—I am just mentioning that as an arbitrary figure —and if it were made an offence for any miller to mill wheat bought for less than 20s. per bag, that is first grade, wheat for human consumption, the difficulty would be overcome. The payment would be to the farmer in the form of bills and the farmers’ bills would have to be discounted at the banks and the banks would be instructed by the Government to pay out a portion of the purchase price only. Say the banks were instructed not to pay out more than 15s., the balance could then be paid to a central reserve fund under Government control. If there were no surplus the whole of the 5s. would be paid out as an interim dividend to the farmers after administrative costs had been deducted. On the other hand, if there were a surplus of, say, 25 per cent. that would have to be exported or turned into food for animals, and the price of wheat sold at a lower price than the standard would be made up to the uniform price out of the central fund. But a scheme of this sort might be unworkable if we produced four times as much wheat as we could consume. In other words a scheme that would prove useful in one set of circumstances might prove dangerous in another set of circumstances. It is essential to have a commission to enquire into the position of the wheat industry. If the production of wheat increases very considerably it may be necessary to restrict its growth. It is very difficult to restrict an output in the case of wine, as the vines last for several years, but it may be possible to do that in the case of an annual crop like wheat. It might, for instance, be possible to say that wheat should be sown on any particular land once in every two, three or four years. This would mean that production would be restricted fairly and pro rata for all. If we could only find out what the future holds for us we might try to devise a scheme to save the wheat growers before it is too late. I urge the Government to appoint a commission to go into the matter, for unless we have all the data and legislation is put through rapidly the whole industry will collapse. Without information legislation is impossible and the only method of getting the necessary data is by a separate commission.

I hope the Minister will not take my remarks as a direct criticism of himself personally. I wish to deal with the tick fever in Natal where, for the last 25 years, we have had compulsory dipping. It cannot be said, however, that there has been any real improvement in the incidence of the disease in Natal. There are frequent outbreaks of tick fever in various districts, and the question is whether the time has not arrived when the whole matter should be reviewed to ascertain whether more effective measures cannot ba taken than are adopted at present to deal with this disease. I suggest that during the recess the Minister might seriously consider the possibility of calling a conference, consisting of officers from the Veterinary Department and practical farmers, to discuss the whole matter, and to see whether or not an improvement can be made in the methods of administration. I believe that improvements could be devised, and that the best way of doing that would be to call a conference, so that there might be a heart to heart talk between the department and the farmers. A number of the regulations which exist are very difficult and very irksome. I have before me a notice which has been given to a farmer to the effect that the time and the date at which he has to dip in future is to be altered, and that he will have to dip his cattle at 12.30 p.m., a very difficult time for a farmer to dip. The Minister must know that the farmer sends his cattle out in the morning to graze, and that it is an unreasonable thing for a farmer to be asked to dip his cattle at 12.30. No man should be asked to dip his cattle after 10 o’clock in the morning. I also want to mention the disabilities farmers in the northern districts are placed under with regard to the sending of their animals to the markets at Johannesburg. The department still persists in placing some of them under the disability of sending their cattle to a quarantine market, notwithstanding the fact that their farms have been clean for a long time. Why the department persists in the carrying out of that particular regulation, I cannot understand. Many farmers cannot understand why, when the farms have been clean for a number of years, they should be compelled to send their cattle to a quarantine market. I am informed that when the disease breaks out nearer Johannesburg, a zone is formed, and that outside that some farmers are able to send their cattle to a clean market. I am informed that that has taken place at Piet Retief. I consider that the time has come when the whole thing should be reviewed. It should be reviewed in the light of the experience we have had during the last 25 years. Every farmer to-day has been educated up to the necessity of the regulations, and the necessity of dipping. He knows exactly what strength dip he requires, and I think the time has come when the Minister should consider whether it is not possible to amend the law and to put it on an entirely different basis. I do not want to discuss new legislation here, but if a conference was called the Minister would find suggestions made of a far-reaching nature. An amending law would place the whole administration on a different basis. There is another matter with which T want to deal, and that is I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the position with regard to sour oranges on the London market. I happened to be in London myself some time ago and I took an interest in this matter. I found that quite a number of sour oranges from South Africa were offered for sale there. I found there were a large number of brands which have a most excellent sale in England and in the best hotels in London; on the other hand, there are a large number of sour oranges being offered for sale on the London market which is calculated to do us the greatest possible damage. I would like to tell the Minister some of my personal experiences. I went with my wife to one of the big shops and got into conversation with the manager. I told him I came from South Africa, and he informed me, when we discussed this question, that he preferred to buy Brazilian oranges because they were much sweeter and he could depend on them more. He said that while the South African oranges looked much better, they were very deceptive in many instances and were very often sour. I think it is necessary to draw the attention of the Minister to that, and that if we are not careful, we will spoil a very good market. The Brazilians are very keen, and doing their best to get hold of the London market, and if we are not very careful, and stop sour oranges from being exported from South Africa, it will militate against our good name on that market. I would like to mention another matter, for the benefit of the wine farmers. I find that the Empire Marketing Board advertise empire wines and ask the public to buy them. When I was in one place in England, on the card, which I have at home, there appeared a list of 14 Australian wines, and only two South African wines. I remember the South African wines, because they came from Schoongezicht, at Stellenbosch; our wines have a very good name and all that is required is that we should take steps to advertise our products more than we do. If we were to do the same as the Australians have done and instead of having only two wines on the list have a list from which people could make their choice, I am quite certain it would improve our market very materially. When I was in Amsterdam I could not get any South African wine at all, nor could I get oranges or any other fruit. I made enquiries and they told me that as far as wine was concerned, we could not compete with wine growers on the continent, but that does not apply to fruit. I hope the Minister will see to it that when we send our new ambassador to the Hague, he will make an effort to see that fruit and other South African products are obtainable in every large town in Holland. Another point is tobacco. I tried to get South African cigarettes in London and could not do so. It was only after going to one official at South Africa House that I was told where I could get French Hoek cigarettes. Rhodesian cigarettes can be obtained anywhere in London. A lady sitting next to me at a luncheon in the House of Commons was smoking Rhodesian cigarettes. She happened to be an American who had married a Duke. I mention this to show that even the nobility in England are prepared to smoke cigarettes which come from Rhodesia. Why should we not in exactly the same way advertise our tobacco? Rhodesia is making tremendous efforts to advertise her tobacco in the London market, whereas South Africa is making no effort at all. Everywhere in London you can see placards, “Smoke Rhodesian tobacco and cigarettes,” but I did not see one about South Africa. What is wrong with our cigarettes? They are just as good as most that are produced. We produce most excellent cigarettes in South Africa and there is no reason why we should not advertise them. If we do not we are going to be left behind.

I wish to say a few words in connection with co-operation, and in what I am going to say I do not intend casting any blame on the Minister, and I hope he is not going to indulge in any recriminations so far as we are concerned. I think we are all convinced of the fact that if our co-operative societies were on a sounder basis and if our farmers were organized better, it would not be necessary for us to pass these measures to get the farmers out of the mud in which they are to-day. During the debate on these matters I felt humiliated that we should be obliged to take these steps to extricate the farmers out of the position in which they are, and I blame myself for the fact that we, the farmers ourselves, are largely responsible for our being in this condition. If we had been organized better on co-operative lines, I am convinced— and I think the farmers who sit here will admit that if we were better organized as farmers to dispose of our products, we would not have found ourselves in this condition. The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Major van der Byl) raised the question of the sale of products through one channel. We have been pleading for that for years. What we have been pleading for is not that farmers should be compelled to join co-operative societies, but that they should sell their products through one channel.

I did not say that this was something new.

We are not going to quarrel about that. We are very pleased that we as farmers are now all pleading for the same thing and that is the sale of our products through one channel. That is the only thing which has to be done if we are to make a success of co-operation. The hon. member said that we can produce two or three times as much as we can consume. I am not afraid of our producing so much wheat. I feel that the time will come when we shall be exporting millions of bags of wheat to the world’s markets, and I am not nervous about producing that wheat, because the man who produces wheat, produces something which the world requires. We must bear in mind that although millions of bags of wheat are produced, there are still millions of people who are starving. When the time comes, we shall be able to produce this, but then we must sell through one channel. The question is continually being put why the farmers do not organize themselves.If all the farmers were like the hon. member for Bredasdorp and others, we should be able to do this, but the Minister must bear in mind that the farmers are not all highly educated men, and when you have not got anyone to organize and manage a co-operative society, it cannot be done. It is furthermore argued that other sections of the community organize. No, I am of opinion that they were also helped by means of legislation. Take the workers. I myself have sat here until early in the morning to get protective legislation passed for them. For that reason I consider that the time has come that we should also get protection by means of legislation.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting.

I desire to say a few more words in regard to the decision to appoint a commission to enquire into the co-operative system in South Africa. I regard this as a most important appointment and the farmers are looking forward to the appointment of this commission and to the names of the members who are to serve on the commission. The farmers are convinced that co-operation in the past was wrongly organized and they are anxiously awaiting an enquiry into the whole matter. I consider that all of us who are familiar with the co-operative system, are convinced that in order to save the farmer, we must see to it that the co-operative system is laid down on a properly organized basis. I am sorry that during the present session there is no time for the introduction of legislation, but I can appreciate the fact that the Government does not wish to set about this matter in too much of a hurry, and that it desires properly to consider the matter beforehand. I wish to ask the Government not to make an enquiry merely into the co-operative sale of mealies and wheat, but also to make an enquiry into the credit system prevailing among the farmers of South Africa. I said years ago that the credit system of the farmers was wrong, and I pleaded for the establishment of a farmers’ bank. I do not wish to assert that I am right in this, but I do maintain that we cannot continue with our present system of commercial banks. The commercial banks give credit only for short terms, whereas we require a bank which will be able to extend credit for long periods. Hon. members may say that we have the Land Bank, and the Land Bank has undoubtedly done a lot of good, but I could never regard the Land Bank as my own bank, owing to the fact that it does not get its funds from the taxpayers. We are looking forward to the days when things will be better with us, and when we shall be in a position to establish a bank with our own capital. I also consider that our meat industry should be organized on a co-operative basis. If that is done, I am satisfied that a great many of the difficulties with which the farmers have to contend will be solved. If the Minister would have an investigation made into this question as well, I am convinced that he will be able to come to the House with comprehensive legislation in order to place farming on a sound footing.

I wish to avail myself of the 30 minutes rule, as there are several matters of importance with regard to the cattle industry which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister, and get a statement from him dealing with them. The Minister and his department have called attention and raised the hopes of stock farmers as to the great possibilties there are of establishing an important trade in the export of chilled meat. If these hopes are realized, it will be the biggest thing that has happened to the future of our cattle industry. The Minister has painted a wonderful picture of the future of this trade. We see a remarkable market in Great Britain brought, as it were, to our doors. We see this country competing successfully with the Argentine for the meat trade. We also see thousands of well-bred steers being raised in this country and being exported, thus helping us with regard to the surplus of stock from which we are suffering at the present time, and stabilizing prices in our markets. We also see the prospect of that surplus stock being reduced, and an improvement generally in the quality of our stock. We also see our agricultural industry being put on a far better footing, and agricultural products being utilized to produce animal products instead of exporting them at a loss by means of quotas. This beautiful picture, however, is likely to remain a picture only unless steps are taken to make it a reality. We who are vitally interested in this business, see many great difficulties which have to be overcome, and unless those difficulties can be overcome, we see very little or no greater prospect than the exportation of experimental shipments and samples. The position is really not so bright as it has been represented to be by the Minister and his department. The whole question, when you boil it down, resolves itself into a matter of pounds, shillings and pence. Unless we can show a profit over the cost of production, this export trade is never going to develop at all. The farmers are very enthusiastic to-day, but they will lose faith if, after having exported their stock, they find that they have lost money, and that they would have done better by selling that stock in this country. Unless the trade is going to be a financial success we can never hope that it will grow to any extent. I may say that I know that many farmers have exported their stock in these trial shipments that have been made, knowing that they were going to lose money, but they have done it for the good of the country, and to demonstrate that they have the stock suitable for this trade, and also that the shipments can be made a success, and will meet with the requirements of the export market. But we feel that we are making a false start. It is no good making these experimental shipments unless we are organized, and unless we can send regular and continuous shipments to keep that trade going. At the Ottawa Conference we were given special consideration. We were not limited in any way in regard to the export of meat from this country, but that was done simply to let us demonstrate to Great Britain that we are entitled to be considered a country that can supply their requirements as far as the meat trade goes. But unless we are going to make continuous shipments we shall lose the right to be considered an exporting country. I believe we have to do this within the next 18 months, or we shall lose the right to consideration in the future. We stock farmers are very disappointed that the Minister has not introduced any legislation into this House this session. We know that he could not introduce a comprehensive improvement of livestock scheme, but we feel that he could have introduced a short Bill to provide funds by a levy on slaughter stock for organizing the farmers to direct and control this trade from which so much is hoped. Had he done so, that Bill would have passed through this House without any opposition whatsoever, and we would have been satisfied for the Minister and his department to control that levy and make use of it for organizing this export trade and if necessary providing a bounty too. But now it is too late, and I think the Minister must do the organizing of this export trade himself. The farmers and the farmers’ associations are not in a position to do it. Nothing will come of it if individual farmers are going to try to do it, and the agricultural unions are not in a position to do it either without funds. Unless there are funds nothing more is going to be done. Therefore, I maintain that the Minister should use the officers of his departments, especially the extension officers and the officers of the economics and markets division, to organize this trade, and to see that whatever cattle are suitable arid available for this export trade they are brought together, and that regular shipments are made. I do not think that is asking a great deal. The Minister has the men, and they cannot be more usefully employed than in doing this work. His extension officers should make a survey of all the districts in which they work, and find out how many cattle of a suitable class are available for export. His officers of the economics division can do the organizing of the shipments; they can collect the animals to the ports from which they are to be shipped, and do the grading, and the farmers can be instructed how to prepare their animals for this export trade by his animal husbandry men. I hope the Minister will take that suggestion in the serious way in which it is made. If he does not, I can promise him that after these experimental shipments have been sent out there will not be a single animal offered for export again, if left to haphazard methods of individuals. The position is that the Minister and his department have made statements on which the farmers have based their estimates of the prices which they are going to get for their cattle. Those estimates, unfortunately, are not correct at the present time. The price of meat in Great Britain has dropped tremendously since those estimates have been made. Under those estimates we were led to believe that a 700-lb. carcase would realize just over £13. The position to-day is that such a carcase will realize £7 10s., which means the difference between success and failure. Farmers cannot produce cattle for this trade under 30s. a cwt., whereas the price obtained is under 20s. a cwt. It is an unfortunate position, because at the present time, due to drought, the price of stock has risen in South Africa and is more profitable than export prices. Farmers are placed in the position that they can get nearly double the price in this country that cattle will realize overseas. I would suggest that the maximum subsidy should be paid to the men who send cattle out. I believe that the subsidy is a fixed one of about £3 10s. per head. I think that if the Minister were to pay the maximum amount it would be about £4, or perhaps a little over. If he did that the loss may be reduced. I also think that the Minister should alter his conditions about that subsidy with regard to the men who buy for export. Previously the Minister said that the amount of the subsidy to be given to speculators would depend on the price they pay to farmers for their stock, but owing to the low prices on the London market, these people cannot pay high prices, and the Minister ought to give them the maximum possible under the subsidy so as to avoid serious loss if they do buy and export. We have to do everything possible to encourage export for this trade even if times are difficult at present and all export encouraged even by the cold storage companies. A number of men have exported really tip-top well-bred steers, and knew they were incurring a loss of about £5 each on these cattle. The Minister should bear that in mind and do everything he can to make that loss as small as possible. Thanks are due by the farmers to the Minister and his department for proving these experiments, that we can send chilled meat from this country and land it in London in the very best possible condition. The department has also proved that we have stock in this country which is suitable for that trade. It would be a pity and a sad thing if, having done that, the Minister stops there. He and his department have said “we have done our share of the business, and it is up to the farmers to do their share now”. I can tell the Minister the farmers are willing to organize, but it is impossible to do so without funds, and the only way in which these funds can be raised is by legislation passed in this House. We must have a further subsidy or bonus for these men who are going to export cattle. I hope the Minister will take into serious consideration what I have said about the export of chilled meat. I know he would be a most disappointed man when, after the Secretary for Agriculture having done great work in making this export a success, the Minister decided that they had done all that is possible and the thing should now come to an end. The Government should do something more to keep this matter going; it is imperative. It is not the fault of the farmer that this matter to which I have referred has not been possible this session, and the Minister must continue to do more. I wish to say further that this export of chilled meat may be a wonderful thing, and if all the Minister has told us comes to pass he will have achieved a tremendous thing for agriculture in this country, but we have still what I think is a very much greater problem than the export of chilled meat, and that is our surplus of scrub stock. This export is not going to alter that position, and I feel the Minister will have to consider that matter just as he has considered the export trade and take steps to deal with it. In the past the Minister has had brought to his notice the Pitchford process, dealing with this scrub stock problem, and turning it into valuable products which would return a good profit to the farmers of this country. The Minister must realize that a very large section of this country is able to maintain and to breed only scrub stock, and the Minister cannot ignore those parts of the country which cannot breed the high-class stock which the export trade would demand. I have seen many of the products which this process will manufacture, and they are products which will have a market in the world and will not have to compete with similar products. These products were a wonderful revelation to me, that from scrub stock could be produced such wonderful products which would fetch such good prices. The Minister previously promised the Natal farmers that he would fully investigate this process, but unfortunately, so far as I know, he has never done so. I am going to ask him again to take some trouble to have this process fully investigated. If he can be satisfied it can be made a success, we ought to know so that further steps can be taken. It is not sufficient to ignore it and I think he should have this whole business investigated fully, and that it should then be submitted to the Board of Trade for their opinion and recommendations. If there is anything in it, I think it is going to be even a greater thing for this country than the export of chilled meat. There are large portions of the country which cannot produce anything but a medium class of beast. My time is short, and there are several other things I would like to bring to the Minister’s notice. One is the position of east coast fever in Natal. We have made representations on previous occasions, but have had little satisfaction. The farmers of Natal feel to-day they are being unduly handicapped and they are being unnecessarily annoyed by regulations which are in force with regard to east coast fever. Their great objection is that they have to dip under supervision which is unnecessary, and they maintain that the regulations should be made easier, and that 90 per cent. of the farmers of Natal do not need to dip under supervision. If they could dip when most convenient to themselves, probably better results would be obtained than are obtained at present. There is no doubt there is no co-operation between the farmers and the veterinary department at the present time, and if we have no co-operation, we cannot expect good results. I would ask the Minister that wherever there is a clean area and no disease at all, he should make concessions and allow farmers to dip cattle when it is best for the cattle and most convenient for them, without an inspector having to be present. I can assure the Minister that he will get undertakings from the farmers that whenever these cattle are required to be inspected, they would willingly collect the cattle for the inspectors to see them, and the Minister could penalize any man if he found his cattle infected with ticks. He could not only fine him, but he could put him in quarantine, and no one would object. If the Minister would only listen to us, and would put the onus on the farmer to keep his cattle clean, as is done with scab, we should have better results than we have had in the past. There is no doubt that the present supervision is most irksome and interferes with the running of a farm tremendously. Milk cows are usually milked in the early morning, and it is not in the interests of a dairy cow to be dipped in the afternoon when she should be resting or grazing. I would like the Minister to look into this and see if he cannot meet the farmers with regard to these regulations. I should like to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) that the Minister should call a conference of the farmers in Natal. Let them meet him and his veterinary officers, and discuss the whole question and put their views and suggestions forward. He will then be in a position to understand the objections and difficulties of the farmers, and he will know that they are willing to co-operate with him, but if they are pinpricked and not considered in any way, the position of east coast fever is not going to be improved in Natal. I put this forward, not in any spirit of criticism, but to try and help the Minister to deal more efficiently with this problem. I would also like to ask him in regard to areas which are clean, and where east coast fever has not been in existence for years, if it is not possible for him to insure that these areas should not be penalized in any way, in selling cattle in other provinces. I think it is most unfair that our cattle from clean areas should go to Johannesburg and be put in the quarantine station. Why should he do that? Our cattle are no danger to anyone else. They are free of all disease, because of the care we take of them, and yet we are penalized far more than other provinces which send cattle infested with ticks and which have never been inspected, and there is no supervision on the part of the Government. The Minister as the House is now constituted has a great opportunity. He has a solid body of farmers behind him who are supporters of his, who no longer look at things from a party point of view, but consider the interests of our farming industry as a national thing. We are ready to co-operate with him and to assist him and to try to make his position easier, and we want to help him to achieve success in everything he undertakes. Therefore, I hope the Minister will seriously consider these points that we bring up, and I hope all the farmers in this House are going to let the Minister know what the farmers feel should be done in the best interests of the farming community.

