I move—

I think it is customary at this stage of the session for the Government to come forward with a proposal to obtain precedence for Government business. We have reached a fairly advanced stage of the session and it is in the interests of the business of the House, and I believe also desirable for the convenience of hon. members, that Government business should receive precedence, so that we shall be able to finish our work. On this occasion the question is usually put as to what business the Government intends to complete before the end of the session. I may briefly say that the Government is very anxious to pass all the Bills up to and including Order of the Day No. XVII on to-day’s agenda. Most of these Bills are smaller Bills; they do not contain important principles and many of them have already passed the second reading and have, therefore, reached an advanced stage. With a few exceptions these Bills do, not touch important principles or political questions. The most important of these Bills will be No. XI, Industrial Development Bill. The Government is anxious, if possible, to pass these Bills. Some time may possibly be spent on No. XIII, Electoral Laws Amendment Bill, which from the political point of view may be contentious and cause a debate, but with these exceptions all the other Bills are short and do not contain fundamental principles, though I do not want to say that they are less important. They only contain provisions which are required to carry on with the administration of the country. Then there are four private Bills, Nos. XIX—XXII, and for these Bills there will be no time available unless the Government makes time. It is our intention to assist at least some of these Bills in their passage through this House if we can find the time to do so, and I have particularly in mind No. XIX, Attornevs’ Admission Amendment and Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Fund Bill. We hope to find time for this measure. It has made considerable progress in this House and there is a considerable amount of support for this Bill in the country. As far as the other three private Bills are concerned, I can make no promise. I think the only private Bill of public importance is No. XIX. but we shall see what we can do in respect of the other private Bills. With that programme and the necessary financial work which has to be dealt with, we do not expect the session to be extended unnecessarily. It seems to me that with mutual assistance it should be possible to terminate the session at the end of April or possibly early in May.

I second.

We cannot pass this motion without raising our voice of protest against it. The Prime Minister told us that it is customary to move a motion of this kind at this stage of the session, that is to say to take away the last day of private members. I think, to say the least of it, that the Prime Minister has exaggerated somewhat. The rules and orders lay down that two days per week shall be set aside for private members until the fifty-first sitting day. Then one will drop automatically. Only at a later stage, after the first private members’ day has dropped automatically, does the Government come along, towards the end of the session, to take away the other private members’ day. The position now is that for a few weeks already the first private members’ day has been lost as a result of a motion introduced by the hon. the Prime Minister. We lost that day a few weeks ago. In normal circumstances we would still have had two private members’ days this week, and also next week, for the disposal of business which private members like to bring forward. Now, as a result of this proposal of the Prime Minister, we will lose even that day, and there will be nothing left. When the Prime Minister said that it was customary at this stage to move a motion of this kind I could almost see a roguish glance in his eyes, as if he himself did not expect us to swallow that argument. We, as private members, have the right to bring to the attention of the House matters which to our mind are of importance; we have the right to bring matters to the notice of the House, the Government and the public outside, and the only opportunity we have to raise these matters, except when the Government brings measures up for discussion, is on private members’ day. Looking at the agenda, hon. members will notice various matters of great public importance which have been put down for private members’ days. I refer hon. members to next Friday, when in the ordinary course a motion dealing with the difficulties on the diggings would have come up for discussion, and then there was also a motion by the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) which is of the utmost importance. But if we pass this motion, there will be no opportunity to bring these matters of importance before the House. Then I want to express the hope that the Prime Minister will follow a different procedure in future. He should not, without the necessary notice to the Whins, bring forward such a motion. Unexpectedly he now comes with this motion, and it causes a lot of inconvenience to hon. members. We have the case of one of these hon. members who had important business to complete in the Transvaal, but he left that work in order to introduce his motion to-morrow. He arrived here yesterday, only to find that this very important motion of his will drop by the way as a result of the motion now moved by the hon. the Prime Minister. I, therefore, hope that in future, within reasonable time before such a motion is proposed, the Whips will be informed of such intention, enabling them to inform hon. members and avoid inconvenience. Therefore, quite apart from the objections to this motion, I hope that we will be notified in future in good time.

I must say that I am surprised at the hon. the Prime Minister’s attitude this afternoon, because I expected the Prime Minister to furnish convincing reasons for this extraordinary procedure. As has been said already, the rules and orders lay down quite clearly that only after the fifty-first sitting day Government business will have precedence on Fridays. To-day is the forty-fourth sitting day, and now we find that on this forty-fourth sitting day both private members’ days have to go, whilst the rules and orders lay down that after the fifty-first sitting day only Friday is taken away and the other day remains. The hon. the Prime Minister has already taken Tuesdays, and now he wants to take away both days. As it has never happened before that such a drastic step was taken to take away both private members’ days at this stage, we would have expected the Prime Minister to advance convincing-reasons as to the necessity of this motion. But the day before the Friday on which this motion will come into operation he comes along and moves his proposal without giving any special reasons. If the hon. the Prime Minister had given notice before the recess, hon. members could have made their arrangements accordingly. Where we are dealing with such an important motion in connection with the diggings, I want to plead with the Prime Minister. We have had no opportunity of bringing forward motions in connection with this section of the population, who have gone through very lean years, and if ever there was a time to discuss the requirements and the demands of the diggers, it is to-day. I hope the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) will show that he is not such a blind follower of a party, because otherwise I fear he will not dare to show his face to the diggers again if he votes in favour of this motion, knowing as he does the dire distress of the diggers. During the last four years promises have been made to the diggers, new legislation has been promised to them, but these promises have not been carried out as yet. I have here, for instance, a promise which was made in 1936 by the then Minister of Mines, who said—

That was in 1936, and now, in 1940, we are still waiting for this legislation. To-day we are refused a discussion of the matter as a result of the motion moved by the Prime Minister, and the position of these people becomes worse every day. These diggings are in a very precarious state, the whole position as to our diamond industry is precarious. As far as the diggers are concerned, they are sick and tired of this kind of promise, which is only made during elections and not carried out.

The hon. member should not discuss the merits of that case.

I only want to point out how necessary it is to discuss this matter. I am pointing out that such a promise was made and that we should discuss the question. If I cannot refer to that matter, then I want to point out how necessary it is to have a discussion. From time to time promises have been made that this matter would receive consideration.

By whom were these promises made?

The Prime Minister comes along and by a stroke of the pen he deprives us of the opportunity to discuss this important matter. I wonder whether the hon. member for Kimberley (District) will dare to face the diggers again if he supports this motion of the Prime Minister. The hon. member smiles.

I hope Hansard will put on record that smile of the hon. member for Kimberley (District).

We have received promises of financial support for the diggers and small mines and I want to know from the hon. the Minister of Native Affairs, who was Minister of Mines in those days, whether during that election the diggers were not promised assistance on the basis of the assistance granted to small mines? I want to know whether the Government is going to carry out that promise to these people who are in distress? There are at present 800 people in my constituency who have to be fed by the state. That shows the seriousness of the position. The position of the diggers and the diamond industry is so serious that it must be discussed. Whilst prices of diamonds have gone up considerably the production in South Africa decreases and the production in other countries goes up. We want an explanation from the Minister. Where the sales during the past few months of this year were more than during the whole of last year, the Government is in a position to do something for those diggers. Those people have made application to be placed on various schemes, but they are turned down. They are not even allowed to leave the diggings. And now the Prime Minister comes and says that we are not even allowed to discuss this matter. I challenge the hon. member for Kimberley (District) to say that the position is not serious on the diggings. Let him tell the Minister what the position really is. I am sure he would do so if he were not afraid for political reasons to state what the position really is. If it were not for political reasons, we know he would be only too anxious to discuss the matter and I want to suggest that he should specially discuss this matter on the budget. For some reason or other the hon. member apparently cannot do that. Is he going to run away when we come to a vote?

I have already been thrown out of a caucus but I never run away.

Yes, the hon. member learnt his lesson. He was thrown out of a caucus once and he does not want to run that risk again. Let him have the courage of his convictions. He knows how serious the position is, unless he has not visited his constituency. Did he pay a visit to his constituency during the past year?

Are you one of my constituents?

No, but I am asking the hon. member whether he paid a visit to his constituency. If he has not been there, then, of course, he does not know what the position is, but if he knows the conditions there, he will vote against the motion of the Government, even if it means that he will be thrown out of the caucus again, because the position is very alarming. If he possess that courage, then I expect him to vote against this motion, because it is against the interests of the diggers, and his own interests. He is not prepared to say whether he paid a visit to his constituency last year, but I am afraid that he will not dare to hold a meeting, except a ticket meeting. The Government has made numerous promises that they would improve the legislation affecting the diggers.

Order. The hon. member may not discuss that matter. He should confine himself to the motion.

I would like to point out that promises have been made to the diggers from time to time, and that they want these promises to be brought to a head, specially by a discussion of this question.

The hon. member is not allowed at this stage to discuss the details of this question.

If we have to wait for the hon. member to discuss this matter, the diggers will have to wait indefinitely. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) has taken refuge amongst the diggers, because he could not find another constituency and if the diggers have to wait for the hon. member for Kimberley (District) to discuss this matter, they will have to wait a long time. But the diggers will not be misled again to vote for such a representative. I am really disappointed and I want to plead with the Prime Minister to grant us this opportunity to discuss the matter. I want to repeat that the diggers have never troubled this House for a discussion of their position by way of a motion. They have tried to fight for themselves. During last session, the hon. member for Kimberley (District) had a motion on the agenda. That motion went the same way as the one now on the order paper. At the beginning of this session we tried to find a special day in order to discuss the motion now on the agenda and to bring the position of the diggers to the notice of the House. Now it appears we will be deprived of that opportunity, and I want to point out that this matter cannot be discussed on the particular vote, because we want to advocate new legislation. Last year the hon. member for Kimberley (District) dropped his motion, although I do not know whether he did his utmost to get a chance for a discussion. Now, as a result of my motion appearing on the agenda, we would have had the opportunity, but the Prime Minister takes this extraordinary step, and at this early stage of the session, he takes measures to cut down the rights of private members in such a way that we will be prevented from discussing this problem. It is true that we are technically at war, but yet I believe that we should bring to the notice of the Government the precarious position of these people. There are other matters of importance on the agenda, but the serious plight of the diggers is of such vital importance that we should have an opportunity to discuss their position, and I want to ask the rt. hon. Prime Minister to afford us the opportunity to discuss this matter to-morrow afternoon.

I shall not detain the House for any length of time, but I do want to show the Prime Minister that a course is being pursued here which is more radical than has ever been pursued in the past. I do not know of one solitary occasion where motions already appearing on the Order Paper in the names of private members were not given an opportunity of being dealt with. I am speaking of course, of ordinary sessions. We find now that the Prime Minister yesterday, the first day after the holidays, gave notice that from to-morrow, that is from Friday, private members are to be deprived of the days which were at their disposal. Private members’ days are to be taken up for Government work, and the motions already on the Order Paper, I believe there are about three of them, will simply be regarded as not appearing on the Order Paper at all. No provision whatever is being made to give members an opportunity of proceeding with their motions. Can the Prime Minister mention one solitary session where private members have not been given the opportunity of dealing with motions already on the Order Paper, so that they could be disposed of — except at the end of a session? Private members may possibly have lost the last one or two Fridays in a session. Let the Prime Minister mention a solitary occasion to me where such opportunities have not been given to private members. The Prime Minister should at any rate see to it that the motions already appearing on the Order Paper should be given an opportunity of being dealt with before the end of the session, and I repeat that he has no right in this way, this most radical way, to interfere with the rights and privileges of private members. It has been pointed out, and quite rightly so, that long before the fifty-first sitting day one private members’ day had already been taken away, and now we find that before the fifty-first sitting day private members will not even have one day left. The Government has simply appropriated everything. The Prime Minister will probably tell us that we are passing through a time of war. No, that argument does not hold water. We have been compelled by the Government to declare that we are at war, but I put this to the Prime Minister: What are the circumstances which make it essential for the rights of Parliament to be curtailed on account of the war? No arguments can be adduced, and I contend that it is not fair, and that it is something very much out of the ordinary way to interfere in this way with the rights of members, and I say that the Prime Minister by taking this action is setting a very bad example for the future. I am one of those who are of opinion that the rules of procedure in Parliament may be very greatly facilitated, and I consider that Government business specially can be considerably expedited, and that this can be done in quite a reasonable way. But it is another thing altogether to come along here before the session is halfway through— it is expected that the session will last another six weeks—and to let private members be without a single day of their own for half of the session on which to bring any matter they may regard as important before the House. Is that sort of thing right or fair? I feel that the Prime Minister should so amend his motion that private members shall be given the right to introduce their motions.

It seems to me that the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) has got up here to make an attack on me. I do not propose answering these personal attacks on me, but I only want to say this. I realise as well as the hon. member does that conditions on the diggings are extremely precarious, and for the information of the hon. member I may say that I have since the 4th September visited my constituency on several occasions, and I have received practically unanimous votes of confidence. I got one vote of no confidence at Kimberley—that vote was passed behind closed doors, the meeting haying been advertised as the Nationalist Bazaar. The hon. member need not worry his head about mé as the member for Kimberley (District), nor need he worry himself over the diggers whom I represent. I am doing my duty towards the diggers and I am conversant with their conditions. But I am not going to allow myself to be used by the Purified Party opposite. They all belong to the Purified Party today, after their new re-orientation. They have now all joined Dr. Malan’s Party, but I am not going to allow myself to be exploited for their political purposes. I shall do my duty towards the diggers. I know their difficulties and I shall discuss their difficulties, and those difficulties will be solved by the Minister concerned without their being exploited across the floor of this House.

I take it you will go and swim again.

I shall, but the hon. member over there will be afraid to follow me. He is one of the lumps of sugar that will melt. I want to repeat that the position of the diggers is extremely precarious, but I am quite convinced that we shall not relieve their difficulties across the floor of this House by exploiting the diggers for political purposes. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) stated that he hoped that even my smile would be recorded in the Hansard report. That shows clearly what their object is with this motion. All they do is done for political purposes. In the same way as the farmers’ difficulties are exploited for political purposes they are now busy to exploit the diggers’ difficulties in a few of the constituencies in order to score some political gain. But the diggers know hon. members opposite only too well. They know what the trouble is. I know the diggers and I am not afraid of meeting them. I wish to say that I am going to support this motion of the Prime Minister’s because we want to finish our labours here as we are engaged on other great work. The Government and the country have decided to fight democracy’s greatest menace, and while hon. members opposite are travelling about the country making propaganda for political purposes the Government is busy endeavouring not only to save the people but to defend our sovereign independence. And that is why I am in favour of this motion of the Prime Minister’s being accepted, so that we may finish our work here. If my hon. friend over there has grievances in connection with the diggings let him come to me, and I shall take him to the Minister of Mines, and I shall help him to try and get those difficulties solved.

I also, want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to give the motions already on the Order Paper an opportunity of being discussed. The motion proposed by my hon. friend next to me (Mr. Wentzel) was placed on the Order Paper on the first day this House met, and the digging community always hoped that a day would be set aside for a discussion of their interests, so that the Government might be acquainted with the difficulties in which the diggers find themselves through the elected representatives of the digging community. I do not think it is expecting too much to ask that such an opportunity should be given. Yesterday, however, the Prime Minister came along with a notice of motion that private members should be deprived of all days. Those hon. members interested in the matter, and who have motions on the Order Paper, and all of us, have made special sacrifices so that we might be in the House. We made special arrangements to enable us to be here, although a number of us would have liked to have been elsewhere to attend to other business at the present juncture. In spite of that we saw to it that we would be here to-morrow when we understood the interests of the digging community would be discussed in the House, and for that reason I am astounded that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) should come here and say that it is unnecessary to set aside a special day for the discussion of the interests of the digging community. If he really represents the diggers he should know at least the precarious position in which those people find themselves, and as the hon. member has been representing a diggers’ constituency for some considerable time now, and has not yet succeeded in relieving their difficulties by the methods suggested by him, that is, not by discussing their troubles in this House but by approaching the Minister, his common sense should tell him that that is not the right way to tackle the matter, and he should admit that we should try to scrutinise the whole position and all the difficulties of the diggers here, and that we should make an attempt to, relieve them. I think, further, that the hon. member knows that the former Minister of Mines made a definite promise to the diggers last year. He stated that he realised that the position of the diggers was such that the least that could be done for them — and what he proposed — was that the Government should assist the diggers’ community in the same way as, for instance, the smaller mines were being assisted.

Who promised that?

It must have been the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow).

No, Col. Reitz promised it. The tragedy about the hon. member for Kimberley (District) is that he has the fear complex which prevails on that side of the House in regard to the hon. member for Gezina. He [the hon. member for Kimberley (District)] has the complex which we find among the Imperialists, that if a train arrives at Cape Town station ten minutes late 150 Imperialists and “loyal Dutch” get busy denouncing Pirow because he was Minister of Railways in the past. It is not merely a tragedy; it is a great joke as well. I shall leave that point. I hope Hansard may be unable to record the tragic laugh of the hon. member for Kimberley (District). It would not be a happy memory for those who may read Hansard afterwards. I am convinced that the Minister of Mines who is occupying the position to-day has never yet been in the Western Transvaal. If he had been he would be less “red” (Imperialistically inclined) than he is to-day.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

I shall do so, but I should like to explain that in the Western Transvaal, which I and my friend next to me (Mr. Wentzel) and other members here represent, we have the largest number of alluvial diggers, and those people are suffering great hardships. They want this question to be discussed. We want a full discussion without party politics being introduced. It is not our intention to conduct such a debate along political lines, and that is the reason why this motion was set down for the private members’ day. The diggers want the Minister of Mines to hear that there are 6,000 of them, white diggers, who are making a living out of alluvial diamond digging. Members opposite do not know that there are such people. Those 6,000 men are very largely heads of families and they want the right hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon to take heed of the pleas which are made to him, asking for an opportunity to be given to this House to have their difficulties discussed and considered. That is what we are pleading for, and I shall be pleased if the Minister of Mines’ may be informed of the position which exists on the diggings. It is not only white diggers that one finds in those areas, but there are also a large number of natives who have to make a living out of diamond digging. And what does one get to-day? The only hon. member on the other side representing diggers gets up here and reminds us of the fact that he was expelled from the caucus on one occasion. It appears to me that it was a great mistake to have expelled him at the time, because he is so scared now of being expelled again that he agrees with anything proposed by the Government. That hon. member has lost all his backbone. The right hon. the Prime Minister is probably the only member on that side of the House who is conversant with the position in the Western Transvaal and it is his duty to save the position. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) apparently no longer has any sympathy for the people. The diggers will realise that hon. members over there are not prepared to concern themselves with their difficulties and to raise their plight in this House.

They only have time for the Oppenheimers and the Hoggenheimers.

Yes, that is what we have found in the Budget. I am not concerned with the Hoggenheimers; I am concerned with the poor diggers, and I am convinced that if the former Minister of Mines (Col. Reitz) were in his seat this afternoon he would have helped us, because he knows that he has incurred a liability and that he has made a promise. That liability was not incurred by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). He, Col. Reitz, was there first of all, and after he had made that promise and had practically assured them that something would be done, the last day, before the elections, a question was put to the hon. member for Gezina, and the hon. member for Gezina stated that it was not his department but that if the Minister of Mines was going to make such a proposal he would have no, objection to supporting him. That is the whole point, and the argument put forward by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) falls just as flat as other arguments coming from that side of the House generally do.

I do not want to make a digger’s speech here, because I have no diggers in my constituency, but I only want to say to hon. members over there and especially to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) that there is no reason for me to plead on behalf of the diggers for political purposes; but I feel that those diggers are poor and I have always had a great deal of sympathy with the, poor man and with the Afrikaner. I do not know where the hon. member for Kimberley (District) stands to-day. He is a friend of mine, but he is always pulling in the other direction, and he always wants to drag in politics in connection with any matter. On one occasion he swam away from a ship to the Russians, and he donned Russian clothes and became a Russian soldier. I do not want to have anything to do with the Russians. Some time ago he was expelled from the caucus because he put up a plea for the poor farmers.

You put me out.

I did not have the power to do so, but I imagined that the hon. member still had sympathy for the poor people; yet to-day politics are taking him so far away that he will follow anywhere the Prime Minister goes. I would first of all look after the diggers and then follow the Prime Minister’s policy. The regulations are not yet in force, and surely the Prime Minister is not yet able to do what he wants. Or are the regulations already in force? If they are, we may as well be sent home. We may just as well go to the office of Ministers then to get things put right. What is the use of our sitting here? Dissolve Parliament and send us over the way to the ministerial offices. Is that going to be the position? If it is, let the Prime Minister apply the emergency regulations, let him dissolve Parliament, and do as he pleases.

