as Chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on the Stellenbosch-Elsenburg College of Agriculture Bill, reporting the Bill with amendments.

Report and evidence to be printed; House to go into committee on the Bill on 24th May.

replied to Question VI by Mr. Giovanetti standing over from 11th May.

I move—

Hon. members will see that the proposed amendments of the Service Act of 1925 and the Superannuation Act of the same year are contained in the two short clauses of the Amendment Bill now before the House. The first deals with the language qualification, and if members look at the Act of 1912, section 6, and compare it with section 8 of Act 23 of 1925, then they will see that, according to the 1912 Act, the staff who were in daily employment before 1912 and were thereafter appointed to the clerical staff were exempted from the section in connection with language. In the Act of 1925 it is laid down in section 8 (4) that the provisions of the sub-section should also apply to persons appointed to clerical posts after the 30th of September, 1912, and before the coming into force of the Act of 1925. Unfortunately, it was overlooked that there were some who were in daily employ in the department before 1912 who subsequently got promotion to the clerical staff. Now, according to the Act of 1925, they are called upon to comply with the language qualification provision. That was not the intention, and I think it was unfair that the portion of the staff in daily employment who from 1912 to 1925 were always exempted from the language clause should in 1925 be brought under the provisions and obligations thereof. Therefore, Clause 1 of this Bill proposes, to continue to exempt all those who were in the service before 1912, whether paid daily or monthly, and who after 1912, and before the operation of the Act of 1925, were transferred to the clerical staff, from the clause with regard to language qualification. I think hon. members will not object to that. In answer to a question of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), I said last year that I was prepared to do so, but unfortunately we had then reached the third reading, and all the stages had already passed this House. When I introduced the Bill in another place, I was told that it was impossible to include it, because it meant an increase of expenditure. I therefore want to put the matter right now.

How many of them are there?

Not many. I cannot say how many, but there are, of course, many amongst the staff who were in daily employment before 1912 and were subsequently put on the clerical staff, but were always exempt up to 1925. I will give the number at the committee stage. The second clause of the Bill proposes to make a small alteration in the Superannuation Act as follows: Hon. members will remember that we permitted the daily paid staff, although they only work 26 days per month, to contribute on 30 days for pension purposes. They are enabled in that way to improve their pension. In addition, however, we have the monthly paid staff in similar jobs to the daily paid staff, and their monthly salaries are sometimes less than those of the daily paid persons, but they are not allowed to contribute on the basis of 30 days if they only worked 26 days. The daily paid staff are permitted, under the 1925 Act, to contribute for 30 days, although they have only worked 26. and therefore their position is better than that of the monthly paid persons. Clause 2, therefore, is to put the monthly paid persons in the same position as the daily paid ones. Take an artizan who earns £1 a day in the shops. If he is paid by the day and he only works 26 days, he may contribute for pension purposes on the basis of 30 days, i.e., on £30 instead of £26, the actual amount he earns. Now take a monthly paid workman with a salary of £28. He is not permitted to contribute on the £30 basis, because he is paid by the month, therefore J propose the amendment to enable the monthly paid man to contribute on a 30 days’ basis. They are two minor amendments, and I hope the House will pass them. We wish in this way to do justice to two branches of the staff.

The amendment in the first clause is not quite clear. Does it mean that anyone who entered the service prior to 30th September, 1912, would be exempt ?

Yes. Anyone who was on the daily paid staff and is now on the clerical staff.

It does not say so here.

Yes, you must read it with the old Act.

According to the Bill any man who entered before that date was exempt.

I wish to thank the Minister for carrying out the promise he made, to give protection to the men to whom I drew his attention, and also for section 2 which confers an additional benefit on the monthly paid men not secured to them under the earlier Act. I think in both eases the Minister has met the criticisms of last year, and I see he puts it back to 1st September last, and I am sure the men concerned will feel grateful for this.

In reply to the hon. member for Cape Town Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), I wish to point out that the intention is clear. The Bill has been framed by the law adviser on that basis: employees are exempt who were on the daily paid staff before the 30th September, 1912, in other words those who were in the Service before the 1912 Act came into operation and were subsequently admitted to the clerical staff. Only the members of the clerical staff are subject to the language qualification. Under the terms of the 1925 Act they were also made subject to the language qualification, and that was unfair. Between 1912 and 1925 the language qualification was never imposed upon them and this Bill purports to put that right so that those who were daily paid men before 1912 and were admitted afterwards before 1925 to the clerical staff, are now exempt.

Motion put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on the Bill to-morrow.

I should like to ask the chairman of the Select Committee on Pensions why this case was referred to the Transvaal Provincial Council, and not dealt with by this House ?

It concerns the Provincial Administration, and therefore was referred to it,

When is it possible for the committee to consider the statement on page 498 ?

It is only grants that are considered.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On par. III.

I move—

The circumstances are that the petition was considered by the committee, but insufficient information was available, and it was only after the committee had arrived at its decision that certain other information came to light Under the rules, the committee cannot go back on its previous decision.

I second.

I would like to support the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn). It is perfectly correct that this petition was considered by the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities, of which I happen to be one. The evidence was insufficient and was turned down. The petitioner came down and gave personal evidence, and after the evidence had been given it was plain to some of us that we wanted more information. The majority of the committee agreed that there was very good ground for going into the case further. The original decision was arrived at with insufficient data to go upon. I feel that substantial justice will be done only if we get a further opportunity of reconsidering this case.

Although the select committee rejected the application, I have actually no objection to the matter being referred back to the select committee.

Motion put and agreed to.

Would I be in order in making a certain suggestion and remarks about the winking of the Pensions Committee?

Not in the committee stage.

I would like to ask whether the chairman of the select committee can inform us how many cases have been dealt with, and how many are outstanding at present.

There is nothing before the committee at present, I may point out. When Mr. Speaker is in the chair the hon. member may raise his point.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move— That the report be adopted.

I want to ask the chairman of the Select Committee on Pensions, Grants and Gratuities if he will be good enough to inform me how many petitions have been presented this session, how many have been dealt with, and how many remain over for disposal including those from last sessions.

The numbers are given here. In the first report about 300 petitions are dealt with, and in the second about 200. The numbers are all shown here. There were about 950 petitions sent in and, so far, we have disposed of 508, and there are still 442 for attention. Some of the cases were already dealt with after the second report was made. I can, therefore, not say how many will still remain undisposed of, because it will depend on when the select committee stops sitting. We are still engaged with the matter.