The Minister last night explained the mealie problem to us, and we are very pleased at what he said. Now I wish to bring another problem in connection with mealies to the notice of the Minister. I believe I shall be in order if I raise the subject of the supplying of mealies to farmers on this vote. The transport facilities which up to the present have been supplied by the railways to farmers, were given only with the object of enabling them to trek with their stock. We are very grateful for that, and a large proportion of the stock has been saved as a result, but as no more grazing is available, there is no more opportunity for trekking. A deputation waited on the Minister and resolutions from farmers’ unions have also been sent to the Minister with requests that cattle food should be rendered available to farmers who are no longer able to trek. The position became so serious that we were obliged to direct this request to the Minister. I want to ask the Minister whether he will be prepared to recommend to the Government that the amount which had been put aside for the transport of stock—which in any case is paid back by the State to the railways—now be made available for the mealies that will be used for the stock. We would be very grateful if this could be done. We don’t want to ask too much, but the farmers find themselves in the position which renders it impossible for them to carry on. I can give you the example of a farmer who trekked from Jacobsdal to the other side of Christiana, a distance of about 200 miles, with about 1,700 sheep. After he got a place to stay with his sheep for a fortnight he was obliged to walk back the whole of the 200 miles, because he was not able to get £1 out of the sale of that stock for his railway journey. That class of stock is unsaleable, one cannot get an offer for it. In another case a farmer went away to sell first-grade cows at Bloemfontein, at 15s. per head to get money for petrol in order to go and find grazing for other stock; it cost him a cow to enable him to cover 100 miles by car. This shows the condition of the farmers. The position has been rendered quite impossible for the farmers, and if they should be refused an advance for the purpose of buying food for their stock, their stock will have to die of starvation. It is argued that the stock will have to die, and that the Government will, in that case, when conditions improve, have to assist the farmers in the purchase of other stock. But who is going to feed the farmer in the meantime, and where is he going to get his cash for the purpose of buying stock when the drought is over? If we take these factors into consideration, and if the Minister can see his way, I want to ask him to request the Government, where an advance for the transport of stock has been given, to render that advance available now for the purchase of food. This would help a great deal to enable the farmers to get over the present difficulties. There are farmers to-day who have not got a sixpence in their pocket for the purpose of buying food, in addition to which they are not in a position to trek with their stock. This would not involve a tremendous sum of money, because the farmers are suffering so severely to-day that they will not buy anything beyond their absolute requirements in the way of food for their stock. In cases where it has become impossible for them to trek, there may yet be a possibility here of saving the stock. If the stock should die, the Government will have to help the farmers later on to purchase stock, and this will constitute a very much greater burden than if assistance is given to-day by means of food for stock. I hope that the Minister will give his attention to this matter, and that he will attempt to arrange something in the way which I have indicated.

The Minister gave us the assurance some time ago that the Government would take steps to help people who were in arrear in the payment of their obligations to the Land Bank. In spite of those assurances, we find that the poor farmer is still receiving notices—to which I have no objection—but he is also receiving demands and threats which, as you may appreciate, does not exactly tend to make life agreeable to him. These people, in reply to these demands, write and explain what their circumstances are, and they state that they cannot pay but that they may possibly be able to pay part of their obligations by such and such a time. When the next post comes they are asked how much they can pay. The farmer does not know what his crop will amount to, he does not know what price his wool will fetch, but in spite of all this he has to say how much he will be able to pay. He then remits as much as he has got, and then he gets another letter telling him that if he does not pay within a fortnight or a month his bond will be called up, or legal action will be taken against him. The man who can pay will pay, no matter whether they send threats or not. They know that it is expected of them to pay when they can, but the man who really is not able to pay will draw on his capital, because he gets scared. He will throw his stock onto the market, and he will get practically nothing for it, and he will do so merely in order to enable them to pay his obligations. The result of that is that in the end that man is left with a large amount of the debt still on bis shoulders. I know that it is the intention to meet the farmers as much as possible, but I should like to know whether it would not be possible for the Government to stop sending those demands and threats for say six months or a year. The man who can pay will pay, but the other one who cannot pay will not be forced to pay even by threats. In view of the fact that the Government intends having an investigation made into the position of credit societies and co-operative societies, I do feel that farmers might be met in this manner. The members of credit societies, for instance, expect to be met, but if the Government will take up a sympathetic attitude at this stage, the shock which they will get when the commission reports will be made less severe. Let this war be temporarily put off, because so far as the farmers are concerned it is a war. Those paper bonds which are thrown on them are in the nature of torture to them.

You want a year’s moratorium?

Yes, if the hon. Minister wishes to call it by that name, I should like to have a year’s moratorium for those people.

I should like to draw the attention of the House of the unfortunate position of the tobacco growers in some parts of the country. Last year we made representations that in some districts it was inadvisable to establish a quota and that it would be unwise to export tobacco which was not wanted on the other side of the water. We had the unfortunate position that a large quantity of tobacco had been sent to Europe and was unsaleable, and the department had to send an experienced official there; it took a long time to dispose of that tobacco which was eventually sold at a dead loss. Why send stuff out of the country which you cannot sell here and which has even less chance of being sold on the other side? The Minister may get up and say that under the Act he is not able to exempt any one district, but in view of the fact that the other day the Minister moved an amending Bill to authorise him to bring in an insect for the destruction of cactus, I think that he should be able to bring in a small amending measure now to deal with this other question. There are districts which are growing tobacco under conditions totally different from those which exist in other districts. There may be districts which want a quota and they should be able to make representations and export a certain quota. But where does the sense come in of extending the quota to districts which are able to sell all the stuff they grow? The hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure), pointed out last year how wrong it was to include Turkish tobacco in that same quota. We have tobacco grown in the eastern portion of the Transvaal which is very strong and which it is useless to export. I hope the Minister will take steps to bring about a better state of affairs. We are passing legislation which has the object of giving relief to farmers; what is the use of making it impossible by the same token for another section to make a living? I think we should be more business-like in our methods. I am afraid that this quota business is gong to wipe out a large number of our tobacco growers. I can speak from experience because for a number of years I was also trying to make a living out of tobacco. There are many men to-day with small holdings, who are just about able to make ends meet. If they have to give up one-quarter of their tobacco to be exported at a heavy loss, then it is going to finish those men. I hope the Minister will rectify these mistakes that have been made here. We warned him last year that this was going to react on the tobacco growers and I think legislation should now be introduced enabling the Minister to exempt certain districts from the provision of the law.

I should like to say a few words in connection with the policy of the Minister of Agriculture in respect of the question of the supply of seed wheat. I want to do this because it is a matter of the greatest importance to certain parts of the country, and especially to those parts where I come from, and which I represent, namely, the eastern Free State. I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture to-day, so that we know finally what he is going to do in regard to the supply of seed wheat. The reply amounts to this, that the Government is prepared to supply wheat, through the Department of Labour, to certain parts of the north-west, as relief for the distress in those parts of the country. For the rest, this has to be done by means of the existing co-operative societies, and the only way in which it can be done is for those co-operative societies to amend their regulations so that they can get a loan from the Land Bank to supply seed wheat on credit to their members. The Minister will pardon me if I say that I, myself, and the people whom I represent, are bitterly disappointed at the manner in which the Minister has treated us from the start in connection with this matter, and it is my duty to bring the interests of my constituency, in connection with this matter, to the notice of the House. In the beginning of the year I myself and other members approached the Minister on this subject. The Minister then gave me the assurance that the farmers were able to establish small co-operative societies for the purpose of the supply of seed wheat, and the Land Bank would then give them advances for that purpose. I was grateful for that, and this fact was announced in my constituency. The Minister was kind enough to state that an official of his department would be allowed to go around for the purpose of establishing those co-operative societies. The people had hardly started on this when, like a bolt from the blue, a notification was received that it could no longer be done, and that the Land Bank could only supply the seed wheat by means of the large co-operative societies. When I sent this notice to my constituency, I was very severely taken to task, as I had previously sent notice that the special small co-operative societies could be established. I was blamed, but the Minister of Agriculture was responsible, as it was he who had stated that this could be done. In the course of the first few days of the present session the Minister was again waited on by a deputation, and he again gave an assurance in connection with this matter. He stated that the co-operative law would be amended that only persons who had received seed wheat would be held responsible for the amount advanced by the Land Bank. The assurance was given that this would be the case. Again I myself and others notified my constituency to this effect. I stated that a co-operative society would be able to undertake the matter, and assuming that 20 members received seed wheat, those 20 member alone would be held responsible for the advance in respect of that seed wheat. We and our voters were grateful. Within a few days, however, the Minister came again and declared himself unable to amend the law to that extent. The Land Bank was not willing to do it, and the only way in which it could be done was for the co-operative societies to secure the first claim on the crops. It is most unfortunate that the Minister should have led us into this difficulty by giving us an assurance, on two different occasions, an assurance which we, in our turn, conveyed to our constituencies, and on which we had to go back again later on. Hon. members will appreciate the fact that it places us in a very difficult position if we have to go back on every assurance which we give. The stable door, however, has now been locked. The Minister has refused to do this, and we have to be satisfied with it. The only concession which the Minister made was the change in the law giving the co-operative societies the first right of retention. I now wish to place the position, as it is in my constituency, before the House. The only assistance which people can secure in regard to wheat is by means of the co-operative societies. But those societies decline to do so. They decided, by a majority of their members, that they are unable to assume the responsibilities, as this would simply mean placing the burden on the shoulders of the people who are still able to pay. If a failure should result, and if the other people who have been assisted are unable to pay, the other few people will have to pay. Those people are in such a condition that they are unable to undertake this. Now there are many people who are not members of co-operative societies. The Minister may say, “Yes, but then they should join.” What will it help them to join co-operative societies at this stage? Those societies will not tell those people that they will help them, seeing that they did not belong to the societies before. There is, however, another class of man for whom I am especially pleading, and that is the man who has already fallen out, and who is insolvent. They are the people who live on the mercy of others, who allow them to cultivate a bit of land for themselves. Does the Minister imagine that the co-operative societies are going to help those people? Those people are insolvent, and they are trying to make a living again. The day before the elections the Minister of Agriculture issued a statement with the intention of encouraging people, and of giving them courage once more. Tn that declaration he made mention of the words that were used by the American president—

I fully agree with that, and the people are entirely in agreement with that statement, and they now ask, “Help us to cultivate mother earth.” The Government is giving large amounts of money in the way of subsidies on interest, but what the people are asking for is help to enable them to cultivate their land so that they should be placed in a position to pay that interest. Those people are not able to buy seed wheat anywhere, they have not got credit to buy it anywhere. The co-operative societies are not prepared to help them. The Minister may blame those co-operative societies for not being prepared to give the wheat, but the fact remains that they are not willing to do so. I am now making a final appeal to the Minister to see whether it is not possible to supply those people, as a relief measure, with seed wheat. Some time ago the Minister replied to a question of mine as to what the losses amounted to. In one year those losses amounted to £2,000, but in other years those losses were small, they were only £30 or so. There are numerous small farmers to-day who will only be able to make a living if seed wheat is now supplied to them, so that they may be able to sell it in order to get a crop. Even if the Government were now to tell the Land Bank that it must help those people by means of co-operative societies, it will not help them, because they have not got the necessary money to pay their entrance fees. In these circumstances, I ask the Government if they won’t help by means of the Department of Labour, in the same way as they have done in the north-west by supplying seed wheat to that class of people who cannot undertake any obligations. In my constituency this is a most serious matter. When I was there numerous people approached me, and even now I am getting large numbers of letters begging of me to see to it that they shall be supplied with seed wheat. Will not the Minister alter his decision, so that help shall not be given only to people belonging to co-operative societies?

What has struck me about this debate is that we are all liable to change our minds. When I came here I thought that the height of my ambition would be to become a Minister of the Crown. Now I find that a Minister’s position is a very unhappy one, like a policeman’s. He has to deal with every kind of subject. He has to deal with the differences between mealie growers, land those who have different requirements. There are one or two points I would like to refer to. Although I am not a reverend gentleman, there is one lesson I think I might point out to our Ministers, and perhaps I may be permitted to exhort them to adopt the economics of Joseph. We have the same difficulties to-day that northern Africa had 4,000 years ago. We still have to deal with drought conditions. Joseph, however, was wiser than we are to-day. During the fat years he provided for the lean years. What do we do? We export our crops at unecomonic rates, with the result that instead of having fodder for our cattle, and feed for our sheep, which are starving in their thousands, we have to get our stock and sheep conveyed to other parts of the country. The time is coming when we shall be compelled to recognize that we have drought belts, and that we must have food depôts. It is ridiculous that in South Africa, when we have a drought and fodder is scarce, we find farmers paying from 10s. 6d. to 12s. for a bag of mealies, and at an equivalent rate for lucerne, whereas we send our maize away at 4s. or 5s. a bag to teed the cattle of those who compete with us in the European market. We should have our food depôts. A book has been published by President Roosevelt which I can commend to the notice of Ministers. President Roosevelt says that the traditional policy of individualism will have to be put aside, and that we must go in for a scheme of governmental planning on a much greater scale. I find that the “traditional policy of individualism” is still rampant in this House. One man wants seed corn for his district, and another wants a weir, while another wants something else. It is all individualistic, and Ministers are hampered through having to deal with this individualism. We have got to get rid of this sort of thing. We know perfectly well when we have our good seasons that they will be followed later by bad seasons. Therefore we should consider the question of having food depôts for our drought-stricken areas. Another question which we have to go into is the question of export bounties. We find that we export our fodder and food, and soon afterwards we are paying high prices. To-day you have to pay over 2s. 6d. for a dozen eggs, and we have to pay a huge price for butter and bacon. This point, I think, will have to be taken into very serious consideration. Another point that struck me when the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) spoke was the vast area we have under wheat. I believe the hon. member for Burghersdorp saw the time coming quickly when we shall be exporting wheat in millions of bags. I don’t see that time coming unless we can produce wheat at an economic rate. Continually our wheat growers are grumbling because they cannot produce wheat in this country at the same price as it is produced in Canada and Australia. We have the rainfall here in certain areas, but in those areas where we have a good rainfall our soils are in a deficient and sour condition. Farmers have to pay £4 10s. for a bag of basic slag. Fertilizers are expensive. Yet we have vast undeveloped areas of raw phosphates practically within these wheat-growing districts. It would be advantageous if we were to see how much we can do to provide our farmers with cheap fertilizers, so that they might be in a position to produce cheaply. You have these areas in the Western Province and beautiful land in the Knysna district, but what you require is to sweeten the veld by artificial means. The land in Great Britain at one time was sour until it was treated artificially, and the same sort of thing will have to be done in the Western Province. We have these deposits of phosphates and fertilizers in this country, and instead of importing them, it would be much better if the Government were to see whether the beds here are of any use, and whether we can produce fertilizers much more cheaply for our farmers. These steps will have to be taken because competition is growing keener every day. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) this morning talked about oranges and other things, but do we realize that our chief competitor to-day, not only in regard to meat and maize, is the Argentine? Do we realize that in the Argentine during the last three years from 8,000,000 to 9,000.000 orange trees have been planted, and that vines have been planted there on a grand scale which will bring the Argentine into competition with our wines and grapes? If we go on producing at uneconomic rates in South Africa we shall find that we shall be left behind. I appeal to the Government who have everything in their favour to-day except the people of Johannesburg, to see that they do not pay too much attention to the individual, but to go in for a five years’ plan like they have in Russia and in America to-day. President Roosevelt has just published a book called “Looking Forward.” [Time limit.]

I do not propose making a big political speech. I want to get down to facts. I do not propose indulging in destructive criticism, but I wish to get a little more information from the Minister of Agriculture as to what the tobacco farmers of Middelburg have been doing. Some years ago a quota was made on tobacco. I have done everything possible to keep Middelburg free of the quota, but it was impossible. I should like the Minister to reply to the question which I want to put to him, so that the tobacco growers of Middelburg will know where they stand. An official of the department has stated that our production is too small for the establishment of a co-operative society. The co-operative society of Rustenburg will not take us in, and therefore we cannot join their co-operative society, and we cannot co-operate on our own. Our farmers now have a large quantity of tobacco, and they cannot turn it into money. From year to year the farmer has been waiting, and he is not allowed to sell, as they do not know what they have to do out of the quota. What are they to do now? Now I come to the mealie problem. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he knows how much mealies there is in the country. In his reply yesterday he told us that he would allow mealies to be imported. We are afraid that this may only be the start, and that we do not know where it is going to end. As the Minister knows, farmers have been suffering for years because they have been unable to get a decent price for their mealies. One year they got an advance of 4s., and another year they would get 7s. A mistake was made by giving 7s., but it appears to me that the Minister now wishes to punish us because of the fact that a mistake was made. If a mistake was made, it is not corrected by making a second mistake, because two wrongs do not make one right. We have now come to the Minister with our hats in our hands. We know that he is strongly in favour of co-operation, and that co-operation is the only way by which farmers can be helped. But we have been pottering along with co-operation for 20 years, and it continues to be a failure from the one end to the other. We do not, however, wish to give up the ghost suddenly—it appears to us, none the less, as if co-operative societies are dying owing to the fact that the Minister is not prepared to allow somewhat larger advances to be given this year. The Land Bank deducts 5s. per bag, and I should like to know how they can do this, seeing that there is such a tremendous drought this year that the farmers have not produced one-tenth of the amount of mealies that they should have. If the Land Bank takes 5s. per bag off those mealies, it will mean the death of all co-operative societies, and that surely is a very unhealthy state of affairs. I have discussed the matter with the Minister, and he states that if members of co-operative societies do not supply mealies to their organizations, he is going to import from Rhodesia. It is i quite safe to give larger advances, and although we made a mistake last year, as a result of which a certain amount had to be written off, we should not make another mistake now by making the advances too small for the other mealies. That sort of thing is hopelessly wrong, and will simply kill co-operation. I cannot understand why the Minister should allow the importation of mealies from Rhodesia before he knows how much mealies there is in this country. Surely there is enough mealies to supply to the mines. If we go and import now, and it appears that there is more mealies in the country than the Minister thought, we shall be faced with a surplus. Whether that surplus is 100,000 bags or 1,000,000 bags, it will only result in prices coming down again. I am convinced that the announcement that we shall be allowed to import mealies will be quite enough to bring down the price, and the farmer will be the sufferer. And it will again be a hopeless failure, because the speculators will watch to see what the result is of the importation of mealies from Rhodesia, and the consequence will be that prices will go down again at once. I want to ask the Minister to postpone this importation until he knows how much mealies there is in the country. The Minister further made the mistake of failing to consult those members of Parliament who are mealie farmers. He should not, simply because the Central; Agency asked for it, have acted at once without enquiry and done what the Central Agency asked him to do. I consider that the Minister could have consulted those who are responsible in the various constituencies. We do not ask that everything should be submitted to us, but after all, we are responsible to our constituencies and we have to account to our constituencies. I further wish to appeal to the Minister to delay the importation of mealies so that we shall not be faced with a surplus of mealies in the Union. Let us give the mealie growers a chance. They are suffering great hardships. They have hardly any crop at all; let us give them an opportunity now of getting a decent price for what they have. The Minister must not forget that in the days of Gen. Smuts, in the days of the S.A. Party, an embargo was placed on the export of mealies as it was thought that there would be a shortage. There was a surplus and the consequence was that the price immediately dropped from 25s. to 8s. Last year the wheat farmers also suffered because of the fact that there was a small surplus of wheat. I hope therefore that the Minister will act very carefully. [Time limit.]