I feel that the rt. hon. the Prime Minister cannot be familiar with conditions prevailing on the diggings, because if he was I am convinced that he would show more sympathy towards those people. If he were familiar with conditions he would allow us to discuss this matter very fully to-morrow. It is quite easy for us to go to the office of the Minister of Mines but it is not so easy for him to solve this matter, and that is why we want to have a proper discussion of this question here. Is not the Prime Minister going to do the greatest harm to himself and his party if this motion of his is adopted? We are not looking at this matter from a political point of view—the subject is too important. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) said that he had obtained a vote of full confidence from the diggers. What will those people think now, those people who have given him a vote of full confidence, if he votes for the Prime Minister’s motion, and deprives us of the opportunity of discussing the interests of the diggers? He repays the confidence they repose in him by distrust. I think the rt. hon. the Prime Minister could very easily allow this motion in connection with the diggers to be discussed to-morrow, and then move his resolution to come into effect a week later. In my constituency there are only 300 diggers, but 95 per cent, of them to-day live on the Government. They do not wish to depend on alms, they want to work for what they get. They do not wish to stand at the Government’s door every month to receive charity—they want to have the opportunity, with the aid of the Government, to be able to make a decent living as citizens of the state. I am convinced that if the Prime Minister considers this matter thoroughly he will give us the opportunity, even at this stage, to discuss this subject.

Unfortunately this motion of the Prime Minister’s is being exploited this afternoon, not in order to convince the House by means of facts that it should not be accepted, but in order to make an attack on the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler). Do hon. members opposite want to say that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) and other members on this side have no sympathy with the diggers? It is strange that hon. members over there should now be so greatly concerned over the lot of the poor digger. The position in which the diggers find themselves is not a new one—it has existed for years. As the hon. member for Kimberley (District) rightly stated the best way of relieving the lot of those people is not by having long discussions on the subject. Such discussions are certainly not going to improve matters. You will not allow me, Mr. Speaker, to read the motion in connection with the diggers, but all that hon. members wish to say in connection with that motion is that the lot of the diggers must be relieved. There is absolutely no definite suggestion as to the lines along which this should be done. It is no use suggesting that a motion such as that, if it were discussed here, would immediately have the result of relieving the difficulty in which these people find themselves. If hon. members over there had adduced reasons to show why certain matters should be discussed they would have had the sympathy of this side of the House, so I imagine, but to move about now from the Eastern Transvaal to the Western Transvaal, in order to make propaganda is not fair, and for hon. members to come and attack the hon. member for Kimberley (District) here this afternoon, and lay the blame on him, and make it appear as though he has no sympathy for those people, is absolutely wrong. Hon. members over there are all too prone to get away from principles and to concentrate on certain individuals as though that would help their case. This afternoon the hon. member for Kimberley (District) has been made their target, and he has been bombarded from right and left. Is there one hon. member on the other side of the House who can say that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) is not as keen as anybody else to work in the interest of those people? I want to make an appeal to hon. members over there to stop making these small-minded personal attacks. If they differ from us, let them differ on principles. Those small-minded attacks are certainly not to their credit. And what did hon. members who used to sit on the Government side of the House in the past do in years gone by? They never did anything for those people. And now suddenly they want to have a long discussion as though that is going to put one 6d. into the pockets of those people. Even if they carry on making propaganda and keep on arguing here all day long it is not going to help the diggers. They may catch a few votes because they may give those people the impression that they are their new champions, but that is all they will achieve. Hon. members over there have wasted a great many days and nights of the time of this House by repeating discussions which were unnecessary, with the result that the Government can no longer place so much time at their disposal. If hon. members over there had not kept on repeating the same matters over and over again there would have been more time available for such discussions. It is this waste of time which is taking place which has led to the motion now before the House having to be passed. I want to tell hon. members over there that I was a member of the Opposition in the past, and that I used to criticise the Government on this sort of thing.

Quite right too.

Yes, quite right, but never since I have been in this House have the Opposition ever taken up so much time on one matter as it has done this year. We had no difference of principle whatsoever, but they come along here with arguments which they have repeated ad nauseam, and most of their arguments have been based on false premises. I have no diggers in my constituency, but all of us are greatly in sympathy with the diggers, just the same as the hon. member for Kimberley (District) is, and I can tell hon. members that they are not going to promote the interests of the diggers by trying to make propaganda here out of their troubles. First of all it was the people who were being interned, then the fruit farmers, then the wool farmers, and now it is the diggers. But those people are not going to allow themselves to be misled, the diggers are not going to allow themselves to be exploited for propaganda purposes, and I say again that this kind of propaganda should be stopped.

I only want to ask the last speaker whether he imagines that the arguments which he used hold water. I want to say that if there is one man in this House who has talked nonsense ad nauseam it is he. He was a member of the Opposition and he used to talk more than any other member; yes, he talked more than all the other members put together, but he has never yet produced a thought of his own, and now he wants to make it appear as if we are wasting time when hon. members representing the diggers want to make a proposition in this House to get an opportunity of discussing the affairs of the diggers. Now he gets up here and states that we are trying to make political capital. I feel that no reason has been adduced, although I have followed the debate very carefully, why this motion should not be discussed. It has been proved that never yet has a step such as it is now proposed to take, been taken at this stage of a session; it has been clearly proved that insufficient notice has been given to hon. members, and especially to those hon. members who have left other business in order to be here to-morrow to discuss the motion standing in their name on the Order Paper. The member who has pronosed this motion in regard to the diggers has suddenly heard now that he is not to be given the opportunity of discussing this matter. If we are not to be given a chance to discuss those people’s cause, how then are they ever to receive any help? It is no use the hon. member over there telling us that they are going to be helped, that this or that will be done without politics being dragged into it. The man who is always so suspicious of other people must have done things himself of which he suspects others. Nobody had exploited the diggers more for political purposes than hon. members over there have done. Whenever there is an election on, Ministers come along and make promises, but as soon as the elections are over the promises are forgotten and nothing is done. The representatives of the diggers have now made a request that their position shall be brought before this House, and I want to ask the Prime Minister, if there is no time for the discussion of those other motions, that he should at any rate give those people who have specially come here to put forward the case of the diggers, the opportunity of raising that particular matter, and discussing it in the House. And once the matter has been discussed here the diggers should be given the assistance which they require. This will be the only opportunity which hon. members will have, in their capacity as representatives of the diggers, to place the matter before the House. What difference will one day make — let us sit one day longer — what difference will it make whether we sit here until the 1st or the 2nd of May? Even if a discussion should not have the effect of improving the position of the diggers, they will at least feel that they had been given an opportunity of placing their grievances before the House, so that the public would know under what conditions they have to live. For that reason I am making an appeal to the Prime Minister to heed our request; if he does not heed our request he will deprive the diggers of the opportunity of placing their case before the House — and I submit that they are entitled to have their case represented here.

I hope the Minister will comply with the request that has been made, even if it only means that he will allow his motion to stand over until after to-morrow. I am sorry that politics are being dragged into this matter, because the fact remains that we never had any intention of introducing politics into this subject. The farmers possibly may tolerate politics being dragged into their business but the diggers cannot stand it. The diggers only have a few representatives here, and if the Prime Minister is not prepared to grant our request I ask when shall we be able to discuss this matter?

On the Estimates under the Mines Vote.

But as soon as we discuss increased expenditure the Chairman will call us to order. If we could deal with the matter on the Estimates, it would solve our difficulty, but I feel, so far as I am personally concerned, and I know that I am also speaking on behalf of the hon. member who wants to introduce his motion, that this is not a matter which in any way concerns party politics. We cannot afford to discuss this question from a party political point of view. I recently visited my own constituency and I also visited the constituency of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler), and I can tell hon. members that the position in which the diggers find themselves is very precarious indeed. We want to make a suggestion to the Minister as to what should be done. But now, instead of being allowed to discuss the matter in the House, we have to go and see the Minister privately. We know, however, that even if we do see him privately nothing will be done. We, therefore, request the Prime Minister, even if it is only for to-morrow, to give us an opportunity to discuss this question. Surely that is a reasonable request. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) spoke about politics being dragged into the matter, and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), who knows nothing at all about the subject, is of opinion that this question is of no importance; when he, however, introduces any motion on any subject it is of the greatest importance, and everyone has to listen to him. When we come along with an important motion on behalf of the poor man he considers it is of no importance. I hope the Minister will yet give us the opportunity of discussing this matter to-morrow.

I had a certain amount of sympathy with the Opposition when this motion was originally introduced, but after the foretaste which we have had this afternoon of what we would have been told to-morrow, it is quite clear to me that they want to use this subject for the purpose of party political propaganda. Why, otherwise, those personal attacks on the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler)? I, myself, have diggers in my district and I want to ask hon. members whether it is going to do the diggers any good if they start off by making those personal attacks? No, hon. members over there have ulterior motives in regard to this motion of theirs. If they had been honest in their intentions they would probably have obtained a certain amount of support, but so far as I am concerned, they have lost that support completely, and I shall, whenever I have the opportunity, make that quite clear to the diggers. A personal attack has been made here on the hon. member for Kimberley (District). There is a certain epoch in the history of the Anglo-Boer War, and hon. members opposite are now poking fun at that epoch. They are now trying to ridicule what the hon. member for Kimberley. (District) did on that particular occasion. All that hon. members are doing is to try and belittle members on this side of the House. Hon. members have to admit that the promises made to the diggers have been largely given effect to.

Mention them.

The hon. member knows perfectly well that the farms which have been promised have been released, and other things have not been given effect to, partly because of difficulties within the diggers’ committees themselves.

Which farms are you referring to?

In the district of Wolmaransstad. I understand that it is the farm “Goedgedacht.”

We have never heard of it.

I myself visited that farm. I am convinced that hon. members opposite have ulterior motives and these matters which hon. members opposite have raised are not going to do the diggers any good. How many times have not the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel), and the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne), denounced the methods of the Opposition — even last year they did so, when hon. members opposite raised this subject, and when they said that party political questions were being dragged across the floor of the House. Why cannot we stand together on this question, and see the Minister and the Department in connection with this particular matter? But to-day hon. members are doing the very thing which they denounced in the past, and for that reason I shall vote for the motion proposed by the Prime Minister.

I also wish to express my disappointment at the curtailment of the rights of private members in connection with the important motion appearing on the Order Paper. When I realised that I would no longer have the opportunity on Tuesdays or Fridays to discuss my urgent motion on the subject of farm mortgages, I withdrew it so that I might be able to say a few words on the subject during the consideration of the Estimates. Now we have this important motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel), and together with those who are conversant with conditions on the diggings I feel that we cannot urge the Prime Minister strongly enough that he should be given the opportunity to discuss conditions prevailing on the diggings. We are in a state of war to-day, and in England Parliament is in continuous session so as to exercise its democratic rights. In this country, however, Parliament is not allowed to meet, here we have to be governed by regulations and the voice of the people has to be smothered, and there is not to be any government by Parliament. If England — whose imitator and loose donkey we are — feels that it is essential for Parliament to be in continuous session, why should we only sit two months and prorogue thereafter, while the most important motions on the Order Paper have to be left untouched? The diggers last year put thousands of signatures to a petition for the cleaning of the diggings at Bakersville, Elandsputte, Ruigtelaagte, and other places, but the former Minister of Mines (Col. Reitz) did not regard this as a practical proposition. He told the House that he had an offer from his friends Lewis and Marks for three excellent farms, and he said that he was going to propose to the Cabinet that those farms should be opened up for the diggers. The diggers agreed with this suggestion because they did not want any charity; they want to have ground to work. This suggestion, however, has not been carried out, and consequently the diggers find themselves in difficulties. That is the position prevailing on the diggings, and I am quite convinced that if the Prime Minister were conversant with conditions there he would allow their troubles to be brought before Parliament, and he would allow Parliament to have ample opportunity to discuss the whole position. There are numerous women at Elandsputte and other places who have to walk miles every day to go and work in a blanket factory at Bakersville for a precarious wage, because their men are unable to make a living on the diggings. Those people are asking for land to be opened up. The price of diamonds is better to-day, and all they want is land to work. Is this possibly an indirect manner of putting those people into khaki?

Order! I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the motion before the House.

I am asking whether members opposite, members like the member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler), and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), and the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe), are busy trying to find a way out because they are going to vote for this motion, by making it appear that we are busy indulging in personal attacks. There is no truth in that. I challenge those hon. members to mention one sentence spoken here in combating the injustice that is being committed in the curtailment of our rights, which can be regarded as a sentence employed for the sake of political propaganda, or political exploitation. No, we are making a serious appeal to the Prime Minister to treat this matter on its merits, and to give us an opportunity to plead the cause of the diggers. We have never yet had a chance, practically speaking, to plead their cause honestly and fully, and seeing that they have been made a promise, as mentioned in this House, the opportunity should be provided for this matter to be gone into fully, so that we may make an effort to get the unknown Minister of Mines interested in conditions prevailing on the diggings, particularly in view of the fact that most of the people there are Afrikaans speaking Afrikaners, people for whom he has no sympathy at all.

Before the question is put I only wish to say that if one listened to the debate conducted here this afternoon one would have come to the conclusion that there is going to be no opportunity for the rest of this session to discuss the precarious position of the diggers. There will be an excellent opportunity to do so when in Committee of Supply the vote of the Minister of Mines is being dealt with.

We shall not be able to ask for the introduction of legislation on that vote.

There will be no restriction of the discussion. The motion now appearing on the Order Paper does not propose the introduction of legislation. It is a general discussion; it is a general debate, and that debate can take place just as well on the Mines Vote.

The Chairman will stop us at once if we urge the introduction of legislation.

The hon. member is not correct when he says that; he knows as well as I do that practically year after year the whole question of the alluvial diggings is discussed on the vote of the Minister of Mines, and in the circumstances I do not think that any injustice is being committed. If there had been no opportunity during the rest of the session for the discussion of this matter, there would have been a certain amount of reason for the objections raised here, but the best opportunity to discuss this subject will be when we go into details on the Estimates.

What about the motions which will have to drop?

That has often happened.

Such a thing has never been done.

As there will be an opportunity to discuss this question on the Estimates there is no reason why provision should be made for a discussion of this kind.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—55:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Bawden, W.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Long, B. K.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Tellers: L. D. Gilson and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—31:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fagan, H. A.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Olivier, P. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Theron, P.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. S. Labuschagne and P. O. Sauer.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

I am sorry that when the second reading of this Bill was agreed to I was unable to be present here. I had to be in Pretoria on urgent business, and being unable to be here I did not hear the arguments put forward by the Minister of Agriculture as to why he introduced this Bill. It would appear to me that the Minister in introducing this Bill has acted rather carelessly. I have not heard anywhere in the country of there being any necessity for the amendments contained in this measure. So far I am not aware of any agricultural union, or agricultural congress which has requested the Minister to bring about these amendments. If we study the amendments which are now being proposed we find that far-reaching changes are being made to the Fencing Acts of the country. The Fencing Acts of 1912 and 1922 provide for compulsory contributions in regard to fences between farms where divisional councils have decided that the district is to fall under the compulsion mentioned in the Act, or where there are no divisional councils, wards and field cornetships can pass a resolution. In consequence of such a resolution the compulsory provisions of the Fencing Act are applicable. The Minister now proposes that such resolutions shall not be enforced, but that their enforcement are to depend on the decision of the Government. Compulsory fencing does not now under this Bill result from such resolutions; it is not laid down that the Governor-General shall impose the compulsory provisions of the Act, but he may do so. So in future the compulsory provisions of the Fencing Act will depend on the arbitrary decision of the Minister, or of the Government. I have already said that we have not yet heard of any strong demands having been made by the public for these changes, and I should like to know from the Minister since when there has been this demand, and on whose recommendation and demand he is now moving these amendments? I can understand that in the peculiar conditions prevailing in the country to-day there may be a necessity to suspend the compulsory provisions for a certain period. To-day, owing to war conditions, and the uncertainty as to the supply of requisite materials, it may be difficult to obtain such materials and it may be expensive for the farmers to carry out the provisions regarding compulsory fencing, and consequently I can understand the Minister taking powers, while those conditions prevail, to suspend compulsion and to leave the application of the Act optional. If this Bill, however, is agreed to, it will remain optional for ever, and I do not believe that the farmers of South Africa want such a change to be introduced. We have made considerable progress in regard to farming in South Africa, especially where sheep-farming is concerned, and everyone will agree that as a result of this compulsory fencing provision farmers have largely succeeded in reducing the vermin pest in South Africa to a considerable extent, and nobody will deny that but for this compulsory provision in regard to fencing there would not have been this great progress in the direction I have indicated. As that provision is now being watered down and will in future be optional, and it will depend on the Minister of Agriculture, or on the Government, whether or not fencing is to take place, I am afraid we are now taking a retrogressive and not a progressive step. For that reason I should like to know from the Minister why he cannot consider, in view of conditions prevailing to-day, and in view of the feeling among farmers against a permanent watering down of the compulsory provision, only suspending the compulsory provisions while these extraordinary circumstances prevail? The step which he is now proposing to take goes too far. I can give him the assurance that it will cause a feeling of uneasiness among the farmers if they hear that the compulsory provision will not exist in future, as it has done in the past. In future it will be possible for influence to be exerted on the Minister, and I fear that fencing in future may become a political question. That was not the position in the past, but by taking this very dangerous step I am afraid that the Minister may cause fencing to be brought into the political arena. I feel that he himself may possibly have to pay very dearly for such a step, and that the country in general will be detrimentally affected in consequence of this change in the compulsory provision, and the introduction of an optional provision. I hope the Minister, even at this late stage, may realise the danger and that he will, if possible, withdraw the Bill so that later on he may introduce another amended Bill which will only make provision for the peculiar circumstances in which we find ourselves to-day.

I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry is not here. This Bill falls under his department and he is not here. I wonder whether it would not be advisable for me to move the adjournment of the debate.

He is engaged in another place, and I am here to act on his behalf.

Very well, then we shall have to carry on. This Bill which contains only four clauses, and which looks so very innocent, contains principles as a result of which we are being steadily driven to a dictatorship. We have always been proud of the fact that this was a democratic country, a country governed on democratic principles, and it was because of that that in 1912 and 1922 the principle was adopted that the districts themselves would determine along certain courses as provided for in the law, how and when contributions for the erection of fences would be compulsory. A special procedure was laid down in the Act; a divisional council meeting was to be called, proper notice of which had to be given; the magistrate of the district had to attend that meeting, and at that meeting the representatives of the district had to discuss the whole position; if a majority of members decided to do certain things and asked for a proclamation to be issued, then it was made compulsory in that division for anyone wanting to take part in a fencing scheme to contribute to such a scheme and to the maintenance of the fence. The Government was obliged to listen to the majority of the people in the district and was obliged to issue a proclamation. The same procedure was laid down in 1922 when a start was made with jackal-proof fencing. That same principle was adopted then. Now it is to be changed. Meetings will still have to be called, but even though they may be unanimous in their decision the Government can still refuse to issue a proclamation. In other words, a Minister or the Cabinet, are going to rule the country without the people in the district having any say. There is a dangerous principle here, and I feel that at this third reading stage I must protest against the violation of the principle under which we were born and under which we have grown up — that is to say the principle of democracy. The people in the district are being deprived of the right to say what they want, and I therefore feel that I must protest. This present Government may possibly be a very good Government, and we may perhaps have a good Minister of Agriculture, and he may listen to the people when they approach him, but the day may come when we shall no longer have such a Government and when we shall no longer have a Minister who will be willing to listen to the people. For that reason I feel that the Minister is going too far with this particular measure. There is a danger that capitalism in our country may become an even greater danger before people may realise what is going on. One may have a large company in a district owning large pieces of land — as is the case to-day. That company possibly has not bought the land for the purpose of farming, but for speculative purposes, and it considers it unnecessary to fence that land. The company may then be able to bring pressure to bear on the Government and force the Government to listen to it, and it may be made impossible in the district for other people to close up their lines because the neighbour cannot be compelled to contribute. The Minister may possibly say that fencing wire is too expensive and that therefore we have to depart from the compulsory provision. We have fences, however, which have already been set up and which have to be maintained, and if proclamations are issued under this Bill it means that every owner will be obliged to keep bis fence in order himself, and that his neighbour need not contribute part of the expense, although he has the privilege and advantage of that fence, and uses the same fence. In what way does the Government intend deproclaiming? It may possibly be done on account of the fact that fencing wire is expensive and I admit that it may be difficult to erect new fences while the material is so expensive, so that it may be difficult to compel people to contribute. But what about the maintenance of fences? That is also compulsory, and if deproclamation takes place the obligation of owners on both sides of the fences to assist in maintaining the fences falls away. Then we come to sub-clause 3. That sub-clause does not even make it necessary for the district to ask to be relieved of the obligation to contribute in respect of fences. The Government may, without the district making a request, deproclaim such a fence. What then becomes of the rights and privileges which have always existed in connection with fences between farms? It is not laid down in what way the Government shall act. It would appear to me that here again we have before us a piece of hasty legislation, and that the department has not made a thorough investigation into this matter, and the questions which I have mentioned should be tackled in a totally different way. This Bill is too drastic. The Government has the right to deproclaim without people asking for it, or without their wanting it. I am going to prophesy that the Government is looking for trouble. If the Government has to decide without the wish of the public, and if they take action without the wish of the public, they are going to find themselves in serious trouble. It is now going to depend on the Government, and the Government will have to decide whether a fence is to be erected, and whether deproclamation is to take place. The Government is looking for trouble. If it is necessary to suspend the compulsory provision because of the fact that fencing wire is more expensive and so on, the Government should introduce a totally different Bill, a Bill which makes it clear what the object is, and why that provision is being suspended from time to time, until such time when fencing wire will again be available at a price enabling people to carry on. Farmers are not even to be compelled to maintain their fences, and that surely is necessary if one wants to prevent animals from neighbouring farms being mixed up. For that reason I feel that it is essential that the Minister should re-consider the whole position. One cannot go on taking unto oneself rights and powers which one should not have. The Government is doing something without the will of the people, and what the Government is really contemplating doing can be done in a different way by providing that only during an abnormal period, while it is difficult to buy wire and while wire is expensive, shall the compulsory regulation be suspended in respect of new fences. I want to point out, however, that we may possibly be able to manufacture our own wire. We are going to encourage the establishment of factories, and I take it that one of the first articles to be manufactured will be wire, if it is not already being manufactured here. That being so there will be no reason for wire to be so terribly expensive, and the need for this Bill will therefore fall away. This Bill has apparently been drafted in a hurry, and is going to cause a lot of trouble to the Government and to farmers outside.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux). His speech was an excellent one. It is a pity that the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) again tried to drag party politics into the matter. I am sorry that I was not here during the second reading of the Bill, because it would appear to me that the object of this Bill is not to benefit the rich man but to protect the poor man. I am speaking from practical experience. One has a number of rich farmers in a district; a meeting is held, they get the majority and they ask the Divisional Council to proclaim. Then the poor man, who finds it very hard to erect a fence, is compelled to take part. This law was originally passed in the interest of the poor man, but fencing material is so expensive to-day that it is in the interest of the poor man to do away with the compulsory provision. That is the object of this Bill. I am sorry, but I should like the Bill to be drafted so that it would only be of a temporary nature, because I can give the Minister the assurance that the principle contained in the Act has answered very well in the past. A number of farmers meet together and try to obtain the majority in order to ask the Divisional Council to proclaim their district; that is truly democratic and perfectly right. Today, however, this democratic principle reacts very badly against the poor man. Possibly we may be unable at the present moment to spend thousands and millions of pounds on fences, because it should be remembered that when an area is proclaimed it is the Land Bank which to, all intents and purposes have to grant loans for fences to be erected. To-day we are able to do so because the price of wool has gone up, and we expect it to go up still further in spite of what hon. members opposite say.

