I move—

I think that no one will think it necessary for me to apologise for the use of Afrikaans on this occasion. I know that there are several members opposite who will possibly find it difficult or inconvenient to follow my speech. But I trust that everyone agrees that it will not be unfair to expect of them that they will appreciate that there is a strong expectation among a large part of our people that we should for once depart from the traditions of the past and that they will for the first time have the privilege of hearing the introduction of the Budget in the other official language of the country. At the introduction of the additional estimates a few weeks ago I gave a short review of the financial position in 1924-’25. I will now speak somewhat more fully in view of the more detailed figures that are available to the treasury.

The original estimate of Revenue was £24,234,000. The original estimate of Expenditure was £24,346,000; giving a deficit of £112,000, which it was expected would disappear as the result of increased revenue or reduced expenditure.

The actual revenue collections have been £25,340,000, or an excess over the estimate of £1,106,000.

It will perhaps be of interest to the House if I give some particulars about the principal surpluses and deficits.

Customs showed an excess of £247,000. due to general improvement in business.

Excise on Spirits, £110.000, was down through reduced consumption by £76,000.

What about Local Option?

Yes, when Local Option is once there then the position will be much worse.

Excise on Patent Medicines, £10,000 down. Excise on Cigarettes and Tobacco, £55,000 up. Excise on Matches, £7,000 up.

Posts, £44,000 up. Telegraphs, no change. Telephones, £30,000 up. Official telephones and telegraphs (over-estimated), £21,000 down.

As hon. members know the practice was introduced last year that the respective departments should pay for their telephone service and the expenditure under that head was thus much greater.

Mining Revenue.—Diamond Mines (Government ownership): Receipts from Premier Company over-estimated, deficient by £61,000. Export Duty on Diamonds, up £78,000. The increase was due to improvement in diamond market during last few months.

Income Tax.—Gold Mines: Normal Tax, £83,000; Dividend Tax, £73,000; Leases (Tax-Equivalent), £41,000, up £197,000.

This is the amount which has not been paid into the loan funds, but to revenue.

In addition, the loan account has received £150,000 more than was anticipated in respect of gold mining leases.

The gold mines enjoyed a prosperous year owing to the gold premium being maintained throughout the greater part of their financial year (the calendar year) at a higher figure than obtained during the previous year, to reduced working costs and greater efficiency in working.

Diamond Mines.—The Normal Tax was down by £24,000; Dividend Tax up £20,000.

As to General Tax (including “other Mines”) Normal Tax was up £123,000; Dividend Tax up £74,000; and Super Tax up £177,000.

Total increase for Income Tax and Super Tax, £568,000.

These figures reflect the general improvement in business conditions, and super tax in particular reflects the increased dividends paid by gold mines and other companies, in addition to which the collection of arrear taxes has been good.

Excess Profits Duty was up £26,000. Only £5,000 was put down under this head, the tax having lapsed in 1920. The general improvement enabled collections to be made of longstanding arrears.

As hon. members know, this is a head of taxation which will shortly disappear because the Act has lapsed, but there is still a good deal of arrears and we are still getting in a good deal from this source, more than we expected.

Death Duties were up by £45,000. The increase was largely due to a large estate becoming taxable during the year.

Native Taxes were up by £63,000. The improved methods of collection continue to bear fruit, and have resulted in the recovery of a substantial amount of arrear tax.

Quitrents and farm taxes were up £10,000.

Interest was up £47,000.

Recoveries of advances were up by £88,000, due to the recovery under the 1924 Act of advances made in connection with miners’ phthisis.

Total excess £1,269,000, and total deficiency £182,000.

It is the old story.

Yes, it is the old story which is being told by those hon. members. Let me say at once that we on this side of the House were never opposed to the use of money for purposes of development. We of course opposed money being used from the loan funds for non-productive work. But even that figure is wrong. There is another fact that I must mention, viz., that the whole programme for which the £13,000,000 is necessary is for obligations incurred by the previous Government. We shall be obliged to spend still more money from the loan account to fulfil the obligations that the previous Government incurred. The public debt has not been increased by this Government by thirteen or eleven millions, but by £6,090,000 in consequence of work which must be done from the loan account. I may perhaps just mention that—

Noteworthy features are: The large expenditure upon telegraph and telephone construction, mainly, of course, the latter. Good progress was made with the development of the telephone system during the year with the result that a sum of £40,000 was asked for in additional supply so as to avoid suspension of work. A large proportion of the expenditure was on lines to farms of which, during the past two years, over 1,800 have been connected.

The Housing Loans proceeded slowly owing to delays on the part of local authorities. The total amount to which the Union Government is committed under this head is £2,381.000, of which £1,648,000 has been advanced to date and £733,000 remains as a commitment and will have to be provided in the future.

The expenditure in the past year by the Irrigation Department practically completes the works in progress with the exception of Hartebeestpoort. A small amount will still be necessary for this in the future.

It is satisfactory to note that the full amount provided to cover Provincial deficits was not required, the audited statements of Provincial expenditure showing reductions of £105,000 at the Cape, £30,000 in the Transvaal and £2,500 in Natal on the estimated deficits.

The funds provided under the Drought Distress Relief Act are being administered by the Land Bank, the latest information being that 5,813 applications, totalling £426,000, have been approved of. A number of applications still remain to be dealt with, and it is expected that the full amount of £500.000 made available herefor will be exhausted.

The expenditure of £11,665,000 has been provided for in the following way:—1. The credit balance on the loan account at the commencement of the year was £4,701.000. 2. Surrenders on 1923-’24 loan votes were £386,000. 3. Loan recoveries have been £2,105,000. against an estimate of £1,850,000.

The principal source of revenue included in this group is the leased gold mining areas. The estimated receipts under this head were £1,100,000, and the actual receipts were £1.254.000. The figure represents the consideration received from leases of gold mining areas after deducting, and paying to revenue, the amounts equivalent to taxation.

Mint receipts—these are the earnings of the Pretoria mint—have produced £140,000 against an estimate of £60.000—the requisitions for new silver coin having been much greater than was expected. After payment to revenue of a sum sufficient to meet the cost of operating the mint, surplus profits are paid to the loan account. The amounts so paid to the loan account to date have almost equalled the capital cost of the mint.

The other loan receipts represent repayment of loans and advances made from loan funds and proceeds of sale of Crown lands and assets provided out of loan funds.

Further amounts available for loan issued were:—4. Balance of proceeds—Union of South Africa 5 per cent. stock, 1933-’43 issued in 1923-’24, £1,129,000. 5. Loans raised, less loans repaid, £6,090,000. Two new stock loans were issued during the year; one of £8,000,000 in London (of which the Public Debt Commissioners took up £1,000,000) bearing interest at 5 per cent. and issued at approximately 99 and repayable in 1960, and after 1940 at the option of the Government. I may point out that the conditions of this loan are more favourable than we have obtained for some years. This encouraging news is not only an eloquent proof of the confidence which the outside world has in our sound economic conditions, but it also contradicts the statement of members opposite that the coming into power of this Government is injuriously affecting the credit of the country.

The other loan was issued locally and brought in £2,400,000. The loan was issued at par, rate of interest is 5 per cent., and the loan is repayable in 1935. The constant off-loading in the local market of the Certificates of Credit issued by the Custodian of Enemy Property undoubtedly absorbed a very great proportion of the money available here for gilt-edged investments, and Consequently militated against the success of the local loan.

£1,981,000 Union 4 per cent. Debentures were redeemed during the year, the balance of £4,000,000 Debentures which matured for payment in London on June 30th. 1924. The other £2,019,000 were converted during the preceding financial year.

£1,000 6 per cent. local stock was converted into stock of the new local issue.

The increase of the stock and debenture debt was accordingly £8,418,000 (£10,400,000 raised, less £1,982,000 repaid and converted), and as regards temporary loans, Treasury Bills, and the like, the loans repaid exceeded the loans raised by £2,328,000.

Thus more was repaid, on temporary loans than was raised from temporary loans.

Accordingly, the net amount of fresh borrowing was £6.090,000. This gives a total of funds to meet loan expenditure of £14,411,000. The loan expenditure was, as stated above. £11,665.000, and discount and costs of raising loans was £296.000—£11,961,000, giving a credit balance on the loan account at March 31st, 1925, of £2,450,000.

I may add that of course a large balance is necessarily kept on the loan account since this account has to finance the deficit on the revenue account and provide working balances.

This we have had to do in the past, and that is why we require this big balance in the loan account.

I thought under your administration the Public Debt would diminish. You said so.

No, I did not say that. The debt has been increased by £6,000,000 but not by £13,000,000.

That was the election cry.

I do not know how my hon. friend came by that. I do not think that anyone would be so foolish, because it is natural that we shall constantly require money for development. Certainly I personally did not say so.

The amount of the debt at 31st March. 1925, was £214,322,000 and comprises stock and debentures £195,232,000, and temporary loans £18,990,000 (Treasury Bills £14,884,000, Union Loan Certificates £4,106,000).

£139,000,000 stock and debentures are domiciled in London, and £56,000,000 stock and debentures and the whole of the temporary loans are domiciled here. This shows where our creditors are.

Union Government stocks of a face value of over 15 millions are held for the sinking funds. (The cost of these has been about 12 millions.) The net debt of the Union was accordingly, approximately. £199,000,000 at 31st March, 1925.

If the interest paid on the debt of £208,232,000 at 31st March, 1925, is apportioned between what is recoverable and what falls to be met by taxation, and assuming that the capital employed by the Post Office returns its full quota of interest through Post Office revenue, it will be found that interest is recovered in respect of 70 per cent, of the debt or £145,225,000, and falls to be borne by taxation in respect of 30 per cent, or £63,007,000.

The Post Office does not pay interest.

The hon. member says that the Post Office pays no interest. That is true, but I say that if we assume that the capital used By the Post Office brings up full interest by receipts

That is not the case.

I said if we assume it. We get no revenue from the Post Office just as is the case with the railway, it is only a matter of book-keeping. If we assume this, I say, then we arrive at the figures which I have given, otherwise, of course, we arrive at other figures. I may say that the position at the close of 1924-’25 will work out even better than this owing to the proportion that the reproductive capital expenditure made in 1924-’25 bears to the whole capital expenditure exceeding 70 per cent. to the large amount of loan receipts in that year and consequently the large capital expenditure provided for without borrowing and to the considerable reduction of the accumulated deficit as a result of the surplus of the past financial year.

It is the new Government.

Tax them.

I will take the suggestion into consideration.

As regards articles of food and drink, the importations increased from £6,903,000 in 1923 to £7,637,000 in 1924. This increase is largely due to higher prices of the articles imported.

We imported 45,000 tons more wheat in quantity and £400,000 more in value. On the other hand, we imported 6,000 tons less flour in quantity and £55,000 less in value than in 1923, indicating that the recent adjustment of the wheat and flour duties has been of service To the milling industry.

We imported 2,000,000 lbs. less of coffee, but had to pay £240,000 more for it. We imported 440,000 lbs. more tea, at an increased cost of £78,000.

Now I come to the position of the revenue in 1925-’26. It is probably the most difficult task of the Budget to estimate the revenue a year in advance.

Prohibition.

Yes, if that comes the figures will have to come down more. The last has been seen of the Patent Medicine Revenue. On the other hand, the consumption of tobacco, and particularly of cigarettes, continues to expand and an increase of £15,000 is allowed for under this head. Small increases under sugar and matches are also allowed for.

Under the head of Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones an increase of £80,000 is allowed for most of which is due to the expansion of the telephone system. I am glad to say that under the able administration of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs the post office shows splendid progress. The revenue increases every day which is always a gladdening thing to the Treasury.

What about the penny postage?

I wish the hon. member would not anticipate.

As regards diamond mining revenue, the view of the hon. member for Kimberley has been accepted. Namely, that the total production and sales for the year, including South-West Africa, will approach £10½ millions.

I hope that we shall not be disappointed on this point because I have based the figures on the knowledge and great experience of the hon. member for Kimberley and the information that he was so good as to give us the other day.

On this basis the revenue from diamonds is expected to be:—

Government ownership (Premier Mine), £435,000, against £339,000 for 1924-’25.

Export Duty, £850,000, against £728,000 for 1924-’25.

Normal and Dividend Tax, £580,000, against £291,000 for 1924-’25.

Total, £1,665,000, against £1,358,000 for 1924-’25.

That is in all £307,000 more than the receipts in 1924-’25.

The hon. Minister is very optimistic.

As I have already said the estimate was based on the assumption that the number of diamonds which will be increased during the coming financial year will be larger than for the year just ended.

As to Gold Mining Revenue, it would be wrong to ignore the probability that, while the production of the gold mines will probably be as much in 1925 as in 1924, the profits will be sensibly lower owing to the disappearance of the gold premium which in the year 1924 contributed no less than £3,828,000 to the profits of the industry.

The estimate for the yield of normal and dividend tax from the gold mines (including the tax equivalent included in the lease consideration of the leased areas) has been put at £1,570,000 against receipts of £1,842,000 for 1924-’25, a reduction of £272,000.

Hon. members will see that the drop in profits in consequence of the removal of the premium has been taken into consideration. We feel however that we are not justified in taking the same figure for the receipts from the gold mines as in the past year.

The estimate of the receipts accruing to the loan account from leased areas has also been reduced. But in this case the loss suffered by the disappearance of the premium will be made up to a great extent by the increased proceeds from the leased areas.

As to Income Tax, other than that derived from gold and diamond mines has been put at £4,205,000 against £4,060,000 (including Super Tax) collected in 1924-’25, approximately £145,000 more.

I hope that as a result of the better harvests expected by the farmers they will not disappoint me and will be in a position to contribute more. We cannot expect to repeat last year’s collections of excess profits duty (£31,000) but the head is kept open with an estimate of £5,000.

There is also likely to be a small falling off in the receipts from death duties, while last year’s recovery of £85,000 from the Miners’ Phthisis Fund will not be repeated.