The success achieved in South Africa by the export of fruit is largely attributable to the excellent work that was done in the past by the Research Institute in connection with the question of low temperatures, under the guidance of Mr. Griffiths. In the olden days it was most hazardous to export fruit, as one never knew whether it would arrive on the other side in good condition. Great changes were introduced on the boats. Different methods were introduced, as also different methods in regard to packing. To-day we have a great deal more security than we had in the past in knowing that when fruit is exported it will arrive in good condition at the other side. Unfortunately, the fruit exported this year in two ships arrived in bad condition, with the result that farmers suffered heavy damages. I, personally, had one-third of my export crops on those ships. I should now like to ask the Minister whether an investigation is being made and whether it is possible to determine what was wrong in regard to those consignments on those ships, so that the same mistake will be avoided in future. I understand that there are difficulties at present in connection with Mr. Griffiths. I do not know what those difficulties are, and I am not able to express any opinion on the merits. The Minister will be able to judge those merits himself. I wish to say, however, that the farmers of the Western Province, who export fruit, have great confidence in the research work done by Mr. Griffiths in connection with low temperatures. I hope that his services will be retained for a long time, and that the work may be continued under his able guidance. I am unable, however, to go into the merits of the case; those the Minister will have to judge on. I can only refer to the confidence which farmers have in that official.

I wish to reply briefly to certain points that were raised in debate yesterday. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) raised the question of the good work done by Mr. Griffiths. There are a great many of our head officials who have rendered good services, and Mr. Griffiths is no exception to the general rule. Certain things happened during the past years while he was in the service. Complaints were lodged against him in the proper manner; they were enquired into, and the matter is now in the hands of the Public Service Commission. If he is found guilty of neglect of duty, I shall have no alternative but to dispense with his services. He will have to go. It may be that a great many people regard him as a good, nice and trustworthy man, but we cannot tolerate neglect of duty in the public service. The hon. member mentioned an instance of fruit which arrived overseas in bad condition. It may be that the thermometers went wrong. We shall go into this matter, and I hope that the hon. member will place all the information at his disposal before my department. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) was greatly concerned about tobacco. He tells us that it is impossible to establish a co-operative society in his district owing to the fact of too little tobacco being produced there. If we bear in mind the fact that there are farmers who produce 100,000 lbs. of tobacco, I fail to see the reason why a co-operative society cannot be established there. No, the cause of the difficulty so far has always been the dissension which has prevailed there. I am very gratified, however, that my hon. friend is now beginning to feel strongly in favour of co-operation, and I am pleased to know that I shall in future be able again to get his support in that direction. I hope that the commission which is to be appointed will enquire into the matter so that we may be able to bring about the necessary amendments in order to make a success of co-operative societies in regard to mealies, wheat, tobacco, etc. I must honestly tell the hon. member for Middelburg that the tobacco growers have always said to me: “Give us the Quota Act, and once we have the Quota Act we shall not require anything else from the Government, because we shall then be our own Government.” And now they come again and say: “We cannot work out our salvation in that way. If we do not get 2d. per pound on our tobacco it will not pay us.” If that is so, we might have been able to do it without the Quota Act. In any case, I am now considering the position to see whether it is possible, in those districts where there are large co-operative societies, and where the law has already been proclaimed, to destroy the 25 per cent. that the Quota Act requires to be exported. If that is possible, the farmers can sell the other 75 per cent. as they please. I learn now, however, that the co-operative societies are raising objections. They want that 25 per cent. to be exported. I must say that I cannot understand the co-operative societies. If there are no markets overseas for our tobacco, and if the farmers have to pay in on top of the tobacco which they export, then the question is whether it is good business to export their tobacco. I must say that I feel a great deal for what those farmers say, namely, that they would rather destroy 25 per cent. of their crop in their districts than export it. The second point which my hon. friend raised is in regard to the mealie farmers. Let me say that if there is one section whom I am sorry for, it is the mealie farmers, because they have had a great many difficulties in recent years. I received notice from the central agency, which represents the farmers. That agency entered into a certain contract on behalf of the co-operative societies. That contract has to be carried out, but the agency has no mealies to give effect to the contract. For that reason we have found it necessary to allow 400,000 bags of mealies to be imported from Southern Rhodesia this year. I should like to add that at one time Rhodesia was able to export as much mealies to the Union as it pleased, but when the Mealie Quota Act was passed we agreed that they would only export mealies to the Union by arrangement. Not more than 400,000 bags of mealies will be imported. There is no doubt that the estimated mealie crop of 9,500,000 bags is far too low, and the fact that those mealies will be imported will consequently have no effect on the market at all. The price may drop for a few days, but in general this will not have any effect on the mealie prices. I only hope that the farmers will not go wrong, and that they will not sell their mealies too cheaply, with the result that the middle man will get all the profits. If the mealie farmers had supplied all their mealies to the co-operative societies, I am of opinion that they would have got good prices. The Minister of Agriculture is now being blamed for not having raised the advances. Hon. members know that this House deliberately passed a law under which the Land Bank is not allowed to advance more than 60 per cent. of the ruling price of mealies. It has happened that in peculiar circumstances we have decided to increase that advance, and what was the result? The result was that the taxpayer to-day has to pay that money. Are we to make that same mistake again to-day? No, I am sorry, but that mistake which we made then is not going to be made again. The hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Joubert) made a very fine speech here, in which he said that Joseph provided for the lean years. But the hon. member loses sight of the fact that Joseph did not live in the days of democracy. That sort of thing cannot be done to-day. Let us try to do that now, and I wonder what we shall be told in this House? I think we have heard quite enough in this House about what we have done. I am sorry that we cannot accept the advice of my hon. friend in regard to the feeding of stock, and the losses on products overseas. We have to try to compete with other countries in the farming products which we export. If we cannot compete with other countries, we shall drop back. Hon. members must bear in mind that South Africa is no longer merely an importing country; it has become an exporting country, and we have to see to it that we are able to compete in the world markets, failing which we shall drop behind. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) has made certain attacks on me. The hon. member charges me with having said that people could go and establish small co-operative societies, and that when they have done so the Land Bank stepped in and said that it could only give assistance to existing co-operative societies. Does the hon. member expect that where he has, in Ladybrand, for instance, a large co-operative society of wheat farmers, he can simply go and set up a number of small co-operative societies? If the hon. member is of opinion that the Government has made a mistake, he can get up in the House and move the necessary resolution.

I am merely begging for those people; I am not quarrelling.

The hon. member stated that the Government would take steps to see to it that those people who had formed small co-operative societies would also be assisted, but that the Land Bank is not prepared to give them any loans. Would it be of any use if I were to knock my head against the wall? Is it not much better for those people if the large co-operative societies are able to secure a pledge on all the seed wheat which nobody else can get? The hon. member stated that we made an exception for the north-west, and he expressed the hope that we would do the same thing to his constituency. When the vote of the Minister of Labour comes up the hon. member may possibly get his request considered if he raises it then. I think that my colleague might be prepared to deduct 1s. per day if there are people there who receive wages. That is being done in certain parts of the Cape Province. Those people are paid partly in money and partly in wheat or in seed wheat. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly) also raised the question of tobacco, and I wish to say the same to him as I said to the hon. member for Middleburg (Mr. J. D. Heyns). We have the law, and I hope they will avail themselves of it. They can ascertain to what extent the law is answering its purpose, and if it does not answer its purpose, they can put their case before the commission. The same applies to the Mealie Quota Act. If those laws do not answer their purpose, petitions may be presented for their repeal. Those laws are not like the laws of the Medes and the Persians, but so long as they are proclaimed they must, naturally, be carried out. I cannot bring about amendments now, but if it should be the wish of hon. members and of the people that they should be repealed, they should state so definitely. The hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. Wessels) asked if it would not be possible to give a year’s armistice to those farmers who owe money to the Land Bank and to various departments. He tells us that the departments are sending in accounts which scare those people. There are very few departments that send out accounts: everything goes through the Land Bank.

The relief loans go through the Department of Lands.

The hon. member mentions that department, but if there is one department which is a charitable department it is the Department of Lands. That department has greatly reduced the capital outstandings, and the interest payable on such outstandings has also been greatly reduced, but, in any case, this is a matter for my colleague, and I do not propose going into that question. Relief loans, credit societies and advances all fall under the Land Bank, and the Government has asked the Land Bank to meet the people as much as possible. When, however, a credit society’s bill falls due, it has to be renewed, but that does not necessarily signify that the Land Bank is pressing your people. Hon. members like the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) mentioned a number of instances which I at once brought to the notice of the manager of the Land Bank. He at once wrote to Pretoria to get details, and I hope that I shall be able to give information to hon. members before the adjournment. I agree with what the hon. member for Frankfort said, and I shall ask the manager of the Land Bank to treat people as reasonably as possible. I hope thaï hon. members who take an interest in this matter will stand by me when I meet the manager of the Land Bank in my office on Friday morning. We shall be able to see then what arrangements we can arrive at. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) asks that we should supply food for stock and that we should carry it free of charge. The Government has carefully considered this matter. This is not the first time that this has been raised, because it was raised already in 1927, and it was raised again last year. This proposal, however, is quite uneconomic, and the Government has come to the conclusion that it cannot do it.

They will repay it later on.

So far as that point is concerned, the Government has helped the farmers as far as it possibly can. Their stock is carried over the railways at one-quarter of the ordinary rate; it is carried to parts where there is grazing, and the farmer and his assistants who have to look after the stock can also get special concessions. My hon. friend may say that there is no opportunity for people to trek, because no further grazing is available, but I am not Almighty. I am not to blame for the fact that there is no grazing, I cannot cause it to rain, and I cannot force the grass to grow. What the hon. member has asked me is not possible: if it were possible we would comply with his request. And where are we to get the food, or are we to import the mealies in the same way as we are doing now, in order to carry out that contract?

Yes.

I would like to know what the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. J. D. Heyns) would say about it. Lucerne is already 3s. a bale and the Government sees no chance of assisting the people in that way. One of the Natal hon. members raised a very important point on the meat industry; he asked how we could be expected to build up an export of meat seeing we only have a little meat to export. This is surely a matter that I cannot help. I use the extension officers and others to make propaganda among the farmers in order to organize and to establish the industry on a proper footing. The hon. member now, however, wants us to give money to farming organizations. Where will it end? I am sorry but I am not prepared to do it. It is not necessary now to introduce a Bill in connection with a levy. I still hope that it will be possible next January if the public want it, to introduce the Bill for the improvement of the breed of stock. He also asked what the maximum export premium on meat should be paid. We have done it up to the present but I cannot permit speculators to buy up meat from the farmers at 10s. per 100 lbs. to export it and then get the maxi mum premium on it. A price has accordingly been fixed for the speculators. If we do not do that then the farmers’ position is hopeless so far as the premium is concerned. Then the hon. member raised the question of the Watkins-Pitchford system. If it is such a good and economical scheme to save the meat farmer how is it possible that money has never yet been got from private individuals to tackle the matter? It is a commercial scheme, and a thing that the Government cannot undertake. If the scheme is so favourable that it will solve the difficulties of the industry, let private people tackle it. The hon. member must know that a company has already been formed, and what became of it? It went into liquidation, and the farmers hear no more of it. My hon. friend means well, but along that road we shall not find a solution of the matter. Then he and the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) mentioned the question of east coast fever. They say the position is still serious in Natal, but we say here that the position in connection with east coast fever has much improved even in Natal, and I hope that with the support we now have we shall soon be able to eradicate the disease. The hon. members want a conference between my department and the Natal farmers. Representatives of my department annually attend the congress of the Natal Agricultural Union, and east cost fever is always considered at that congress. Every year hitherto a resolution has been passed supporting the department and asking that the restrictions and regulations should not be relaxed. Does the Natal Agricultural Union then not represent the farmers of Natal?

Not entirely.

Then there are divisions. How can hon. members tell me that I must not listen to the Natal Agricultural Union, the organized body of the Natal farmers, when I want the views of the farmers? I must listen either to this organization as a representative of the farmers or I must push it to one side as something that is not answering its purpose. The Natal Agricultural Union has always said that we must not water down the regulations. Another difficulty has been mentioned that the farmers have to dip at 12 noon. There must be supervision, because experience has taught us in the Transvaal that we cannot eradicate the disease if the dipping is not supervised. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) raised an important question, viz., the sale of produce through one co-operative channel. He said that this assistance to farmers would not be necessary if they could get control in this way over their produce. We have anyhow had experience of the tobacco industry as well as of the wine industry. It has been said that control over the product would be such a success that the tobacco farmers would require nothing more from the Government. We know our experience in both cases. I do not, however, wish to discourage the hon. member. I will not express an opposing opinion, although I have always been against compulsory co-operation. If it was a thing which offered a solution then we ought to try it. I have, however, announced that there will be a commission of enquiry and I think that we should first institute a thorough enquiry. Further, it was asked that other questions such as the general economic position of the farmer should be investigated by this commission. It is a very difficult matter and I am not prepared to go into it at present. The hon. member also said that we were getting a poor price for our meat exported. I will give a few prices. The consignment which the Argentine sent in May—the last one of which we have the figures—went from 4¾d. to 5¾d. per lb. for hindquarters and from 2½d. per lb. for forequarters. For South Africa the price was 4¾d. to 5d. for hindquarters and 2½d. to 2¾d. for forequarters. Our meat exporters, however, got the export premium of 35 per cent. in addition. Hon. members will therefore see that the difference between South Africa and the Argentine is not very big, but, as I have said, South Africa is a poor agricultural country and we cannot compete with the Argentine where the beasts fatten at grazing, while with us they have to be fed. The hon. member for Newcastle also mentioned the sale of lemons on the London market. Hon. members will remember that in this case we conceded that lemons could be exported now but they had to be properly marked as such. We are trying to maintain our market overseas, and certain standards will be laid down for grapes and wine there. The hon. member also said that the farmers of the Transvaal had an open market for their stock, while those of Natal did not have one. He should remember that there was only one case of east coast fever in the Transvaal. The hon. member mentioned the position of Newcastle. Well, we know the dangers of cast coast fever and that we must be careful even if an area has been free of the disease for two years. This is a matter which will receive the attention of the department and in connection with which steps will have to be taken. The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) has again brought up the question of wheat. He says that the Government caused damage to the farmers by importing 500,000 bags. When those permits were issued our country was faced with a bread famine; the hon. member knows it. Is it right of him then, after deputation after deputation had seen the Minister of Finance on the matter and he had told them clearly that he could not allow one day of Bread famine in South Africa, but was obliged to allow the importation of wheat, is it fair of the hon. member constantly to raise this matter? We did not know that there would be so large a wheat harvest. It was the first time that we have had such an overproduction of wheat and within two months the whole of it will be consumed. The wheat farmers have suffered loss but I am not afraid of their position. The Transvaal has not suffered loss because they sold their wheat at 20s. when our friends down here wanted 22s. 6d. I do not, however, want to go into this matter further because we had better allow such mistakes to rest. As I said, the commission of enquiry can go into the matter thoroughly. He wants a separate commission for the wheat culture. If I agree to that and commissions are appointed for tobacco, maize, wheat, etc., where will it end? I am not prepared to do it, and one commission will be able to do all the work. One commission will have to do all that work, even it if takes it months. I hope it will have its report ready by the end of the year.

†The hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Robinson) asked me whether the Quota Act has been postponed for a year. Yes, the position is that maize that has been bought during April, or before the end of April, has to be exported within a certain date. I was told by the association to buy the surplus maize that had not been exported, but found that the owners were not prepared to sell as the maize was to be exported.

†*The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Mr. Scholtz) referred to the extension officials. Let me say at once that it is not possible for the Government to give one to each district. When an extension officer has been at one place for a few years he is transferred and we think he has done enough educational work there. The hon. member also referred to mountain fires. The Forestry Department is fighting mountain fires as far as possible but it is very difficult. Then he also asked whether Uniondale could not remain under the extension officer of Stellenbosch. That will mean that Stellenbosch will have more extension officers and we cannot think of that at present. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. R. J. du Toit) spoke of the costs of production and he also wants a commission. He wants one commission after the other. If the agricultural universities cannot give the information to my hon. friend then there is something wrong. But I think he will be able to get all the information, information which will be impossible for a commission, which travels about the country, to obtain. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Raubenheimer) wants the farmers who have 50 lbs. of butter free, also to be put under the Quota Act. I must say I still feel very sorry for those people, and do not want that penny stamp to be any longer deducted from their price in this difficult time. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) says that the Dairy Act is not a success. Possibly it does not give satisfaction in all respects but I may say that the dairy industry is not in the position in which other industries are. I think that the Act has been a success. The hon. member said that the position was that the quota is fixed on the harvest of the previous year. This must be so, the Act demands it. If the hon. member wants to give evidence before the commission it may be considered. No law is a law of the Medes and the Persians and this Act is not either. It is said that the quota is calculated on the previous year and if in that year there was no quota then on the harvest of the previous year. But if there was none in the previous year either they are free of the quota. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) also spoke about maize, and the matter has already been explained by me. He also referred to the export of meat. I said that the Government was already giving 30 per cent. subsidy on every beast, and that we could not give any more because it already works out at £1 per beast. If we are to give more then it would pay better to sell the animals here.

I rise this afternoon in the hope that the Minister will make a reply to the point I raised earlier in the session and in the last Parliament. It is this, whether the time has not come that a comprehensive enquiry by an expert commission should be held into the conditions of South African farming in the widest possible terms for the purpose of finding out what branches of farming and farming enterprise have paid, are paying and are not paying, and what there is good hope for thinking will pay and what will not pay. There is a very uneasy feeling abroad that the enormous sums poured into the land by agricultural enterprise, not only by individuals but by the Government, are not spent to the best advantage. There is every reason to suppose that the enormous amount—£10,000,000 is a very moderate estimate—which the State is paying, cannot last; and that South African agriculture should be placed on a paying basis is the only hope to get people to go in for farming and to get farming re-established. The trouble is in South Africa that our farming enterprises are not paying—

In what country does farming pay?

Is the case not made out for an equiry? If I was ready with an answer on that point and the other points, the answer would be open to everybody; but to give an answer is not open; you can ask questions of that kind and not get a ready answer, and it is because of this that I suggest to the Minister that a comprehensive enquiry should be made. Since I mentioned this question earlier in this session, I have received a large number of communications from farmers and a number of people—from those who speak with much greater authority that I do—asking me to press this on the attention of the Government. I am not going to read all, but there is a letter from Professor Leppan, professor of agricultural economics in the University of Pretoria, which is a short one, and I am boing to read it, although I am not going to quote it verbatim.

Has he farmed?

He is professor of agricultural economics in that university. His letter is dated this month and reads—

I shall not mention the names. That is the type of letter, and the type of verbal interviews I have had. I am confident that there is a very widely-spread desire that before anything further is done we should have an enquiry of this kind. It cannot have anything else but a good result. I suggest that the lead which was given by the Minister of Railways and Harbours in agreeing this session to have an expert enquiry into the working of the railways is a very happy precedent, and the Minister of Agriculture might with advantage take a leaf out of his fellow Minister’s book and hold an enquiry of that kind. As I say, the huge subsidies which are being paid really indicate that the country is being impoverished in respect of these subsidies where exports are on an unpayable basis and the people have to make the prices up by subsidies, which really comes to this, that we are paying people overseas to pay for our goods and at the same time we are having scarcity in South Africa; the large portion of our population which is getting underfed and in some cases unfed, is striking, and the same with regard to our stock which is notoriously underfed in certain portions of the year. Why go in for a policy of exporting? If there is no enquiry, there will be no satisfaction that really the best is being done, and that those young people who are turned out of our agricultural schools are getting the best opportunity of making good. Surely, they can be shown the lines on which farming will pay. The Minister asks in which branches farming does pay. We have certain branches in our farming which pay.