Is it necessary for you to drag party politics in again?

I am not going to discuss it any further, but I want to say that in spite of the fact that the price of wool is very high and will go still higher, the price of fencing material is so high that the farmer has to pay too much. When the price of wool drops again after the war, as it did after the last war, the farmers will be saddled with huge debts. For that reason it may not be desirable at the moment to go on with the scheme, but I hope that after the war we shall be able to revert to our old procedure.

I am in agreement with the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) that the position was such that people before the erection of jackal-proof fencing were unable to carry on their farming on proper lines, but if one looks into matters to-day one finds that stock farming is only possible where such fences have been set up. Now the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) says that the reason for this change is that fencing wire is so expensive. I may point out, however, that when the first area in the district of Willowmore was made jackal-proof we had to pay £1 3s. for a roll of fencing wire, and no farmer has ever regretted having fenced off his farm. I do not know why the Minister has introduced this Bill, because whenever a request is made to the Divisional Council by the farmers asking for the proclamation of their area, I do not know why the Government should step in and say whether the area should, or should not be proclaimed. Who are the people who are going to suffer in consequence of this amendment? If we pass this Bill the rich man will continue fencing off his farms and will be able to demand a contribution from his neighbour. But the middleman is going to suffer because he is unable to fence his farm without the support of his neighbour. If we take it that the war is going to last five or seven years the middleman will be set back for that period. I was not here when this Bill was before Parliament last — it was not my fault — but I should like to know from the Minister what the reason is for the introduction of this Bill. Is the object to protect the farmers, or is the object to protect the Land Bank so that they will not have to give any money to the farmers? If the Land Bank has not enough money for this purpose then it is a disgrace to the Government, which has enough money for other purposes but not for the needs of the farmers. I live among the people who require those fences, and I know that the people who want to fence off their farms need the assistance of their neighbours, because without that assistance they cannot put up their fences. It is not merely on account of the jackals that farmers have to, fence their property, but farmers would have to appoint guards and herdboys to look after their stock, and we are unable to-day to obtain people to look after the stock because people are drifting to the towns. I want hon. members to look at clause 3 which I consider is very drastic, as it says that if a certain area has been proclaimed and the people have already started on their work there, the Minister can come along — and it does not matter whether they have started before or after the coming into force of this Bill — and he may deproclaim that area. It would be a serious matter for people who have started fencing their farms if the Government were to step in and deproclaim. I say that this Bill is going to have a deteriorating effect on stock and cattle farmers. They will be unable to farm with their stock because they will be unable to obtain assistants to look after their animals, and they will also be unable to kraal off their stock because the stock has to be allowed to run about loose, so that farmers may be able to get the best meat and the best wool for the market. I hope the Minister is going to tell us that the Land Bank has not sufficient money available to assist those people. There is no question of people wanting to get their money free of charge for the purpose of fencing their farms: let the Land Bank give the money and the farmers will pay the interest. The price of fencing wire should not be considered, because at one time farmers had to pay as much as £2 and more for a roll of wire; it was not out of the way for them to pay £1 5s., and to-day’s price is not even as high as that. The farmers are obliged to fence off their farms, and I am sorry that this Bill has been introduced. I hope the Minister will even at this late stage say that he will withdraw this Bill.

I must honestly admit that I do not understand what the object of this Bill is, and the more I think of it, and the more speakers I listen to, the more uneasy I am beginning to feel about it. Let me tell the Minister that during this week-end I was on my farm in Calvinia; I have a neighbour there who has fenced off his farm, and now we do not know what is going to happen. He expects me to pay out; he has put up 5,000 yards of wire on the borderline of his farm, and he is now very much afraid of the Government coming along and saying that I will not have to pay out anything. How will he nay for his fence then? On the other hand I am afraid that if I want to raise the money I may be turned down by the Land Bank, and furthermore I am afraid that if I want to put up a camp the Land Bank may not grant me the money for such a purpose. I also want to point out what has happened, and what it is that makes other farmers and myself feel very uneasy. I was on my farm for four days, and for three days out of the four I looked all over to try and get a herdsman for my cattle. It is quite impossible to find anyone in the North-West, and now, while we realise that we have to fence whether the fencing wire is expensive or not, the Minister comes along with a Bill like this. Like many other members I was unfortunately absent when the second reading took place. I did not absent myself deliberately. I feel that this Bill has progressed a long way, but none the less I hope that if the Minister is not prepared to withdraw this measure he will use his discretion in the right direction so that in cases such as I have mentioned, where I am personally concerned, people shall not be involved in all sorts of difficulties — and difficulties may occur if the Minister fails to act very carefully.

This amendment of the Act affects my constituency directly and it affects it very seriously. We are concerned with the Native Trust lands which have been purchased, and the position will become practically impossible where land is being bought in mountainous areas if farmers are unable to put up jackal-proof fences there. On the 2nd February, 1940, a resolution was passed by the Wool Growers’ Association of De Wetsdorp and I should like to quote one paragraph of that resolution—

The position amounts to this, that those farmers are now seriously considering organising under the existing law to have the areas adjoining native areas proclaimed as jackalproof areas, because the Native Trust in reply to my representations has said, inter alia, in consequence of a petition by a Thaba ’Nchu Farmers’ Association—

The position has now been rendered uncertain as far as they are concerned, as the Minister has the power to withdraw the provisions of the old Act quite arbitrarily. People in those areas have found that the new native areas have to all intents and purposes been turned into vermin reserves. If the Minister, as he has told us, may refuse to have an area proclaimed, even though 90 per cent, of the farmers are in favour of fencing, the position becomes very difficult for the farmers, and their plan may fail. As a rule it is not the middle-class man who refuses, but the well-to-do farmer who is well able himself to pay for a fence being put up. If the one man refuses it leaves a gap, and the whole scheme becomes a failure. For that reason I am afraid that if this Bill is passed the district along the native areas where we have this peculiar condition of affairs will be seriously affected, and sheep farming will become totally impossible as the wool farmers’ association states in its resolution. For that reason I ask the Minister to withdraw this Bill, because even though the wire may be more expensive, I still say that with present-day prices plus 25 per cent, if they are able to get a Land Bank loan, it is still better for the farmers to fence their land than have to kraal their stock, and be uneasy every day because they have no jackal-proof fences.

However well intended this Bill may be. I am afraid that it will not in any way help the farmers who are being pressed. I have two instances in one of my districts. Well-to-do farmers have been making experiments with sheep farming in areas which so far have only gone in for cattle farming, and they have notified their neighbours that they are going to fence off their farms with jackal-proof wire. Not one of those neighbours was financially able to undertake the work and they made application to the Land Bank for the necessary assistance. Two of those farmers received replies that their farms were already mortgaged to the extent of 70 per cent., and that consequently no further money could be advanced to them. Under this Bill the application of the existing law may now be temporarily suspended in such a district. But is this going to be done now for the sake of two, or even for the sake of three farmers? Furthermore, the farmers themselves do not want it. It means handicapping A who wants to put up a jackal-proof fence, if the law is to be suspended in order temporarily to protect B, and that while B only wants an additional loan. The additional loan may possibly mean only 2 or 3 per cent, on top of his bond, so that it will be 73 per cent, instead of 70 per cent. In such instances this Bill does not come to the aid of farmers. All we want is that the Land Bank should come to the aid of those farmers. The amount involved will at the utmost be another £200 in any specific case. As the Bill stands now it is not going to help the farmers. Then we find that a number of the districts which have been proclaimed have been fenced off on the block system. People are now finding out that that system is useless, and they want to fence off their farms separately. I had a case like that in my constituency. Those farmers are now approaching the Land Bank, and the Land Bank states that A and B can be assisted, but C and D cannot be assisted because their bonds already amount to 70 per cent, of the value of the farm. What is going to be done in a case of that kind? Is the Act going to be suspended? If that is done farming generally is going to be interfered with. The Act should be amended in such a way that the additional small loans may be granted, and that will solve the whole difficulty.

When this Bill was introduced more than a week ago its object was explained. The Bill was passed unanimously in the second reading, and thereafter the Committee stage was also passed without any objections.

Was the Committee stage taken at once?

Yes, it was taken at once with the leave of the House. I feel therefore that hon. members are expecting too much when they ask the Government to withdraw the Bill, or so to amend it that it will practically become a different Bill. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) put the position correctly. The principle of the Fencing Act in connection with compulsory fencing has generally answered its purpose well, and we do not wish to depart too far from it. In spite of that there are instances, however, where that principle, especially in present circumstances, bears very heavily on a number of people, especially on the poorer class of people and the Minister has no discretion in such cases. The object of this Bill is to give the Minister a certain degree of discretion. But it is not simply a temporary matter. The position has been rendered more urgent on account of the increase in the price of fencing material, but even before that increase took place the matter was repeatedly considered by the Department of Agriculture, which even then felt that the Act should be amended.

Did any requests come to the department from the side of the farmers?

That I could not say, but I assume that there must have been requests, at least from individual farmers. Some hon. members opposite have lost sight of the fact that there are instances where the Land Bank is unable to render any assistance. It is not the intention to help the Land Bank, but to help the farmers. The Land Bank is subject to certain restrictions in respect of the security which it must have. A difficulty which has often been experienced in the past, and which as a result of the rise in price of fencing material is making itself felt more and more, is that in consequence of the restriction in regard to the security which the Land Bank has to have, the Land Bank is unable to come to the aid of people. Farmers are obliged to fence but the Land Bank cannot render them any assistance. Consequently this Bill is not intended to help the Land Bank, but to help those farmers.

Why is the Land Bank unable to help them?

Because the Land Bank Act lays it down that a definite margin of security has to be provided, and the Land Bank cannot go beyond a certain definite amount.

But a fencing loan receives preference?

But certain restrictions are imposed on the Land Bank under which the Land Bank cannot exceed a certain percentage. Now I want to say this, my hon. friends may take it that it is not the Government’s intention to abandon the principle of the Fencing Act.

No action will be taken arbitrarily, and there is no question of a dictatorship. I may further point out that this discretion will not be in the hands of the Minister, but in the hands of the Governor-General, which means the Cabinet as a whole. Hon. members may therefore accept my assurance that the department will act very carefully. The general principle is sound, but we feel that the Government should exercise a certain degree of discretion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

I would like first of all to recall, Mr. Speaker, to the minds of various hon. members, the salient features of the development of industries since the Great War. I have taken three periods. I have taken the years 1916-T7, 1926-’27, and 1936-’37. The reason of that is this, that I have not the complete figures since the period 1936-’37, so I take ten-yearly periods. I will drop out 1916-’17, as it happens to be a period not ending on the 31st December, and I will call it 1917. There were 5,305 establishments; in 1926-’27, 7,170; in 1937, 9,987. That is the number of establishments. The gross value of their production in 1917 was £49,457,000; in 1927, £98,867,000; in 1937, £175,765,000. Honmembers will notice from that, Mr. Speaker, that in the last ten years the output is nearly doubled. The next item for which I will give figures, deals with the question pf materials used, and I will give them in round figures, so that hon. members can keep them in their minds fairly easily. In 1917 the total value of materials used was £28,000,000, of which South African materials were £14,000,000. In 1927 the figure was £50,500,000, of which £25,000,000 were South African. In 1937 the figure was £90,000,000 of which £45,000,000 were South African. Hon. members will notice that roughly 50 per cent. of the materials used in these industries is South African material. I next come to employment. In 1917, 46,100 Europeans were employed and others, that is non-Europeans, numbered 77,742, giving a total of 123,842. In 1927 the number of Europeans employed was 80,745 and nonEuropeans 121,919, giving a total of 202,664. In 1937, there were 140,203 Europeans and 192,565 non-Europeans, giving a total of 332.768 people employed. To-day, of course, there are rather more. In 1937 there were 332.768 of our people employed in those industries. Now I will deal with the wages paid. In 1917, the Europeans were paid £7,750,000, and non-Europeans £2.750,000, giving a total of £10,500,000. In 1927 Europeans were paid £18,000.000 and non-Europeans £6,250,000, giving a total of £24,250,000. In 1937 Europeans were paid £31,500,000 and non-Europeans £10,000,000, giving a total of £41,500,000. That is, in 1937 the persons engaged in our industries earned £41,500,000. Now as regards capital employed. In 1917 the amount was £32,000,000; in 1927 it was £59,000,000 and in 1937 it was £98,000,000. Hon. members will notice from this that, generally speaking, you can say that in the last ten years our industries have increased by 80 per cent. The industries concerned I will give in three categories. First of all, I will give the category of protective industries using mainly South African materials: Bacon, butter and cheese, tanneries, sugar, tobacco, sweets and jams, and milling. The next category I will give are of those using mainly imported materials: Boots, clothing, soap and candles, printing, furniture and chemicals. I am only giving the principal industries. There are hundreds of smaller industries. The third category I will give hon. members is what I will call the sheltered industries, namely, bakeries, bricks, electricity and the building trades. Hon. members will note from this that the gross production increases sightly faster than the number of persons employed, and the capital used, and one can deduce from that that it means that gradually these industries are increasing in efficiency, that is for the same capital employed and the same labour they are able to get a larger output. And hon. members will also notice that the industries which have been established in the largest way are what one might call the light industries, such as boots, clothing, furniture, etc., and the heavy industries do not show up to anything like the same extent, and it is these heavy industries which now await development, and which I believe could add very materially to our industrial welfare in this country. And we are very favourably placed with regard to these heavy industries owing to our base metals and minerals such as copper, tin, asbestos, etc. And there is a further form of development which I should like to see proceeded" with, and that is what one might call by-products from the present industries. To give one an idea — I am not suggesting that an investigation would prove that I am right or wrong, but to give an example of what I mean — you take the sugar industry. There must be a big industry when we can find it, and when we can prove it, available to deal with the by-products of the sugar industry in the way of bagasse and things of that kind. It might be a very valuable adjunct to the sugar industry and it might be of enormous value to Natal.

It is.

I think all hon. members will agree that the progress of the last ten years, the development of the last ten years, has been very creditable. One cannot criticise the men who have undertaken it, they have done a good job of work but I believe that to-day even equal or even greater opportunities for expansion exist. And it is for aiding and guiding and accelerating that expansion that this Bill is before the House. One intention has been to induce capital, to invest in sound industries. It is rather curious in this country that as far as investment is concerned we have what one might call a gold complex. Anyone can get any money to invest so long as he suggests that there is a bit of gold underneath a bit of land, and a good many people have lost money trying to find that gold, but if a man produces quite a good industrial scheme he finds very great difficulty in getting the initial capital to start in business. And there are several other handicaps as well to our industrial expansion. One great handicap, of course, is the size of our markets. It is very difficult to produce at the right price if you have not got a big market for your products. And in order to widen our’ markets — and we have a market north of us, west of us, and even in the Far East which might be developed, but it is necessary for us to be able to produce at world prices to do it, and there does not seem to be any insuperable difficulty in our doing it. We have a lot of cheap labour and if we get the men with the brains to establish these industries and conduct them we should be able to produce the goods as cheap as they can be imported from Europe. But the initial trouble is the finance. You cannot start unless you have the finance, and we do not propose to provide the whole of the finance for industries. What we propose doing is to investigate industries and we hope that it will give sufficient confidence to capital to come in and invest in these industries. At the present time people are nervous about these industries because they do not know whether they are likely to be successful, or whether they are likely to lose their money, but we feel that with proper investigation the public, not only here but overseas as well, might be induced to invest considerable capital in our undertakings. As I said the object of this Bill is to organise finance, not to proovide it. If, sound industries are established we can get a market outside the Union and those industries will be able to stand on their own feet. It will not be necessary for us to provide all the capital for them. A very important factor is that this corporation will have at its disposal experts who will examine these projects and when they have examined them and seen that they are good, they can underwrite a portion of the capital, and put their imprimatur on the undertaking which I think will induce the public to back them with the capital that is required to develop them. It may be asked “Why not allow the present banks to do it, why are we taking a hand in this financial development?”

You need not be afraid — we are with you there.

Anyone who has known me in this House in the last sixteen years that I have been a member knows quite well that I hate Government messing about with any industries, but I want to explain that in this case they are not going to be industrialists themselves, they are only going to help enterprising industrialists to find the money to finance their own industries, and our banking system which is largely based on the English banking system is not suitable. The continental banking system, the German system and the United States system, is organised differently from the English banking system. The English banking system has one belief, which is a very good one, and which in the past has done the financial world very great service, in that when you have these terrible shocks, such as war, you do not find an English bank going into the Insolvency Courts. One reason is that their deposits are short dated deposits and they do not believe in making advances which are long dated advances. They do not like having their money tied up in such a form as one found for instance in Austria a few years ago when a large banking concern broke because all its money was frozen. And therefore they are not suited for investment in industrial undertakings which have to be long dated investments. Now our method of attacking the problem is laid down in the Bill. Those members who are conversant with company practice will recognise that the Bill itself is equivalent to the memorandum of association, and the power in the Bill to make regulations is the power to make the articles of association. If members refer to the Bill they will see that clause 3 lays down the objects. A power is taken not only to establish new industries but to persuade industrialists overseas to come here and bring their capital out here and establish branches of their business here. As one knows, there are several big concerns all over Europe and America which have vast resources and can provide us with establishments and capital, and employ our people in carrying out these industries. Clauses 4 and 5 lay down the methods of financing. We first of all have the investigation by experts of any proposition. Then the next process is, having found a good proposition they enquire from the proposers what proportion of the capital they can put up, and if the corporation thinks fit it can underwrite an issue of shares to the general public. But it will be noticed in these clauses that only in very exceptional circumstances is the Corporation allowed to provide more than a reasonable proportion. As I say, rhe idea is that we are not going to provide a lot of capital for a few industries, but we are going to provide capital by underwriting the various propositions, and as and when the market will take up the shares which we underwrite then our money comes back to us and it can be re-invested in further undertakings. We shall not have a lot of frozen assets, we shall constantly be turning over our assets so as to spread the benefit of this Corporation wider and wider. Clause 6 is a very interesting clause. It deals with the method of election of directors. This has given me and my colleagues a great deal of thought, because I shall say at once that if there is any political pull in this business, or if there is any interference with the people who are going to run this — if there is any interference except in dealing with matters from an industrial and financial point of view, this scheme is doomed. And it was necessary for us to find some method by which no Minister or no Government could foist on the public a body of directors who would not be efficient and capable of carrying out the work of the Corporation. The method finally decided upon was that we should establish a panel of men holding prominent positions in industry, finance, commerce and science, who would recommend names to the Government, the idea being that for evey vacancy they would recommend three names, and the Government could only select its directors from those names. I think hon. members will appreciate that the people who are going to select this panel are not people who will be at all interested as to whether a man is of one political complexion or another, if he is to be put on this Board of Directors. As I say, the whole scheme is wrecked if there is any political pull or any other pull except that of industry, which will see to it that the proposal is good and sound.