Under the interest head normal increase is allowed for. Other heads of revenue do not call for special comment. The revenue for 1925-’26 is accordingly put down at £25,822,000 or £1,588,000 more than the estimate and £482,000 more than the collections for last year.

These figures and the figures of the Estimates which will be tabled are framed on the existing basis of taxation.

Expenditure, 1925-’26.

Now I come to the position of the expenditure for 1925-’26. The estimates of expenditure from revenue are fairly fully dealt with on the memorandum prefacing the printed estimates; it is, therefore, unnecessary to deal with them in detail here, beyond remarking that of the increase of £1,932,000 over the original estimates of 1924-’25, £949,000 is accounted for by the proposed increased grants to provinces in terms of the Durban agreement, as to which legislation will be introduced very shortly. If hon. members approve of the agreement, it is an amount over which the Treasury will have very little control. £366,000 is accounted for by the increase in the public debt charges; £128,000 by the provision of a contribution calculated, if maintained annually, to extinguish the liability of the Cape Civil Service Pension Fund in 26 years; and £223,000 by the increase on various heads in the pensions vote—again a normal increase over which the Treasury has no control. £160,000 is accounted for by the assumption by the Union of certain functions in regard to technical education hitherto exercised by the provinces; £27,000 by increased provision for universities and colleges and technical institutions.

That accounts for the total of £1,853,000.

If we take from this the items over which the Treasury has no control, then the increase on the actual expenditure of last year is only approximately £114,000, and there is therefore not much in the criticism of hon. members opposite that the Government have increased the expenditure enormously.

Summary.

The expenditure for 1925-’26 is estimated at £26,279,000.

The revenue for 1925-’26 is estimated at £25,822,000.

Giving a deficit on the existing basis of taxation of £457,000.

A survey of the Union’s financial position would be incomplete without some reference to the position of the provinces, though this aspect will be dealt with comprehensively when the legislation regarding the change in financial relations is introduced (i.e., the Durban agreement).

It will be recollected that under the Financial Relations Amendment Act of last year, the accumulated deficits of the provinces at the 31st March, 1924, were funded and covered by a loan from the Government repayable in 10 years.

The total amounts which have been issued are as follows:—

Cape, £1,272,000 (including £60,000 for stores capital).

Natal, £32,657 (including £29,000 for stores and recoverable advances capital).

Transvaal, £223,940 (including £53,000 for refund of Native Poll Tax).

O.F.S., £135,973; or a total of £1,664,570.

Every province has again incurred a deficit in respect of the year just closed, the latest figures available being:—

Cape, £314,000; Natal, £35,000; Transvaal, £145,000; O.F.S., £20,000; or a total of £514,000.

These are deficits of income as against expenditure for the past financial year. Hon. members will remember that in the beginning of the past year a conference in connection here with was held in Cape Town by my predecessor. The conference was a failure, and then the previous Government decided to practically do nothing more, except to make the salaries of the teachers uniform for all the provinces. The previous deficits were consolidated, with the result that all the provinces had to borrow money during the past year to cover the deficits. It is those figures that I have mentioned. If the deficits had not been consolidated, then the provincial administrations would have had to levy considerable taxation during the last year to cover the expenditure.

These deficits we also propose to fund now that the provinces are going to be put on a new basis of subsidy, and their total indebtedness to the Union will, therefore, be in the region of £2,178,000.

This amount is, of course, quite independent of their indebtedness in respect of capital expenditure, the outstanding balance on this head being approximately £7,500,000.

We shall have to do the same as was done last year, viz., to Consolidate the deficit so that the provincial councils can make a fresh start. This is the only way of solving the difficulties.

We know that under the existing Financial Relations Act advances are made from time to time, and those represent the figure that I have given.

Provincial Subsidy.

Coming now to the subsidy, the amount provided this year is £5,378,000, as against last year’s £4,429,000—an increase of £949,000.

Had there been no alteration in the method of calculation of subsidy, we should, in the ordinary way, have provided an additional 3 per cent, or about £126,000, so that the net increase owing to the change in subsidy is really £823,000.

I can say here that as hon. members will see the basis for the calculation of the subsidy on the estimates has been, with certain alterations, that laid down by the commission of enquiry into provisional finances, in the Baxter report. It is not possible to discuss the matter further now. As I have already said, I intend to lay the necessary legislation in good time before the House.

With the altered relations the provinces will give up the turnover tax and the companies’ tax (in the Cape); because I intend to place all the provinces on the same footing, and in future taxation will only be laid on the income of companies and no longer on the share capital. It is the case to-day in the Cape Province that taxation is also levied on shares. The revenue surrendered is: Cape, £125,000: Transvaal, £100,000; O.F.S., £20,000; or a total of £245,000.

This will, therefore, mean an actual decrease in the burdens which are now laid on the tax-payer by the provinces.

The position is, therefore, that the provinces will have enough under the new scheme to enable them, not only to avoid incurring deficits, but to incur a substantial amount of additional expenditure on expansion.

If the House approves of our proposals, then the consequence will be that in the future, at any rate for a considerable number of years, they will be in a position of not only covering the deficits, but also of making considerable improvements in educational matters and other functions appertaining to the Provincial Council.

Licence Duties.

I should add here that in accordance with the agreement arrived at with the provinces, the Union Government will introduce a Bill making the duties for licences uniform throughout the Union. This Bill will naturally have to emanate from Committee of Ways and Means, and I shall later this afternoon table the relative resolution. The Bill will deal with a few Union licences, but in the main, with the licences which are at present levied by Provincial Councils and, though the Union will, in future, levy these licences, the proceeds will go to the several provincial revenue funds. There will be a greater measure of uniformity. This is the only way by which the licence duties can be made uniform, and the public of the Union be secured from being differentially taxed by the provinces through this medium.

This is something on which we have insisted in the past, but unhappily, the previous Government did not do it in the past. We hope to also put this matter on a satisfactory basis now that we are engaged in placing the whole relations of the provincial administrations on a sound basis.

Then I come to another important matter in which I think the House will take interest, and that is the surplus of the custodian of enemy property.

Custodian of Enemy Property.

In view of the work of the Custodian of Enemy Property approaching completion as close a valuation as possible of his assets and liabilities has been made.

Hon. members know that this is a separate office of the Treasury and the Custodian has dealt with certain assets. Our intention is to liquidate the position and in view hereof the assets, liabilities have been valued.

After meeting from the funds charges of £44,000 for compensation paid to civilians for loss of life, personal injury, and loss of personal effects through enemy action, and £189,000 for repatriation of German nationals from the Union and South-West Africa, it is estimated that his assets will exceed his liabilities by £3,419,000.

His assets consist of:—

Union Treasury Bills, £11,052,000.

Union 5 per cent. Stock (at face value), £609,000.

Certificates of Credit (at face value), £985.000.

Total, £12,646,000.

And the liabilities in respect of certificates of credit issued, and to be issued, and other claims to be met, are estimated at £9,227,000. The surplus has arisen through:—

1. (a) Compounding of interest on the investment of the custodian’s income and profits on the appreciation of investments, e.g., Government Stock and Certificates of Credit purchased at a discount.
2. (b) The difference between income earned on ex-enemy investments and the capitalized interest of 4 per cent, allowed.

It may be observed that the public revenue has contributed a very considerable share of this surplus. Except for the million of his own liabilities (Certificates of Credit) and some Union Stock, which the custodian has purchased in the market, all his funds have been lent to the Treasury against Treasury Bills and Union Stock. Until 1922 the rates of interest paid on the Treasury Bills held by the custodian were the same as those paid to the public, and during a very considerable period these rates were very much in excess of 4 per cent. On the stock held by the custodian 5 per cent. is paid. So that the Treasury has paid considerably more in interest than the custodian was liable to pay, and has paid interest on a liability to the custodian which was greater than his liability to others.

It is to be observed that all the custodian’s funds have been treated just as if they were ordinary loan moneys—they have gone into the loan account with the proceeds of other loans and have been spent on objects charged to the loan account, so that the only means of converting the surplus into cash would be by cashing Treasury Bills, which could only be done by borrowing afresh.

It is proposed to deal with this surplus in the following way—

1. (1) To make the certificates of credit a direct liability of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Union. (The Government will be made responsible therefor.
2. (2) To write off the accumulated deficit on the Revenue Account against the surplus. This was £1,918,000 at the commencement of last financial year (1924-’25) and has been reduced to £1,100,000 at the close of that financial year by the surplus of revenue over ordinary expenditure for that year.
3. (3) Apply £700,000 of it to roads (£500,000) —because the provinces cannot get money to repair roads—and boring; land settlement and other matters £200,000, especially in South-West Africa.
4. (4) Cancel debt to the extent of the remainder.

The effect of this on the Public Debt vote will be to reduce the annual charge for interest by just over £100,000 per annum, and it is proposed to convert this charge for interest into a charge for redemption, and during the currency of the certificates of credit (30 years from date of issue) to pay £100,000 per annum to the Public Debt Commissioners as a sinking fund for debt redemption generally.

I hope that hon. members understand this, and more will accordingly be done for redemption.

It is very probable that further amounts may come in to swell the surplus in the shape of moneys collectible from the British and French public trustees. It is proposed that windfalls of this nature shall also be paid to the Public Debt Commissioners for debt redemption generally.

We know that in the past an officer of my department went to England and France and he was successful in obtaining considerable amounts in France and England in connection with shares that they held there. These monies we got here. We wish in the future also to take further steps to get amounts here to increase the surplus under this head. Any amounts that come in in this way I also intend to hand over for further redemption of debt.

These proposals will be embodied in the Financial Adjustments Bill and submitted to the House later in the session.

Redemption of Debt.

Now just a few words in connection with the redemption of debt.

The annual charge on the revenue for redemption of debt will, therefore, be for the future—

£100,000 in accordance with the arrangement outlined above.

£400,000 in respect of the Transvaal and Orange Free State guaranteed loans. (We have always in the past made provision every year for this amount. It is actually the only amount for which provision has been made during the last six years.)

£24,000 in respect of the local loan issued last year.

Hon. members will remember that a sinking fund of 1 per cent. was connected with the last loan raised locally. The intention is to always do this in the future in connection with local loan, and it has therefore been taken into consideration here. It is laid down as the general policy in this connection. It is perhaps impractical in connection with local loans outside the Union. The persons outside from whom we borrow money are on the whole not so much in favour of this system, but with us it is actually popular. It has also helped to make a success of our last loan and we intend to follow this procedure in connection with further local loans.

This gives a total of £524,000 or .83 (16s. 7½d.) per cent. on the amount of the unproductive debt, and if we continue to set up a sinking fund by contributions of 1 per cent. per annum in respect of every new loan issued locally, we should, in a short space of time, reach a completely satisfactory position as regards redemption of debt.

Expenditure from Loan Funds.

The Estimates of Capital Expenditure from Loan Funds, 1925-’26 have not yet been completed, but it may be assumed that the expenditure will be rather more than the expenditure for the year just closed, viz., £11,665,000; to meet it we have a credit balance on the loan account at 1st April of £2,450,000.

Of which there is required to finance the revenue deficit £1,100,000. I just want to make this clear. Although the deficit is wiped out by the proposal, as a matter of fact cash is not available or a loan would have to be concluded. Therefore it is necessary to use the amount of £1,100,000 for the deficit concerned. There is thus available £1,350,000.

Receipts accruing to the loan account in 1925-’26 estimated at £2,000,000.

In addition, the Railway Administration will repay the Treasury £250,000.

The Minister of Railways and Harbours intends to pay a quarter of a million to the Treasury out of his surplus to reduce the capital account of the railways. In other words when he subsequently comes to me to advance him an amount for further railway extension I shall already have £250,000 available which he has paid in advance. That amount then it is not necessary for me to borrow. So that we have in hand or in sight £3,600,000 to meet this year’s capital expenditure.

In accordance with the recommendation of the currency experts we are re-instituting the practice of selling short dated Treasury Bills under discount and it is hoped that a broad and active market in these bills may be established. As we know my predecessor a long time since stopped the practice of selling short currency Treasury bills. From the 1st April the practice has been resumed and we intend again selling Treasury bills at a discount.

Union Loan Certificates.

As regards Union Loan Certificates, with the expiration of the 5 years’ period from the date of first issue of these certificates, the tendency is naturally for the withdrawals to exceed the sales. We know that about five years ago a commencement was made with the issue of Union Loan Certificates. Five years have passed and many are now payable. Many people reinvest but many withdraw the amounts, therefore the position is that the amount we shall have under this item will be less than what is drawn out. For 1924-’25 the excess of withdrawals over sales was £174,000. Doubtless this figure would have been very much greater but for the propaganda work of the National Thrift Committee. May I express our thanks to the National Thrift Committee of which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is chairman. The committee was appointed by me shortly after the new Government came into power with a view to doing propaganda work in connection with Union Loan Certificates and loans. The committee has done especially good work and the Government and the country are indebted to it.

Currency.

When introducing the Budget for last year I mentioned that the Government intended to seek the opinion of experts on the question of resuming specie payments when the legislation authorizing suspension of the convertibility of our paper money expires at the end of June.

Professor E. W. Kemmerer of Princeton University, U.S.A., one of the foremost authorities in the world on currency and banking questions, and Dr. G. Vissering, the President of the Netherlands Bank and a banker and economist of world-wide reputation, accepted our invitation to advise us, and after conducting a very thorough inquiry and getting through a great deal of hard work in a short space of time, these gentlemen submitted the report which has been published and presented to this House. The subject-matter of the inquiry being one of the first importance, I am having the full record of the proceedings published—as soon as the translation has been completed— and though it will be a bulky volume I can confidently commend its careful perusal to those who are interested in this highly technical subject. The translation of the evidence will shortly be finished and I hope it will be read far and wide.

These experts reported unhesitatingly in favour of the resumption of specie payments on the 1st of July next and recommended that the Government should come to a decision on the question promptly, and having done so should make its intention known to the public immediately.

This was done and the public of the Union will have had practically six months’ notice that the existing legislation will stand and convertibility be resumed on the 1st July next.

