I want to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl)—

I just want to tell the Minister that this provision which we want to delete hits the farmers in my part of the country very severely. There are large numbers of farmers in my area who produce sultanas or raisins, and they also produce Hanepoot grapes. They grow grapes for drying purposes and not for the purpose of making wine, but it does sometimes happen, as it did last year, that the rainy season makes it impossible to dry grapes; consequently most of the farmers in those areas have equipped themselves in such a way that they can also distil should the necessity arise. It is not because they want to promote any illicit liquor trade, but they are forced to do so in order to get something out of their crops. The farmers are therefore compelled to have stills and to distil if necessity arises. If this provision is passed, however, it is going to be entirely impossible for the farmers to get anything out of their crops if the rany season happens to be unfavourable. I therefore want to ask the Minister to delete Sub-section (2). I know the Minister believes that there is a lot of illicit liquor trade going on in certain parts of the country, but he should take the conditions prevailing in the various parts of the country into account. The clause says this—

Now one gets this position, that the small farmers who mostly have 5,000 or 10,000 sultana or Hanepoot sticks are going to be most severely affected by this provision. If weather conditions are against them the only way for them to make something out of their crops is to press or to distil. For that reason I am asking the Minister to accept this amendment.

I second.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendment. We discussed this matter fairly fully during the Committee stage, and also on the second reading of the Bill. I explained then that with a view to combating the illicit liquor trade, it was essential in my opinion to have this provision.

And what are the farmers to do?

There probably will be instances where people will be hard hit, but we have to bear the interests of the general public in mind. It was proposed to increase 5 leaguers to 25, and there was another proposal before the House to reduce it to 2. I feel that the House agreed to 5 leaguers as a reasonable compromise, and I cannot accept this amendment.

Would it not be possible to give the Minister power so that he could deal with every case on its merits? If that were done it would solve the difficulty. There will be cases where this provision will hit people very severely, and it will be the less privileged people who will suffer as a result. Cannot the Minister use his discretion to grant the necessary permission in deserving cases?

Question put: That the words from the commencement of sub-section (2) down to and including “spirit” in line 41 stand part of the Bill.

Upon which the House divided.

Ayes—49:

Abrahamson H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P, V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—27:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Brits, G. P

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux. S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. J. H. Conradie negatived.

Remaining amendments in Clause 13 and the amendments in Clauses 18, 19, 23, 29, 30, and 38 put and agreed to.

In Clause 44,

I move—

Anyone who is conversant with farmers who do distilling will realise that the provision as it now reads is foolish and cannot be carried out. It says here now that one has to have preservation cases and reservoirs, that the hose end of the still must be enclosed in a preservation case, and that the preservation case may only be connected by a metal pipe with the vats. This is quite impossible. The farmer distils his wine in a hole and a hose connects the hole with the bucket which the brandy runs into, and then the farmer carries the brandy to the vats and truns it into the vats. It is now laid down here that there is to be a close case with metal pipes to the vats. It is quite impossible. The hose which the farmers use now have to be cleaned and they cannot be enclosed in a closed case. I want to ask the Minister to cut out this provision, because if he does not do so the result will be that the farmers will have to build new distilling holes in the ground at considerable expense, and they will also have to build their distilling holes so high that the brandy can run to the preservation cases and from there to the vats. It is quite impossible to do so. It may be possible in large distilleries but it is impossible for the small farmers to carry out these provisions.

I second. It is clear that this clause has been drafted by people who know nothing at all about farmers’ distilleries. Otherwise the Excise officials have drafted the clause with the object of doing away with all the stills of the farmers, so that farmers will not be able to distil in future with the exception perhaps of the very big farmers. Generally speaking, the farmers distil very little, and as a rule only where they are very far away and the cost of transport is too high. They are only allowed to distil for their own consumption, but if this clause has to be carried out the farmers wil not be able to distil any brandy at all. Why does the Minister not rather say that the distilling of brandy is totally prohibited? Then we will know where we are. But it is not right to impose this burden on the farmers, because the burden will be such that it will be made impossible for them to do any distilling. These provisions cannot be carried out; unless one has a large distillery one cannot put the stills so high that the brandy will run off through metal pipes to the vats. The farmers who distil have to clean the hose every time they finish distilling. How can one do it under provisions of this kind? I want to ask the Minister to accept the amendment because the smaller farmers cannot possibly comply with the provision as it now reads. It does happen sometimes, as the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has said, that owing to certain circumstances the man is compelled to distil because he cannot convert his grapes into raisins, or it may happen that acid has got into the wine and the man is compelled to turn it into brandy. This clause makes it quite impossible for the farmers.

I believe that there is a certain amount of misunderstanding on this question. First of all, this Bill, so far as this point is concerned, does not go any further than the existing law does. We are not asking for any fresh powers beyond those which we already have. Secondly, this provision of the clause is not obligatory on all distillers. I want to refer hon. members to the wording: “Than what the proper officials may require.” It is a discretionary power. The proper official may require what is necessary in every case. We have always as a department carried out those powers in a reasonable manner, and I want to assure my hon. friend that we shall continue to act in the same spirit as in the past. I also want to point out that we have the power to make regulations in regard to this matter, and I want to assure him that we shall grant the necessary exemptions in that way. I don’t think there is any need for him to be afraid that if the clause is passed as it reads now it will be carried out in an unreasonable manner.

The Minister says that no greater powers are being asked for here than the Administration already possesses. But the fault we have to find with this clause is that last year, or the year before last, very drastic provisions were passed in regard to distilleries. There was a strongfeeling in this House against those provisions. Those provisions are now being approved of and the farmers feel they want an assurance that this kind of thing will not be proceeded with any further. The Minister says that exemptions will be granted, but the farmers know that the Excise officials are exercising more and more drastic supervision in regard to distilleries and the farmer is suspicious. He does not cherish much hope of receiving a great deal of consideration from the Administration. The Minister now promises us that he will show consideration but that is not sufficient. The Minister wants to take certain steps in regard to distilleries. Let him take those steps in regard to the big distilleries which sell liquor to the public. It is contended that certain steps have to be taken so as to ensure that the public who buy the liquor will not be detrimentally affected by the possibility of poisonous substances getting into the liquor. If the Minister wants to take such protective measures, let him do so then in regard to the big distilleries which sell liquor to the public. The farmers who distil a little brandy do not sell their liquor to the public, and if the Minister thinks of protecting those farmers against themselves, then I want to tell him that I do not believe there is one case in history of an individual having distilled his own liquor and having been poisoned in that way. We need not bother our heads about protecting that man. He can protect himself. You can take it from me that the farmer who distils will see to it that no poisonous substance gets into the liquor. For that reason the Minister need have no qualms about excluding the farm distiller. Generally speaking, so many obstacles are placed in the way of the man who distils that it becomes almost impossible for him to do any distilling at all. Don’t go any further by placing this additional obstacle in his way. When the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) asks for exemption to be given to the small distilleries from this provision, I think he is fully entitled to ask for this exemption. If we look at all the obstacles and all the restrictions placed on distilling under the law, then the amendment which has now been proposed is the very least concession that we can ask the Minister to make, and I hope the Minister will agree to make that concession.

Some time ago there was some trouble in regard to the distilling of spirits; some of the merchants distilled spirits and put them immediately into the wine and it was necessary to give the department power to exercise control over this sort of thing. The department so far has always treated the wine farmers very fairly whenever they have put their difficulties before the department. I agree with the Minister that the department has not gone out of its way to get the farmers into trouble, and I also agree that these powers are already contained in the existing law, yet I am not quite sure about the whole of this clause, and I should like the Minister to have a look at it. It is laid down here that every distiller establishes his distillery, and it is provided among other things that he must do so in the way required by the propel’ officer. But then we have other sub-clauses, and it seems to me in regard to those sub-clauses that the officials have no power whatsoever to make any changes and to grant exemptions. I think the Minister should understand that an individual who distils five leaguers of wine, that is, one leaguer of brandy, must have a fairly large distillery. The farmer is not going to distil unless he is compelled to do so. If a farmer’s must begins to get sour or the wine gets a “crack” he has to distil to salve the stuff. When that farmer has to distil he needs the department’s help, because if he cannot distil he will lose the little stuff he has got. There is another type of farmer, too, who has to distil because he lives a long way from the market. He has to distil in order to reduce the transport costs on the stuff. I want to tell the Minister again that those farmers do not distil because they are so keen to do it; it is hard work. They have to work night and day, and the farmer has to have special men to do the work for him. Not all of them can distil. It is an art, and it seems to me it is a vanishing art. So there are two classes who will fall under this provision, the farmer who wants to salve his must, and the other farmer who is perhaps far away from the market and who wants to cut down his transportation costs. Those are the people who used to distil in the past. Now it seems to me that the other subclauses of this clause are not subject to the right of the Excise Department to say that the farmers need not comply with certain provisions. Hon. members should know what happens on the farm. The farmer has his still with a hose running through the distilling dam and the stuff is caught up at the other side. The still is pumped full and it has to be cleaned out every time. These people have not got the tools which the co-operative societies and the distilleries have; those big concerns have large stills and they do their work in a different way. This provision is required to give the officials an opportunity of exercising proper control over the large distilleries, but as far as the wine farmer is concerned, he does not distil just because he likes to do it, he only hopes so because he is compelled to do so. That is why I want the department to come to the assistance of these people. If these sub-clauses are not subject to the discretion, if exemption cannot be granted, then I want the Minister to see to it that these people are not subjected to unnecessary difficulties.

I shall do so.

Amendments put and the House divided:

Ayes—26:

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Fullard, G. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—48:

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Chistopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Neate, C.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I again want to object to Clause 13 and to the provision that a farmer is to have 5 leagures before he will be allowed to distil. Anyone who is conversant with the position of the farmer will agree that it is almost impossible for the farmer in every part of the country where he has a vine to be compelled to have at least 5 leaguers of must before being allowed to distil. It is very easy for the Minister to say that he can make raisins. Even if the farmer does make raisins there are always certain quantities of grapes which he will have to press. It may perhaps be 4½ leaguers, 3 leaguers or even 1 leaguer. The farmer has the necessary installation for that purpose. He has his still—and he has distilled ever since time immemorial. Now he is to be prevented from doing it and he is to transport the stuff by lorry or by wagons, or he has to throw it away because it will not pay him to transport it over long distances. I have already said that I have had experience myself of this sort of thing, and if it were not for the fact that I had other vines I would have been compelled to throw the stuff away this year as a result of this provision. Frost has killed a large part of my vines. At least 40,000 sticks were killed by frost; from those I shall get a little bit of stuff, and if I had had no other vines I would have simply been compelled to throw away that must, or I would have had to transport it at very heavy expense. I am not too far away from the distillery, but let us take the case now of a farmer in Laingsburg. He will have to transport his must to Ladismith and it will really pay him better to throw it away. No, a farmer must be allowed to distil. Assuming the must goes sour; what is he going to do with it? He is compelled to distil, as in that way he is able to save a little bit out of it. The farmer is suffering quite enough hardships without our adding to his troubles by a provision of this kind. The trouble is that the people who draft our laws don’t know anything about farmers. The Minister sent me to one of his officials. He received me very courteously and he told me that a concession would be made in the regulations. Why not put it in the Bill? What expense will there be, what trouble will there be, in putting in the Bill—that the farmers’ distilleries will be excluded? We, the farmers, are not going to cheat with our distilleries. Of course there may be exceptions. The intention apparently is to prevent illicit liquor dealing. There may be exceptions, but the farmer does not distil for the purpose of doing anything illicit, and if there are exceptions, well, we have the police to deal with them, and so far as I know our police are good. What about the people in Graaff Reinet who have had their small distilleries for years? Are they to destroy their small vines or are they to throw the stuff away? Let the Minister put himself in the place of those farmers. So far as I am personally concerned I am not far away from the distillery. I am not pleading for myself, but I am pleading on behalf of the poor people in the far away distant corners who have been accustomed to do a bit of distilling and to make liquor, and the little bit of money they have made, they have made legitimately. Now they will have to use that bit of money for transport to move their stuff. It is very drastic, it is criminal, and I hope the Minister will come to his senses and will concede this point to the farmers. Now let me say a word about Clause 44. The Minister said that he will instruct the official to be considerate. Why cannot it be put in the Bill that the farmers’ distilleries are to be exempted? What is behind it? What is the reason for the Minister’s refusal to do this? Does he want to smooth the people over by saying that his officials will put things right in the regulations? Does he want to flatter the people and sweeten them and does he imagine he is going to catch them in that way? We know what the Minister’s intentions are; why does he not put it in the Bill? Why does he not put the matter right so that the people may know where they are? Now it is neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. It seems that the Minister wants to put the farmer who distils into a difficult position. The farmer want these things in the Act because experience of the past has taught him that it is better to have these things laid down in the law so that he has it in black and white. Why should we be dependent on officials? Why should we have to talk nicely to officials and try to get things done that way? Surely we should know what our rights are? Now we have to go to the magistrate and ask him to grant us an exemption if we want to distil in the way our fathers used to distil before us, and our grandfathers before them. I fail to understand why we should be placed in that position. Let us describe the position clearly in the law, so that everybody can see what he can do and what he cannot do. The Minister says that he is very sympathetic, and I believe he is, but if he should drop out tomorrow and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) should take his place as Minister of Finance, what will he do? He is a teetotaller, and what will he do to the farmers? He will simply tell us that that is the law, and that he is going to carry it out strictly, and if we want to incur expenses in distilling, those expenses are going to be so high that we will make nothing out of what we produce. No, I am appealing to the Minister and I say he must allow the farmers to distil as they did in the past, because these things which are laid down in this clause make the position quite impossible for the farmer. I don’t know whether the Minister has ever seen a distillery. He is a Hofmeyr, and he should be conversant with the production of liquor in the Western Province. He comes from a family which has distilled liquor and made wine, and he should be familiar with it, even though he has not grown up on a farm. Let me explain again to him what the position is. The farmer builds his still. Then he has a distilling hole or a cooling hole. On the still there is a helmet. That helmet is attached to a hose which runs to the distilling dam, and on the other side the brandy runs into a bucket, in which it is removed to the vat. The still is filled, or it is pumped full, and when the still has been emptied it has to be cleaned; the helmet is taken off, and water is run through the hose, and it is thrown away on the other side. Now, the Minister wants the still to be locked up. In other words, there must be a locked Container or a case which the hose runs into, and it is not allowed to be loosened. Now the helmet and the hose have to be cleaned; in other words, water has to be thrown in, and I suppose that will have to run into the closed vat or into the case. Everything, the feints, the muddy water, and everything, must go together. How can we do it otherwise? The merchants will refuse to take the stuff. Nobody will want to drink it. My hon. friend would object if he had to drink it, because it would not be Klipdrif.

It will be Muddrif.

It will be nothing but mud. What the Minister wants the farmer to do is impossible. Now we are told that it can be dealt with in the regulations. That means that the officials will be able to act in an arbitrary manner because the law does not say that. I know the officials. Some of them are quite good fellows, but they are not keen on doing what the farmer wants them to do. They sometimes want to do as they please, and some of those officials fancy themselves; they think they are very big gentlemen, particularly when they come to a man’s farm. I have had experience of officials visiting my farm during my absence. One of them came along and demanded the key to my cellar. Brandy had been leaking out, and there was a little shortage, and he was very impertinent. I want to warn the Minister again that he is going to do something here which is going to handicap the farmers very badly. It is going to put the farmer in a very difficult position, and it is quite unnecessary for the Minister to do this. I don’t want the Minister to vanish and be forced to get out as a result of this liquor Act. I hope he will still realise that he is doing the wrong thing, and I hope he will still accept something in the spirit of my amendment.

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) spoke of the Minister as one of the Hofmeyrs who know something about wine farming. I think it must have been a long time ago since the Minister was on a wine farm last, and I believe that he knows very little about the difficulties the farmers have to contend with. We who have grown up in the Western Province, where there is a well established industry, and where everything is properly equipped, can comply with the provisions and restrictions laid down in this Bill, but what about the new areas which are still in their development stage? I want to invite the Minister to come to Gordonia to defend this Bill. The Government has spent thousands of pounds there on the development of irrigation schemes. Land has been given out there under irrigation schemes, and the settlers have been advised by the Agricultural Department to grow vines. At Upington the department even put up an experimental station, and the official who is stationed there has to instruct farmers in the growing of raisins and sultanas. In many of the leases a provision is inserted that the settlers are to put down a given number of vines within a certain time—along the river they have even been obliged by the Government to do so. Facilities have also been created for those people there to obtain vines. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Van Coller), of course, knows nothing about those things; he has no time for the wine farmers—he is one of those abstainers who support the Minister.

I have to live among the natives who get this cheap liquor.

The hon. member knows nothing about the conditions. He has heard of them, and he is the type of member who makes representations to the Minister, and this Bill now before the House is due to the efforts of the teetotallers. If the hon. member were to pay a visit to those areas where they distil liquor from fruit other than grapes, he would be able to do some good work. Last year, when the farmers had to dry their raisins, tremendous rains fell in Gordonia, and kept on for several days. The farmers were unable to make raisins and they had to press. They had to stand together and many of them started stills. What is the Government going to do if that happens again? Are the farmers going to be compensated? They are now equipped to a certain extent but if heavy losses are suffered again next year owing to weather conditions then I want to know whether the Government is going to compensate them? We are trying to rehabilitate people in those areas, but this Bill will upset all we are trying to do. This is an upside down measure. What is going to be done if we have the same sort of thing again that we had last year? If the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) were here he would tell us that the very same thing happened on the irrigation schemes in his constituency yet under pressure of the teetotal movement — which knows nothing about the position — the Minister comes here and introduces this Bill. The Minister says it is a sort of compromise. Unfortunately I was not here when the Bill was read a second time, but I understand there has been no compromise. Let the Minister of Lands who is so keen on coming to my constituency come and defend this Bill there—if he does he will get a bigger vote of no confidence than ever.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—45:

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Humphreys W. B.

Jackson, D.

Long, B. K.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—29:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob

Wilkens, Jan

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

I move—

This is the third of a series of Bills designed to give effect to the resolutions in regard to taxation adopted by this House after they had been considered in Committee of Ways and Means. We have already disposed of the resolutions insofar as they dealt with the death duties and with Customs and Excise proposals. We still have to deal with the most important, or rather the most contentious taxation proposals, namely, those in regard to the trade profits special levy, the fixed property profits tax, and the personal tax and savings fund levy. Those three proposals are dealt with in another Bill already before the House, namely, the Special Taxation Bill, but not now under consideration. We are therefore left with two other proposals in the resolutions adopted by the House after consideration by the Committee of Ways and Means. And those were both resolutions which were adopted by the Committee without a Division, so that relatively we are dealing with non-contentious matters today. The first of the two resolutions dealt with in this Bill is in regard to income tax. I use the word here in a wide sense, including the normal and super tax on individuals, the normal tax on companies, and the normal tax on gold mining and diamond mining companies. Secondly, there is the resolution in regard to the special contribution by the gold mines. As far as the income tax resolution is concerned, as I explained at the time, we are making no changes. As hon. members are aware, the rates of income tax have to be voted each year by this House, whether any change is made or not. These rates are embodied in Section 1 of this Bill, and its enactment will continue the position as it has been since last year. I don’t think therefore that much discussion will be necessary in regard to that section. Then the other ways and means proposal dealt with in this Bill is the proposal in regard to the special contribution by the gold mines which it is proposed to raise from 16 to 20 per cent. That is dealt with in Section 21 of this Bill. These two clauses of the Bill deal with these taxation proposals. As those proposals have been fully discussed in the Budget debate and again in Committee of Ways and Means, it is not necessary for me to enlarge upon them now. The Bill, however, contains a large number of other clauses, and in reality this Bill is of a type which hardly lends itself to discussion in a second reading debate. The points arising from the Bill can be more appropriately dealt with in Committee. I do not propose asking that the Committee stage be taken today; I shall set it down for a later date, so that hon. members, if they wish, may have more time than they have had to consider the clauses; there are some complicated and difficult, although not contentious proposals in the other clauses of the Bill. We have in effect taken advantage of the opportunity provided by the introduction of a Bill to give effect to our taxation proposals in order to amend certain other provisions in the law dealing with taxes on income, and it is those other clauses which are set forth in this Bill, apart from the two Sections 1 and 21, to which I have referred specifically. As hon. members are aware, a memorandum has been circulated giving the details of these clauses, and therefore I need not deal with the Bill clause by clause. We are proposing mainly in these clauses to amend the Income Tax Act which was passed last year, and the special taxation Act which deals with the excess profits duty. As I said, the Income Tax Act was passed last year, being a Consolidating Act. It represented a very large job of work to consolidate our Income Tax Law, and I think I can say now, looking back on it, after the experience of a year, that a very difficult task was very well done by those who prepared the Act. The Act has proved to be an efficient and workable instrument. While that is so, it is inevitable, havingregard to the magnitude of the scope of that Act, that certain points should have arisen which call for amendment in the light of the experience gained. It is these amendments which we are now proposing to make. The amendments to which I refer have been designed either to remove inequalities or hardships, or to clarify certain provisions in the law as passed last year, or to remove administrative difficulties or to rectify certain minor errors of typography or drafting. As I have said, the fact that a memorandum has been circulated makes it unnecessary for me to deal with this Bill clause by clause. I shall merely give an indication of the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 1, as I have already said, specifies the rates of income tax. Then we come to Clauses 2 to 7, which deal with the income tax provisions of the Income Tax Act of last year. Section 4, for instance, in that part of this Bill, provides that for the purpose of calculation of taxable income, just as today no account is taken of excess profits duty, so no account will be taken of amounts of tax paid under the proposed trades levy, and the proposed fixed property profits tax. Section 6 deals with the position of non-residents. Non-residents, as hon. members are aware, are exempt form super tax in respect of dividens. Now, because of that we imposed the special tax on nonresident shareholders last year. In this particular clause we propose that this exemption should not apply to non-resident beneficiaries of Union trusts and estates. That merely brings the law in this regard into line with the general principle which we accepted in the income tax last year, namely, that beneficiaries of such trusts and estates should be treated in the same way as Union residents. The next part of this Bill contains certain amendments of that portion of the Income Tax Law of last year which dealt with the non-resident shareholder. As I have said, under that Act of last year we impose a special tax on dividends accruing to non-resident shareholders in consideration of the fact that they are for various reasons, including the difficulty of administration, excluded from super tax. There are certain adjustments of a comparatively minor character proposed in regard to the scope of the tax. These are all explained in the memorandum, and there are also certain improvements proposed in the machinery for collecting the tax. Then we come to a few clauses, Sections 13 to 15, which contain amendments to another part of last year’s Income Tax Law, namely, the part which dealt with the undistributed profits tax. There, again, the adjustments are of a minor character. Section 13, for instance, removes from the scope of liability the apportionments made in respect of incomes from private companies. It is necessary to do so, otherwise in respect of such apportionments there would be liability for double taxation. Then there are a few sections in this Bill which propose amendments in the last part of the Income Tax Act of last year, which contains the general provisions dealing with the administration of the Income Tax Law and these proposals, as will be clear from the memorandum, are merely in the nature of improvements in the machinery. One rather more important point is that which is dealt with in Section 17, where, under last year’s law, the income of one person may be deemed to accrue to another person. That arises, for instance, in the case of a donor and donee, or where a trust is set aside for the benefit of a child. The purpose of the amendment in Section 17 is to make it possible for the additional tax on the donor to be recovered from the donee. Section 19 merely rectifies a typographical error which slipped in during the passage of the Bill last year. Section 21, as I have said, deals with the special contribution from the gold mines. Then there is Clause 21, to which I think I should give a little more attention. There we are proposing to amend the Special Taxation Act which dealt with excess profits duty. What we propose here is this: That a person liable for excess profits duty may on the recommendation of the Revenue Advisory Committee, which we set up last year, be granted an additional allowance in respect of plant and machinery in cases where it can be shown that such plant and machinery acquired during the war period has suffered greater depreciation than has been allowed for by the Commissioner by way of annual wear and tear allowance in the ordinary way. That additional allowance will be made after the close of the final period of assessment. By that time it will be possible to arrive at a reasonable figure, having regard to all circumstances as they have existed. In other words, we are proposing here to deal with the special problem of obsolescence, the problem, for instance, which arises where in relation to the altered circumstances after the war, plant acquired during the war will lose its value or will require alteration in order to be usable for peace time requirements. This clause is an important concession, which I foreshadowed in my Budget speech, designed to make it possible to take account of obsolescence in regard to plant and equipment. I would like to take this opportunity of suggesting that the Government has not shown itself blind to the difficulties which may arise in the afterwar period as far as trade and industry are concerned. Indeed, this clause is another indication of the Government’s appreciation of these difficulties. When we in the first instance introduced the Excess Profits Duty Law, we inserted therein a provision for refunds from year to year on such a basis as would set off losses against profits. In the Act we also made provision for taking account of replacement values of stock in the adjustment made at the end of the excess profits duty period. Now, those represent substantial concessions which will probably be of considerable value to parties engaged in trade and industry at the end of the war period if they find themselves in difficulties in adjusting themselves to the new conditions. That was the first step we took, namely, in regard to stock. Then further questions have been raised, in the first place, in regard to plant and machinery; and, secondly, in regard to buildings. As far as plant and machinery are concerned, our Income Tax Act of 1921 already contains provisions which permit of the annual deduction of wear and tear allowances, and of a scrapping allowance when the plant and machinery used by the taxpayer for the purpose of his trade ceases to be so used. Then wear and tear allowances are permitted annually on the basis of the amount of wear and tear suffered by the plant and machinery in the year’s working. But we have also had regard to the fact that in many cases in present circumstances and war conditions, when production has had to be speeded up, and extra time has had to be worked, there has been a special strain on the plant and machinery used, and that the effect of that has been to shorten the life of such plant and machinery. In such cases we, in the administration of the Income Tax Act—and that would also apply to the excess profits duty—are allowing for increased provision in regard to the depreciation of the value of such plant and machinery. And I think it is admitted that such allowances are being made today on quite a generous scale. Having regard to that and having regard to the additional provision now proposed to be made in connection with allowances for obsolescence of plant, I think it must be admitted that we are dealing in an adequate and even generous way not only with the question of stock, but also with that of plant and machinery. There remains the question of buildings. We have been asked to make special provision for expenditure on buildings specially erected for war-time production, and for the alteration and rebuilding of existing premises to meet the demands of increased production of war materials. Our Income Tax Act as it stands specifically debars the deduction of any allowances in respect of buildings. Expenditure on buildings is clearly of a capital nature. It means the creation of a fresh asset, and it is a fundamental principle of the Income Tax Law generally that expenditure in regard to the creation of assets should not be allowed for deduction.

Except in respect of farming.

We are not going into that now. That is the general principle of any Income Tax Law, not only in this country, but elsewhere, too. It is, however, possible, one admits it frankly, that having regard to war and post-war conditions, it may become necessary to deal further with this question of buildings, but I do not think we have reached that stage yet. It is quite impossible at this present stage to say whether there will in fact be any loss in respect of buildings erected at the present time for the purpose of war production. There may be, or there may not be. It is quite possible that after the war, having regard to the depletion of stocks, the needs of industry may be so great as to maintain the value of all buildings suitable for industrial production, even though those buildings were put up for war purposes. I repeat that I recognise the possibility of circumstances arising out of such a nature as to justify the making of allowances for capital losses in respect of buildings. And in the event of there being such circumstances at the time the question of the introduction of suitable legislation to deal with that problem will then receive our serious consideration. I do not think, however, that at the present time we need go further into this matter—I don’t think that we would be justified in going further than saying what I have said. I don’t think we need go any further than deal with this question of plant, equipment and stock in the manner we propose to do. I think that covers the ground as far as the Bill is concerned. As I have indicated, apart from the two main provisions where we are following the terms of the resolution passed by this House this Bill consists of a large number of separate clauses dealing with specific and individual points, and to that extent the Bill could possibly be discussed more appropriately in Committee than at this stage. I would also repeat that the Committee Stage will not be taken today, and that a further opportunity will be given to hon. members to study the Bill in the light of what I have said.