I suppose the Government is not political.

The Chairman, I should say, is appointed by the Governor-General. Now we come to clause 12. There are two alternatives in clause 12. Perhaps I had better start by saying that the capital is £5,000,000, and it is divided into 500,000 A shares, and 4,500,000 B shares. The B shares in the first instance will be issued to the Government which will pay for them, but they can be sold. The 500,000 A shares cannot be sold without a vote of Parliament, and however many B shares there may be, assuming the Corporation becomes five times its present size, the 500,000 A shares have one more vote than the whole of the rest of the shares combined, so that the Government always has control of this Corporation.

And you say it is nonpolitical.

This money we propose shall be put up in one of two ways, either by a direct vote of the money by Parliament, or by the issue to them of some of the Iscor B snares we hold. We do not lose our control of Iscor, because we have the same arrangement there, and the A shares in Iscor control the whole of the other shares. We hand them Iscor shares at a valuation, and my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, will not be satisfied with my valuation, but he has the decision himself, as to at what price he shall hand the shares over. The disadvantage of giving cash direct is that it means that your National Debt is going to be five millions more, and our National Debt is quite high enough already. Further, it is not too easy to get as much money as you want to-day, so I am inclined to the view that it will be very much better for us to mobilise our B Iscor shares and then the Corporation will be able to finance itself through the banks. In addition to the Minister for Finance having the final say as to the price at which Iscor shares are handed over to the Corporation, the Corporation cannot sell any of these shares after they have got them, except with the consent of the Minister of Commerce, and at the price which the Minister thinks fair and reasonable. That is a safeguard — it is probably unnecessary, but it is a safeguard — against this valuable asset being squandered. Clause 18 is the clause to which I referred, and which gives power to make regulations which practically take the place of the Articles of Association of an ordinary company under the Company Law. Those regulations are all subject to the consent of the Minister. Now I think I have described roughly the intent and the contents of the Bill, and I would now like to say one or two words regarding some of the fears which have been expressed to me, but which I think are quite without foundation. One suggestion is that if the Company is unsuccessful there will be a serious loss through our handing over Iscor shares. Well, to that I reply first that I should not put the Bill before the House at all if I thought there was going to be a loss. I do not go into commercial affairs making up my mind that there is going to be a loss, and I have full confidence in its success. I also think it is going to be a most potent cause for the development of our industries. But, Mr. Speaker, I go further. If it is going to be a loss, as some pessimists seem to think or wish, you will have just as big a loss if you borrow five million and add it to the National Debt, so there is absolutely nothing in that criticism. I might point out that the Treasury gets a very great indirect benefit from every industry that is started in this country. There is the Customs Revenue derived from imports, there is Income Tax, which sometimes is fairly stiff if an industry is doing well, and there are a hundred and one ways in which the Treasury itself does very well out of any increased development in the country. The next fear that has been put to me is that it will increase competition in present industries. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have never known a successful country which has not got plenty of competition. I would suggest that you don’t go to a place in which there is not plenty of competition, because that means that the place is not worth trading in. Therefore, I do not worry too much about this. I would like to say that this Corporation is much more likely to provide extra business for our present industries. For instance, if we put down heavy industries in the Transvaal, they will buy Port Elizabeth boots, and Cape Town furniture, and instead of decreasing opportunities in individual industries there will be a very large increase, and industries will become infinitely more prosperous. So that I cannot for the life of me see that any industrialist need fear that this Corporation is going to hit him. On the contrary, it is going to do him a lot of good. I would like to emphasise one thing: we have a lot of youngsters coming on every year for whom we must provide employment, and this is one method by which our youngsters can get into industries in which there are enormous opportunities for development, instead of going into those blind-alley occupations in which we find so many of them to-day. If we can develop our industries the younger generation will have very many more opportunities for advancement in the future than they have to-day. Some of our other critics have told me that it will decrease our imports to the detriment of overseas people, for instance the United Kingdom. Well, I have great regard for imports from the United Kingdom, and I think we ought to get from that country as many imports as possible, but it is quite a fallacy to think that by developing industries in this country we are going to decrease imports from anywhere. The volume of our imports is governed by the value of our exports, and our exports are much more likely to increase in a fully developed country and our imports will correspondingly increase. There need be no fear of that. Then I would point out that industrial development is the best method of helping the farmer. Our agricultural development is our one weakness; it is economically unbalanced. Take the United States, or any of the big countries, and you will find they have a big home market, and they dump the surplus. We have a small home market and the bulk of our produce has to be dumped overseas in competition with the dumped products of other countries, who have already made their money before they started dumping surpluses. We must do something to change that balance; we must do something to increase our home market, so that we don’t have to dump quite so much. Take an industry like the citrus industry. California has 130 million mouths to feed in the United States, and she dumps what, to us, is a colossal amount, but is really a bagatelle compared with what is consumed in the United States. We have to dump practically the whole of our citrus into a market where it comes in competition with countries who only dump a small proportion. I am convinced that we shall never get our farming industry on sound lines until we get a very much larger home market and the development of industries will have a greater effect on increasing that home market than any other methods that I know of. I would like to remind our farming elements in this country that these industries will provide occupations and outlets for their children, and if one looks round the world one sees what a marvellous number of successful men have come from the countryside. You find it all over the world that such a man was brought up on a farm. To a certain extent it is so in this country. The countryside is a very fine start for the man who is going to stand the racket and hard work of running an industry. Then the other criticism is that this corporation will start industries and they will not be successful, and they will come to the Government and ask for heavy protection and all that. Now my advice to the directors will be this. I am not prepared to recommend any protection for an industry except protection against dumping. Naturally, one will not allow any of our industries to be strangled at birth because a big corporation overseas think that they may put them out of business. They must be able to live without any protection beyond that, not only for this reason, but also because you cannot get a big market overseas or up north — and that is where I am looking — unless we can produce at world prices. It is no use having an industry here which has to be held up by protective duties. That will do us very little good indeed. Then J am told that I am entering into competition with the banks. I have already explained to the House that the banks do not do this business. I have also explained that the banks are quite able to look after themselves. Further, I say that through the development of these industries the business of the banks will develop equally fast and faster. It will bring a lot of business to the banks, and there is therefore no necessity to worry about that. Finally, the matter to consider is this. Is the present time the right time and the most favourable time in which to start such an ambitious scheme? Personally, I think that no time could be more favourable. I do not know of any time that would be more favourable for this purpose. Owing to increased freights and other charges and delays in deliveries, it will give the new industries a chance of finding their feet before they feel the full blast of the real competition which is bound to come after the war. I can only say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I heartily commend this Pill to the favourable consideration of the House.

Let me say straight away that members on this side of the. House have no objection whatever to the principle underlying this Bill. The principle underlying this Bill is the principle of industrial development in South Africa with State support; that the State itself will go so far to take the initiative; that the State is prepared to advance money out of the Exchequer for the establishment of new factories, and for the extension of existing factories. That is the principle which this side of the House has advocated for years. We have for years been asking that the Government should proceed to the establishment of an Industrial Bank in South Africa in order to finance the establishment of new factories. Here we almost have our proposal for the establishment of an Industrial Bank, only under a different name. The financial corporation will to all intents and purposes be the industrial bank which we have proposed. We are pleased to find that hon. members opposite have at last been converted, and for that reason we most heartily welcome this proposal in principle. But one may spoil a good thing and a good cause by the form into which one pours it. There are certain provisions contained in this Bill to which this side of the House strongly objects. I propose this afternoon to deal with only a few of them. If the Minister is prepared to meet our views on those points his Bill will pass through this House without difficulty; if not, he must expect strong opposition from our side. The Minister stated in his introductory remarks that this was the right time for this sort of thing to be undertaken. We agree with him there. He quoted certain interesting figures regarding our industrial development since 1916. I think the Minister would have done better if he had told us of the tremendous industrial development which has taken place as the result of the war from 1914 to 1918. I have a few figures here to complete the picture which the Minister has tried to place before us. The number of factories in 1911 was only 2,400. In 1919, that is after the war, that number had gone up to 6,980. The number of employees in those factories in 1911 was 65,000: by 1919 the number had gone up to 175,000. In wages and salaries £4,000.000 was paid out in 1911; in 1919 this had gone up to £19,000.000. The output of the factories was £17,000,000 in 1911 and in 1919 it was £92,000,000. This shews the opportunity offered by war conditions in the world for the industrial development in a country.

We are very pleased to hear it.

I was speaking about a state of war in the world. I would advise the Government that instead of shooting £14,000.000 through our guns in one year, it should use that money for the establishment of factories. Let the Government place that money in the hands of this financial corporation for our industrial development, and I can assure them that we shall see a great revival in South Africa. The Minister told us that it was going to be very difficult to obtain £5,000.000 for this corporation. He even said that they would have the Iscor shares in order to finance it. Our advice to the Minister is very simple advice; keep South Africa out of the war and then you will not have to spend £14,000,000 on the war. Put part of that money into the industrial development of South Africa, and the result will be that when the war is over, and the world is faced with depression, South Africa will be in a better position to resist the storm and depression of the post war conditions. For that reason I have deliberately shewn how South Africa may strengthen itself in this time of war. All of us know that America grew rich during the last world war, as a result of the neutral attitude it adopted in the beginning. We also know to-day—and this is actually happening in Europe to-day, that Italy, if it does not enter the war, will be the strongest and the richest country in Europe. Italy is keeping out of the war, and it is taking all the cream for itself—it is taking for itself all the benefits that may be secured through the war, and if this Government had not been so stupid as to enter the war on the 4th September, if we had not become just as mad as England, France and a few other countries, we should have been able to have followed the example of America and Italy.

What about Abyssinia?

Oh, fie! Still, I do not wish to pursue that course any further. I only want to say this to the Minister. If he tells us that he is going to find it difficult to raise that money, our advice to him is that he should spend less money on the war and he should use the money which the Government has at its disposal for the industrial development of our country. It does not happen every day in the life of a nation that the Government has a full exchequer at its disposal, and if we do not waste all this money on the war but use it for industrial development, we shall be able to create a condition of affairs in South Africa in which poverty will be unknown, but in which there will be work for everybody, under which there will be a local market for all the farming products of South Africa, and that is the condition of affairs which we want to see here.

Get to the Bill.

Yes, I shall get to the Bill. I want to say which provision I object to in this Bill. The fear I had in respect of clause 5 was strengthened by the statement which the Minister made to the House this afternoon. He told us that it was not the intention actually to finance new industries. This is what we find in clause 5. I shall read it because it is of importance. This is what the clause says—

And then we find that paragraph (c) contains the following provision—

I feel that the Government is tackling this matter in a half-hearted manner. The corporation may decide that it is essential to establish another key industry such as Iscor. Assuming the capital for such an industry is not available, according to the provision of clause 5 it will then be impossible for the corporation to provide such capital. I want to say that there cannot be any one in South Africa to-day who regrets the action of the Nationalist Party Government some years ago, who regrets that the Nationalist Party Government had the courage to establish Iscor. Not a single member can have any regrets at the step taken at that time. I was a member of this House in those days, and I well remember the opposition to the proposal, but the Nationalist Party Government had the courage of its convictions, and it established that key industry. It was established with state money. To-day it has proved itself a magnificent success in South Africa, and not only has it been a magnificent success, but this year it even contributed £1,000,000 to the Exchequer. Assuming we have another case like that. What is the use, if one establishes a corporation, a corporation consisting of business men of ability, men with experience of conditions, who find that they are concerned with a key industry, and they come along and make a recommendation to the Minister—so long as we have this provision, what is the use of it? Assuming the Minister is unable to interest private capital, are we not going to allow such an industry to be established for reasons of that kind? I thought that the days have passed when we would have tackled industrial development in a halfhearted way. That is the first fault I have to find with this Bill, the spirit in which the Government approaches this matter—it is a spirit of cowardice. I dare say here that I believe that the old South African Party Government was defeated in 1924 not only and not so much because of the weak financial policy pursued by Mr. Burton, but because it was not prepared to extend adequate protection to the industries which had sprung up during the course of the war. I have studied the figures in the year-book to ascertain the exact position. Those figures show that during the course of the war the number of industries had increased tremendously, but after that, after the war, there had been a set back owing to the old South African Party under the influence of Mr. Jagger and Mr. Stuttaford who in those days were not in favour of a policy of protection.

I was always in favour of protection.

The hon. the Minister says he was always in favour of protection. I remember the then members of Parliament, Mr. McKeurton and also Mr. Saunders both representing Natal constituencies, times out of number pleading for the establishment of industries, and I remember Mr. Jagger….

I was not a member of the House in those days.

Mr. Jagger represented commerce in the House in those days; he was the mouthpiece of the Chamber of Commerce and they objected, with the result that in the years after the war, from 1919 to 1924, our industrial development received a setback. I am not going to quote the figures here. I have already pointed to the growth of industry during the war. What were the figures after the war? During the first year or two after the war the number of industries remained constant. In 1919 the number was 6,980, in 1922 it was 7,029— not much of an increase; the number of employees was 175,000 in 1919, and this number went down to 171,000 in 1922. Consequently, so far as the number of employees was concerned, there was a drop.

That was in a time of depression.

If the hon. member had been here in those days he would have known that in those very years New Zealand and Australia flourished as never before in their history. It was only the bad policy of the old South African Party, under the lead of the present Prime Minister, which caused a depression in South Africa, and one of the reasons was that they were not prepared to gather the good results which war conditions had created for South Africa. The number of employees in our industries went down; wages and salaries remained more or less constant at £19,000,000, but the output of the industries dropped from £92,000,000 in 1919 to £74,000,000 in 1922. That is to say, as a result of the bad policy of the South African Party the output of our factories went down. The Nationalist Party, under the lead of the present Leader of the Opposition, saved South Africa. This magnificent iron and steel industry, the great development of our industries since those days, are all to the credit of the Nationalist Party. The Nationalist Party showed itself to be the best friend of industrial development in South Africa, and my objection to this Bill is that it is a half-hearted measure — it is patchwork. The Government is not sincere; it appears that everything is being done for the sake of appearance. The Minister spoke of objections to this Bill. Is he expecting those objections from this side of the House, or is he speaking about his own people? What can one expect from a Government which still has to convince its own people of the desirability of industrial development? I am opposed to clause 5, and I want the Government to have the courage which the Nationalist Party had when it erected this magnificent monument in the shape of Iscor in South Africa. The time may come during the present war when it will be in the interest of South Africa to establish another industry of that kind, and an opening should be left in this Bill to enable such an industry to be established. Otherwise this Bill is not worth the paper it is written on. Now I come to the control of the corporation, and in this respect the objection from this side of the House is a matter of principle. The management will consist of seven members. Of those seven members the Minister will only have the right to select the chairman and to appoint him. That, I think, is correct; until such time as private shareholders come in, the Minister will have the right to appoint the other six members from a list of ten persons to be submitted to him by a committee, as provided for in the Bill.

The Governor-General appoints other members.

I can see that the hon. member and other members on the other side have not read this Bill at all. I say that the Governor-General, that is, the Minister, only has the choice in regard to the appointment of the chairman. That is all. The other six have to be appointed by the Minister from a list of names, until such time as private shareholders come in. The Minister has to appoint the six members from a list of ten people.

No, no; you do not understand it.

The number of names to be submitted by the committee must be three times the number of appointments to be made by the Minister, but the number is restricted to ten. It seems to me that I have to teach the Minister the contents of his own Bill. Well, well, the Minister has to learn the contents of his own Bill! I feel diffident about going into details, but it seems to me that I have to do so because I have to tell the Minister what his own Bill contains. He only has a free choice in regard to the appointment of a chairman of the corporation. Then six members remain, and those six he has to appoint from a list of ten names to be submitted to him by a certain committee. That is the position. I am pleased to note that hon. members on the other side understand the position now. Now what does this committee consist of? That is important. It is not the Minister who appoints, but in actual fact it is the committee. Who are the committee? Now, listen. The committee will consist of (a) the chairman of the board. He is appointed by the Minister, who has a free choice. But who are the others? (b) Someone appointed by the Minister to represent the interests of the banks.

He warned us just now against bank interests.

Yes, and further, (c) the president for the time being of the Chamber of Mines; (d) the president for the time being of the South African. Federated Chamber of Industry; (e) the president for the time being of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of South Africa; and (f) the president for the time being of the Associated Scientific and Technical Societies of South Africa. That is the committee which has to make the recommendations, which has to put up the panel from which the Minister has to select the directors. The Minister told us that he and his colleagues in the Cabinet had for a long time been considering the question of appointing a committee standing outside politics. Now I ask hon. members, who of us believes that the president of the Chamber of Industries has not chosen political sides in South Africa? Imagine, the president of the Chamber of Mines is a man who stands outside politics! The banking interests in South Africa are not concerned with politics! The Chambers of Commerce ore not connected with politics! The only impression I get is that the Government is here appointing a purely political body behind which it will be able to take refuge. The Government knows that that body will carry out its policy without it, the Government having to take the responsibility.

What is your alternative?

The objection from this side of the House to this clause is based on principle. We cannot allow a committee to be appointed which does not put up one single penny in connection with this enterprise, and we cannot allow these people to have a say over £5,000,000, to do as they please with that money. Let me be clear on this point. What right has the Government to give a few people who do not put up a penny for this enterprise the power to say who shall stand at the head of the corporation?

We shall appoint six forestry workers.

They may possibly do much better than the people whom the Government are going to appoint. Before concluding there is one other point I wish to refer to. This side of the House believes in industrial development. We know that the industries which have been created since 1915 are of the greatest importance to South Africa. We are heartily in favour of this industrial development and we are heartily in favour of accelerating such development by which South Africa will be made more independent of the world outside. We know that whatever the result of the war may be, very difficult times will be experienced after the war, and South Africa will be able to face the storm very much better by making itself self-supporting as far as possible. If possible, I want the Minister to look ahead. We have the experience of Iscor. We established Iscor without previously training our people for that type of work. I want to point out to the Minister that he is establishing this corporation now, and if he finds that some industry is required here I ask him to send some of our young men overseas to be taught the work in such an industry.

What do you want more than the Van der Byl scheme which we have here to-day?

Yes, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) is now trying to swank in Nationalist Party feathers. And those are the only feathers he has to swank in, for the rest he is naked. I have said before, and I want to repeat, that the Nationalist Party is wholeheartedly in favour of the principle underlying this matter. We believe that South Africa’s future is wrapped up in industrial development, and we also believe that the restoration of the farming community lies in industrial development in South Africa. We believe that the solution of the problem of the raising of the standard of living lies in industrial development in South Africa, and this is the right time for such industrial development to take place. The 1914 to 1918 war has proved to us that to-day is the time to strike the iron, because the iron is hot. But what we are asking the Government is not to do something in a half hearted manner, but to do the thing thoroughly. I want to make a good suggestion to the Minister. I want to put it to him that if there is one thing that would be good for South Africa it would be for us to build our own merchant vessels in South Africa, and if he is looking for a port where this can be done I recommend Knysna. All he has to do is to open the bar there and he will have the best harbour in South Africa. Let him decide on that and send our young fellows overseas at once to learn ship building. I can assure the Government that when the war is over there will be very few ships left to sail the seas, as things are going now. We are in favour of this, but we want the corporation to be so composed that it will not be a political instrument in the hands of the Government.

I have tried to avoid that.

Then the Minister has set about things in the wrong way to achieve that object. The Minister has tried to give all sections of the community in South Africa representation on the corporation, but he has not given the farming community any representation. Are not the farmers interested for instance in an industry for the manufacture of petrol out of mealies, or a factory for the manufacture of farming implements? All sections of the community are given representation, why not the farmers? If the Minister is prepared to meet us on certain points we shall try to assist him to get this Bill on the Statute book as soon as possible, but if not I can assure him that we shall oppose this clause in committee.