I would like to draw attention to the position we are in on the Pensions Committee. Our plight is similar to that of Sisyphus of old, whose punishment was to be always rolling a stone up a hill, but never succeeded in getting it to the summit, as it always rolled down again. Last year it was about the middle of the session before we tackled any of the petitions presented during that session, and now we have only just commenced to deal with petitions handed in this session, and we have done only a very few of them. If the work continues to accumulate at the same rate, the whole of next session will be devoted to considering the petitions presented this session, thus an impossible position will be created. People come with petitions well re-commended from various departments that their cases should be put right ; many of them are elderly people and in dire want, and yet they have no hope of obtaining redress in under eighteen months. An opportunity should be given to clear up the arrear work. Commissions have been appointed to deal with military pensions. Cannot the Government appoint a commission to deal with civil pensions? If this could be done during the recess, we could then start with a clean sheet next session. I do hope that the Minister will very seriously consider the position and see if he cannot adopt this suggestion.

I have the same difficulty as the former speaker. I sat for three years on the Pensions Committee, and every year the committee sits almost every morning without being able to get through its work. The chairman of the committee has just stated that there are still 400 petitions awaiting attention, and the committee cannot possibly complete them. I will also ask the Government to consider how to get through the petitions once for all. The people who have sent in the petitions are often in great need, and they are entitled to the pensions, but they have to wait eighteen months for the petition to be dealt with. I do not think that is fair, and I ask the Government to see that the remainder of the petitions shall be disposed of.

The difficulty is that we are dealing with a matter which does not in the first place, concern the Government. The petitioners have no statutory right to pensions, and they approach Parliament for ex gratia grants. I do not know whether Government could suggest any machinery by which this matter could be more satisfactorily dealt with. It is a subject for Parliament, which might refer the outstanding petitions to Government for consideration during recess. As to the military pensions their recipients are entitled to them under statutes passed by the House. Numerous people, who have no chance whatever of obtaining a pension, approach Parliament ; we cannot prevent them doing this, and their petitions were referred to the select committee, and thus a lot of time is wasted. I will go into the matter and see whether it will be possible, if Parliament is prepared to pass such a resolution, to refer the outstanding petitions to Government.

Motion put and agreed to ; resolutions transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

I would like some information about the Grootfontein College, which is essentially an Eastern Province institution of which we have been rather proud, regarding it as giving a practical education to farmers. Of late, however, there have been disquieting complaints about the character of the training afforded there, it being stated that it is much more theoretical than practical. In 1925 there were 31 junior students, of whom only 16 returned to take the second year. Most of the reasons seem to bear out my information that the students and their parents were not satisfied with the practical knowledge imparted at Grootfontein. Has any change been made in the curriculum in the direction of making it more practical ? It was stated that during the whole term only two practical demonstrations were made. What inspection is there of these institutions? All our ordinary schools and colleges are inspected. The Minister will know what I refer to when I state that one of the officials at Grootfontein has been suspended or has been allowed to resign. The information only came from outside sources. That to me is a disquieting thing, that the complaints came from outside sources and afterwards from the students themselves. The department apparently had no knowledge of anything whatever being wrong until this information was brought from outside, and this would seem to point to some want of inspection of the institution.

I should like information from the Minister in connection with his intentions with regard to the reorganization of the various agricultural schools in the Union. The scheme was mentioned last year for each agricultural school to deal with a special subject. Other agricultural schools should also give instruction in that subject, but the special school would have special facilities with regard to the defined subject as, e.g., at Potchefstroom with reference to mealie farming, Cedara, dairy industry, etc. The objection then made by us was that the motion was to palm off the Glen Agricultural School with the faculty of poultry breeding. The Free State is the province producing the most mealies, and poultry was to be relegated to it while the other provinces would obtain all the other branches as specialties. I should like to know what the Minister’s present intentions are ? I know he is sympathetically disposed towards the Glen Agricultural School. How far have his plans advanced, and will the Free State be merely given poultry? Then I should like to know what is going to be done in connection with the establishment of a mealie experimental farm in the Free State. I see, although the matter has previously been mentioned, that no provision has been made on the estimates for it. I should like to know whether the Minister has decided to establish such an experimental farm in the Free State, and where? In the third place I want to ask the Minister something with regard to the sum of £1,400 for agricultural education for women, an amount which appears this year for the first time. It would be interesting to us to have information from the Minister as to how the money is to be spent. I know that at the Glen Agricultural School, e.g., ladies are taking certain vacation courses, and I should like to know whether the money is for that purpose or otherwise what it is for ?

I should like to say a few words in connection with the agricultural school at Grootfontein where there is at present a special sheep and wool course and I make bold to say that it is one of the best courses a young man could find in the whole world. Why I want to speak is that in the present circumstances farmers are not sending their sons to the agricultural school to take a two years’ course. The farmer who is worthy of the name can give his sons practical training at home and they do not, therefore, require a two years’ course. It is therefore mostly down boys who take that course. I have nothing against it, but it goes without saying that although some farmers send their sons there for two years it is mostly town boys. According to the regulations the boys who have taken that two years’ course have the preference for the special sheep and wool course, and the result is that the farmers’ sons have not the same opportunities as the townspeople. There is only room for thirty boys at the sheep and wool course and I want to urge upon the Minister that more boys should be taken there. Will it not be possible to increase the facilities so that sixty boys can take the course ? I do not wish to dictate how this is to be done, but I want to advocate the farmers’ sons being put on an equal footing with the town boys. It is unnecessary to say that the Eastern Province is proud of the agricultural school at Grootfontein. With us sheep farming is the great thing, and we want to get the best possible knowledge for our sons there. I think therefore that I am expressing the opinion of every farmer that more facilities should be given for the sheep and wool course.

I would like to ask the Minister a question in regard to the item of £250 for milk and cream at the Grootfontein College for the dairy courses. It is common knowledge that these colleges are supplied with butter and milk from elsewhere, not from their own dairy department, but surely the college is in a position to supply its own milk and cream for dairying demonstrations and dairy work. I would like to hear from the Minister why it is necessary to spend £250 a year at a college like Grootfontein on supplies of milk and cream. There is another item to which I would like to draw attention and that is the Labour Account. I notice that at Grootfontein there is an item of labour for the farm, etc., of £3,600. That does not include an item of £3,990 for assistants, foremen, mechanics, stockmen, etc. That item of £3,600 is practically for what they call rough labour. It is the same with other colleges. I see that at Elsenburg there is an amount of £3,250 for labour on the farm, etc., and there is also an item of £900 for labour for the school. It does seem to me that these are very large amounts to be spent at the different colleges purely on account of labour and that the students there are not doing very much of the manual work themselves. I think it is important that at our agricultural schools the students should not be just learning theoretical work, but they should also learn how to handle the different machines and tools and do the real hard work at these colleges. I feel very strongly on this point because if there is anything that we have to teach the youth of this country it is the handling of tools and the doing of work themselves. That is the great outstanding feature to the disadvantage of the farmers in our country. They are not taught sufficiently the dignity of work and labour and they are not taught sufficiently to do this work themselves and so become skilled farmers theoretically and also skilled men who are able to handle anything that is required on a farm. That is a principle that I think ought to be particularly enforced in our colleges. I was very much struck by a remark made yesterday by the hon. member for Maritzburg North (Mr. Strachan) who referred to the pay of dipping inspectors and said that they were unable to come out at £20 a month because they could not afford to keep a groom to attend to their horses. That is the very thing which I wish to see put down and discouraged in our colleges. Last year I imported a bull and it was consigned to East London. The quarantine station was closed there, but for my convenience they opened it and the animal, was put in charge there of a white man. Of course I had to pay that white man, I think about £15 a month, but I also had to pay a native boy to look after the bull. Is there any country in the world where they would employ two men to look after one bull ? I am afraid that that is the kind of thing that goes on at our agricultural schools and I would urge on the Minister that the labour accounts for our colleges should be seriously diminished.