The Minister has told us that he will give us time before the Committee stage to enable us to pay attention to certain proposals contained in this Bill. In his memorandum the Minister says that this Bill is intended specially to introduce certain changes which are considered necessary to remove certain cases of hardship. Now I want to submit a special case to the Minister, particularly in view of the fact that he will have an opportunity of considering it in the meantime, so that he can tell us when we go into Committee whether he will be prepared to remove this hardship which I am going to refer to. So far as super tax is concerned, we know that it starts with 2s. in the £ and it goes up to about 7s. 6d. in the £. Now I want to mention a tangible instance to the Minister. A farmer has been farming with cattle over a number of years, and he hopes to have sufficient cattle one day to be able to sell so that he may pay off his bond in that way. I know of a special case which has been brought to my notice. The farmer has a bond of a few thousand pounds on his farm. For a number of years the condition of his cattle was good enough to enable him to send them to the market. Since then his cattle have got into good condition and he had intended taking them to the market and selling them, in order to pay off his bond, but now he is faced with this position under the law, that he will have to pay super tax on the amount he will get for his cattle; he will have to pay super tax on everything over £1,500.

No, it is £2,000.

He pays all the ordinary taxes, the ordinary income tax; then he has to pay super tax, with the result that a big hole will be made in the amount he wants to pay off on his bond. That man has to reduce the number of his cattle. Cattle is the farmer’s capital. He wants to pay off his bond with what he makes out of the sale of cattle, so it is really merely a shifting of cattle. He is in between two fires. On the one hand he hesitates because of the large amount he has to pay in taxation, and on the other hand he has to reduce the number of his cattle. I want to bring this matter to the Minister’s notice and I want to ask him to try and devise some scheme so that in cases where farmers sell their cattle for the purpose of reducing their bonds, some concession may be made to them—at least to the amount they pay off on their bonds; the present position is really a very serious hardship on those people. I hope the Minister will be able to put this in order.

First of all, I would like to express thanks to the hon. Minister for this memorandum which has been prepared on this Bill. It is very useful indeed, and I think it explains the proposals that have been put forward by the Minister. He made a statement this morning, too, on a matter which has been causing, I think, a good deal of concern to industry generally, on this question of depreciation. One has experienced during the last year or two, because of increased trade and industry, mainly for war purposes, the necessity for making this extra allowance in order to meet the position that has arisen due to the increased strain placed on trade and industry. And the fact that the Minister today is recognising that, and is going to take steps to meet the position that has arisen will, I think, cause very much satisfaction. I am not quite clear as to how far any increased allowances are given today in respect of the extra strain imposed on machinery; or let me put it this way. You have many factories that are working 20 out of 24 hours a day.

We make allowances for that.

That is why I am not quite clear what the position is today. But at one time a normal rate was allowed per annum at a fixed rate of 8 per cent. or 10 per cent. on depreciation, because in connection with war supplies I remember that we used to allow an extra 2 per cent. over and above the estimated cost. Now the position was put up that with regard to the depreciation of the plant and machinery, it still remained at the old figure, irrespective of whether that plant worked 16 hours or 18 hours a day. That has been adjusted. Has it been adjusted to a fairly liberal allowance?

Yes, I believe so.

Then at the end of the war the whole position will, I take it, be reviewed, as to whether that plant has any value at all or can be used; if it cannot be used, then a further allowance will be granted. I realise it does open a much wider vista on this question of buildings, and one can see that it will be rather difficult to make any allowances now, but there is the point, of course, that many factories have been put up for war purposes in places where they would not ordinarily have been put up. I take it from the Minister’s statement that at the end of the war period that position will be reviewed, and if it is found that these buildings have been put up particularly for war purposes or to meet the requirements which war conditions have imposed, that you will go into the whole question whether further allowances or depreciation should be allowed. If that is the position, it will also assist very considerably, and I think the proposals of the hon. Minister are eminently fair. I do not propose to go into details on this Bill, because the memorandum sets out very fully the various points, and if there are any further points, we can ask the Minister in Committee to give us an explanation.

I just want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible in a Bill such as this, in which so many amendments are made to one clause, to have the whole clause re-drafted? It is tremendously difficult to amend a clause in this way. It takes members hours to study the Bill and to turn up all the Acts to find out exactly what the position is. One clause takes up a full hour, and some of my colleagues want this matter to be brought to the Minister’s notice. It is extremely difficult to explain such a clause and judges become irritated and ask why the whole clause cannot be re-drafted. If that is done we can see exactly what amendments are made, and we need not turn up all the old laws again. Today we have to turn up every law. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this aspect of the matter. So far as this side of the House is concerned, I only want to say again that we feel very strongly on this question of excess profits tax on new industries. The Minister should grant exemptions to pioneer industries. It has come to our notice that a turpentine factory was to have been established, but the excess profits tax made it quite impossible to undertake a scheme of that kind. In times like the present, particularly it is necessary to develop new industries to make up for the shortage in commodities which we are unable to obtain. I quoted from the “Economist” last year to prove how this tax was interfering with new industries, and even with existing industries in England. So far as existing industries are concerned, they are one of those sources of taxation which the Minister wants to tax, but I feel that if we have the interests of the new industries at heart under present conditions we should exempt them from this tax. Once they have become stronger the Minister can impose the tax on them, but at the present stage I feel the Minister should consider during the recess to what extent he can exempt those new industries from the provisions of this tax.

I, too, would like to congratulate the hon. Minister on the memorandum his department has prepared and issued, because this Bill without such a memorandum would have taken a good deal of time to digest and go through. I would also like to congratulate the Minister on the Bill he has put before the House and for the way that it is straightening out certain of the anomalies that have hitherto existed. I shall raise a number of points during the Committee stage, but at this stage would like to raise a few also. I shall do so in the order they appear in the Act. In Section 11 there is provision for certain deductions; one of these deductions is the amount of excess profits duty paid.

Section 11 of what?

Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. That section provides that the amount of the excess profits duty paid is deductable before the calculation of other taxes is brought to bear, but in allowing excess profits duty—in allowing the deduction— there is specifically excluded the tax on any amount, which has been disallowed by the commissioner in his discretion in respect of managerial expenses. The effect is that the amount of tax at the rate of 13/4d. in the £ on the sum disallowed by the commissioner does not fall for deduction before calculating the other taxes, and therefore tax must be paid on that amount as well. It seems to me that this is an anomaly which can well be considered, and I want to ask the hon. Minister to consider the point. The next matter I want to raise is in connection with Section 37 of the Act. When this Act was passed last year a radical change was brought in. Private companies, which had formerly been taxed as companies, were then treated as partnerships, and for the purposes of that change the profits of private companies, instead of being taxed in the hands of the company are apportioned to the respective shareholders, and the respective shareholders themselves pay the relative normal and super tax. According to the income the shareholder receives. But there is this proviso, that if a company should suffer a loss, that loss will not be apportioned but has to be carried forward in the company’s accounts. Now during the recess I have heard a good deal of criticism on this point, and I want to bring it to the notice of the hon. Minister with a view to seeing whether he cannot remedy the injustice at the Committee stage. It seems to me only reasonable, if you are going to apportion the profits of the company amongst the shareholders, that in the same way losses should also be apportioned. Let me give an illustration of the effect of the point I am trying to make. A man is interested in two companies. In the one company he makes a profit of £2,000, and in the other company his share of the loss is £2,000. In the Act there is provision for an individual or a partner in a partnership to offset such a loss against the income, and in consequence he would not be liable for tax at all. In point of fact, he has made no profit at all in a case like that. But here, because it is a company, the loss of £2,000 will be retained in the company’s profit and loss account, and not be apportioned, and the individual concerned will be apportioned and called upon to pay the tax on £2,000. I think the matter is of even greater importance now than it was before, because companies are going to be very severely taxed in respect of the special taxation, which is coming before us, and in particular the trades profits special levy. I would therefore earnestly ask the Minister to give his serious consideration to this point, because I have had many representations on the point during the recess. I think this matter calls for serious consideration. I come next to the undistributed profits tax. I see the Minister has a small amendment in this Bill. I had hoped that the trend in this connection would be in the direction of generosity. This particular clause of the Bill …

Which clause?

It is Clause 15 of the Bill, and it affects Section 54 of the Act. Last year when the undistributed profits tax was introduced, the Minister was urged to make some special provision to assist the needs of a new company, a company which had not yet had a chance to build up reserves, and which had of necessity to retain a large portion of its profits for that purpose. This tax was particularly severe on a new company, and the Minister said that he hoped to bring in some amendment to provide that this tax would only be payable after the company had attained a certain reserve. He later found that there was some difficulty; what it was I do not know, but he brought in the provision that no company would be liable for the tax until it had derived an aggregate taxable income of 20 per cent. of its total paid-up capital. This amendment is now going to make it still more difficult for that company. The trend is in the direction of parsimony and not generosity, and I want to make an appeal to the hon. Minister to see whether he cannot amend this section of the Act in the direction of assisting a new company substantially. New companies are facing great difficulties; there is a lot of difficulty in establishing a new industry, and this particular tax will bear very heavily on such a company when you consider that its rate rises up to 4s. in the £. The progressive rate of the tax is absolutely against the new company. The old-established company, which has been able to accumulate large reserves, is in a relatively advantageous position to distribute a higher percentage of the profit earned. The new company is in the reverse position. The new company finds it extremely difficult to distribute anything like a reasonable amount of profit, and for that reason it has to pay a higher rate of tax on a larger amount than the old-established company. The next point I come to is Section 65 of the Act. This section deals with the question of penalties. If there has been an omission to return a form, the Commissioner is entitled to charge treble tax. If there has been an omission to return a sum of income, the Commissioner is entitled to assess the increased amount and to charge a penalty of double the increase. If there has been included an amount for deduction or set off, which is not permissible under the provisions of this Act, the person is similarly penalised. We come now to Clause 16 of the Bill under review, and the Minister is adding a further subject to the provisions of this section. He is now going to provide that in the event of there being a lack of disclosure of material information, this section is also going to apply. For failure to make a return, for failure to return a sum, for deduction of an amount which is not permissible, and for the withholding of material information —in respect of all four points—the Commissioner alone has the right to levy a very heavy penalty, a penalty equal to double the amount of tax. That is what it boils down to. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 65 of the Act, the Commissioner is given the discretion, if he is satisfied that the default in rendering the return was not due to any intent either to defraud the revenue or to postpone the payment by the taxpayers of the tax chargeable, or that any such omission was not due to any intent to evade taxation, to remit such part or all of the said treble rate or additional charge as he may think fit. But there is no recourse whatever against the decision of the Commissioner, not even to the King, apparently. The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is absolutely final and binding. This section puts into the hands of the Commissioner a power, the immensity of which I cannot conceive any other Act in this country placing in the hands of a particular individual. My submission in regard to this particular section is that the taxpayer should have the right of appeal to the special income tax court— the machinery which is set up for hearing income tax matters—so that if he feels aggrieved and if his omission falls within the discretion given to the Commissioner, he will have the right to place his case before an independent tribunal of experienced men, who are there for the specific purpose of hearing any such dispute. The amount involved may be very considerable. It may be £100,000 or even £200,000 or £300,000. And the imposition of treble tax on that huge sum rests in the hands of one solitary individual in this country. Now I submit that that is quite wrong. I submit that a taxpayer should have the right of recourse to the special income tax court; and I submit, too, that at the present time it is all the more important that he should have that right, because when this section was originally framed, income tax was a relatively small item. In those days the companies tax was a matter of 2s. 6d. in the £ on the taxable amount. Normal and super-tax starts at 1s. in the £, and the rates of tax were then small, so that the imposition of treble tax could not amount to more than 3s. in the £ in the case of an individual, and 7s. 6d. in the case of a company. But today the taxes are heavy and were numerous. The commissioner has the same power in respect of the excess profits tax, and I presume he will have the same power in respect of the new taxes, the trades profits levy, and the profit on the sale of fixed property, as this section confers on him. So he has the power to inflict a penalty of three times 13s. 4d. on an individual, an amount of £2 in the £1 in all. In view of the increased rates and new taxes, this power of the commissioner has grown very considerably. The Minister said last year that this was not the time to remove sanctions, but I do submit that it is not the time to place such colossal and increasing powers in the hands of one individual. And finally, in that connection, I want to emphasise this point, that under the Act the commissioner may delegate his powers to individuals in his department. So we have this anomalous position, that if a case is submitted to the income tax court, the judge and the assessors have to sit in person and hear the case presented: but in connection with these vast and colossal powers of charging treble tax, the commissioner himself in the exercising of his discretion is not even obliged to hear the case in person. He can delegate this to an underling in his department, to anybody in the department he sees fit to nominate. Surely it is not right to give any individual such powers and then to superimpose on top of that the right to delegate those powers to some other individual. It seems to me that is wrong. It seems to me to ride across our whole democratic system, that by an Act of Parliament one can confer such vast discretionary powers on an individual. I therefore make an appeal to the Minister to consider my remarks in the light of the increased taxation, and to see whether some amendment cannot be brought in at the Committee stage which will see justice done, and which will meet the case I am making now. The Bill before us also seeks to improve the Excess Profits Duty tax, and I do welcome the efforts the Minister is making towards assisting the position, and towards easing the many anomalies that occur in that tax. I realise that in a tax of this kind it is utterly impossible to obtain equity in all cases, but I have always maintained that by the same token it is possible to smooth out the inequities as far as is possible. The Minister went a certain distance last year in the establishment of the Revenue Advisory Committee, and he is now giving that committee extended powers; and he has told us of his further ideas of allowing an amount in respect of the depreciation of buildings. I welcome that. I want however to bring one point to the Minister’s attention in connection with the basic profit, which is referred to in Clause 22 of the Bill. There is one very unsatisfactory feature in the calculation of the basic profit. There is no allowance in calculating the basic profit for past losses, and I think if the Minister will consider this and adjust the point it will go a long way towards meeting the difficulties and hardships, which the excess profits duty imposes on new industry. As an example, we all know that an industry when established takes some years before it becomes profit-earning. It accumulates losses for that period, and yet, when it comes to the year of making a profit —if it makes over 8 per cent. profit—the profit over 8 per cent. is taxed at 13s. 4d., while there is standing to the debit in the books of the company an accumulated amount of loss. I think that, if previous losses were allowed to be brought forward in the same way that these losses are taken into account for income tax, it would go a long way towards meeting the great hardships, which this tax imposes on a new company, and I make a special plea for that. We are faced today with this difficulty—and there is no question whether it is so or whether it is not, for we can go for supporting information to the report of the Industrial Development Corporation, where they tell us what they have tried to do, and have been unable to do; they tell us of the difficulties they have met with in regard to the establishment of new industries—and the main difficulty is the effect of the excess profits tax on new industry. Surely in this country the time has arrived when such hardships should be eliminated, and when unevenness should be smoothed out. The Minister can do it, and I appeal to him to consider this. There is one other aspect in connection with E.P.D. and it is this: A pre-war standard of profit as applicable to a company is always retained by that company, and if that company should change hands by the medium of a transfer of shares to a new owner, that new owner obtains the full benefit of the pre-war standard of that company. That is perfectly fair. But a different state of affairs prevails in regard to an individual or partnership. In the case of an individual or partnership, an individual cannot transfer the pre-war standard. An individual may have been highly succesful in a business and earned a substantial pre-war standard. He may not even want to sell; he may be forced to sell; he may die, and his executor may be forced to dispose of the business. Now the business is sold, and, although the excess profits tax attaches to the business, the executors cannot transfer the individual’s pre-war standard of profit. That creates a very grave injustice in the case of the individual, because obviously, if the purchaser is confined for his pre-war standard to the statutory percentage of 8 per cent. whereas the individual’s pre-war standard of profit is very much higher, it must have the effect of depreciating the capital value of that business. Just in the same way we can get the reverse process in the case of a company. Where a company enjoyed a high pre-war standard of profit and does not now earn as much, that company is in an advantageous position today, because people want the pre-war standard. That pre-war standard has an effect of enhancing the shares; but in the case of the individual the inability to transfer the pre-war standard of the business must ipso facto create depreciation of the capital value of business. That is a point I also want to make. Now, with regard to the Revenue Advisory Committee, I would like the Minister to tell us something about what that Committee has been doing. I am very interested, indeed, in its inauguration, and I should like to know a good deal about its deliberations. I should like to know whether the deliberations of that Committee are going to be made public. I consider they should. In England in the last war there was a Board of Referees, a body similar to our Revenue Advisory Committee, which established varying statutory percentages ranging from the flat rate of 6 per cent. up to as much as 27½ per cent. All these rates were published in regard to various classes of businesses. I can recall that, whereas the flat rate was 6 per cent., they assessed coal mining in the Transvaal at 9 per cent. The Revenue Advisory Committee is not going to deal with individual cases as such, but with classes of business, and I think that their deliberations and decisions and the decisions accepted by the Commissioner should be made public so that everyone might know what they are. That in itself would be a step forward in helping progress in new business, because a person who wishes to start a new business now is in the dark; he does not know whether any case such as his has been under consideration or not. In connection with this Bill the one criticism I have to level is against the maintenance of the old rates of tax. The Minister said the other day that, if he had to spread the additional taxation burden over the taxpayers, who are those concerned in this particular Bill, he would never have got £4,000,000, which he expects the trade profits levy to yield. I have been taking out a few figures, and I find that the married man with two children pays virtually a few shillings in income tax—in this present time of war a married man with two children earning £500 a year, pays a few shillings— surely one is justified in taxing a person like that more than just a few shillings. The new personal levy adds an additional 20 per cent., which means a shilling or two. A married man with two children earningup to £500 pays very little indeed. I feel that it is largely the big numbers of people, who are earning in the category of £400 to £600—I feel it is there that the problem of inflation is arising. They are the people who are earning more and who spend their money, and the Minister is very anxious indeed to control inflation. These people today are earning more than ever before, and they are trying to spend that money, but against that there are not the consumable goods available to spend that money on, and the result is a certain amount of inflation.

Where is that, in the Union?

Yes, if you consult the report of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue you will see the figures. It would not be unreasonable to raise further the rates of normal and also super tax in time of war and put them up quite a good deal. I do not think that it would be unreasonable. Outside of these matters I think the Minister is to be commended on the Bill he has put before the House.

I am grateful to the hon. members for Pretoria Central (Mr. Pocock) and Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) for the remarks which they have made in expressing their appreciation in connection with this Bill. The hon. member for Pretoria Central has in a very discerning manner dealt with what I said in regard to our proposals dealing with plant and equipment and buildings. And I am glad to have his commendation of these proposals. The hon. member for Orange Grove has in his speech surveyed virtually the whole field of our present taxation and raised a large number of questions which were debated very fully last year. I wonder if he expects me to argue all these points with him now. I gather he does not.

I want you to consider them.

Yes, I am quite prepared to consider some of these points. May I just in passing refer to some of them. He has mentioned the fact that in the legislation last year in regard to private companies we apportioned profits between the shareholders, but that we do not apportion losses. I think the reason for that is a good one. We do not apportion losses because the losses are carried over to the next year.

Why not carry the profits over?

I think the answer is quite obvious. Then the hon. member again raised the question which we discussed last year in regard to the powers of the Commissioner. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue has very considerable powers in the matter of the imposition of penalties. It is true, he has those large powers, but this is hardly the time to remove sanctions. The point I want to put is this. If he wants to remove sanctions he should produce some sort of evidence to show that the powers which the Commissioner exercises are being abused. I do not think they are; they are exercised in a reasonable manner. Experience has shown that in these matters of taxation where you have sometimes very large amounts involved, and where the fact that you have such amounts involved supplies a temptation to evasion, it is necessary to have the power to check these people and to give these drastic powers, and until it can be shown that these admittedly drastic powers are abused I think this House should be very loath in any way to modify the powers which the Commissioner has. The hon. member has reverted to the question of the Excess Profits Duty. He asks that we should in determining the basic profits make allowance for past losses. That I think is rather a specious contention. In any case even apart from the quality of the contention, I think my hon. friend will agree that to do that now will involve a radical revision of our whole system. I should like to charge him with the job of recalculating all the amounts payable in excess profits duty as a result of the change he proposes. He asked about the Revenue Advisory Committee. I don’t know whether we can publish full details of all the cases dealt with. After all the Revenue Advisory Committee does deal with individual cases, and to publish details would involve disclosure of the circumstances of individual taxpayers which would be in conflict with the policy of the law. Finally, he raised the question of the distribution of income tax, and pointed out that the married man with a moderate income pays little in income tax. That is true, but my hon. friend must not forget that the same man will now have to pay the new personal tax.

That is only £3.

Well, that is something.

†*The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) asked whether in a case like this a clause which is being amended in this way cannot be re-drafted. I agree with him that there is much to be said for that being done, and I shall do my best to do so in future. A memorandum has been issued because I did not do so in this particular instance. The hon. member also raised the question of the effect of the excess profits tax on new industries. I don’t think we can discuss that matter again in connection with this Bill. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) discussed the effect of the super tax on farmers, and he cited the case of a farmer who was gradually increasing his cattle and who wanted to sell a large number of cattle at a given moment. The farmer preferred to be taxed on that basis and I do not think we can make special concessions to him once he has selected that basis—we cannot make special concessions if everything does not turn out in his favour.

I move—

I should like to know from the Minister, in view of the statement he made yesterday on Clause 1 of the Bill, whether he had been able with the advice of the legal advisers to draft an amendment to meet the objections which I and others have raised.

I again want to make an appeal to the Minister to consider, while he is having an amendment drafted on the question of farming being undertaken by the Corporation, whether it would not be very much better if farming were cut out entirely. I don’t want to repeat the arguments which have been brought to the Minister’s notice so repeatedly, but I feel that the Minister must realise what the difficulties are in connection with the Bill in its present form. I do feel that he realises those difficulties and he has even accepted an amendment restricting the rights to a greater extent than they originally appeared in the Bill, but that amendment in our opinion does not go far enough yet. That is why I want to make a final appeal to him and ask him so to have the amendment drafted that farming is taken out entirely. He should realise that it is wrong in principle for the State to give money to the Iron and Steel Industry to enable it to buy farms and to go in for farming and thus compete with the farmers. There is a surplus of practically everything the farmers produce, and if we are going to make it possible for those big corporations to farm it means that they will take away part of the farmers’ market, which is definitely wrong. I think the Minister in his heart of hearts realises that it is wrong. He has had experience of farming and he knows what it costs him. If he is now going to give this company the right to use State money to go in for farming—because to all intents and purposes the money which the company uses is State money—and if as a result the farmer is going to be deprived of his market, then it simply means that when their products are put on the market they are assisting in the creation of a surplus. The only consolation we have in that regard is that if the Minister passes regulations for the control of prices he will not make any regulation of the kind he made in connection with potatoes if that corporation also produces commodities to which price control will apply.

You will possibly rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, but I feel that there is a duty resting on me in regard to this matter. The Director of the Iron and Steel Industry is a man for whom we on this side have the greatest respect, but lately his activities have not been restricted to his Directorate of the Iron and Steel Industry. During this last year he has been busy casting suspicions on us on this side of the House. He recently made a speech and accused us on this side of dragging too much politics into the industries of the country. Now I just want to say this to the Director of the Iron and Steel Corporation, that if it were not for the policy of the old Nationalist Party which stood for the promotion of industries in our country he would not have been occupying the important position he is occupying today. Dr. van der Bijl recently in the Transvaal made an attack on this side of the House and said that there was too much politics in regard to the country’s industries, and we feel that it is one of the results of the policy of the old Nationalist Party that this Iron and Steel Industry exists today. We take the strongest exception to him saying such things, and we want to tell him that he should confine himself to his work and nothing else. I also want to raise my voice against this provision that this industry can buy farms and go in for farming. We thought when the industry was established and when all the other industries connected with it were brought into being that we would have an industry in this country which would give employment to large numbers of workers, and would supply a market to our farmers. We know that farming members opposite are uneasy about this proposal and we are sorry that they are not fighting on our side to provide this large industry from being allowed to buy farms and go in for farming, and possibly be allowed to compete with the farmers in this country.

In reply to the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) I believe I found a form of words by which I can attain his wishes in Another Place, and therefore I think I have met him in every respect. As regards the other matters raised by hon. members opposite I am afraid they leave me cold.

As you know, I refrained from replying last night to the points that were raised because it was just on time for rising, and I did not want to rush the Committee. I now propose to reply to these points in the order of their raising. First of all I want to reply to the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) who was supported by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne). I am referring to the Vaal Hartz Settlement question. The hon. member is under the impression that the Vaal Hartz Settlement scheme is closed down. That is not so and I owe an explanation to the Committee and I shall give it as fully and freely as I can. That settlement had not long been started, we had ten families there, and we had accommodation for sixty. Then the military came along and required it and out of evil came good, because not only in connection with this Vaal Hartz Scheme but also in connection with the Kappie Kommando and one or two other schemes and the coloured welfare scheme at Kimberley for instance, which I agreed to lend to the military people, we shall derive considerable benefit. I agreed to loan these places to the military provided any extensions they found it necessary to make should be done along the lines planned by the Social Welfare Department, and when they finish using these settlements they were to be handed back to the Social Welfare Department in good order and condition, ready for our use. And by that means I hope to get more development in regard to our schemes than might otherwise have been possible in peace time. Development is going on, we are continuing the development of these schemes at the rate of 90 families per annum. We increased the accommodation in each of these settlements by thirty, in addition to which there is to be a new settlement at Karatara. Well, now, Vaal Hartz was lent to the military. We distributed the ten families we had there over other centres. Now we have resumed occupation of that settlement and it is going ahead full speed. I want to express my appreciation of the very kindly sentiment expressed by the hon. member for Brits. He was very generous in his testimony to the work we are doing, and I am very happy to have that endorsement, and I know this, my hon. friend over there (Mr. Fagan) is equally happy with me because I regard him as the father of this Social Welfare Settlement.

And you are the mother.

I am always only too happy to give expression to the debt that I and my department owe to the initiative of the hon. member opposite who took such a keen interest in social welfare when he was in office. His information and experience he passed on to me. I accept it with pleasure and gratitude and I propose to carry on on the lines he laid down.

What about the Kappie Kommando, has that been abolished?

No, it is not abolished. All these social welfare institutions, whatever may be their character, that were lent to the military, were lent on the specific condition that they must be improved on our lines and handed back in good order and condition.

That means painted red.

Well, I think the whole country will be painted red.

Like Moscow.

Is this an instalment of what we shall get under Bolshevik rule?

Some parts are going black.

Now may I refer to the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) whose speech last night I want heartily to commend. Now I am happy to be able to say this. Hon. members on both sides are viewing this question far above political grounds. They are not trying to peck at each other politically. I appreciate the hon. member’s remarks very much. Now his fear is that we are “red tapeising” this question of social welfare too much, and he wants us to pay due regard to the old voluntary institutions. I can assure my hon. friend that there is no desire, there is certainly no intention on our part, to depart from that. All we are doing is to reinforce them. This year we are subsidising these voluntary agencies to the tune of £87,000. I am only too happy to welcome their assistance. I want to join the hon. member and I want to pay an expression of appreciation to the Secretary for Social Welfare, Mr. Kuschke. He is a man with a big heart, he is the right man in the right place. He does not view this question purely from the point of view of a public official, to him it represents itself as an opportunity to play his part, and no mean part, in this development, the rehabilitation of our unfortunate people in South Africa.

Then why not let him have his way?

He has his way, but my hon. friend must not assume that things are wrong. They are not. Mr. Kuschke and I are working in the closest collaboration and doing everything we jointly can do—he bearing the lion’s share in the rehabilitation of our unfortunate fellow citizens. He referred, of course, to these historic meetings I had with the Predikants, and I am happy to say that as a result of our talks we have devised a plan of action which we are putting into operation. With the hearty and complete co-operation of both of us, we on the official side, and they on the voluntary service side, we are working on this matter. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) raised the question of this rationing scale for natives. I agree with him. In point of fact—I don’t see why it should be kept secret—I sent that ration scale back and said I was not satisfied with it.

Did you send it back to be improved?