It is unnecessary to go into the reasons of the Commissioners for their recommendation nor the advantages which they consider attach to tying South African currency to gold rather than sterling. These are stated with exceptional clarity in the report, which is so tersely and lucidly written that there is no excuse for anyone not reading and digesting it whether he is familiar with the subject or not.

Since early in December, South African currency has been practically at parity with gold —it has been at times a shade below parity and at times a shade above parity, but, generally speaking, it has been continuously at about gold par, with the result that a large amount of raw gold has been sold in this country, minting is proceeding steadily, and a considerable quantity of gold has been exported in the form of sovereigns.

Hon. members have seen that during the past few weeks a considerable amount of specie has been exported to other countries, e.g., to Australia. Unhappily, we have found that the mint is much too small to meet the demand, and the Government is considering how far we can make provision for the requirements of the gold mines, etc.

For more than three months, therefore, our Currency has been at gold parity without any of the gold mines getting into difficulties and generally without any untoward results.

Hon. members know that it has always been said that it would be a dangerous step to return to parity in certain circumstances. Although this was not the legal position, we have actually for a few months practically been at parity without the country thereby experiencing any injurious consequences.

It is true that just as previously our currency depreciated in terms of gold in company with sterling, so recently it has appreciated in company with sterling, and that everything points to sterling maintaining or improving its position vis-a-vis gold. Nevertheless, and although a further depreciation of sterling seems improbable, it seems sound that having once achieved the position we are in to-day as regards the currency, we should definitely clinch the matter and tie up with gold and so avoid taking any risk whatever of a further depreciation and all that such a depreciation might entail in the shape of inflation necessarily to be followed in the fulness of time by a further deflation with the consequences so familiar to all of us. The commission further made certain recommendations as to the adoption of a more active policy by the Reserve Bank in regard to what are termed open market operations. The bank has already started opening branches in the coastal towns, as recommended by the commission.

To a large extent this can be done without extending the statutory powers of the bank, and the bank has already made a commencement. Some minor amendments of the Act of 1920 are proposed in order to increase the bank’s power of making advances. Of these the most important perhaps has reference to bills secured by warehouse receipts, and as it involves an amendment of the Roman Dutch law requires more consideration than will enable it to be dealt with during the current session. The other amendments can probably stand over for a year without any serious difficulties arising from the delay.

Native Tax Consolidation.

I now come to the consolidation of native taxation. The Government has already made public the proposals in regard to the consolidation of the Native Tax Laws, and a draft Bill appeared in the Gazette in January last. The changes which the Bill will bring about, though important in themselves, will not have any appreciable effect on the revenue position of the Union. Hon. members will see why.

At present we receive in direct taxes from natives some £900,000. Under the new scheme there will be a revenue of £1,125,000 from the general tax, and £290,000 from the local tax, the proceeds of the latter tax being payable to the native councils. Thus the Union Treasury will not get a penny of it.

Four-fifths of the general tax, or about £900,000, will go to Union revenue; the remaining one-fifth, or £225,000, will go to the projected Native Development Account to be applied to the general welfare and advancement of natives. The full surplus of taxation over that which we now draw will thus go to the natives themselves through the native councils.

The Union will be recouped from the Native Development Account the special advances which have been made since 1923-’24 from loan funds for the improvement of native teachers salaries. By the time the account is established the amount to be refunded will be about £200,000. Hon. members know that for two years now advances have been made out of loan account for native salaries. The amount will have to be made good when the native councils have instituted their account.

I now come to a matter in which hon. members and also the people outside take perhaps the greatest interest, namely, the proposed change in the revenue. I wish in this connection only to refer to the anxiety shown by hon. members opposite about our election promises. Well, with regard to that, a change will now be made.

Tobacco Excise.

It is proposed to repeal the excise duties payable on leaf tobacco, roll tobacco, pipe tobacco and that used in the making of cigars, but to leave the duties on cigarettes and on tobacco used in their manufacture unchanged. The legislation required to give effect to these proposals will have retrospective effect to the 1st of April. Thus, in other words, it comes into operation immediately. This will involve a loss of revenue of £200,000. This will of course have to be borne in mind in connection with the figures given.

Penny Postage.

After full consideration the Government has decided to restore the penny postage.

It is felt that this step will meet a demand that is almost general right throughout the Union. It is hoped that it will inspire greater confidence in the country, and that it will promote trade, and thereby stimulate further development.

It is estimated that the cost of restoring the penny post will be approximately £400,000 per annum, and this is after making allowance for an increased volume of traffic owing to the reduced rate.

For the current financial year, however, the loss will only be £100,000 as the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs proposes to celebrate the inauguration of the penny post by the issue of a set of South African stamps of new design. These will take a few months to prepare and get printed.

The penny post will, therefore, commence as from 1st January next.

I hope that the disappointment is not so great as it appears. I thought that as the Treasury had softened its heart, this would have been accepted with satisfaction. It appears as if it is not appreciated, but I think that it will be appreciated outside in the country.

The pre-war rates of 1d. per ½-ounce on letters and ½d. for postcards will be restored. These rates will only apply to letters within the Union and the South-West Africa territory. Letters and postcards for overseas, or outside the Union, will have to be stamped as at present.

With regard to newspaper postage, the House will be pleased to hear that the Government has decided to restore the pre-war rate of ¼d. per copy on newspapers posted in bulk by publishers, not exceeding 8 oz. each in weight, practically at once. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs proposes to introduce a new method of bulk posting for newspapers that will save the department, as well as the publishers, much time and money. It will take a week or two for the department to make the necessary arrangements.

Thus it will almost immediately come into operation.

New Customs Tariff.

Now I come to a matter of great importance, namely, the revised customs tariff.

It is the intention of the Government to place a revised customs tariff before the House for consideration.

The principles contained therein are—

1. (a) The adequate protection of Union industries ;
2. (b) the admission free of duty, or at the lowest rate possible, of the raw materials of industry;
3. (c) the adjustment of the preferential tariff rates given unconditionally in favour of goods grown, produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom, and reciprocally to the dominions, colonies and possessions. The Government propose to place them, as far as possible, on a “quid pro quo” basis, and to withdraw the rebate entirely on articles in which Great Britain predominantly holds the market, or where a proprietary name or trade mark is the determining factor in the sale of an article.

The amount of duty rebated on goods of British and dominion origin in 1924 was approximately £950,000, namely, £860,000 to Great Britain and £90,000 to the dominions.

Under the revised scale the total rebate granted will be approximately £300,000 to Great Britain and £50,000 to the dominions.

Perhaps I may add here that if the tariff is strictly placed on the “quid pro quo” basis that the amount would only have been £200,000. Hon. members will thus see that this proposal means 50 per cent. more than the “quid pro quo” basis.

While the rebate is thus withdrawn in certain cases, it is retained in other cases and even increased from the present rate of 3 per cent. to rates ranging from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent.

Hon. members will thus see that the Government intend to do this; to withdraw the rebate on articles of which the trade in South Africa is already for a large part in the hands of Great Britain. But on other articles of which we have received a list from the British Government we are even increasing it to put them in a position of keeping or winning the market.

A list of articles on which preferential rates of duty will apply will be printed and placed on hon. members’ tables to-morrow.

I regret that an agitation has been started to create the impression that we were inspired by racial considerations in amending the preference tariff and were not acting on economic lines. It has already been known for a long time that the preference tariff rested on an unsound basis. In 1923 Gen. Smuts, before his departure for England, stated that the position was one-sided. I do not wish to discuss the matter further. But I wish to say this for the information of hon. members and of the country, that the Government has not been moved by anti-British feeling, but has approached the subject from the point of view of the interests of South Africa.

(d) The provision of maximum and minimum rates of duty on certain commodities, in order to enable the Government to negotiate with countries outside the British Commonwealth for most-favoured nation terms for South African produce and manufactures; a course that is very necessary if we are to procure additional markets overseas for the rapidly-expanding production of the country. This will, however, not be applicable on certain commodities on which the preference is maintained or increased in favour of Great Britain or the dominions.

Hon. members, therefore, again see that while maximum and minimum rates are here spoken of, they will not be applicable to articles that we have selected, and on which we intend to keep the rebate. The tariff will further make provision for—

(e) A system of suspended duties. Certain industries are in a nascent stage, and do not at present warrant the introduction of protective duties, but under the system of suspended protective duties they will be encouraged to justify their existence, in the knowledge that protection will be forthcoming without delay as soon as they satisfy the Government that it ought to be given.

We see that industries will be encouraged as soon as it is considered advisable in the, opinion of the Government. There are certain industries which are being started. They will not yet enjoy immediate protection, but as soon as they can convince the Board of Trade and Industries and the Government that they require more protection, then provision will be made therefor.

I hope then that you will strengthen the Board of Trade and Industries.

Well, the Government thinks that the Board of Trade and Industries has done extraordinary good work since its coming into existence. The personnel of the Board enjoys the confidence of the Government and also, I think, deserves it. The tariff presented to the House will show the existing and proposed rates of duty in opposite columns. The tariff in pamphlet form, with an index, will be distributed to hon. members, and it is hoped thereby to facilitate the deliberations of the House. I hope that this will appear on the Order Paper to-morrow and that the details will be made available for members.

Will the report of the board be printed?

Yes. I think it is of sufficient importance to have it in print.

Will the further report also be available? No copies are available.

As soon as I am finished speaking it will be laid on the Table.

I take it that this is a promise.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will understand that it must necessarily wait until I have made my proposals to the House.

It is promised—

We will not now discuss the question of the report in connection with flour.

The adjustment of the British and Dominions preference will bring in an increased revenue of £600,000. Other adjustments in the rates of duty involve a net reduction of revenue of £200,000, bringing the increased yield of the new tariff to £400,000 more than that of the existing tariff.

This the consumer will have to pay.

Hon. members have not even seen the proposal and they are already making such observations. It depends, of course, on the proposals. Do hon. members say that the £400,000 represents more taxation? I have already said that I do not wish to deny this, although the report of the Board of Trade and Industries says that it will not lower the cost of living. But naturally, as the Treasury gets £400,000 more, it means that this comes back upon the taxpayer. But this we shall justify to the people. Hon. members anticipate a little.

I now come to alterations that must be made in taxation laws, namely, the Income Tax Act. I intend proposing that the dividend chapter of the Act shall be repealed.

seconded the motion.

On the motion of the Minister of Railways and Harbours the debate was adjourned until to-morrow.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Mr. Allen from service on the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities and has appointed Mr. Fordham in his stead.

I move—

The position is simply this. That the Zaaiplaats Tin Mining Company acquired various interests under each of which they had to pay to the State a certain percentage with or without other payments. These percentages and payments vary, and it is proposed now to make the percentages uniform after, as it were, theoretically merging the various interests. It is done in order to simplify matters for the Treasury in calculating these percentages and to simplify matters for the company itself. The matter has been gone into by the Mining Leases Board which has examined the representations of the company, and has gone into the lease and the figures. The matter has also been gone into by the officials of the Treasury and the recommendation is unanimous that this consolidation to produce uniformity should be given effect to. That is the object of this motion, and I move it accordingly.

seconded.

I have an amendment which I would ask the Minister to accept, and that is to refer this matter to a select committee of the House. That select committee should report to the House on the matter before it agrees to ratify the terms of the amended leases. There is a sub-section (4) in section 13 of the Act (No. 30 of 1918) under which this alteration is being made, and that provides that no amendment of a lease shall be allowed if it alters the share of profits paid to the Government, until such alteration has been submitted to, and approved by, Parliament. I don’t think many members of the House are aware of the terms of the lease or of the result the alteration aims at. It is possible that if they went into this matter they might extract further information of interest. There is no provision in the draft agreement arrived at binding the company to work these leased areas, and we feel it should provide a direct clause in the lease securing that these areas should be worked, except where a good reason is given for their standing idle, and in the event of the company not providing that good reason, then, after a reasonable length of time, their title should lapse and the State should exercise its legal power to release these claims to some other applicant or work them itself if expedient. The difficulty put up by the company is that these leased areas, the percentage of profit payable on which it is proposed to re-adjust, adjoin areas which don’t pay any percentage of dividend to the Government at all, and the company claims that it is impossible to allocate the cost of working the leased areas separately from that of the areas already held and privately owned, and which it is intended to work jointly with the leased areas. It is easily possible for the company to arrive at an adjustment of cost which would very nearly give the exact figure which the various sections of the exploited area would cost to run. Given capital outlay, yield and working cost, no difficulty is apparent. Mining to-day is an exact science. The leases ran, I understand, from 1907 to 1917, when the terms were amended in the company’s favour, and a similar difficulty would then have confronted them had it been in their interests to put it forward at that time. This difficulty has not been insurmountable up to the present, and it is only when it comes to leasing these new areas that it presents itself for the first time: As there is a principle involved on which an important precedent may be set up, I would content myself with just asking the Minister of Mines and Industries to accept the amendment and give us time to get further information, and then the House will know whether it is actually in conformity with the interests of the Government and the State to agree to these leases. I move, as an amendment—

I beg to second, and trust that the Minister will accept this amendment on the merits of the case, as well as on the principle. There is no doubt whatever that such a recommendation as this should be very carefully gone into, and, while I do not for a moment question the care which has been exercised in the official routine, at the same time there is a question of areas having been taken on and added to existing leases, and handed over to Companies to work with very little control indeed on the part of the Government. I hold that the time is coming very quickly when the Government must have a representative on companies in which, as a State, they are interested. In many instances the Government share of mines is handed over to a company, the Government having no control whatever, no representative on the board, and then, of course, you have what these companies are really out for—the private profit of the shareholder, and in many cases manipulation of the market. The Government are proceeding very dangerously indeed when they agree to sink their special rights in the larger rights which are absorbed in this sort of amalgamation—perhaps reflotation. When the Government are asked to go into partnership with companies it should be laid down and accepted as a principle that a Select Committee of this House will report upon it, in addition to the usual routine of official enquiry. The day when we have public directors appointed by the Government upon such companies we shall get some assurance that the State rights and the rights of the people will be protected. I, therefore, trust that the Minister of Mines will see his way to accede to our request, because it cannot possibly, as far as I Can see, harm the Zaaiplaats company in regard to their operations. They are at present, and have been for a considerable length of time, carrying on their operations without any difficulty. I would like to see the Government protected very strongly in regard to the company. Supposing the company say, “It suits us to shut down, for purposes of our own,” where do the Government Come in in regard to saying, “You shall not shut down; we are interested parties, and you must work”? I think the Government in their own interests would be wise to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) and send the matter to a Select Committee so that Parliament may have the report and know what it is doing, and then ultimately lay down the principle that, wherever we are partners, we should be represented on the control board.