I just wish to emphasize what the member before me has said in connection with labour at the agricultural schools. I must say that we feel that the amount for labour at the agricultural schools ought not to be there at all. If there is one thing we feel it is that our sons cannot work, they cannot clean a horse or a stable, neither dig nor do any similar work, and I feel that if anyone cannot do the work himself he is not able to supervise people who do the work For him. It is a grievance with every farmer when he passes the Government farm to see the tremendous location there. It is not only a grievance to see that our sons there have so many natives to do the work while they themselves learn no practical work, but the adjoining farmers also complain that the location is the place where their sheep go to at night. I should like the Minister to give particular attention to this. We ask also why if there must be workmen they are natives? Why do we not try white labour so that our sons have the opportunity of learning to be the masters of white men. If there is something that we lack in our country it is this that our farmers, our land-owners, do not know how to treat white people. We feel that in the future we are going to farm more and more with white labour and it will be a good thing for our sons to get an opportunity of working with white men.

I would like to say a few words in regard to this matter. As a matter of fact, for labour alone on the various, farms provision is made on these Estimates for £15,500, and for labour for the schools £4,250, altogether £19,750. These are amounts provided on this vote for labour alone, and other items relating to assistants, mechanics, etc., are not included. I think it is an absurd state of affairs. Here we have got a Government in office who pride themselves to a large extent on introducing the white labour policy, and though we have here an opportunity, as pointed out by the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels), of introducing it in a practical sort of way, it is not done at all. You can bring this policy into operation at these schools, and accustom the young men who are going to be farmers to do the work themselves, or they can be given a practical knowledge of the work which would be useful to them afterwards if they have to employ white labour on their farms. You break the tradition and change the outlook. We are so accustomed to the farmer using coloured and native labour, that we are prejudiced against using white labour. Let these young men get accustomed to doing the work themselves or to controlling white labour.

I should like to support the previous speakers on this important subject. There is no doubt that the students who are learning scientific agriculture do very little, if any, practical work at these experimental farms or colleges in this country, and I consider that when the State contributes so much to their education, they should be taught at least to a certain extent the dignity of labour. There is no doubt that in this country the white man is averse to doing what is called the kaffir work on the farm. I would like the young South Africans to be taught at these agricultural colleges, so that when the time comes for them to farm themselves, in times of stress they will not be averse to doing what at present they are so strongly averse to doing.

I think this is a good opportunity to mention to the Minister a great need of which he is aware, viz., an agricultural experimental station for the districts of Bredasdorp, Swellendam and Caledon. The Minister knows that a deputation called on him some time ago about the matter, and he was then very favourably disposed towards the proposal of an experimental station for those three districts. The Minister knows that Elsenburg does not serve the districts of Caledon, Swellendam and Bredasdorp, and that he can find a central place which will serve all those districts. He knows that those three districts are developing very quickly in sheep growing and agriculture, especially in the production of wheat, oats and barley. During a recent debate, it was said that our farmers were not doing their work in a sufficiently scientific way. That is very much due to the farmers not having had the opportunity of having the practical insight into the development in the matter of wheat growing which they ought to have. One cannot expect a large portion of the farmers to obtain it from books. The experts who go about sometimes come for a little while to the farms, but there is no time to make a proper analysis of the soil. When a farm is bought—which actually has the qualities of the ground in those three districts—for the establishment of an experimental station, then I can assure the Minister that it will be of great assistance for the development of wheat growing. I notice that the Minister some time ago was wanting to buy a farm for the Malmesbury experimental station. I do not grudge it to Malmesbury. It had one before, and it was closed, but I think that Elsenburg serves Malmesbury much better than it does the three districts over the mountain, where the nature of the soil is quite different. I hope the Minister will favourably consider the request made to him by the deputation. I was recently again asked by the Caledon Farmers’ Co-operative Society to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister of an experimental station for those parts. Those three districts are for the most part connected by railway, and it will be easy for the farmers to meet at a central place. Such an experimental station will also be of great use as a result of the experiments which are made there.

I want to say a few words in connection with the experimental station to be established in the Free State. I see no amount on the Estimates for that purpose, and I do not know whether the Minister is going to make a beginning with it this year. While we are speaking of experimental farms, I want to express my disapproval of there not being an experimental station in the mealie districts. There is an experimental farm at Potchefstroom where experiments are made with white mealies, No. 2, but nowhere in the Free State or Transvaal is there an experimental station where yellow mealies are tested. More yellow mealies are sold than white, and I had the highest hopes, when the Government expressed the intention of establishing an experimental station, that it would be in the sandy parts, or at any rate in the area of the yellow mealies. I understand that in the report made to the Minister, Kroonstad has been recommended as the best place in the Flee State. My view, and that of the people living in those parts who know something of mealies, is that that is not the most suitable place. The agricultural schools at Glen and Potchefstroom are both situate in the hard veld, which is suitable for white mealies. There is, however, not yet an experimental station in the parts suited to yellow mealies. There is no sum for this purpose on the Estimates, and it looks as if the establishment may possibly have to wait a year. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not reconsider the place for the establishment of the experimental station. The districts of Heilbron, Reitz or Lindley, where yellow mealies are grown, will be particularly suitable for the experimental station.

What about Frankfort ?

I did not mention my constituency, because I think that the other places are more entitled to it than Bethlehem. It is felt in the whole of the Free State that a mistake has been made here. If they were to be honest, the experts who had to advise the Minister would say that they were more impressed with the offer that was made by Kroonstad in connection with the experimental station than with the suitability of the district.

I would like to support the remarks in regard to the labour used on these agricultural farms. The whole trend of the education there is to teach a man to become a master, and not to become a good servant, and I think that has been a great factor in the failure of a great many of our land settlement schemes. You do not expect every man in the industrial or business world to be a master. They are trained to be servants. But we are not doing that so far as agriculture is concerned. We take men who have failed when on their own account and put them back on to the land in the position of a master again and you expect that because the Government has taken him in hand that he is going to make good. We could use a tremendous amount more labour if we turned out servants. The great fault with many of the farms is that they are too big, and one man cannot run them. A man with a 4,000 acre farm could cut it into four and put one man on each thousand acres ; sub-dividing the stock and supervising everything himself and he will get a bigger return out of his four separate plots than out of the one farm worked as a whole, besides employing four other men, here I speak from personal experience. We are spending much on native labour on this vote. Go to Cedara and you will find the natives are doing practically all the work. Students take a milking or dairying course, but most of the hard work is done by natives. Our boys must learn to handle implements and repair them, and I put it to the Minister that there is a big opening for that tuition. I think we shall make a great many openings on our farms if we give attention to the actual work a servant has to do, and not concentrate on making these boys into very good masters.