Yes, of course. It is drawn up by the public health people. There has been a Committee sitting enquiring into the whole question of the welfare of our native community. I cannot disclose what they have done, but I can assure hon. members that within a few weeks their report will be out and no doubt it will be of a very advanced character. More I cannot say. The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo) raised the question of low paid social workers who had degrees. I do not quite understand his reference. I must say this, that our social welfare workers are not so badly paid — comparatively speaking. The women go from £200 to £400 and males to £500. That is according to qualifications. Why the differentiation I do not know. As my hon. friend knows I am one of these sticklers for equal pay for equal work. And I do not know that the females do not do, if anything, rather more on the social welfareside than the men—because they can bring more close association and more heartfelt sympathy to bear—not that I am decrying the sympathy which our males have—they do a lot of excellent work too. I want to take this opportunity of endorsing the hon. member for Paarl’s commendation of that young lady they are fortunate enough to have at Paarl, Miss Du Plessis, a remarkably able girl, and she will go far in the work she is doing. The hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) raised some interesting points. First of all she was the first one to ask us to give the House and the country as nearly as possible the full extent of our welfare work as a general thing, ramifying as it does through all the departments. Because people are apt to think, when they see the social welfare vote, that that is all that is being done, but scattered through the departments are various agencies engaged on one or other section of this work, and I am happy to be able to inform her that the amount of the latest figure I have, that is for 1938/39, is no less than £9,917,000. They are astounding figures. Unfortunately astounding, unfortunately because I am sorry we have to spend this money in this way. I wish circumstances were such that we did not have to make up for our other deficiencies, notably our wage deficiencies. Nearly £10,000,000 we spent. And there is no diminution; on the contrary, there is a slight increase. Then the hon. member raised a point which is somewhat of a burning character, namely what form the subsidy should take to our blind workers in blind factories? Those come under our supervision. She suggested that we should not have a sliding scale in the way we have it, namely that the higher subsidy has to go to the slowest worker. Well, the object of the subsidy is to secure to the unfortunate individual the opportunity of making as good a living as he can in the circumstances. And in consequence seeing that these blind factories work on a commercial or semicommercial basis, and are looking for output, we must reinforce the bad worker—I don’t mean bad from the point of view of his personality, but from the point of view of his capacity for work. We must reinforce them more heavily than those who have greater capacity. This is a charitable thing. They are blind, they are unfortunate and we must do our best for them. This matter is under review, but at the moment it seems to us that it is best that way and that we should give the poorest unfortunate the highest subsidy in order to ensure for them as good a living as possible. Then the hon. member raised the question of the rehabilitation of inebriates. Our experience in regard to inebriate homes is rather unfortunate. They are privately controlled, and we find in regard to one of them for instance that we do not have sufficient control. It was in rather a bad condition, it was a place where we merely put the inebriates and it was not satisfactory. These matters are engaging our closest attention with a view to the rehabilitative side. The same applies to the work colonies. I am favourably impressed with the number of applications I get for the discharge of people who have been committed to work colonies. I have had to sign a good many, and I do sign them, and I do so with pleasure on the ground that these people have proved themselves as vastly improved in every way as a result of their retention there. And I want to pay a tribute to the superintendents of these colonies who view their jobs in much the same way as my friend, Mr. Kuschke, views his. I think I have now dealt with all the points raised and I hope the Committee will now be good enough to pass the vote.

I just want to ask the Minister a question about the Kappies Commando. He says he has abolished it because he needed the building for the housing of the Air Service Division. As the building has now been in the hands of the military for two and a half years, and in view of the fact that a great many buildings have been put up in the meanwhile, I want to know from the Minister whether the Kappies Commando cannot be re-established now? It is a very important institution, and as he tells us that he intends carrying on with it, I want to assure him that this is the opportunity to do so.

I wish to say a few words about State support for dependent children. If the father dies and the mother is left with the children, then under the Act of 1937 certain grants are made to the mother on behalf of the children. I feel it is necessary to say a few words about these grants. These grants, of course, are very much appreciated, but I want to explain that the grants which are made, are made when the father dies and the mother is poor. The mother often cannot leave her house to go out to earn something because she has to look after her children. Sometimes the children are ill or too small for her to leave at the house; sometimes she herself is ill. The Act aims at making it possible for the mother to bring up the children as healthy and useful members of the community, but that provision in the Act misses its purpose if the mother is not able to work herself; it misses its object if the mother cannot earn sufficient to look after herself, because in that case she also has to live on the grants paid in respect of the children, and the result is that she suffers great hardships and is unable to properly look after the children. The Act fails in its purpose because the grants which are made are not large enough to support the children. I have a pamphlet here which was issued by the Organising Secretary of Child Welfare in Johannesburg, who has gone very thoroughly into the whole position. I assume the Minister and the Secretary for Social Welfare has seen a copy of the pamphlet. The position has been surveyed in Johannesburg and it has been found that more than half of the families are unable to bring up their children properly on these grants, because the mother is not able to earn anything herself. I feel it is the duty of the State to see to it that more children are born. Family life in this country is becoming more and more difficult, and as a result of present day conditions of living family life is being interfered with. The number of children that are born are becoming fewer and fewer, and there is a danger of our going the same way as a number of European countries have gone. It is our duty to encourage childbirth. That is the task before us and I feel the Government wants to do so, but if we want to do that we must provide for those children. The position today is that the poor cannot provide, cannot look after their children. If the husband dies the wife is left with the children. Figures are given in this pamphlet. I don’t want to take up the time of the House by quoting those figures because I feel the Department knows all about it. This organising secretary quotes figures in the pamphlet which scare one if we realise the condition prevailing in our homes. I know many of such instances and I know that those people have great hardships to contend with, and that is why I feel I have the right to ask the Minister to go into this question, and if he cannot do so this year I want to ask him to provide for larger grants to be given to these children next year. These grants are known as mother’s pensions, although they are awarded to the children, and I want to know from the Minister if some scheme cannot be devised also to give something to the mother if she herself is unable to go out to work? I also would like the Department to go into the question of how application has to be made for those grants to be awarded. The organisations which make it their business to help these poor people, and which try to see to it that the mothers get the pensions if they need them, the people who assist the Department in that respect, are continually complaining about the position. They say they have to apply every year. Some years the grant is refused, and other years again it comes late, and then they have to borrow money to continue paying the grants in the meanwhile. It does not seem to me that that sort of thing is necessary. A better and more convenient scheme should be devised so that those people can be assured of their pensions. Today they are quite uncertain of what is going to happen, they don’t know when they are going to get those pensions and how they are going to get them, and the result is that there is all this trouble. I can also mention cases where these pensions have been most useful. I know of one instance where three children were given assistance in this way. They passed their matric and they are in the Public Service today, and they are useful citizens of the State, but these were big children and the mother was a competent woman and able to look after the children; we don’t get that everywhere. We do not always find that the mothers are able to contribute something to the maintenance of the children. I shall be pleased if the Minister will go into the question of the way in which these grants are to be made, how application has to be made, and whether a simpler and easier scheme cannot be devised to give this money to these people, so that they will be able to depend upon getting these grants with a greater degree of certainty? Some teachers have approached me about this question. They have to supply the children with food in the schools. In the winter months the children get milk and soup, but during the school holidays in June the children do not get any such food, and they tell me that it is astonishing to notice the way the children deteriorate in health during these three or four weeks. I think we are doing somethingvery good here, but let us do it properly and let us make proper provision for those children.

I am sorry having to speak again on this vote, and I only do so because the Minister appears to have misunderstood me—I am sure it was my fault. He said he agreed as to the inadequacy of a ration scale for natives. My point is this, according to the Departmental memorandum which I quoted ration scales are only laid down for Europeans and coloureds, and with regard to natives it is said that the matter is to be left at the discretion of the Native Commissioner or the magistrate. I agree with the Minister that this is a very poor scale and I am surprised at the Department of Public Health laying down such a poor scale. I cannot imagine anyone living on a scale such as this—2s. 5d. per week—and maintaining reasonable health, but the point I want to make is this: Even then Africans are not guaranteed the meagre scale, the ration scale, laid down. That is the point I want to make, and I was asking the Minister for an assurance that he would at least guarantee that for the native poor. This is a matter of tremendous importance to thousands and thousands of native people who are old or otherwise unfit, because they are excluded from the ordinary social services such as invalidity pensions, old age pensions, and institutional provision that is made for the poor of other races. That is why this matter is of particular importance in the country towns of the Union. While supporting the Minister when he says that he is trying to get the scale improved, I ask that at any rate until it is improved he should give instructions that this scale, this ration scale, which applies to coloureds, should apply to natives too. It only costs 2s. 5d. per week. The Department says that the tribal conditions of the native people make it difficult to apply a particular scale to them. But I cannot imagine any human being, whatever tribe he belongs to, being able to live on less than this scale of 2s. 5d. per week; all it is composed of is 1 lb. of meat, 2 lbs. of beans, 1 lb. of sugar, 2 lbs. of mealie meal, 3 lbs. of boer meal, 4 ounces of orange or tomato, 7 ounces of coffee, and 4 ounces of salt. There is nothing very ambitious in a scale like that. Up to now the only scale for the native people is a little mealie meal and a little fat. Anyhow this other scale is an improvement on the original one, but I am afraid that if it is left to the discretion of the local authorities the old scale which is no scale at all will be applied. It is a very poor state of affairs that we should have thousands and thousands of people dependent on pauper rations, but that is the position. We are continuing to protest against that, but I do ask that this small provision of the equivalent of 2s. 5d. per week should be conceded as a right to the native people to the same extent as it is to the coloured people.

The statement made by the Minister that he intends carrying on with these settlements for invalids, will be welcomed by all quarters of the House. As I have said before we all approve and welcome those settlements because they constitute something most praiseworthy in the achievements of the State. I have already drawn attention to the fact that the Minister has taken certain steps to improve the conditions of those people, which we also greatly appreciate. It is not only the people on those settlements who appreciate this, but their representatives also appreciate it. There are a few other points, however, which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. First of all I want to ask the Minister whether those people on the settlements have the same rights as any other citizens of the State?

Will you explain what you mean?

Yes, I shall explain it to the Minister. I put that question for this reason: I do not know how far the Minister is responsible, or how far the Department is responsible, under authority by the Minister, for the rumour in circulation at Sonop—and I understand that it has been circulated by responsible people—that those people have not got the right to hold meetings on the settlement. I should like to know from the Minister whether that is so. I wish to emphasise that I am referring, of course, to political meetings. Those meetings are held in those people’s spare time and not during their working hours. They are usually held in the evenings or late in the afternoon when these men are free and can use their time as they want to. The result of those rumours is that many of those people are really afraid to attend a public meeting, not because they are not keen on going, but the Minister will understand that these people depend on the State for everything, and they are afraid that if they attend a meeting it may perhaps lead to trouble which they want to avoid in the circumstances. I raised this question last year in connection with the Department of Lands. The rumour was circulated even on the Department’s settlements. I raised the matter here and the Minister replied that that rumour did not have his approval. I shall appreciate it if the Minister of Social Welfare will also give us a reassuring statement. Then there is another point in this connection. We know that on all those settlements there is provision for a hall—it is so at Sonop—and now I want to ask the Minister why the representative of such a constituency, when he comes to report, is not allowed to use that hall? I am mentioning this particular case for this reason particularly. As the Minister knows, the people living on those settlements are old. Their health in most cases is not too good. If they attend a meeting they have to sit on the grass, or they have to stand, perhaps for an hour or longer. Although we are allowed to have our meetings alongside the hall the Department is not prepared to allow the meetings to be held inside the hall. If those meetings could be held inside the hall these old people would have a roof over their heads while they were there, and they could sit down on the chairs. I know there have been difficulties in the past; there has been fighting which has resulted in chairs and furniture being broken. I can quite understand that the Department is not prepared to pay the damage if thirty or forty chairs are broken, but it is only in one case out of a hundred that a thing like that happens, and especially as these meetings are attended by old men the danger is very slight.

Have you been prevented from holding a meeting in the hall.

Yes, definitely. We are not allowed to use the hall at Sonop. It is often cold, or it may rain perhaps, at the time when the meeting has to be held. We are sometimes allowed to take chairs outside, and to sit on those chairs, but sometimes we are not even allowed that and the hall is simply locked. I shall be gald if the Minister will go into that question.

I do not want to hold up the debate, but I venture to make a contribution at this stage because of the remarks made by the hon. Minister in suggesting that the amount expended on social welfare is not reflected by, the amount of his vote. That is perfectly true. It is perfectly true that social welfare is costing the country something in the vicinity of £10,000,000, and it is true that that amount is expended by various departments. The Department of Social Welfare has also inherited obligations in respect of charitable institutions which were previously the responsibility of the Provincial Administrations. I venture to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that increased obligations have come to his department from provincial administrations, and in view of the fact that various other departments of State are contributing to the social welfare of the country, and very probably one institution may be receiving grants from more than one department of State—and there is no doubt that the Minister himself might feel that a better coordination of Government effort could be given if all these subsidies and assistances were concentrated in one State fund—I want to ask the Minister to see that there is no limitation of the amount of assistance which the various institutions have received in the past during the transitional stage, when they can be co-ordinated. That transitional stage will no doubt come with the widening of the department. The other matter was the Minister’s sympathetic hearing of the representations of the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) and particularly in reference to those blind workers in workshops. This House established a National Council for the Blind as being a statutory body competent — and the only competent body in South Africa—of giving helpful advice to the department in the formulation of its policy in respect of the blind, whether they are inmates of institutions or blind children in schools. With the establishment of the National Council for the Blind, the Department of Education laid it down as an axiom that nothing would be done to interfere with the relationship which had existed in the past between these schools and the Union Department of Education, and there has always been a close liason between the Department of Education and those blind schools, and we do not want to interrupt that. But in relation to every other aspect of the work, it has become axiomatic to leave it to the National Council for the Blind to make representations on behalf of the blind. The Department of Social Welfare has gone a stage further than the Department of Labour, and realised that blind people suffer under a tremendous economic handicap, and with a view to relieving them of that economic handicap, the department agreed to subsidise and to establish workshops for the blind and to provide them with the opportunity of working for themselves. I venture to suggest that the work that has been done by blind workers in this country has been a complete revelation. The blind workers in the various workshops are today contributing very largely to the national war effort. A blind workshop was established in Cape Town a matter of ten years ago, and out of nothing — that appears from the report which was published last week only — the blind workers in that institution produced and sold handicrafts in South Africa at competitive prices for a sum of £6,500. They have produced competitive articles for sale which in one factory alone amounted to £6,500. That is a tremendous effort, something of which South Africa can be very proud. Now the Government appreciated that the blind, as such, were under a tremendous handicap. The Government appreciates, also, that one blind man may be able to work better and faster than his fellow blind workers, and accordingly permitted the institutions to train their workers in specific grades. The blind man graded as an A worker would receive 1s. an hour; the blind man graded as a B worker would receive 10d. an hour; the C worker would receive 8d. per hour and the D worker 6d. per hour. The Department of Labour, in laying that down, said that the economic handicap of the man who was graded as capable of earning only 6d. per hour was obviously suffering under a greater economic disability than a blind man who could earn 1s. an hour, and so the department decided to pay augmentations at 25%; in other words, to give that worker 3d. for every hour he worked, but with regard to the D worker to carry it up to 85%. So the earnings of the D worker is being augmented by the department at the rate of 4d. or 5d., which is, in my opinion, the correct and proper method of applying the subsidy in order to make the blind people capable of earning and maintaining themselves on an economic and self-respecting basis. The Government also laid down in that Act that the means test for a blind man should approximate £10 a month. Any blind man inside or outside the institution, if he can earn £10 a month or less than £10 a month, can go to the Government and ask for the difference between the £10 a month that he earns and his blind pension. It is the aim, and I speak now for the blind of South Africa, it is the aim of any self-respecting blind child one day to be able to earn sufficient money for himself so as to make himself independent of the blind pension of 3d. which is given to blind persons as such; and I hope that the hon. Minister, when he considers the alteration or amendment of anything relating to the incomes of blind people, will be actuated and take his advice from the organisation which was created by this House for that purpose.

I want to thank the last speaker for that masterly review he has given us of the relationship of the State to the unfortunate blind. I want to tell him that whilst I would not go so far as to say that I will accept the advice on every occasion that the National Council for the Blind may give, I shall certainly consult them, and I trust that occasionally I shall be permitted to use my own judgment.

I did not want you to use my judgment.

No, not for the world. My hon. friend need not advise me to do that. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Venter) is still worried about the Kappie Kommando. I am only joking, of course. However, we have not surrendered that building at all. We have lent it to the military. When the military is finished with it we resume operations. I can assure my hon. friend that everything in the Kappie Kommando garden will be lovely when I get it back again. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) raised a very important point, namely, the ability of the widowed mother to look after the children on the subsidy that the children themselves receive. That question has been exercising my own mind and the mind of my department very much indeed, and in consequence we have been in close consultation—I have been in personal consultation — with the Minister of Finance, and the net result of it is that from the 1st of this month pensions will be paid to the mothers of these children in addition to the pensions paid to the children; and for a start, we have placed £75,000 on the estimates to meet that particular service. Approbation? Good. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) rather astounded me when he said he had been refused access to that hall.

It is definitely the case.

I accept it at once. If my hon. friend says so it is so. I am going into that question very carefully. I am informed that the halls of our settlements are not allowed to be let for political meetings. Personally I do not know why, and I am going into that aspect, too. But certainly any member of Parliament or any duly nominated candidate must have the right of addressing any public meeting in any hall of any public settlement.

Talk to the Minister of Lands about it.

I am not concerned with the Minister of Lands; I am laying down the policy for my department. Last night the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) wanted to involve me in a fight with the Minister of Forestry. Now my hon. friend here wants to involve me in a fight with the Minister of Lands. If it goes on at this rate, I shall be a sanguinary mess just now. Who will be suggested next? Take the Minister of Mines, for example. Will I be asked by one of my hon. friends to plonk him on the nose?

What about the Minister of Finance?

That is one long fight. With regard to the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) …

What about the other points I raised?

I quite agree that no man or woman on our settlements should be prevented from exercising the freest use of their public activities, even if they want to stand for Parliament against the hon. member himself. That, I am inclined to think, would be a very laudable object, and would probably have my support. But these people must not be made to feel that they are not citizens. It is only an accident of circumstance, and I want to say quite frankly now that the State is responsible for the state of affairs in which they find themselves, and we are only in part endeavouring very unsuccessfully indeed to ameliorate the conditions which we have brought about, so that wherever I can give them the fullest citizenship rights, I shall do so. The hon. member for Cape Western again brought up this question of the natives. Let me see if I thoroughly understand him. Does he want me to issue instructions that the scale of allowances to natives shall be brought up to that of the coloureds?

There is not one for natives at present.

Does my hon. friend want the scale to be the same as in the case of coloureds? I am informed that the magistrates may, in their own discretion, make the scale. I promise my hon. friend, however, that I shall look into the matter.

May I be allowed to avail myself of the privilege of speaking for half an hour? It is generally known that ours is a country which is rich in minerals and that we are trying to develop our minerals as much as possible to the benefit of the country. We are probably going to pass legislation during the present session in connection with our base minerals so far as the platteland is concerned. Certain minerals have been developed in this country for many years and I want to deal particularly with those minerals this evening—I am referring to diamonds. Originally diamonds were only used as luxury articles and the position of the diamond industry therefore depended entirely on what the ladies thought of diamonds, and how far diamonds were in fashion. But those days have slowly but surely passed, and for some considerable time already diamonds are being more and more used as a very necessary requisite in connection with industrial development. For some considerable time two thirds of our diamonds in weight, and more than one fourth in value, are being used for industrial purposes. That industrial development in the larger use of diamonds is increasing year by year. A country like America, for instance, has developed tremendously in that regard, and more and more diamonds are being used there every year, not merely for drilling purposes in factories, but also in the mines. More and more diamonds are being used for what is known as stoping, for boring and digging purposes in the mines. Diamonds no longer are today what they used to be originally, namely luxury goods. More and more have they become an essential article in our industries. South Africa has in the past always been one of the countries to produce many diamonds. Today we are still at the top of the list of diamond producing countries although we are steadily losing ground in that respect. Just let me remind hon. members of the fact that at the moment there is not a solitary diamond mine operating in this country. So far as our legislation is concerned alluvial diggings are specifically exempted from exploitation by companies. The alluvial diggings are specially set aside for individuals. Companies are prevented there from taking any part. We want to admit at once that there have been many difficulties in the past in regard to diamond diggings, and diamond diggers generally have got into bad odour. The Minister, however, introduced special legislation last year which he thought would once and for all put an end to those difficulties. We don’t know whether he will be entirely successful but we all realise that so far as the alluvial diggings are concerned the Minister today has the complete power in his hands. We are now faced with two dangers. Under the powers which the Minister possesses to control alluvial diggings he can close those diggings for a period of years, and today we have the position that the diamond mines have actually closed down. It may be that some of them will open again when development takes place in future, but at the moment the mines have come to a standstill and the only development that is going on is on the alluvial diggings and on the State diggings in Namaqualand. But so far as alluvial diggings are concerned, too, there is a decrease of activity. The number of diggers is continually diminishing. The Minister when introducing his Bill last year gave us the assurance that he had not the slightest intention of in any way interfering with professional diggers. On the contrary, he told us that it was his intention, by means of the Bill which he proposed, to place professional diggers in such a position that they would be able to make a living in this country, and the Minister further intended to prevent the influx of large numbers of people to any new diamond fields that might be discovered. We all paid a tribute to the Minister for his many visits to, and the interest he showed in, the diamond diggings, and we all expected—and I hope he will not disappoint the diggers in their expectations— that the diggers would henceforth get a new deal under his control. They expected that after the Minister’s visits their future would be more rosy, and the people making their living on the diggings were looking forward to better prospects. The number of those people is not very large, but there are still a good few of them, and we had expected the Minister to take steps to come to the aid of those people. He has taken precautions so that if a new discovery is made the new fields will not be overrun by all kinds of people, fortune hunters and people from other areas who flock in whenever any new discoveries take place. The Minister has taken steps to prevent this and to give protection to the professional diggers. The diggers are all in agreement with these steps of the Minister’s and they have given the Minister their hearty support in that regard, but the diggers also know, as the Minister said in his speech, that that does not constitute a complete solution of the difficulties of the digging community; they realise that fresh steps will have to be taken and that the Minister has full power in his own hands to take such steps. The Minister in his speech at the time admitted that there were still large areas of land in the country which were diamondiferous on a scale which could be described as rich. The Minister admitted that the country was not poor in diamonds. As the Minister has taken steps to prevent the market from being flooded and also to prevent the diamond fields from being overrun by all types of people, it is also necessary to see to it that the professional diggers are able to make a living on the diggings. I admit that it is only a year ago since the Minister piloted that Bill through the House and I know that the Minister has not had much opportunity of doing anything so far, but still I want to utter a word of warning again and I want to tell the House that the diggers today are again in serious difficulties. It is superfluous for me to tell the Minister what the position is because he knows it from his own experience. He was able to convince himself that those people were in dire trouble, that they were suffering great hardships and that they found it very difficult to make a living as diggers. Before I develop that point any further, I just want to say that we have this year come to the conclusion, which, as a matter of fact we realised all the time, that the Minister did not merely want to stop the influx of diggers. The Minister said that he wanted to give the professional diggers a chance for the future, but all kinds of difficulties arose. Say a man up in the Transvaal has a certificate to go and dig in the Cape Province because the diamondiferous ground in the Transvaal had become very scarce lately, and he took his chance where he could get it. In the past a great many areas were proclaimed in the Cape, but the man has to have a certificate in every province where he wants to work. Consequently, although he lived in the Transvaal he took his opportunity in the Cape. In those circumstances he had to continue paying for both certificates and he had to spend money for the purpose of keeping both certificates. Now that man is a professional digger. He has never done anything but dig; so he went to the Cape Province and worked there. That man had a certificate to work in the Cape and it cost him money to go there, and eventually his ground there became worked out. After his ground was worked out he returned to the Transvaal, which was his home, and he wanted to continue his work as a digger in the area where he used to dig in the past, and where he now got a fresh chance, which he wanted to take. But under the Minister’s new Act the whole matter is left in the Minister’s hands. We have every confidence and we believe that the Minister will use his discretion in the right way. If he does not apply his discretion reasonably we can take it that the diggings will be completely closed down within five or ten years, and we shall then lose this development of the country and this wealth which is locked up in the country will remain where it is. That is why we expect the Minister to use his discretion very carefully under the powers placed in his hands, because those powers give him full discretion, but I do not believe that it ever was the Minister’s intention, and I do not know whether he now wants to carry out that policy of completely stopping all digging operations. Just let me say that I asked a question some time ago and from the answer it appeared that there had been 270 applications for diggers’ certificates which had been referred to the Minister. Only twenty of those 270 certificates were granted. Now I want to revert to the question of the professional digger who is refused a certificate in the Transvaal as a whole. That man has returned to the place where he used to live and where he always used to work, but now the Minister says to that man, “No, you must either go and look for other work or you must go back to the Cape and do your digging operations there. So he has to incur the expense of going back to the Cape, and although the ground there has been worked out he is not allowed to return to the Transvaal where he actually lives and where he used to be employed as a digger. That man is a professional digger; he has never done anything but diamond digging, and now the Minister steps in and refuses to grant him a certificate for the Transvaal. And the reverse also happens. There are any number of people from Barkly West who have gone to work in the Transvaal in the Lichtenburg area; their fixed abode is in the Cape. The land there has become exhausted and in the same way as the Transvaaler has taken the opportunity to go and work in the Cape, so these people have availed themselves of the opportunity to go and work in the Transvaal. On the same basis, and in accordance with the Minister’s new policy, he will now tell those people from the Cape Province who live in Barkly West and who have gone to work in the Transvaal for a time, that they must either stay in the Transvaal and therefore incur the expense of going from Barkly West to the Transvaal, to go and dig there, although their ground there is worked out, or otherwise they can no longer get a digger’s certificate in the Cape. The Minister therefore prevents them from returning to the Cape and from continuing their work there. We know that all that ground is poor. The digger has to use the greatest caution and unless he does so he will never be able to make a living as a digger. I shall leave that question, but I hope the Minister will review this whole matter and his policy in regard to it, and that he will make some concession to these people. Now I want to come to another matter. I want to tell the Minister that even that will not solve all the diggers’ difficulties. How far have we got now? Last year we asked the Minister to take special powers to give those people who are professional diggers those grounds which are still diamondiferous and which may still prove to be pavable. He is now asking for those powers and we wanted him to have those powers so that he might use his full discretion. The diggers are there now, but all their ground is worked out. All this is old ground and it has become exhausted. Prospecting work is difficult, and it has become so extensive that no individual can go in on his own initiative to look for fresh ground, and we now say that the time has come for the Minister to take special steps. It is the Minister’s duty if people have reserve ground to see to it that some of that ground is made available to the diggers. In terms of last years’ Act the Minister has all the power in his own hands, and if the Minister still thinks that there is a possibility of a break in the market and of the market being overloaded, then he can use those powers, but if he does so the Minister will not be able to get away from his responsibility to the diggers. By taking those powers in his own hand he has taken the responsibility for that community on his own shoulders. Those people cherished the greatest expectations from the Minister; they were told that they were going to get a new deal, and we are looking to the Minister not to disappoint the people in their expectations. The Minister knows as well as I do that thousands and thousands of bits of land in the country on which there are diamonds are being withdrawn, and we therefore consider that the Minister, having introduced special legislation to deal with other aspects of the matter, should also take special powers to enable him to open up these grounds to the diggers. I know that I am not allowed to advocate the introduction of legislation here, but the Minister knows that there are people who have no other object in view but to keep diamondiferous ground out of the hands of the diamond diggers. The Minister knows that there are companies which in the past have gone out of their way to buy up these bits of land and to shut them up. Certain companies have stepped in and have bought up blocks and blocks of ground with no other object but to shut up that ground so that the diamondiferous ground would not be worked. That is something which the Minister strongly condemned the other day. I thoroughly agree with him that it is a crime to the country, and it is a crime particularly against that section of the community. Those companies and those individuals jumped in to deprive the diggers of that ground. The Minister now has a great responsibility on his shoulders. If those diggers suffer privations the responsibility rests on him because he, like his predecessors who held the Portfolio he now holds, have allowed these things to go on and have not stopped them. We are dealing here with a section of the community which has been digging for the past seventy years, a section which has no other means of livelihood. From generation to generation their sole employment has been that of diamond digging; they have been a great asset to the State which has derived considerable revenue from them, and the responsibility now rests on the Minister to see to it that these things shall be prevented in future, and that that land is made available for those people; and unless he does so he will be the cause of that section of the community going under at an even more rapid pace than they are doing today. If he allows those companies and those people who deliberately and with no other purpose have stolen that wealth from the digging community, to carry on and lock up those lands, then nobody but the Minister will be responsible because it is his duty to see to it that these things are not allowed to continue for another day. We are dealing here with the alluvial diggings, too, and if the Minister feels that the alluvial wealth, which has the lowest cost of production, loses its footing in the world market, then I want to warn him that he is assuming a very great responsibility, and I want to tell him that it is his duty to look after this section of our producers whose only request to the Minister is to have diamond bearing ground proclaimed for digging. If he allows things to go on as they are doing at present, and if the mines are closed and our production is restricted in every possible way, our diamonds will lose their hold on the world market; at the same time the State is engaged in the development of diggings which will produce the only revenue from this particular source and I say that it would be an act of recklessness towards this section of the community, especially the poor digger who has had to work on a very small scale, and who for all these years has asked the Government for nothing but to be given a chance to continue this class of work in his own way and along his own methods. We do expect the Minister to take some steps in this direction in the near future. If he thinks it would be too drastic, and if he thinks it would be a criminal act to take such steps in regard to land which has been locked up in the way I have described, then I say it is the Minister’s duty to provide these people with land in some other way, so that they will have the chance of earning them livelihood in the way they have always done. We all have a responsibility in that respect, but if there is one man who has a greater responsibility, if there is one man who is entirely responsible, then it is the Minister of Mines. We consider it is his duty to do so, and I don’t think I am wrong in saying that the first duty resting on him under present conditions is to do all he can to improve the condition of those people. Now I also want to say a few words about diamond cutting. We know what the position is in Europe. South Africa, which is the greatest diamond producing country in the world, now has a chance of developing in that direction. It now has an opportunity of availing itself of a chance such as it has never had before. I studied the figures published in the Year Book. I find that more diamonds are being cut today than before, but there is no great development in regard to the number of diamond cutting works. I hope the Minister will allow the necessary opportunities to be given in this regard so that South Africa may avail itself of the opportunity freely to develop this industry and to do so on a scale to which we feel we are entitled, especially taking into consideration the position in Europe and the great requirements of other countries, such as America and Canada. We have our chance today and we must avail ourselves of that chance so as to encourage diamond cutting establishments in this country.