But if we turn to these branches, will they still pay?

I think the Minister has answered that question without consideration. If you take wool, do you think the output from South Africa is so enormous as to control world prices? Does he suggest that the output of South African wines and fruits is so huge and of such enormous proportions? No, no, no. That cannot possibly be maintained. Our mealie export is as a drop in the ocean.

It is only in certain parts that you can grow fruit.

I want to know in which parts, and in which parts you can put down fruit not planted at the present time. I do not think the country would expect answers coming from the Minister’s place with such ready assurance to be a scientific solution of our agricultural problems. We want an enquiry made into these matters. I believe South African farming can be placed upon a paying basis. I am a firm and convinced believer in the future of South African farming, but I believe that at the present time it is not being given a fair deal. I am told there are a very large number of places which are suitable for one thing but which are used for another. There is a great deal of land suitable for one crop, but used for other kinds of crops. Is there any check placed upon this? I know of none at the present time, except that the unfortunate individual is left alone to acquire his own experience; surely that is quite wrong? [Time limit.]

I want to express my disappointment about the method and the manner of the treatment by the Minister of the meat industry in the past. I want to point out that if there is one section of the population which is suffering and being tested, then it is the sheep farmers, especially in the north-western areas, I, therefore, want to call the Minister’s attention to it that if I mistake not he made us understand in 1932, when the Control Bill was being debated, that he sympathised very much with those people and would help them where he could. Accordingly, he immediately created a small board of control under the Act of 1932, so that they could give him the necessary information, and when he got it he would introduce more complete legislation. That was his promise, and we know that circumstances last year were such that we could not go on with the Bill, but the Minister, nevertheless, gave the assurance that he would introduce a Bill at the first opportunity. We find that notwithstanding those promises, he makes the excuse to-day that we cannot proceed with the ligislation because there is no time. It seems very strange to me when we find that this House actually has time to deal with a Bill against gambling. I am certainly of opinion that a Bill for the sheep farmers is of more importance than a Bill like that. I also want to point out that all sorts of farming are being assisted. The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) said that the wheat farmers were not receiving enough assistance. I have no objection to the help which is being given, but they got a relief to the extent of £120,000. As I have said, I have no objection to it, but I merely bring it to the Minister’s notice. We also find that the maize farmers are receiving over £526,000 this year from the Treasury, which is being written off and for which they were liable. Allow me also to remind the House that the maize farmers in 1924 also got about £200,000 written off. Therefore, they have benefitted by over £700,000, or three-quarters of a million, as against the other sections of the farming population. Is the reason possibly to be found in the fact that the Minister represents the Transvaal, that he does not give the same favourable attention to the farmers in these parts? The farmers have asked for their sheep to be saved by the sending of a certain quantity of maize or other food. What did the department do? One official after the other was sent but nothing was done. It will surprise the committee to learn, and perhaps it will also astonish the Minister to learn that there were no less than three officials in one small village to assist the people and to give information. Up to to-day, however, they have not yet received assistance. I do not know why those officials are kept on. I notice from the estimates provision is made for £10,000 as salaries for officials under the Emergency Belief Acts of 1924, and 1927, to administer those Acts. They are Acts which have almost come to an end, but, nevertheless, we find that this amount is put down for salaries in connection with them. What is that money being voted for? Is it not to provide positions to people? When we enquire who they are we find that they are all officials from the Transvaal. Arc our people in the Cape Province so bad then that we are not able to provide officials for that purpose? I hope the Minister will change his policy in this respect and that when officials have to be appointed in future to carry out certain Acts he will not only appoint men from the Transvaal but also from the Cape Province. There are just as many competent men down here who could be appointed as you can find in other parts of the country, and it is, therefore, an injustice to the Cape Province. Then we know that the Minister in 1932 appointed a board of control in connection with the meat trade. What has that board done up to the present? The Minister has just said in committee that he will go on with the bigger Bill next year, but we know that the board is in the meantime being established. It is a board which must collect certain information and which must exercise certain control in the meantime. I would like to ask the Minister what that board is doing? I understand they are controlling the market in Johannesburg and my information is that more stock is now being dumped on that market than was formerly the case. I would like information about this board of control. What will they do in future, and any information which the Minister can give us in the matter. These are matters of the greatest and of extreme importance to the sheep farmers. They look forward to the time when something would be done in their interests. Up to date very little has been done. A few shipments of meat have been exported, and each time we see in the newspapers that fairly good prices were obtained. For the rest, the matter stops just where it is, and the people can get no relief. I therefore, hope that the Minister will now give serious attention to this section of the people.

It is very nice to talk irresponsibly and to the gallery here and to make statements which the hon. member knows are incorrect. In the first place, he attacked me because I come from the Transvaal and, according to him, mostly appoint Transvaalers for those things.

Mention one who is not a Transvaaler.

I do not appoint the people. The Public Service Commission appoints them and most of them in fact are Cape Province officials.

The Public Service Commission does not appoint those officials.

I say that what the hon. member has said here is untrue. He further states that I made a promise in connection with the introduction of a. Meat Control Bill, that I would introduce that Bill the following year. Yes, I did. I introduced the Bill, and it was referred to a select committee. The Parliaments, however, only sat six weeks and the Bill could not go through. If it comes again during this session it will have to go to a select committee again and cannot be disposed of. Therefore, it will have to stand over until next session, and if the public then are in favour of it it can be passed. We now come to the board of control: there are two members representing the public, one is from the Transvaal and one from the Cape Province. We have here again had a charge against me which is made on loose grounds and in an irresponsible way. When we make statements of that kind we must not be imbued with provincialism, and, if we are, we must give the facts to support our statements. I was also accused by the hon. member of giving much more assistance to Transvaalers than to the Cape Province. He says that debts of the Transvaal maize farmers have been written off. Yes, but the writing off has been in respect of the wheat farmers of the Cape Province, and not the wheat farmers of the Transvaal. The hon. member says that nothing is being done for the north-west. Has the hon. member forgotten that the Transvaal farmer has to pay for his borehole whether he gets water or not, while the farmer in the north-west only pays if he strikes water.

That also is quite right.

Yes, but the hon. member says that nothing is being done for the north-west. More has been done under the 1922 Act to keep the farmers on their feet.

How much?

£300,000. The hon. member does not even know it. This shows how much interest he takes in this kind of thing. When assistance has to be given it is not a question of province with me. If the Cape Province must be assisted in times of drought it must be assisted. This afternoon it is further mentioned how the north-west was assisted with corn and flour. They, however, are not thankful for it, and their representative makes this kind of attack on me. I do not want to waste the time of the House by going further into this mater. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) asked certain questions about the proposed commission, but he apparently does not attach much importance to the matter because he is not in his place.

I should like to ask the Minister if it is not possible for him to give a little assistance in the Eastern Province by providing us with a horticulturist. In the Eastern Province, as you know, the citrus business was worked up through the assistance we received from the Government horticulturists,* who advised us what to plant, and what to do in order to get better crops. We have had some interesting remarks with regard to getting pedigree trees. Some of our nurseries have been very greatly assisted by the horticulturists in their endeavour to breed pedigree trees, and growers have been encouraged to plant only from trees which give from three to four cases of fruit. That is what is going to help some of our farmers in connection with the fruit export trade. In 1931 we had very disastrous floods in the Eastern Province, as you know, and there was not only land washed away, but a great many trees were silted up. If we could have had a man of experience to advise our farmers as to the best thing to do in connection with the trees which were silted up, it would have assisted them very materially. We should be assisted very much if we had a horticulturist available for the areas I have in mind. I also want to ask the Minister to see to it that during the coming citrus season the conditions of export are carried out. We do not want any of the fruit to go overseas which will not be acceptable. That must be seen to if we are to be successful with our export trade. I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the levy amounted to £27,000, of which a little over £2,000 was used by the Perishable Products Board, and a sum of £9,000 was used for office expenses. I submit that that is too much for that purpose. We want all the money we can find spent on advertising our fruit overseas, with a view to encouraging export. I put it to the Minister that it would be worth his while to look into the expenditure of this levy. We can congratulate ourselves on the fact that the Government are this year assisting the fruit farmers with the subsidy. But for the subsidy, I am afraid the balance would have been very much on the wrong side for last year, particularly in the case of those of us who lost so much in the terrible flood of 1931. This year we are going to have short crops, but if supervision is properly exercised, so that only exportable stuff is shipped, we shall not do very badly. With regard to South America beating us, if we are going to be beaten by those people, let us go under, but I feel sure that, if we receive the assistance we need, South Africa will hold her own. I do not see why we should not do all that is necessary in the way of competition provided that the expense of shipping does not increase. I claim that South Africans can do as well as anyone in the world to keep their end up.

We are all very pleased to see a vote for soil erosion, which amounts to £19,250. At last the Government has realized the necessity of tackling this serious problem. I am more particularly interested in the amount of £11,500 for experimental stations in regard to soil erosion and pasture improvement. What is the Government’s policy in connection with this? Has it already selected the spots where these stations are to be established? In any case, I would like to advance the claim of the border districts of the Cape Province; the farmers’ associations on the border have made representations to the Government repeatedly regarding the great need for an experimental station, and I hope the Minister will not overlook the claims of the coastal belt of the Border district. I also wish to refer to the export of chilled meat, and to point out the difficulties that will arise until there is a proper organization to control and develop this important matter. Recently we sent out from Buffalo Harbour 500 quarters of chilled beef; in order to do that, it was necessary to collect 160 head of cattle. A very public-spirited and generous merchant of East London contributed £100 towards the expense of collecting the cattle out of his own pocket to encourage the trial shipment. The experiment was made in order to prove that it was possible to ship chilled beef from East London to the overseas market. The greatest difficulty was experienced in collecting the animals, and this could not have been done but for the enthusiasm of one of the farmers. The Government having now blazed the trail should not rest on its oars, but should continue the organization and to promote and encourage collection of cattle for shipment. In this connection there is an old native saying: “Don’t get tired to-morrow,” which may fairly be quoted. The Government should continue to encourage these shipments until the whole movement is stabilized, as the difficulties are very great and cannot be expected from individual farmers to collect a sufficient number of cattle to make up a shipment. If we had an experimental station on the border, that could be used as a depot to which farmers could send their cattle for export, and when a sufficient number had been collected, they could be forwarded to the cold storage depot at East London and slaughtered, chilled and shipped. Unless the Government works on these lines, it will throw the whole of this business of the shipment of chilled meat into the hands of the middle man, a factor which we are anxious to eliminate, as we desire that the farmers should reap the benefit of these shipments. I was astounded when I heard that the expenses in connection with the slaughtering, chilling and shipping amounted to no less a figure than l⅝d. per lb. to export chilled beef from East London. Rather than run the risk of incurring such heavy expense, and the further risk of a drop in prices on the overseas markets, our farmers will prefer to sell their cattle locally rather than take the risk of very serious loss to themselves and become utterly discouraged. It is not enough merely to send a trial shipment, and then to sit still and tell the farmers we have proved that chilled meat can be exported successfully. The Government must organize the whole matter until it is established on a firm basis.

With reference to the Minister’s statement about the introduction of maize I am obliged, as a representative of a district with a large maize production, to express my disapproval of it. I do not want to criticize the Minister on what he has done, but it is, nevertheless, my duty to criticize that policy. I think it is wrong to import any produce which is produced in our own country on a large scale, not only maize, but also other produce. Here we are faced by the fact that the maize farmers who have already been suffering for a number of years have got a chance to get a proper price, and maize has to be imported to compete with them. The Minister said that he nad received information from representatives of the farmers that there would be a shortage, and that they would not be able to honour their contract. I think that statement is too premature. In my experience the farmers were never consulted. The information comes from the central society which neglected its duty of consulting the farmers. My district in any case knows nothing about it, and it was a great surprise to the maize farmers to hear that maize had to be imported from Rhodesia. The farmers are still harvesting, and no one can say what the harvest would be. It might just as well be more than what we need as that there may be a shortage. It is not advisable to import maize now. There is an opportunity now for other sections to come and ask for maize to be imported for them. I hope that the Minister, who has always been so sympathetic towards the farmers, will promise to issue no further permits for the importation of maize. I think that the farmers under the difficult conditions need much sympathy. They do not want to make large profits, but when we remember the prices of the last few years, I am astonished that there are any maize farmers left. They must, however, be protected, and if they do not now get a price they can live on, then it may mean their ruin. I hope the Minister will use his influence and will see to it that the maize farmers are properly treated and that no further permits are given to import maize.

I want some information from the Minister on the question of the necessity for a botanical survey of the district known as the Cape eastern border. The Minister received my request for such a survey with a good deal of sympathy, but we want more than sympathy. A botanist was sent there, but he was only there a short while. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) mentioned the question of the export of chilled beef and, in that connection, a botanical survey of that district is of the greatest importance, especially with regard to the toxicological qualities of the food available for stock in that area. The botanist who went there did very good work, but he was not there long enough to find out even which particular bushes caused the losses among stock.

As the representative of Colesberg, which it at present declared a drought-stricken district, I would like to say a few words and hope the Minister will follow me carefully. I do not actually want to ask for more assistance, but for other assistance than the kind we are getting now. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) said: “Look here, we are very thankful,” and I want to stress the Government has done much by transporting our stock in a time of drought to parts where there is still grazing. The farmer only has to pay one-eighth of the railway rates that is what it amounts to, but still it is clear that a very great part of the stock cannot be removed. There are too many, and there is not sufficient grazing, so that we find large numbers of the stock along the railway line. I have a letter here from my own constituency which describes of the stopping of a passenger train at a station. The passengers were all looking at a goods train with a large number of sheep lying dead. They were engaged in taking the sheep out of the train, but they hardly found one-third living. There are many cases where that assistance does not help. The Government admits this itself on page five of the pamphlet issued in connection with the drought, where it reads—

The Government, therefore, admits that it is best to send the fodder to the stock and not the stock to the fodder. I want to advocate that the Government should assist the farmers in this time of need and drought as much as possible. We are glad that the Government is assisting in that direction by only charging one-quarter of the tariff, and that it can be paid by a promissory note. But I would like to read a resolution by the farmers of Colesberg. It is as follows—

I cannot say that I agree with every word of this resolution, but I agree with its tendency. We have a Drought Emergency Relief Act under which a district can be proclaimed as drought-stricken, and that district can then be assisted in various ways. It looks, however, as if the provision actually is for the agriculturalist, and not so much for the stock-breeder. Insofar as we offer assistance to the stock farmer, he has to remove the stock before he gets assistance, or he must first lose it. The removal of the stock is, in many cases, unpractical, and in many cases impossible. We feel that we must try to assist the man on the spot where his stock is, and that we must assist him before his stock die, and not wait to put others in their place when once his stock has died. I do not ask for more help, but a different kind of help. The Act must be amended in that respect, and with the assistance of local committees it must be made possible for the Land Bank to give advances for the purchase of fodder. We must not forget that South Africa is in difficulties. We not only have a drought, but one which has succeeded three years of depression.

The hon. member may not now discuss legislation.

I am discussing the existing Act.

Yes, but you are suggesting the amendment of the existing Act, and that requires legislation.

Measures must be taken under some Act or other to prevent the stock dying off and thereafter being replaced by other stock. It is no use wanting to put fresh stock on the farms when the stock that are now there have once gone. The Minister replied to the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) that, even if the Government wanted to make such an arrangement, there was not the necessary fodder in the country. There is still a large quantity of maize in the country which can be used as stock feed. In the neighbourhood where the Minister himself lives there is still much maize in warehouses and the grain elevators, which can be used for this purpose in the Karoo and in the north-west. And when we have got so far that all our own maize has been exhausted in feed, then I say we can import maize. No one is advocating that now. First let us use all the maize we have now for food. Why not assist the stock farmers in getting hold of the maize? If the Government can lend a hand by assisting an advance being given by the Land Bank, I think that that is the proper way to assist many of our stock farmers. When one reads what goes on in other countries, such as Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, in South American States like Chili, etc., then you see that measures are everywhere being taken to save the farmers from ruin, not only through droughts. I therefore hope that something will be done to give the farmers fodder which will enable them to keep their stock.

With regard to the Minister’s reply, dealing with the Pitchford process, I would like to know whether his statement to-day cancels the previous statement he made, and whether the Board of Trade enquiry—he stated he was favourable to an investigation by the Board of Trade—will be done away with. I should like him to reply to this question because this is of vital importance to those people who are interested in meat export. I know he has given sympathetic consideration to it, and in listening to the debate to-day I thought that if any Minister should have the sympathy of this House, it was the Minister of Agriculture, who seems to be bearing the burden of the whole country; and farming to-day is in a very depressed state. Could the Minister state whether a report is being made and an investigation taking place?

I appreciate what has been done by the department for the farmers in times like these, and I would like to ask a few questions in connection with the debts of the credit associations. I understand a commission is being appointed to enquire into the working of the co-operative societies, and I want also to bring up the position of the credit associations. People who became members of them bought stock at the prices then prevailing, and which are still very nigh. I have a letter here written to me by one of the associations in my constituency. Its debts are £780 and the stock bought for that have now been revalued at £230. I mention this to show the Minister how high prices were when those people incurred the debt. The Government now asks for less money to be taken or for the ground to be taken in case of bonds where the value is less than the bond. Is it not possible then for the Government to enquire what can be done to assist these people by writing off and reductions in order that their courage should not be completely broken? They admit their debts. They bought the goods at high prices and they are now in trouble. The Minister said that the Land Bank was not to press the people under the Emergency Relief Act. Take the position of a farmer who hands over his goods to the magistrate; possibly he owes £120, and he gives 700 goats. Those goats go for £40. The Government, therefore, loses part of its money and the farmer is completely unable to farm. I, therefore, hope that the Government will also enquire into the credit associations and emergency relief debts. Then there is a very important thing where I hope the Minister will meet us. I want to state clearly here that we appreciate what the Government has done for the mohair farmers, for the advances it has given on mohair. If it were not for those advances, the farmers would have had to sell their mohair at that time at a very low price. To-day they have to sell it at 3d. and 4d., but previously they only got 1d. Even at the present prices the farmers cannot sell the mohair and exist. The people are to-day left with their goats and the farming does not pay. Cannot provision be made under the Drought Relief Act for the farmers who want to take up a, different kind of farming, e.g., sheep farming or some other branch of farming, to get loans in order to do so? If they can get loans under that Act, it will be possible for them to adopt some other branch of farming which is paying. If it is not done, those people in cases where the Government has now decided to give 1½ per cent. subsidy, so that they only have to pay 3½ per cent., will not be in a position to pay that 3½ per cent. If the Government enables those people to transfer to a different branch, I see a chance of their finding a good living. The land has not been valued too high and the bonds are not too high, but the position simply is that the farmers cannot go on with goat farming. I therefore hope that the Government will meet them and will assist them to undertake a different kind of farming.