I think there is an intermediate course which perhaps my hon. friend would follow. I recognize that there is a great deal of good in making the boys at our agricultural farms do a certain amount of the work.

All the work ?

No, if they do that there will be no opportunity to attend lectures and get scientific instruction. But they ought to do ploughing and reaping and ought to get an intimate acquaintance with agricultural implements. It frequently happens, when these boys go back to the farm, that they have to put an implement together and if they had definite training in taking these implements to pieces and putting them together, it would help them very much. In regard to the conditions of working on the farms, the Minister will recognize that none of our training institutions has been of better advantage than Beginsel, where a large number of young men—some from overseas and not all young; practically half of them born in this country—went through a year’s practical training in agriculture. When I had anything to do with the operations at Beginsel we had only two coloured men there—mule drivers—and all the work on the farm was done by the students. The result was that at the expiration of twelve months the people who went there had a sound practical knowledge of the business in which they were engaged. In our agricultural colleges the students should be trained to do the work that should be done on a farm, but there must also be sufficient time to give them a thorough grounding, especially in their second year, in connection with fertilization and ordinary, simple, scientific, agricultural study. Mr. Schlesinger was sufficiently intelligent to realize that two or three of the people we had at Beginsel were very good indeed, and took them away lock, stock and barrel. When I went over the place I found that practically everything required for simple farming requirements was made by the young men of that institution, under proper supervision. I hope that my hon. friend will not be led away by the demand to spend money on experimental farms all over the country, which would run into thousands of pounds. In districts such as the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) refers to, you should say to the farmers that if they will supply land and the labour for the purpose of carrying out experimental plots on their farms, the experts of the Government department will come to their assistance, in some cases with seed, and in some cases with fertilizers—the labour being supplied by the farmer who owns the land. These plots should be open to the inspection of everybody who desires to visit them, and you should have signposts in their vicinity. There must be in this country a large number of farmers who would be prepared to put fair, reasonably-sized plots like this at the disposal of the Agricultural Department. I have myself offered to place at the disposal of the Department 10 acres of irrigable land and to supply the water and the labour.

I should like to support what the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) has said with reference to Grootfontein, viz.: that more students should have an opportunity of going there for the wool course. It is of very great importance to our sheep-farming for our sons to be taught there to classify sheep and wool for themselves. We feel to-day all the benefit the farmers in the Eastern Province have had from the advice and assistance from Grootfontein, and there has already been a great improvement in the class of sheep in the Eastern Province. I can remember that only ten years ago we had a peculiar class of sheep, but to-day we see a very good class of stock. The wool experts, particularly, have done good work. If the farmers, e.g., can be taught how to get sheep to give 10 lbs, of wool where they now only give 5 lbs, then we can double our production. I agree with the hon. member for Albert that the Grootfontein course is as good as any in the world. When the members of the Imperial Parliamentary Association visited us I had the privilege of going over Grootfontein with a well-known expert from Australia, and he loudly proclaimed that there was no place equal to Grootfontein in Australia. I also agree with the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) and other members with regard to labour. If the Minister uses white labour he will effect much more and the people who work on the Government farms will be able to leave them after a few years as they then will have learned something and can get a better position with the farmers. The trouble of progressive farmers is often that they cannot employ whites because they do not know how to work, but if they have knowledge and training the farmer will give them a high wage. This is of great importance, but I want further to urge that our sons who go to the agricultural schools should work themselves. However great a man’s technical knowledge may be if he does not know how to work he cannot give any lead. The sons must be practically engaged in learning how to use a spade, to shear sheep, etc., then they can give a lead.

I drew the Minister’s attention yesterday to the information given by the agricultural colleges with regard to egg-laying competitions, and the Minister referred me to the “Agricultural Journal” of June the 24th. I turned it up ; and this is the sort of thing you get—entries received, winning pens, best layers, total eggs laid, cost of production, total cost of food stuffs, average per bird, food per bird. That information is absolutely of no use to anybody. I take it that what the Minister publishes in Dutch he publishes in English also.

It might be on a different page—I gave the page of: the Dutch version.

In the English version I say this information is not worth the paper it is printed on.

May I ask the hon. member on what item he is speaking ?

I am speaking on the agricultural colleges. These competitions are run by the agricultural colleges, and it is included in foodstuffs, labour and expenses. The Western Province Agricultural Society conducts a most successful egg-laying competition on which last year they made a profit of £124. The Society publishes monthly reports containing a mass of detail most helpful, to all poultry keepers. Unless full details of egg-laying competitions are made public it is useless to hold them. Agricultural colleges never publish full information on the necessary points. Not only should the annual results of egg-laying competitions be made known in the most detailed way, but monthly reports should also be issued.

The Minister is to be congratulated on having issued the annual report of his department six months after the closing of the year, instead of a year after, as was the case with the previous report. There are some very important matters in the report, but unfortunately it does not contain a balance sheet. There is a great deal about economics, but nothing about the practical application of economics to farmers. Complete accounts should be kept at the agricultural farms and colleges. The cost of agricultural education, which covers all the colleges and most of the experimental farms, amounts to £169,000, but the total receipts were only £40,376. Compare this with New South Wales, which has 23 farms and colleges ; their receipts were £65,524 against an expenditure of £62,973. Evidently they pay some attention to practical economics in New South Wales. Included in this expenditure is £18,000 for Hawkesbury Agricultural College, N.S.W., one of the most famous agricultural colleges in the world. Naturally no one expects an agricultural college to be self-supporting. I am not in favour of having an experimental farm in any district if it does things wrongly, but so long as it teaches farmers how to grow things on a paying basis, I don’t care what you call it. If, however, a college grows crops regardless of expense, it will not be of much benefit to the countryside. A farm run on economic conditions would show farmers whether it would pay to raise a particular crop, and it would also show up weak points. I do not insist that, in every case, an experimental farm should make a profit. Our system of agricultural education is not the best adapted to our needs, and we are not certain that it is best adapted to make the students good and successful farmers. The balance sheet is an important thing in a farmer’s life, but apparently at our agricultural colleges, insufficient attention is paid to the question of costs and working expenses. It is an American saying, and it is true, that no farmer ever went bankrupt who kept proper books of account, for these books show him, very early in his operations, which lines pay him and which do not. If this is not emphasized in the training of young men, how can we expect them to be successful when they start farming for themselves ? Our agricultural students are splendid young fellows and know the Latin names of most things, but all their training will have been in vain if they are not instructed how to keep proper accounts and shown how to raise crops at a profit. There are many bankruptcies among farmers, the main cause being that they have not a proper conception of how to keep simple books, and how to apply business principles to their operations. The farmer is a manufacturer of food, and he ought to know the best way to carry out the principles of manufacture. Although we have as magnificent a staff of experts as the whole world can produce, there is a weak link in the continuity of instruction.