Mr. Speaker, there is no policy in South Africa that commands my support in greater measure than a policy designed to assist in the development of secondary industries. Having said that, however, I must make it clear that I am very critically hostile to the Bill which is now before the House. For the moment I would like to deal with it from a very general point of view. A great deal of the legislation which has been brought before the House for a similar purpose during the last five or six years has been of this character. It appears to me that Parliament is gradually voting away powers which really belong to Parliament itself. Session after session we are being confronted with Bills setting up various boards and control measures, and during the last five or six years we have introduced into the Union a sort of hybrid group form of representation, something which I feel quite satisfied the people of South Africa are not in favour of, and if we go on as we are going, very shortly we shall have to vote the House of Assembly out of existence altogether. I don’t know whether it is a confession of complete and abject failure on the part of the Minister but we have had to listen to-day to him explaining a Bill which in effect hands over his responsibilities to a Board which is going to-be elected by a set of individuals who, by no stretch of imagination, can one say, have the confidence of even a considerable section of the people. In that respect I must agree with the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). I am one of the members who take this particular phase of recent legislation very seriously. I am a believer in the democratic system of government because I feel that it is still the best system which can be developed to meet modem conditions, but within the last few years continuous attempts have been made by vested interests in the Union to get from the Government actual legislative powers, powers which go far beyond even the powers given to Parliament itself. These legislative powers are given to these people for the purpose of controlling what is supposed to be their own destiny, but which has in fact the purpose of putting extra money in their own pockets. That is why the hon. member for George is so inconsistent. He objects to the Chamber of Mines, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Chamber of Industries getting precisely the same thing from the Government as the wool farmers, the dairy farmers and all the other farmers have got in the shape of these tremendously expensive Control Boards which are given legislative powers for the purpose of putting money in their pockets. If the hon. member for George is to be consistent he must not only object to these particular boards but he must object to the Wheat, the Dairy and all the other Control Boards which have to do with the farmers’ produce. Now, I would like seriously to impress upon the Minister and upon the Government generally that a disservice is being done to the Union, and sooner or later this is going to become an issue of grave importance, this question as to whether the House of Assembly is to remain the Parliament of this country or whether its duties are to be handed over, through the medium of Control Boards or Corporations, and the right to legislate be given to particular industries. That is an important issue which we will have to consider before many years go on. Every session we have a recurrence of these Bills. Only the other day we had a Fishing Control Board to control the fishing industry, which was given power to make regulations. We are giving in this Bill here the power to make regulations and so it will go on until eventually we shall find that the only job the House of Assembly is left to do is to pass the annual Budget and give certain interests power to make regulations for the control of their own industry and give them permission to take more and more money out of the pockets of the unfortunate consumer. I want to tell the Minister what he does not know, that in this very Select Committee which he proposes to appoint to do the job which he apparently is afraid to do himself, in this very Select Committee he has the representatives of two institutions in South Africa who are definitely opposed to secondary industries. Unfortunately in the time at my disposal I could not get the original evidence but I want to quote from some of the remarks made by the Customs Tariff Commission, particularly with reference to the evidence laid before that Commission by the Gold Producers’ Committee. That Committee made the astonishing suggestion, astonishing even for the Gold Producers’ Committee, that all protective tariffs in South Africa should be abolished, and that no industry which needed protection should be allowed to exist. They said we should have the uttermost amount of free trade, that we should buy everything in the cheapest market and that everybody in the country should be employed in mining the lowest grade of ore. That was not only a calculated suggestion put forward by the Committee but they went the length of printing it and publishing it in pamphlet form. It is one of those literary masterpieces which as time goes on will become a rarity. I have, unfortunately, lost my copy. Now let us see what the Customs Tariff Commission said in their minority report which was signed by Mr. Faher who was Chairman of the Board of Trade; Mr. Laite, who represented directly on that Commission the Chamber of Industries; and Mr. McMenamin and Mr. Rabie. This I want to emphasise, because the hon. minister is prepared to put on this Committee, that is not political mark you, and that he tells us has the confidence of the people of the country—I don’t know where they get their confidence, the Chairman of the Gold Producers’ Committee who has not got my confidence and I am quite satisfied if a referendum were taken the Chairman would only have the confidence of the individuals who are making money out of the gold-mining racket on the Witwatersrand. On this evidence the Gold Producers’ Committee is not interested in the future of South Africa. A Committee which could come forward and make the suggestion that men and women should be put deliberately out of employment in order to force down the standard of living as well as the cost of living to enable them to work a little more low-grade ore in order that they may get a little higher price for shares that they were probably rigging the Johannesburg market with, has not my confidence. This Commission goes on to say—

And mark you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister plainly tells us that this Corporation and the five million which it has at its disposal is not for the benefit of any protected industry. The industries which he visualises in this bill are industries which can be set up in the Union and which, apparently, can carry on without protection. I would like the Minister to tell us what industries these are because I don’t believe there are any secondary industries which could function satisfactorily from a capitalist profit-making point of view without some measure of protection. If there are any such they would have been set up here long ago. If I know anything about capital it is that it finds the most profitable field for exploitation and if it had been possible to set up secondary industries of any scope without protective tariffs, such industries would have been set up long ago. So the Minister, I am afraid, is being a super-optimist if he thinks he is going to find any secondary industries that can function without a tariff. However, it goes on to say—

That is the statement of the Gold Producers’ Committee of the Chamber of Mines, and it goes on to say—

That was evidence which the Minister replied to, and evidence put forward by the committee and again published in pamphlet form to the effect, that secondary industry should be curtailed in order to insure that the volume of imports should be maintained and increased. The report goes on to say—

This minority report states clearly that they make special reference to these two statements as they were practically the only submissions to the commission which offer concrete alternatives to the encouragement of secondary industry, and the people who have offered to a responsible commission, concrete alternatives to the encouragement of secondary industry are these wonderful people whom the Minister tells us are competent to form part of a committee to nominate a board for the purpose of developing secondary industry. I should like to ask if the Minister has read this report. I should like to ask if he has, by any chance, read the evidence submitted by the Gold Producers’ Committee and Durban Chamber of Commerce? I am quite satisfied that he cannot have read it, otherwise he would never have dared to have got up in this House and have suggested that we, a House of Assembly, should hand over what is in effect our job and duty, and the purpose for which we were sent here, to representatives who represent a point of view so short-sighted and so much concerned with the economic interests of their own pockets, that they actually suggest to that responsible commission, that secondary industry should be reduced in order that low-grade ore should be worked. The report goes on to say—

I know he was the chairman of that committee, but I do not know who the chairman is now. The question was—

Yes.

advanced the idea that I am not particularly concerned with, but he is advancing ideas which are held consistently by the Transvaal Chamber of Mines, and he advanced the idea that the volume of the national dividend in South Africa would have been greater if we had never had protective duties, which enabled us to build up our secondary industries. He feels that by reducing the cost of living, and working more low-grade ore, the volume of the national dividend would have been greater, in the long run, than by the encouragement of secondary industries. He is not concerned with what will happen to South Africa when the gold mines peter out. Then Mr. Gemmill was asked the following question—

Yes.

Then the commission goes on to say—

hon. members will, therefore, see that this is no new attitude on the part of the Gold Producers’ Committee. It is a consistent line of economics that they have pursued for many years in South Africa. It behoves this House, and it behoves the Minister to see that when we are trying to do something for secondary industry, that we are not led at the outset into giving representation to a body which, as the evidence shows, is definitely opposed, and always has been, to the development of secondary industry. The report goes on to say—

That is the commission talking, and it goes on to say—

Mr. Gemmill believes that the future of South Africa, in the economic fabric of South Africa, can be strengthened by the expansion of the furniture and bespoke tailoring industry. I am a bespoke tailor myself, and had I known that years ago, I am satisfied that I should not have allowed myself to be elevated to this lofty place. But since then bespoke tailoring has been eliminated completely. The report goes on to say—

And I make no apology for developing this argument at this time, for I think it is time that somebody drew the attention of the Minister to things he should know. The report says—

I want to tell this House, with all the emphasis at my command, that in my experience in South Africa, both as a public man and otherwise, there is no greater influence wielded in this country, political or otherwise, than that wielded by the Transvaal Chamber of Mines. I confess candidly that when I read this Bill and found that the Minister was prepared to insert a provision whereby the chairman of the Gold Producers’ Committee of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines was one of that committee selected to elect a further board, I smelt a rat, and I am prepared to say there is a rat in it. What is the Transvaal Chamber of Mines doing on a board, or what is it doing by having a representative on a board, or having influence on a board which sets out to develop a form of industry to which they are fundamentally opposed? That is a question which the Minister should answer before he asks us in this House to support this particular Bill. What right has the Chamber of Commerce to be put on this particular committee to elect this particular board, when we have the evidence given by one of the most prominent chambers, the chamber of my own town, that they are opposed not only to protection, but to the expansion of secondary industry, because of economic bolony about imports and exports having to balance? That was the evidence actually given by them. Why should they be singled out for this glorious honour of forming one of a committee which is going to elect this board? Does the hon. minister really believe that a board elected by these gentlemen will be non-political? Is it not strange to some people who support the Chamber of Mines, and who support the Chamber of Commerce, and right through the history of South Africa, in the old South African Party itself, and subsequently in the Fusion Party itself, that the Chamber of Mines gang and the Chamber of Commerce gang also supported the same party and are still supporting it, while there is in the possible composition of this board, all the possibilities of things happening a great deal more dreadful than there would be if you had one or two people who you could say got there by purely political influence? What is the terrible crime which attaches itself to being a politician to-day? When the Minister was talking I wondered how he ever got into this House, because he thinks, apparently, that the politician is the lowest thing, and emphasises that political influence is necessarily wrong, forgetting the fact that the whole of our democratic system and that the whole of our system of representative government is based on politics. Does the Minister want to tell me that the Government governs without any political influence, and that as soon as he is elected a Cabinet Minister and the Minister of the Interior is elected a Cabinet Minister, that they come before us as classic examples of pure, and I am almost tempted to say, naked objectivity? It is not so. You can see the Minister’s well-known commercial-political views in almost every line of this Bill. This is a Bill which I can imagine would be drafted by a business man, because all that a business man knows is the Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Mines, the Chamber of Trades and Industries and the Chamber of Technical Societies, and any other chamber which happens to be lying out, but as to actual economics of the country, not a word. The hon. minister gave us some figures. Anybody could give us those figures. Anybody can read the Year Book and find out that there were so many hundreds of thousands employed in 1917 and so forth. Those facts are all at our disposal. The Minister had an opportunity this afternoon of examining carefully the whole economic condition of South Africa, and it wants examining too. It wants examining in this House and not behind closed doors, with a board elected by the Transvaal Chamber of Mines, that knows all about the economic conditions of the Union of South Africa, but will not tell us what they know about it. They would not dare to tell us what they knew. If they told us all that they knew about the economic condition of the country, and how it is run, the Minister, as Minister of Commerce and Industries, would have been in a position to give us a general survey as to what is the general economic position of the Union, and in what particular way the board is to be elected in this miraculous fashion to bring about the gradual development of secondary industry.

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

When the House rose, I was dealing with the necessity on the part of the Government to have made some sort of preliminary economic survey of South Africa before embarking upon a scheme such as is envisaged in this particular Bill. It does seem to me that the essence of our industrial development is such a survey, and a knowledge of precisely where we are going.

After all is said and done it is very easy to say that we must develop our secondary industries, and to introduce a Bill of this description, and then to leave it to the haphazard policy of the kind of board that is to be appointed. That is very easy. But the fact of the matter is that secondary industries depend on a number of things in this country, and principally upon the ability of the people of this country to buy the products of secondary industries, and, as I have said on many an occasion, our future industrial development depends very much on how far we are prepared to put the lower paid section of our community in a position in regard to wages so as to enable them to buy the products of secondary industries. The Minister has again fallen into the trap of the old moth-eaten Manchester school which always says: “You must export, you must export.”

I never said anything of the kind.

As I understood the Minister, he was going to find mythical markets on the West Coast and in the East….

Within South Africa.

Yes, and he even went as far as my hon. friend’s interpretation of the Union of South Africa.

Where is the Union of South Africa? How far does it go?

The fact of the matter is that the industrial future of South Africa at the moment does not depend on export. South Africa has had a serious enough lesson in so far as primary products are concerned. We have had sufficient difficulty with reference to our agricultural products which we have been forced to export, not because we cannot consume them in South Africa, but because the people who could, and should, consume them, do not earn sufficient to be able to buy them. And now, while one must more or less modify one’s views to meet the existing situation with reference to agricultural products, South Africa having been primarily an agricultural country, surely it is the height of madness and stupidity even to mention the fact that South Africa through the medium of this Bill, should even embark on a policy of building up secondary industry for the purpose of export. We could not do it—not for the next 200 years. Does the Minister think that South Africa could enter into competition with older countries such as America and others, with the low-paid wages of Chinese and Japanese? We may export small quantities to neighbouring countries such as Rhodesia and Mozambique, but in the first instance South Africa’s secondary industries can only advance in almost direct ratio with the money that the people of this country can earn to buy the products of our secondary industries. It is all very simple economics but I am afraid that this Government, like previous Governments, are not too hot on economics.

Hear, hear!

Yes, that was the policy of the late Government, and this Government is taking over the legacy of dealing with economic matters and the economic position in the same old haphazard fashion. But I want to ask the Minister what has happened to the Board of Trades and Industries. Here we have a Government department, a department of commerce and industries, which I understand controls the Board of Trades and Industries. The Board has been in operation for a long time, and the Board of Trades has undoubtedly been a very successful institution in South Africa.

What!

Oh, yes, it has contributed in so far as it has been allowed to do so, a very great deal to the development of the Union of South Africa. And it does seem to me that rather than the Minister of Commerce and Industries absolving so to speak his department of all responsibility for the development of secondary industries by the setting up of this rather mixed board, he should have kept the development of secondary industry as one of the primary objects of his department. If the Department of Commerce and Industries is going to hand over the development of industry to a more or less public corporation, what is the Minister going to do—he is going to have a lot of spare time because he is taking everything away from his department.

Oh, I have a lot of spare time.

I am pleased to hear it and I am sure the country will be pleased to hear it, but I am not visualising the present Minister always having that Portfolio. It seems to me that the development of industries should be his department’s chief consideration. This is a democratic country and we are running our country on a democratic system, and we expect our Governments to pursue that policy—we do not expect the policy of the country to be run by iron and steel boards and by electricity corporations, and by whatever is the name of this one, the industrial development corporation, or some other board—or the mealie industry control board.

Or a trade union.

Yes, but you cannot show me any instance of Trade Unions running any industry. They have an odd representative here and there, but that does not affect the issue. In New Zealand where they have been fortunate enough to have had a Labour Government for a number of years they did things differently.

They are on the rocks at the moment.

I do not think so. The Minister who has just interrupted should know better—the people of New Zealand have a much higher standard of living than the people of South Africa. When the Minister of Native Affairs can show me that the natives over whom he has control have anything approaching even a “belly” living in this country he will have some cause to talk about New Zealand. New Zealand is a country where the people have done extremely well in returning a Labour Government, and when South Africa has done as well as New Zealand has done, I shall be very proud to be a member of Parliament. In New Zealand the people are fed, clothed and housed. But the Minister only considers that we have a population of 2,000,000, whereas in actual fact we have a population of 10,000,000. New Zealand is a country where they have had a good Government despite the many criticisms. The Government of New Zealand did wonderful things for that country, and the New Zealand Government still has the support of the agricultural voters who know perfectly well which is the best form of government for them. The New Zealand Government has done remarkably well, because they correlated their attempts to build up secondary industries in that country with the general economic position of New Zealand, they met with a certain amount of success, and we have to do the same thing here. Might I just refer to what New Zealand has done? They have set up a bureau of industry under the Industrial Efficiency Act, a Bureau of Industry which corresponds to a large extent to our Board of Trades and Industries. Under that Board New Zealand has attempted to develop its secondary industries. The members of that Bureau are appointed similarly to our Board of Trades — the members have to be persons employed in the service of the Government. In addition, they have special members, which is a very sensible provision—not holding special select committees where all the gentlemen elected sometimes are not elected for any reason attaching to their particular knowledge of commerce. Take the Chamber of Mines — you have members who are members not because of their knowledge of mining, but because of the money they have invested in the industry. In New Zealand special members may be appointed to this Bureau because of their special knowledge. You have on that Bureau two members to represent the manufacturing industries, two to represent the agricultural and pastoral industries. The development of secondary industries, it is realised, is correlated to the development of the agricultural industry. Two such members may at any time be appointed to represent any particular industry or group of related industries; lastly, two such members may be appointed in respect of any industry or group of industries to represent the workers employed therein. There you have a method of appointment of a board which is under the control of the Minister concerned with that particular department, a board which must, of necessity, carry out the policy of the Government. The board, of course, is in many instances a specialised board. There is nothing extraordinary in that. There is none of this political taint which the Minister is so afraid of that he has actually inserted in his Bill a clause which accuses members of Parliament directly of being either corrupt or inefficient. I don’t know which it is; perhaps both. That is the stage we have got to in the Union with its pernicious group representation form of government, that the Minister of Commerce and Industries, not satisfied with appointing a committee of this description, inserts a clause in his Bill which says that no member of Parliament or member of the Senate may be a member of this board. What can one conclude from that? Either that members of Parliament are corrupt or inefficient or both. The thing is ridiculous. Take the Minister himself. Supposing he were a backbencher; he is considered to be one of the ablest business men in the Union and would be quite eligible from a business point of view, but for the purpose of sitting on this particular board under this particular Act he would be ruled out. We might, Mr. Speaker, have an industrial genius in this House. I hope one day we shall get some of the men who attempt to run secondary industry in this country in this House, because it is time we had a few of them here to serve to counterbalance the commercial mind that we come in contact with so often. As the matter is at present any one who is stigmatised as holding the most contemptible of all things, political convictions, one who has been elected by a free vote in a democratic manner, is debarred from giving his ability to the state because, forsooth, he is a member of Parliament. I think that is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. I have often contended that our representative system of government has tended to make members of Parliament into nonentities. We come here and the only power we have is the power to get up and talk as I am doing now. I have contended often, both in the House and in writings outside, that we are nonentities, and being nonentities it has been left to the hon. the Minister to actually enshrine in an Act of Parliament the fact that we are nonentities to such a degree that we are either too corrupt or too inefficient to hold office on this particular board. You will notice that in the New Zealand Act no mention is made of commerce at all, and I think that is a very good point, because I think if we want to develop our secondary industries we must at all costs keep the commercial mind out of it. I have had considerable experience both of the commercial mind and industrial magnates. We have found in our trade union activities that you can always do something with the industrialist who knows a great deal about the life of the people; he is an approachable man prepared to listen to reasonable argument, but the commercial man, who only knows about buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, you can do nothing with at all. Commercial mentality in my opinion is of no use in the development of secondary industries, and I am satisfied that a man representing commerce on this particular board would be a drag on the wheels rather than of any assistance. It is specifically provided here that the Board shall finance secondary industries. It says here that the board shall finance secondary industries; it says—

And I want to suggest that the people who are likely to make money are the very people whom the Minister sets out to put on the Board. I am not a child in politics, neither is anybody else in this House, and we all know perfectly well that when the chairman of the Chamber of Mines, the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, and the chairman of the Chamber of Industries get together they will see that the nominees they put up to the Minister are in fact the individuals who will represent those particular chambers and those particular interests, and so we have got to have no political control, but we are going to have a position where men will be in a position to eliminate their competitors, to grant pubilc money to particular industries that they themselves may be interested in, either directly or indirectly, and, Mr. Speaker. I don’t put the standard of morality of these chambers any higher than I put the standard of the members of Parliament. If the Minister suggests that members of Parliament would be liable to have political views and to develop the country’s industry on political lines — for the life of me I don’t understand what he means by that — but if members of Parliament would have the tendency to develop industry upon political lines I am quite satisfied that these other gentlemen would not only have the tendency but would inevitably use their influence to develop South African secondary industries upon the lines that best suited the interests which they represent and we have nothing in this Bill to ensure that development along those lines would be in the best interests of South Africa. I say that because in this Bill there is nothing which directs this particular board to pay any attention to the future of the workers who may be employed in industry. The board has apparently got a free hand to develop the particular industry that suits them, to develop it where it suits them and where it suits them is where they can get cheap labour, and the kind of industry they will favour will be the one best run by cheap labour which means unskilled labour. I am satisfied that the industries which we stand most in need of would, in fact, be the last industries to be developed by this board. If the Minister kept the control of this development of secondary industries within his department, and if he allowed the five million to function through the Board of Trade he would have sufficient work on hand in one or two industries to last him for two or three years and show South Africa a very considerable profit. How long have hon. members been crying out for a petrol industry? We had a very able speech from the member for Ermelo not long ago on the institution of a petrol industry in Ermelo. I don’t care where it is instituted but it is one of the things which South Africa should produce itself and it does seem to me that we do not need a corporation for the purpose. The Board of Trade and Industries could do it even if we had to go so far as to grant a rebate of a penny or twopence or even the whole excise duty South Africa would ultimately benefit by the institution of such an industry using our own raw materials and employing our own people. The textile industry is another for which we don’t require a board of this kind. Incidentally, I cannot imagine the Chamber of Mines interesting itself very much about a textile industry. The Durban Chamber of Commerce, in their evidence before the Customs Tariff Commission, tried to make the point that the manufacture of blankets in this country meant that we should export less wool. That is the kind of argument we get from the splendid economists. The textile industry, by which I don’t mean the mere making of blankets, but a real textile industry of which the weaving of blankets is the genesis, is a highly skilled trade which needs lots of capital. A real textile industry might be developed here and these two industries I have mentioned with their subsidiaries would be a very good job of work for the Board of Trade working with the Government’s five million pounds worth of capital. I want to finish off as I started by saying that if there is one thing that always has my support it is any attempt to develop South Africa’s secondary industries, because I am not like some optimists in this House, I feel we are making a grave mistake by being too optimistic about the present position of gold. I am not satisfied that the end of this war will see gold remain in its present position. The Minister says this is the very time to get on with secondary industries, but I say we are a bit late and we must get on with the greatest possible speed in order to be in a position, if anything does happen to gold, to at least find some form of employment for our people. So I am a supporter of anything that is going to quickly develop South Africa’s industries. I am voting for the second reading of this Bill, though I confess quite frankly that I never voted for a Bill with a greater degree of hesitation. I don’t like the Bill. I think it is a rotten Bill, and I am quite satisfied that if the board is appointed in this manner it will be a rotten board and we won’t get very many secondary industries for a long time to come. I will vote for the second reading in the hope that the Minister will see sense between now and the Committee stage and be prepared to accept amendments which will lay down some sane and sensible procedure with reference to this board rather than the stupid things contained in clause 6 as drafted.