I have been listening to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel). He does not seem to draw any distinction between industrial stones which cost a few shillings a carat and gem stones which cost £30 a carat. He also seems to think that the bigger the demand for industrial stones, the smaller will be the demand for gem stones. There is no relation, or very little relation, between the two. While there are women in the world, there will always be a demand for gems. During the course of the Budget debate I asked the Minister if he would establish diamond cutting or help to establish diamond cutting in this country on a far bigger scale than heretofore. As the hon. member for Christiana said, I think this is a heaven-sent opportunity for this country to establish a real big diamond cutting industry, because of the industry having fallen away in the low countries. Now is our opportunity. Before this I never had very much faith in diamond cutting in this country on account of the competition from Antwerp and the old established factories in Holland. Now they have disappeared, this is a heaven-sent opportunity for us to establish diamond cutting in this country. The Minister in replying to that debate said it was the Government’s deliberate policy to try and get a share in the industry. He said also that the position had become very precarious since Japan and the United States have entered the war. I admit that, but from information I have just received from America and from Palestine, I know that these people are paying no attention to that, they are going full out. The Minister said that because of the present position, the Government was acting cautiously, and while I believe in a cautious policy I would ask the Minister not to become too cautious, because it will lead him nowhere. I have a report here concerning the establishment of diamond cutting in the United States where they are going ahead rapidly, quite irrespective of what is happening in the Far East. It says this—

That is the attitude I want us to take up. After all we have an advantage of 10 per cent. over America in regard to the export duty, and as far as Palestine is concerned, we have an advantage of 25 per cent. because Palestine gets its diamonds from London, and the insurance on those stones across to Palestine is 15 per cent. These are charges which we are not hampered with, and with a 25 per cent. advantage over Palestine and 10 per cent. over America, where diamond cutting is being done, I say that with those advantages our chances of success are good. This is what America is doing—

That is what we have been asking the Minister to do and that is what I think his intention is. We don’t want to work in watertight compartments. What the Minister should do is to bring the Diamond Cutters’ Union, or a deputation from that body, together with members of his own staff in the Mines and Labour Departments and let them thrash out a scheme. We have the American example and I think it is an easy matter for the Minister to work out a scheme during the recess. It goes on further—

That is precisely what is happening here today. Our ratio in this country has been four journeymen to one apprentice, and that has hardly made up the wastage in the industry. What we want is one apprentice to one journeyman, and if we do that we shall find in the course of five or six years that we shall have all the South African apprentices we want. The bad system in operation here has been operating in America, but America has at last made radical changes, and I ask the Minister to do the same here. It goes on to say—

This is a policy the Minister may adopt, also the teaching of apprentices in a Technical school. If the Minister is unable to come to an agreement with the Diamond Cutters’ Union, then he has this alternative. Let me say first of all, I do not think he will have any difficulty, but if he has any difficulty he can say to the Union: “If you don’t cooperate with me, I am going to establish my own school.” I don’t see any difficulty at all if the Minister adopts this scheme as adopted by America. Now in regard to wages: an apprentice is paid 3 dollars a week, and this is the only direction in which I want the Government to assist this industry, by subsidising the wages of apprentices, since no man can live on 3 dollars a week. In America after these apprentices have worked 19 months, they are in receipt of £26 per month, then they are able to look after themselves. All the assistance we want here is for the apprentices in their first, second and perhaps the third year, after that they can earn a good livelihood. Besides this American scheme, I have read a report of another industry in Palestine. In 1938 there was no diamond cutting in Palestine at all. And five years later there were no less than 3,500 people in that industry. It says here—

I wonder if the hon. the Minister of Mines can realise for one moment what the position on the diggings is today after he has been Minister of Mines for three years. When he became Minister of Mines he often said here that he was going to give those people a square deal. If a square deal is anything like what the Minister has given the Lichtenburg diggers then he should never come here again and talk about deals. The Minister introduced a Bill here last year which contained certain provisions which were quite impossible. Those clauses were turned down at the time and were not passed. The Minister wanted to have the right to remove diggers from the diggings. He was not given that power, but what is the Minister doing now? He has treated the diggers in a most iniquitous manner, in the unfairest manner one can ever treat one’s fellow beings. To put it bluntly —he has treated them rottenly. He told us in the past that he was not going to remove a single man from the diggings unless he could offer him other work—unless he could give him other employment. He has not done so. He has given the people who have remained there nothing; they can die of misery and starvation on the diggings so far as he is concerned, and even worse than that. Apart from the question of certificates which the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) touched upon, if people were forced to leave the diggings, driven to do so by privation and starvation, if they were forced to leave the diggings to go and work somewhere else, he refused to give them new certificates if they came back later on. He simply turned down their requests. Since last year only two certificates have been granted in Lichtenburg by the Minister— certificates which had been cancelled because people had gone away to work elsewhere. When I put up a plea last year and asked the Minister to put similar provisions in the Precious Stones Bill to those he is now going to put in the Base Minerals Bill, which he has pleaded so strongly for, the Minister turned that request down completely. He did not want to hear of it. Why did he not want to hear of it? Because his friends, De Beers, had to be protected. De Beers have bought those lands and have locked up those lands, so that the diggers cannot get any ground to dig for diamonds. In my constituency there is a diamond farm as good as any farm one can find anywhere, but it is not allowed to be opened up although the diggers are starving, and that is not all. The Minister may come and tell us that the law does not give him the right to proclaim that land. That is true, but the trouble is that the Minister does not want to amend the Law so as to give him the right to expropriate that land and to open it up for digging. There is another matter, however, which I want to mention. The diggers have also asked the Minister to open reserved ground on proclaimed farms, that is trading sites, and other reserved ground on proclaimed farms which is not proclaimed, for digging purposes. Now in this regard I want to tell the Committee how unsympathetic the Minister and his Department can be. As far back as the 7th March, 1941, the owner of Welverdiend gave the Minister permission to throw open certain reserved land on that farm for digging purposes by having it proclaimed, but so far that ground has not yet been proclaimed. On the 9th September, 1941, the Mining Commissioner made that recommendation to the Minister. The maps and everything were ready and had been submitted for proclamation. If it has been proclaimed it must have been proclaimed this week because on Saturday last it had not yet been proclaimed. Let the Minister, who tells us that he wants to give the people a square deal, remember these things. More than a year ago the owner gave his consent to this ground being proclaimed. Seven months ago the Mining Commissioner submitted his charts and everything for proclamation of the land by the Department. So far, however, nothing has as yet been proclaimed, and that is the kind of square deal the Minister speaks about. I think the Minister owes us an explanation. But the Diggers’ Committee has gone further. When it was found that the Minister did not want to give those people any ground they wrote to him and asked him to get into touch with the Department of Labour and send them a list of the places where those diggers could be settled—I am referring to the diggers who had no ground to dig and who could not make a living. They asked for a list of the places where they could recommend those diggers to go. So far they have not had any reply. The fear I had at the time when the Minister introduced this Bill was that he would force those people to go and do work which they could not do—work which they were not suited for. The Minister should remember this, the digging community is a community of its own. They are people who know no other occupation; they were born diggers and even their ancestors were diggers, and the only work they know is work on the diggings. Only, by getting them away from the diggings when they are children can one prevent them from becoming diggers. Let me assure the Minister that if there is one body which does its best to get the diggers into a better position it is the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal—they are at any rate doing something, but the Minister is doing nothing to help them. We have repeatedly urged the Minister to see to it that something is done to accommodate the children of the diggers when they leave the schools. We want some place where they can be trained in some trade or other, so that they will not become professional diggers like their fathers. If you ask a digger whether he wants his child also to become a digger he will reply in the negative. That is why I have always tried to get the younger generation away from the diggings and the Transvaal Provincial Administration has achieved a good deal of success in that regard, but so far as the older people are concerned who are on the diggings today, the only thing one can do for them is to open up land for them to work until they have reached the age when they cannot go on working. That is why I consider it so unfair on the Minister’s part that he has not made the slightest effort to supply land to these people, and in addition to that he is still so unfair as to have said to me “Show me the ground and I am prepared to proclaim it.” Yet when I showed him the ground and when he was told that there was other ground as well, he refused to proclaim it. Why? He must have had some reason for refusing to do so? He will perhaps tell the House that ground was withheld at the time as a reserve because it was not diamondiferous. But it is not so. Whenever large areas of diamondiferous ground was proclaimed certain sites were reserved for trading purposes and those sites could afterwards be proclaimed and issued to the diggers. Some good ground is sometimes found in that way. That is what is being asked for now and I should like to have a statement from the Minister telling us why he refuses to proclaim that land and why he is treating people in this way.

I was saying in regard to the diamond cutting industry that America was going full steam ahead and Palestine was also going ahead. Actually Palestine had never thought of the Diamond Cutting Industry until 1938, and today they are employing something like 3,500 people. Why cannot we establish an industry here. We produce the best diamonds, the gem, we have a 10% advantage over America and a 25% advantage over Palestine, and here we are hanging back. I want to impress on the Minister that during the recess he should do all he can to get this industry established on a far broader and firmer basis. I also have in view the post-war situation. This is an industry which can give thousands of South Africans a very good livelihood. The diamond cutter is not a lowly paid man, if he is a good man he can earn from £60 to £70 per month; if he has two or three years’ experience he can earn from £25 to £30 per month. Of course, I agree with the Minister that there are two sides to the question. The Minister may say “We cannot start this just now, because of our war effort, we want every able bodied man.” My reply to that would be that we shall have thousands of men coming back from the North, and we have to find work for these men—there may be many of them disabled. I have seen some of the schemes for the employment of returned soldiers—some of them I think a great deal of. Others I think nothing of. They savour too much of pick and shovel schemes, and these men are not going back to pick and shovel jobs. Here you have work which will give men good livelihoods. Take a young fellow who has matriculated, who has a fair knowledge of mathematics—it is just the kind of job for him. You will have some of these men coming back minus a leg. As long as a man has good eyes and good hands, he can become a good diamond cutter. And what is more, if you are going to employ these people in this remunerative industry you are going to relieve the State of these people’s pensions. A disabled man may get a pension of £10 or £12 a month. Here he will be able to get his £25 or £30. It is a white collar job —a man goes to work in his white collar and comes back with it unsoiled. I hope the Minister will consult the Minister without Portfolio who has this matter in hand—the matter of the re-employment of returned soldiers—and I hope that during the recess, irrespective of Japan’s coming into the war— he will make a move and see that something is done. I say again that if America can do these things, and if Palestine can, then for a very much greater reason we too should be able to.

I also wish to present some of the needs of poor miners to the Minister, but the miner I am going to talk about are black and not white. When the Minister for Labour issued an instruction to private employers that they should pay a cost of living allowance to their employees, among those who were exempted from the operation of that instruction was the mining industry. Now I assume the mining industry was excluded from that obligation because it came under the Minister of Mines and that therefore it was his business to decide what the mining industry should do in this regard. We have waited with growing impatience for the Minister of Mines to take some action in this matter. So far none has been taken and we are anxious to know what the Minister intends to do. The intention of the cost of living allowance is, I believe, that the people of the bottom of our economic scale shall be able to live while the war is pushing up the cost of living. There is a very large proportion of the mining labour force which is very much on the bottom of the economic scale. I refer to those tens of thousands now hundreds of thousands of native workers in our gold-mining industry. So far they have had no concession in their wages to meet the rising cost of living. In the meantime it is quite true the mining industry has of itself granted a quite generous cost of living allowance to all its European employees. It has not so far extended that generosity to the large sections of its labour force on which its whole prosperity and its whole efficiency depends. Now I feel that this is a direction in which it is imperative that the Minister of Mines should show his interest. I feel that for many definite social and national reasons. The large native labour force which is employed in our mining industry is drawn from rural areas which are only kept afloat in these days by what the men earn on the mines, and what these men earn on the mines has shown no appreciable increase for the last twenty-five years, and it has shown no accommodation in the last two or three years to the rising cost of living. That is, the mining industry has not even granted increases in wages, let alone a cost of living allowance. Now I know that there is an assumption that so far as its native employees are concerned, the mining industry is a firstclass employer. Let me say at once that the mining industry is a first class employer insofar as it is concerned with the physical efficiency of the actual men used on the mines—physical efficiency. I am not going to say anything about the social conditions because I do not think it is possible to talk about any social purposes when you herd people into componds forty at a time in one room—there is nothing social or civilised about that, but is is a fact that the mining industry does feed its labourers and it does give them health services, both designed to get the maximum amount out of them in the way of work. But the mining industry has never yet recognised that the people whom it employs are family people, with family obligations, and the community have helped to sidetrack their appreciation of that fact by continuously assuming that every native miner on the mines has got somewhere a plot of land that supplies his wife and children with all the necessaries of life. Nothing could be further from the truth. That was not true in 1913 when we passed the first Land Act. Even at that time there were considerable numbers of our rural native population who had no land at all. In 1913 we put a limit to the amount of land that native people could ever acquire, and the limit was the amount of land in occupation by the native people. And since that day we have had the natural increase in population, and that has aggravated the overcrowding in our native rural areas. And I can speak authoritatively for the area I represent which is one of the largest recruiting areas in the country. I refer to the Ciskei which includes the Glen Grey area. In the Glen Grey area alone at any time one-third of the families are without land at all waiting hopefully for a holding which will probably never come, and these people are only kept afloat by what the men earn on the mines, so it is a complete fallacy to imagine that what the native earns on the mines is just pocket money, just something to help him to pay for his own luxuries, and possibly pay his poll tax; what the native labourer earns on the mines helps to maintain his family in the Reserves. These people all have to buy the bulk of what they consume, and I want to remind the Minister that today mealies are costing a great deal more than just before the war, that the sort of goods which the natives use such as candles, paraffin, matches are all going up very rapidly indeed. These are commodities which we do not usually consider when we talk about the cost of living which we usually analyse on the basis of European consumption and not of native consumption. In the circumstances I think we have a moral obligation to see that the mining industry is not merely generous to its European employees who are very effectively and efficiently represented in this House, but to its native employees who are practically inarticulate, and I have been wating anxiously—I hope we shall not have to wait much longer—for the Minister to do what we feel should have been done when the cost of living allowance was imposed upon other employers, to insist that the Chamber of Mines shall pay a cost of living allowance to every one of its native employees. Now in this connection I was interested to note that the Minister in discussing the policy of his department in another place made the announcement that the Chamber of Mines has not only agreed to establish a cost of living allowance for its European employees but was providing money to grant a cost of living allowance to miners phthisis beneficiaries. I was particularly interested because the Minister announced that this benefit that was being given to miners phthisis beneficiaries would be extended to natives. At least that is how I understood the speech which he made there. He said: “The mines have responded …” That was to the suggestion that they should do something in the way of a cost of living allowance—and “they have made quite voluntarily a grant which has taken the form of setting aside a sum of money that will be placed at the disposal of the Miners Phthisis Board and an increase in their pensions is to be given … .”—that is to miners phthisis beneficiaries— … “as well as an increase in the pensions of natives, which is also provided for.” The Minister thus specified that this benefit would be accorded to the natives also. I must say I was a little puzzled when the Minister linked the question of this benefit with pensions, because knowing something about our Miners Phthisis Legislation, I know that there are no pensions for native miners phthisis beneficiaries, so I wondered just what the benefit was which the natives were going to share with their European fellows. So I rang up the Minister’s Department and asked them to give me details of the scheme which the Minister had mentioned in the Other Place … he had said that he could not deal with any details. I was informed that the department could not give me any information and that I should apply to the Miners Phthisis’ Board. So I wrote to the Chairman of the Miners Phthisis’ Board in Johannesburg and I got back a reply which depressed me, although it was not entirely unexpected. He said I had made a mistake … well, the mistake was not mine. He said I had made a mistake, that the benefits were to be given only to those who drew pensions and that natives did not draw a pension and therefore they would not have any share in the benefits. Well, I do hope that the mistake is mine, and not the Miners Phthisis’ Board’s; that the Minister has some private store of information which he will share with us today, which will again raise our hopes and give us some encouragement. I cannot imagine for one moment that he spoke in Another Place of benefits for the native if he did not have in his mind some specific benefit which he was himself prepared to guarantee would be conferred upon these loyal supporters of this great industry.

The Hon. the Minister will remember that when he accompanied me to the diggings at Bynespoort near Premier Mine two years ago the diggers said that they looked upon the Minister as their father. But if we look back at what the Minister has done in these last two years then we have to say to our regret that although he was the father he was a step father, because he has treated the diggers in a stepfatherly fashion and has done nothing for them. I am sorry to have to say it but we must speak the truth. The Minister will recollect that we took him to the ground in the neighbourhood which in all likelihood still contains a lot of diamonds, and I have been wondering whether he has had the time to find out from the mine owners whether that ground cannot be proclaimed so that the diggers, of whom there are not many left, can be allowed to use that ground. The Minister was very sympathetically disposed that day and that is probably the reason why they called him their father, but the Minister’s nation has a saying: „Sympathy without relief is like mustard without beef.” It is no use saying you are sorry for people if you do not do anything for them. The Minister said that quite possibly the land might be expropriated and he would see what could be done. In the same breath he said that he would try to get other work for the diggers, work for instance in connection with the development of base metals. Some people said that they were prepared to go, but we never heard any more about it. I shall be glad to hear what the position is. The impression one gets is that the Minister is so occupied with his war effort that he has put these people into the background and he has no time to attend to their interests. I just want to remind him that these people have to live, and that they have no other source of income, nor can they do any other work. It’s no use telling those people that they must go and farm. One might just as well take them and put them into one of the Minister of Commerce and Industries’ shops to sell all sorts of goods. They will know just as much about the one thing as about the other. They are people who must be given their opportunity on the diggings. That is why I like the idea expressed by the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. A. P. Swart), that the sites which were reserved for business purposes should be thrown open so that the diggers can go and work there. I am quite convinced that they will make good money there. The hon. member for Lichtenburg also pointed out that there are still quite a number of farms which belong to companies. I am convinced that if the Minister introduced legislation this House would give him the right to have certain farms exploited and even to have them expropriated for the sake of the diggers who will then be able to make a decent living. I have said on a previous occasion that it is not only the diggers themselves who are suffering today, but it is their families and their children. They cannot make a decent living. I hope the Minister will tell us that he has some definite intentions of assisting those people, and that it is not only intentions which he has but that he will give effect to those intentions in the near future and extend some material help to this section of the community.

I shall not keep the Minister very long. I just want the Minister’s view on this suggestion on a matter of policy. First of all I want to congratulate the Minister on the legislation before the House in connection with base minerals. Now I want to put this to him: Does he think that our base minerals—I am not one of those who have any fear of the future of our gold mining industry, but there are people who have a fear—does not the Minister think that in regard to our base minerals we could do far better by processing them in this country rather than exporting them? We have base minerals in this country and the Minister is pursuing the Government’s policy of encouraging research. Now in this country there may, or there may not be large quantities of base minerals. We do not know what we actually have—there may be larger quantities than we know of. Now is it not better that we should allow these base minerals to be mined and processed in this country so that we shall not deplete this country of its base minerals? I am talking more particularly of base minerals as steel alloys. By depleting the country of this high quality ore, and exporting it overseas, we may find ourselves depleting the country of some very necessary minerals, and we may seriously handicap our steel industry, an industry which we all look to as the basic industry from which many other industries will develop. This industry can only be properly developed if these ores are retained — I am referring to ores such as Chrome and other alloys. Now the Minister may say that during the time of war or until such time as we have furnaces to do our smelting, we must export. But I want the Minister to express his view and to tell us whether he does not think that when the time has arrived we should stop exporting and rather have these minerals processed here. It will provide employment for the people of this country and probably retard the depletion of these essential ores. I merely express these views to give the Minister an opportunity of making a statement of his and the Government’s policy on this very important subject. It is a matter which is agitating the minds of many people, and it might be as well if the Minister sets out his policy.

I think I had better reply to some of the criticisms which have been advanced and perhaps hon. members will excuse me if to some extent I lump together the criticisms which have been addressed to me on the subject of the diamond fields, because to a great extent hon. members making these criticisms have covered the same ground. Now let me say his at the start: It is no part of the duty of the Mines Department to find diamonds or diamondiferous ground for anyone to work, any more than it is the duty of the Mines Department to find gold bearing ground for gold miners, or anyone else to work. What is our duty is to see when a discovery takes place that the ground is proclaimed and rendered available for them if and when it is proved to be diamondiferous with a fair chance of success. So whenever one speaks of the Mines Department not having thrown open fresh ground we have to bear in mind that it is not our province to find this ground, and as a matter of fact we have no power to compel the prospecting of ground which hon. members and their constituents may think is diamondiferous in its character. What I said on the occasion of the visits to the diamond fields, the alluvial fields, to which reference has been made, is this: It was before the Act which was finally adopted by this last Parliament became law, and when it was part of the tentative policy which I was thinking of adopting and commending to Parliament, that those who were resident on the diamond fields and could not earn a living there should be removed as and when an alternative means of earning a living was offered to them. And I did promise that if that law was passed, no one would be removed from the diamond diggings unless and until an alternative means of livelihood was provided. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. A. P. Swart) has put into my lips an undertaking that every one on the diamond fields would be given an opportunity of earning a living on the diamond fields by digging for diamonds there. And if he did not earn a living I would remove him somewhere else.

No, I did not say that.

If that is not the point which the hon. member made what say anything of the kind, and did not say anything of the kind, and did not make make any promise to provide everyone with diamondiferous ground on which they could dig, then what is his complaint? What I said I would do I have done. If other power had been given to me I would have done something else, but in the wisdom of Parliament the power was not given, and therefore the only additional power given to me individually as Minister of Mines was that no fresh certificate should be given without my consent, and that was given for the express purpose of enabling me gradually, very gradually indeed, to reduce the number of those resident upon the alluvial fields. Now I have used that power to the best of my ability for the purpose for which it was given to me, and I have done it strictly in accordance with the policy which evidently has been accepted by Parliament, and that is putting aside the exceptional circumstances which had to be proved in each case. New certificates were not to be granted on any field where there were people out of work and who were wanting to earn a living on the field, and were in abject circumstances. I have carried that out, and I have reason to believe that already it has had a beneficial effect. Already the effect of that policy has improved the position of the professional digger, because he has not been exposed to the same amount of competition. I have had various expressions of opinion, both verbally and in writing and also in print, to that effect, and I am satisfied that that policy was on the right lines.

From certain parts, I suppose.

Listening to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) I feel there is very little difference indeed between him and me in our viewpoint upon this matter. Of the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. A. P. Swart) I cannot say the same thing at all, if he attributed to me a complete callousness and coldness in regard to the alluvial diggings because I did not find them more diamondiferous ground which they could open. The hon. member for Christiana said that I was exercising this power somewhat harshly, because when a digger had a certificate for one province and wanted to migrate to another, I had refused to issue that new certificate. That is perfectly true,. I have done that in every case as a matter of practice, and it will be refused in every case, because I will not act with respect to one individual on a different principle to that which I adopt towards another. I would like the Committee, as a whole, to consider the very real difficulty which arises in this case, and to express their opinion as to what should be done. I take it for granted that; the policy of the Act passed last year was that where there is an impoverished community in one province, it is to be left without introducing fresh competition there in order that those who are there shall have every opportunity of getting whatever work is going and whatever diamonds there are to be collected. I ask, what am I to do when somebody comes, we will say from Barkly West or from any place in the Cape and wants to go, we will say to the Transvaal, to Lichtenburg or Christiana or elsewhere, and wants to dig there? He has to have a new certificate. Of course, if he has a certificate in one province he renews that annually without any leave or licence from me, but if he wants a new certificate to go and work in the Transvaal, am I to give it to him or not? Is it a valid reason for giving him that new certificate that he has got a certificate for working in the Cape? To me it seems that it is not, because it would be exposing the community in the Transvaal to fresh competition, and therefore I have advisedly and quite deliberately laid it down as a policy that where a new certificate is required for working in another province, whether it be from the Cape to the Transvaal or the Transvaal to the Cape, that new certificate will not be given if and when I get a report that the community to which he wants to go is impoverished and there are a number of people there who cannot get a living. Mr. Chairman, I have rightly or wrongly applied the principles in that way, whether the digger wanted to go from the Transvaal to the Cape or the reverse. I would not give a certificate if in the community, either in the Cape or the Transvaal to which the applicant wanted to go, there were people living in dire poverty, people without work and people who could not get ground. I think that is necessary for the protection of the population. If that policy is to be revised, it will have to be revised on a considerable scale, and I doubt very much indeed if the constituents of the hon. member for Christiana would welcome the issue of fresh certificates to people coming from the Cape.

That was one of the points discussed at the conference at Pretoria, and they agreed to it.