I do not at all agree with hon. members on the other side. According to my information, from boys at Potchefstroom, they complain that they have to do too much work and have no time to learn their lessons and to follow the lectures. They have been very busy for a long time this year cleaning the mealie lands, and they say they have been hoeing the whole season from morning to night. That does not teach a boy to farm. A week after they had to clean pigsties. Hon. members talk about more work, but they have clearly not been there. They must go and look for themselves, when they will see that the boys have a lot of work to do. There is, how-ever, much work which it is not necessary for them to learn, such as milking cows. That the children learn from their youth. Nor do I believe that a boy learns to become a practical farmer if he is hoeing the whole day. They must learn how to plant mealies in the best way. I, therefore, do not agree with what other hon. members have said.

The vote for agricultural education shows an increase of over £7,000 on last year’s vote. Although this is a very important subject, there are less than 10 members on the Government side of the House, and this when the backbone of the country is being discussed. I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not here, for he released a farmer who became bankrupt because he did not keep books, especially as the hon. member for East London (North) (Gen. Byron) has just stated that, to be a successful farmer, you must keep proper books and know something about economics.

The hon. member should keep to the vote.

I think it is a most important matter. It is the duty of every farmer to keep proper books.

That has nothing to do with this vote.

Surely the keeping of proper books comes under the question of education. I, of course, bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I do submit that a farmer cannot keep books without education. I am speaking in the interests of our farmers. We do not want them to go bankrupt. I would like the Minister in charge of this vote to have a word with his friend, the Minister of Justice, on this point.

I hope the committee won’t go away with the idea that the agricultural schools are not doing admirable work. I do not say that the agricultural schools are perfect, but my impression was from the English farmers who have gone through this country recently and from the parliamentary delegation that came out here a few years ago, the Australian members of which had, many of them, an intimate knowledge of agriculture, that they were very much impressed with the character of our agricultural education in this country and the thoroughness and efficiency with which our schools are equipped. It would be unfortunate if the idea should go abroad that the youth of this country, who is going in for farming, is losing two years of his time by going to an agricultural school. My experience has been that the boy who has gone through an agricultural school and taken out the two years’ diploma course, is very much more likely to be useful on a farm, and make a successful farmer than a boy who has not had those opportunities ; and, while he should be required to do a certain amount of work, I think there is something in what the hon. gentleman opposite said, that you can err on the side of making him do unnecessary work where you do not give him the opportunity of attending lectures, reading and thoroughly grasping the scientific basis of his business. Where other countries are ahead of this country in agricultural operations, especially as far as cereals are concerned, and what was largely impressed upon the minds of the English farmers who travelled through this country, was that we do not fertilize nearly enough on a scientific basis. That is one of the most important things that a student can learn at an agricultural college. We seem to be mixing up two classes of cases. We seem to be mixing up a class of case where a boy with a sound education goes into an agricultural college after having at least five or six months’ experience of farming, if he has not been brought up on a farm, with the case of people who are not in a position to send their sons to an agricultural college, in which instance I would very much like to see an institution where they could be given sound practical agricultural instruction, and where they would have opportunities of getting positions as foremen throughout this country. Mr. H. C. van Heerden, the president of the Senate, I remember, years ago, advocated the establishment of a training school of that sort in the vicinity of Cradock. It is not the farmer alone who is to blame for using native labour in this country. My experience has been that a skilled mechanic wants a native to carry his bag if he is going to carry out any ordinary operations in this country. There is another question that I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention. I would ask him whether it is a fact that instructions have been issued that, for the future, no boy will be admitted into Elsenburg who is not thoroughly bilingual, and whether, not so long ago, a compromise was made in the case of a youth who was not bilingual by allowing him to remain on the condition that, within a certain period of time, he should make him-self thoroughly efficient in both the official languages. I do not know what foundation there is for this report, and I would like a reply from the Minister.