Soil erosion is undoubtedly a national question, and I sincerely hope that the Government will not only have the good intentions with which they have started, but carry these good intentions with regard to stopping soil erosion into effect. Soil erosion is one of the most important things we have to deal with to-day, to prevent the land being entirely denuded. The Drought Commission’s report was a very valuable document, but it is very difficult to-day to get a copy of it. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he cannot have it reprinted. I would also like to draw his attention to the fact that there is no doubt that the railways generally are, to a large extent, responsible for a lot of this soil erosion which is taking place. Everything possible is done to collect the water before it passes the railway line, but after it has passed the line nothing further is done to prevent erosion. I would ask the Minister to take this into very serious consideration. It is no use asking farmers to stop soil erosion when a public body like the railways is continually encouraging it. This is a matter which I feel the Minister could very well take up with the railway department, and to see that, where they do make provision for water to pass under a railway line, proper methods are taken to distribute it properly afterwards. Not only in regard to the railways, but also in regard to public roads and public bodies, he could be of tremendous assistance as far as this question is concerned. I am very glad also that the Government is going to pay attention to the question of our grasses in South Africa. This is a most important matter. Many of our most valuable grasses, owing to drought and over-stocking, have been lost. It would be a very fine thing if the Government enquired to some extent into the question of over-stocking, and I think the Government should also enquire into the carrying capacity of various districts to see that over-stocking does not take place, and also to prevent veld fires. There are many cases to-day where people still go in for veld burning, which has a most detrimental effect on the veld. What is being done by the Department of Economics and Markets in regard to developing a market amongst the natives more especially in South Africa and towards north Africa? We are groping for markets overseas when all the time we have a wonderful market within our reach where we should not be faced with all this trouble. I commend this to the Minister and ask him to see whether such a development is possible. We have an enormous native population and they would be of great value in creating markets in South Africa.

I do not know when Jeremiah wrote his lamentations, but really I have this afternoon been listening in this House to nothing but lamentations. It is time one went home, but when you hear the lamentations of Jeremiah here I am ashamed of being a farmer. First the one conies, be wants the Minister to see that the water which runs along under the roads must not wash away the ground, then he wants the Minister to see that people do not set fire to the veld. Then there is another who says that he cannot sell his tobacco and the Minister must come to the rescue. I am a farmer, but I am ashamed at these lamentations of the farmers. Yet another said that the Government must establish credit associations. The Government did so, but that individual was the first to come to the House and say the Government should write off the liabilities of the credit associations. When the Act was passed I told my constituents they ought not to establish one, and one was not established there, nor did we come to the Government to ask for our debts to be written off. Who constitute the Government? It is not the Minister of Agriculture. The Government is ourselves. I told my people not to take any of the money that was available under the Farmers’ Relief Act because it would get them into difficulties. Other people asked for it and used it, and to-day they are coming and asking for it to be written off. Our people at Riversdale do not come and ask for presents from the Government. I just want to ask the Government for one thing. It is not a present. I just want to ask what I personally want. At Riversdale we have a small limited co-operative society which has the right to borrow £2,400 from the Land Bank, and I just want to ask the Minister, if he is going to divide up the £120,000 to be voted here amongst the farmers, whether he will see that I also get my little share of it.

I am also unfortunately a Jeremiah. I just want to bring the matter of Government guano to the notice of the Minister. Looking at the estimates we see that the expenditure on the Government’s guano islands is £32,000. If the Government sells the guano at £7 a ton it means that a profit of £24,000 is made. I cannot understand why the Government wants to make a profit out of the farmers. It is thrown at our heads every day that we should produce cheaper so that we can compete with the world markets. This is an instance where the Government can assist us to produce cheaper. If the Government reduces the price of guano to £5 it will inake a profit. Private firms have already reduced the price of guano, some by 50 per cent. If my information is right, the Government has a large stock of guano which it cannot sell. I think the Minister said that he can get a better price overseas. I do not think the Government will be able to do so. We can get the nitrate much cheaper. If the Government were to sell the guano cheaper it would assist the farmers and give the Government a chance of selling the guano.

There are only two points I wish to raise. The first is that there is no reference in the annual report of the department to the state of the accounts of the Dairy Control Board. I think it is an open secret that the board has become involved in regard to its funds. The levy fund has been over-expended by the payment of bounties being ahead of the collection of levies and the position to-day is that the board is unable to pay bounties in cash. Considerable indebtedness, I believe, has been incurred. I wish the Minister would explain how this happened, how it came about that the levies fell short of the bounties, whether it was due to a miscalculation on the part of the board, or whether it was due, as has been suggested, to a larger supply of butter from South-West Africa being exported and a larger expenditure of bounty in respect of that territory. I understand that that was the cause of the fund becoming involved. Secondly, in regard to the Dairy Control Board again, there is the question of the export quota. The Minister’s reply to questions put by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen) showed that the quotas were fixed for 30th January, 28th February and 31st March. The quota for 31st January has been fulfilled, all the companies having exported the amount allotted to them, but the board has suspended export in respect of the other two quotas. The Minister has not stated, for the information of this House, that actually for February some companies did export the quota. I was a member of a deputation that waited on the Secretary for Agriculture at Maritzburg recently to point out to him that we were connected with a company that had already exported the February quota, and that other companies were in default, particularly companies which had on the Dairy Control Board members of their own firms. That circumstance is likely to be a source of considerable ill-feeling, that some companies were obliged to export while other companies who had members on the board, probably knowing there was going to be a suspension of exports, did not fulfil their quota. The position from a business point of view is this: that companies which fulfilled the requirements of the board are now at a disadvantage compared with companies that defaulted—the latter companies having a shrewd suspicion that the quota was to be suspended. I hope that the Minister will give an explanation on this point that will satisfy the people who have suffered under the suspension of the export quota at a time when they had already fulfilled their share. With regard to the Minister’s reference to the Watkins-Pitchford process, I have received a letter from the Secretary for Agriculture, which I should like to read, because it will serve to show that the understanding which we came to with the Minister the other day is being carried out. Dr. Viljoen writes to me under yesterday’s date to this effect—

I hope the Minister will not disturb that arrangement. We shall adhere to it, because most of us who attended the interview with the Minister of Agriculture, have the greatest hope of a successful outcome. We have full confidence in Mr. Fahey and in the secretary of the Meat Board, and we feel certain that a feasible scheme will be put forward which will prove acceptable to the Minister.

If there is any one under whose policy co-operation has progressed in South Africa, then it is that of the Minister of Agriculture. His department has made great sacrifices to make that idea take root among the people, and the Minister, himself, has also made great sacrifices owing to which many people have joined up. I can assure you that in my constituency quite 80 per cent. of the farmers are members of the societies. We find that while the Government departments have made sacrifices on every occasion, whenever the societies and the Government think that they have attained their object, we find those in opposition who have not co-operated, supported by the speculators who render the efforts futile. I am, therefore, glad that the Minister intends appointing a commission to make an enquiry. I hope the Minister in instructing the commission will bear in mind the fact that there is a large number of farmers in the co-operative societies who are not landowners. In my constituency there are 422 people who hire land, and most of them are members of co-operation. They constitute a section of the farmers who are completely excluded from the emergency measures of the Government. They get no reduction of interest, and they are bound by the contracts of lease they have entered into. I, therefore, want to request the Minister to remember that when an enquiry is made that is the element which should first receive the attention of the Government in connection with relief measures.

I do not believe that the debate now proceeding in the House will assist us much. Things are said over and over again, and I do not know the object of them nor why hon. members are wasting time. Only a few new points have been brought up. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) asked that a horticultural expert should be appointed for his division. The people in those parts deserve encouragement, but we cannot put officials all over the country. He also referred to the export of fruit which I have already dealt with. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) asked for more information about the stopping of erosion. The money which is provided is required for a few new appointments. The old experimental station will be used, but probably a further farm will be used for experiments in connection with the planting of grass. The hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. S. D. de Wet) has again raised the maize question which I dealt with yesterday, and more fully to-day. The hon. member for Colesberg (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) raised a matter on which I have already answered the question by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg). I, therefore, do not know what more he wants me to do. The Government does not consider it economic to get fodder for the farmers, and if the Government wants it, it will have to import it. The hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) again brought up the enquiry into the Watkins-Pitchford system. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) also mentioned it. Just let me say that hon. members saw me a few days ago about the matter. I told them that, personally, I did not see much good in that system, and that I would refer it to the Board of Trade and Industries. The hon. member for Willowmore (Mr. Steyn) now wants me to say what I am going to do with the sheep and goats bought under the emergency relief scheme. The matter must be left over until later. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. van Heerden) spoke of all the sins that were committed in connection with soil erosion. A board has been established and the farmers are represented on it. As for the capturing of the native market, I hope that he will bring the matter to the notice of the Minister of Commerce and Industries, when he speaks. The hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure) once more spoke about the reduction of the price of guano. I have already said what the value of the guano is, but we can go into the question whether a reduction is possible.

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has raised the question of the Dairy Control Board, spending more in bounties than it collected in levies. The board certainly paid a very high bounty, but they raised the money and can easily get over this difficulty.

Before the vote passes, there is just one point I would like to mention. As the committee knows, Manico is one of the border districts which comes under the quarantine restrictions regarding foot and mouth disease. It is one of the districts which serves as a buffer district to prevent that disease spreading into the Union. The farmers on the border are having a hard time, and I would like to learn from the Minister whether it is not possible, in view of the nature and extent of the damage that they are suffering, to see whether relief cannot be given to them. The first point which can be enquired into is the shooting of animals for which there is compensation only to the extent of one-quarter. I think it is no more than fair to meet these people. They indemnify the Union against the disease and they should be compensated. There are cases where dairy farmers cannot send away their milk. I hope that the Minister will make enquiries to see if they cannot give relief.

If the department were to follow the precedent of paying out damage where diseases broke out, then it would need to buy up a great deal of the Union. Natal has already been suffering for a number of years under east coast fever restrictions. That also applies to the Transvaal, Tembuland and other parts, and where shall we land if we take up the attitude that we should compensate people when their districts are put under quarantine, when they cannot lease their grazing or suffer damage in other respects? That is an impossible state of affairs. The Government cannot do it. If we had a reasonable hope of getting rid of the disease, then the Government could consider the cases of the farmers whose stock has been shot. At the moment, however, we cannot do it.

I would like to direct the Minister’s attention to the credit associations. There are various kinds of them. In a part of the Kuruman district, which has now been included in my constituency, a credit association has been established where the farmers could buy stock jointly and severally. The Minister has met the farmers, and they are now separately liable, but not jointly and severally any longer. Now I would like to know from the Minister whether he cannot assist the farmers further, and even, whether the price of the stock cannot be written off. I do not mean that the whole amount should be written off.

Just make them a present of it

These farmers bought the sheep and cattle at very high prices, and we ask whether the Minister cannot possibly write off 50 per cent. of that money. I was not in favour of the people making use of that money. Three years ago, when the Act was passed, the farmers of Hopetown came to me and asked what they should do, and I advised them against taking the money. It is not for them that I am pleading. I am speaking for the farmers of the part of Kuruman which is now in my constituency. A matter which troubles the people there a great deal is the locust policy of the Government. I have already on a previous occasion met the Minister about that. We must not talk about eradicating locusts, but of fighting them, because so far as the scientific fighting of the plague is concerned, we are very backward. The Minister knows that my constituency practically surrounds the Kalahari, and the people there are having a hard time. My constituency now forms a buffer state between the Kalahari and the rest of the country. The farmers there are used to protecting the rest of the country, maize farmers and other farmers, against the locust plague. We are not unwilling to do our duty, but the position there to-day is such that the people are disunited in respect of the troubles they are going through.

What about the jackal tails?

We are not talking about jackal tails. If the hon. member wants to see nice camps with experimental wire, he must come to my constituency. I travelled through his constituency the other day and found the old wires of the people there were very poor. The farmers of my constituency are not backward people, but progressive farmers. But the Minister must show more sympathy in his locust policy to our people living in the Kalahari. There is great disunion, because we do not have the right class of official there unfortunately. The officials do not understand the people, and the present position is intolerable. I have many letters from the people on which I have to see the Minister. On one farmer’s farm 30 horses have died, while hundreds of sheep die annually from the locust poison used by the officials. If there was to be a vote taken in my constituency on the locust question, the larger majority of the people would vote in favour of its being stopped and disregarding the consequences. Another point that I want to mention is the question of the stopping of erosion. £19,000 has been put on the estimates for this purpose. The amount is probably only intended for the study of the question. I want the Minister not only to say that he can give the labourers, but I would prefer to see him allowing the farmers to do the work, and that he would then pay the farmers for it. The Minister knows that when the Government does a job it is always expensive. The farmers can do the work much cheaper. A commission should go about and see what ought to be done in every district, because the method of fighting the plague which is applied in one district may possibly be quite unsuitable in another, where the circumstances are different. I shall be glad if the Minister will consider the allowing of the farmers to remedy the soil erosion themselves, seeing that he is assisting them by paying for the work.

With regard to the export of beef from this country, I am given to understand that the last consignment arrived in London at an unsuitable date, and that it was impossible for it to be marketed on days which would bring in higher prices than were obtained, days such as Wednesdays or Thursdays. I am also of the opinion that it may be advisable in the near future for this country to open its own depots in London for the sale of that export beef. I merely hand that suggestion on to the Minister. Another matter is that the arrivals are irregular, and they cannot rely on regular, consecutive consignments of beef from South Africa; and I ask the Minister whether nothing can be done in that respect. With regard to the depressed state of the farmers as to their cattle in some parts of South Africa, I suggest that the Minister should make a further enquiry into the charges made at municipal abattoirs, for I understand these charges are somewhat similar to those prevailing during the war when they were somewhat high, and it is in the interests of the farmers that these charges should not be as high as they are at the present time. If an enquiry was made I think it would be possible to bring these charges down, which would help farmers considerably. Another matter which, I think, is one of the causes of the depressed state of the industry in South Africa is over-trading. The Minister in a Bill made some provision for the restrictions of trading, and I hope the Bill will be brought before the House again, and that the restriction of licences will be given effect to on this question of over-trading. There is no doubt—and I speak with authority on this matter—that so far as Durban is concerned gross over-trading is taking place with regard to butchers, which has had the effect that the prices the farmers obtain for their stock are so low. Instead of the retailers being able to pay a high price for the stock, they are all being compelled to go in for a lower grade of beef owing to the competition taking place in the trade. I do hope the Minister will do whatever he can to bring about a restriction of licences, which is very much overdue. Another matter affecting Durban at present is the question of the livestock market. I feel sure the Minister is well-acquainted with what has taken place in the past in respect of certain interests attempting to establish a livestock market in Durban. The Agricultural Union and the farmers who send their stock to Durban are unanimous in the opinion that a livestock market will be of no advantage to Durban, and will not enhance the price of cattle to the farmers, or be of any benefit whatever to anyone concerned. I hope the Minister will do what he can to prevent this livestock market being brought into existence in Durban.

When we think of the drought-stricken districts in the Free State, our thoughts involuntarily go back six years when the Minister of Agriculture in speeches after the great drought in the Karroo expressed the view that in the future harvest barns should be erected and that the time had come when the stock could no longer be taken to the fodder, but the fodder would have to come to the stock. Our country which has so long been stricken by dour drought feels that if the Minister had carried out the policy that he annouced with regard to the—

You surely must see to that yourselves.

The Minister’s policy at that time was that he would see to the erection of fodder barns, and when we think to-day that only three months ago maize was still sold at 3s. 6d. a bag, while the consumer got the maize at 7s. a bag, and that three months later the people had to buy the maize back again at 9s. 6d. a bag we feel that there is something radically wrong with the whole system. We feel that it is not necessary, if proper measures are taken, for animals to die on such a large scale. There is certainly not one country member here who does not day*after day receive letters from farmers asking the Government please to provide fodder to keep the stock alive. My opinion is that if the Minister is prepared to keep the stock alive, it will do much more good than first let them die, and then subsequently provide the people with stock against a loan. With a small loan a man can save many animals to-day, but if he has to buy later on when the drought is over it will be much more difficult. I would like the Minister to resume his previous intention and to take steps in the future to see how grain and maize can be preserved for years to prevent the farmers being ruined in time of drought.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 25, “Agriculture (Education)”, £144,261, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 26, “Forestry”, £188,244,

I would like to bring something to the notice of the Minister with which he is possibly as well acquainted as I am, and possibly better, inasmuch as the Minister has farmed in the Piet Retief district. I want to ask him whether he cannot make provision on the next estimates for afforestation there. The Piet Retief district is just as well suited for afforestation as any other part of South. Africa, and if our Government has no confidence in the wattle bark industry, then I want to point out that where wattle trees grow many other trees can grow and that, from that point of view, it surely should receive attention. Moreover, I want to point out that a body, like the Natal Wattle & Tanning Company, has such great confidence that they have big plantations. They are not people who do business for their health, but to make a profit. If such a Government forest did not make a profit, then I think that it should still be undertaken with a view to supplying work. At such an afforestation scheme many people can get work. At present in Piet Retief many people are working on the roads who quickly sink down and later cannot possibly be raised up again. If we can give the people work there, the demoralising influence of working on the roads will disappear. A man on the road is generally on the downward path to destruction, and sooner or later they run the risk of becoming a burden on the State instead of an asset. Not only are the people going more or less to ruin, but the future of their children is also extremely dark. The people have no family life. To-day the man is working on a road here, and to-morrow, the day after possibly, his gang is moved ten or twenty miles, so that he lias no home life, and his children remain uneducated. If Government afforestation schemes are started in Piet Retief, it will contribute greatly to improve the conditions of the families and the children. The man will then work more or less at one place, and can have his little house for his family in the neighbourhood. He will then regain his self-respect. I want to say that it is no disgrace to work with a pick and shovel. I do it myself on my own farm, but there is a great difference between working on one’s own farm and along the open main road. If we want to give the people back their self-respect and the children a chance of education, I think the Government should consider making provision for afforestation. If we do not tackle the thing we permit this wound in a certain section of our nation to remain open, and then subsequently a large section of the people will bleed to death. There are many things which the Government can alter, but the chief object must be to assist the people who are forced off their farms by economic pressure and are now gradually retrogressing. Their children have no future at all, and it is the duty of every Afrikaner to try to heal the wound of which otherwise our people will die.

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

I wish to say a few words about the troubles of the wattle farmers. This industry is threatened by the menace of the bagworm. Wattle-growing is the fourth largest exporting industry in the Union, but, unfortunately, during the last ten years the export of wattle bark has decreased by half. In 1920-’21, we exported 121,000 tons of wattle bark, but in 1931 the export dropped to 69,000 tons, despite the fact that in 1931 the 136,000 morgen devoted to the cultivation of wattle had been increased by 100,000 morgen by the year 1931. The present state of the industry is obviously a very unsatisfactory one, and is almost entirely due to the ravages of the bagworm. The wattle-growers are grateful to the Minister and the Government for what they have done for the industry. We have the services of a forestry officer, Dr. Craib, who has done more for the industry in the few years he has been with us than has any other person. He is working in co-operation with wattle farmers, and by experiments has proved that by certain cultural methods, especially by using fertilizers and proper spacing, and non-burning of brushwood, he can improve the wattle plantations enormously and increase their yield. We are also thankful to the Minister for having given us an entomologist at Cedara, but unfortunately the two entomologists there can confine themselves almost only entirely to experimenting by means of direct methods of combating the bagworm. The Wattle Association feel that it may be many years before these entomologists find some suitable and economical means of combating this pest. They are now asking the Minister if he will give them another entomologist to do the necessary field work, which the present entomologists cannot do. I do not think it is an unreasonable request. I may say that the wattle-growers have proved that they are entitled to consideration, and they have co-operated wholeheartedly with and assisted the officers of the department. At the present time they also are carrying out their own experiments, such as the selection of seed from resistant trees to the bagworm, from green wattle and selection of special trees, but I do think the department has really done very little for the wattle-growers in comparison with what has been done for other industries. I hope the Minister will agree to give us another entomologist, because he will thus be helping those who are helping themselves. The wattle-growers have asked for very little in the past, but have helped themselves. If things go on as at present, owing to the ravages of the bagworm, most of the plantations will become so unprofitable that a large number of plantations will be given up. There are many farmers who are not making a profit out of their plantations to-day. I ask the Minister to consider this request from the industry very seriously. If he is still in doubt about it, I hope he will agree to meet a deputation from the Wattle Growers’ Association, who can put this matter in a very much stronger way than I can. If he will do that, I am sure it will result in a lot of good to this important industry that requires his issistance. Wattle growers will do all they can to assist and help a field entomologist by every means possible.