I hope that the Minister will agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen), because I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Hay) that it is a good thing when agreements of this kind are to be ratified by this House that that should not be done without a thorough investigation by this House. I do not doubt that the thing has been thoroughly gone into by the officials, but I think that this House ought to satisfy itself by a Select Committee of its own members that any variation made in these agreements is justified and is in the interests of the State.

The Public Accounts Committee.

I think that would be quite satisfactory, as far as I am concerned. I do not know that I go as far as the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Hay) in requiring that a public director should be on the board of each of these companies. I think that, unless you are in a position to have a majority on the board, one director is not of very much use, but that is a matter which we can discuss later on, but I support the amendment both on the principle and because I do not think that one-tenth, or one per cent. perhaps, of the members of this House have seen this proposed alteration or have the remotest idea what it is all about. The papers were laid on the Table on March 20th, and I have not been able to get hold of them.

I accept the amendment. I thought it was a plain-sailing matter. I quite agree with hon. members that if there is something more than meets the eye, a matter like this should be further gone into.

I will now proceed to put the amendment to refer this matter to a Select Committee.

The Public Accounts Committee.

May I ask the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) to refer the matter to the Public Accounts Committee and alter his amendment accordingly.

I am quite willing.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to.

House in Committee:

Paragraph I (Recommendations Nos. 1 to 30) and paragraphs IV and V of the report [S.C. 6—’25] put.

I should like to ask whether these conditions to be applied to new trading sites in Natal are also intended to apply to trading sites in the rest of the Union. I refer to paragraph 4 (b). I would like to know if the same course is followed in other parts as is now recommended in Natal.

It is an arrangement which the department consider to be necessary for the future.

These recommendations do not apply to the Transvaal or to trading sites in Cape Colony proper. The position is rather different in Natal. The revenue obtained from the trading sites goes to the native trust fund and is utilized for the benefit of the natives. The natives in the Transvaal do not desire trading sites to be granted on similar conditions.

I do not think that is altogether satisfactory because these conditions seem so reasonable. For instance—

Has a similar course been adopted in other parts of the country? If not, why not? All these seem most admirable conditions. Take No. 3—

I have no objection to them and I do not want to oppose their being brought into operation as far as native trust lands in Natal are concerned. I do not think the fact that the revenue in the one case goes into the Natal Native Trust— which is the Government—really makes any difference.

I might say that in the granting of trading stations there is no uniformity at all in the different provinces. It is really a matter that arises from past administration, prior to Union. In the Transkei we have a different system from that in force in the Cape, and the Transvaal and Natal are entirely different. The system that may apply in Natal may be good there, but does not apply to the Transkei, nor do I think it would be applicable in the Cape Province. The point the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) makes is that if certain revenues are allocated to the native trust in Natal, that province should also get some return, but in the Transkei the matter has actually been brought before the Native Transkeian Council, and the natives and the administration there do not obtain or desire any revenue from the granting of these particular sites.

If the hon. member who is chairman of the Select Committee is not prepared to give the House the information asked for by hon. members, on an important report of this character, surely it is only right that the Minister of Native Affairs should be in the House when an important question of this sort is being discussed. Perhaps, under the circumstances, the chairman of the committee would like to report progress and ask leave to sit again, until the Minister is present. I am glad the Minister of Native Affairs has now come in.

As I have stated before, this is a resolution which the department requires for the future, and the need of which the department has felt for a number of years. It is required so that in future certain information must be got by the permanent Native Commission, and then it can come to Parliament. I may also inform hon. members on the other side that it is the intention to move that these two resolutions, Nos. 4 and 5, be referred to the Government for consideration.

I do not think the hon. member quite grasped my questions. I have no objection to these conditions, which his committee has recommended should be adopted with regard to trading sites on lands belonging to the Natal Native Trust, but what I asked was, why the same conditions are not recommended in connection with native lands in other parts of the Union? We have native territories in other parts of the Union besides Natal, and if conditions similar to those now recommended with regard to Natal are in operation in the other native territories, I would be glad to know of it. If they are not in operation, why are these conditions to be applied only in the Case of Natal native lands? I am referring to the recommendation on page 13 of the Select Committee’s report, clause 4 (b). The conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) are most excellent, but I want to know whether such conditions are in existence elsewhere, and, if not, why not?

The reason is that in Natal we have to do with the Trust. All the native lands there are, as my hon. friend knows, in the hands of a trust, and that trust is now in the Government. That is not the case in the other provinces, and it is simply because of that fact that we have to come to Parliament, and that now, I take it, the commission tries to lay down Certain lines along which we should act. In the other provinces the greater part of the ground is in the hands of the natives themselves, under private ownership, or of the Government, acting in some cases on behalf of the tribes, and simply having the power of confirmation. But that is not so in Natal.

Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the interests of the natives in the other provinces are being protected in regard to the granting of trading sites in the same way as they are in this report; because I want to protect them, and I understand that different systems obtain in the other provinces? The question was put to me by a man interested in the matter as to whether a similar system of calling for trading sites prevails in the other parts of the Union.

The difference is this—to take the Cape, for instance—you find here that within the native territories the position in the first place rests with the natives, but the control is in the hands of the Government. We have, for instance, constantly to deal with trading sites in the Transvaal and the Cape. These are limited, and I may say it is one of the sources of the greatest worry almost to the Native Affairs Department, because people are constantly trying to increase the number of sites, to get business expansion. In Natal the matter is regulated by law; the Government are the trustees, and the procedure is laid down that we have to come to Parliament.

The resolutions were agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

The farmers have for years past felt that measures should be taken for the cleansing of orchards. The difficulty has always been to decide upon the best way of doing so, because it is very expensive to clean trees. It must be done, but it must be done in such a way that the small farmer does not suffer any damage or have difficulties. It has always been felt that it is unfair that a farmer should be damaged by the negligence of his neighbour in not keeping his trees clean and healthy, and it is now felt so much the more, because our fruit-farming has made such great progress, and brings so much money to the country. The fruit industry introduces a great deal of money. Last year it produced £563,000. It is in the circumstances the duty of the Government, by means of legislation, to intervene to induce all the farmers to cleanse and purify their orchards. The farmers who go in for the planting of trees and for fruit farming ought to be protected against the negligence of others, that is the reason I introduce this Bill. The planting of trees is costly and it is our duty to protect the people who carry on this kind of farming. In so far as the fruit farmers are concerned the measure is a new one and it is very necessary. The draft is based on the same principle as the Fencing Act. In the Cape Province it is left to the Divisional Councils to recommend to the Minister that a certain district should be proclaimed under the Bill. In Natal, the Free State and the Transvaal the magistrate, at the request of at least twelve interested farmers, calls a meeting and, if the majority of the farmers present resolve to make the law obligatory in those parts, then it is brought to the notice of the Minister, and he issues the proclamation. Where a village board or a municipal council asks for the issue of a proclamation it can also be done, while farmers whose farms adjoin villages or municipalities where there are infected trees can also ask that the law shall be applied to those villages to compel them to cleanse the trees. The diseases must be eradicated, such as scale in orange tree, the codling moth, St. José scale, etc. The pests must be eradicated. If a man refuses to cleanse his orchard then the Government can do so at his expense. The money can be claimed from him and if he cannot pay it then the expenditure can be registered as a bond against his property. In the case of a lessee the Government can claim the cost from the owner of the farm. It is not necessary to enlarge upon the Bill. All who admit the importance of fruit farming will see the necessity of this measure. Our fruit farming has made great progress. We have won important markets for our fruits, but if we do not protect orchards against pests then we shall break down in the future what we have built up with such great trouble. My predecessor, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), introduced this Bill last year, but it did not go any further than the first reading. I hope that we will push the measure through quickly. The Bill is not obligatory, it does not go as far as I should have liked, but in the circumstances it is not wise to go further. We must give the farmer time to cleanse his orchard. The orchards will be inspected, and note will be taken of the cleansing. The department can, however, not take all the work upon itself. It would need too many officials, and therefore the provision was made that the farmers may appoint and pay their own inspectors. I wish, in conclusion, to appeal to the House to pass the Bill as soon as possible, so that we can take the necessary measures. The provisions of the Bill are simple. Section 1 provides the steps which must be taken by the Divisional Council to have the Act proclaimed in any district or portion of a district in the Cape Province. Section 2 mentions the steps that must be taken to have the Act proclaimed in a district or portion of a district in the Transvaal, Orange Free State or Natal. Section 3 provides that an official may go upon any ground to decide whether a proclaimed insect pest, or plant disease exists, and if that is the case he can serve an order upon the owner or occupier to cleanse the orchard from such pest or disease. If the owner neglects to do this, then the work can be done at his expense, and he can be prosecuted at the same time. If the owners wish that a special official should be appointed to see that the law is complied with, then such an official can be appointed at the expense of all owners in the area where such an appointment is made, and a rate be levied to such an amount as the meeting of owners (in the Transvaal, O.F.S. or Natal) themselves, or the Divisional Council (in the Cape), fixes. The levy at the request of the owners can be increased or reduced. Section 4 provides that if an owner refuses or neglects to cleanse his orchard, the cost of cleansing can be recovered from him in the court, and if the ground is occupied by a lessee the amount can be claimed from the owner, and the owner will have recurrence upon the lessee for the amount, if the lease has three years more or longer to run, but if the period is for less than three years, then the owner can only claim from the lessee one-third for each year, or portion of a year, of the unexpired portion of the lease. Section 5 provides that if the residence of the owner or occupier of a property is unknown, or if he has been given an extension of time to pay, then the cleansing costs can be registered against the title deeds in the office of the Registrar of Deeds and no transfer of the property will be permitted until the amount is paid with interest. Section 6 provides that if the Act is proclaimed in a certain area, then a property bordering on that area also comes under the provisions of the Act. Section 7 gives the power to make regulations. Section 8 is the interpretation section. I again appeal to hon. members to accept the Bill as soon as possible.

I am very pleased to see that the Minister is not bringing in a general compulsory measure, as that would cause immense opposition, and interfere with its success. The best course is to go slow at the start. A difficulty will come in, however, under section 6, where a farmer adjoining a proclaimed area will have to cleanse his orchard, and receive no protection from his adjoining neighbour, who is not compelled to cleanse. I know there are difficulties there, and we must try and make them as light as possible for the person who has no protection on the other side. He will have to clean his orchard to provide protection for those that want it, and he gets no protection from his neighbour on the other side. We shall have to see how far we shall meet these cases. The other important provision of the Act is contained in section 8, where power is given to the Minister to proclaim certain insect pests and plant diseases as pests and diseases under this Act. That is giving the Minister a good deal of power, but you must give that to someone, and the best course is to give it to the responsible Minister, as a great deal will depend upon which pests and plant diseases are proclaimed under the Act. I was pleased to see the Minister has followed this course. Many farmers would have wished to have the Act compulsory throughout the Union. You can’t do that. You must educate the people up to it, otherwise you will get the farming community against it. I welcome the Act, and am pleased to see the Minister has brought it in at this early stage, and I would like to see it become law as soon as possible.

I do not think that there is one farmer in the country who is not very glad that this Bill has been introduced. We live in a critical time as far as fruit farming is concerned. Not only of our deciduous fruits, but especially of our citrus fruits. While we are now engaged in regulating our sheep business once and for all to assure our markets, it is necessary before everything else that we should farm with clean fruit. I have noticed in Cape Town in the large hotels and shops how fruit is offered which is full of scale. If in the local market fruit with scale is sold, then I doubt whether fruit with scale is not also exported. It is a good thing that the Minister takes to himself the power to compel villages to clean their trees. It is no good a farmer keeping his trees clean if the village in his neighbourhood is infected with the disease. I hope that the Minister will have an enquiry made where wild trees are infected. In the low veld there are indigenous trees which are full of certain diseases. The farmer cleanses his trees, but if there are wild trees in his neighbourhood that have scale, then his cleansing is useless. Mr. Watkinson, the well-known pioneer, said that if we are going to lay out orchards we must first remove the indigenous trees. But what must we do if the indigenous trees are on Government ground, then we cannot remove them. The Minister must see that all the indigenous trees that are affected with disease are removed. In America it has been proved that scale is brought by the wind for a distance of miles and miles. And what about birds, which can carry the disease? I am glad that the Minister is giving the farmers an opportunity to be the deciding factor in their own district. This will encourage the farmers to join the association. It is always said that the farmers’ associations can do no good, but now the Minister gives the organized farmers an opportunity of exercising influence as to whether the state of affairs in their district is satisfactory. He can now make his people known to the Minister. I wish to thank the Minister very heartily for this Bill on behalf of the fruit farmers of my district.