I appreciate greatly the way in which the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has discussed this vote. He was Minister of Agriculture and knows from experience what the position at the agricultural schools is by personal inspection. He certainly spoke in an entirely correct manner. Let me just say that it is impossible for young men who have to attend lectures to do all the work that is required to be done on the farms. They have much to learn and must get experience how to grow mealies, and wheat, and to, handle cattle and sheep. It can, however, not be expected that no native labour should be used. I am convinced that hon. members, Who say that, are not acquainted with the position. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers) again complains that the boys work too hard. I recently visited the agricultural school at Glen and when I looked at the cleaning of the stables, the head of the school asked if I knew who were cleaning the stables. I said no. He then told me one was the son of the Prime Minister. They must all take off their coats without respect of persons and do all the work there is to be done. I think many hon. members are only speaking from “hearsay.” The boys sometimes work eighteen hours, and they are done for when they come from their work. Besides all the work they have to attend lectures and do their studies. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) asked for an experimental farm. I agree with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort that if every district which asks for an experimental farm is to get one it will cost much money. Where is the money to come from ? As hon. members know provision has been made for eleven agricultural plots. The farmers have provided us with them and if they will not themselves provide the labour we arrange for that, and we examine the ground properly and supply the fertilizer and the work is done under the proper supervision of officials. The hon. member for East London (Brig.-Gen. Byron) says that he does not want to be neglected. It is not a question of neglect. We are not following an old-fashioned system. America itself is going in for experimental plots. They cost less and the farmers get greater benefit from experimental plots than from farms. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) further enquired whether instructions had been given for only bilingual children to be admitted in future to agricultural schools. In October last year the departmental heads met and decided that lectures, as far as possible, would in future be delivered in both languages. Except at Glen under Mr. Parish, the lectures at the agricultural school were mostly in one language. The officials decided that we should have complete equality of the two languages at the agricultural schools also, and that a commencement should be made from 1927 to carry this out. Therefore of course it is desirable that children admitted to the schools should be bilingual, to be able to follow the courses in two languages. Mr. Parish has been transferred from Glen to Potchefstroom and he says that he is willing to continue his Afrikaans lectures there. If he is prepared to do so and feels that it is necessary then we must all feel that it is right that a beginning should be made to have lectures in both languages. A commencement with this will be made from 1927 except at Cedara. In Natal there is the difficulty that they do not have so much to do with Afrikaans, and we therefore want to give them longer time. An hon. member has asked if I knew that there was something wrong with the house father at Grootfontein, and that the department did riot find it out before complaints were received from the children. The complaints came from the children and the house father was dismissed. I am Very sorry that this took place, but he did certain things which were not right and somebody else will now be appointed to that post at Grootfontein. Then it was asked whether we had made an alteration in the education of the children there and that it was becoming more theoretical. No, no alteration has been made in the syllabus. From time to time new courses are added, especially bookkeeping, which we find is very necessary to be taught. The hon. member for East London (North) complained about it, but we have proper bookkeeping at the school and the children are taught how much they must put into the ground, and to calculate what return to expect. Then the hon. member for Ladybrand (Sir. Swart) asked a few questions. He asked if there were more specialties being taken in the agricultural schools. I may say that the hon. member for Kroonstad (Sir. Werth) mentioned the matter last year. Mr. Bosman, the chief mealie expert, was appointed as the head of the agricultural school at Glen in the Free State. He is making experiments in that direction and the whole Free State is under his control. As regards the establishment of an experimental station, the department is about to establish a mealie experimental station in the Kroonstad district. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. Brand Wessels) said that he thought the choice was wrong, but all the Free State districts wanted the experimental station, and the one competed with the other. After the experts had inspected all the districts they reported that Kroonstad was the most suitable place for the mealie experimental station, because all kinds of soil existed there. Mr. Bosman and the other experts recommended Kroonstad, and therefore I am not inclined to go into the matter again against their advice. It is said that Kroonstad does not produce so many mealies as the other districts, but if hon. members will look at the figures they will see that Kroonstad during the last two years produced more mealies than the other districts. It has now been fixed upon as the place for the experimental station. The hon. member said that he did not see the money for this purpose on the estimates. The hon. member will see that on page 139 on the estimates, under Vote 28 there is an amount of £2,600 for a summer experimental farm. That is intended for Kroonstad and I think that a commencement has already been made there with fencing, and the necessary work is being gone on with. Then I may say further that there is a wool course now at Glen. As for the Free State, everything has been done which was asked for last year. Then the hon. member for Ladybrand asked a question in connection with the £1,400 for the education of girls. So far we have done much for the education of boys, but nothing for young ladies. They possibly marry a farmer and then know nothing about farming when they arrive at the farm. The intention exists to commence a class for girls at Marienthal. The place was formerly used for returned soldiers, but there are no more returned soldiers being trained there. Provision is now being made for the education of girls there. Girls will be taught there just as at Elsenburg, domestic economy and farming matters. Then the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) mentioned the matter of the sheep and wool course at Grootfontein. He wants the number of students to be doubled from thirty to sixty. I have, personally, no objection to that, but if more student are to be taken then there must be more buildings, and I do not know whether the Minister of Public Works will grant what I have already asked for this year. If he will give me the building at Grootfontein and other places, then I should like to take more students, but unfortunately it will mean more buildings and more officials. This is the great difficulty which is in the way of granting a request. However, various short courses are given in wool and people are making much use of them. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) mentioned that £250 is spent on milk at Grootfontein. I can tell the hon. member that Grootfontein is one of the schools where there is not actually much cattle farming. There are butter and cheese establishments at the school, so that the students can receive training in cheese and butter making, but many cows are not kept. At a certain time of the year therefore much milk is bought, but the milk is not wasted because the cheese and butter are sold. Hon. members will see that the revenue from the farms was £7,640 last year, and therefore a certain amount comes in in return for the money spent. The farm is very well suited for sheep, and more work is done in that direction. Then the subject of native labour at the agricultural schools was mentioned by the hon. member for Queenstown and others. Let me tell hon. members that the labour which can be done by whites is done by them. It cannot, however, be expected that there should be white team leaders and shepherds. If hon. members wish that then I am very glad to hear that they are so concerned this afternoon for white people to be given work on the farms. When this was done in other directions they were not so enthusiastic, but opposed it. If we get white boys for that purpose they cannot be housed in ordinary straw huts and tin houses. What will happen if they have to live in those ? One, moreover, cannot teach the young men to work by using them as team leaders. I do not know if that is the practical teaching of farming that hon. members want. I just wish to say I employ white labour everywhere I can at the agricultural schools and where possible will replace native labour by it. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) spoke about an experimental farm. I have already told him that I had promised that the district would get an experimental plot and I hope he will not insist any more. As regards an experimental station for winter sowing, I have already decided to establish it in the Malmesbury district. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) also pleaded for the increase of a number of students at the wool courses. We do what we can. We go so far that if farmers outside meet together and want a course of a few days we send an official. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has again spoken about the poultry competition. I referred him yesterday to pages 153 and 157 of the Agricultural Journal, where he can get full information. He is, however, not yet satisfied. I just wish to say that the S.A. Poultry Association is quite satisfied with the information given. If the hon. member, however, wishes us to give monthly information, I ask him to write to me and I am quite prepared to give instructions for it to be done. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) also spoke about the increase in the vote. In a progressive country an increase of £10,000 for agricultural schools is very little ; £1,400 goes on the training of women. The rest is for the most part for the ordinary increase in salaries.

I hope my hon. friend will not be churlish in the provision he makes at Mariendal and other places for women to be trained in agriculture. In regard to agricultural school accommodation, I am sure there is no economist in this House, desirous as he may be to keep expenditure down, who would object to vote the necessary money for the necessary rooms so that possible students may not be prevented from coming to an agricultural school, because the advantage of that school will not be to the scholar alone, but to the country, and will outweigh the cost of putting up any building. What the Minister said about Elsenburg was not quite clear. My information was that a regulation had been issued whereby, in future, boys entering an agricultural school or Elsenburg would have to have a certain amount of training of a farm. That I think a very good arrangement, and I do not object to it, but I was further informed that in future entrants must be bilingual. I want the Minister to know that I have no objection, and acknowledge the fairness of an arrangement whereby the classes are conducted in both languages, but I should think you could meet the point of the non-bilingual boy by having the classes in the two languages alternately. In that way a unilingual boy going to Elsenburg would soon pick up the other language, or sufficient of it to be able to follow the lecture. What I feel is that it is unfair to the boy who has not had an opportunity of learning Afrikaans to debar him from entering an agricultural school until he has qualified in both languages. We were all impressing upon the British farmers who were here the other day— and I think my hon. friend as well—the advisability of sending their sons here. I said, if you can manage it, let them go to one of our agricultural colleges, if they have not been to an agricultural college on the other side ; and surely my hon. friend is not going to debar any young men like that from entering an agricultural college.

I appreciate very much the way in which the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has brought the question up. As far as I am aware, and my information goes—and I have just asked the secretary of the department whether any regulation of that kind has been issued—and he informs me it has not been issued. The only information I can give the right hon. member is that it has been decided by the heads of the departments, when I called the heads of the agricultural schools together at Pretoria, that from 1927 the lectures will be given alternately in both languages. In Cedara we will start in 1929—I am speaking from memory. No circular of the kind to which my right hon. friend referred has been sent out, I assure him. If a boy cannot follow Afrikaans, I am sure he will pick it up soon at a college, as they are speaking Afrikaans amongst themselves.