If the hon. member says that was so I accept it, but I do not recollect it at the moment. Perhaps I shall have the opportunity of visiting the diamond fields again and seeing what the position is. As at present advised I do not think it right to give a new certificate to somebody who is going to compete with another digging community which is already over-stocked, having regard to the amount of land available. With regard to throwing open more ground, it is perfectly true that there is a considerable amount of diamonddiferous ground in the Union which is being, what hon. gentlemen opposite call held up by the landowners, and I am so fair with these hon. gentlemen that I am able to say this. I conceive it to be the duty of landowners, wherever they may be and whatever rights they may hold, to exercise those rights, particularly I am thinking of mineral rights, as a trust, but not alone themselves, but to the advantage of the country as a whole and the people as a whole. I go further and I say that if it once becomes known to the people of South Africa that landowners are holding up their land and the mineral wealth that is there, for their own selfish purposes, disregarding the interests of the public, I believe that it will lead to a complete revision of the land laws of the country, and that the people of South Africa will not tolerate the holding up of wealth in an unsocial manner. I believe that that applies not only to base minerals and to gold, but to diamonds as well, but as I have had occasion to point out in this House on a similar occasion to this, the market for diamonds is a very peculiar one, and that it is under an iron control, and unless there is that iron control the value of diamonds for the whole country and the individuals engaged in mining them, is liable to be very much diminished, if not entirely destroyed. And therefore we have to have regard to the position of the diamond market as a whole. Now the policy which I am trying not to enforce but to pursue in every activity with which I am engaged in this connection, is this. I am endeavouring to secure for the Union of South Africa a much larger share, as much a share as I can, and a considerably larger share than it now has in the diamond trade of the world. The diamond trade of the world represents the melon that we have to cut up and divide amongst the diamond producers of the world, and you have to remember that the Union of South Africa has no monopoly in this at all. We have very rich diamond fields, and our diamonds are of very high grade and character, they are principally of the gem description, but we have no monopoly of any sort or kind. In Angola, West Africa, Sierra Leone and the Congo, we have competitors who turn out an enormous amount of diamonds quite outside our control, and there is nothing to prevent America or Palestine, or anybody else importing those diamonds without any benefit of the 10% tax, as the hon. member for Kimberley, City (Mr. Humphreys) seems to think is always operative in favour of South Africa as against Palestine or America. Of course that is not so. They may buy their stones without paying any tax. It is perfectly true that most of the diamond trade which has been coming to the Union has been falling off relatively until last year. Last year I was able, by certain negotiations which I had with the Diamond Corporation, and with the producers who are parties to the Producers’ Agreement, I was able to negotiate a modification by which we thought to secure a larger share in the diamond trade of the world. At the present time I am still anxious to secure a larger share, particularly if the diamond trade of the world continues to shrink as it will very likely shrink, as the war progresses. So the hon. member may be quite sure I have anticipated his criticism, and his wishes. I share his wish entirely that we should endeavour to procure a larger and increasing share for the Union. That is our policy, that I am doing, and in the last year, at any rate, there has been some success in that direction. Then we come to the share the alluvial diggers are to get. The hon. member criticised my policy and suggested that perhaps I wanted to close the alluvial diamond fields, or that I acted in a way which might lead to that conclusion. I am quite sure the hon. member does not really attribute that to me. It is nothing of the sort, I want to obtain for the alluvial diggers as fair a share as I possibly can in the diamond trade which does come to the Union. It is not an easy thing to negotiate for. At the present, whatever stones are recovered are sold in the open market, and the buyers from the Diamond Corporation have visited the fields from time to time and do make a bid for stones which does have the effect of preventing the price of these stones being driven down to an unfair level. That action I have taken, and that is proceeding at the present time. But, sir, to throw open without regard to the volume of the trade a sufficient amount of ground to give work to the whole of those who are on the fields at the present time, is something which I am sure the hon. member for Christiana will recognise as unreasonable. As and when we can arrive at some sort of determination as to what will be a fair share for the alluvial diamond diggers to get, then I think we can expect those who control the diamond-bearing ground of the country, to throw open that ground, and if they do not do so, I may then, or my successor in the years to come, may have to come to Parliament and seek compulsory powers to do it. I face that position, but let me remind the committee that the position which exists at the present time is not a matter of recent occurrence at all. The laws which are now in force, the position which now prevails, are the laws which were in force many years ago and the position which now prevails is a position which has prevailed decade after decade from the time of Union and before Union. The position in which we find ourselves at the present time is the position which is being faced up to, or which has been tackled by each and all of my predecessors. I do claim in recognising that the professional diggers should not be exposed to undue competition from those who are not professional diggers. That is a position which I may, I think, take some pride in myself because of having realised and having introduced remedial legislation which is now on the statute book. It is quite true there are no diamond mines working at the present time. I want to see those mines working. But it is quite impossible to adopt arrangements which would close the diamond mines and throw open a larger amount of ground for the alluvial diggers, and I do not think that the hon. members for Christina and Lichtenburg would desire me to take action of that kind. We do desire to see the diamond mines reopened as soon as possible. De Beers has closed down. Although it was working for a portion of last year, it is now closed, and I do not think it is possible, under existing circumstances, to complain that De Beers is closed down at present. Now what about the diamond trade? It is quite true that during the past year the diamond trade of the world has been rather better than might have been expected. But are we justified in coming to the conclusion that the trade will be maintained on the level at which it now is? High priced diamonds have been bought in considerable quantities, and it seems that they have been largelybought by people all over the world who wanted to secure themselves against currency depreciation. They have been buying diamonds as an investment, as a sort of bet against the depreciation of currency in their own country. How long that will prevail, how long that will be permitted to prevail, I do not know. But I would remind hon. members that stringent steps have been taken in the United Kingdom already for the purpose of checking such an investment, and with the outbreak of war in Japan the market in the Far East has gone, at any rate for the present time, and we are left with the market in America. Far be it from me to say anything which might close out the markets for diamonds, but we know quite well the trend of American opinion, if I interpret it rightly, is that money and effort should be confined as far as possible to what will help in the war, and to discourage all the rest. In face of that, I think we should be cautious in relying upon even maintaining the present sale of diamonds at the level of the past year. I think we have to be cautious in that respect. Members have drawn attention to the question of the difference between industrial stones and gem stones. It is quite true that in the last fewyears there has been an enormously increased demand for industrial diamonds, out of all proportion to anything we have been accustomed to, and there is every indication that the consumtpion of industrial stones will increase. They are being used for drilling, for machine tools of all descriptions on a very large scale. Now, how does that affect our position in South Africa? By and large the stones which we produce in the Union are not on a very great scale industrially, the industrial production comes mainly from the centre of Africa, the Congo especially, and the stones which we produce are generally speaking of the gem description. But there is a mine in the North which is capable of producing a large number of industrial stones. I am hoping that in due course the Premier Mine may be reopened, but at the present time that cannot be done. Well, sir, the increased market for industrial stones is not altogether a bull point for Union production, but it may be that the production of industrial stones may be more concentrated elsewhere and perhaps leave us a larger share of the gem stone market. I now come to the question of diamond cutting, and the setting up of a diamond cutting industry here. Again, may I remind the Committee that it is no part of the duty or province of the Mines Department to set up a diamond cutting industry. That is not our province at all, all we are concerned with is creating or maintaining conditions in which the diamond industry may flourish. That is a very different thing from setting it up ourselves. As for the creation of conditions in which a diamond cutting industry may flourish, that has engaged my attention very closely ideed, and is still doing so. What is the policy in this respect? The Government does not intend to go into the diamond business and become a diamond merchant. We do not intend to cut stones, but we do intend to encourage master cutters to come here and to bring journeymen who may train South Africans in the cutting industry. When the hon. member for Kimberley (City) compares the extension of the diamond cutting industry in Palestine and the coparatively small scale on which the industry prevails in the Union, he is comparing things which cannot be compared. Does the hon. member or any other hon. member desire to see 3,000 people imported into this country as were imported into Palestine, and paid at the rate of wages paid in Palestine? Of course not. Then how is it possible to compare the development in Palestine with the comparatively small development here? It is very largely a question of wages and the standard of wages here and the standard of living here is on an entirely different scale to what it is in Palestine.

What about America?

With America the comparison is much nearer. Let me give you a few figures. We are a very small country in population compared with America. I am not sure, but I imagine there are about 120,000,000, or something near that in America. We here, as you know, have a couple of million whites and seven or eight millions of a native and coloured population. There has been a considerable advance here even with our small number, in the cutting industry. In September, 1939, there were 25 licensed cutters employing 199 journeymen, and in November, 1941, there were 29 cutters employing 322 journeymen. Now I think the hon. member for Kimberley (City) said there were 600 in America. Well, if we in the Union have jumped in one year from 199 journeymen to 322, and there are some 600 journeymen in America, I do not know that we have got any reason to be disappointed. I would rather the figure was the other way, but I think we have no reason to be disappointed. What I am alarmed at, what I am throroughly dissatisfied with about the trade in the Union, is the apprentice position. The hon. member for Kimberley (City) and other members want the ratio of apprentices to journeymen raised, and instead of having one to four, they want to make it one to one, with the idea of training a much larger number of apprentices. I think it is only common-sense that such an alteration would arithmetically lead to a much larger number of cutters being here, and the trade being what it is at the present moment, they might all be engaged. But I have been in very close touch with my friend and colleague the Minister of Labour, and we are entirely agreed that it would be wrong to alter this ratio from one to four to one to one unless we take real precautions to see that all those who are engaged as apprentices complete their training, so that we may not have a recurrence of what took place when there was that collapse in the diamond market some years ago, and a number of halftrained apprentices were thrown on the market. We have made up our minds that we are entirely at one on that point, that that state of affairs shall not be allowed to prevail again. So in the negotiations which have taken place with those engaged in the trade, we are determined that precautions shall be taken for the protection of apprentices, and a guarantee given that they shall complete their training, even if a collapse occurs in the market, and it is quite possible that a collapse may occur, owing to the war. I am entirely at one with all hon. members who express the view that we should do what we can to increase the diamond cutting industry in South Africa. Not only am I anxious to do it, but I have been encouraged to this end, although up to the present time I am unable to state that very much progress has been made. Now it will be news to most hon. members to know that there are only a couple of apprentices in South Africa. In the whole of this trade with 322 journeymen there are only two apprentices. What is the good of reducing the ratio from 1 to 4 to 1 to 1 if the ratio of 1 to 4 is not being taken advantage of? Well, I am going into this matter very carefully with my colleague, the Minister of Labour. Now I notice that there are a number of probationers — who are not apprentices — in the industry. There are 56 probationers employed in the industry. They are people who later on may become apprentices — may become. If these probationers are kept on as probationers for an unduly long time there is something wrong. I think that the diamond cutting industry is one which offers a considerable amount of promise, but I do stress this, that under present conditions we have to be very cautious to see that we do not make a mistake in forcing on the country more apprentices — more trained men — than the industry can absorb. We can only get more apprentices trained if the master cutters are prepared to train them — unless, of course, we set up a training school of our own. Now let me pause for a moment to consider that. The hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys) urged that we should set up a training school and train a number of apprentices. I wonder what would happen if I told the Minister of Labour that I was getting round his provisions in regard to the limitation of apprentices of 1 to 4 by setting up a training school without any limitation at all? I am afraid the fight which my colleague indicated as a dread possibility would become a dread reality if I were to attempt anything of the kind. We have to be very careful indeed to see that the number of apprentices is commensurate with the business of the country, and that there is every reason to believe that they will be fully employed. Now I think the hon. member for Kimberley suggested that we might assist in paying the wages of apprentices. I do not think there is any necessity for that. The profits made in the diamond cutting industry at present would enable a perfectly fair minimum wage to be paid. The hon. member for Lichtenburg raised certain points which I believe I have dealt with. He said I did not point out to the Social Welfare Department the poverty there was on the Lichtenburg Diggings. That is not correct. I did point that out and I believe that the Social Welfare Department are already acting on those diggings and taking whatever action they think proper in accordance with the policy which my colleague outlined this afternoon. Now the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Venter) said that I had not proclaimed one particular reservation. It is perfectly true that on some occasions these reservations have been proclaimed, but let me make this clear. That has only been done when there was evidence that they were diamondiferous and that the proclamation would be for the benefit of diggers.

That is what we said.

Yes, I must say that I am afraid I do not remember the case which the hon. member for Lichtenburg referred to. If he will give me the particulars I shall enquire into it. If it occurred only during last March ….

It was in March.

If the hon. member will give me the particulars I shall have it looked into, but when he mentioned that I must admit that my mind was a perfect blank, and I have no recollection of the application to which he refers.

I shall come and see you about it.

The hon. member for Wonderboom also supported the hon. member for Lichtenburg on that and be said that he pointed out some ground to me near the Premier Mine.

At Baynes Poort.

Yes, he said that that had not been proclaimed. Now the facts are these: This ground had already been proclaimed at one time and it was deproclaimed because no stones had been found there, and it cannot be re-proclaimed without the consent of the owners, and the owners have consistently refused to have it re-proclaimed.

It is not the same ground.

Now I must say a word or two about the remarks made by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood). The hon. member said he thought it would be better policy rather than go in for export if we retained base minerals in this country and processed them here. The hon. member was probably thinking of steel and ferro alloys. I am entirely in agreement with the hon. member, and that is the policy of this Department insofar as it does fall under this Department at all—I am not too sure that it does. That is our policy—the policy is to supply, as far as we can influence the position, anyone who wanted to go in for the industry of making ferro alloys and a good deal, I think, is being done in that way, and I hope more of our base minerals will be used in that direction. Now let me say a few words to the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). The cost of living allowance for native miners is what she wishes to be brought about. I have no power at all to insist on any cost of living allowance being given by anyone, and as I have pointed out, the cost of living allowance which is given by the different mine owners, by the director of the mining companies on the Rand, which is given to their white employees, is given as a matter of grace on their part. It is their own arrangement.

It is for the Government to see that the natives also get what they are entitled to.

It is perfectly true that when they did determine to give that cost of living allowance I drew their attention to the lot of miners’ phthisis sufferers who were on pension. That is those who were actually on pension, and who were getting no cost of living allowance, and they responded to that and gave voluntarily the increased amount which is now being distributed by the Miners’ Phthisis Board.

Not to the natives.

Well, with regard to the natives when their attention was drawn to that, the attitude they took up was this: There is this difference between the position of the whites and the natives, that the wages paid to the whites do not include anything for their food and lodging. The white miner has to pay more for his food and for his lodging, and it is that what the cost of living allowance is given for.

The native has his family …

The native employee is housed in compounds, he is given the same lodging, he does not have to bear the additional cost. That is the position they take up. I have no power to compel them to do anything else. I may say in passing that the actual point they make— for all it is worth—is a clear one. The hon. member for Cape Eastern says, “What about their families?” Well, I shall be very pleased if a further allowance is made for their families, but I have no power to compel them, and if they do not see their way to do it I am powerless. It is not part of the administration or the policy or the purview of this Government to insist on anything of the kind. And my intervention for the miners’ phthisis sufferers was perhaps something I was not entitled to do, but I did do it. And it does seem hard, Mr. Chairman, that because I did it and was successful, I should now be blamed and taken to task for not doing it in another case. I want to say this, that the mining industry have pointed out that the increased cost of living to the families of the’ natives living away in the native territories is by no means on the same scale in regard to the increased cost of living as that which falls on the people living in towns.

That is not the argument.

Well, whether that is good or bad that is their attitude, and it is no part of the work of my Department to interfere in that matter. The housing of natives in barracks was also referred to by the hon. member for Cape Eastern and I gathered that she disapproves strongly of natives being housed in barracks as something—I believe she called it unsocial and improper. Really, Mr. Chairman, I think there must be some limits to criticism. If we think that our Army and our police force and other bodies of that kkind are properly treated if they are housed in barracks, is there anything wrong when natives are housed in barracks, particularly if they are well looked after—as I am told they are. With all respect to the hon. member for Cape Eastern, and recognising her enthusiasm in doing what she considers right, I suggest to her that that criticism at any rate is not Justified. She wanted to know what cost of living allowance was being given to native miners’ phthisis sufferers to correspond with the cost of living allowance given to white phthisis sufferers who are on pension. The scale has been approved by me and is being administered by the Miners’ Phthisis Board with my consent. The whole of the money voted by the Chamber of Mines, by the different mining companies, is being expended in accordance with that scale. If I said at any time or in any place that the natives on pension were getting a corresponding amount, that must have been a break on my part. Of course they do not get a pension. That is perfectly true. But what I was referring to, I am sure—I cannot recollect the words— was the agreement to reclassify the different categories of Miners’ Phthisis sufferers among the native employees at the time when these increased benefits were given. And the re-classification is this: On a re-classification from ante primary to primary £27; from primary to tubercular or secondary stage £27; and a re-classification from ante-primary to secondary £54. I am confident that when referring to this matter I must have referred to enquiries made to the Miners’ Phthisis Board, because I did not have the figures before me, and that is the position at present. I think I have now referred to all the points that have been raised, and I hope hon. members will allow my vote to pass.

I shall not detain the Minister long, but I should like to support the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys) in his plea in regard to the diamond cutting industry in Kimberley. I must say that I do not think that because there are certain technical difficulties so far as the Minister of Labour is concerned, the matter should not be proceeded with. It is a matter of the utmost importance to Kimberley and to the area round about Kimberley. We want to develop this country and I see no reason why Kimberley should not have her own diamond cutting industry, and develop that industry and give employment at some future date to large numbers of men. Let me tell the Minister that he will render a great service to South Africa if he takes up this matter. If he does what the hon. member for Kimberley is asking his name will always be remembered by the people of South Africa. We ask him to make a serious start with the industry—it is a matter which we have been asking for for a long time. Let us make Kimberley the second Amsterdam in this country in regard to diamond cutting. We are producing a very large proportion of the world’s diamonds—as a matter of fact, we are producing the vast majority of the world’s diamonds, and the question arises why we should export our diamonds at all to other parts of the world in their uncut state. Why should we let Palestine and America do the cutting of our diamonds? Let us keep them here, cut the diamonds, and export the products of our industry. I plead with the Minister to give this matter his very serious attention during the recess.

The Hon. the Minister of Mines has replied very extensively on the subject of the diamond industry. I don’t know whether he has managed to satisfy those hon. members who raised that subject, but it does not look like it. I wish to refer to the position in regard to precious and base metals, and I want to put up a plea for greater assistance and facilities for the development of our national wealth in regard to precious and base metals. This is the opportunity for the Minister of Mines to do more in this respect than any other Minister was ever able to do in the past, for the simple reason that most of the raw materials which we have are now required for war purposes. As the Minister of Mines is keen on helping the war, and, as he wants to secure the necessary materials for the purpose of carrying on the war, this is his opportunity to assist in the development especially of the base metals in this country. So far very little, indeed, has been done in the development of base and precious metals. We are still in the initial stages. Far too little help has been given in the past, particularly in regard to the development of base metals. Take the position of the prospector. We know what the position used to be in the past; the prospector is the pioneer in the matter of securing and discovering those metals, and he has always so far got the worst of the bargain. One does not come across any instances of a prospector having had any luck with the discoveries which have resulted in his being able to develop an industry. I want the Minister at the present stage to give greater assistance and greater opportunities to the prospector. He is usually a man who has not got the opportunity of exploiting his discoveries. He discovers something, but he has not got the necessary capital to exploit it, with the result that his discovery gets into the hands of the speculators. And then we often find that the metal or the mineral which is discovered in certain areas is smothered up for some reason or another and is never exploited or developed. In my district, as the Minister knows—because I have taken him through the district—there are great potentialities. I am thinking of the gold there is in my area. All of it is in the hands of large companies. When we come to the small man—although there is a law under which money can be granted for the assistance of the small man—we find that he is not receiving assistance in the way it was expected. Take the discovery of asbestos. It is in the hands of big capital. The same has happened in regard to chrome, and we have the same thing happening with magnesite. The man who discovered the stuff has got the worst of the bargain. Take the development of metal. I directed the Minister’s attention to this on a previous occasion and I should like to give an example. We have chrome deposits. A number of mines are working, but the stuff is only out and the raw material has to be shipped. It takes up a lot of shipping space. The Government should take the initiative seeing that this metal is so highly essential for the steel industry and for other factories, to make the necessary arrangements to process this stuff here so that we can get the metal in its clean form, and do not have to handle the raw material by transporting it in that form because it takes up far more shipping space. The same thing applies to asbestos and magnesite. The Government should take steps for the establishment of certain machinery and factories to process these raw materials in the country; they will then occupy less shipping space. The Imperial Government requires magnesite but it cannot be sent away because in its raw state it requires too much shipping space, but if the Government can put up the necessary blast furnaces this stuff can be sent away in its clean form and a factory like that will also be a great asset to this country. I want to say a few words more about the prospector. He does not receive any assistance from the Department of Mines. If he makes a discovery and he knocks at the Department’s door he is told that he first of all must do a certain amount of work; he must first of all start a certain amount of development and exploitation and only then will the technical people be sent out to investigate the matter, and if a payable metal or mineral is discovered he will be given assistance, but in the past that assistance has never been given. I think the Minister should take up this attitude, that if the prospector has discovered anything steps should at once be taken, if the prospector has not the necessary funds at his disposal, to assist the man in the exploitation of the stuff and its development to such a stage that it may become an asset to the country. The Minister may say that there has never been such a thing in the past but it is high time that a start was made with it. This is the time when we should develop those raw materials and also the gold that we have. I go so far as to say that the Department of Mines should at this stage even offer a reward to the prospector if he discovers certain necessary deposits. In my district crystal has been discovered. Three or four months ago an application was made to the Department of Mines. Unfortunately the deposit was discovered on land belonging to the Department of Forestry, but in spite of the fact that the application was made four months ago no rights have yet been granted to the people who applied for them. The stuff is there and it is required, and the people who have been prospecting for it are anxious to obtain those rights. Such matters should be expedited by the Department. There is too much delay at the moment. I don’t know whether it is necessary to keep on urging the Minister of Mines to see that this is done. It seems to me that he simply wants to carry on in the old way, and I think the only thing to do is to allow things to develop until such time as the New Order takes charge of things and I assure hon. members that when that time comes we shall do things in the right way, and we shall put an end to all this delay that we have to put up with today.

Then we shall have to wait a long time.

When that day comes we shall develop all those metals which are lying idle today and waiting to be exploited.

I wish to put a question to the Minister on the subject of and arising out of those acts of sabotage on the Rand. As the Minister knows, these acts of sabotage are causing considerable uneasiness in the minds of the public there, particularly when it is realised that in a lot of these cases dynamite is being used. There have been many explosions where dynamite has been employed, and I know that the Minister recently received a deputation on the subject from the Mineworkers’ Union. That deputation put certain facts before him and made representations in order to try and avoid leakages of dynamite from the mines. Dynamite is used in connection with mining on the Rand and it is felt by many people that a good deal of the dynamite used in connection with these acts of sabotage come from the mines. I am not saying that all these leakages of dynamite come from the mines, but certainly large quantities of dynamite come from somewhere—from some industries in connection with which dynamite is used. There is a feeling that a good deal comes from the mines. It will certainly allay the feelings that have been created in regard to this matter if the Minister will make a statement about tightening up the position so as to prevent leakages of dynamite from the mines. The public are anxious to have a reassuring statement from the Minister in connection with these dastardly outrages which have taken place and are still taking place. If the Minister will assure the public that everything possible will be done to tighten up the position in order to prevent leakages of dynamite it will set people’s minds at rest.

I had better just answer that straight away. It really is a matter which should come up under the Justice Vote, but as my friend and colleague, the Minister of Justice and I, have been consulting on this matter I am able to state this, that we are both quite clear that although there is a good deal of dynamite on the Rand, on the mines, it is by no means the only source of supply, and while it is very desirable to take all precautions that can be taken to prevent leakages of dynamite, there are plenty of other possibilities, plenty of other sources from which dynamite may have come. The hon. member may have seen in the Press the other day that a deputation from the Mine workers’ Union came to see the Minister of Justice and myself and that we consulted over precautionary measures in this connection, and we are entirely at one on the matter.

The answer of the Minister to the point which I have raised, I am afraid, confirmed our worst fears. It is quite clear now to me that our native miners’ phthisis sufferers are not going to have any share in the benefits which he has helped to wring from the mining industry for other sufferers. We can only regret that and repeat again that we feel that a serious injustice is involved in this failure to include the poorest people in the benefits which the industry is prepared to give. And now I must just say one word again on the question I raised in regard to the general cost of living allowance. I understand the Minister to say two things; one that he encouraged the Chamber of Mines to pay a cost of living allowance. I was not quite clear whether he did tentatively suggest that they might include their native miners in those benefits.

Yes.

Well, in that case, sir, we can only regret that the hon. Minister’s arguments were not sufficiently convincing to induce the Chamber to follow his lead. Perhaps the hon. Minister would invite us to support him the next time he goes to put this sort of case to the Chamber of Mines. There are a number of arguments which we could use. But I am hoping it is not going to be necessary for anybody to put arguments before the chamber in this matter. That brings me to the essential point of this minor argument, if I may call it that, between the Minister and myself. I cannot understand the Minister when he says the Government has no power to force the mining industry to pay a cost of living allowance. Before the war the Government had no power to force any industry to pay a cost of living allowance, but it took the power in its war measures legislation, which was passed in this House, to say that private industry would carry this obligation if the Government felt that it was necessary that it should do so. And it is under these powers that the Minister of Labour has already imposed upon every private enterprise the obligation to pay a cost of living allowance. There are two things we would like to know from the Minister. One is whether the Government has not the power, under this legislation, to impose this obligation on the mining industry, whether the Department of Mines is not capable of issuing instructions to the mining industry just as the Department of Labour has issued instructions to commerce and industry, and if so, why it has not been done. In other words, we would very much like to know why the instruction from the Department of Labour on this point did exclude the mines from this obligation. We would like to know also whether the Minister was consulted in the matter, and whether he recommended that the industry should be exempt, and if so what were his grounds for doing this. We are quite convinced that the needs and the rights of the native workers on the mines will not be given due consideration without the support of Government policy; and we feel that those needs and rights are urgent in spite of any argument that they might put up on the other side. We know from experience that it is difficult in peace time to get any recognition of these rights, and that difficulty is increased in war time; but something is being done for every other section of the community. The Government has forced private enterprise to carry the burden of rising costs, and has even imposed the same obligation on the Government service, and therefore there is no excuse whatever for excluding the mining industry. We should be very glad to know what the Minister’s policy is in this regard, in view of the power the Government undoubtedly has. Now I want to refer to the Deferred Pay Board. That is the Board which administers the money that is deferred by native miners to be paid to them when they return to their homes. The Government has its responsibility in regard to this Board, because three members of the Native Affairs Department sit on the Board, and they with three members of the mining industry sit on the Board and conrtol this money. We have long felt that there is something fundamentally wrong, not only in the construction of the Board but in the activities of the Board. The Deferred Pay Board hands out to the native miner the actual money which he lodges with it, but it does not give to the miner the interest on his money; it keeps the interest on his money and disburses that interest as it sees fit. Now we have two criticisms to offer regarding that, and the first is the obvious one, that the money belongs to the man who defers his pay, and not to the Board, and that interest ought to be given to the man who has earned the money. The Chamber of Mines has always replied that the overhead costs of administering the system would be far greater than the amount of money to be paid out. I have taken advice in various quarters, and I am told that is not so. I have been told on very good authority that if simple interest were paid out it would not require one extra clerk to administer this fund in this way. So we claim that the money ought to be paid to those who earn it. But so long as the Board insists on their view, we consider at least that the interest handled by the Board ought to be disbursed by a Board which represents the mining industry or the civil service. We feel that the people themselves should have a say in the disbursement of this money. I myself have a very great interest in this matter, because a great deal of that money really belongs to the districts which I represent, and yet the difficulty we have in even getting a donation from that Board for health services in those areas is almost incredible; it is quite incredible to me. Actually, if we apply to the mining industry for assistance for hospitals, the main purpose of which is to serve the labour force of the industry, our request is referred to the Deferred Pay Board, which may, or may not, give the people their own money for services which are beneficial to the industry itself. I suggest that the Minister should interest himself in this Board.

It has nothing to do with me at all; it does not fall in my department.

I should like to know in whose department this Board is, because it handles native money.

I should think the Native Affairs Department.

The hon. Minister says it does not concern his department.