I wish to support this Bill, as I think it is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately I cannot go all the way with the two last speakers in praise of the Bill, because I think it is such a timid, paltry step that it will be of little use to a great deal of South Africa. If this country is going to become— as foreshadowed by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) in his admirable speech last year—the orchard of the Empire, we shall want much more stringent regulations than are contained in this measure. Two of the weaknesses are, first, that it is optional, and then it only applies to municipal areas under certain conditions. Practically all our fruit pests and plant diseases have originated in the towns and spread from there all over the country. I well remember the time when the Eastern Province was absolutely free from any of the pests we have to-day, such as the codlin moth and the fruit fly. I have seen wagon loads of decayed fruit, containing enough germs to infect the whole of South Africa, carted from the towns into the country, and under these conditions I would like to ask what use a Bill of this description is going to be to anyone just outside a town who is attempting to build up a fruit industry? I do not think that the Minister, or his department, has realized the seriousness of the situation. Only the other day I brought to the notice of the department a pest that was doing tremendous damage in the Eastern Province. It was referred to the entomologist, and Mr. Fuller writes to say that this particular pest, the fruit-sucking moth, has been known to destroy 75 to 100 per cent. of the fruit in one night. I would like to ask the Minister if he thinks that he could stamp out scab if he had to depend on legislation of this character. I feel very disappointed in regard to this Bill, especially as I know the measures that the Minister has introduced in regard to stamping out scab and the destruction of locusts. If we are to build up a big fruit industry in this country, this milk-and-water policy must be abandoned. We must teach the people that they must have clean trees, or root them out. We must boldly face the position, and make the law compulsory. Inspectors must be appointed to visit every town and every part of the district, and people must be made to realize that they cannot keep trees which are a danger to themselves and the rest of the community. In this matter, unlike the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood), I am not in favour of local option. I voted for local option the other day, but over this measure I am out for prohibition. I want to prohibit a man from ruining himself and also ruining one of the biggest industries in South Africa.

I also wish to welcome the Bill. I do not, however, agree with the Minister where he proposes to take a second or special bond on the ground and to damage the owner instead of rooting out and burning the infected trees. Now he is injuring the poor bondholder who must stand the loss. The Bill does not go sufficiently far. The importation of certain kinds of fruit and grafts should be prohibited. We are always importing fruit and there are always people who are anxious to bring new kinds of fruits into our country. This importation should, however, only be allowed under strictest Government supervision. Now apples are coming in by tons and tons and shiploads. If the Minister does not prohibit this it will be a danger to our country. We do not wish to prevent people importing fruit or to deprive the public of the fruit, but the apples must be packed into boxes like our fruit so that they can be properly inspected in order to prevent the bringing in of pests. I hope that the Minister will accept the necessary amendment in committee.

I would like to assure the Minister that he need have no anxiety as to getting a Bill of this sort through the House. I can assure the Minister that the measure that he meted out to other people in connection with measures in the interests of the agricultural population of this country will not be meted to him from this side of the House, as it was meted to me from the other side of the House in connection with the Bills that the Minister has placed on the paper. I would like to see this Bill go through. I am as responsible for this Bill as the Minister of Agriculture is, because he has done me the honour of introducing a Bill which has been reprinted in exactly the same words as I introduced it last year. I will tell the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) why I only attempted to introduce a Bill on the lines that the Minister has introduced it. I knew, from experience I had, that the moment you asked for any more power there are a certain number of members in this House who, though they represent agricultural districts are not prepared to allow that power to remain in the hands of the Minister. I disagree with the Minister entirely in political matters, as he knows, but I am prepared to allow the powers in clause 8 to be in the hands of the Minister, because it is only the Minister, in consultation with his subordinate advisers, who can decide from time to time what pests should be brought under the operation of this Bill. I may draw the Minister’s attention to a pest for which his colleague, the Minister of Railways and Harbours, is responsible. Not only the orchards and the holdings, but the refreshment room of the Houses of Parliament should also be brought under the operation of this Bill. I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture—and I hope he will call the attention of the Minister of Railways and Harbours to the matter—to the need of reconsidering before the committee stage whether the refreshment rooms of this House should not be included, because I saw there yesterday citrus fruit which was a perfect disgrace with the large amount of scale that it had upon it. The hon. member referred to the fact that it was rather unfair that the provisions of the Bill should refer to holdings outside declared areas under this Bill. It is unfair to a certain extent, but without that provision it is utterly impossile—and I agree with the hon. Minister on this point—to carry out the provisions of these Acts. There is one good thing in connection with it. That is, it will act as a gentle stimulant to the owner of trees outside the area to use his influence to have the clauses of this Bill brought into operation, and thereby it will gradually spread throughout the country. If the hon. Minister, with the majority and strength he has at his command, will strengthen up the Bill and make it compulsory, I will give him my heartiest support, because I realize the enormous amount of damage caused to the fruit industry of this country by insects and other pests. There are large numbers of pests, not only insects, that are spread from orchard to orchard by the wind, and it is hopeless for us to try and get rid of disease except we have some sort of protection under a Bill of this kind. I hope that in the major fruit districts of this country that this Bill will come into operation. People interested in the fruit industry on this side of the House will give him every possible assistance in strengthening up the Bill. If the Minister is not prepared to do that, then we shall have to take the Bill as it stands. In any case it is an advance. Areas not under the Bill act as a focus of infection to other areas. Fruit farmers of the northern provinces would welcome such a Bill as this, and I would assist my hon. friend in passing not only this Bill, but others of a similar character.

I am glad this Bill has been introduced. The Minister spoke of going slowly in regard to the cleansing of orchards, and of the need of educating the farmers as to the usefulness of such legislation. I would urge him not to contemplate as long a period of tuition as has been adopted in regard to scab eradication, on which many thousands of pounds have been spent and much time lost. I think if we had adopted a compulsory measure in regard to scab, we should have been in a far better position, and would have saved much expense. The hon. member who has just sat down spoke of the focus of infection. In Clause 8 we have a definition of “holdings” and the exclusion of such foci of infection, and I, as a farmer, know that such infection takes place from such localities in villages.

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

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to Clause 8, which states that a lot held in a village is not subject to this Bill unless the municipality or village management board should call for it, and then only if it is more than two morgen in extent. I wish to say that, although we approve of the principle of the Bill, there are details which I hope the Minister will allow us to have amended. On two morgen you can have 700 fruit trees planted 15 by 15. That is quite a considerable orchard. Is it right that any area containing fruit trees shall be allowed to exist as a menace to the surrounding country? In many of these villages there are people growing a few trees, and they ought to allow themselves to be subject to any restrictions. In Clause 2, subsection (2), it states that if there are “not less than 100 fruit trees grown for the purpose of selling the fruit thereof.” I think that is a very dangerous exclusion, because anyone who grows fruit for sale is more likely to take care of his trees and have them properly cleansed, than the man who is not making a livelihood out of his orchard. I should like to see the deletion of the words “grown for the purpose of selling the fruit thereof.” The man who does not grow for sale is a far greater danger to the fruit-growing community than the man who does. I think the House realizes that this Bill merely aims at cleansing. I am very glad there is no attempt to say “you shall eradicate,” because we have come to the conclusion that, while eradication is the ideal, it is quite impossible to carry out. This Bill will go a long way towards doing what we are aiming at, and if the Minister feels he has sufficient support to make it more drastic, and introduce the compulsory principle to a large extent, he will have the support of a large number of those who realize what the fruit industry is to-day and what it will mean for the country in the future. I have pleasure in supporting the Bill, but propose to move amendments in committee.

I am pleased to see that both sides of the House are inclined to accept this Bill. It appears that the only objection existing on the other side is that the Bill does not go far enough. That is what they all say. We are always accused that our Bills are of a socialistic tendency, but as soon as we come to a Bill where no severe provisions are made, then we are reproached that we are not sufficiently drastic and that we should make the laws more drastic. I am very glad that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has given us the assurance that he will support all Bills for the advancement of our agriculture. But it is strange that he says at the same time that we have a large majority and that we, with the large majority, should have introduced a much more drastic Bill than what this is. When he had the first reading of this Bill before the House he also had a large majority, but he did not make it more drastic than what it now is. Now he has expressed the hope that I will accept an amendment to make it apply to our Parliamentary restaurants. Well, if our people outside do their duty, then it is not necessary to make such drastic provisions as the hon. member suggests. I feel one thing, and that is that if the Bill is made too drastic it will end in failure. Therefore we should rather get the people to support the law and to assist in trying to get the trees properly cleansed and sprayed. If we make the law too drastic the people will immediately get a repulsion to it. The consequence would be that less trees would be planted, because the process of cleansing trees costs much money and it is an expensive process. If they are compelled to go to great expense, they will not plant any more trees and they will go in for another kind of farming. But I am glad of the support I have received with reference to this legislation. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has objected because farms adjoining a proclaimed farm will also have to spray. I agree with the hon. member that it is a difficult point, but what else can we do? The same is the case with reference to East Coast fever. Farms which adjoin infected farms must also undergo cleansing, so also here with farms which adjoin farms that must be cleansed. If a district is proclaimed, all the farms will have to be cleansed. Here the same principle is laid down. I appreciate the difficulty, but I do not see any other way out. As to making it compulsory, this rests entirely in the hands of the farmers. If a divisional council in the Cape decides to apply the law, then all the farms in that division will have to be cleansed. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) has remarked that the insects are also in wild trees: well, I think the best is for the Minister of Lands to issue the farms to settlers, then the Government will get quit of the wild trees, but an enquiry into this can be made. At the moment, the best is to go on with this Bill. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) is also much concerned that the Bill is not sufficiently drastic. He thinks that under this Bill we shall not have the results that we ought to have. I do not agree with him. If we go to work in this way, then the fruit farmers will see their own interests, and it will not be necessary to act more drastically. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) has mentioned the point of taking a bond against a title deed, and he expects that the bond-holder will be injured. I only wish to point out that it is the same with fencing. There also a bond against the title deed is taken and the fencing is erected. It does the bondholder no harm. So also in this case no harm will be done the bond-holder. If the trees are clean, then they will bear better fruit. I have already said that I am thankful for the support of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) says that he thinks that the farmer who has hundreds of fruit trees will not make application for proclamation, and that the measure is not strong enough. I do not think that we should make the provisions more drastic than they are now. The Bill is partly voluntary, partly obligatory. The execution lies in the hands of the farmers themselves. As regards municipalities, I feel convinced that there are people in the councils who would be glad to see progress, and when an appeal is made to them and it is pointed out that their village or district is in danger, then they will co-operate to protect the fruit industry by carrying out the provisions of this Bill. I therefore do not believe that there is a danger that the municipalities will not help in the carrying out of this law. With these few words, I move the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to; Bill read a second time.

I move that the committee stage be taken now.

I am anxious to further the passage of the Bill, but I don’t think it is fair to the fruit farmers to take the committee stage to-night, as they may desire to bring forward suggestions.

Motion withdrawn; House to go into committee on 15th April.

I move—

This Bill is not an entirely new one. In 1922 the principle of this levy was approved by the House, viz., of an inland levy. On various occasions at farmers’ congresses, etc., people have insisted that the Bill should make provision for certain industries. In 1922 a Bill was passed by the House establishing a levy in respect of inland produce. The Act did not meet the purpose. There were difficulties at that time and the Minister put the Bill through because in those circumstances he could not otherwise have got the Bill passed by the House. The difficulties existed that where a bacon factory in the country asked for a levy that then only the one factory would make the levy while the other factories would not do so, with the consequence, unhappily, that the people would go to another factory, because they would have to pay 6d. or 1s. more per pig at the former factory. For this reason the Bill was a failure. Here in this Bill it is proposed that if 50 per cent. of the people ask for such a levy then the levy will be introduced and all will be obliged to accept the levy. In 1924 a Bill was also adopted by the House in respect of a levy on produce for export. From that levy various industries have already had a benefit such as, e.g., fruit farming. The fruit producers asked the Minister to levy 5s. a ton upon fruit and the money is used to further the fruit industry. As hon. members know, the fruit farmers have had in the past to fight against many difficulties, but fruit farming is now advancing rapidly and it will improve still more in the future. We must see which industries desire to have such a levy so that steps can be taken to improve the production. We have on the other hand the poultry farmers, who have asked for a levy on eggs of 9d. per box of 260. This was agreed to, and we see to-day that the industry is flourishing. The cotton people have asked for a levy of 1s. per thousand pounds of wool and 10s. per thousand pounds of raw cotton. This was agreed to, and the people are properly organized to-day and the industry is progressing. Our cotton trade is to-day on a very sound basis and the levy has aided in pushing the trade in various directions. In this Bill a levy is proposed for the industries, namely, for bacon, sugar cane and sugar, and ostrich feathers. All three industries have asked for a levy. As hon. members know, the bacon industry to-day is in a very regrettable position. We must give better food to the pigs and breed a better class of pig. This levy will further the object of producing a better class of pig in our country. The people are now asking that it shall be permitted that the levies can be imposed so that the money can be used to point out to the people with what improved breeds they can farm and how the farming can be improved so that we shall be able to compete with the world. The second industry that it now asking for a levy is the sugar industry. As hon. members know, the Natal sugar farmers approached the Government years ago and made clear to it that it was desirable that an improvement should be made with reference to sugar farming. They suggested that a loan of £10,000 should be granted to establish an experimental farm in Natal to see what improvements could be made and in what way disease and pests could be fought. The Government agreed to this and are now engaged upon it. The experts have gone round. The first farm was disapproved of and they have now found suitable ground. The sugar planters are thus willing to be taxed to pay the money back, and in that way to get officials to advance sugar planting and the plantations in order not alone to plant one sort of cane but also to make experiments in planting other kinds of cane, so that we shall have something upon which to fall back if the cane now planted becomes subject to disease and pests. I am very glad that the sugar planters have gone so far as to make enquiries at their own expense in this connection. I appreciate it that they have been willing to go so far. I can say that the millers and the planters are anxious that the Bill shall be accepted and that such levies shall be made on sugar. The third industry mentioned is ostrich farming. This Bill actually provides that the proposed levy shall be a permanent one, but after consideration and discussion with the people interested it seems to me that it should not be a continuing levy but that it should be like the former part of the Bill, viz., that the levy should cease when the money has been paid. The previous Government lent the ostrich farmers an amount of £8,000 for advertising. This was used by a committee in London, and later a further £5,000 was asked for. £2,500 was given, and the other portion will also be given, so that altogether £13,000 will be lent. The conditions are that the committee in London operates under the High Commissioner and that a levy Bill will be accepted so that they by that means would pay back the money. It was understood that the people would immediately repay the money by a rate upon the export of feathers. Some did this, and a portion of the £13,000 has already been paid in this way. The rest is, however, still outstanding. The levy is therefore of a retrospective nature so that the money can be got in view of the fact that it was advanced on that condition. Members will thus see that the object of the Bill is to put the levy on people who have asked for it, so that they themselves can be taxed to make enquiry and the necessary experiments so as to be able to advertise. I may add that my predecessor also introduced a Bill with reference to this matter and that the Nationalist party opposed it with the consequence that it was not read a second time. The difference was in the first place in that we considered that the Minister asked for too great power. He did not only include certain produce.