I see the Minister has down an amount of £750, dehydration investigations. What is going to be done in regard to that ? It is a step forward, and one in the right direction.

That is for the drying of fruit.

Yes, I know that. How are you going to spend the money ?

We are going to put it into a drying plant.

I thank the Minister for his reply in reference to the question of the supply of milk at Grootfontein. But I see an item of £1,000, Milk and Cream for Dairy Course at Glen. I thought Glen was a dairy centre, and that they would be able to supply a large proportion of the milk. I still maintain that the practical training of our bays is even far more important than text-book work. Grootfontein is to be congratulated upon having introduced a, wool course. The practical training has created demand for those students having the advantages of practical training. We want training in the other courses, too, such as the care of livestock. We ought to get men from these colleges who can look after our horses and cattle.

You can get them.

I won’t east any reflection on them, but the demand is very great.

The demand is greater than we can supply.

Men who come from the colleges have not the practical experience we require or our farms. How many students leaving these colleges can sharpen a pick and a ploughshare ? Before a man can become a master he must be a servant. Work is the word we want for all our agricultural colleges. The technical text book is not as important as the practical work—a little of the former is enough to start the student to carry on his text book work later in life, but practical work must be learned when young.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 30, “Forestry,” £178,350,

In connection with this vote, I should like to invite the attention of the Minister to the conditions of the forests in the country. It is one of the departments which was created shortly after the Anglo-Boer war, and I think the object is the same today. Former Governments planted forests, but the condition of the country is such to-day that there is a great lack of various kinds of wood. There is a lack of wagon and carpentering wood, and wood for fruit boxes, which concerns my constituency. Much fruit is exported every year, and I can safely say that 90 per cent, of the boxes are imported. At the Pretoria congress which the Minister attended a few months ago, his department mentioned how many thousands and thousands of boxes of fruit there would be exported within a few years. Practically every other day a ship would have to be freighted. If our fruit farming progressed still more, and if boxes were imported on the same scale, then it will cost the country very dear. The export cost becomes higher on account of the raising of the shipping freight. I can give the names of people who risked their whole future in the planting of plantation trees. I am speaking now of some years back, and, according to my information, many of them planted quite the wrong kind of trees. With reference to the fruit boxes, it is only a few years ago that it was found out that there was a kind of eucalyptus tree specially suited for the making of boxes, and of that kind there are very few in the country to-day.

What is the name?

I think eucalyptus silicita. What we want is that we should take a very clear and determined line in connection with the planting of tree plantations of which the wood is suited for carpentering, wagons and boxes. I am certain of it that that is a means for supplying work to the poor whites.

I want to remind the hon. member that he can discuss administration as much as he likes, but not the way in which to help the poor whites.

I just want to point out that that is a means. I want tree plantations to be planted on a large scale, and not on farms which are unsuited for the purpose.

The hon. member is now discussing the general policy of afforestation. He must confine himself to the item. The salary of the Minister is not now being discussed.

What I want to do is to point out to the Minister that we are inclined to plant the wrong kind of trees, and that it is necessary for us to follow a policy of which in the future the

I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the policy.

I would like the Minister to give us in detail what he is doing to combat the snout-nosed bettle. We know that in Australia this beetle is kept under by a natural enemy. It is a great catastrophe to the gum plantations all over South Africa. Growers are cutting down trees that are not yet attacked, knowing that there is no remedy if they are attacked. It is a great loss to the country. We were looking to supplying ourselves with railway sleepers when these gums were being planted. The Minister was warned last session by me that this disease was rampant, and that he should send an expert to Australia to enquire into it, and get the natural enemy of this beetle.

I would like to ask the hon. member which item he is discussing now.

The Forestry vote.

What particular item?

Diseases of trees.

Where is that?

I am discussing a specific vote for a plantation which contains thousands and thousands of eucalyptus trees. Under those circumstances, I suppose I shall be in order in asking what steps the department is taking to deal with the snout beetle, which is causing enormous damage to Government plantations. The snout beetle has spread to the Stellenbosch district. Has a scientist been sent to Australia to carry out investigations with the idea of isolating the enemy of the snout beetle? The Minister should take steps in this direction without further delay, otherwise we may be faced with the absolute ruination of some of our forests.

An officer will be leaving for Australia within a month to make inquiries into the pest. When the matter was presented to the Civil Service Commission, that body raised some objection with regard to the salary and certain allowances. I am as anxious as the right hon. gentleman is that the officer should leave immediately to make a study of the position in Australia. The danger is that when we import the natural enemies of a particular pest they may attack other plants, so the inquiry will, naturally, take some time. The throwing of a poisonous powder on to the infected trees from aeroplanes will cost an enormous sum, as it will have to be done twice a year, and the farmers cannot afford the expense, which runs into £30 or £40 per acre ; for 30 years the cost is prohibitive.

*I just want to reply to the question of the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) as to whether the head of the department is still the same. I do not know whether he has a complaint against the head, but we have a fixed programme which has been followed for years. Last year we planted about 15,000 oak trees, and this year we shall probably plant a little more. The member has asked us to plant trees of the right kind. Certainly. Ten or twelve years ago the fruit export was so small that no one then probably thought of planting trees for wood for fruit boxes, but now that we know millions of boxes will be required in the future, we have thought of planting trees. The trees, however, take years and years to mature. I should like it to be quicker, but certain circumstances prevent that.

I hope, irrespective of expense, the official will be sent at once, and I am extremely Sorry that he was not despatched last year. What is the position in regard to the Government forest settlements ? Hon. members have complained that nothing has been done to place poor Europeans on the land.

Only a certain number of trees have been destroyed by the snout beetle, which does not attack all kinds of blue gums. Government plantations have suffered very little so far. We have about 1,000 families on the different forest schemes. Provision is made for 1,050 labourers. Houses are built for them, and schools are being erected. As soon as opportunities offer these people are placed on farms or sent to other employment. We are not extending the system, as it is too expensive.

What has been done about preventing the fires that constantly occur on Table Mountain and Devil’s Peak, where the Government has valuable plantations? These outbreaks sometimes cause the utmost damage. I Does the Minister’s programme include the planting of indigenous trees, although I know they are very slow-growing and are not so valuable commercially as are imported species. I hear that there is a certain amount of disease threatening the oak trees in the Peninsula. Can the Minister tell us anything about that?

I should like the Minister to tell us more or less where the snout beetles are now. Are they throughout the Transvaal, or only in the Eastern Transvaal on the Natal side? The Minister will possibly be able to give the desired information. Then we feel in the Transvaal if we do not get our share of the afforestation, it is many years that we have had this objection. If one looks into matters you find that the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal do not get their right proportion. I should also like to know from the Minister whether any inquiries have been made to find out whether the eastern portions of the Transvaal are not suited to the planting of fir, and other kinds of trees. I feel that it will help the province in the case of rain if more forests are planted.