I think we must congratulate the Government on the great effort it has made of late to plant forests. In the modern house we very often find steel instead of wood, but if we just remember the large increase of fruit trees which are planted, then it is clear that for many years in the future we shall require a lot of wood. We, moreover, need only look at this House to realize how beautiful wood panelling can make a room, and that wood will be used more and more in the future instead of macadam and steel. I just want to warn the Minister against a few things. I hope he will continue with afforestation, but that he will be careful that he does not plant too far away from the railway. It is difficult to-day to get to the railway, and the competition in thirty or forty years will be so great that it will cost too much if the forests are far removed from a railway. I would like to bring a few of the difficulties of the workers at the forests to his notice. One of them is, and it is a matter that he has already noticed, and I hope it will be carried out accordingly, that promotion to foreman has to be made from the people that are working there, people must not be appointed from outside and be promoted to foremen. I think the House will agree that as the forests represent considerable value for the State in the obtaining of various kinds of wood, they are also valuable by way of finding work for the people, but that work must not lead to a dead end. The people must feel that there is a future for them in going to work there, consequently they must be encouraged. The Minister of Native Affairs, the late Minister of Lands, will know and will agree with me that on many of the irrigation settlements you find people who really are not good workers. I want to suggest that the test should be before a man gets a post on an irrigation settlement he shall have worked on an afforestation scheme and have given proof of zeal, good character and thrift. Then you have the test with a man who I consider has gone through the pick and shovel test; then you know you have to do with a first class worker, put him on an irrigation settlement and you have the guarantee that he is a good worker. One of the big contractors in the towns told me that when he had a workman who has been on a plantation he is always a man who can put his muscles into it. Let the people who have worked there get the chance of going on to the irrigation settlements. That gives them a helping hand. Then I want to tell the Minister something which is really a grievance. It is that on the afforestation schemes the people have to travel great distances, sometimes from six to nine miles. The Minister is a farmer, and he knows that he will not allow his oxen to sleep nine miles from the yokes and bring them back nine miles in the morning; that is a waste of energy, and these people walk the eight or nine miles in their own time, and they have to do the same on the way back. It is too far—

Is that really so? Is there not something done in addition?

Yes, it is so. The people who gave me the figures said that they can sleep at their working place, and then they get 6d. more. They are very poor people, and for those who only get 4s. the 6d. and the extra expense of blankers and requisites, like pots and pans, is not enough; they cost too much. To that must be added that they are given no fuel. There is no equal treatment because in some camps the firewood is delivered free and not in others. I admit that the Minister cannot shift the camps about all over, but I want to make a practical suggestion. On the afforestation schemes good roads are made, and it is right, but I want to suggest that the roads should be started before the forest. Then they can have a motor lorry there and you can easily transport the people. A motor lorry will be of great assistance when a fire occurs to transport the people quickly, e.g., in the night to the place where the fire is. It has, e.g., already occurred that sparks from a locomotive have caused a fire in the forests. If the roads were made the people would also be able to get to their work on bicycles which is now not possible. It is a waste of physical energy. Then there is just another point and it is housing. In most camps the housing is very good, but in one of them, one of the oldest which was constructed, I believe, in 1923, viz., Berlin camp, the housing is very, very bad. You have only to get the views of the officials of the Labour Department as well as of the health officer on the subject. [Time limit.]

I would like to give my support to what the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) said about wattle farming. We are thankful for what the Minister has done for the industry. A great deal has already been done to help us along; the Minister has appointed an entomologist, but what they would like now is an entomologist who will work in the forests and enquire into the possibility of fighting the bag worm. There is more than enough work to-day for two entomologists. This worm is a great danger to the industry, and the Minister knows how in some areas the production has also gone down owing to that plague. The export of the bark has considerably dropped in the past four, five or six years, and experience shows that the yield of bark from the parts where this worm prevails shows a drop of at least 50 per cent. It is desirable that every effort should be made to find out whether there is any means of fighting this plague. An important reason for the reduction of the yield was the drought, but we have found out that the worm in years of drought is much worse than when there is plenty of rain. It appears the worm dies very quickly owing to rain, but unfortunately during past years we have had very little rain, owing to which the worm has considerably increased. I must say that there is very good co-operation between the department, the entomologist and the Wattle Farmers’ Association; they meet each other every, year and a demonstration is held of the best way of growing wattles. The farmers appreciate being shown what improvements can be effected and the expert has done a great deal to improve the method of cultivating the wattle trees. I think the Minister will admit that the wattle farmers have not bothered him much, that they have asked little of him, and all they now ask is that he will send a senior entomologist, a man who will devote his whole time to enquire into the bag worm plague and to see if anything can be done to eradicate it. I hope the Minister will help us in this difficulty, seeing we do not ask much from him.

Amongst the forest workers at Humansdorp there is a fear which is quite groundless and I would like the Minister to set the people at rest. There are rumours in circulation that the Government intends not to extend the plantations in those parts any more, or, at any rate, to curtail the extension. It is also said that the Government intends to concentrate in other parts of the country. The people are unsettled and although I do not really believe it I would like the Minister to give me an answer in order to satisfy the people. As the Minister knows, those areas in George along the coast are the most suitable for afforestation in South Africa. It is also for the most part a part which is not suited to farming. It is a sour country, a country which is called Zitzikama which means much water. It looks as if Providence intended these parts as the best suited for afforestation. I also think that the forests which have already been planted have proved how suitable those parts are for the planting of trees. There is another problem there, viz., that the people who live there are, to a great extent, unsuited to any other kind of work except afforestation. They have been living there for generations and their ancestors there before them worked in the forests. They have lived there and they are not at home in other work. There is not much chance of farming in those parts, and, unfortunately, there is a great deal of unemployment. Cannot we have co-operation between the Labour Department and the Forest Department? The policy should then be that the Department of Labour in a matter of unemployment will have to pay a subsidy to the Forest Department to relieve unemployment and the forest workers can then be used in the forests. By working there they create an avenue of employment for the future. The planting of trees means work in the future. It creates permanent wealth, and it also creates a field of employment in the future for those people and their children. I suggest that there should be this co-operation between the two departments. Then there is another point I would like to mention and it is what is known in those parts as forest gardens. I have here a petition from nearly 300 people from Zitzikama. The position is that years ago small gardens were given to these people where there was good ground between the forests. They got small pieces of ground and they were given seed, potato tubers, etc., which they needed to start kitchen garden farming, where they could produce their food in addition to their work in the forest. If these people had not had those gardens they would not have made enough out of the forest to live on, and we should have had a difficult problem there. Now they have heard that the Forest Department intends to remove them, and put them on to the sour land. It is a serious matter to them. If they get the sour land they get land which is not at all so productive as that which they now have. It will take years before they can make that land productive, and it will cause a great expense in the matter of work and fertilizer. It will take them two or three years before they can get the land to produce anything. They will have to plough it a great deal and they have no stock. These forest workers are very dependent on the food which they can produce, and I can assure the Minister that they are having a very bad time. The reason of the department for the transfer will be that they require the ground for afforestation. The whole country there practically belongs to the Government with the exception of a few farms. There is other land on the flats which is suitable for afforestation but which is sour, and, therefore, not suitable for gardens. That sour land can be used for afforestation, and I think it would not be right to make these people suffer by depriving them of the sweet land and putting them on the flats. I hope the Minister will give his attention to the matter and meet the wishes of the people. [Time limit.]

I would like to add a few words to what has been said by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel). As the Minister knows, wattle farming is increasing considerably in the Transvaal. Large stretches are planted with wattle trees and between Ermelo and Piet Retief 30,000 morgen are planted on the part which is known as the Bushman Flats. The available blue gum trees have considerably diminished, and with the mining development we have had there is a great demand for wood for supports in the mines. Wattle poles are always used on a large scale for that purpose, and in that respect are replacing the blue gum poles. The bag worm has also made its appearance in the Transvaal amongst the wattle trees, the plague is found at Piet Retief and also at Nelspruit. The wattle tree belongs to the same genus as the thorn tree. It is, therefore, a plague which was in those trees but it does not kill off the thorn trees. In the circumstances I think that the services of an entomologist will be of great value to enquire into the plague and to try to prevent it in wattle trees. Hon. members will be surprised to see how much wattle bark has already been exported and how many poles are sold to the mines and elsewhere. I think it is an industry which should be looked after and the money which is paid for such an entomologist, or insect expert, will not be wasted. I do not mind where he is taken, whether in the Transvaal or in Natal. I hope the Minister twill bear this in mind. The wattle industry has not bothered him much hitherto.

The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson), the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. S. P. Bekker) have raised questions about the wattle industry. Those hon. members have rightly observed that it gives a livelihood to a large section of the people, especially in Natal, but also in the Transvaal and other parts. The department has been engaged for quite a number of years enquiring into the bag worm, which is a great plague in the wattle plantations. Up to the present we have succeeded in developing a tree which is stronger in resisting the plague, but its bark is lighter. The tree, however, can stand against the worm. Everything that can be done to give assistance to the farmers in that respect will be done. The difficulty is that the staff of the entomological department is not so very large, and there are so many plagues of that kind which have to be investigated in this country. T shall, however, be very willing to meet a deputation—it need not be a big deputation, but a few persons who represent the industry—to have a consultation, and to act after a discussion with the department. We can go into the whole matter and see to what extent the work now being done does not meet the requirement, and, if necessary, I will take the necessary steps to try—I cannot definitely promise— but I will try to meet the desire of hon. members. Now I come to a few other hon. members who raised certain questions. The hon. member for Carolina (Mr. W. H. Rood) mentioned a few questions I want to reply to. He says it will take many years before we have enough wood in our country and we therefore ought to go ahead with a big programme and plant many trees. I hope the public are just as enthusiastic as my hon. friend about only buying South African wood, but experience up to the present is very disappointing. There is only one building in the country where the public said they would use nothing but South African wood in it. The doors, windows, the roof, and the ceiling, everything had to be of South African wood, and no pieces of foreign wood would be allowed; it is the town hall of Bloemfontein. I hope that in other parts of the country preference will also be given to our; own wood. The department manipulates that wood as well as any wood that is imported, and if there is the right enthusiasm for our own wood we have a big market because at present we are still importing almost 2,000,000 tons of wood a year. I want to appeal to hon. members to help us to bring our wood under public notice. Then the hon. member spoke of the appointment of foremen on the forest plantations, that they should exclusively be recruited from people working there.

I said as far as possible.

If the hon. member means as far as possible, it alters the matter because exclusively to appoint foremen from people working on the plantations I cannot agree to. Many of our young men, e.g., are trained in afforestation at the University of Stellenbosch and at Sasveld, and they must get work. I will, however, meet the hon. member as far as possible. Then the hon. member said that you should have people on the settlements who had worked hard in the forests. The question just is whether the man who can work very hard is also à good farmer. It is, however, a good hint that he has given us and one which will be discussed with my colleague. Then the hon. member raised the question of the long distances the people have to walk. The hamlets are laid out as far as possible on the plantation, but after a few years the work extends and the people have to walk eight or nine miles to reach it. We thought that we would put up tents for the people, and give them extra payment which I thought would satisfy them, but to provide motor lorries will cost too much. If you do that you must have a chauffeur, petrol and oil, and I fear our work will then cost too much.

Transport is hired now anyway.

No, lorries are only hired to take the people there when they go for the first time to the plantation, but not to take them every morning to work. I am sorry that I cannot meet the hon. member in that direction. Then the hon. member said that at one place the houses of the settlers were very bad. There are some of the houses which were previously erected, which are not so good as the modern houses, but I will instruct my department to investigate and, where there are such houses, to improve them or replace them by new ones. But we cannot replace all the houses, because many of the forest reserves are fully planted, and we shall in a short time only need a few houses there. As for the special place the hon. member has mentioned, attention will be given to it. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) also raised a few points. He referred to the rumours that the forest plantations in his constituency would be diminished. Let me tell him at once that as for suitability it certainly is one of the parts which compares very favourably with any other part, and all we are going to do is, when land has been fully planted, to take the people away from it. But we are not curtailing the numbers, we are only sending them to other places. We cannot start a new settlement every day. It is a thing we must go slowly with. I will do everything in my power to go on with the plantations in, those parts. The hon. member said that only certain people were suited as forest workers. I want to say here that your position of late years is becoming very difficult, because to give more wood to the forest worker, a great deal of our local wood is chopped down, and the time is coming that we will have to put a stop to it because our inland wood is disappearing. We cannot go on in the way we have hitherto done because then we shall be left in a short while with j shrubs instead of the magnificent forests we have. I hope during the recess to go into the matter and to make a statement next session. As for the work in the forests, we can always discuss what help we can give to the people. In connection with the forest gardens, I must say that we have only removed the people at certain plantations where they live inside the plantations and where we need the ground, or where we are afraid of fires. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) said the best land was situated in his constituency, and the Government really ought to start planting wattle trees there. I do not know whether the hon. member knows that many people in his constituency make their living out of the forests they are planting there. Has the hon. member yet thought what it would mean if the Government went into competition with those people by also planting wattle trees? We have hitherto laid down the policy that the State plants forests for wood that is required for houses, fruit boxes and such things, but not that the Government would enter into competition with j the farmers who are making a living out of the wattle plantations. I must say that if it were not that they had trees there in the district of Piet Retief then I do not know what they would exist on. It is not only the production of the bark, but also the transport, and again the market which the creameries also find for their produce. It would be a terrible state of affairs if they had had no wattle trees. I do not think it is possible for the Government to plant wattle trees on a big scale—I think the whole of Natal would rise up if we did it, as a great part of that province as well as a great part of the Transvaal is dependent on the wattle plantations. Are we now to alter our policy and try to solve unemployment by planting big wattle forests and to compete with the farmers? Unless it subsequently appears necessary, I do not think we can follow the scheme of the hon. member. If the hon. member were to recommend that we should plant other trees in that district it would be another matter, but the rainfall is not so good there and therefore it is not desirable. It is different in the district of Barberton—where the rainfall is 60 inches—and George and Knysna—but where the rainfall is under 30 inches—we cannot plant any forests. I am therefore sorry that I cannot give the hon. member such a promise.

Just allow me to add this: my intention was not for the Government to compete with the farmers, but that the unemployed should be used to plant the forests, and that after five or seven years when the forests were showing profit they should get a portion of the profit. I did not put it like that, but I think it is clear enough that wattle plantations will be more economical than putting the people to make roads. The people will then, after deducting expenses, be able to get a portion of the preceeds of the plantation. I hope the Minister will not reject this scheme but seriously consider it.

I just want to say that the Government at this stage is not prepared to start company farming.

Vote as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 27, “Labour’”, £226,395,

I wish to raise on this Vote the same matter I tried to raise the other day by way of a question. As I got no satisfaction when I adopted the former method I have to raise the subject now. It is a serious matter; to show you how serious I consider it, I move—

[Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter at all. I do this in order to draw attention to the fact that the Minister of Labour has lately been elected to the chairmanship of the Southern Life Association. I have the greatest respect for the Minister, and the greatest respect for the Southern Life. I have no objection to them singly, but I do object when the two come together. It is a serious matter. It is a matter of principle. My contention is that no Minister should be a chairman of a board of directors, or even an ordinary member of a board of directors, of any business concern. Not for a moment do I suggest that anything wrong has been done up to now, but it is a state of affairs that can easily lead to abuse, a very dangerous state of abuse, for all kinds of questions can arise in the Cabinet or in a Minister’s department in which the interests of this private concern, this business concern, may clash diametrically with the interests of the State. It is not fair to the company, it is not fair to the State and it is not fair to the Minister that he should be in such a position. Take an example that has happened only this session. All the life insurance companies have received a special exemption, for while other companies and j individuals have to pay a special tax on all their fixed interest-bearing securities, life insurance companies are now specially exempted. I absolutely agree with that exemption, and probably all other hon. members agree with it, but supposing we did not agree with that exemption, surely the first thing we would ask ourselves would be why is this life insurance company getting this special favour.

Life insurance association.

If the Minister can be a director of a life insurance association—I do not see that there is any difference between a life insurance company and a life insurance association—even if it is a mutual concern. I do not see that it makes much difference as he would be a partner in a business concern.

When did you wake up to this? This has been going on for years.

I have only just woke up to this—since I have had more liberty in the caucus. I read about it in the papers and did not believe it, and put a question asking if it were in order. If a Minister can be a director of a life insurance company, why not a director of any insurance company, fire or motor accident or of an oil company? If a Minister can be a director of an oil company, I would try, if I were connected with the company, to get seven or eight Ministers to join the board. But what would the public say if subsequently the tax on oil were suddenly reduced. I ask if the Minister of Labour has resigned and if he has not, when is he going to do so? I also wish to ask the Prime Minister indirectly, for he is not here now, what his attitude is on this matter. In reply to my question the Prime Minister said that he was not aware of the fact, but he knows the fact now. If the Prime Minister does not state what his attitude in this matter is then we may take it he approves of it and if so, then I want to say that I hold a few shares in several companies which are not too flourishing, and I issue an invitation to each and every Minister to join the board. Probably the prestige that these companies would secure if I could get one or two of the Ministers to join the board, would make them quite prosperous concerns.

I am not very sure about that.

I have been informed that the hon. the Minister of Labour is not the only Minister who makes a little extra pocket money by being on a board of a business concern. I have been informed that several Ministers are directors of companies. Well. I don’t grudge the hon. the Ministers a little pocket money, because I have long been of the opinion that the salaries of Ministers are inadequate, and if anybody moves that Ministers’ salaries be increased, I will give such a motion my hearty support. I will do so that this directorship business may cease. I am moving therefore that the Minister’s salary be reduced by £500, the amount of the director’s fees.