I hope that we shall have more of the kind of criticism of this Bill that we have now had from that side of the House, and that other hon. members will frankly express their opinion about the Bill. None of us will make any objection to the principle of the Bill, because it is generally felt that something in this direction should long since have been done in South Africa. South Africa is often called a rich country, but although this is a rich country, it is not a prosperous country. It is not a prosperous country in this sense, that the wealth of the country is not enjoyed by the main body of the population of South Africa, You may have a rich farm, but the manager may only be making a poor living, and the work people are hardly paid and poor. This does not mean that it is not a rich farm, but that the farm is being badly managed. When we have a rich South Africa, with all its wealth, and we nevertheless to-day see people walking about unemployed, that there is a poor white question, and that about a quarter of our population, owing to lack of earnings, are living below the bread line, when we see that all the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few people, and that this wealth is not enjoyed by the population of the country but to a great extent goes overseas, we can justly say that this rich country does not have a prosperous population. That is the position, because we have an unbalanced national economy in South Africa. As we have these riches, we should see to it that they are so mined and worked that the broad strata of the people can share in them. The wealth of our country is in its mineral treasures underground, and if we want a prosperous population, then we must have a balanced development of those resources for the benefit of the broad strata of the population. If we do that, there ought to be no poverty in South Africa. Poverty is nothing else than a lack of earnings. If a man has good earnings, then he is not poor, and as we have the opportunity in South Africa of providing earnings for people, it should be done, and if it is not done, and the result is that poverty and want are being suffered, then it only testifies that the Government of the country is indifferent. Therefore, if we go into it and see how our country has been governed up to the present, it is no wonder that it can be stated with justice that there is no sound relation between the different activities of the population. The various supports on which the economic structure of our people is resting, are not properly co-ordinated with each other. We have our mineral resources in South Africa, but what do we find? They are mined in the most hurried manner that is possible. For the most part that wealth does not go to the population of South Africa, but to the extent of 60 per cent. and more the benefit of it goes overseas. But what would happen if that wealth were exhausted to-morrow or the day after? What is going to happen if this chief source of wealth in South Africa, e.g., our gold mines, are worked out, or if what the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) mentioned, takes place—that after the war no value will be attached to gold? What will happen then? There will be poverty of the worst grade in South Africa. It is now our duty to see to it that the other supports of our economic structure shall also be developed in proportion, especially as we are dealing with a vanishing asset in our gold mines. It is our duty to see to it that our other sources of wealth also, our other raw materials, should be developed, so that when one of the supports disappears, the other supports will be so strong that the economic structure of our national economy can rest on them. One of those supports is sound agricultural methods in South Africa. Another is healthy factories. But have we seen to it that those supports are strong? To-day in South Africa we have the position that we are practically dealing with a bankrupt agricultural industry. So far as the development of manufactures is concerned, we have practically only just commenced. Some of our chief manufactured articles are still being imported to the extent of millions of pounds a year. Economically, South Africa is still anything but self-supporting, although we might actually have been so. We had the resources, and we had the opportunity to use those resources in the best way, in order to strengthen and to develop our other resources, but we did not do so in the right proportions. As, therefore, our national economy is so unbalanced, and it is felt generally that this is a duty which rests on our shoulders as the rulers of the country, in order to regulate the matter, and to create a more balanced state of affairs in the development of our national resources, we would very much like to see those things being done, and in connection with that we particularly want to see our industrial development increasing. As attempts are being made to expedite our industrial development we can do nothing else than support those efforts, and as the Minister with this motion has the intention of promoting and being helpful to the financing of our industries, we can do nothing else than give our support to such a praiseworthy undertaking. But when we speak about the way in which it should be carried out, and when we ask whether sufficient provision is being made for the realisation of those objects, then we cannot do otherwise than express the fear that there are shortcomings. As already pointed out by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) adequate provision is not being made for the necessary development of our industries. It is clearly stated here that assistance will not be given to factories which are too much in need of capital. In other words, it will only be slight assistance; it will, as it were, be the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table. But by way of really radical assistance which will mean that industrial undertakings for which there is such a great need will be tackled, nothing will be done if this Bill is carried out in the spirit in which it has been drawn up, and I fear that we cannot expect very much from it in that respect. When we come to the people who have to carry out those objects of the Bill, then we fear that we can say nothing else than that very little is to be expected from the administration of the Act. The directors of the corporation who have to carry out the objects of the corporation are mainly appointed by the Minister, but he can only make the appointments from persons who are recommended by the committee. And who are on that committee? We have already heard who they are. One of the members of the committee is none other than a representative of the banking concerns in South Africa, and the Minister himself told us here to-day that there was a general feeling of fear amongst the banking concerns in South Africa that they would be injured by this institution for granting assistance to our industries. Because the Minister knows that such a fear exists he tried this afternoon to satisfy the banking interests by telling them that they need not be afraid. We have, however, to face the position that although the Minister knows that those people are against such an undertaking, they are being given the opportunity of nominating persons who should be put on to the board of directors of the corporation. The Minister, in his argument, admitted that those people were not favourably disposed towards this undertaking. Then we come to the presiding chairman of the Chamber of Mines. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) has, in my opinion, sufficiently shown that the Chamber of Mines is not favourably disposed towards the development of our factories. On the contrary, we say that the Chamber of Mines wants to see us in South Africa getting as low a standard of wages as possible, so that there shall be as little protection as possible for our industries, and so that in consequence an increase in the standard of wages in South Africa cannot be brought about, which might also affect them. They are the people who are unsympathetically disposed towards the development of our industries; they do not want South Africa to develop in that direction. When we come to the person who represents the Chambers of Commerce then we have more or less the same position. It is almost a joke that a member of the Chamber of Commerce should serve on this electoral college. The Minister knows that the Chamber of Commerce consists of people who are inimical towards the development of our factories, in spite of the fact of his having said here this afternoon that he had always been sympathetic towards the development of our industries. It has hitherto always unfortunately been our experience in South Africa that the commercial people were not well disposed towards the development of our own factories. The merchants makes his largest profit out of imports. They are importers, and as importers they are strongly opposed to our manufacturing goods in South Africa which they might otherwise have imported and made big profits out of. It is this Chamber of Commerce who is now to get a say in the nomination of directors of this corporation. That also is an element which will not conduce to this undertaking being a success. But if they consider their own interests they will use every effort to make it a failure. The representative on this electoral college, to call it by that name, of the Chamber of Industries, is about the only appointment which can be justified. Here we are dealing with a body which can rightly be called a body which ought to have a say in the nomination of directors of such a corporation. But what appears strange to me is that the Minister, in the composition of this electoral college of the board of directors, has given representation to different concerns in the country, but to the chief interest in the country, to that section which has the greatest interest in the development of our industries, he gives no representation at all. For instance, he gives no representation to agriculture on that electoral college. There is no other branch of the community which has more interest in industrial development than agriculture. Agriculture has long since found out, and is finding it out every day, that its best market is the local market, and the agriculturist is par excellence a person who is a promoter of manufacturing development in South Africa. And as persons are now being appointed to elect, in the first instance, the directors of the corporation, we find that the persons who are mostly concerned in the matter are being eliminated and will have no say in it. I really was astonished when I read the Bill, and I came to the end of page 5 and saw that no provision had been made as yet for agriculture.

I then thought that I would find it on the next page, but I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw that even there the Minister had made no provision for the representation of agricultural interests on that electoral body. This only shows that the Minister is either unsympathetic towards industrial development, or he probably has not yet made a thorough study of the matter, and it is therefore no wonder that there are quite a number of flaws to be found in this draft of the Bill. Because the board of directors is under the Bill to be composed of persons about whom one has the reasonable fear that they will not be well disposed towards the development of industries, we feel that the whole object of the Bill may possibly be made futile, because the persons who may be appointed by the committee will possibly be quite indifferent towards the aim and object of the Bill. But we had another fear, namely that the persons who are being appointed will give the preference to overseas undertakings. We see from the provisions of the Bill that they can also give assistance to undertakings that are being carried on outside the Union, to branches of undertakings which are established outside of the Union. Now, I do not want to say that I would on the whole be opposed to such support, that I am opposed to any undertaking which exists abroad should be assisted to make a start in South Africa, but I do want to be certain that the persons who get assistance will think in terms of South Africa first, that when help is given, it will be done with a view to the benefiting of South Africa, and not merely of the company—to assist the company to pay bigger dividends. We already have instances of that kind. We have, for instance, a branch of a large overseas tobacco company in this country, and what do we find? That the great object which that branch has in view is to pay dividends to the foreign company. Although it is, for instance, in a position to extend its activities to adjoining territories, it may not do so. It is told that it can only operate in South Africa, but it is not to compete with other branches in Rhodesia, etc. We therefore see how careful we must be to prevent help being given to us to an overseas undertaking which has a branch here, which regards its whole business entirely from the point of view of the interests of the company and not from the viewpoint of the interests of South Africa, and therefore I continue sceptical towards any support which is to be given to an overseas company, especially when you have on the board of directors people who have, by their action and conduct shown that they are more sympathetic towards overseas than towards home undertakings. The members of the board of directors, if they are out to curtail industrial undertakings, can find enough cover under the provisions of this Bill. In Clause 5, for instance, it is provided that no undertaking can claim an excessively large share of the capital which is necessary for the establishment or development of an industrial concern. You can imagine how a board of directors, which is not actually well disposed towards home undertakings, may quite well easily look for an excuse behind the thing, and may say—when an application is made—that the help which an undertaking is asking for is too great, and that they therefore cannot grant it. The Bill makes provision that in such cases support can be given, and that is a very easy shelter behind which they can look for cover when they want to curtail development in South Africa. Then there is a further provision in the same clause, namely that every request must be considered strictly on its economic merits, apart from all other considerations whatsoever. This is a splendid fig leaf behind which a board of directors, which is not sympathetic towards developments in industrial undertakings can shelter. They only have to say that on its economic merits such an undertaking is not justified. Did we not have the same arguments over and over again in connection with the establishment of the iron and steel factory? That iron and steel corporation required an excessive amount of capital support. The capital could not be found, and the provision of this Bill which I have now referred to, would have prevented such an undertaking ever being established in this country. In addition, the commercial and other interests said that the establishment of the iron and steel factory could not be justified on economic grounds or reasons. And yet what do we find? Although private capital was shy, owing to the state and the then Nationalist Party Government having had the daring and courage and the confidence in South Africa to tackle the matter and to find the capital, we to-day have a prosperous and well-to-do concern which is making large profits, and to-day, after the event, he justifies its existence on its economic merits. But if you give the persons who are entrusted with the Administration of this Act the power to go and decide what is to be done, then I fear that any sound undertaking in South Africa may be doomed and treated in such a way that it will be smothered at birth. If we are to lay down economic merits according to the dumping prices of the factories of other countries who deliver in South Africa at a certain price, then considered on that basis, hardly any industrial concern could be a success in South Africa. But we cannot possibly regard the matter solely from that point of view. We must also consider it from the point of view of the duty of the state and the Government. I can quite imagine that many of the undertakings could be successfully run with guaranteed state support. It was only the guarantee of state support which made it possible to make a success of the iron and steel factory. So there are many undertakings which can also be successfully carried on if the state promises them support. And then I say: Not only do you need the guaranteed support, but there are also other considerations which ought to be borne in mind in connection with the establishment of industries, to wit national considerations — not merely purely economic considerations. We find that a condition of much unemployment arises in the country. We have unbalanced propositions to-day in our economic structure. The agricultural industry, which makes provision for a large number of people getting a living out of it, is not only over-capitalised, but there are already too many people in the industry. Now it may happen to-morrow or the day after that there will be less opportunity for people to get a living in the mining industry, and in consequence of the fact that too many people were employed in agriculture, and that there was diminised activity on the mines—you might find a general state of unemployment. In such circumstances other considerations also prevail in connection with the tackling of industrial concerns than purely economic considerations, for national considerations must also be borne in mind. There is yet another side of the matter. You have, for example, a surplus of mealies and other produce. It is desirable to turn that surplus in our country into something useful if you cannot find a market for it. Economic dislocation and unemployment may arise if you do not consider the matter from a broad point of view. Instead of granting subsidies the state might consider if it would not be better rather to bring new industries into existence and make practical use of the surplus production. Such undertakings may, when regarded on their economic merits, possibly not be justifiable, but from a national point of view they can be justified, and so we can rightly expect the state to give support to such undertakings, industries which possibly to-morrow or the day after may also be regarded as justifying their existence from en economic viewpoint, as has already been the case with many undertakings in South Africa. There is yet another consideration which must count in connection with the establishment of factories, and that is that we want to become nationally self-supporting. It is in the interests of South Africa to be as self-supporting, nationally, as possible.

Why?

We have, for instance, a state of war to-day, and one of the reasons why we did not stop out of the European war was, I think, that many people argued that we were not sufficiently self-supporting economically. We did not, for instance, have our own oil, nor our own arms, nor our own motor cars and other things. If we had already had those things and we were more self-supporting and less dependent on countries overseas, that consideration would never have counted when the important decision of the 4th September was taken. I think that that weighed with many people, including quite a number of hon. members. It is in the interests of South Africa that the Government should see to it that we become as self-supporting as possible, in connection with certain requirements, more especially in respect of those for which we are dependent on overseas countries, it is nothing but a crying shame that no attempts are being made to make us more self-supporting. We still have to buy as much as £8,000,000 to £10,000,000 worth of oil abroad, and we have to import motor cars costing large sums of money, and we are dependent, so far as arms and other things are concerned, on overseas countries for our own defence. All these things should be manufactured in South Africa, and even if it costs a great deal to make us self-supporting, we owe it as a duty to ourselves to bring it about, and when we regard the matter from the economic point of view, it should not only be regarded on the merits on one particular day or the basis of the price on one day, but over a longer period; when we bear in mind what the price will be during the times we are now living in, what the prices for produce that we import already are, then you can also take it that many of our requirements could have been made to-day in South Africa at the same price at which they are being imported, if we had made an earlier start in manufacturing these things. Those considerations, those national considerations, must be borne in mind in connection with the establishment of factories, and as the Bill provides that no such consideration can be taken into account at all, it is a great defect in the Bill, and I would like to see it amended. Now there is another danger that I see, and that is that aliens in South Africa will get away with the help for which we are making provision. I have already pointed out the danger that foreign companies will draw the advantage of this provision, but there is the further danger that persons who are not Union nationals in South Africa will reap the benefit. I would like us to bear the national point of view in mind, that the interests of Union nationals should be borne in mind, and that they should get a preference and take first place in obtaining support in connection with such undertakings. Does the Land Bank to-day give support to people who are not Union nationals? Why should the industrial corporation which in reality is nothing but an industrial bank, as the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) said, why should it give support to people who are not Union nationals? Why must the money which comes out of the pockets of Union nationals be given to people who are not Union nationals? I think that this also is a danger which we must look in the face. Another danger that I notice is the provision that the Government can sell its B shares. Five million pounds sterling in shares will be placed, of which £500,000 in A shares will never be alienated, but the other £4,500,000 B shares can be sold later. Why? It is very clear that in the first instance the state, the Union nationals, must vote the capital to establish the corporation, and to enable it to make a start. But I ask, does he hold out the prospect that to-morrow or the day after the great bulk of the shares will be sold? When will that happen? When these directors come to him and recommend that the shares should be sold. When will they recommend that? They will not recommend it while the industry is still in difficulties, and the shares are not yet worth much, but when they rise in price, then the shares will be sold. And why must they then be sold? It will surely be a good investment for the citizens of South Africa. Why then should they be sold when those people who are business men, recommend the Government to sell the shares? The danger is that they will then themselves buy up the shares. I cannot see the necessity for this provision in the Bill. I hope that when we get into Committee the Minister will agree to make amendments that these shares must remain in the possession of the people, and that, in any case, they must not be sold without the consent of Parliament. As our chief objections are against the directors, and against the electoral college which is being appointed to nominate the directors, you will immediately ask us what we suggest in the place of it. I think that not 30 per cent. of hon. members here, if they were allowed to vote freely, would be in favour of an electoral college on the lines of the one proposed here. You will therefore want to have another proposal from us. It is more than ever clear to me that we have a need in our country of what we have more than once asked for, and that is a central economic board. You will never make sound progress in the economic life of the country without such a board. We already have criticism now in regard to certain bodies which we have established in the country, and we shall tomorrow or the day after have criticism from people who are not well disposed towards industrial development. Moreover, you will constantly get it if you do not have a good central economic body which can give a lead to the economic development. If you do not have a body which can give guidance and advice as to what support you should give to certain undertakings, I say unless you have such a central body you will find that criticism will always be made when an organisation like this is created, and that you will have trouble because you have appointed the right people on such an organisation. Then give us such a central economic body on which people will serve, who can consider economic matters in an impartial and sound way, and who can give a lead to the Government. Then we may expect that selfish interests will not weigh in the matter, and then the interests of this or the other person will not come into conflict with each other so easily. If you appoint the right persons, then you have an opportunity of getting a body which can study the economic questions in South Africa from a broad point of view, and which can give sound advice, and then you can get sound political economy in South Africa. From what I have said the Minister will realise that he will have to make many amendments in Committee, and if he will allow hon. members on that side to express their views, then many of them will agree with me. As we all agree that a start should be made, I hope that it will be possible to co-operate in order to get the best corporation, the best fillip for an industrial bank in our country, which is possible under the present circumstances.