I wish to revert to a few points with which the Minister dealt in his reply. I think we have made a fair amount of progress with the Minister in regard to the shutting up of land for exploitation by diggers. I fail to see how the Minister can get away from the point, seeing that he has taken steps in other directions, to restrict exploitation. The Minister now tells us that it is not his department’s duty to provide the diggers with land. If it were a fact that the Government of the past had allowed matters to develop for the last seventy years, the Minister would have been within his rights in giving such an answer, but as soon as any matter is interfered with and is artificially curtailed, or curtailed by legislation in the way the diamond diggers have been curtailed, it definitely becomes the duty of the Government to interfere. In 1927 restrictions were imposed on prospecting. Those restrictions still exist today, and further steps have been taken in that direction. Where there is an artificial development, where anything is being maintained artificially, there the diamond diggers who are still in the country have the right to demand assistance by the State. The Minister admits that there is still diamondiferous ground, but in the same breath he comes here and says, having got his legislation passed, having taken powers in regard to prospecting and the throwing open of land and allowing people to shut up land and prevent diggers from using it —he says that it is not the Government’s duty to help the people who as a result of that legislation are being forced to the wall. They are living in the most miserable conditions, as the Minister has already explained. Last year the Minister himself said that he would try to come to the assistance of those who were still working as diggers, and that he would create openings so far as production was concerned. Now, the Minister comes here and tells us that it is not the Government’s duty to provide ground for the diggers, but the Government has taken steps and has allowed steps to be taken to lock up the land, and keep those people out. How can the Minister then say that it is not the Government’s duty to provide those people with ground? The Minister acknowledges in so many words that people are abusing the laws of the land in order to lock up the ground, with the result that a whole section of the population is being ruined. Why does the Minister not avail himself of his powers? Seeing that the Government is the cause of these people finding themselves in this unhappy condition I fail to see how the Minister can argue that it is not his duty to look after them. In regard to our mines which have been closed down the Minister says that we must not lose sight of the fact that there are large countries which are developing their diggings, and which have become large producers of diamonds. That exactly is our objection, that companies in this country which control our diamond mines—that the self-same companies which control the production here are in a cheap way busy in other countries in Africa developing diamondiferous land, so that they are actually helping themselves in that respect. That exactly is what we object to. Our diamond industry is diminishing from day to day, but those selfsame companies which have these things in their own hands are in a cheap way developing the diamond production in other countries of Africa. In regard to the certificates, I do not agree with the Minister at all. The whole object was to reserve the ground for professional diggers. We have a number of professional diggers in this country who can do nothing else but dig for diamonds. In the past the view was always taken that if there was land available in the Transvaal, a man from the Cape would be allowed to go to the Transvaal and dig there, while a man from the Transvaal could go to the Cape and become a digger there. There are people today in the Transvaal who have gone to work outside their own Province, and who have had a certificate to work in the other Province, but as a result of the Minister’s attitude they have been stopped from doing so, and they have been stopped from returning to work in the Province where they originally used to dig. In the days when Sir Patrick Duncan was still Minister of Mines, a Conference was held in Pretoria, when a plea was put up for a digger’s certificate to be valid throughout the Union. The only trouble we had was that coloured people and natives were allowed to dig in the Cape, but we made a request that that system should not be allowed in the Transvaal and Free State, while at the same time we also asked that if possible a certificate which would be valid for the whole Union should be issued to diggers. No steps have been taken to bring this about, but under the Minister’s new policy we are preventing people from returning to the locality where they were originally doing their work. That is what we object to.

In regard to the miners’ phthisis question we are in rather a difficult position. We cannot freely discuss it, the matter being sub judice and under investigation at present by a commission. I am only sorry about one matter in this regard, and that is that the Minister did not see fit to appoint a representative of the mine workers on that commission. I understand one of the members is a man who has been connected with the managerial side for very many years. I think in a case such as this it would have been only fair that a representative of miners’ phthisis sufferers or mine workers should have been appointed. We do not know what the report of the commission is going to be. I trust it is going to be a satisfactory report from the point of view of the sufferers, but I do want to say that unless that commission recommends far-reaching and radical changes, the report which they issue will not be acceptable. If they do recommend radical changes, such as pensions for all sufferers and their dependants which will enable them to maintain a decent standard of living, I am sure the report will be received with acclamation by all. I have another very important matter which I want to draw the Minister’s attention to. That is in regard to matters affecting the mine workers who are interned. I understand only a small number has been interned. They have been interned possibly for very good reasons—I am not going into the merits of their cases—but I am concerned about their dependants and the disabilities they are suffering under. Those disabilities are in regard to two particular matters. There is what is known as a Miners’ Provident Fund. That is a fund that has been created for the benefit of miners. If a miner retires after a certain period or is discharged owing to physical incapacity to continue work he receives an award from the fund. I understand that unless that is claimed within two years after discharge the award lapses. The probability is that these men may be interned for a period longer than two years, and in that case they may not be able to obtain that award. Obviously their dependants who are not guilty of anything, will have to suffer. Then it is laid down in the Act that phthisis beneficiaries must present themselves periodically for medical examination. If this is not done within a period of two years there is no claim. I would like to know if for the reasons I have mentioned these people are prevented from presenting themselves for examination, will they be disqualified from receiving any benefits under the Act? A section of the miners have endeavoured to persuade the Mine Workers Union to take the matter up, I have the correspondence here, and I think it will interest the House and the miners outside to know what the attitude of their union is in a case such as this. I am going to have something to say in regard to this union. It is evidently nothing less—I say it in all seriousness — nothing less than a propaganda agency for the United Party. They interfere in politics, as I am going to show, and instead of looking after the interests of their members, they are more concerned about making propaganda for the Government’s war effort.

What item is the hon. member discussing?

The Minister’s policy, sir, in regard to this legislation.

I don’t know how this comes in.

I am just referring to that in passing. I want to come back to the way the Union is looking after the interests of its members. I was saying that an effort has been made to persuade the union to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister. They have not been prepared to do it. A letter was written to the secretary of the union, asking that the matter might be submitted to the Executive, but they even refused to allow representatives of the miners to appear before the Executive and explain the disabilities the dependants of the interned miners are suffering under. I must say that it is a very unhealthy state of affairs, especially when one remembers that the closed shop principle is applied to the mines, and the mine workers are compelled to join the Union. I repeat, the union is becoming nothing but a propaganda agency for the United Party. They are even writing about the undesirability of double medium schools, a burning political subject in their organ. They are poking thennoses into that.

The hon. member admits the Minister has nothing to do with this. Why does he go on discussing it?

I was just leaving the matter at the moment when you interrupted me, sir. It will do the Mine Workers Union a world of good if the Minister will bring this to their notice and show them the error of their ways.

I would be glad if the Minister would tell me what is the policy of the Government if they are still in power after the war, in regard to land settlement? There is an impression abroad that the Government intends using the land at its disposal for the purpose of making provision for returned soldiers. I have no objection to that if the returned soldier is able to farm. After the last war, a number of soldiers were settled in my area, but they were not farmers, and ten years afterwards there was not one of them left. They were not suitable for settlement. It is a mistake to put unsuitable people on land which might be occupied by people who are farmers, and can make a success of the business. I would like to hear what the policy of the Government is.

I again want to make an appeal to the Minister this evening to come to the assistance of those settlers along the Orange River from Prieska, Buchuberg up to Karos. I have repeatedly put up a plea in this House for those people being given some economic assistance. It is no use if the land on which they are working at the moment, and which the Government has allotted them, is put at such a high price that it becomes uneconomic for them to work it in future. The Minister said on a previous occasion that he would go into the question, and see what could be done. I made an appeal to him at the time, and I told him that the sooner he did something the better it would be for those people. I said that it would not only be in their interests, but also in the interests of the Government itself. We know that those people were settled there by the Government under difficult conditions. They worked hard with the idea that they would be able to create a future for themselves. Now we find that those holdings have been valued so high that it is impossible for those people to make a living. The holdings are valued by the Land Bank valuators, people who may mean well, but who unfortunately are not conversant with the conditions prevailing in those areas. That is why I want to urge the Minister again, and I want to point out to him that it is no more than right to put one representative of the North-West on the Land Board. There should be a man who knows the conditions, and who will therefore be able to judge what those people can do on those holdings. I therefore want to appeal to the Minister again tonight. It is no use valuing those people’s farms so highly. It was never intended that those erven should be valued so high. The Minister himself knows that a lot of that ground comes out at £100 per morgen. I could understand it if land in the Western Province were valued at £100 per morgen; the owner would be able to make a living on that valuation, but when you are far away from the market it is impossible. Surely the Minister should be able to realise that. It is no use the Government alloting those farms to people on that uneconomic basis if they cannot make a living on those farms. The Minister said on a previous occasion that there was one farmer who had had a fairly good sultana crop, and he compared the case of that farmer with that of the rest of the farmers, but I want to tell the Minister that you cannot take just one farmer, you must take the average farmer in that area. It should be the Government’s object to see to it that those people who have got to the end of their tether and who have been put back on that land, are put in a position of being able to make a decent living. As the Minister promised me that he would go into the matter, I want to know tonight what steps he has taken, and whether he has decided that something can be done, and what he proposes to do in order to assist these people in the right manner. Unless he reduces the valuation where it has been fixed at £100 per morgen, it will be impossible for those people to make a living. I sincerely hope he will come to the aid of these people. So far as I know, he has, at my request, had an enquiry made to see how these settlers can be assisted, and I hope he will tell us openly tonight in this House what his conclusions are, and what he proposes doing in the circumstances. I can assure him that if he does not grant those people the relief they are entitled to, they will not only not be able to make a living in future, but if he does assist them they will develop into farmers on whom the Government will be able to depend in future—farmers of whom one can expect something. At the moment those farmers are suffering great hardships; they have had to put their shoulder to the wheel to improve their farms and to create delightful places there. Having made those improvements, they should not be penalised by a high valuation being put on their land, so that they will not be able to make a living in future. I also want to say this to the Minister: Those people are suffering from a labour shortage. They cannot find any coloured men to employ. It is simply impossible to obtain labour anywhere, no matter how hard they try. I was there recently. Some of those farmers have reached a pretty old age; they can no longer do all the work themselves without some assistance, and I think it is no more than fair that that regulation which the Minister has issued, namely, that the children are not allowed to help their parents, should be abolished. I think the Minister will agree that that should be done. He should give those people the opportunity of getting their own people to assist them. It is no use giving them the land if they are not given the opportunity to work it. It is impossible for one man to do everything himself. These people are pretty old in many cases, and they cannot work as hard now as they used to in the past, and under the prevailing conditions in regard to the labour question I think the Minister should see to it that something is done to effectively help those people. If the Minister does so, I can assure him that he will contribute considerably towards keeping those people on their land which, after all, should be the Government’s main object.

I think it can be taken for granted that after the war when our soldiers return a large number of them will want to go on the land, and if they wish to do so I feel that it is our duty to do everything possible to make them successful farmers. I feel that these returned soldiers of ours would make ideal settlers, and after what they have been through up North, the many hardships and difficulties that the farmers have to contend with would not be more than what they can stand up to. I hope the Minister will make a statement as to his plans, what he is prepared to do in the way of providing farms and also the facilities and help he is prepared to give to enable these men to be properly settled on the land. I understand the Minister has said that he is reserving all land available for settlement until these men return after the war. If that is so, we welcome that decision wholeheartedly. Land settlement in the past has not been the success we had hoped for. When settling men on the land one of the first things we have to make sure of is that these men get economic farms, farms that will give them a living, farms that will be good enough and large enough to enable them to make a suitable living, and to live on a proper standard of living. Besides that it is necessary that these men shall be properly trained as farmers before being given these farms. Also, when land is given out to settlers we should make sure that the men who are selected and put on that land are suitable men able to make a success of farming. We would welcome a statement by the Minister to show us whether his scheme is a sound one, and likely to meet with success. In the past I say without fear of contradiction that many of the farms given out for settlement purposes have been too small and perhaps poor land. In a very large number of instances that have come to my notice it has been quite impossible for these men settled there to have made a proper living on the land, due to the fact that the farms were not big enough. Also, land in the past has been chosen for settlement purposes because it was not expensive. The land which has been bought in many cases has not been good land. When you consider settlement schemes you have to choose the best land available in the country. Cheap land can only be used for ranching purposes, it cannot be used for smallholdings or intensive farming, and that has been the mistake in regard to land settlement in the past. If the Minister when the time comes will select the best land and will select the most suitable applicants for the land, men who by their previous record will prove that they can stand up to the difficulties of farming, and even if he will make provision so that these men will receive a thorough training—if all these precautions are taken then he may make a success of his enterprise and not break the hearts of his settlers. These men will have to be trained, as I say, perhaps at some Government institution, or on the land which is to be given to them. They must be kept there under control, and they must be taught by good technical men as to what is the best method of making a success of their enterprise on the farms which they are going to work and own. Above all, the Minister must make sure that the land on which these men are settled is such that it will give a good living to the men who are going to farm on it—it must provide what we call economic farms, farms capable of giving a proper living to the men put on them. I feel, too, that the Minister should be guided by the natural advantages of the land. There should be adequate water and the settlement area should be in a good rainfall area to ensure normal seasons. I do not think that the dry arid areas are good areas for settling people. A settler who is up against it through bad seasons, droughts and other disadvantages is likely to go under before he can be established. I feel that in the good rainfall areas along the coast and in such areas as Natal there is a far better prospect of these men making good than in areas where the rainfall is uncertain and where you can never know from year to year whether you are going to get a seasonable year or not. We have heaps of land of that description. We have heaps of land which is good for settlement in the various parts of the Union. I would suggest to the Minister that the most suitable type of farming for these men is stock farming, with natural advantages of producing the food for the stock in times of shortage. You do not want to be dependent on stock farming where a man cannot produce feed, and with the limited amount of capital that will be provided for a settler he should have a farm that will bring him in a regular monthly income, and he should not be dependent on only one cheque a year—perhaps from shearing his sheep—he should not be dependent merely on an annual crop. He should have a system of farming whereby every month there will be something coming in to pay his expenses and carry him through from month to month. If we adopt a system of that sort the men will be able to farm in a much more certain way than if we adopt any other system. Besides, if we adopt stock farming where he can grow crops as well, he is going to maintain the fertility of his soil and improve his land—his position will be different from that of the man who can only grow one crop and take the same crop out of his land year after year with the result that his land gets poorer and poorer and he uses up his capital that is his soil fertility. Where stock is run on veld without facilities of feeding in times of scarcity, the land is punished to such an extent that erosion and other evils of that sort set in. I hope that when our men return from the North every endeavour will be made to start them on a sound and in proper way, and that they will not be stinted in regard to financial assistance, and that they will have the suitable implements and stock necessary to enable them to do their farming at a profit. We should start them on a sound basis without stinting them in any way. We should see that they get the right sort of farm; that they have good training, and if that is done we shall have very little in the way of the failures which we have been accustomed to in the past.

May I avail myself of the half-hour rule? Since the present Minister of Lands has taken over the department I am afraid he has been systematically following a policy which must inevitably lead to the department being dragged into party politics. I even go so far as to say that the Minister has followed, and is still following, a very small-minded policy. I am sorry having to say so, but I feel that I am entitled to contend that such a thing has never before been done by any of his predecessors. I think I have every right to say that all the previous Ministers of Lands for the last twenty or thirty years have succeeded, to a large extent, in keeping the department outside politics; but I am afraid the policy which the present Minister is pursuing must inevitably lead to the department becoming the shuttlecock of party politics, if it has not already become so. The reason why I say so, is because it appears to me that the Minister is deliberately following a policy of not re-appointing people, who do not agree with his party politics, when their time as members of the Land Board expires. I feel that that is undoubtedly a very reprehensible, if not small-minded policy. I can draw attention to what previous Ministers have done when they had the opportunity of appointing only members of their own party to Land Boards. They did not do so. On the contrary, when vacancies arose as a result of the fact that certain members’ time had expired, they were reappointed, although it was a well-known fact that those people did not agree with the Minister’s politics. I take up the attitude that that is the right policy to follow—provided the people concerned loyally carry out the Government’s policy—particularly in a department such as the Department of Lands. The Department of Lands should definitely, as far as possible, be kept outside party politics. I want to ask the Minister what his attitude is? Does he ask himself what a man’s political views are, or does he ask himself what a man’s qualifications are, when he has to make such an appointment? If the Minister says that he only takes such an individual’s qualifications into account, then I want to ask him whether he has ever had a more competent official than Mr. Lodewyk Wentzel? If the Minister can prove to me that Mr. Lodewyk Wentzel took an active part in party politics, then I am prepared to say that the Minister was correct in taking the step he did take, but so far as I know Mr. Lodewyk Wentzel never took any active part in party politics while he was a member of the Board. On the contrary, I think the Minister will admit that Mr. Wentzel was undoubtedly one of the best officials he ever had. When Mr. Wentzel’s time expired the Minister did not reappoint him. I could still understand such a policy if, for instance, he had created a new position; then I could have understood the Minister’s attitude, and I could have appreciated it if he had taken up that standpoint and had said that all other things being equal he was going to give preference to people holding the same views as he held, but in this particular case, where these people have already rendered good service, it is not to my mind a sound policy to reappoint them again. I think it undoubtedly is not a sound policy to give the Department of Lands a party political colour, nor do I believe that is really the Minister’s object. Surely the Minister does not want to tell me that all those who do not support his views are necessarily incompetent? I feel that even the Minister himself does not go as far as that, and I think he will admit that there are a few competent people among the Opposition, and their supporters. Mr. Wentzel was a prominent man in this respect. To my mind he was an outstanding person, eminently suitable for this class of work. He has rendered good services to the department and he has been a good and faithful official. This action of the Minister’s will inevitably tend to give the Department of Lands and its policy a political colour. The further consequences it may have, and will have, are that it must inevitably lead to greater bitterness in this country. Hon. members opposite are continually appealing to to do all in our power to try and bring about conciliation in this country and not to create any further feelings of bitterness and dissension, but when we see what the policy of the department and of the Minister is, as I have already explained, then we must realise that it will give lead to greater bitterness. But not only that; there is an old saying that every dog has its day. The Government may be in power for five years, and perhaps for ten years, but we know that in the ordinary course of party politics the man who is at the bottom today is on top tomorrow, and what will the Minister think of it if we, when we come into power, do the same thing to him and his supporters?

But surely you have already told us what you are going to do?

I am glad to see that the Minister is taking our words to heart. Anyhow the remark the Minister has just made is rather on the frivolous side. I want to make an appeal to him in all sincerity, and I want to ask him in future not to follow that policy, but if an individual has rendered good service to the department, then he should treat that individual according to the service he has rendered to the department, and not ask whether he belongs to the Minister’s party or not. Another matter which to my mind must lead to giving a political colour to the department’s policy is the decision not to allot any further ground during the duration of the war. I can quite understand that the Minister takes up the attitude that it is not reasonable to deprive people, who have joined up and who are not in South Africa at the moment, of the opportunity, or of the privilege to obtain land along with other people who have remained behind in South Africa; but where the difficulty to my mind comes in is that there may be people who for some reason or other cannot join the Army, and for whom there is no other refuge, except on the settlements or to get land with the aid of the Government. I want to suggest to the Minister to make part of the available land available for immediate allotment to people who may be considered as thoroughly deserving, and, who, the Minister is convinced, are entitled to get land, because there is no other way out for them. Simply to put a stop to all issue of land now is going very far. Let us, for instance, take these closer settlements. There are twelve such closer settlements, and on those settlements there are 3,228 small holdings available; 1,498 of them have been allotted. That means that almost two-thirds of those holdings are lying idle. They are not going to be occupied until after the war. Why should those homesteads lie there without paying any interest for the duration of the war. I want to suggest that the Minister should issue at least a portion of those holdings. I assume that part of those holdings have not yet been prepared for allotment, but that does not apply to all of them; it does not apply to the majority of them. The great bulk of those small farms which are lying idle can be allotted, and I want to ask the Minister to consider issuing portions of those places to people whom he regards as deserving. To keep back all those places nearly 2,000 of them, until after the war, may mean that very deserving people may be put to considerable inconvenience, and that they may have to suffer great hardships in consequence. I want to go so far as to ask whether the Minister’s actions in regard to the holding back of those holdings, the suspension of the advertising of further land is in accordance with the law9 Has the Minister the right to keep these available lands off the market, and not to advertise them? I assume the Minister knows whether he is acting in terms of the law, but so far as I know, there is nothing in the law to allow him to do so. The Minister may say that there is nothing in the law to prevent his doing so. Well, if his action is not in conflict with the letter of the law, then, at any rate, it is in conflict with the spirit of the law. The policy of former Minister of Lands has always been to advertise available land as soon as possible, and to allot it; and I therefore repeat that I am definitely of opinion that the Minister is acting in conflict with the spirit of the law, if not in conflict with the letter of the’ law. Now, what is the position? I have stated what the number of these small farms is on the closer settlements. What is the position in regard to ordinary Crown land? I should like to know from the Minister how much Crown land there is available for allotment, and I should be glad if the Minister would give me that information. Then I also want to know whether the Minister intends carrying on—there is no indication of it on the Estimates—with the purchasing of land under Section 11 of the Act?

Yes, I am going on with that.

I am glad to hear it. The third point I want to bring to the Minister’s notice has already been touched on by a previous speaker, and it is this: the policy followed by the department in regard who are of age and who are living with their children, and in regard to unmarried sons who are of age and who are living with their parents. The Minister will remember that I raised this question last year, too, and in his reply he said that the department would use its discretion, and would try to prevent any cases of hardship arising. Let me, first of all, deal with the position of the parents. The Minister knows that those people are in a state of poverty and distress. The fact that the child has been given a plot proves that he is the child of poor parents. That speaks for itself, because otherwise the child would not have got the plot. Many of those people are not enjoying the best of health, and they have no other home but the home of their children. Many of those people are in receipt of old age pensions. The Minister will agree with me that these old age pensions are very small. Perhaps they get £5 or £6 per month for a married couple, and this small amount which these two old people receive is surely not enough to buy food and clothes for them, and also to pay house rent. Even if they have to rent a room in the slums of our towns, the Minister will admit that in times like the present it will swallow up the major portion of their pension if they have to pay rent out of it. And what will they have left to live on then? Now, I want to ask the Minister what is wrong with it, if these old people, a man and his wife, go to live with their children? They get enough in old age pensions to provide their essential needs, such as clothing; and the little bit of food they get from their children is a triviality. Why cannot these old people be allowed to stay on these settlements? I understand that the Department of Lands is gradually going to move these old people off the plots and I shall be very pleased if the Minister can give us a definite assurance that that is not going to be the case. But now let us come to the people who are not getting any old age pensions. Assuming the Department is prepared to allow people drawing old age pensions to live with their children. What then is the position of those who are not getting any old age pension? To my mind they are still worse off than those who are drawing old age pensions, because, as I have already indicated, those people who are drawing old age pensions at any rate get £5 or £6 between the two of them, while those who have no old age pension coming in in certain respects are in a worse position than those who do get old age pensions. There is all the more reason, therefore, why those people should be allowed to stay with their children. The argument which the Minister adduces — and I agree with the principle of the argument completely—is that he cannot allow those plots to become over crowded. Assuming the father and the mother are living with a married son, with perhaps four or five children—then I can quite understand the Minister prohibiting a thing like that, but I am talking of the case where it is only the father and mother who are living with the children, and in that connection I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister not to interfere with these old people and to allow them to stay with their children. Surely that cannot lead to overcrowding. But if the Minister will not allow it, then there is no doubt that it will give rise to a lot of unpleasantness. In regard to the sons who are of age I know that the Minister uses the same argument, namely that he cannot allow the sons to live with their parents because it will overload the plots. Those small farms are allotted for one family, and not more than one family can be allowed to live on those small plots. If it is a married son then I can understand the Minister’s argument. These small farms have been cut up in such a manner that they are just big enough to give a living to one family. I can therefore well understand that if a parent wants a married son to live with them it may give rise to over crowding of those small holdings.

How are you going to stop it?

I know that that is the Minister’s difficulty and I can therefore understand that he does not want an additional family to live on these small holdings. But I am speaking here of unmarried sons. If it is an unmarried son living with his father and mother, then surely it cannot give rise to over crowding. In many cases it may perhaps be a son who later on has to take over the holding. It is the policy of the Department of Lands in certain instances where the parents are getting old to let the plot be handed over to the son. Why should such a son be removed from the plot? There are instances of the Department insisting on the son leaving the plot. Another factor is this, there is today, as admitted by the Minister and also by other Ministers, a great shortage of labour. The Minister stated in the House that in the Northern Provinces, the Defence authorities were concentrating more particularly on the recruiting of natives because it was felt that there was a great scarcitv of labour in the Western Province. That shortage in the Western Province is such that they cannot recruit many more people there. For that reason the Defence authorities are concentrating on the recruiting of natives for the Army in the Northern Provinces, and that is going to contribute tremendously towards aggravating the shortage of labour in the North, it is going to make it even worse than it is today. In my constituency there are more settlements than anywhere else, and I know how difficult the people find it to obtain the necessary labour. The Minister does not know what it means to produce oven-dried tobacco. I can mention any number of cases to the Minister where the owner of the small holding has to spend day and night at his drying oven because he is unable to get the labour he requires to help him. Very often the woman has to help the man to look after the drying oven night and day. An oven like that cannot be left alone for five minutes. It has to be watched day and night, and as those people cannot get any natives to come and work they are compelled to do it themselves, day and night. And now we get instances where the sons who are of age can help the father in his farming operations, and yet the Minister insists that that son is not to be allowed to stay on the holding. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. It is not fair to apply that policy. Involuntarily that attitude of the Minister creates the impression that he is pursuing that policy with a deliberate object, namely, to drive those young fellows off the holdings in order to force them to join the army. That impression is unfortunately being created. I do not say that it is a fact that that is the Minister’s intention, but that is the impression, and the Minister himself is responsible for it. I want to ask the Minister to give the points I have brought to his notice his careful attention. I want to emphasise that in view of the shortage of labour he should allow these young men to stay on the holdings to assist their fathers in farming. In many cases these fathers are men reaching the end of their days; they are not enjoying the best of health, and if the son is sent away the father cannot carry on his farming operations in the way they should be carried on, because he cannot get any labour to help him. The argument which is usually employed, and the Minister adduced it at Another Place yesterday, is that the Department of Social Welfare is only too willing to assist the parents who have to leave these holdings. But as the Minister of Social Welfare explained yesterday, that department, even with the best will in the world, cannot possibly handle all the applications it receives. The Minister of Social Welfare said that he was full up with all these semi-fit people at his various institutions.

But surely you don’t want to turn my department into a Department of Social Welfare as well?

No, I am not asking for that either, but on the other hand we must admit that the child has a duty to its parents, and if the child is prepared to support his parents on the holding, and if we are satisfied that that is not going to lead to overcrowding of those holdings, then we should allow the child to look after his parents there. Surely the Bible teaches us that one of the first duties of a child is to look after his parents. The Government also takes up that attitude in regard to old age pensions, because if the child is able to help, he is obliged to assist in the maintenance of the parents. If the child can help he is expected to do so.

Yes, if he is able to help.

That does not affect the principle of the matter. The Government regards it as the child’s duty to assist his parents. In the cases I have mentioned the Minister has not proved that the child is not able to look after his parents with him in his home. In many instances the parents use nothing belonging to the children, and the little bit of food that the parents eat amounts to nothing. But if the parents have to leave, where are they to go? They are on the street. No, I am making an earnest appeal to the Minister to revise his policy. However willing the Department of Social Welfare may be to help, it cannot cope with all the applications. There are three settlements for invalids, and I believe that provision is being made there for 200 families. For a while the Vaalhartz scheme was used as an internment camp. It has now been returned to the Department of Social Welfare, but only 40 families can be accommodated there. If the Minister is going to carry out this policy of his strictly, that settlement will not even be adequate for the old people in my constituency, and what about the other settlements for all the other old people who are physically unfit? I want to point out that the Department of Social Welfare cannot look after all these old people. It is doing as much as it possibly can, but its sphere does not extend so far as to be able to deal with all the people who unfortunately may be affected by the Minister’s policy. Now I should like to ask the Minister what the position is in regard to the consolidation of the Land Settlement Acts. I asked the Minister a question on this subject last year and he told me that he would probably introduce a consolidating measure this year. The session is now nearing its end and I am anxious to know from the Minister whether he intends introducing such a consolidating Bill next year. It is a very important matter and I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us what the position in that regard is. Then there is another point which I briefly want to touch upon and affecting the Minister’s department. I have already brought this matter to the attention to the Minister of Agriculture last year; I am referring to the production of tobacco on Government settlements. I gave certain figures at the time to the Minister of Agriculture. I have not got the time now to quote all these figures again, but they were official figures and those figures show that if the production of tobacco is carried on with in the way it was decided to do at the time, then we may take it that we are shortly going to have a serious surplus of tobacco. Fortunately the position in regard to the tobacco farmers at the moment is that they are able to make a fairly decent living, but if the Minister allows too much tobacco to be produced on these new settlements difficulties will be created, which will result in the settlers not being able to make a living out of tobacco farming. I therefore reckon that the Minister should take steps to have the ground investigated, in order to ascertain whether those new settlements cannot produce other products in respect of which there is no danger of a surplus being created. It is definitely necessary to do something of that kind. I quoted the figures last year and I proved that if the growing of tobacco was continued on the proposed scale, there would be a surplus in the next three or four years, and if there is such a surplus the present producers will be very hard hit. Now there are a few other matters of local importance which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. The first of these matters I also raised last year. The Minister’s predecessor received a deputation from certain settlers at Geluk in regard to the houses which are on that settlement. His predecessor in my presence definitely gave instructions to the department to have the matter enquired into because the previous Minister felt that many of those houses which had been erected by the old Department of Labour were no longer in such a condition that the settlers could live in them. The Minister’s predecessor promised to go into the question and he gave the deputation to understand—I don’t say he made a definite promise—but he gave them to understand that he would do anything in his power to grant these people loans for new houses. I should like to know what the Minister intends doing in this connection. The second point is the question of certain plots at Brits which are gradually becoming waterlogged. The Minister knows what the position is. The Land Board has visited the place and has made an investigation, but I understand that some holdings are still gradually becoming waterlogged as a result of leakages in the canals. If the people there are unable to pay their rent I want to know from the Minister what he intends doing, and I hope he will take steps to try and solve that problem. My last point is in regard to these settlers whose ground has been stricken by hail. I put a question to the Minister some time ago on the subject, and I should like to know whether he has received any further information. I want to conclude by expressing my appreciation of the attitude of the department in writing off certain arrear water rates. I have not got the time to go into this matter at any length, but the Minister knows what I am referring to. These were arrear water rates in respect of plots which have since been left by the owners and have now been allotted to other settlers. They therefore had to pay for water which they had never had, and the settlers very much appreciate the fact that these amounts have now been written off.