What section are you discussing?

I am not speaking about a specific section. That Bill provided that in general a levy could be made on agricultural products. We then came and said that it was our view that the Bill would help monopolies to obtain levies, and that it did not take the producer into consideration. Here the producer is taken account of. I can, e.g., point to the fact that the previous Bill provided that the levy could be paid out to any person whether they were producers or not. This Bill provides that it can be paid to co-operations or producers alone. There is thus a difference as wide as the poles between the two Bills. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) wants every moment to know with what section I am dealing. I was talking generally. I will now come to the respective sections. The Bill makes provision for levies on sugar and sugar cane, pigs and bacon and ostrich feathers, because the wish for it was expressed by organized bodies, and because the need of a levy had been shown. If another part of the community wish that the provisions of the Bill should be applied to another product, then it will be necessary to pass fresh legislation. But all that would be necessary in that event is a short Bill extending the definition of the expression “agricultural produce.” Section 1 provides that (a) one or more factories; (b) a co-operative society or company must apply for the making of a levy, that no levy shall be made unless the applicants represent more than 50 per cent. of the entire production of the Union. This was one of the objections to the previous Bill and, therefore, we are here taking account of the producer. Because otherwise large companies will arise. They control 50 per cent. of the produce and ask for a levy. Here in this Bill this is not permitted. Then it lies with the Minister to say whether the application shall be granted or not. If, however, a factory makes application in connection with a product delivered to the factory, then the consent of more than 50 per cent. of the producers of that product must be obtained. If, e.g., a bacon factory applies for a levy on pigs then more than 50 per cent. of the persons who produce pigs must give their consent. There we have it again. Section 2 makes provision for the withdrawal of a levy, and this will take place when the factory or co-operative associations, who have asked for the levy, no longer represent more than 50 per cent. of the product. Section 3 makes provision for a levy of 2 per cent. on the value of ostrich feathers exported since 1st September, 1923. Some firms have regularly paid since that date, but others failed to do so and, therefore, it is necessary to give the levy retroactive force. The amount received up to 31st December last is £4,286 3s. 4d. and the amount outstanding at that date was £4,000. This section also provides for a fixed levy of 2 per cent. on condition that the minimum export value is £300,000. This is an arbitrary figure, but it was desirable to fix a certain minimum. Section 4 provides the purposes to which proceeds of a levy shall be devoted. Section 5 provides that the levy shall be paid into a special account on which the Minister will draw and direct to whom the Minister can entrust the paying out of the proceeds of the levy. Section 6 gives the power of taking away the authority of the Minister of an association or other body to pay out monies, if he is not convinced that the money will be properly expended, and also to demand repayment of the proceeds of levies in a competent court if not expended as directed by the Minister. Section 7 gives the Minister the right to make regulations to give effect to the provisions of the Bill. Section 8 also contains an important provision in that it is made illegal to sell an article which is not of the grade or mark of a recognized grade or mark prescribed by Act 16 of 1922, which grades and marks can be fixed by the Governor-General for any products inspected and graded by the department for a particular factory or company or association. So, for instance, cheese not graded by the Government cannot be sold as cheese of the grade fixed and graded by the Government. If grades 1, 2 and 3 are prescribed for cheese graded by the Government, then ungraded cheese must simply be sold as cheese. This will also be applicable to bacon if bacon is graded. The object of this section is to prevent an ungraded article which is of inferior quality being regarded by the public as a graded article which possesses a specified quality. It is also a protection for the factory which has its produce graded and treats the public honourably. This section also gives the power of making the grading of produce of all factories, associations or companies obligatory if more than 50 per cent. of that product is graded. Section 10 brings wool, mohair and ostrich feathers under the provisions of the Agricultural Produce Export Act No. 35 of 1917, with the object of making regulations in connection with the export of these products. The object is, e.g., in, connection with wool to prescribe an equal quality of wool sack. The quality, as a matter of fact, differs according to the weight. The weight varies from 8½ lb. to 12½lb., but the custom of the trade is to deduct 12½ lb. from the weight of the bale, although a sack probably only weighs 10 lbs. At a large congress of sheep farmers and wool brokers a weight of 11¼lb. was unanimously recommended as the most suitable for this country. Uniformity of packing for export may also become necessary in connection with mohair and in connection with ostrich feathers a levy is proposed as already explained on exported feathers. This article must also be brought under the Agricultural Products Export Act of 1917. Section 11 gives the authority to the railway administration, when it does inspection and grading work for this department, to retain the fees paid for the work, instead of paying them in to the usual revenue account. The railway administration at present grades the maize and also does the sorting of the fruit at one of the harbours and pays the officials entrusted with the work. Section 12 (the last) merely interprets certain terms. I do not think that it is necessary to take up the time of the House further. I think that hon. members feel that it is necessary for this Bill to be accepted, especially as the people concerned have asked for it. The Natal sugar farmers have asked for it. The ostrich farmers have had £13,000, and the bacon factories are in a parlous plight. The measure must be passed to assist them, and for this reason I think that it is necessary for the Bill to be passed as soon as possible.

On what clause do you specify that particular point?

I do not specify any particular clause; I am speaking on the Bill in general, if the hon. member will just have patience enough.

I really feel sorry for my hon. friend the Minister.

You need not be.

I think you will all feel sorry by the time I have finished.

The news is quite good to-day.

And perhaps that news has been made good for you by the hypocrisy that was shown when I introduced into this House two years ago—

Order. The hon. member must not use the word “hypocrisy.”

Well, I withdraw the word “hypocrisy.” When political statements were made in this House with the intention of bringing to the minds of people of this country that a measure introduced into the House was of an entirely different character to what the reading of that measure really was that is the thing I am going to meet. I am going to refresh the memory of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, because I do not for one instant understand that the Minister was desirous in any way of misleading the House, but the Minister’s statements this evening have decidedly misled the House, at least those members of the House who were not acquainted with the circumstances of two years ago. The Bill introduced in 1922 was the Agricultural Products Grading Bill. It passed the House practically without crossing the “t’s” and dotting the “i’s” and in 1923 a Bill on exactly the same lines making provision for a levy in connection with South African products not for export was introduced. The late member for Ladybrand criticized the Bill, as did practically all the members of the Opposition. The late member for Ladybrand moved that the order for second reading be discharged and the subject matter referred to a Select Committee. In the interests of agricultural producers I accepted that amendment, and it was sent to a Select Committee. They took evidence of the Secretary for Agriculture, and after two or three sittings they unanimously decided that I, as chairman of that committee, should bring up a Bill. What the hon. gentleman has forgotten is this, that the amended Bill I brought up is identical with the Bill he now produces.

No, no.

Well, fortunately, the annals of this House contain the amended Bill of 1923, which the hon. Minister has evidently not seen. The hon. Minister said the Bill was not read a second time, but fortunately we have records. Well, I will read clauses to show it is identical. On Monday, 26th March, 1923, the House met. Adjourned debate on motion for second reading Agricultural Industries Advancement Bill. That is the Bill that was amended in Select Committee. On that Select Committee there were four distinguished Nationalist members of Parliament. They unanimously agreed I should bring this report, to the House. They subscribed to a Bill exactly the same as the Minister has read now. I will acknowledge one alteration.

You will find more.

I will acknowledge the first section…. He has evidently been misled by a leading newspaper in this country.

No, no.

I believe the articles were inspired by his colleague, the Minister of the Interior. The Minister has forgotten, when a Bill identical with this went to its second reading, we had the Constitutional party—the Democratic Constitutional party— voting with my friends over there.

Were they all present?

Always when they are wrong. I find the name of Mr. Thomas Boydell voting against this identical Bill. I find the name of Jan Christoffel Greyling Kemp. Who is he? I am giving the names of distinguished people only in the division list. I had shortly before that brought to the House a letter from an hon. gentleman and a petition from over 700 ostrich farmers from the district of Oudtshoorn praying for a levy. Oh, and where is the hon. member for Piquetburg? His sins have found him out. These are very interesting historic documents, and I thought this would be a fitting opportunity to call attention to them. Hon. members opposite said this was a deep-laid plan of Ministers to place a levy upon farmers in this country, that they would have to pay for inspection in connection with the dipping of sheep, and that eventually there would be no agricultural service in this country for which they would not have to pay. Is the hon. Minister following me in his Bill? I am reading from the 1923 Bill. Well, the Minister is very ill-advised, because he must certainly not think that everybody in this House is so simple as to take his statement that his Bill was entirely different from the Bill of 1923, and that the Bill of 1923 had not been read a second time in this House. The Minister says it was the Select Committee’s Bill, but not my Bill. I have acknowledged that the Bill went to a Select Committee, but the Bill came back from the Select Committee, and a few days after the members of the Nationalist party—one was absent—had given me a mandate to bring up a Bill such as this, they voted against it on the floor of the House.

Why did you run away from it?

They ran away from it, I did not. The hon. member knows that when I had a large body of people such as that, who put party considerations above agricultural considerations, it was quite impossible at that late stage of the session to pass the Bill through the House. But I showed my belief in the Bill by agreeing to the order for the second reading being discharged and the Bill being referred to a Select Committee. Here are the names of the members of the committee and here is the committee’s report submitting the amended Bill to the House. That amended Bill was identical with the Bill the Minister has introduced to-night. I want to bring home to the farmers of this country the manner in which, for political reasons, their interests have been jeopardized for the last couple of years. The Minister of Agriculture says he has a request from the breeders and makers of bacon and from the growers of sugar in this country. Does the Minister not know that these requests had come to the Agricultural Department before this Bill was introduced? Does he not know that the planters and sugar millers of Natal came to the Government and offered to pay the whole expenditure of running an experimental station, which this Bill provided for, if we would put up a building and allow that no interest charges should be made on it for five years? They were prepared to import the very best sugar expert and pay the expenditure from their own pockets, and that was defeated for political purposes in 1923.

You ran away from it.

My hon. friend is departing from the statement that this Bill is entirely different from the other one—I am glad to see the Minister of the Interior back again. Does he remember how he denounced the Levy Bill in 1923 and said it was the thin end of the wedge which was going to put the burden of all the experts of the Agricultural Department on the farmers of the country? This is not the only Bill in which the levy principle is introduced. It is introduced in the Bill which has just passed its second reading, because provision is made for a levy on fruit farmers to pay the cost of an inspector to inspect their orchards in their own interests. But I am glad to see that my hon. friend agrees that where produce is graded and receives a government stamp, nobody shall have the right to put that mark upon produce which has not gone through exactly the same tests. One of the great difficulties has been that when the cheese in Griqualand West has been graded and marked with a special Government grade, storekeepers have put in their windows cheese that has never had the Government stamp, and put exactly the same words on it. I was surprised, when the Bill of 1923 came on, to see practically the Labour party voting with the Opposition against the second reading of the Bill, and the division list is very interesting. I have 41 of them on the list. This is a good Bill; it has been called for, for some years. As the Minister knows, it has year after year been approved by the Agricultural Advisory Board, which then advised me and now advises him, and I do say that one has got some reason to feel—as the farmers have a certain amount of reason to feel—that for political reasons a Bill which had been approved by a Select Committee, and a Bill which the Agricultural Advisory Board had for four years approved of and urged its passing through the House, should have been thrown aside solely for political considerations.

Why didn’t you pass it; you had a majority?

Because, as already explained, at that period of the session a large number of members then on this side of the House banded together with my hon. friend who knew nothing about it, and it was impossible to pass a Bill unless you had some idea that, within a reasonable period of time, it would go through the committee. If my hon. friend and his friends opposite had been sincere, and had approached this Bill as I am going to approach it in committee, it would not have taken long to pass it through the House. I was informed by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) that every possible influence that could be introduced would be used to make it impossible for this Bill to go through the House, and I knew it was impossible. I am glad to see the conversion of the Minister of Agriculture.

There has been no conversion.

I hope also we will have the conversion of “Die Burger,” because it wrote bitter articles against this Bill in 1923, perhaps honestly, and they persuaded the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to vote against the Bill.

It is another Bill; you are barking up the wrong tree.

I want to make this perfectly plain, that, save and except that clause dealing with ostrich feathers, which is now embodied as a permanent clause, because previous to the introduction of this Bill we were collecting the levy from the people—he had made provision for a levy of 2 per cent., and the ostrich feather growers and brokers were patriotic enough to offer to pay the levy, though I could not get the Bill through the House, and the Bill makes provision for the continuation of that levy—it is the only difference, even in drafting, that exists between those two Bills. I will make a proposal to my hon. friend that he should get his party newspaper to print these two Bills in juxtaposition and let us see the differences. I make bold to say that clause after clause, especially the principal clauses of the Bill, are identical with the wording of the Bill of 1923. The Minister picked up a wrong copy. The hon. Minister, to get out of a difficult position, picked up a copy of the Bill of 1923 as originally introduced in this House, on which there was so much suspicion aroused for political purposes that I had to send it to a select committee, and if the hon. Minister would ask for A.B. 40—’23, he will find that the title and clauses are identical. My hon. friend reminds me of a case I once heard of in connection with some people who sold their wool up-country. They sold their wool to a certain storekeeper and bought a ready-reckoner. Having come home, the old lady and some of the children went into the ready-reckoner and thought they had been paid £40 too little. They in spanned their cart and went back to the storekeeper and said: “You have paid us too little for the wool. Here is the ready-reckoner.” The storekeeper looked at the book, and said: “But that is last year’s,” whereupon they were satisfied as to his honesty. The hon. Minister has got hold of last year’s copy.