I should like to begin by congratulating the Minister on the introduction of this very much overdue Bill. I was glad to hear the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) approve of the principles of the Bill, although they used rather severe language in regard to certain clauses. This Bill is an attempt long overdue, for there is no provision at all at present for industrial development. That is left entirely to such private institutions as will help or to private capitalists who can be induced to start new industries. For the rest the State does not worry about them at all. The hon. member for George referred to the history of this matter and the number of times this question had come before the House. I wish his memory had been a little more faithful to him, because then perhaps he would have mentioned a motion which I introduced in 1926, the only motion of this kind ever introduced into this Parliament. The motion which was seconded by the member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) led to a very long and interesting debate. It proposed that a select committee should be appointed to enquire into and report upon what steps should be taken with a view to the establishment of an industrial bank for South Africa. A very interesting debate took place which occupied the greater part of the afternoon, and the then Minister of Finance (Mr. Havenga) gave a very sympathetic reception to the motion. He said the Government was prepared to instruct the Board of Trade and Industries to go into the whole matter and see whether there was a need justifying the Government in embarking on this very important step. I don’t know, of course, what has happened as far as the Government is concerned between then and now, but I take this Bill to-day to be a milestone on the road which began when this motion was introduced. The idea which I held then and which I think will eventually have to be adopted is that we should have in this country an industrial bank to do for industry what the Land Bank has done for agriculture. That is the only possible way to put them both on an equal basis. I was in the House in 1912 when the first Land Bank Act was introduced and I remember the attitude of many members of this House, including eminent businessmen like the late Mr. Jagger, who foresaw terrible dangers resulting from such a step. I have always supported such an endeavour although there were many against it. All the fears that were expressed on that occasion about the Land Bank proved absolutely illusory and all the fears that are expressed to-day about an industrial bank will also prove illusory. If you want to establish secondary industries upon a firm and lasting basis in this country you must treat them exactly as you did agriculture under the Land Bank Act. In this Bill we have an instalment and I submit a very valuable instalment in this direction. I must say that I think hon. members who have criticised some of the clauses of this Bill have lost sight of the fact that the Bill itself is greater than any one of its clauses. I am going to refer to particular clauses later on because I think they are susceptible of amendment, but I believe the Bill itself as a start is on perfectly sound lines. There are really only two clauses that have received any severe criticisms, namely, clauses five and six. It is true one hon. member referred to clause three and he dealt with what he called outside organisations. With regard to that I want to say that when firms come here from outside this country they at once become Union organisations. I may say that one of the effects of our national policy of protective tariffs has forced many outside organisations to come here and manufacture in this country. I have always been a protectionist ever since I came into Parliament. Many of these tariffs were instituted before the Nationalist Party came into power, but they certainly took more vigorous action and stimulated the protection policy. What happened in Australia has happened also in South Africa, outside organisations were compelled to come and manufacture here. What is wrong about that? They come here and are no longer outside organisations and they employ a number of South African people. Take a number of instances, you have them in your biscuit factories and boots, and your motor factories in the Eastern Province. All these undertakings are registered as South African and although they may have had their origin in England and America they are as truly South African as any other industry and the people they employ are South African. I don’t think it is right to bring prejudice into this question and to say that because the parent companies are outside in England or America they are not South African. The motor factories in Port Elizabeth were originally American and in this connection I would remind the House that I advocated a specially low duty where the chassis was imported and the rest of the motor-car was made here. I don’t think you need be worried about that question of outside organisations in reference to clause 3. You may be perfectly certain that no body such as this corporation is going to give support to any concern unless it does establish itself as a South African firm. They have the matter in their hands and they would not give any money to support an outside organisation. There has no doubt been a tremendous development of industry in South Africa. The Minister has given us some startling figures and the hon. member for George has given us some other interesting figures which go very much further back. But the fact remains that you have little at present to encourage development. An industrial concern must either make dividends or go to the devil; nobody takes the slightest interest in the fate of these concerns, and the state certainly does not. Where I see a great possibility in this Bill, which has not as yet been mentioned, is in the hope that it holds out of the establishment of not only big industries but small industries in the outlying districts. I see great possibilities in that. I have travelled right through the Union in the last few years and visited a great number of small places and I was struck in some of these places to see how the people were using up raw materials and producing manufactured articles. That can be repeated all over the Union. There are many places where the raw material can be gathered, which is now sent away and worked up into manufactured articles. All sorts of commercial uses can be made of this raw material, but at present there is no provision to do so. A corporation of this kind, I suggest, would stimulate industry in these places where they have the raw material, and I look upon this Bill as a possible means of helping some of our smaller country towns. If industries were established in such towns, it would stop the drift into the towns. There are places where they have the raw material, and by provision of the necessary capital industries could be established. For instance, I saw a man in one place who was sending his son all over the world, to Canada, to America and to Japan, getting orders for a thing which was being manufactured in that place. It was a base mineral which is not found in many places. Instead of sending the raw material away, if they can get machinery to treat the raw material, they could establish an industry. I hope that one of the first things that will happen under this Bill will be to establish small industries which the corporation could help. Bankers are useless for this purpose, and we know why. Under the continental system of banks they are able to meet this situation, but under our system we are not. Our banks want fluid assets, and short-term credits. They do not want assets in the form of buildings and machinery and so forth. Just as an ordinary bank cannot help the farmer and you have to have a Land Bank, so the ordinary commercial bank cannot help the industrialist, and you must have this sort of corporation to do so, and I am sure that it will come. I wish to say in regard to the point made by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), I think it is a good one. I do not see why you should limit yourself and say that you should not supply all the capital necessary to establish an industry. You might in certain cases have to provide all the capital, and there is no reason why you should not have a board to find all the capital if it is required. Also, in regard to section 6, I must honestly confess that I cannot understand the very violent criticism which has been made about this section, including also the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside). It has been said that these gentlemen, including the president, of the Chamber of Mines, will be able to nominate the directors to the board of the corporation. But that is not so, they can only send in a list of suggested names. I do not see why the Minister should not leave section 6, subsection (3), and say that the Governor-General should have the right to appoint not more than four directors, and the shareholders the other three. That is all you want. There are only seven directors. It is assumed that these gentlemen on the advisory committee are going to elect these directors, but that is not so. The machinery is undoubtedly cumbrous. The chairman would be appointed by the Governor-General, and the other three directors too. The Governor-General under clause 6 receives not more than ten names, and he picks out three. It is therefore not right to say that this gives the power to the committee to nominate all the directors. They can send in three times the number of names that are required, and the Governor-General then picks out the directors; but it is a cumbrous way of doing it. I do not see why the Governor-General should not appoint three men, and take whatever advice he likes from all over the country. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) has pointed out that the agricultural interests are left out. I think that is wrong. I would, however, point out that hon. members representing agricultural constituencies object to commercial men being placed on agricultural committees. I think that, too, is wrong. My idea is that we should get the best men we can, representing all groups. If you look upon it as a state interest, to which the state is giving certain support, then I say you should include all sections. One wants to see this board strengthened, and nothing would bring home to the farmer more the importance of industry than by having a representative on this board. If that were done it would teach the farmer that the interests of the industrialist and his own interests are mutual. There is no reason why they should be hostile to each other. The farmer is as necessary to the industrialist as the industrialist is to the farmer, and by sitting on such a board they would learn much in regard to their common interest. The hon. member for Umbilo referred to the question of wages, and suggested how the tendency of the president of the Chamber of Mines would be to keep down wages. I would point out, however, that the wage boards control wages. What has a national development corporation got to do with wages?

I did not say anything of the kind.

The hon. member referred to wages and to the attitude of these gentlemen towards the workers. The hon. member intimated, in effect, that he could not trust these gentlemen so far as the workers are concerned. The hon. member knows that a national development corporation will have as much to do with wages as the man in the moon. The question of wages is settled by the wage boards, and none of these gentlemen on the industrial corporation board will have the right to say one single word as to the wages to be paid, because the wages are laid down by a more powerful body and a more powerful statute. So that kind of argument is merely the drawing of a red herring across the trail. The hon. member has tried to import prejudice into the matter, from which prejudice should be kept out. This is a question which should be debated on its merits without importing this prejudice against capitalists. The Chamber of Mines will have nothing whatever to do, even with this cumbersome provision, with the question of wages. The board will have £5,000,000 with which they want to encourage fresh development and industry, and they will have to find out which are the best industries into which they can put it.

It is not quite so simple as that, and you know it.

The hon. member is interrupting, but when he is speaking he does not like interruptions. I shall, however, show the hon. member more consideration. The fact is that the hon. member cannot take his medicine. The hon. member also waxed very contemptuous over the provision in regard to members of Parliament and members of the Provincial Council.

May I rise to a point of personal explanation?

I do not see how any personal explanation deals with this matter.

You are deliberately twisting what I said.

The hon. member says that I am deliberately twisting what he has stated. I do not know whether such an expression is in order. I may say, however, that I am not twisting his statements, and I am not doing it deliberately. I am merely quoting what the hon. member said. The hon. member seems to have forgotten what he has said so soon after he has made his speech. The hon. member said in regard to members of Parliament and Provincial Councillors, the fact that they cannot become directors seemed to show that they are corrupt or inefficient. That is an absurd statement to make. They are neither corrupt or inefficient. Would it not be unfair if a member of Parliament was a director, to accuse him of being corrupt and inefficient because he wanted to see an industry started in his own constituency? Here you have got a state concern, and it may be desirable that we should have to criticise it in this House, and call the directors to account. Members of Parliament would thus be acting in a dual capacity, if they sat on the directorate and came into this House to defend the action of the directors. That is not because they are corrupt or inefficient. It is purely a business concern. We know what has happened in regard to farmers’ relief committees, and so on, and how appointments have been made and how these appointments have been brought into this House and have formed the subject of bitter debate on both sides of the House. Do you want that to happen to this corporation if it comes into existence, as to the question of whether a particular member of Parliament should be there or not? That will kill this little infant. The sum of £5,000,000 is very little with which to start helping industrial concerns on a large scale, and I ask if hon. members want to kill it at the start. We know when members of Parliament have been appointed in the past to boards, bitter controversies have been brought about in this House. I think it is better to leave this out and to keep it clear of the House altogether. Let it be a business concern not complicated by the fact that a particular gentleman shall be a director or not. Shareholders have the right to elect three directors. If a member of Parliament puts money into a state concern, he must take any disadvantage that may come in that way. The directors are nominated by the Governor-General, and I think it is better to leave members of Parliament out of it. I am merely expressing my own opinion, and hon. members might hold a different opinion. It has been suggested that money would be granted in those cases where people are interested, but I think that is going rather far. If you leave the choice of directors as I suggest, and keep all politicians out of it, I do not think there is very much danger of matters not going according to pure business principles. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn has raised another question, namely the question of a central economic council. That is a very important question, and it is a matter which should be discussed at the proper time. If hon. members try to incorporate that in this Bill, we shall practically lose the Bill altogether. The Bill is needed and is based on sound principles, and any details can be amended in committee if they do not form essential features of the Bill. I am glad that the Minister has brought the Bill forward, and I hope it will become law this session.

I also would like to take part in this debate, and I will try not to go over the ground which has been covered by previous speakers. The prospect is held out to us here which I have long been looking for, and which I have urged on previous occasions, namely that a start should be made in developing our primary industries. I have gone to officials and to Ministers on previous occasions with similar requests for the expansion of primary industries. The question was then always put to me whether the Government would have to find the money for such development. Now a corporation is being established here, and the Government is prepared to reserve £5,000,000. The £5,000,000 will not go very far in view of what is required. Now I want to say that the initiative, in the first place, will have to lie with the Government. Individual initiative is necessary and is a good thing, personal initiative is a good thing, but I would like to have the deed of incorporation amended, so that the control of the corporation will be vested in the best industrial brains that are available. The board of directors does not appear suitable to me. It is clear to me that the deed of incorporation has been drawn with the object of making provision for industrial developments, but there is one defect that I see immediately. Of course, capital that is invested must produce interest. No capital ought to be invested in an unsound way, but when you are dealing with big state concerns like this, then it ought not to be the first consideration, because there are other economic factors and considerations which weigh far more than dividends which the capital may provide, and the greatest of them is that you are becoming as self-supporting as it is possible for a country to be. For that reason I support the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) when he pleads for the appointment of a central economic board. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) alluded to that as well. That is what we require most of all. We do not only need a survey of what industries can be extended here and there, but we require a much larger economic survey. I only just want to emphasise one or two points which have already been mentioned. Our country is rich in minerals. I had the honour of serving, together with the Minister of Commerce and Industries, on the committee of the South African Chambers of Commerce, and we know how we struggled at the start, and how the individual chambers expressed themselves in opposition to the policy of protection, and expansion of our industries. I am proud of the fact that I saved the Chambers of Commerce from committing the greatest folly, and to-day we see the value of the encouragement of industries. It has been said here that the Chambers of Commerce should have the say in this matter. But if an industry wants to flourish, then it cannot do so without the channels of distribution, namely, commerce. Therefore that is one of the great factors, but then I say, in addition, that it should not only be a matter of exploitation, but that a national spirit should prevail. Go, for example, to Port Elizabeth. What do you see? There you have motor factories. The fine large central building has a Union flag on one corner, and the Union Jack on the other corner, but in the middle you have the Stars and Stripes. Which is the dominating factor? There has also been a reference to foreign elements. We need new industries, and new knowledge in this country. We know that great migrations are taking place in the world, and need foreign workers who possess the necessary knowledge. After the end of the war, there will be industrialists in many parts of Europe who will have to search for a new home. We need so many people with the necessary knowledge. I therefore support even that part of the Bill which makes it possible to give assistance to such persons, provided we retain the control. I am not satisfied with the composition of the board of directors. I would like to see it made up in the way advocated by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. It is necessary for the Minister to consider when we go into Committee, the introduction of an amendment in order to establish the desired economic board. I want to repeat that it will be necessary to inquire into many things. The £5,000,000 is not too large an amount, but it is a good amount to start with. Let me just also stress the desirability, as I have often done before, of our establishing industries which as much as possible work up things that we produce here. Take our boot factories. That is a good industrial development, but nevertheless there is still a good deal imported in connection with it. Our shirt and clothing factories, and other factories as well provide work, but the material is not yet our own. We pay more for our South African made articles than what we can import them for, and we have customs dues to level things up. What we need is a national spirit. Our distributors should give a preference to goods that are manufactured in South Africa, to goods which are manufactured as far as possible from our own raw materials. In that way the purchasing power is increased, and work is provided. Quite a number of factories are required in my constituency, but they must manufacture what we can produce there. Tn that case the factories are of the greatest value, and then they do not merely provide work for the people who are in the factories, but they also use what we are producing.

Take our wool factories. They are only places which provide work, but we are up to the present manufacturing precious little of our own wool in South Africa. There are other industries which should be established in connection with wool. South Africa should create its own Bradford, so that we can supply to the world market what Bradford delivers, the washed and combed and spun article. For that a national spirit is necessary and national capital, because it is not in the interests of our big competitor, who is to-day drawing a profit out of our wool, for such a development to take place in our country. We welcome the effort which is being made, after our having urged it all these years, for us to obtain a kind of industrial bank, which this corporation will practically be, but Parliament must keep control. We can increase the number of competent officials that we already have. The Department of Commerce and Industries has a number of capable officials, and we can get other good men as well. On the other hand, I hope that we shall not from the very start go and create a big and clumsy body in connection with the administration of this £5.000,000, a body which will swallow up a large part of the money. I now end with the following few remarks. I have more or less dealt with the main points, and I agree with the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Oudtshoom and other hon. members on this side. I can even subscribe to the ideas of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle). Even if we may differ on some points, we nevertheless subscribe to the great ideal, and we welcome the fact that an attempt is being made in that direction. I want the Government to pluck up courage and, like the Nationalist Government of 1925, take steps to protect our industries. Let them not be afraid about the capital, because capital has no value, because those who pay the interest for it first of all stabilise the value of the capital. Supply work to the workers of South Africa who want to work; that is the most important economic problem. We have tens of thousands of workers to-day, I might almost say millions, in South Africa who want work. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Bumside) said that we had a population of 10,000.000, and how many of those want to work? The country is calling for workers, and that is the first problem in connection with factories which has to be tackled by the central economic board which we wish to have appointed. Everybody who does not work has no right to live, and if there are any who do not want to work, who exist as parasites to live on others, let us provide work for them at good wages and in that way strengthen the purchasing power of our country.

The Bill before the House has been welcomed from all sides and apparently everyone is going to support it. I feel that it is welcomed because not only in the House but outside this House there is a feeling that the time is long overdue when some definite, constructive effort should be made for the development of our secondary industries on a much sounder foundation than is the case at the present moment. The Minister in introducing this Bill has given us some interesting figures showing to what extent secondary industries have developed during recent years, but I think it is well realised throughout the country that our economic life is lop-sided and that the mining industry in reality overshadows the agricultural and secondary industries of South Africa. It is true that the mining industry is irrigating the economic life of South Africa to a very great extent, but people are beginning to feel that this is the time to establish more secondary industries so as to, provide not only markets for our agricultural industry but also employment for the people of South Africa. In that regard I would like to refer to one of the reasons given by the Minister which I hope is not a reason which will actuate either him or the Government. He told us that one of the reasons for supporting this Bill was that we should be able to export manufactured articles and he illustrated his view by referring to the citrus industry of California as showing that because of the huge internal market which California has —130 millions of people — they only exported the surplus after having made a profit in their own country. The Minister overlooks the fact that the reason why in countries like America or Great Britain there are such large local markets is because they do not pursue a policy of exploiting cheap labour. They use the best machinery, the best plants and the most up-to-date methods of production, and they have a large population capable of consuming the goods which are manufactured on a basis of mass production. We, in South Africa, if we are going to continue this policy of cheap labour — and the Minister made a point of the fact that we could compete with other countries because we have cheap labour — if we are going to continue a policy of developing our industries on cheap labour, will never have a market in this country, and whether it be the products of our secondary industries or the products of the farm we will always have to export the bulk at a huge loss, because we have only a handful of our own people who are in a position to buy. Our policy must be one of, side by side with developing our industries, increasing the wages of the people of this country. When we do that and realise that we have in reality a market consisting of some ten millions of people we shall be able to develop our manufactures on a bis scale and be able to consume what we produce. I feel that there is a general desire in the country for this Bill to go through, and there is a great deal of anticipation and hope that much good will come from the Bill, and the reason for that is that people desire to make our economic life a little more even and a little less lopsided than it is at present. The Bill is very limited in its financial provision and very circumscribed in its scope. I believe the Minister and the Government will ultimately be prepared to extend the financial provisions and the scope of this Bill, because unless we do that the disparity between anticipation and achievement will be so great that the public will be disappointed. One of the reasons why a Bill of this kind is necessary is because at the present moment there is very little money available for the development of secondary industries. The Minister of Finance in introducing his Budget the other day dealt with mine taxation, and one of the reasons which induced him to alter the method of taxation was that he wanted to encourage the investment of more capital in the mines and especially in the mining of low-grade ore. In that connection there is a good deal to be said for the point made by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Burnside) that there may come a time when gold will not be in the position it is to-day and we shall be faced with a period of depression. However that may be — and America with its huge gold reserve may find it profitable to maintain the price of gold — the policy of the Minister will have the effect of encouraging the investment of further capital in the mines and to that extent will divert capital from secondary industries. In addition to that the policy of the Minister in paying off loans will have the effect of restricting the amount of capital available for the development of secondary industries. That being so it has become very necessary for the Government to step in and make some provision whereby money can be made available for the development of these industries. From these two points of view I think the amount provided is inadequate. There is another reason. We know, and I think it is generally admitted, that capital is only concerned with the return which it can get, and capital will only be invested in concerns which can show a profit. The man who has money to invest is not concerned with the welfare of the State and he will invest his money in an industry which will return a profit rather than one which is not so attractive but which is necessary for the well-being of the State. That again, makes it essential for the State to step in and provide capital for the development of industries which are necessary in the interests of the State. If an industrial corporation such as is to be set up under this bill only concerned itself with the economic merits of a proposition as provided for in Clause 5, there would be no difference between it and any private capitalist. Therefore, I say a Corporation of this kind must make provision for the development of industries which will not attract private capital but which are necessary for the well-being of the State. I hope the Minister will see that the Board is encouraged to deal with applications which come before it on the basis of national interest and not on the basis of profitmaking. There is another point I should like to put to the House as to why, in my view, the amount of capital provided is totally inadequate. The Minister has given us figures, as also the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), showing the development of industry in this country. The Minister has actually mentioned an amount, which I think was £100,000,000, at the present moment invested in secondary industry in South Africa. So far as I am aware, this £100,000,000 is actually invested in plant, machinery, buildings and land, and more capital than that is probably being utilised by those industrialists for the purchase of fuel and raw material and for the payment of wages. If an industry is to be run on substantial lines, it must have not only actual capital for the purposes of the business, but a certain amount of spare capital, with which to pay wages, salaries etc. If the present amount invested is £100.000.000 it will be obvious that we will not adequately deal with such a position, nor give a push to industry, by putting up £5,000.000 for further development. It must be obvious, in those circumstances, that £5,000.000 is a ridiculously inadequate sum for the object desired. I hope that that amount will be regarded by this House and by the Minister merely as an instalment. If we are to have a big industrial population, we shall have to make financial provision on a much bigger scale. I should also like to refer to the fact that the object of the Bill is unduly circumscribed as provided for in Clause 5. I say that that again will have to be altered if the Bill is to be of any real value, and the test to be applied is not whether an applicant will be able to make good in the industry, but whether the industry to be financed will be advantageous to the country as a whole. There is one detail I want to refer to, namely, the provision about the payment of the dividend. It is provided that the dividend of the corporation shall not exceed 8 per cent., and I think rightly so. I can see no provision in that clause, and I direct the Minister’s attention to it, by which, although so far as the corporation itself is concerned, the directors nominated by the Governor-General will have a 51 per cent. vote in regard to control, and although the dividend is limited to not more than 8 per cent., so far as the corporation itself is concerned, there shall be some control of the industry to which the money is advanced, whether directly or by way of guarantee, or of limiting it so far as profit is concerned. Unless you do that, the industry will merely become an ordinary competitor with other industries and the directors thereof will exploit the industry as much as possible, because they will probably get their money at a less rate than the ordinary industrialist. We should provide that they are to be limited in regard to the profit they make, and controlled so far as their policy is concerned, by the Corporation advancing the capital, either actually or by way of guarantee. There is one other aspect I want to refer to. I hope that neither the Minister nor the corporation will encourage, to any appreciable extent, a suggestion which appears to be popular, of financing small industries. Experience has shown, and to-day it is accepted on all hands, that as a rule small competitive industries are not useful or beneficial to the country as a whole. They are wasteful in their methods; they are wasteful because their capital is too small; they work with a handful of people; they have not the advantage of adequate or efficient machinery or plant, and they all have overhead expenses. It is being shown everywhere that these small industries are neither efficient nor advantageous to the state because of the facts to which I have referred. To-day there is a growing tendency everywhere to support industry on a national basis, even by people who were regarded as being anti-socialists. I refer, for instance, to Lord Milner. Some years ago Lord Milner began to realise that the policy he advocated in the past—and he was one of the first of the public men in Great Britain to admit it—was wrong. He realised that the time had come when instead of having a lot of little industries springing up which were inefficient and competitive, and had neither plant nor machinery, and spent money in competing with each other unnecessarily, more and more industries will have to do developed in the interests of the community as a whole, whether by the state or by local authorities, or by public utility cornorations. That is a point of view that is growing daily. I hope the Minister, in connection with this corporation, will not limit himself to the idea of supporting a few private people to make profits, and that the corporation will be prepared to take a share in industry, and help to establish such industries by becoming partners therein or by way of establishing public utility corporations, in order to manufacture on a big and efficient scale, and not on a small scale. The market will depend entirely upon how you will treat people in this country, whether on a basis of a consuming population of 2.000.000, or on a basis of 9 000,000 or 10,000.000 consuming people, which should actually be the case. Dealing with the question of small industries, we have in South Africa according to the 1937 Industrial Census, 9,609 industries. It will surprise hon. members to know that of these 9,609 industries, 7,109 are employing less than 20 employees each. 1,800 are actually employing less than four each; 969 are employing four each; 2,681 are employing between five and ten, and 1.474 are employing from ten to twenty, making a total of 7,109 industries which are employing anything up to twenty employees each and only a balance of 2,000 are employing more than 20 each and can be said to be working on a fairly large scale. We must avoid encouraging the springing up of little industries of that kind, and concentrate on big industries which are of national importance and of national benefit. I hope that the Minister, when he deals with the Bill in Committee, will be prepared to extend the scope and the capital, and instead of supporting little industries here and there, will go in for large-scale enterprises preferably on the basis of public utility corporations, and even where that is not possible, he will see that such industries are established on a big scale, limited in profit, and simply concerned with the benefit of the country, and not merely with the benefit of those interested in the industry.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) started a most interesting line of thought when he talked about the multitude of boards that had been set up. I am bound to say when he voiced his great fear as to where this is going to lead us, to a large extent I found myself in accord with him. It is a pity that the hon. member did not pursue that line of thought instead of allowing his propensities for searching for niggers in the wood piles to develop to such an extent that eventually his outlook became so black that he could see nothing good about anything at all. With regard to the question of boards, I am to a very large extent in agreement with the hon. member, but I hardly think that his arguments really apply to Clause 6 of the Bill, which has come so vehemently under his wrath, because this board, as has already been pointed out, is nothing more or less than a glorified selection committee which has to select ten people and hand their names to the Minister for the Governor-General who has to make his choice of the directors for this company. It is only a selection, but I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) that it is a cumbersome method. I appreciate what the Minister had in mind when he framed the clause. He wished to get people whom he thought would have the confidence of a large section of the community, and with due respect to the hon. member for Umbilo. I suggest that the persons enumerated on the list, will have the respect and confidence of a very large number of people indeed, particularly a very large number of people to whom the development of this corporation will be of very great and very definite interest. It seems to me to be an extraordinary line of thought that the hon. member for Umbilo takes up when he thinks that there should be a disqualification of the president of the Chamber of Mines, because some years ago the then secretary of the Chamber of Mines in giving evidence before the Customs Tariff Commission laid down certain definite statements as to his views on the question of the protection of secondary industries. I say at once that his evidence as tendered to us, was certainly not anything like the crude thing it was made out to be by the hon. member for Umbilo. At that time there was no question of gold being 168s. an ounce. At that time the question of any increased cost of production to the mines was a matter of supreme and paramount importance. The Chamber of Mines faced up to the position that you cannot protect secondary industries without increasing the cost to the general community. About that there can be no question. It is obviously established: It must be so. In evidence, he stated definitely that as they were definitely opposed to any policy which would have the effect of increasing their costs, they were obviously opposed, not to the establishment of secondary industries, but to the continued practice of increasing protection of secondary industry, and further that secondary industry should make no attempt to sned its protection when it reached the stage at which it could stand on its own feet. That is a reasonable line of thought, and I subscribe to it, and I think the great bulk of industrialists will also subscribe to it. It was definitely stated by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, when he thought that there should be a definite move on the part of secondary industry to appreciate the fact of the protection that they have had. That seems to me to be an extraordinary thing to say, that because a man in giving evidence takes a definite line, that that should disqualify the concern with which he may have been connected, from being one of the selection committee, to suggest to the Minister certain people to be nominated for the posts of directors. In the same way he could see nothing but danger in having anyone connected with commerce on this selection committee. He said that although he had been able in his experience to deal with industrialists, he had never got anywhere with commerce. I can only suggest that either he has been very unfortunate in Durban, or he has not made the proper approach to them because I make bold to say that the record of commerce throughout this country is one of which commerce can be very proud, and it will stand any examination, and certainly the Chambers of Commerce have nothing to fear from any criticism that the hon. member for Umbilo may bring against them as far as their qualifications to take part in this selection committee are concerned. But I do not like this selection committee myself. It seems very cumbersome, and I do not know where it will get. These gentlemen are allowed to consult with anyone they like, and then they are going to make these recommendations. I think they will find it extremely difficult to find the men they will want to fill this particular Bill. Because this is a matter on which so many boards have broken down—we have never paid the people enough to make it worth their while to do the job, and unless you pay them properly you will not get the right people to do the work. Yet this board will be a body of the greatest importance. This is a venture into lines which we have not yet started, and I am bound after listening to some of the views expressed in this House to say that it is extremely necessary that the efforts of this board, and the activities of this board, should be undertaken with the greatest possible caution, because there seems to be a conception about as to what this company is supposed to do which is totally different from what I understood, and I hope the Minister does not contemplate that certain suggested lines should be undertaken by this corporation. I take it that it will not be the object of this corporation to bolster up secondary industries all over the country. I should be very sorry if that were so. Secondary industry has established itself in this country on very sound lines indeed. The bulk of our secondary industries are very well conducted and are able within certain limits to conduct their business very well. I say within certain limits because they have to be helped by the protective tariffs which we have, without which they could not exist in the teeth of world competition. But they are very well conducted indeed and the great bulk are of a nature of which this country should be proud. There is, of course, another end which is not so very good. I take it it is not the suggestion of the Government that this utility corporation should be used for bolstering up some of the lame ducks at present existing in the industrial world. I take it the idea of the corporation is to be to industry what the Land Bank is to agriculture— although it has been suggested that notwithstanding what the Land Bank has done for agriculture, agriculture is still a long way from being on its feet.