One would have thought that the Minister would have taken the opportunity of replying to the strictures of my hon. friend. It is a most undesirable thing for Ministers to sit on directors’ boards. We know what has happened in Great Britain in regard to this matter. When a member of Parliament becomes a Cabinet Minister in Great Britain, if he is on a board of directors, he resigns his directorship. On the general principle of the thing, it is most undesirable that a Cabinet Minister should be on a board of directors. It lays the company concerned open to suspicion, and it lays the person who happens to be a Minister, and also the board of directors, open to suspicion. I have here certain information— I now proceed to another subject—which very much alarms me. It alarms me because of its incidence, in the first place, and secondly because it rather seems to me to set the standard that this Government has decided shall be the standard of living of the white races of South Africa. I found it necessary during the last election, when I had the valuable assistance of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Mines, the Minister of Lands, and the Minister of the Interior, who all turned up and gave me the most valuable assistance in my election campaign—I found it necessary to draw attention to the fact that this Government seemed to be out to depreciate the standard of living of the white races in South Africa to an alarming degree. I have here tangible demonstration in one case of a Government enterprise which sets the seal upon my election speeches in that respect. I want the House to be aware of it in order to prevent this constant depreciation of our standard of living. I refer to the Rust-der-Winter Irrigation scheme. I am informed that that is 50 miles north of Pretoria, in the highest priced portion of the Union of South Africa. I am informed that it is a sort of camp—one of the efforts of the Government in the direction of uplifting the white races of South Africa by providing employment. It is to run coincidently with the effort in another direction of recruiting men in a special service battalion. The housing of the men is satisfactory. That is excellent testimony, which I am happy to give to the Minister of Labour. The labourers get 4s. 2d. a day. They are removed from civilization. They are 50 miles from Pretoria. They are right away from any of the amenities of civilization altogether, and they get the princely sum of 4s. 2d. per day. Skilled labourers who get more than 4s. 2d. a day pay rent for their rooms. The working hours are from 7 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., making it a nine-hour day. I am informed that that nine-hour day is only an arrangement whereby they can get off earlier on the Saturday, but if the men leave, they are forced to stop on Friday, and to lose the 40 extra minutes they have worked per day during the week. Women are not allowed in the camp, so that the married man is divorced from his wife and family, in addition to all the other disabilities he has got. In consequence of their circumstances, away from civilization, these men are on the go from 16 to 17 hours out of the 24. There is a mess supplying good meals, but the majority cannot afford to partake of them, on account of the expense compared with their small pay. A number of men doing responsible work, some of which is skilled labour, only get from 4s. 6d. to 5s. 6d. per day of 14 hours, in a spread-over from 3 a.m. to 5 p.m. These men get no overtime, and others who do get overtime do not get the accepted standard laid down by organized labour of time and a half for that overtime. If they complain, and ask for more pay, they are told to get to Hades out of it. Incidentally, the Government is getting a dam very cheaply, built by one generation in distress for the benefit of another. There is another reference here in the information I have obtained, which I am not going to make public, but I will give it to the Minister. The Minister of Labour does come in in certain directions here in that he ought to see to it, and it should be his especial charge, that the standard of pay, and as a consequence the standard of living, of our working people in South Africa should be safeguarded and elevated rather than depressed, and to that end I want to mention what happened to that important section of the community, the blasters. It would be good for the country, I think, if two or three blasters could come here. They get only 12s. 6d. a day, although they have very great responsibilities. For any mistake they make they may get two years’ imprisonment, and their pay may “go up to 15s. a day,” but they do not get it; and they do all their overtime without pay. The Minister, and you, sir, with you basilisk eye, have reinforced him in that, and rather put me off my stride, in the Minister’s disclaiming any responsibility for that department. It is true the matter comes under irrigation, but I do urge upon the Minister that he confers with his colleagues. Do not regard this too much as a set of watertight compartments when it suits you, and mixed up with each other also when it suits you. I urge on the Minister that he should do his very best with the other departments with which he is in contact to see that the standard of living of the workers of South Africa is not depreciated, but raised. [Time limit.]

I want to say a word on the matter raised by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. H. Reitz). There is still a tradition amongst members of the bench known as “judicial nescience,” that is, a pretended ignorance of what goes on under their noses. There is a well known story of one judge who asked who Connie Gilchrist was, one of the most famous artists of England, at that time; and I wonder whether that pose of nescience extends to the Ministry. When the hon. member asked the Prime Minister whether one of his ministers occupied the position of director of a company, and whether if that was so it was with his approval, the Prime Minister said he knew nothing about it. I thought at the time that if he did not know about the matter he should have known about it. The Minister who has been mentioned in this case will agree with me that he does hold this office, and does so with the full approval and entire concurrence of the Prime Minister. If an hon. member asks this question he is entitled to a straight answer. On the general question raised I entirely agree with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) that in the ordinary way no member of the Cabinet should occupy any directorship whatever, and I understand that is the general rule that is followed by all members of the Cabinet. I would also say to the hon. member for Jeppes that the matter he has raised is not new. We have known for years past that the Minister of Labour has occupied, with the full concurrence of members of the Cabinet, a position on the board of the Southern Life Association.

I did not know it.

Anyone who reads the public press and the advertisements of that particular life association must have known it for years past. His name has been in the public press in the advertisements of that association before he occupied ministerial office, and ever since; therefore, it is nothing new. It may have burst upon the hon. member for Jeppes as a sudden and horrible revelation, but we have known this for a long time.

Are other ministers not interested?

There are precedents in the past in the public life of this country, especially in the Cape, where they were very jealous about these matters, of ministers occupying seats on the board of life assurance companies, when they would not have been allowed to occupy any other directorships whatever. I know of no other member of the Cabinet who holds a directorship, and I know of other members of the Cabinet who resigned their directorships on assuming office. I suggest to the hon. member that he should allow the matter to drop.

I want to bring the position of the Labour Department to the notice of the Minister in connection with an amount given for relief works to town councils and divisional councils. As the matter stands to-day, the Government is trying to pay 75 per cent. and 90 per cent. up to 100 per cent. of the wages on those relief works. The difficulty is that in parts of the country the number of unemployed have been increased to-day, especially where the depression and drought were very bad. Only to-day I received a letter from my constituency in which the divisional council said that it was powerless and could not recover money from the taxpayers, so that it could make no further use of the relief money. The department does not want to give any more money because the divisional council has no money. Even if the department gave them more money for the wages of the labourers, the divisional council could still make no use of it because it has no money to go on with works. We feel that if the department has to go through the country to pay the unemployed for all the work it will be a tremendous expense. It will even yet be very good if a committee of the department went through the Union to see where more money was needed. The Union must be divided into groups, and to certain parts more money must be given than to others, because the position there is worse. I have to-day received a letter from my constituency that the divisional council is prepared to pay for the supervision of the work, but that it cannot cover the other expenses. There are two ways open to the department. It will either have to give more money, or those people will not be able to contribute at all to the work. I hope the Minister will do his utmost to contribute 100 per cent. of the cost of labour on the relief works in the portions of the districts which have been stricken by drought and where the people cannot pay their taxes.

I want to say something in connection with unemployment and relief work. There is an amount on the estimates of £750,000 for relief works. It is neither more nor less than was voted last year, notwithstanding the fact that we shall get £6,000,000 more from the mines during this year. The people who are to-day on the relief works cannot come out on their wages. They get about 5s. a day, 25s. a week, or £5 per month. There are still people on the relief works who in the good times got £30 to £40 a month, but they are to-day only getting £5. They do not ask for more, but they ask to be allowed to work longer, so that they can work a full week at 5s. a day and not five days. It; is impossible for a man in the big villages where he has to pay for light, water, fuel, food and clothes to live on 5s. a day. Last year I would not have asked for it, but as we are getting £6,000,000 more this year from the mines, and the farmers are getting a few million of it, it is unfair that the villagers are not getting more. They do not ask for something for nothing; they say: “Let us work six days and be paid for six days.” I want to ask the Minister whether he realizes what the position of a man with a family is. The Minister will possibly say that it is his own fault if he has a family, but that does not take the matter any further. It is impossible for a man with five or six children to live on 5s. a day. I do not know whether the Minister has ever been in one of the houses of those people, and whether he knows what goes on there; it is pitiable to see it. They have no food or clothes. As there is more money, I want to ask the Minister to consider this request.

I hope the Minister will keep his £500, but I would like to ask something about the labour colonies. I would like to know from the Minister whether the Government has abandoned the idea of establishing labour colonies in South Africa under the Act of 1927. I see there is £100 for general expenditure on labour colonies on the estimates, and I want to ask the Government whether it intends to apply that Act. Parliament has so often in the past urged it, and when the Act was before Parliament, it was blessed by all sides. I see that even in 1913 Mr. Merriman brought up the matter in the House. A committee was appointed which investigated the matter, and in 1919 Minister de Wet introduced a Bill which, unfortunately, got no further than the Senate. But the need for such legislation was felt so strongly that in 1927 another Bill was introduced, and everybody invoked a blessing on it. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us why the Act has not been carried out and why the labour colonies are not being gone on with. The principle is acknowledged by all countries in the world that there are people in a State who do not want to work and who must be compelled to do so. When individuals are at present brought before the court for vagrancy then they are sent to gaol, where they come into contact with criminals of the worst kind, and, instead of uplifting the people, we allow them to sink down deeper. Accordingly, labour colonies are established where people of that kind rehabilitate themselves. For that reason the course has been adopted in various countries which has also been taken by us. We find that the Act not only provides for people who do not want to work, but also for people who have been convicted of certain offences. Why I insist on the Act being carried out is owing to the following reason. We find that the court convicts a man for some crime or other and there are mitigating circumstances. The law must be carried out, and if he is guilty he must generally be sent to gaol. If a man is punished for vagrancy, or a man has sold liquor, e.g., in mitigating circumstances, then we ought to be able to send him to a labour colony. The Minister knows that in past years so many people were sent to gaol for illicit liquor dealing. They are not rehabilitated, they are not uplifted in the gaols. We know that it happens that they get into trouble for selling liquor because, e.g., their family has suffered hunger. Accordingly, the law provides that we shall make better people of them and bring them to the realization of their duties. But, according to the present position, only more criminals are made. If they are trapped in a crime, they are sent to gaol. There are, e.g., many people who have been convicted under the Children’s Protection Act, or for a theft, and they will be able to come under this Act. Many of these people are driven to crime in a weak moment, because their families or they themselves suffer from hunger. If they are convicted., they have now to be sent to gaol. The Minister has a chance here to provide for such cases under the 1927 Act, which everybody has blessed. We know that magistrates have for a long time pressed for the application of the Act. I hope the Minister will give the assurance that he will give his serious consideration to the matter.

I would like to say something on this Vote. Unemployment is becoming a very serious problem in South Africa and if there is a country where we must be careful not to allow unemployment to increase to a great extent, it is just in South Africa, in view of the presence of the native population. We cannot permit a large section of our people in South Africa to be unemployed and poor whites. The question arises then what is the best way to solve this great question. It is a difficult one, and the Minister of Labour certainly has one of the most difficult tasks of all the Ministers in these difficult times. But with people who think over the matter the idea often comes up that the relief works, especially on our roads, are only a temporary help to the unemployed. I take it that at the moment we cannot do anything better. Yet I think that the time has come for us in South Africa to see whether we cannot find a permanent solution. To borrow money to solve the question of unemployment and to leave an inheritance of debt to posterity without also bequeathing an asset out of which that debt can be paid, one feels is a little unfair. Even if we incurred a debt of £1,000,000 then we feel that we must leave something to posterity to pay off that debt. If we want to solve the question in a good way, we must do it in such a manner that we will not only leave a debt, but also an asset to posterity, a quid pro quo for the debt we have placed on them. I thought that one of the things we ought to tackle on a large scale was afforestation. I have confidence that we shall, to a very great extent, assist in solving the question of unemployment and of poor-whiteism if we use loan funds for afforestation.

The hon. member cannot speak again on afforestation because that Vote has already been passed.

I am arguing the matter from the standpoint of labour and unemployment.

The hon. member can call it that but he may not debate it.

If then we bequeath a debt to posterity they will also have an asset in the forests which we have planted and they can pay the debt out of them.

The hon. member cannot go further into that point because the Afforestation Vote has been passed.

I submit to your ruling. We then have the opportunity to provide for the education of the children, to see that they get a proper preparation for life because they are collected together where their parents work. We can then see that there is a future for the children of the poor whites. They will not then be put into the hopeless position of their parents. I therefore hope that the Minister of Labour will use his influence to see whether he cannot find a solution by means of that afforestation.

I first of all want to reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Jeppe (Dr. H. Reitz). I think that in view of the relationship which has existed between us for several years, the hon. member should have done me the ordinary courtesy of asking for an explanation before coming to the House and putting the question which he did to the Prime Minister. He certainly should first of all have mentioned the matter to me.

There is nothing personal about it. I object just as much to the other Ministers.

Anyhow, the hon. member referred to me particularly, and I should have thought that he would have done me the courtesy of first of all mentioning the matter to me. Holding the position which I hold here, surely I might have been given an opportunity of explaining first of all. But the hon. member put the question to the Prime Minister and then this evening he did so again.

I did not mention any names.

First of all he did not, but this evening he came straight for me and he did mention my name. If I had been in his place, I certainly would first of all have gone to a colleague with whom I had sat for many years and I would have asked him “Is it a fact that you are chairman of this association?” He did not do that. He came straight to the House and moved a reduction of my salary. Now let me say this. When I was appointed to an office under the Crown, that is the office of Administrator of the Cape Province, I immediately resigned from the directorate of a business company, a company which was very dear to my heart, but I realized straight away that in holding that positon it was due to me to resign. A mutual life insurance company, however, has never yet by this Parliament or by the old Cape Parliament been considered to be an ordinary business institution, because the work of a mutual insurance association is of an entirely different character. First of all, there are no shareholders. All the money is held mutually by the policy holders. It is not in the nature of a business concern, which does business in so many directions which might clash with my duties as a member of the Cabinet. There are other members who are also directors of insurance associations and there were very distinguished members of the previous House who also held the same positions, who have also been directors of insurance associations. That was enough for me. I feel for myself that my interests and my duties as a director of the association to which I belong do not clash with my office as a Minister of the Crown. Were they to clash I would resign straightaway either from the one or the other, but I have not found during my experience that these duties did clash and my colleagues, who have been directors before me, have not found either that their duties clashed. That is the attitude which I take up. I feel for myself that there is nothing wrong in my being a director of a mutual life insurance concern. In regard to these men employed on the Rust-der-Winter scheme, which was raised by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), I am discussing this matter with my colleague the Minister of Irrigation.

†*The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Luttig) said that it was desirable for us to subdivide the Union into groups, so that a larger subsidy could be given to certain parts than to other parts, because the former needed more relief. That is precisely what we are doing. We know what parts need more help than others and we are obliged to give those parts more assistance than to the other parts of the country. We have put £200,000 this year on the loan estimates for local works under the Local Works Act, so that local bodies may be able to borrow the necessary money from that fund to keep their share of the relief works going. They can borrow the money on reasonable terms, so that it is now no longer possible for local bodies to say that they cannot contribute their share because they cannot get in their taxes, because they now have the opportunity of borrowing money and make their contribution to the costs of the relief works. The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. H. Reitz) said that we have exactly the same amount or not much more than last year on the estimates this year, viz., £750,000. He says it is too little. Well, if the position is to continue as at present, then there is no question that the money is too little, but let me say at once that the Government is in constant touch with the position from day to day, and if it appears that the conditions are not improving and that we must continue on this scale, then we shall do so, and the money will be found. I just want to give hon. members an idea of our operations in connection with the question of unemployment. We have to deal here with practically an epidemic caused by the depression, the droughts, foot and mouth disease, etc. I just want to give an idea how the figures have risen. It is interesting, if it were not so tragic. I have before me here the figures from January every year since 1927. I shall not read the figures for each year. In January, 1927, we had 1,184 persons on the relief works which were subsidized by the Government. The figures have steadily risen, and in January, 1932, we had 5,141. To-day, eighteen months later, at the end of May, we had 31,636 people on subsidized relief works. They are unemployed that are kept by us today on subsidized works. The numbers have increased within a year by 600 to 700 per cent. You can, therefore, understand what conditions the department has to do with. That is only on subsidized work. It does not include the people on Government works under the civilized labour policy of the Government. On those works we to-day have 25,107 people, civilized labourers, who are kept by the Government on non-subsidized work. This figure includes the 14,700 civilized labourers on the railways, but that is under the civilized labour policy of the Government. If you bear in mind that all the other people are subsidized by the Department of Labour, then you can understand what a problem the department has to deal with. The department has nearly 22,000 people for whom it is responsible. The numbers are practically growing daily, and I want to say to-night that if there is a little delay here and there I will give you the assurance that the Department of Labour will do its very best to take rapid steps to grant assistance where necessary. The officials of the department deserve every praise for the way in which they are doing their work. We are trying to give satisfaction everywhere, and I think that so far as the department is concerned there is a fair amount of satisfaction throughout the country. I say, in view of this fact, the position, of course, is that the money will be too little if the state of affairs continues, but the Government is in touch with the position, and if more money is necessary it will be found. The year is, however, still young, and more rains are due, so that the numbers will probably decrease, but the Government has decided that no one shall die of hunger. Magistrates throughout the country have been instructed that provision is to be made for food to all able-bodied forces, i.e., all the men that can work and cannot get it, and have no means of livelihood, as well as for their families.

What amounts are being spent on unemployment?

The amount of £750,000 from loan funds and £125,000 from the fund as contributions to the promotion of civilized labour. I do not believe that hon. members need worry about the Government not making sufficient provision in the serious position which may arise from day to day during the course of the year. Now hon. members ask us to pay more than 5s. a day, and then 4s., which we also sometimes pay. It must, however, be remembered that these works are relief works and temporary. You can, therefore, understand that when the Government is now intervening to give temporary work, the work cannot be of a permanent nature. They are purely relief works, and the wages must be such that no one shall be attracted to them. If you are in the position to pay high wages there to-day, you would draw people from other works, people from the countryside, and you will later have an accumulation of people there. We admit that the wages are not high, but they are only intended to enable the people to make a living until they can return to the usual occupations. I fear it is not possible for us to increase the amount, because, if we do so, we shall once more cause ourselves a lot of trouble. We must maintain the equilibrium between the wage and the kind of labour. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) asked whether the Government intended to go on with the policy of labour colonies. The House will remember that my predecessor was busily engaged in establishing labour colonies. Unfortunately, he did not succeed in putting them at the right place; it was at Nuweberg, near Caledon. The position was not satisfactory, and it has now been taken over as an afforestation settlement. I put the sum of £100 down on the estimates again because, owing to the flooding of unemployed, we did not have time to give our attention to the matter. Something of that nature is decidedly necessary, but there must first of all be careful enquiry made for a suitable place so that the colony shall not again be put on the wrong place. As soon as I return to Pretoria I will give my attention to the matter.

Are you considering the question of improving their wages?

Yes.

I think the country will be thankful to the Minister for the statement that he intends to give his attention to the matter of labour colonies, but one will not be enough, more will be required. The figures the Minister has quoted are disturbing figures, and if there were no supports to our benches one would fall on one’s back. The state of unemployment has, however, been made much i worse by the vagrants who will not work. If the Minister e.g., were to enquire from the Board of Aid in Cape Town he would find that a large number of people are getting support who will not work. I am glad the Minister is giving his attention to it because the previous colony was a hopeless failure. As the Minister has said that he was going to give as much work as possible, I hesitate to say anything further about it, but we find that the Department of Labour are recruiting people for afforestation, but they will not take anyone who is over 45. I have a case here of an ex-artilleryman of the Orange Free State; he is too old for the public service, and he says: “It is the law of Dingaan. I have served the State to the best of my ability and now I must manage as best I can.” The test which the State puts is the age limit, and not the physical power of the man. We find that a man over 45 and even over 50 is still as healthy as to be able to get the better of a man under 45. We further find that the people are medically examined, and get a certificate of health, but often it is established on their arrival that they are ill.

What can be done to prevent it?

I will tell you. They must submit the people to a proper examination and if they find that the man has got a medical certificate which is incorrect then if it was a district surgeon the matter should be reported to the department concerned and in other cases to the medical council. The department is suffering owing to sickly people being sent there who cannot do the work, A thorough examination must be made, and the test must not be whether a man is over or under 45 years, but whether he is physically fit to do the work. Then I want to make a charge in connection with the system of recruiting people at the post offices on the countryside. It appears as if they have to apply at an urban post office, because it is useless to do so on the countryside. The people apply month after month, year after year, but nothing happens. I assume that the applications reach Pretoria, but it appears that attention is only given to the unemployed in the towns. I know unemployment is very bad in the towns, but it is also bad on the countryside. I do not know where the mistake lies, whether it is with the post-masters or with someone else, but the people tell me that they have been applying for over a year; it has become a matter of routine, but they apparently are not given a chance. I can assure hon. members that the hunger is just as bad on the countryside as in the towns. Then I also want to say something about the welfare side of afforestation. If the Minister does not control it himself then it comes under his colleague. In my opinion the cost of living of the people should be thoroughly looked into. It is not the question whether a man earns 4/4, or 5/-, but what it costs him to live. We may pay him 10/- and if it costs him 12/- to live then he gets 2/- too little. If we pay him 4/4, we must see that his cost of living is such that he can live on 4s. 4d. I have been fighting for this for ten years, and I am prepared to go on fighting for another ten years. At present shops are being put in the camps which are practically concessions, but it should be seen that the people get a sort of delivery shop which provides the people at as cheap a price as possible with strong clothes, good groceries and meat, etc. The prices must be accommodated to their wages. While speaking on this subject I also want to point out that the people in their gardens should get a chance of irrigating the ground, so that they can grow enough cheap vegetables for their maintenance. There is enough water, there is just never money to lead it properly, and it will not cost much. Under another vote it has already been pointed out that suitable people must be looked for for the settlements among the workers in the forests. This is the place where they can show if they are suited for it.