What a discovery!

It is a discovery that makes my hon. friend look very silly. Didn’t I hear the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) say that my Bill would be a millstone round the neck of the farmers? Is he going to vote for this Levy Bill, which has exactly the same wording in its principal clauses?

One clause does not make the Bill.

On comparing one clause after another, I find the wording is identical. I am trying to persuade the Minister that not only has he made a mistake by which so many of his followers have been led away—

He is going to get his Bill through. You could not get yours.

A truer word never was said, but that is not a statement which brings any honour to the hon. gentleman, because the Bills are indentical. The hon. members opposite were in a minority then, as we are now, and if we, as a party, were to oppose this Bill, clause by clause, the Minister would never get this Bill through the House; but he knows that we are not going to adopt the attitude of the hon. gentlemen opposite. As I have always said, I challenge anybody to say that I have ever approached an agricultural measure with political bias of any sort, and I have always considered the interests of the farming population. Here you are getting the identical Bill I introduced then. I am going to have that point made perfectly clear. You are going to have the identical Bill, because I and hon. members on this side of the House consider our duty is first to the country and not to a party. When this Bill reaches the committee stage I will, if I am here, take the trouble, when each clause is under consideration, to read the clause in the Bill of 1923, and I will leave the country to judge between the hon. members opposite and myself. I contend that the Bill is the same, and hon. members know it is, though “Die Burger” has been trying to shelter them, with such effect, that the Minister of Agriculture thought that he was dealing with the original Bill introduced at the beginning of the year and not the Bill as amended in select committee which passed its second reading later in the session with a small majority. I am sorry I have taken up so much of the time of the House, but I have done so deliberately in order to bring home to the farmers of this country, who know what I am saying is correct, that they must bring pressure to bear on their representatives never to allow them to jeopardize the interests of the farming population by opposing legitimate measures solely for political considerations.

It is interesting to hear the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) again complain to-day in his melodramatic manner that hon. members on this side do not look after the interest of the farmers. I have on previous occasions made this plain that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, who accuses us of not being logical, is himself entirely illogical in his actions. It is he that is illogical and not we. The hon. member, in his own views, suffers sometimes from such an obsession that he cannot see anybody else’s point of view. In spite of all our arguments to show him what the difference is between our attitude and his, he does not seem to be able yet to comprehend it. I hope in a few words to show that the attitude on this side of the House is entirely logical, and where the hon. member has tried to show that we have departed from our point of view, I will convince the House that we still hold the same view as when we were in opposition, when the Bill of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, who was then Minister of Agriculture, was introduced. The Bill was for the first time introduced on 14th February, 1923—

The hon. member must deal with the Bill as it came from the select committee.

I am coming to that. We, the then opposition, declared ourselves against the Bill, and our attitude then was that the Bill was of such a nature that it could be used by large interests in the country, monopolies etc., to the detriment of the country. We had, indeed, good reason to take up the attitude that we then did against the original Bill, because under section 1 (d) we read that the Minister can make a levy when application is made to him by—

Such a combination of persons could thus ask for such a levy, in other words, if a combine in the land has succeeded by its operations in getting hold of more than 50 per cent. of a certain product, then such an interest could go to the Government and ask for a levy on agricultural produce. Thus the attitude was entirely sound which we then took up. The Nationalist party was opposed to giving the power of raising a levy on the produce of the farmers, while the great interests in the country could abuse it. That is why we then opposed the Bill. Then the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, which I will gladly acknowledge did good work. The Bill was there very much watered down, and when it came back from the Select Committee the Bill was practically almost the same as that which is now before the House. I acknowledge it. We objected, as I have said, to the original Bill, because the great monopolies could abuse it. This was my first objection, and I emphasized it again when the matter came before the House a second time. And although the original Bill was referred to a Select Committee, the members of the Select Committee did not deal with the principle of the Bill, and when it came back the Nationalist party decided to take up the attitude, in pursuance of certain persons who did not agree with the Bill that we had accepted, namely, that the principle which lay at the bottom of the levies was not sound. And the attitude was taken up when the Bill was under discussion the second time, however much the original Bill had been watered down by the work of the Select Committee, we were still of opinion that the principle left in the amended Bill was dangerous to the country, and I take up the same attitude to-day. I still think that the principle that was left in the amended Bill and to a certain extent which is also in the Bill now before the House is dangerous, because actually an inland levy is asked for inland services. The attitude of the Nationalist party at that time was that inland services should be paid for out of the consolidated revenue fund. Certain industries have been so neglected that they have compulsorily come to ask for a Bill to levy a tax on the producers themselves, in order to advance the interests of the industries which actually should have been advanced by expenditure from the consolidated revenue fund. This objection still holds to-day, but the great difference existing between the Bill as it is to-day and the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is that although the principle is now approved, only a limited number of industries—it is limited to three—will be brought under its provisions, namely, bacon, sugar cane and ostrich feathers. If, for instance, the people who breed pigs ask for the fixing of such a levy, then it is an entirely different matter to a general levy Act being passed. It is therefore very clear that the members of the Nationalist party have been logical. I would never approve of this, but if there are certain industries that ask for this remedy in order to advance industry, then we have not, in my opinion, the right to stand in their way, and it is the duty of the Government to meet their desires if they want to lay such a tax on themselves. But I feel convinced of it that this Government will never introduce such a general levy Bill. Therefore I think I am logical. When the hon. member for Fort Beaufort saw that he had no chance to have a general levy law passed by the House—he will remember this—I and other persons insisted upon it that the Bill should be so amended that ostrich feathers could make use of it. And I must say that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was then almost inclined to do this, but he said that then every representative of an industry in the House would get up and ask for a levy for a particular industry. I then said to him that the fear was ungrounded. But he was not then so disposed, and he will remember that the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, came to him and said that if the Bill was only made applicable to the three industries which are to-day mentioned in this Bill, then the Opposition was prepared to accept the Bill. We have to-day exactly the same proposal as the then Leader of the Opposition made in the House to the then Prime Minister. If the hon. member for Fort Beaufort will consult his leader he will find that it is so. He has said that he was unfortunately not in a position to do so, because the hon. member for Fort Beaufort had stated that in that case all kinds of amendments would be made, and that as the session was then ending, there was no opportunity to introduce the Bill. This is absolutely a clear proof that the attitude of the Nationalist party was logical. I hope that before this Bill goes into committee the scales will have fallen from the eyes of the hon. member and he will not further try to prove that we are not logical. I have already said that I do not think an inland levy is fair, because I think that the inland services should be paid for by the Treasury. We cannot expect that the agricultural industries will tax themselves for inland services, and it is possibly quite practicable that the industries which to-day are applying for a levy are actually those industries which in the past were treated in such a step-motherly way by the previous Government so that they now are compelled to accept the principle. Let me say that, as ostrich farmers, we have always been consistent. We first of all asked for an export levy, and not for an inland levy, and I intend in the committee stage to again propose that this levy, in so far as ostrich feathers are concerned, shall consist of export duties. If other industries can accept the principle of an inland levy, then I am satisfied, but as regards ostrich farmers, we cannot permit that an open door should be allowed to remain therefor. We have asked from the beginning for an export levy. But the hon. member for Fort Beaufort is quite aware that he, during the elections, by means of misrepresentations in this connection, tried to make political capital. The hon. member came to Oudtshoorn in order by lies—

The hon. member must not accuse another hon. member of a wilful lie.

I withdraw; but he came with a wrong representation of the history of the levy and stated the request of the ostrich farmers in a wrong way. We came in 1922 to Cape Town, met the Minister of Agriculture, and asked for an advance of £8,000. But he refused, and the farmers then said: “Good, lend us the money and then you can recover it by an export levy.” Then the hon. member, at that time Minister, said to the farmers: “Look, I have a means of helping you. You can make use of the Agricultural grading Act to get it.” The farmers then got the consent of 50 per cent. of the farmers concerned. The request was made to the hon. member. My signature appeared amongst the rest, and I have never been ashamed of it, but when our request reached him he found out that he had not know his own law, because feathers are excluded, and then he simply could not help us. And when a fresh Parliamentary session commenced he came with the Bill of 1923, and if he had drawn up the Bill in the spirit of the request of the ostrich farmers then no one would have objected to it, but he made use of the necessity of the ostrich farmers to bring a general levy Bill before the House. He used their necessity as a lever. I feel happy that I helped to make that principle a failure. As the Minister of Agriculture does not come with that general principle, and as he only acts in connection with certain particular industries, we feel that we cannot oppose him because the people are asking for it, but the general provision causes difficulty because then the Minister can neglect an industry or trade and say to the persons concerned that they must tax themselves to improve the position. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort has said that the farmers must learn to help themselves. If we, however, had accepted that principle, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort would have said to the wool farmers: “Tax yourselves to appoint sheep inspectors,” and in every possible way he would have taxed the farmer. We wanted to put a stop to that principle. We know that it is an old Unionist principle, and we were afraid of the Unionist Minister who was at that time in power. We are to-day still careful, although we know that the present Minister does not hold to that principle. His Bill is, however, only applicable to certain industries. These industries have asked for it and therefore we do not stand in their way. In the committee stage I will propose other alterations, but I want to mention them now. As the Bill is drafted it makes provision for a permanent levy on ostrich feathers. That the farmers did not ask for. I am going to ask the Minister to limit the levy which is already being collected to the sum of £14,000, although we have only borrowed £13,000.

Are you not opposed to the principle of a levy?

I have tried to make my point of view clear. I do not know whether the hon. member understands Dutch. If I had known that he would not understand I would have spoken English.

He understands well, but “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

I hope he will support the Bill and also a motion to fix the levy at £14,000. We asked for £13,000, and that must be recovered, but as we now have the Bill we can save a small amount to organize the ostrich farming industry. Ostrich farming has gone to ruin and the farmers must organize to see if they in this manner cannot make it come to life again. It will therefore be a good thing to get such an amount for organization. It appears to me as if ostrich farming has come to such a pass that the farmers must think about instituting a certain control, either by the Government or by a co-operative association. Something must be done, otherwise the trade will entirely go to pieces. Such a small amount can be used for the purpose. I think that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), in connection with his accusation against the Nationalist party, must now see that he was entirely wrong and I believe that if he considers the matter when he has read my speech in English, he will believe that this side of the House is logical and that the person who must hide his face in confusion is not the Minister of Agriculture but the late Minister of Agriculture.

The Bill, as far as I can see, is a good Bill. I am quite prepared to vote for it, but it seems to me that there is strong opposition on the part of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) against this Bill. He has allowed it to appear clearly in his speech that he is opposed to the agricultural industry taxing itself to advance industry, thus he appears to be against the principle.

Of a general levy, yes.

He is against any general inland levy. Thus against the principle of this Bill. He was so in the past, and is so still to-day. I gather this from his speech. The Minister thus has on his own side one who is opposed to the principle, but what is strange to me is the silence of the hon. members on the Cross benches. Usually when agricultural matters are being discussed we get big speeches from hon. members there and they make the most noise. I can very well remember that when the Bill of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) was introduced they opposed it a great deal. But to-day they are as quiet as mice. If the Bill had been passed by the House in 1923 we should to-day have been much further advanced, but we must do our best to push the Bill through the House as soon as possible. I wish to help the Minister to do this.

I must say I was a bit surprised at the Minister of Agriculture, not in justifying his attitude in the past, but in justifying his attitude now. I am very pleased at his conversion, but, at any rate, what one would expect is that there would have been some admission from the party opposite that in 1923 they fought the principle of this Bill, the principle of the levy. They then said that it was a new tax, that it was something new that was started by this party, and that it would be the thin end of the wedge of putting a tax on agricultural products. That was the head and front of their opposition—the principle of a levy. Now they are trying to show where this Bill differs from the 1923 Bill, and these differences are of no vital importance. The select committee which was appointed and considered the matter was unanimous in its recommendation of this Bill to the House. When it came into the House a few days afterwards, you heard rumours in the lobbies that even those that had served on the select committee were going to oppose the Bill. When you asked them why they had taken up this different attitude you could get no explanation. The Minister at the time made several offers. He was very anxious the Bill should go through, but he did not want to press it in the teeth of opposition, because if you wish anything of this kind to meet with success you must not press it in the teeth of opposition. That opposition—I am sorry to describe it as such—was not honest. This evening one would have liked to have seen an honest attitude taken up, and an acknowledgment that what they fought then was the principle of a levy. They knew at that time that it was in the interests of the farming community, and especially of a certain section of the agricultural community, who wished very much that this levy legislation would be put through so that they could turn the levy to their advantage as they wished. The Minister also spoke of big powers given in the 1923 Bill. No one objected to the big powers which the Minister takes in the Bill which has just had a second reading. The Minister must have big powers in a matter of this kind. In the case of those who are not satisfied to pay the levy, it is for them to express that objection and as soon as it is expressed by a majority, they can have it withdrawn. The Minister wants to take exactly the same powers as he complains of in the Bill of 1923. They are going back on their own opposition, and they are now consenting to the levy. I do not see grounds for anyone to oppose this Bill.

Why not vote for it?

What I want to know is why you did not vote for it in 1923? If you are going to support it, it is merely the crack of the party whip which is making you do so. I am going to support it, because I think it is a useful measure.