That is for very different reasons.

That may be, but the fact still remains. With this particular industrial corporation I take it that the idea will be that there will be a number of concerns for which there is a future in a particular direction—a future of further development, but those concerns cannot themselves find the necessary capital. As the Minister has pointed out it is difficult often to get money for industrial purposes, and when such an occasion arises I take it it will be the object of this corporation to help in the establishment and development of such particular industries if, after investigation it is found that there is a reasonable prospect for such industries in the future. It is impossible to imagine that these concerns will pay their way to begin with. It rarely happens that a concern pays from the beginning, and therefore there may be concerns which show sound and reasonable prospects for future development, but which cannot carry out that development for lack of capital—in such cases the corporation will provide the necessary help to enable such industries to carry over the lean times, and eventually to establish themselves on a basis which will operate to the benefit not only of themselves—because with due respect to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) no one will work for nothing—but also for the benefit of the country. That is one of the chief reasons why I think this board will function, and will help considerably. I was rather struck by what the hon. member for Umbilo said about the functions of the Board of Trades. Hitherto where people have wanted to start industries they have found the Board of Trades very helpful in supplying them with the necessary data to enable them to make the necessary first attempts and proving the possibilities of any such ventures. But there the functions of the Board of Trades ended. That is to say the Board of Trades has no money to finance anything, and as hon. members know the commercial banks do not as a general rule advance money until an industry is so well established that the possibility of loss is comparatively remote. I wonder what is going to be the functions of the Board of Trades now—how it will work in with this corporation and how the overlapping which seems almost inevitable will be provided for. Perhaps the Minister may be able to tell us something about that when he replies to the debate, how he suggests that the Board of Trades will continue to carry on its functions after this corporation has come into existence. I listened with great interest to what the Minister said. He said that people had said to him that this looked to be a bad thing because the corporation would come into competition with existing industries. I do not feel that there is much more expansion for our existing industries on their present basis. I shall leave out the heavy industries, but let us take the ordinary accepted classes of industries, such as boots, clothing, jams, foodstuffs and things of that sort. I do not think there is really very much room for expansion in those directions because our market as it exists to-day has almost reached saturation point. We can practically cater for the whole of our market as we have it at present. We have not got time to enter on a discussion as to how we should improve our internal market, and we have not the opportunity of going into the question of wages, and of making our native population consumers of our industries. But I am definitely convinced that if we are to develop our secondary industries that will have to come, because we have to bear in mind that a time will come when we shall no longer be able to depend on our gold mines, and we shall have a very sorry time if, when that ha opens, we shall be unable to bring the bulk of our population into what I might call “consuming line” so far as our secondary industries are concerned. The Minister was right when he said that there would be very little question of competition with existing industries. That is so because there is no room for more of the existing secondary industries in many directions. We shall have to find other channels for our development under this particular bill. I cannot imagine that the Minister was serious when he said that he could visualise a time when we would export our secondary industries. I do not think that that will happen in his lifetime or in mine.

What about Nigeria and other parts of Africa?

Yes, I listen very carefully to what he said, but I want to say this, that the moment we become divorced from our protective tariffs we cannot compete with any other part of the world. We cannot compete with East Africa or anywhere else. The Minister may visualise some customs arrangement which may carry our customs advantages into these other parts, but failing that I cannot see how we can ever look forward to exporting our secondary industries, because I cannot see how we can compete in the markets of the world.

Why not?

Because our production costs in this country are too high. They are bound to be high when you have a protective tariff wall, and when you have to import so many of your raw materials. The more we develop our raw materials the more chance there is of this development of our secondary industries. There is another way where I trust this corporation will be of great use to the country generally. I have endeavoured to cover some of the ideas that have come to me with regard to this Bill, and I also do hope that in the development, the suggested development which is contemplated, we shall take a great number of things into consideration, and in saying this I join entirely with the hon. member for Troyeville when I say that I hope we shall not scatter small industries all over the country and put them into uneconomic places, because all you will do will be to increase the production costs and make it still more impossible for your industries to compete. You have to bear in mind, if you visualise a time when you will export, that you have to keep your production costs low. Obviously you have to do that, because otherwise you put up the costs to your consumer to an extent which makes it impossible for the consumer to buy your article. It is impossible to bolster up industries in that way. Everything must be regarded from the point of view of efficiency. I do not agree with the hon. member for Troyeville when he says that efficiency and profit must be a secondary consideration. Obviously a concern of this sort must be satisfied that there is a possibility of development — they must be satisfied that the ultimate result will be there before they can come to the rescue of any undertaking. Nearly every big exporting concern in the world is subsidised in some form or another and we will be in the same position here as in any other country. I regard this bill as an experiment to which I frankly look forward with great interest to see how it will pan out. There are vast possibilities about it and there are some very obvious difficulties. I do not think the obstacles are insurmountable but I think a very great deal will depend on the personnel of the people you get to undertake the management and control of this concern. It has been said that there should be some representative of the farming community on the Board. There is nothing in the bill that prevents that. True, there is no member of the farming community on the Selection Committee, but there is no reason why that committe should not consult the farmers because they are enjoined to take the best advice they can get and in that event they would naturally consult the farmers.

They want to have a say in this.

They have a say in most things. It is a very funny thing that whenever we suggest that a commercial man might be of assistance to farmers everybody gets so indignant, and we are asked “what do you know about farming, what do you want to interfere for?” I certainly have no objection and I don’t think anybody on this side has the slightest objection to the farmers taking a great interest in this matter, and if they can overcome the Selection Committees’s prejudices, no doubt a farmer will be put on the Board. Seriously, I do view this with very great interest, it is I think a step in the right direction, a step which gives this country something which we have never had before, something which makes further industrial development possible, and possible in directions where hitherto it has not been possible for lack of capital and proper control. From that point of view I welcome the bill and I think everyone will look with very great interest to see how it develops, and so far as I am concerned I trust it will work to the great benefit of this country.

The hon. member who has just sat down succeeded, on the one hand, in showing a certain amount of interest and even in giving support to the Bill, but on the other hand, so far as general industrial development in South Africa is concerned, he at the same time threw cold water on it. We on this side have always started out from the principle that all possible assistance should be given to all development in South Africa. That was the policy of the Nationalist Party when we came into office in 1924, and the industrial development which has taken place since that time was mainly due to the forward policy of that party. It was quite refreshing to hear how the Minister moved the Bill this afternoon and praised the steel industry, and he even had to call in the aid of that industry for the establishment of this corporation. My thoughts went back to the time when that side was in opposition and we had the strong criticism of that party against the policy of the Nationalist Party in establishing the steel industry, which to-day is one of the chief industries in our country. But not only did we feel that South Africa should provide for the establishment of its own industries, but subsequently the feeling prevailed that it was necessary to obtain the necessary financial help for our own people for the establishment of industries in South Africa. Therefore on different occasions during the previous session and the one before that, it was proposed amongst others, by me, that the Government should do something in the way of an industrial bank in South Africa. As has been shown this afternoon the proposal of the Minister here is something in that direction, possibly under another name. But seeing that we are dealing with such an important and new development, with something quite new in the history of South Africa, it is necessary for us to see that this corporation which is being established should be on a sound basis, financially as well as otherwise. There is one particular aspect to which I would especially like to draw attention to-night, but before I do so, as I am speaking about a sound basis, I want to say in passing that there are many flaws in this Bill, and that many amendments will have to be made in it. It is as the English people say, an expression which the Minister will possibly understand better, a half-baked proposition. Now, here we have a corporation for the encouragement of industries in South Africa, and I feel that as we are going to establish a corporation of that kind it should have an essentially South African character. The object of the corporation should not only be to establish industries in our country, but the main object of that corporation should be to encourage South Africans to establish such industries in our country. As I am taking up an attitude like this, I think that not only hon. members on this side, but also hon. members on the other side will share my view. This Bill must be very carefully examined, and care must be taken that when assistance is being granted by the corporation it is only granted to Union nationals. I consider that as a most important condition in connection with this Bill. We do not want to have a state of affairs in South Africa of aliens with a small capital, possibly £1,000 or £2,000, coming to South Africa and then going to the corporation to get capital to put up small factories all over the country. I am convinced that if the Bill is not amended in that respect, that the supply of the necessary facilities be restricted solely to Union nationals, that we shall then have an unsatisfactory state of affairs in South Africa.

You will then have people who come from Europe and who get hold of the necessary capital, and the object of the Bill would be rendered futile. I hope that when we get into the Committee stage the Minister will find that we will also get support for our policy from his side of the House, and that he will be prepared to agree to the necessary amendments to see that the corporation will have a purely South African character, and that it will be merely for the purpose of assisting South Africans, and not an encouragement for people with small capital coming from Europe. Then we see that provision is also being made for assistance to branches of industries in America, Europe and elsewhere, that they also can be assisted by the corporation. Now why should the great industries of America, England or Germany, or wherever it may be, who already enjoy great privileges under the South African tariffs — which are particularly favourable to those people — I ask why they should, in addition, get financial assistance for the establishment of branches of their industries which compete with South African industries, and that actually, as a matter of fact, with the assistance of money which is being advanced by the people of South Africa. This is a matter about which I feel very strongly, and which, in my opinion, ought to be changed when we get into Committee. Then I want to point out that the B shares can all be sold. The B shares comprise £4,500,000 out of the £5,000,000, and according to this proposal all the B shares can be disposed of. No provision is made that those shares cannot go overseas, that they shall not get into the hands whether of persons overseas or of big industrial companies overseas. It is true that the Minister pointed out the fact that he will have the majority of the voting power by the fact that the majority of the directors are to be appointed by the Minister or the Government. But then it nevertheless remains an unsound principle that there is no guarantee for the future that the large majority of the shares will not go overseas to persons or companies, and that we will lose the control over a matter which ought to be in our own hands. Then there is another matter that we must provide for in establishing such a corporation, to wit, that we should also see to the creation of proper conditions in the industries. I was told last year by an industrialist that there was already a movement going on amongst them to ask the Government to introduce the necessary legislation for the licensing of industries, because it was felt that the industries were to-day running a risk of getting into wrong hands, and we would then get just as unsound a position in the industries as we already have in the retail trade in South Africa. With regard to the question of the appointment of directors, I associate myself with the other speakers and the criticism that they made in connection with it. Here you have the peculiarity that on the panel which is proposed for the election of directors, certain bodies are named for the purpose of appointing a representative. As the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Burnside) and the hon. member for Oudtshoorn have already done, I again put the question, why should the Chamber of Mines have the special privilege of having a person on the panel for the appointing of the directors? What, in the name of heaven, has the Chamber of Mines to do with the establishment of industries in South Africa? We have the position that the banks are also obtaining this special privilege. Even the Minister this afternoon in his speech announced that he had heard the criticism that the banks would be opposed to a corporation like this, which would, to a certain extent, encroach on their banking business, and in spite of that objection which was brought to his notice, we find that the banks are specially referred to in the Bill. Now I want to repeat and stress the request that came from this side of the House, that as certain bodies are being named, it is absolutely necessary for the farming interests also to have the right of taking part on the body which has to elect the panel. One of the things which we discussed here during last year, and for which a need was felt, was just that there ought to be more industries in South Africa for the working up of farming products. An appeal was made that more should be done, for instance, in connection with the wool industry. Why then in those circumstances, seeing that the other sections are specially named, cannot the wool farmers also be entitled along with the bankers and the Chamber of Mines, to appoint the persons who have to elect the board of directors of the corporation. We have the position of the fruit farmers, who are greatly interested in the canning and working up of fruit. We have the meat farmers, who are interested in the canning of meat. The desire in South Africa is that more should be done to convert the produce of our country into manufactured value, and in spite of the fact that agriculture and industries are now linked together, there is no mention in this Bill of the interests of the farmer. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Hirsch) said that there was no reason why representatives of the farmers could not also be appointed. Possibly that is so, and if it is then we have the right to ask, seeing that the other interests are specially mentioned, and as two of them particularly have no reason to be mentioned, why that great agricultural industry of South Africa, which is closely connected with industrial development, should be excluded. And similarly there are many other things of the same kind which will have to be very carefully investigated in connection with this Bill. This is an important Bill and a new thing in the national political economy of South Africa, and I want to say frankly that, if it were not for the fact that it was already late in the session, and that this was the acceptable time, in view of the war conditions, for the establishment of industries, I should have preferred to see, and so would other hon. members on this side — and I feel certain also on the other side of the House— this Bill being referred first of all to a select committee, where it could be properly enquired into, and where the necessary additions could be made to it. It is par excellence a Bill which ought to go to a select committee. There are too many flaws, and too many amendments which have to be considered, to be able to deal with them properly in the Committee stage. But unfortunately it is now late in the session; the work of the House is already being expedited, and I fear that in those circumstances it would be very difficult to send the Bill to a select committee. But as it is too late to send the Bill to a select committee, and inasmuch as we are dealing here with a matter which is not contentious—the principle of the Bill is being welcomed—may I make an appeal to the Minister that we shall in any event not regard this Bill from a political point of view. Let us try in regard to this Bill, to work together, because it is a Bill of the utmost importance, in order by so doing to effect the necessary improvements in the Committee stage. I am convinced of the fact that if the Minister on his part shows a spirit of concession towards the amendments that are being prepared, then he will find that this side of the House will do its very best to assist the Minister to get on to the statute book a Bill which will really be of value, and which will really answer the object for which it is intended.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Hirsch) is not in his place. It seems very strange to me how he shifted about and exhibited the narrow mentality of the middleman. He tried to throw cold water on the matter by explaining what the attitude was of the ordinary business man or of the man who had an agency for goods from overseas. He tried to explain that if people, who wanted to establish factories here, could not find capital for it, then those factories ought not to exist here, and then we must just continue producing goods here which are sent away to other countries to be manufactured there. Ultimately, he got to the length of saying that he would vote for the Bill — be was obliged to do that because he sits on the other side — but he said that he would do that provided the money was not used for industries throughout the whole of the country. He of course meant that it ought all to be invested in Port Elizabeth. I have got up to ask: What about the countryside in connection with this Bill? A commission was appointed which travelled through the country to decide where industries could be established in the rural areas. That commission has, so far as I know, not yet reported, and the countryside does not know whether this Bill, which will provide the sum of £5,000,000, will only make that available to the big towns where factories already exist, or whether it will also be used in encouraging similar industries on the countryside, in order to provide a livelihood for the people there. What makes me think on those lines is that co-operative societies are being excluded. The committee will only provide money for companies. But we know that all over the countryside the farmers are beginning to wake up, and are beginning to realise that it is necessary not to remain in the hands of the middleman, and they are anxious to establish factories, for instance for the canning of fruit, the manufacture of tinned milk, the manufacture of milk powder, and things of that kind. The position is that far more capital is required for the manufacture of condensed milk, etc., than for the manufacture of cheese and butter. The making of cheese and butter is encouraged, but there is already a large surplus of them, while we import condensed milk and concentrated milk to the value of £250,000. The farmers are therefore very anxious to put up factories of that kind, and it is a thing, moreover, which is actually necessary.

At 10.55 p.m. (while Mr. Warren was addressing the House), the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 29th March.