I wish to say a few words on this vote. To the onlooker it often appears that the three departments, that is, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Lands and the Department of Irrigation, sometimes act in watertight compartments in this country. I look upon these three departments as departments which should work supplementary to each other in such a manner that there should not be the slightest hitch in their activities. It would facilitate the work of the Agricultural Department if the Department of Lands assisted it; it would facilitate the cause of the Department of Irrigation if the Department of Lands stood by it, and vice versa. The Department of Lands can only work smoothly if it has the complete co-operation of the Department of Agriculture and Irrigation. I am not able to mention any special cases. I am speaking generally. The Minister will be able to give us some information on this point afterwards, but I feel that generally speaking there is a real need between these three departments to make an actual intensive effort to bring about correlation as far as it is possible to do so. I am sorry that I also have to criticise the Minister because of the policy his department is following in not being prepared to allot new holdings to people who have not joined the army. It seems to me to be a far-reaching anomaly because in effect it means this, that because somebody has conscientious scruples in taking part in an effort which was to have been made with volunteers, the Minister is now taking unto himself the right to disqualify that person as a civilian. It is in conflict with the law, it is in conflict with the spirit and the tendency of the Department of Lands, and I feel that the Minister should really take that policy into review. It is unjust to disqualify people as civilians and to make them suffer economically, purely and simply because they are unwilling to join the army. There is another matter, too, on which I wish to say a few words. It is in regard to the valuation of land. The Department of lands is the only buyer of lands for the State for settlement purposes. Up to 1932 the Department of Irrigation itself used to buy land, and other departments also used to buy land for their requirements. We had the position that one department sometimes ran the risk of competing with other departments. In order to remedy that unsound condition of affairs a Central Land Board was established at the time, with Provincial Land Boards, in addition. If the State requires land to give effect to any resolutions of this House, it is the custom for the Central Land Board to be sent to value such land. The Central Land Board is regarded as an authoritative body so far as the valuation of land is concerned. It is looked upon as a Central Land Board, consisting of experts who are deliberately selected throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, because of their knowledge of the economic and agrarian value of land in South Africa, and it seems very unsatisfactory to me that after that body has made its valuation of land required by the State, the Department of Lands should step in and start a process of bargaining. The valuation by the Central Land Board is kept secret, and the owner is approached by the Department of Lands and a certain amount is offered to him for his land. I say that that is a process which is unworthy of a Government department, such as the Department of Lands. Our Government departments should not go in for bargaining. On the other hand, I want to emphasise that I would be the last to advocate the State paying any exorbitant prices that may be asked for land. At the same time, one has to assume that if the Central Land Board has placed a valuation on a holding which the State requires, that valuation has only been made after the most thorough investigation. Considerable difficulties have already arisen as a result of the attitude of the Department of Lands in securing land. Private citizens, who are sometimes compelled as a result of the legislation passed by this House to give up their holdings, have sometimes been the sufferers owing to the attitude adopted by the department in securing land. I want to make a strong appeal to the Minister to take the whole of this process into review. It is not worthy of the department, especially where it is a question of the compulsory expropriation of land, such as often occurs. Now, I also want to put this question to the Minister of Lands: I want to know how far he has progressed with the idea which has often been voiced in this House that the Department of Lands should also lend itself in times of drought to render assistance in the combating of such droughts, not merely for the sake of the settlers, but for the sake of the farmers in general. I do not think the Department of Lands gives sufficient advice where its settlers are concerned, nor does it give sufficient advice so far as the rest of the public are concerned. We have just passed through a very severe drought. Throughout the whole country the farmers have had to struggle to get hold of fodder for their cattle, and to get lucerne, and so on. It meant taking the greatest trouble to secure information in regard to the question where fodder could be obtained. Could not the Department of Lands consider some system by which publicity could be given in regard to the quantities and the stocks they have available, and which they can supply to the farmers in South Africa? It would be of tremendous assistance in times of drought. I feel that there is a great need for something of the kind, and I contend that in doing that the Department of Lands would render a great service to the farming community. It would also be of the greatest importance to the settler. In times of plenty lucerne is often disposed of on the settlements for next to nothing. Could not the Department of Lands, in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture, take its courage in its hands and devise a system of fodder banks? The Department of Lands should buy up the fodder in times of plenty, and should store it safely away, so that a kind of security fodder bank could be set up for the benefit of the farmers in South Africa. If that were done the Department of Lands would earn the gratitude of the farmers of this country, and it would render a great service to the struggling settlers who often have to suffer great hardships in keeping their heads above water. Now, there is one other matter I want to touch upon. So far it has been the policy of the Department of Lands practically everywhere where they build large irrigation dams, such as at Vaalhartz, to buy up the available land that is under irrigation, and then to allot it as holdings. The result is that it has often been necessary under such irrigation dams to drive away old established farmers who have been making a living there for two or three generations. I consider the time has arrived that when the department again undertakes schemes of that kind consideration should be given to the question of not making it a law of the Medes and the Persians that the land must necessarily be expropriated by the State. Let the original inhabitants of such area, who have been living there for years, be allowed to remain there, and let whatever facilities are being provided be at their disposal. Farming could be made more intensive then, and a great service would be rendered to the population as a whole. It would be better to do things in that way than to expropriate the holdings, and sometimes get people there who have not got the necessary knowledge of farming. [Time limit.]

The report of the Fact Finding Commission of Enquiry regarding the Cape coloured population of the Union which sat in 1937, pointed out that the coloured people at one time owned extensive farming lands granted them by the Government in various districts of South Africa. One such area visited by the Commission was that of Gordonia, where extensive and valuable or potentially valuable farming lands were owned by coloured people in individual tenure with the right of alienation; such land has now been lost. The Commission also visited other areas where the coloured obtained land in the same way, which was similarly lost—for instance, in the Kat River area and in East Griqualand. A similar tendency was also noticeable on several of the missionary settlements, where the coloured settlers had obtained individual tenure with the right of alienation. In some of these cases the most valuable part of the land had already been lost. In the main, the Commission says, the land had passed into the hands of Europeans; in the case of others, where the land lay in or near areas with a large native population, it had passed into the hands of natives. In addition, to these important factors, bringing about the loss of land, the Commission mentioned some other reasons for the land passing out of the hands of the coloured population. And the reasons given were these: Lack of business experience and aptitude in general, and more particularly ignorance of the value or potential value of the land owned by them; lack of industry and enterprise and of knowledge of or instruction in, more advanced methods of farming; mortgaging of the land, either in consequence of debts incurred to pay costs of transfer, after individual ownership was; introduced, or of loans obtained by a son inheriting the land in order to pay out shares to co-inheritors in money; or contracting debts in other ways. The Commission had evidence to the effect that in some cases advantage had been taken of the ignorance and intemperance of individual owners. The Commission was impressed with the general poverty which had with few exceptions fallen on the inhabitants of these areas, which had since often proved to be of considerable value. The Commission recommended that coloured people should again be given the opportunity of settling on the land, and I want to ask the Minister to do this. Now, I very much welcomed the statement made by the Minister when he said not once, but several times, that he was not prepared to give ground to new settlers until the war was over, the object being to see that returned soldiers had an equal choice. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) in what he said. I hope the Minister will not do what the hon. member asked him to do, and I hope that when these men come back from the front they will at least have the right of an equal choice. I don’t even claim that they should have a preferential choice, but they should certainly have an equal choice. I hope the coloured people will also be considered among those returned soldiers for settlement on land, and I also associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) when he says that no man should be settled on land until he has received a proper agricultural training. These men, these returned soldiers, should be given the opportunity of going to agricultural colleges where they should be trained free of charge, either for one or two years. As a result, they would be able to settle on the land and farm properly. Others who are found unsuitable for farming should not be put on the land. I suggest that no man should be settled unless he has a thorough knowledge of farming operations, and the man should be given the opportunity of acquiring the necessary knowledge either on the farm itself or at agricultural colleges. And I hope that in this respect also the coloured soldiers will be given equal opportunities to the Europeans. Their service to South Africa in this war entitles them to such consideration.

The country can be grateful that the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. R. J. du Toit) is not Minister of Lands. If he wants to give equal privileges to whites and coloureds so far as land settlement is concerned, then the country can be grateful that we have not got him to administer the department.

There is no danger of it.

No, I don’t think so either, because when the time arrives to carry out that policy the hon. member’s party will no longer be there to carry it out. In any case I hope that the Minister will get up and will say that what the hon. member has just said is nothing but rubbish. No responsible Government can stand for a policy such as the hon. member has just announced, that equal rights should be given to Europeans and coloureds so far as land settlement is concerned.

Why not?

Ask your own Minister; let him make a responsible statement.

Go and say that on the platteland.

I am quite prepared to do so.

Let the Minister say whether he agrees with his own supporter—or does he not agree? The Minister is usually so eloquent …

We are not going to have a debate about that just now. I shall reply to that point.

I was along the Olifants River recently and the Minister can probably guess what I was doing there. I assume the Minister of Lands will also be going there one of these days and I can also guess what he is going to do there. There is a Provincial by-election going on and if my information is correct the Minister of Lands also intends going there. Now I just want to say to the Minister that those people there are anxious to have the dam wall raised. I hope it will be done and that it will get beyond a promise now. The Minister knows which dam wall I am referring to and it is essential that it should be raised. I hope this question will not be dragged into the elections. This was asked for long ago already when there were no elections ahead. As a matter of fact I am not raising it just because there is an election going on, but I am asking for it because from what the people tell me I am convinced it is necessary.

I promised eighteen months ago already that it would be done.

Then I hope it will not stop at a promise. The people will appreciate it if the Minister will get up and tell the House when a start will actually be made with it. The Minister knows what happened. After he had promised it the Irrigation Commission went into the matter. Those people were disappointed. They said: “What is the use of the Minister making a promise if another Commission has to come here to see whether the Minister’s promise can be carried out?” If the Minister will only tell them that the work will be started they will be satisfied. There is just one other point I want to mention. Unfortunately there again seems to be people walking about with letters from the Government. We know how it is done. We know the replies you get from the Government if you put a question. If you ask the Government to annex the moon you get a reply: “The question is receiving attention.” That is the stereotyped answer. I understand that the United Party candidate is going round with a letter in his pocket in connection with a bridge to be built at Traval.

What does the letter say?

I have only heard that the candidate has a letter saying that the bridge will be granted. I am afraid it is only a letter of this kind: “The matter is receiving attention.”

It seems to me that it is a Provincial matter.

I want to put the position clearly. If the Minister says that he has not written such a letter then that settles the point.

If you can tell me what the letter is and what it says then I can answer. Surely I cannot answer such a vague assertion.

The letter refers to a bridge in that area and it is to the effect that the Government would build the bridge. Now I want to refer to another matter. It is often argued that it does not matter what one says so long as ons says something new every week; so far as the Minister of Lands is concerned, it looks as if it is not a question with him of saying something new every week—all he tries to do is to say something startling every week. I am not allowed to discuss his startling statement in Another Place where he declared that he did have an irrigation scheme, but that it would have to wait until after the war. That is one of the weekly shocks which the Minister gives us which, however, I am not allowed to say anything about just now. Another startling statement which we get almost every week in some form or another is that to which the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) referred, namely, that the Minister is reserving settlement land for returned soldiers.

Do you say that I have made a statement that I was reserving the land for returned soldiers?

I say that the Minister is making a new statement almost every week.

That I had said that I was reserving the land for returned soldiers? Settlement land? It is untrue.

If the Minister says it is untrue …

You know it.

No, I do not know it, I only read what the papers say. If the Minister has been mis-reported I shall be glad to hear it. The impression one gets from the statement made by the Minister is that he is reserving settlement land for returned soldiers. The Minister’s own supporter, Mr. R. J. du Toit, said so a little while ago.

He did not say that; he said that the returned soldiers should also be given a chance and an opportunity.

On a point of order, I said I was very pleased that the Minister did not intend giving out ground to settlers until the war was over to enable returned soldiers to get land for settlement on equal terms with others.

But the hon. member repeats the statement. How does he know what the Minister has said. He now says that it is the Minister’s intention to hold back land for returned soldiers. Where does he get it from?

That is not how he said it.

I shall be glad when the Minister gets up if he will tell us what be intended with this statement, what he intended with “Land for returned soldiers.” Are we to assume that the Minister now says that he is not going to hold land for returned soldiers? If that is so then I am pleased. Is it the Minister’s intention to continue issuing land to settlers? I can tell the Minister that it is in conflict, that it clashes with the feeling of the people, for land to be held up for returned soldiers. There is a land hunger in South Africa. People are anxiously waiting to get land and we can hardly believe that it can be the Minister’s policy not to allot any land but to reserve it for returned soldiers. Nobody knows how long the war will last. Assuming it lasts another two or three years; it will mean that the poor man who wants a little bit of land, say along the Olifants River, will have to wait all that time.

It is their duty to join up.

Yes, if the hon. member were to get his way he would want to give coloured people a bit of land among the whites.

No, I did not say that.

The hon. member speaks of equal rights; very well, he means by that that they are not to get land among the Europeans … [Time Limit.]

I want to say a word or two on this question of our Beaches. The Minister’s Department of recent years has commenced a policy of promulgating regulations or advising the Governor-General to promulgate regulations to divide our beaches on a racial basis.

There is no such policy.

I have had some experience of this. I know here in the Cape, particularly here in the Cape Peninsula there has never been any trouble between the Europeans and the coloured people. It is only of recent years since they have started making regulations about it that there has been a great deal of trouble as the Minister knows. I am thinking more particularly of course, of the case of the Strand. I know that was not the Minister’s fault. He promulgated regulations on the advice of a local authority who were absolutely unfitted …

That is sub judice.

I agree it is “sub judice” and I don’t want to refer to the merits, but as the local authority proved itself unfitted to exercise its authority the Minister did what was right, and he took the very wise course in appointing a thoroughly respected and impartial man in Mr. Broeksma, the Attorney-General, as Chairman of the Beach Commission to consider the whole matter. I thoroughly commend the Minister for that course. But what I want to emphasise is this: what led to all this trouble necessitating the appointment of a Commission—the possible findings of which I do not propose to discuss as the Minister says it is sub judice—was the fact that he promulgated regulations on the recommendation of a local authority consisting of one race, and he never consulted the people, just as much concerned,—that is the people of the other race. I know he is consulting them now, but that is only after a great deal of trouble.

That is wrong, they were consulted.

When the regulations were promulgated?

Before that.

If that is so, it is a most extraordinary thing. I am accepting, of course, what the Minister says, but it is an extraordinary thing that there should have been all this trouble. I take it when he says that they were consulted that they were agreeable. If so, all the coloured leaders in the area must have changed their minds very much, because I do not see any indications that they were satisfied with these regulations. The point is this. That in this beach matter throughout this country there is no question of the coloured people wanting to push themselves in with the Europeans, or the Europeans wanting to push themselves in with the coloureds. It is a question of a proper distribution of amenities, and if these matters are left to the people themselves there would never have been any trouble at all. That has been our experience here in the Cape Peninsula. It is not a case of the one section wanting to rub shoulders with the other; it is a question of equal amenities, but when these regulations are promulgated the question is bound to arise as to whether or not equal amenities have been provided? The courts have laid down that where you try and divide up public property, whether it is your post offices or your beaches, on a racial basis, unless Parliament has given specific instructions, equal amenities must be given. That is difficult to do by law. If you try to lay down these things by regulations of this kind, they are almost invariably likely to be challenged. I have been involved in these matters, both as counsel and in other capacities. I want to appeal to the Minister where complaints are brought to him to try and fix up matters by agreement and not to resort to regulations.

With your permission, I should like to speak for half an hour. There are a few things that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister in connection with the Central Land Board, and Land Boards in general. I think it has now become quite clear that the Land Boards, generally speaking, are not doing their work properly. From time to time it is necessary to come to Parliament for writing off in cases where land was valued too high by the Land Boards, and I think that as the result of that the State has lost thousands of pounds. We shall again get an opportunity to draw the attention of the Minister to it, but I think that the time has arrived for the Minister to tell these Land Boards that they must value the land on a basis on which people who are placed there will be able to make a proper living. The position is that land should not be bought at a high figure in order to benefit the purchaser, but the idea of the Department of Lands is to benefit the settler, and if we go into the history of settlements in this country—I am not thinking now of this Minister only, but I am talking generally, since I have been a member of the Select Committee on Crown Lands for quite a number of years—we find that members of the Central Land Board and of the local Land Boards do not devote sufficient attention to the matter. With regard to the composition of the Land Boards, I wonder whether a different policy cannot be followed in connection with their composition. In the Cape Province, for example, there are two Land Boards, one for the eastern part, and one for the western part. In the area which I represent there is no Land Board member. Land has to be valued there from time to time, and members of the Land Board have to advise the department. When the Land Board members have to make a valuation there, they are not acquainted with the circumstances. For that reason, I am of opinion that the time has arrived for the department rather to appoint local people in the fiscal districts.

Is Mr. Mentz not resident in your neighbourhood?

He is at Vryburg. I am talking about our area. He does not come to Upington and Gordonia.

I want to point out to the hon. member that this involves new legislation.

But it is in connection with the appointment. I am asking now that the department should take into consideration local circumstances to a greater extent, and that it should appoint men from those areas.

In that case the hon. member may proceed.

This is the experience, that we spend millions of pounds on land settlement, and then we find eventually that the land is divided into small plots, and that those plots are too small for the people to make a living. From time to time the House is asked to write off. The House is asked to increase the size of the plots, and in each of these cases where application is made for writing off, one of the two reasons for it is that the plots are too small. If we want to go in for intensive land settlement, one of the first things to be taken into consideration is the question whether these people can make a proper living on those plots. I think that up to the present the department has not devoted sufficient attention to that. The maxim is laid down, for example, that seven morgens of land is sufficient for any person, but everything depends, of course, on the land. Where a person may make a fair living on five morgens along the Orange River, for example, it is quite possible that he will not be able to make a living on five morgens in certain areas of the Transvaal, and for that reason I think that the department should go into the matter.

I think even along the Orange River seven morgens are in many cases not sufficient.

Yes, I agree; seven morgens are not sufficient. I think we allow ourselves to be guided by that type of farm in Europe. But we must not lose sight of the fact that there are better marketing facilities for the people’s products, and that the land is probably better there. But in this country the farmer cannot exist on such small plots, and for that reason I want to ask the Minister that in future, when distributing land to settlers, his department should not make the holdings too small, because eventually the farmers will only come back to the department in order to ask that the extent of the plots be increased, and that a large amount be written off. There is another case which struck me in connection with the department, and it is this, that when land is purchased, all the possibilities in connection with the future development of the land are not taken into consideration. It sometimes happens that large costly irrigation works are established, the irrigation works cost millions of pounds, and then the land is divided into plots of seven or eight morgen and these people are asked to make application, and then the land is allocated. And then one finds eventually that the water supplies of that scheme are not sufficient, and I think that before the department proceeds to allocate the land to settlers under such a scheme, they should first ascertain whether there is a sufficient water supply. I think that the Department of Lands and the Department of Irrigation should work hand in hand in such a case. No scheme ought to be started unless proper investigation has first been made in connection with the water supply. The Minister probably knows himself that great land settlement schemes have been established in the past, and that after a number of years it appeared that the water supplies were not sufficient, and then these people come to the department with supplications, saying that they cannot make a living. Then it appears that the available water sources were not invesitgated. The catchment areas were not properly investigated, and the Department of Lands did not receive a report in connection with the matter.

Have you a case in mind which you can mention where the water supply was insufficient?

Yes, I am thinking of the case which came before the Select Committee. I do not know whether I will be in order in dealing with it. I refer to the Kaffir River scheme. In that connection, it is quite clear that the Department of Irrigation was never consulted about the water supplies there, and after a number of years it appeared that those water supplies were not sufficient for the irrigation of those plots, and the Government is now being asked to write off. This is a serious matter. I think it ought to be the policy of the Government that before such a scheme is introduced, they should satisfy themselves that there is sufficient water.

The Kaffir River scheme should never have been undertaken.

The House is sometimes quite concerned about the policy of the Minister in connection with the land which he wants to reserve for returned soldiers. Well, I am not one of those people who is so concerned about it, because the majority of returned soldiers do not make a success of farming. In this country we have had proof of that fact since 1902 and 1903.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member knows that Lord Milner placed soldiers on farms, and that only 5 per cent. of them made a success of it.

What do you know?

My father had a farm in the Transvaal, and I can assure you that not one of those people are there today.

Were they farmers?

Yes, and they are no longer there today. This also happened after the war of 1914-T8 at the Sondags River, in the Graaff-Reinet district, and in the district of Clanwilliam; there numerous returned soldiers were established. There is only one place where returned soldiers made a success of farming, and that is at Westminster in the Free State. I challenge the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) to deny that the returned soldiers did not make a success of farming. He cannot deny it. And for that reason, however good the Minister’s intentions may be, I am convinced that if a person is not destined to be on the land, if a man has no predeliction for the land, he will never make a success of farming. Everything will depend on the individual. The Minister is going to make an experiment, and I want to predict that that experiment will not succeed; perhaps it will succeed to the extent of 10 per cent., but the experiment as a whole will not be a success. I know the Minister will say that there are many sons of farmers amongst the returned soldiers. Yes, but it takes a person accustomed to the platteland and who knows something of farming, to make a success of it.

But the Minister is not going to do anything for them; this is just propaganda.

No, because you are going to take over.

I just want to tell the Minister this: There are more than 1,900 plots which are vacant today.

More or less.

Take the Riet River scheme, for example. It costs over £1,000,000, and the greatest portion of that scheme is being reserved for returned soldiers. Now, that land has to lie idle and unproductive during all this time. I want to tell the Minister that if he does not want that land to be unproductive, he will have to start farming there. I have ascertained that State farming was started there to a certain extent, but that it was not a success.

That was a hopeless failure.

Every farmer should give personal attention to the development of his plots. I could quote quite a few cases from the report of the Auditor-General, where he indicates that various rules in connection with the valuation of land were contravened, where the Land Board did not act lawfully. I do not know whether I will be in order, but I just want to ask the Minister to refer to page 269 of the report. There the Auditor-General reports that valuations did not take place according to the legal principles which were laid down. I would very much like the Minister whose responsibility it is, to give his attention to those cases. Then there is this one case which to a certain extent I find unpleasant to deal with. In my constituency there is an inspector of lands who does not enjoy the confidence of the public, and I put a question to the Minister which he will find in Hansard (2nd February to 6th February on page 1619) in connection with the properties which the previous Government bought on the northern bank of the Orange River. I asked the Minister—

The Minister replied that these farms had been leased, but that two of them, namely, Avondale and Koras, were vacant. Now I want to tell the Minister what happened on those two farms. Today there are 800 cattle on those two farms which belong to a person named Lichtenstein, and he is a speculator. I am not talking about something of which I do not know. I would have liked to have details concerning this.

What are the names of the two farms?

Avondale and Koras.

You say that Luchtenstein’s cattle are on those farms?

Yes. In a moment I shall read a letter to you. I want to tell the Minister that the Inspector of Lands is very worried that the farms there are being tramped out too much, and he keeps careful supervision to see that no overgrazing takes place. Now all these farms have been leased, but those two farms have not been leased; but the remarkable thing is that those farms are at the moment being fenced, and they are not being allocated. And the person who is fencing them is the Inspector of Lands.

Where could he have got the wire?

The person who fences these farms is the Inspector of Lands, and how is it that he is fencing the farms while they are vacant, and the policy of the Government is that no land is being allocated? And when it is allocated, it must be done on application. Here I have a letter which is signed by a Justice of the Peace. He writes as follows—

This letter was written on the 4th March, 1942. It reads further—

This is Crown land. And further—

I then put a question in regard to that.

You will accept it if I say that we did not award an inch of land.

Yes, I accept it. I am not blaming the Minister, but I feel that it is my duty as a representative of that area to bring this to the notice of the Minister. The letter further reads—

I then put certain questions. I was asked to investigate the matter, and I then put questions, and it is clear from the Minister’s reply that these farms were not allocated. The letter is signed by a Justice of the Peace who wrote to me in connection with this matter, and I shall hand the letter over to the Minister if he wants it.

Why did you not hand it over earlier?

It is my duty to raise this matter, and I am not going to be told by that member what my duty is. I am here in the interests of my constituency, but the position is this, that it is general knowledge in that district that those farms are also being fenced.

Where does he get the wire?

What right has that person to fence these farms? I asked the Minister whether a fencing loan had been granted to this man, and the reply was that no such loan had been made to him. But the Inspector of Lands did good business. Some years ago a Government farm was allocated to him, and he sold the farm to great advantage, and now the accusation is that he is engaged in getting these two farms for his own purposes. I want to tell the Minister that it is absolutely necessary, as a matter of justice and in order to calm the feelings there, for his department to investigate the matter. During the last few years we had a very severe drought in Gordonia, and other people applied for that land with a view to getting grazing. They could not get it, and they feel hurt because there are such a large number of cattle on the farm today which belong to a foreigner in South-West; and I ask the Minister to investigate this matter thoroughly. I also have here a number of cases in connection with favouritism on the part of the Inspector of Lands. It appears that some of these farms do not adjoin the river. The water supply of the farmers who have land removed from the river became exhausted during the great drought, and some farmers kindly conceded a right of way to farmers whose farms were not adjoining the river, and who did not have water, so that their cattle could drink at the Orange River. In some cases the Inspector of Lands permitted this and did not raise any objection, but in other cases he told these people that if they permitted it again, they would have to trek. He pointed out to them that it was one of the conditions of their contract that no grazing could be supplied to others. For that reason I say that there was favouritism. I have a number of cases here. On the one hand farmers were allowed to bring their cattle through to the Orange River in order to drink, and in other cases that was not permitted. I can assure the Minister that these people feel very hurt about the matter. Now I want to ask the Minister this. I want to ask him seriously to take into consideration the circumstances prevailing there and with which he is familiar. In the event of such a great drought as there was — and there is a farm not adjoining the river where the water supply becomes exhausted, as it did this year—the Minister ought to instruct his inspectors of land to assist those people to get through to the river with their cattle. That would be only merciful. Strictly according to law this is not permissible, but I want to ask the Minister to go into the matter and to instruct his inspectors of land, in the event of abnormal circumstances, is was the case during the great drought, where a man asks for a right of way to the river for drinking facilities for his cattle, to concede that right. There is such a thing in the Roman Dutch law as an emergency right of way. Let the department also institute emergency facilities in such cases. I do not see why this cannot be allowed. I think that after the information which I have now given the Minister, and which I have given him bona fide, he ought to go into the matter and see to it that justice prevails: and, if the inspector of lands acted improperly, to remove him. I can tell the Minister that it is felt there that all the inspectors of lands attached to other places are exchanged from time to time, but the Minister has told me that the inspector at Gordonia is an institution.