I wish to plead with the Minister to place Juvenile Affairs Boards on a more satisfactory financial basis than they are at present. These are most valuable bodies, which interest themselves exclusively in the school-leaver—the juvenile. Many children have parents who are entirely incompetent to advise them, and these Boards have been established to take the place of the parent. Incidentally, one of the most useful aspects of the work of the Boards is to induce boys and girls not to leave school until they have found work. These bodies are staffed by a small nucleus of paid officers and a large number of honorary workers. I can speak in admiration of their work, having been for ten years on one of the largest of these bodies, in Johannesburg, and chairman for four years. We have a sense of grievance in that a Board must apply to headquarters for even petty expenses. If the Minister could see his way to grant each Board a larger or a smaller sum for this purpose, he would allay much dissatisfaction. There is one other point I wish to raise—I would like to ask the Minister whether it is his intention to appoint an Interdepartmental Committee to explore all possible avenues for work for juveniles. There are thousands of juveniles in this country who are out of work, and who cannot find work in the ordinary way. A Committee of this sort will go a long way in exploring such avenues as may be available, and I ask the Minister to give every attention to this suggestion.

I spoke a few evenings ago about the 1,400 to 1,500 very needy families in my constituency. Unemployment is serious in the country, but it is certainly nowhere felt more severely than on the alluvial diggings. A small handful of those people are professional diggers. The rest come from the big cities and the countryside throughout the whole Union. The people on the diggings form a separate community, and as such they do not come under the town councils, and no help of that kind ever reaches them accordingly, nor do they produce foodstuffs, like the farmers, and they are all needy, so that one cannot assist the other. These people are therefore quite dependent on the little bit of help which they can get from the outside. I have already drawn this state of affairs very earnestly to the Minister of Labour. I want again now to make a special appeal not only to the Minister of Labour but to the whole of the Government really not to leave the promising people there to their lot. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. W. H. Rood) showed how badly the recruiting was done in the outside villages. I can only say that that was also my experience. Seldom, if ever, is anyone in the outside villages helped by the office. I hope the Minister will also give very serious attention to this matter. Money must be made available to get the hundreds of families who have flocked there from the farms, back again to the farms. When the people get an opportunity of getting away to some land-owner or another, I think it is the due of the Labour Department to provide money for the transport of the digger household to the new field of employment. It will give the people very much help, which they do not get to-day. When people are recruited for the relief works a certain percentage of the diggers should be specially recruited to go and work with those people in order, in that way, to get them taken up in the ranks of the ordinary workers. As I have said the diggers form a special class, and they do not get the opportunity which is open to other unemployed, and if they are not given a special opportunity to be absorbed in the ranks of the ordinary workers, they will always remain a separate group and have to live as such. I have shown that the people come from all parts of the country. No one can say that, in the circumstances, that they are specially Lichtenburg unemployed. It is not so. They are unemployed coming from all parts, and if special attention is not given to these 1,400 or 1,500 families then I fear for their future. It is a fact that the people are suffering for lack of bread. Things could not be worse with them. I will go so far as to say that in granting funds to the country districts an extra amount should be allocated to Lichtenburg, because Lichtenburg has to provide for these extra 1,400 or 1,500 families which will otherwise suffer from want of bread.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter connected with relief workers in Durban. There are several hundreds of these relief workers working on the mole in Durban Bay. Recently, a foreman was required, the pay to be from 6/- to 8/- per day. Suitable local applicants were entirely ignored, and a man from Bloemfontein was appointed to fill the post. These kind, of things are simply pinpricking and cause a great deal of dissatisfaction and uneasiness amongst the men, and I would ask the Minister whether he cannot put an end to that sort of thing.

I am very glad that the Minister did reply to my point, because if he had not done so I would have pushed it to a vote. Now that he has replied, I am not going to push it to a vote. I am sorry that the Minister seems to think that there is something personal in the matter. On the contrary, last session when there was still fear in the hearts of Ministers and some of the Ministers did not treat me in a friendly way, the Minister was not one of them and I have never had anything but friendliness from him. He is wrong in saying that I should have consulted him. I put the question without mentioning the name of the Minister or of the business and the company. I had no other course but to raise the matter here and I could not raise it here without mentioning the Minister’s name. The Minister is entitled to his opinion, but I do not agree with it. I am almost certain that from the way the Prime Minister asked that question, he agrees with me. Mutual life insurance companies do ordinary business. They lend money and they pay taxes. The Minister is entitled to his opinion, but I am convinced that three-quarters of the members in this House, although they may not like to say so, agree with me.

With leave of the Committee, amendment withdrawn.

The startling figures which the Minister has given of the number of unskilled labourers who are employed on relief works seems in itself an indication of the very acute position of unemployment in South Africa, and is evidence of the fact that many of us who have complained of the inadequacy of the provision made for unem-employment, during the present year, have been justified in that complaint. I realise that at the present moment it would not be right to go into that question, and we will have further opportunities of dealing with the matter. I want to ask the Minister one or two questions and in doing so, I want to say I realise that the Government could not yet have an opportunity of formulating anything in the nature of a definite policy. It is true that the last Government endeavoured for a number of years to deal with it, and that members supporting the Government from both parties are very interested in the matter. There are three matters about which the Minister might be able to give some information. In the first place, while he is giving us figures in connection with the relief of unskilled labour, I think he knows and his department knows, that there is at present very serious unemployment amongst skilled workers, and in that connection one of the questions that has been before the country for a considerable time and in respect of which both parties are definitely pledged, is the question of providing some insurance against unemployment, particularly for skilled workers. I want to ask the Minister whether he can make some statement on the subject or if not, whether he will definitely assure the committee that it will be considered during the recess. The other matter has been ventilated for the last two years. I refer to the vote of £125,000 dealing with the arrangements made from time to time between the department and various public bodies to encourage them to employ unskilled white labour. Complaints have been made year after year that to a great extent while that policy has been carried out by the late Minister, there has been a great deal of time taken up and perhaps a great deal of inefficiency has resulted through the wrangling between the Government and public bodies. Whilst there lias been this wrangling as to what proportion of subsidy should be given, people remained unemployed and in fact starved. The time has arrived when the Minister and the Government should consider co-ordinating this work and laying down some definite principle so that when any public body can carry out certain works on which they can employ European labour, provided they get a subsidy, instead of starting an argument as to the merits or demerits of a scheme, there should be some definite co-ordination. I hope the present Government will consider the idea of co-ordinating that work. There is one other item or rather the absence of it. The Minister may be able to deal with it out of the £750,000, and that is that some definite provision should be made for the training of people who are unemployed, particularly people drifting from the country— the people known as poor whites, who, even when they get an opportunity of work, are often not in a position to do it and something should be done to provide training for these people so that they can be usefully employed in any employment that the Government or public bodies can provide. I would like to make another suggestion. In Great Britain, in a different department they have had what is known as the Trade Facilities Act, where certain funds have been set aside to assist industrialists to get business in other parts of the world as one of the methods of absorbing the unemployed. Just as the Government under the Vote accepts the principle of subsidising where-ever necessary, municipalities, provincial councils and other public bodies, the Minister and the Government should consider whether there should not be a general fund, not merely a vote, to deal not only with the subsidising and with the encouragement of the employment of white labour, but also in many instances with such employment by private enterprise. You might find private enterprise able and willing to absorb more white labour than is now the case provided it gets something in the way of subsidy. After all, the business and the desire of the Government is to extend the avenues of employment for white people in every possible direction. Then there is just one other point which I want to put to the Minister. We are spending thousands of pounds annually in connection with the Labour Department at Geneva., and we send delegates there. This year the conference which is being held at Geneva is particularly important. It is dealing with a matter brought forward chiefly at the instance of the Prime Minister of Italy—it has to deal with the question of the reduction of hours of labour. I notice that the two South African representatives, the one representating the employers of labour, and the other representing the employees, have been at variance on the question of the reduction of hours of labour, and I think the Minister might inform the House whether the Government representative, the hon. member for Bellville (Col. Creswell) has received any instructions as to the attitude he is to take up on this question. [Time limit.]

I would like to express my thanks to the Minister of Labour for what he has done to stop unemployment, but I would like to comment on the standard at which those people have to live. It is not to the credit of us, as the people of South Africa, and I think that something should be done now to raise the standard a little, by increasing the wages of the white labourer. I am thinking of the future of South Africa, especially of the children. The future of the children in the circumstances in which they are growing up is dark, and we feel that we cannot expect much from the children in these circumstances, and that is the cause of the conditions which we specially find in the slums of Cape Town. We find the low standard of life, and it is only our duty to take as many precautionary measures as possible, so that the children can have a future. The people have not retrogressed in this way through their own fault, but owing to nature, and we feel that we have a certain duty to fulfil towards the people and their future. In many cases we find that the people have to do things that we would not like to do, and we do not like them to do, but which is almost unavoidable, such as the illicit drink traffic and other things. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is in his place, because I would have preferred to say it in his absence, but I think that if we can possibly get money by way of a State lottery at our disposal, to do something for the people, and to a certain extent to remove the evil of which I have spoken, it will be a good thing.

Perhaps it is as well that I should say a few words about the intentions of the Government. As we know, the department to-day has practically two functions; one is to see to the administration of our skilled labour. In this connection the position resulting from the depression is also difficult, but it still is, if I may say so, normally difficult. What, however, is extremely difficult is the question of the unskilled labourer, and especially also of the man who is practically not a labourer in the sense that we use the term, namely, the farmer who has lost his land to-day owing to drought and has no livelihood. It is the second problem that is particularly difficult. However difficult the first may be, it is already, at any rate, under control to a certain extent. There are organizations, trades unions, etc., for the skilled workers, and Wage Acts and industrial agreements; but when we come to unskilled labour we have a great problem. I am keeping in touch, so far as the countryside is concerned, with the Dutch Church, because the majority of the people who are in difficulties on the countryside, owing to the drought and other things, are our Afrikaner people. I therefore ask the Church to be the link between the man and the State. I asked the Church if it was prepared to establish committees in as many districts as possible, which will be able to classify, which will be able to say: “This man has permanently left his land. He is away from his land for good, and for him another living will have to be found; or this man must go back to the land, because his method of life is such that he can only succeed on the land, or that man will be best suited to afforestation, or the other can only be put on an irrigation scheme, and the next man must be placed in an industry.”

Why the Church? Why not your own officials?

Because the Church knows the people much better than any official.

But when the Church expresses an opinion on the native question, you say it does not know what it is talking about.

I am now talking of the Dutch Church in connection with members of the congregations. I would even be prepared to pay such a committee, to which the Government would be able to add one or more members, so that it should not only be a church body. But be this as it may, I am going to make the experiment, because I have reasons for knowing that the Dutch Church is of inestimable value in looking after matters of that kind. I learnt this by experience when I was Administrator, and when the Dutch Church showed its zeal in finding hostels for children of needy parents. The Church did them more cheaply than the State could ever have thought of doing, and also much more efficiently, and I want to go a little further, and in addition not only think of the material side of life. The Church will …

What is that church?

I am prepared to do the same in connection with any church. I have already said that I approached the Dutch Church because, unfortunately, it is a fact that the greatest part of the people on the countryside that are in need are our Afrikaans-speaking people, but I am prepared to do the same in connection with any church. I shall be able to get from the church that which I sometimes can hardly get from the local bodies, namely, an impartial judgment on the matter. I have great expectations from the co-operation of the Church and the State on this problem. If I have a good local committee of the Church, then that committee can be on the guard against people streaming from the countryside into the towns. That is one of the greatest difficulties of the towns, because when the people are once in the town then they must practically be kept there, because they can only with difficulty be sent back. I want, therefore, to try to stop this influx at its origin. The best body to assist me in that is, in my opinion, the Church, which is not only acquainted with the material side of the matter, but also with the social and spiritual side. We are going to make experiments in certain congregations. The Church itself wants to experiment. If it does not answer, the Church and the State will have to end the undertaking, but I would be sorry if these experiments which we have begun is not a success. I have the greatest expectation from them, because I know what the Church is, and what it is doing in similar questions. What I said was so necessary is that we should have a classification of the thousands of people who are being thrown on our hands. The man who can go back to the farm when it has rained must get help of a temporary kind. Road-making is a work like that, and he can be used for that work. What hon. members said here about the roads I can also say, but I want to add that we must not allow our people to understand that road-making is not suitable work for a white man. When the work is under proper supervision, when it is properly co-ordinated and organized, it is a thing the white man can do. It is not kaffir work. The idea that road-making is kaffir work is one of the great difficulties I find with local bodies, because they refuse, for that reason, to make the work available to white people. They think the natives are cheaper. In connection with native labour and white labour we are making experiments, and i we want to prove that white labour, under proper supervision, can be just as economic, if not more economic, than native labour. The experiments which I am having made justify me in believing that in most kinds of work the white man can be paid nearly double as much as the native, if not more. The white man, indeed, comes out cheaper.

Why, then, is a subsidy paid for white labour?

That is the point I am trying to ascertain. I am told, especially by the local bodies, that they pay the natives 2/6 a day, and they have to pay the Europeans 5/- or 6/- a day, and for that reason they think that the European is dearer than the native. If I am right, and I have data to prove it, then the Europeans can be paid twice as much as the natives. I have gone into the matter.

Is that the experience of the farmers?

I am prepared to allow a debate on this matter, because it is a good thing for the data to become known.

Why did the farmers not do their duty?

The farmers are doing their duty, but why are the townsmen not doing theirs? Look at the large number of natives they attract here and for whom they build houses here and who squeeze out the civilized workers like the coloured people. But let us discuss the matter calmly. If I prove that the white man earns just as much as two natives and we include the overhead expenditure, then it works out in favour of the European. My hon. friend laughs. I have had experiments carried out running over a period of from 10 to 11 years. I wonder whether he has ever tried to make an experiment?

I employ a European as my gardener and why does not the farmer do so?

I appreciate it that the hon. member has a European gardener. I hope all his domestics are European.

My domestic is a coloured person.

I have had experiments made and everywhere where I did so the result has been the same. When I was Administrator we had the experiments carried out in connection with the levelling of the ground for the hospital. We still have the figures and they show that white men did twice as much.

Why, then, is the subsidy paid?

I will answer that question later. I have had experiments made since 1921 and they have always been going on since. The other day I got more data. I would like very much to give them to the committee because there are many people who believe that native labour is cheaper than white labour. The experiments took place in three businesses. At that time I was still a director of that business and I was sorry to have to resign when I became Administrator. The experiments were in connection with wool bales, and were made with entirely unskilled labour. In East London the white labourers handled 27.92 bales per man per day, in Port Elizabeth 28.16, and in Durban the capable Zulu native handled 15.45 per man per day. The result was that the unit expense for the white labourers came out at 1/3⅓ in Port Elizabeth, 1/4⅓ in East London, while the cost in Durban for the natives was l/6⅓. The experiments have been going on all these years. I have the data. The results are always the same. I will give the papers to any hon. member who wants to see them. I just mentioned the position at the hospital grounds nearby, there they found that the white people dug out up to 5½ cubic yards a day while the other people only did 3½ cubic yards a day. If we put the European on a job under proper supervision the European always beats the native. I even have figures where a white man and a native were driving a team of oxen. The figures were prepared by an engineer and he found that the European in the driving of his oxen got 4d. a day per ox more out of his team than the native; this means that the European earns 4/- a day more with his team than the native. I went to the chairman of the board of directors of the Electricity Supply Commission, gave him the data and asked him to try and make a few experiments to see where the difference came in. They told me that they did not believe in it but that they would do so. They made an experiment at the power station at Colenso. Here is the report the manager inserted in the newspaper about the experiments that were made, in which he describes the whole system. Here also they could manage with just half the number of white labourers, as would have been the case if they had employed natives. He says in his report—

Now I ask my hon. friend there where does the difference come in? Let me say here that when I came into the department I was told that there was a difference in various directions between white and native labour, I immediately asked what the differences were. The differences are not only the differences between the wages of 6/- and 3/-, but they lie in the work that is done. I intend to make experiments everywhere, and where Europeans are just as economic and more economic than natives to make use of European labour. That will be done not merely in Government departments, and the Government is to-day the only one that is continuing with the civilised labour, but also local bodies, and there are local bodies that are going far in this direction, and private employers must follow this policy. The railways are also going far in this respect. It will, however, be seen that not the least injustice is done to the native. The natives also are citizens of the country and have the right of demanding that there shall be avenues of employment for them, but the Europeans must also have such avenues, and the avenues of the European are the industries of the country. The industries of the country were created by the European. I want at once to admit that if a man is taken away from the farm and he is immediately put into the industry he will be unsatisfactory, but is the native fitted to do the work when he is just out of the kraal? There is a period required for training. If private employers tell me they are prepared to do their duty, I am also prepared to do mine, and for a time, at any rate, to pay a part of the wages of the people to prove what I say. I welcome the way in which my hon. friend, the member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has tackled the position of unemployment in Cape Town. I need his assistance.

Why then did you insult me?

I have not insulted the hon. member. My friend will not in that way get out of his duty and his present duty is to assist us in solving the question of unemployment. What I ask of him now is to do his duty in the town, and to ask the employers to use civilized labour. I will do that on the countryside and in the other towns. If those people do their duty towards the European labourers then I do not know whether it will he necessary for us to import any more natives to do any of our work. I have tried as shortly as possible to set out the policy which I am going to follow. I had not the least intention of insulting the hon. member for Salt River or his constituents, and I am sorry that he had to reproach me with such a thing. I just want to reply also on a few points that were made before we adjourned. I hope that we can still pass the Vote to-night. The hon. member for Carolina (Mr. W. H. Rood) spoke of the registration of applicants at the post offices. The intention is to create such committees, they will be the body where registration will take place, and they will be able to hand over a list of people for consideration.

†The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Baumann) raised the question of financial assistance to Juvenile Affairs Boards. Let me say at once that I have the greatest appreciation of the work done by these boards. I have studied their reports, one and all, and they are doing very valuable work. I shall see what can be done in the next financial year with regard to their financial position, as I realise that they are labouring under severe difficulties as the result of the small amount that we are able to make available to them.

†*The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Swanepoel) requested that we should not leave the 1,400 to 1,500 diggers to their fate. The department has always felt responsibility for the diggers, and will also do so in future; but not to do double work, we are leaving the position as it was, and they will remain under the Department of Mines.

†The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) raised, among other matters, the question of insurance against unemployment. Well, there is, as he knows, the report of the Unemployment Investigation Commission.

Dusty with age.

Oh, no, it is not so very old. There are several other reports which are much older and which date back to 1905. This is of very recent origin, and some recommendations there are very well worth considering, and I shall give consideration to these during the recess, and hope that it will be possible for us to have some form of unemployment insurance. I am very sympathetic towards that for skilled trades.

Is your Finance Minister sympathetic?

I have no reason to doubt it. If some scheme could be devised it would be a very good thing. The hon. member asked that the work of different local bodies should be co-ordinated. That is most desirable and most necessary, and that is one of the points which my department is already dealing with, the co-ordination of the subsidies and assistance given to different local boards. Then there is the training of unemployed; that is a very difficult matter when you have to deal with thousands as we have to-day, but there are several directions in which they could be trained and I shall give my attention to that. Then there is the question of the reduction of hours of labour. That is a matter which is very prominent just now. Our delegate to the Labour Conference at Geneva has not had any definite instructions; he is left entirely free to give a totally impartial report, and he is acting on that matter at the conference.

I hope, if the Minister wants to get his vote through quickly next time, that he will wait before replying until all other members have spoken.

Business interrupted by the Deputy-Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee tomorrow.