Where agriculture and agricultural produce are concerned, it is the duty of every representative to see that the oldest industry in the country is treated fairly. I will only say that it is remarkable that the intention of the Bill is not vague. In the first section it is clearly stated that it will only apply to a few industries who have applied for it. Where this is the case, nobody can make any objections. It must, however, be clearly laid down that the industry must make an application. When we introduce the principle of a levy into agriculture, then it means an extra tax upon a certain portion of the population, and then the question arises why a portion of the population should be taxed doubly, while the other portion is only taxed once. The question is then asked what the intention of the Government is, and which portion of the population can claim the particular care of the Government. If the agriculturist must be taxed for the advancement of the sale of his produce, on what ground has the State in the past appointed consuls and commercial agents? It was of course done in the interest of the State, but why, then, must the farmer pay extra for it? The Bill provides that if 50 per cent. of the farmers in a certain branch of farming ask for it, the Bill shall be applied and the tax be levied. The proceeds of the levy then come into their hands. It is therefore the duty of the Government to watch carefully that the money is spent for the improvement of the markets for the produce. In connection with this, careful provision must be made that the moneys are spent for the object stated, namely, improvement of the market for the produce of farmers who have to pay. We feel that we must be careful about obstructing the agricultural population. It is their experience that they are not for two successive years assured of a proper harvest. The treatment of his produce is a further difficulty. If we levy the tax to improve the market, then it should be enquired how much of the produce should be taxed. If the Bill does not in great detail state on what produce and in what circumstances it will be applied, then I must vote against it.

I can tell the Minister that I give this Bill my absolute blessing, as far as it goes; but in connection with the interpretation of terms, I object to his drawing the line at the products mentioned. We have already set the example and, before now, without the aid of the Government and without any law, have levied, on our wines, 5 per cent., up to £1 per leaguer, to save a certain situation. It was done quite legally by our own members in congress. Then in connection with the Tobacco Corporation, we have, for the last three years, with the permission of the shareholders, levied 2½ per cent. on the takings of all our members, on tobacco, and these moneys are employed for the same reasons as are provided in this Bill, to house this tobacco, build new stores, mature the tobacco for export, and so on. I would welcome this Bill provided the Minister would, at a later stage, accept a few amendments and add, for one thing, tobacco, which is an article that has to be matured before being sent out of the country. This would assist one of the most important industries in South Africa.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who has to-night tried to raise the dust, has entirely disappeared from the House and is not in his place. He has again gone away because he has tried to bring the House under the impression that this Bill, introduced by me, is absolutely the same Bill as the one he introduced in 1923. Let me say that his Bill was not accepted. The first reading was taken, and his own party then made him run away from it. It went to a select committee on a proposal of ours. The select committee made alterations, and then it was no longer the Bill of the former Minister. He has boasted that his Bill was the same as what I have introduced here. The Bill which came back was not his Bill, nor is it, as he says, that this Bill is word for word the same as his Bill. I shall prove to him that this is not so. The Bill of 1923, which came back from the Select Committee, has ten sections, while this Bill has thirteen. It cannot thus be absolutely the same. The Bill of 1923 provides in section 9 that it shall apply to all agricultural produce. This Bill expressly provides that it is only applicable to pork, bacon, sugar and ostrich feathers. Is this now the same Bill?

I promised that it would only be applied to those three articles.

Do you think that we could accept that promise after the previous Government, and the hon. member as Minister, had expressed their tremendous sympathy with the farmers by converting them within ten years into 100,000 poor whites? He and his Government introduced the tobacco tax and limited the export of mealies, which caused much loss to the people. Now he comes here and wants to raise dust and thinks that the farmers will be misled with his smoke-screen of promises. No, the farmers know him too well. The farming population of South Africa knows the hon. member too well and knows too well what the previous Government did for them. Klerksdorp and Graaff-Reinet showed it again yesterday. The hon. member is trying again to blow a little life into his party, but I can just tell the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that he will not again obtain the support of the farmers. He need not try it. They know the way he went to work with them. He need not now come here and try to show that we do not look after the interests of the farmer. I think that I have made quite clear by these few words that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort is not correct and that his statement is wide of all the facts. There are only three industries under this Bill, and they are the three for which the farmers and the producers have agitated with the Government. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort and also the member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) have stated that the Nationalist party in 1922 opposed the Bill for political reasons, but we had then, as now, the interest of the farming population at heart and we did not wish to give the powers to the then Minister of Agriculture, after the experience with regard to the tobacco tax and the mealies to which I have referred, to make levies upon any produce of the land.

Why did four members of the Nationalist party first of all approve of the Bill in Select Committee and later, when pressure was exercised on them in the caucus of the party, vote against it?

What do you know about what goes on in our caucus? The people justified our action. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) asked for the levy to be put on tobacco. I have received no application from the tobacco producers and I therefore do not feel justified in agreeing to the levy. No, the other side of the House has tried to raise dust and again to bring life to dead bones, but the dust has already disappeared and the life also. But I am thankful for their support because I regard this as a justifiable measure. The policy of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort is to make a noise and to use this Bill as a screen to conceal his mistakes. I move the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on 15th April.

I move—

This Bill has its origin in what takes place on the Johannesburg market, which is the centre of our internal market for our agricultural produce. The practices of the auctioneers in Johannesburg have made it necessary. My predecessor was made aware of what was going on there and he felt that it was necessary to do something, but as was always the case with him, he waited until it was too late before he brought anything to the light of day. The Meat Trade Commission of 1920 brought in a report about the condition on the Johannesburg market and yet we find that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) waited four years before he would do anything in the interests of the farmers. Perhaps he already knew then, with his prophetic vision, that he would not remain in power to have the relative Bill passed through the House. Let me read to you what the commission who investigated matters in 1920 say in connection herewith. Paragraph 35 reads as follows—

Paragraph 36 reads—

The Chairman of the Cost of Living Commission said that it had been proved that 38s. had been allowed to a certain buyer in respect of one ox. It is a thoroughly vicious system and none of the witnesses spoke of it with approval. Its abolition would, the commission believed, give general satisfaction. For this reason the Bill is before the House. The matter came to a head at the time of the existence of the meat exchange when the cattle auctioneers in Johannesburg agreed to boycott the exchange by refusing to accept any bid from the exchange even when it was the highest, and the late Government then resolved to act as was suggested by the chairman of the Board of Control. By the control which the auctioneers exercised over the speculators and butchers, by the practice that they had of not making the name of the seller public and by the system of rebates, they were able to act to the detriment of the producer as well as of the consumer. If the whole transaction is not public an auctioneer can sell to himself or to anyone with whom his business has an interest, or he may sell his own cattle and thereby influence the bidding. The Bill provides, therefore, that cattle sales must be held in places to which the public Have free access; that the name of the seller and of the purchaser must be made known, and that the auctioneer shall give the seller a sale note on which is mentioned the name of the seller and the purchaser, the number and description of the animal sold, and the commission and other costs which the auctioneer is entitled to charge. The Bill further provides that an auctioneer may give no secret rebate or may not refuse to accept a bid except for sufficient reasons, or that he shall sell to himself or to any other person with whom he stands in a business relationship unless the owner agrees thereto. The provisions of the Bill also apply to agricultural produce. This provision is supported by the Agricultural Union. On the big markets, and as I am informed on some, at any rate, of the smaller markets, the market regulations already provide that the market master shall issue a sale note to the seller, therefore it is not expected that the extension of the Bill to agricultural produce will cause any difficulty or dislocation of the trade. I therefore hope that no one will have any objection against this Bill. It is not long, and I will shortly give the provision of the sections. Section 1 provides that cattle must be sold in a place to which the public have free access, but sub-section 2 contains a provision that show grounds are excluded, i.e., sales may be held there although the public must pay to get in. Sales are often held on show grounds, and to legalize the sale this provision is necessary. Section 2 provides that every auctioneer must mention to those present the name of the purchaser and that he must send a sale note to the seller on which the name of the seller and purchaser appear, the number and description of the animals sold, the price for which they have been sold, the legally incurred costs of the auctioneer, and the amount due to the seller. The name of the purchaser must, however, only be made known to the owner if the owner is a farmer. The reason herefor being that business people object to their competitors and opponents being informed who their customers are, because these competitors may then be able to take those customers away. Section 3 makes it illegal for an auctioneer to give a secret rebate or refuse to accept a bid unless he has good reason to believe, whereof the proof can be demanded of him, that the bidder cannot pay the amount offered; nor may the auctioneer sell to himself or to a person with whom he has business relations unless he has first of all got the consent thereto of the owner. Now an auctioneer will perhaps think that the section goes a little bit far because it is difficult for him to know whether he should accept a bid or not and that the onus of proof will lie on them if they refuse to accept one. But they can so make their conditions of sale that the difficulty is got over. Only the other day an auctioneer said to me that it might occur that he refused a bid and that it appeared subsequently that the man could pay. But the auctioneer can so draft the conditions of sale that such a farmer or other person can first show him or his clerk a bank guarantee or give his sureties beforehand or indicate other security. Section 4 makes the provision of articles 2 and 3 apply to agricultural produce. It is necessary that the same provisions should apply to agricultural produce because the same thing can take place with regard to agricultural produce and our farmers therefore should also be brought under the provisions so that they can get the proper price coming to them for their produce. Section 5 provides penalties and states that the licence of an auctioneer can be cancelled if he is found guilty. I feel that this is a very important Bill. I have myself pleaded for it for some years. It is important that this Bill shall be placed on the statute book. If it had become law before, our farmers would perhaps have already had great benefit, because the secret rebates are an evil. My predecessor delayed the matter until at the last session he also introduced such a measure. I do not think he will in this case raise so much dust, and I hope that this Bill will go through very quickly.

I should like to ask the mover of this Bill whether he has considered the question of the definition of “livestock.” This measure is very essential to Johannesburg, and gives producers a fair deal in regard to bidding for their stock, but I think it is a very material matter that there is no definition of “livestock.” Is it intended to apply to fowls, rabbits and pigeons, etc., because if so, the regulations in regard to auctioning small stock would be very onerous? I should like the Minister of Agriculture to go carefully into this question, to see whether a definition could not be framed so as to exclude these birds, etc.

There is another point which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister. I know that from some of our markets where produce, as defined in this Bill, is sold by auction, certain people, or classes of people, are excluded. I refer, as an instance, to the Durban market, from which I believe a certain class is excluded from the best portion of the market. I should like to know whether the Minister has considered that matter and whether there would not be a risk that in the regulations governing your borough markets you may come in conflict with the provisions of this Bill? Moreover, I do not think that small smales of cheap agricultural products could stand the expense of being bound down to all the conditions laid down in the Bill.

I am very glad about this Bill. But I do not know if it goes far enough to help us in the sale of our agricultural produce. If there is one thing which is a great grievance to the farmers it is the way in which our produce is sold on the markets. I do not know whether there is anything in the Bill or a regulation that an agent should not act as an auctioneer. If that is possible, then we must do something to baulk such a man. I know of a great producer in the low veld, Messrs. H. L. Hall and Sons, who sometimes despatch produce to the value of hundreds of pounds in one day. That agent sells the produce and he goes on with the business for a few months. Then he goes bankrupt, and the farmer can get nothing from him. Suppose he has on one day sold £10 worth of produce from each of 100 farmers, then he has £1,000 in a day, and it is lost, because the farmers will recover nothing. I do not know how in this Bill provision can be made to prevent such a man from doing business just as he likes. I would suggest that such a market agent should deposit a certain amount, so that the farmer has a chance of getting something back. The way in which agricultural produce is sold is scandalous. Our farmers are so far to blame for it in that we have no co-operative society to look after the sale of our produce. I would like to tell a story of what took place in Pretoria. I noticed on the town market that twelve of the long tables contained boxes of Cape grapes in which were 11 to 12 lbs. The auctioneer came along and said, give me a bid for these grapes. A made a bid of 2s., and without giving any further opportunity he asked, “How many boxes?” A bought 20 boxes, and the auctioneer made no effort to even get a fraction of a penny more. Then he asked a further bid, and a coolie bought 50 boxes for 1s. 11d. He thus sold all the grapes in a short time for an average of 2s. per box, and made no effort to get any more. It all takes place while he is walking past. I do not reproach the purchaser if he tries to make a great profit out of our stupidity and out of the defect in the law and the regulations. I do not know what legislation is necessary, but I would suggest to the Minister that there should be regulations for our internal markets, especially with reference to the sale of vegetables on our markets, in order to prevent the auctioneer to also act as agent and to act in the way I have indicated. We must remember that before the farmer gets anything he pays 35 per cent. of the value of his articles, costs of transport, etc., then he must still pay the market agent, etc., before he has anything over for himself.

I would like to call attention to the fact—he knows I am supporting this Bill. I was responsible for a measure of the same character myself—that I have received a communication as to the manner in which it may be necessary to put amendments in the Bill in connection with the sale of wool produce and hides at the port. I have gone through it and it points out in some cases the declaration of the name of the seller to the buyer might prejudice the sale of produce and it would make public the name of the selling broker’s clients and generally lead to sales out of hand, instead of by public auction. I really think it applies to people who have a small business up-country and have supporting houses at the ports. Perhaps, by sending their wool to be sold by public auction, they might get a better price than if the name of the seller were declared. I mentioned this to my hon. friend so that he can think about it before it gets to the committee stage. The small man in business being supported by a house at the port might desire to sell all his produce bought in the country, and if he authorizes the selling of it by a broker and he gave the name of the seller, the people supporting him might insist upon the name of the person sending the produce. It was the commercial authorities at the port that brought this point to my notice. I think we shall have to make a slight provision in connection with the sale of wool and produce. That is, the use of the word “forthwith” is misunderstood. You may get a consignment of 50 or 100 bales of wool and, perhaps, 5 bales might be “super” and 10 bales “first combings," and a certain proportion would be sold to-day and a certain proportion to-morrow, and some of it might be sold out of hand as well as by auction. That is my experience. In order not to create any injustice we might make a provision to meet cases of this kind. I bring these points to his notice in order to have them looked into to see if, while maintaining the principle, we can meet the case in practice. If a farmer sends a clip of wool divided into several lots, some to be sold by auction and some to be sold out of hand, the difficulty of apportioning the amount of railway charges and commission charges on the clip, for which you get a general account from the railway, is rather a difficult thing. I will be prepared to give my hon. friend this memorandum from the Port Elizabeth Chamber of Commerce. This question might be looked into in the interests of the farmers as well as of the commercial classes.

I am very glad that I have got the support of all sides of the House for this Bill. The amendments, as suggested, I will accept in committee. The marketing of produce is now being enquired into by the new division of my department.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on 16th April.