I did not say so; I said that he had become an institution there.

I can tell you that no person in the world is indispensible, and it would be a good thing if the Minister were to investigate the matter. I mentioned last year that the inspector of lands did other things too, that he even said to people that if they would contribute something they would probably get the land; if they were to give him something they would get the land. Here I have a letter. Last year I did not have the letter with me, and the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) then wanted to make out that I was telling lies.

Will you give me the letter?

Yes, I shall give it to you. [Time limit].

Mr. Chairman, I think it is regrettable that a member like the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) should advertise grievances here on the floor of the House which would be much better presented to the department, and attacking an official who is not here to defend himself. I think it would have been much more satisfactory for the individual concerned if the department had been approached directly and the matter had not been brought here on the floor of the House.

Why not?

I don’t think the floor of the House is here for petty grievances, and for attacks on officials. Then I am surprised that the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) resented the idea that the Minister of Lands should withhold any allocation of lands for settlement until after the war. He said there was a land hunger in this country which had to be satisfied. Well, I think the men who have demonstrated that they have land hunger are those who are fighting for this land. I regard a man who is not prepared to fight for this land in this world war is merely a parasite. The men who are worthy of this land are the men who are fighting for it, and I appeal to the Minister not to allocate any land until the men who have demonstrated their love for it are back here. They should have the chance. I associate myself with the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson), and I think that when our soldier boys return every precaution should be taken to see that they make a success of farming. I would like to see the agricultural colleges thrown open to them, and if there is not sufficient accommodation there, I am certain that if the Government appealed to farmers in this country, they will take these soldier boys on their farms and enable them to gain experience, and then we shall be able to determine more definitely whether they are likely to make a success of farming or not. I feel, too, that if we settle men on our dry areas we should see that they have sufficient land to carry at least a thousand sheep. I do not think any farmer can make a success there unless he has ground to run at least a thousand sheep. I feel it would be much more advisable to settle these men on our irrigation schemes or on our coast areas, where the rainfall is more certain. Farming is a precarious living in South Africa, and we all know from experience, and members of Parliament tell us across the floor how the farming community is always in difficulties. There is nearly always a drought somewhere, and I feel that if our soldier boys who have proved themselves worthy of ownership of this land should be definitely assured of making a success of their farming ventures. I appeal to the Minister to do his best for them, and I ask him not to allocate any land until after the war, and that those who have proved their true love for this land will receive the preference.

There are a few matters which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. One is in connection with the various settlements which he has in the Cape Province. It would appear that as a result of the good work which the hon. Minister did—or shall I say that previous Ministers also did—an accumulation of families now come to certain places in the Cape Province from various parts of the Union under that settlement scheme. The hon. Minister will readily admit that he makes his grants to settlers, not only to persons resident in the district where the settlement is, but also to people from other parts of the Union. Well, later on a very serious state of affairs will arise with regard to the education of the children of those settlers. The other day I put a question to the Minister as to how many settlers there were on the Vaal Hartz irrigation scheme. The Minister’s reply was that there were 300 settlers on the settlement, and the children of those 300 settlers must receive tuition. He also said, in reply to a further question of mine, that there were no less than three schools at Vaal Hartz. One school was at Andalusia, where there were 108 pupils; at another there were 246 pupils, and at another school there were 351 pupils. These are all children of the Minister’s settlers. Those pupils receive instruction in the schools of the Provincial Administration. I concede that. But I went further and asked the Minister how much the Provincial Administration contributed to the education of the children in other respects, with regard to schooling requirements, for example. He gave me the figures for three years commencing with 1939. During the first year it was £430; the second year it was £260, and in respect of the third year it was £345. That was in respect of school books, writing materials, and such things. But I also ask the Minister whether some of that money did not come from the local bodies? I do not know whether the Minister or his department did not like to obtain that information for me, or whether he could not obtain it from the Provincial Administration. I am now ascertaining from the Provincial Department how much of that money was contributed by the local bodies.

The Provincial Administration gets back a certain percentage from the Divisional Council.

I am very glad that the Minister admits that.

The Provincial Administration has to pay it in the first instance; and then there is a refund of a portion by the Divisional Council concerned.

I am glad the Minister admits this but this is the point I want to make. In view of the fact that that is the case, I now want to ask the Minister whether he thinks it is right that a poor Divisional Council, such as the Divisional Council of Vryburg, which has to serve a tremendous area and which has to get its funds from taxpayers in order to make roads and to do such things—I want to ask him whether he thinks it is fair and right that such a Divisional Council should pay this money in respect of children who have come to that settlement from all parts of the country. The Minister himself knows how extremely difficult it is for the Divisional Council of Vryburg to make roads from the meagre sum it gets from the taxpayers of those areas. That Divisional Council has now to pay for the education of the children at Vaal Hartz. I am certain that the Minister will feel, and will admit, that that ought not to be the position. I personally know that the Provincial Council passed an Ordinance, according to which it is expected that the Divisional Council concerned should contribute to the cost of the books and other schooling requirements of poor children. But that Ordinance was passed on the basis of normal and usual circumstances. In this case we are not faced by normal circumstances. We are faced here by decidedly abnormal circumstances. We are faced here by decidedly abnormal circumstances, because those children come to that settlement from all parts of the Union, and I maintain that it is not reasonable to expect the local Divisional Council to bear the burden in respect of all those poor children. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give his attention to this matter.

I have already raised the matter with the Provincial Administration.

I am very glad to hear that, because I know that pressure is brought to bear on the Divisional Council to contribute this money. The burden becomes heavier and heavier. It is like a snowball. I know that the Minister’s department expects that approximately 2,000 settlers will go there. If we take it that every family consists of five children, it means that 10,000 children will have to receive tuition, and that there will be many poor children who have to be assisted with school books and writing materials, and that Divisional Council will not be in a position to do it. I am glad that the Minister agrees that this matter will be put right between his department and the Administration. The other matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister is that in connection with Crown land titles. I am glad that the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has also mentioned the fact that the settlers ought to be regarded as the children of the Administration. They are children of the department, and the department ought to assist them as far as possible in order to put them on their feet. With that view in mind, we passed the Act that the settlers, after having been in possession of their land for a certain period of years, and after having effected certain improvements on it, should be entitled to get Crown land titles. According to the provisions of that Act, they are entitled in such circumstances to the Department of Lands securing the balance of the purchase price by means of a bond on that property. They can get a mortgage bond from the Government. That is what the Act lays down. That is the concession promised to those people in the Act, that is what they ought to receive if they effect certain improvements to their plots. Now it appears from numbers of cases which are brought to our notice that the department does not always act in that spirit. I know of people who have been on the settlements for ten and fifteen years and who have acquired the right to a Crown land title. When they make application for a Crown land title they also apply for this concession, that they will get a mortgage bond from the Government on the balance of the purchase price. They want a mortgage bond through the Department of Lands, and then the Department of Lands refuses to give it to them, although it is admitted that they are entitled to the titles. I have here a letter which was sent to me in which a person writes that he applied for the Crown land titles, and that the Government is prepared to grant it to him, but that it is not prepared to let him have a bond in respect of the balance of the purchase price. I should like to hear why the Minister is not prepared to grant that concession to these people. As far as my knowledge extends of those areas the land is sufficient security for the bond. I have a letter here relating to a request to the Land Bank for a bond, because the Department of Lands refused to grant it. The amount in this case is £550. That is the balance of the purchase price. Now we find that the Minister does not want to give his permission to the grant of the bond to the person concerned. [Time limit.]

As usual, the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) made an attack on the Inspector of Lands in the Gordonia district. As usual, it was a paper bomb which did not even explode. When the matter which he raised is investigated, it will probably be found that there is nothing in it. But the Inspector of Lands to whom he referred must for some reason or other be a thorn in the flesh of that hon. member, because the hon. member has been trying for a long time to persuade the Minister of Lands to dismiss him. Heaven knows what the reason for it is. I had the opportunity of travelling with that Inspector of Lands for a week, and he never spoke ill of the hon. member for Gordonia, and to come here and state that that Inspector of Lands is unpopular with the public in those parts—well, such a statement is devoid of all truth. That may be the case in the circle of confidantes of the hon. member for Gordonia. Generally speaking, he is very popular in the district, and not only popular with the public, but he is even beloved. What is so remarkable to me is that the hon. member has had that letter in his pocket since the 4th March, and he did not go to the Minister or to the department to clear up the matter. Then I come to the allotment of Crown land. I am very glad that it is the policy of the Government to hold over the grant of Crown land until after the war, so that the soldiers who offered their lives and who risked everything will also get a chance to come into the market for that land when it is distributed. The hon. member for Gordonia says that he is not concerned about the fact that those soldiers will perhaps also get a portion of the land, but he says that they will not make a success of it. To a certain extent it is true that in the past where soldiers have been placed on settlements they have not always made a success of it. But what was the reason? We had the case in the valley of the Sondags River, where land was sold to people in England on false pretences. They came here with a photograph in their hands of orange groves bearing fruit, and in reality they found that they had to start levelling the ground and planting the trees before they could get a crop. What can we expect in such circumstances? Nothing but that a few farmers must first go bankrupt on that land before they can make a success of it. No, when these soldiers return we shall know that it will be hardened men who will get that land, and we have the fullest confidence that they will make a success of it, but only under the guidance of the Department of Lands and of the Minister. In those circumstances these people will be placed on land where they can make a living. The land will be large enough to enable them to make a living. It will not be too small, and they will not be burdened with a capital liability which it is impossible for them to meet. For that reason I am glad that the Minister gave us the assurance last year already that in allotting plots, due regard will be had to the capital liability which these people can undertake on those plots. A plea has also been made here that land should not be allotted in the arid parts of the country. I cannot agree that land should only be bought in the eastern parts of the Cape and in Natal. I want to say that there is nothing which gives a settlement such a stable means of livelihood as sheep farming. For that reason I am glad that the Minister has already bought a large piece of land, and when the opportunity arises I hope that he will buy even more land. The price which is paid is not always a criterion as to the value of the land. We often find that an expensive farm is not always the best farm. I also hope that the Minister in replying this evening or tomorrow will tell this House and the country about the settlement at Hakskeenpan, where coloured people have been placed, partly by the previous government and partly by himself, and also along the Orange River. Those coloured persons have been enabled to develop along their own lines. Where they are farming there are jackal, not by the dozen, but by the hundred, and the same applies to lynx, and in those dry conditions they make a fair success of life. Since the Minister proposes to give a greater number of coloured people this opportunity in certain parts of South-West, I am certain that once he has made the acquaintance of and come into contact with those coloured people, he will be convinced that his undertaking will be a success. I should like to thank the Minister on behalf of the irrigators in the valley of the Sondags River, where he has granted them a sum of £2,000 to repair a canal which was shifted. When representations were made to the Minister he provided the money without any difficulties, and I trust that if this £2,000 appears to be insufficient, he will provide a further amount. During the last session the Minister met certain farmers in the Sondags River valley to a great extent, because by Act of Parliament he wrote off £18,710 on 25 farms, and an amount of £11,600 on 19 farms. Those people got into difficulties as a result of the poor market for their products. Their existence was practically threatened, and as a result of this step which the Minister took, there are some prospects for them again. They asked me specially to convey thanks to the Minister, in the first place, and also to the Cabinet, for the assistance which was given to them. With these few words I want to thank the Minister for the concession he made.

I just want to tell the hon. member who has just sat down that I do not know how often he has visited the Gordonia constituency. I was there twice recently, and I want to endorse what the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) said, namely, that the present Inspector of Lands in Gordonia is certainly not a desirable person, nor is he a beloved person. I leave the matter there, because I think the hon. member for Gordonia has furnished sufficient proof that this is a matter which ought to receive the attention of the Minister of Lands, and I am convinced that the Minister will not allow himself to be soft-soaped, as that hon. member tried to do, but that he will do his duty by investigating the matter. In the second place, I want to associate myself with the plea that was made by the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. du Plessis) with regard to the support to be given in respect of books for the poor children at Vaal Hartz. Those children are in my constituency. The divisional council in regard to which the hon. member spoke, is in my constituency. I want to say, for his information, that the Divisional Council of Vryburg contributed £250 in 1940 in respect of books, and in 1941 it contributed £500. But we are not only asking questions. We approached the Minister personally, and we know that a start has been made with the matter. We are engaged upon the matter, and we hope to remove the real difficulties which there are, so that the Provincial Administration will meet the Divisional Council of Vryburg with regard to the money it has to expend in the interests of the children of Vaal Hartz. I know that the Minister is sympathetic in so far as this matter is concerned. At the beginning of the session I had an interview with him.

Who approached you?

It is not necessary for any person to approach me. These children are in my constituency.

In whose constituency is the Divisional Council?

The children are in my constituency, and the Divisional Council is that of Vryburg, but it also serves a large area of my constituency. I do not know why the hon. member for Vryburg wants to quarrel with me because I support him and because I give him some information, which he did not have, in regard to what the Divisional Council has already paid. I hope that Kuruman will assist Vryburg in getting this money back. I want to support the hon. member, not quarrel with him. Then I want to say a few words with regard to Vaal Hartz. I was under the impression that the department now proposed to pass those probationary lessees. I notice that there was an amount of £81,000 on the budget last year for these probationary lessees. This year there is £75,000 on the budget, a reduction of only £6,000. It appears to me, therefore, that in the year 1942—’43 these probationary lessees will still not be passed, or at any rate only a few. If that is the state of affairs, I should like to know from the Minister what the reason for it is. Those people have been there long enough for the department to be able to know whether they will be suitable on the scheme. Last year I asked the Minister for information, but I have not yet received a reply, namely, whether the department has already decided what these plots are going to cost. I know that these people are at the moment like a bird on the wing, because they do not know what their land will cost, and I think that this is an opportune time for us to get a statement from the Minister what this land will cost these people. In connection with Vaal Hartz, I want to raise a small matter here, and I hope that the Minister will lend an ear to it. In previous debates we have heard from the Minister and others how matters stood at Vaal Hartz. At the moment these people are making a fair income, but the whole thing is based on a false foundation. That position exists there as a result of the war. There are internment camps in the neighbourhood, and if the war were to come to an end tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, what would then become of these people? I know that the Minister is well disposed towards the establishment of a canning factory at Vaal Hartz, and I should like him, as the responsible Minister, to make a statement in that connection, so that we can see whether we cannot now tackle this matter of establishing a factory there. If it cannot be established now we can at least lay the foundations for it. Then I should like to say something in general in reply to the representations which were made by practically every speaker on the other side, namely, that the settlement lands should be held over for the returned soldiers. That is what those people ask for. Just let me take two of our irrigation schemes, namely, the Vaal Hartz scheme, and the Riet River scheme which was completed recently. They cost the State £8,500,000 at the very least. Let us take this year’s figures. The maintenance charges of Vaal Hartz are £86,000 this year. Riet River cost £1,500,000. The maintenance charges amount to £45,000, a total therefore of £131,000 for these two irrigation works. According to the Department of Lands, there are approximately 300 settlers at Vaal Hartz. I think that every business man will feel that this is an untenable position. Three hundred people must give an indirect income to the State on an amount of £8,500,000 which was spent, and, in addition to that, in respect of an annual expenditure of £131,000 on maintenance. And then we get members on the other side who say that those lands should remain idle until the war is over. I cannot agree with the Minister’s policy that those lands should not be allotted during the war. It is the general opinion that the war will still last for a long time. The construction of the dry dock in Cape Town will take two and a half years, and the Minister of Railways stated that he was of opinion that that dry dock would still be of service during the war. The Government is therefore of opinion that the war will last for at least another three years. If this goes on, what are those settlement lands going to cost the State? It will be millions and millions, and this is money which will not earn any interest. Let me take one item. I notice that in the case of Riet River, there is £7,000 in respect of artificial manure and equipment. During the last season, the department sent 300 bags of wheat to this irrigation work. That wheat was not sown. It was sent back again, I do not know where. Thereafter they sent 200 bags of potatoes. I do not know whether they were planted. I did not see them. But now we again find £7,000 on the Budget for such things. I want to emphasise what an hon. member has already said, namely, that you cannot make a success of farming if you do not take a personal interest in it. If there is one thing which is true, then it is that we cannot farm by proxy. Your own interests must be at stake. The Minister, as a practical farmer, knows that himself. It is wasteful to spend money in that way. The State will not get any value for it. Our country is already being taxed to the last penny in order to get money for the war, and here we are spending £131,000 per annum on maintaining two irrigation works, and only 300 people are established there. I think that the Minister should immediately change his policy, at least in so far as the settlements are concerned, and place people there who will have a direct interest in their farming operations, so that the State, as such, can draw interest on its money; so that we can feel that those settlements are really an asset to the State. As the position is at present, it is only an asset to a small number of people, and we cannot allow the country’s money to be used only for such a small number of people. [Time limit.]

I should like at this stage to answer a few of the points which have been raised so far. Let me say at once that I very much appreciate the spirit in which the criticism has been levelled, except in the one case, namely, that of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), who, whenever he gets up here, can do nothing but throw mud and distort things. He is loyal to his master’s voice in Keerom Street. Take, for instance, this question of the holding back of farms or holdings for the period of the war. If I have said it once I have said it twenty times, but they have come back twenty times and they have misrepresented the position, and they contend that I want to hold back the land for returned soldiers. I have no right to reserve land for a certain section of the public, and I have never said I would do it. The hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) made a speech earlier on in which he said that he was glad that I intended holding back land until the soldiers returned so that they would have an equal chance with other people when applications were invited. The hon. member for Moorreesburg represented the hon. member as having said that the intention was to hold on to the land for returned soldiers. The hon. member for Moorreesburg has challenged us three or four times to make a statement. I am going to make my statement again, and it is this, that the Government has laid it down as its policy that whether our friends of the Opposition, and whether the hon. member for Moorreesburg agrees with it or not, we are not, while our sons are fighting up North, going to distribute farms to those who have remained behind. Whether the hon. members opposite wanted our young men to have stayed in this country and to have handed over the country to the enemy or not—that is our policy. We have heard so often from the other side that the war would be over in a few months’ time and they would then take over the reins of Government, when they would deal with the land as they pleased and we would not get an inch of it. Well, we are in this war as a result of the mandate this House has given us, this House which is the supreme sovereign body in the country, and our young men who are fighting up North today are patriots of the first water, who are protecting our country up there, and I say it is our duty when these men come back, these men who are defending South Africa, to do all we can for them. I say that nothing we can do will be too good for these men. The hon. member challenged me to tell the House what our policy is. The Government will not allot any land until such time as those people who are fighting for our freedom return, so that at least when the land is issued they will have an equal chance of also securing a piece of land. We are not, while they are fighting up North, going to supply the people who are sitting here behind their backs with land so that when these people return from the North they will not have an opportunity—we are not going to give out the land and let these men, when they return, go and look for work. That is our policy. The hon. member in a most defiant manner again said that there was an election going on in Namaqualand, and he told me that I must know why he had been there, and he said he was sure that I was also going to Namaqualand, so he was going to shut me up in advance and he was going to stop me. I know that he was there, and I have also read part of his speech in which he said that the Minister would be coming to the constituency, and that he was going to make all sorts of promises. I have never yet run an election in that way, nor is there any need for me to go there to make promises. I have never yet been guilty of making promises during an election; I have never yet abused my position by making promises which I have no intention of carrying out. In regard to the raising of the dam wall, the hon. member is afraid that I am going to tell those people there that the dam wall will be raised. Well, eighteen months ago, when those people came to see me with a deputation, and when they asked me to have their walls raised because there was a shortage of water, especially at the lower end of the Olifants River, I agreed to have an investigation made. One of the engineers of the department has been to see me and has told me that provision has already been made for that purpose, but that steel shutters are required for the raising of the dam wall, and that we shall not be able to get them during the war. Iron and steel are almost unobtainable, but the promise I made will be carried out when the war is over. The wall will be built and the people on the Olifants River will not be so unreasonable as to say that I made a promise which I am not going to carry out. As I have said, steel is almost unobtainable at the moment. Then the hon. member has heard something about a letter, and he asks whether I am responsible for that letter. Well, I need not take any notice of these “hear” stories. The hon. member further spoke of startling declarations which I am prone to make from time to time, and he said that I made a startling statement in Another Place about a large irrigation scheme which I intended having enquired into and which I was going to try to put through. I don’t want to go into those startling statements now. When the Irrigation Vote is under discussion I intend telling the farmers of this House about that plan and we can then hear whether they regard it as a startling statement. That is enough, I think, so far as the hon. member for Moorresburg is concerned. I repeat that for the rest I appreciate the spirit in which hon. members have criticised the department. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) has made an appeal to me, and he said: “Look here, I have repeatedly asked the Minister to try to give relief to the people on the Karos-Buchuberg Settlement.” He has reminded me of the fact that I made a promise during the last session of Parliament to have an enquiry made into the conditions prevailing there, and that I would look into the question as to whether these people have been charged too much for their land, whether the department is making the people pay too much for their plots, and whether the holdings on which they are settled are economic, and that I had promised to have an investigation made into the whole question. Now let me tell the hon. member that I have carried out my promise. I have had a proper investigation made into the whole position at KarosBuchuberg. These people have lodged complaints with me from time to time, just as the hon. member has done, to the effect that the price at which their holdings have been valued is too high, that some of those holdings are not payable, that other holdings are subject to silt because the furrows, when they were made, were not lined with cement. I must say that just as at other settlements it was not the policy of the department in those days to line the canals with cement, and I think that that was an omission in regard to the first settlements. That is not the case only at Karos-Buchuberg, but also in regard to other canals in other parts where there has been no cement lining. That is the cause of there being so much silt, and that is the reason for some holdings having become uneconomic. That also applies to Brits and Hartebeestpoort. I shall come back to that point afterwards. The result is that some of the holdings are uneconomic. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) drew attention to the fact that in connection with holdings which had been allotted insufficient attention has been given to the question of fertility or the adequate size of the holdings to enable people to make an economic existence on these places. That is so. That also applies to Karos-Buchuberg. According to the information which I have had since the investigation was made, that is the case. I am told in the report that there are holdings which are not economic. There are holdings where the land is not fertile enough to enable the people to make a decent living. I have given an undertaking, and I repeat it tonight, that as long as I am at the head of the department and am responsible for settlements, whether they are farms or irrigation settlements, I want the people who have been settled on those holdings to carry out their commitments in accordance with the terms of the contract entered into with them. That is to say, they will have to pay their rent, they have to work their holdings properly in terms of the regulations of the department, and the department will see to it that they do not rob the land of its fertility because it remains Government property until such time as those people get their Crown land title deeds. We shall treat the settlers on those lands well, but if we are convinced that the holdings are big enough, and that the price is not too high, so that they can make a decent living on it, then we shall make the demands which I have just mentioned, but if we are not convinced that the holdings are on an economic basis then we have not got the right to demand anything that savours of the impossible from these people. For that reason we have made an investigation, and now I want to tell the hon. member that in the course of last year, since the last session, we have already written off in maintenance allowances which were due an amount of £29,000. That amount has been added to the amount of the debt. Then there is an amount of £7,000 for medical debts. The department has not yet written that off. We still have to come to an arrangement with the Treasury, but we shall make representations to the Treasury for that amount also to be written off, because we are convinced that those people cannot pay it. That debt was incurred at a time when these people there had no income, and were actually starving in many cases. So this £29,000 has already been written off, and we are going to take steps to get the £7,000 also written off. But now I again come to the investigation which was subsequently made. What do we find? There are holdings averaging seven or eight morgen which have been issued, and when they were issued a policy was laid down, and the settlers were instructed to put two of their seven morgen under citrus.

Or sultanas.

No, that was a separate provision. They had to put two morgen under citrus, and also a part under sultanas. As hon. members who themselves have citrus trees know it takes at least four years before one can get any return from citrus trees; consequently for four years these people have not had any income from those trees. And in regard to sultanas, they have unfortunately had two crop failures out of three crops.

Four crops have failed as a result of frost.

Yes, there have been crop failures caused by frost. The research work which we have done shows that during a certain period in September the frost strikes through areas there. If one can prevent the vines from shooting out during that short period in September, then one has a chance of getting one’s sultanas through, and of missing the frost. We are now trying to find out whether it is not possible to miss the frost. This year they are having a first class crop, but what have they paid for the orange trees and the sultanas which have been supplied to them? In those days they were probationary tenants. That is to say, those things were given to them. When they eventually passed, everything had to be valued, and a valuation had to be fixed, and it had to be determined what these probationary tenants had to pay for their holdings. The hon. member says that the holdings have been valued too high. That is not so. The figure of £100 which the hon. member mentions is also wrong. The average price of the valuation was £40 and £50 per morgen, and that is not too high for those holdings along the Orange River, but now we come to the houses which have been put up. Unfortunately we have not done too well with those houses. The people there entered into a big contract and the contractors have done them down very badly, but the houses were there and they have cost so much, and the price has been added to their debt. We now find that the houses have been very badly constructed with old bricks and so on, and large numbers of them are beginning to crack. And other houses again have been built on sand.

Cannot you bring a case against the contractor?

That I cannot say, the matter has been disposed of. The department has tried to repair the houses as much as possible, and according to the report there seem to be more houses which have to be repaired, but the people have to pay the full price for those houses. Then another mistake was made, and that is that the people were compelled to plant orange trees, because after four years they found that orange trees would not take there. Orange trees should never have been planted there, and the people have now started to take the trees out. In the meantime the valuation of the holdings has been increased by the amount which the department had charged for 400 orange trees, namely, £200. The people had to wait four years before they could get any revenue after the £200 had been added to their debt, and it was then found that orange trees would not answer there. In regard to sultanas, instead of making the people pay what the sultanas cost the department, and the same applies to the orange trees, they were charged more. The orange trees were valued after four years and the valuation was put at 10s. and the vines were also valued too high. The vines were valued at £37,000 more than what they had cost. The valuators now say that they valued these things at the time when they had to make the valuation after the trees had stood there for four years. But they lost sight of the fact that although those people had been receiving relief from the Government they were the same people who had planted these trees and who had looked after them for four years. The vineyards were valued at £57,304 more than they had cost, and the orange trees were valued at £4,019 more than they had cost. When the citrus trees had to start bearing it was found that they did not grow properly there, and that the frost was killing them. In order to protect the trees the people thereupon decided to plant peach trees. They clubbed together and bought trees and those trees were planted for protection against wind and frost. When the trees grew big they found that they were trees which did not bear. Anyhow, these people were more in debt than ever, and they were stuck with their peach and orange trees which do not bear. So we get the following picture of the position:

Now I want to tell my hon. friend that the department will take steps also to try and get this £44,576 written off. This is an amount far beyond the cost which was incurred and it was calculated at a time when the people had practically no income. Now I come to a point which has been raised by several hon. members and I shall deal with it as one point. From the time I took charge of the Department of Lands we have introduced a policy that the Department of Lands is a business department. Lands cost the country millions of pounds. If you reckon what the settlements cost and the irrigation work in connection with those settlements it runs into millions. When the Act was passed in 1912 the intention was to do something for those people, especially on the platteland who at that time were living in conditions of great poverty. The Department of Lands was to be created which would have the task of placing people on settlements, and the people to be so settled would be the poorest of the poor. The settlers were to be people who had practically nothing, and an attempt was to be made to rehabilitate them. Now we should bear in mind that if you want to rehabilitate people you have to do two things. The one is that if you put a man on a holding you must be convinced that if that man puts his shoulder to the wheel and if he has got energy and he does his best that he will not make a decent existence for himself and his family, but that he will be able to have something over so that he may have some hope in life and may depend on getting a piece of ground in his own name and on becoming an independent citizen of the country. That was the department’s object, but that object has degenerated in the course of time. How has it degenerated? It has degenerated in this way, that we find that the settlers for whom these holdings were intended—that is to say, for the settler, his wife and a few minor children—that was the position when they applied—in the course of time had two or three grown up sons. Some of them got married and today all of them are on those holdings with their families. Then there are also cases where the parents of the people have been taken to the holdings with large families. The result is that the department has degenerated not into a Department of Social Welfare but into an organisation which instead of helping people and rehabilitating them has promoted poverty on a great scale, and has caused the people to get into greater misery and greater distress than they were in when the State took hold of them and settled them on the holdings.