I want to point out to the hon. member that he cannot now discuss what the policy ought to be. The hon. member must confine himself to administration.

I have possibly made my question too long, but my observations were meant in the form of a question. I want to ask the Minister if he is having any enquiry made to find out if there is any further chance of afforestation in the Transvaal, in the eastern portions, in Natal, and the Free State, along the Drakensberg, and as the use of wood in the Transvaal is greater than in the lest of South Africa if there will be more afforestation there.

I see on the estimates an item of Port Elizabeth, drift sands, £1,100, and another item, Reclamation Slang River, drift sands, Humansdorp district, £450. I take it that these plantations are to stop the drift sand. I would like to know from the Minister whether he is meeting with any sue cess in trying to reclaim these grounds.

We are asked to vote monies here in connection with a number of forest schemes in various parts of the country—the western conservancy, Midland, Eastern, Transkei, Natal, Transvaal and Free State. As far as I am aware, we have no definite information before us as to whether we are getting the same value for our money in the one conservancy as in another. Some of these Government forests are in a very dry part of the country, while others again are under the Drakensberg, and are getting a good rainfall, and I think the same applies to the various schemes in the northern Transvaal. It was pointed out to me some time ago that the productivity of the forests in those parts of the country, which have a heavier rainfall, is Very much greater, and that the Government would get very much better value for its money if it spent more in those parts of the country than in the drier parts. I do not know whether the Minister has gone into this matter, but, if he has. I will be glad to know what the result of his enquiries is. If he has not gone into the matter, I think it is one that is well worth considering. Now that we are a Union, and we are not growing these trees under this scheme as an experiment simply, but as a commercial undertaking. I think it is up to the Government to see that they are getting value for their money, and if it is found that some of these forest schemes are not giving the same good results that others do, then it becomes a question as to whether we should go on spending money on them, and whether we ought not to concentrate on those forests which are more productive.

The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) complained about the fires which occurred in the Government plantations, and asked what steps we are taking to prevent these outbreaks I may inform him that wherever we have plantations we have fire paths right round them, and if a fire does occur, we get as many people as we can to try and deal with the outbreak. I am very glad to say that during the last eighteen months we have had very few fires in our plantations, and that no serious damage has been done.

Why have we so many fires on the slopes of Table Mountain?

How can I know ? The hon. member knows, just as well as I, I cannot help it. I cannot go and live on Table Mountain in order to see why we have so many fires.

The men in your department can say. What steps do you take to prevent these outbreaks?

I have told the hon. member that we are making fire-paths, and that we have guards who are doing police work in these plantations. When a fire breaks out, we hire people immediately to deal with it. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) raised the question as to whether it is really the right policy to have trees planted in certain districts where you have a dry climate, and where the rate of growth is slower. The hon. member will see that we are spending more in those parts where the rainfall is good, along the coast for instance, and, although we are also planting trees in other places, it is on a smaller scale. I quite agree that it is no use planting trees in situations where the State will not draw any benefit in the future.

†*The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) asked me whether the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal were getting their proper share of afforestation. I may say that, in the past, where the rainfall is good there is afforestation. In Barberton, e.g., there is a large tree plantation and in Natal the same is the Case. It is not, however, advisable to do it on the high veld. Trees are planted there which it is found will answer, but it is not possible to do everything at once. In the high veld, in the direction of Amsterdam, it may answer well and, later on, trees will be planted in that neighbourhood. I sent a forest officer to Piet Retief last year, but the report was quite unfavourable, and said that the ground was not suited for afforestation. New Scotland is being investigated, and if the report is favourable, afforestation will be done there. I could not hear the question which the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) put to me.

I just wanted information about a certain sum of money which is being spent in connection with drift sand.

Certain grasses are planted at places to cover up the drift sand. I may tell the hon. member that we have been very successful with it. There are parts which were formally sand heaps but, owing to the growing of grass, the conditions have altered. It does not cost much, and is very successful.

The Minister has not answered my question about snout beetles.

They extend throughout the Union.

Vote put and agreed to,

On Vota 31, “Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones,” £2,906,500,

I move—

in order to give me an opportunity of discussing the matter of automatic telephones.

I would point out that the rule does not exist merely to allow hon. members to discuss or draw attention to a certain point. There must be a bona fide challenge to the Minister’s salary.

Very well, I will move the reduction of the Minister’s salary by £1 in order to bona fide challenge his policy in regard to automatic telephones. We are just about to make very serious commitments for telephone extensions and telephone renewals. One very large commitment which will be coming forward very soon is the question of a telephone exchange in Cape Town, and we also understand there will be several alterations to the Johannesburg exchanges, and from the Minister’s remarks during the session, one takes it for granted that he is considering altering the policy of the post office, which they have had for the last six or seven years. In 1919 the post office administrators issued a circular to the telephone operators pointing out that in the near future it was intended to instal automatic telephones both in Johannesburg and Cape Town, and pointing out how necessary it was for these operators to take the necessary 6teps so that when the change came into operation they should have another method by which they could retain their positions and earn their living. So it is quite clear that for the last six or seven years it has been the intention of the post office to turn the large exchanges, at any rate, into automatic ones. A few weeks ago the Minister criticized the action of his predecessors, and his principal objections were that, as far as he knew, there had not been a sufficient test of their superiority ; that the capital cost of automatic telephone exchanges was practically double the cost of the manual exchanges, that it would lead to the discharge of operators, and finally that the depreciation was very much greater with the automatic exchange. I asked the Minister to lay on the Table certain reports which I understood he had from his officials, and he has been good enough to allow me to look through these, and I must say that I have never seen any reports, on a technical matter of this kind, that are so clear and so definite that a certain course is necessary and advisable, as these reports regarding automatic telephones. The people who have reported are unanimous in the view that the automatic exchange is the more economical ; is an advantage to the subscriber, and more efficient. In addition to the reports which the Minister gave me, I have a paper read by Col. Purves of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. He is the engineer in chief to the English post office and is the English authority on telephones. In this address he answers many, if not all, the points made by the Minister. I should be very pleased to let the Minister have this journal and hope he will read and digest it thoroughly.

I have got it and have read it.

Col. Purves says the post office has had these exchanges under test for the last 15 years, and in order to test them thoroughly, in many instances, had actual working trials of such system. He gives a list of the automatic exchanges he has already installed and in working in England. A little later on he gives the number of exchanges, which they are installing. The figures are most conclusive. The English post office at present are installing 161 exchanges with 368,800 lines. That is what the expert in the United Kingdom thinks of automatic exchanges, and that is the way he is practically going to apply his tests for 15 years. He is going now to apply them thoroughly and all the principal cities are going! to be dealt with in this way. For instance, 32 exchanges and 158,500 lines are going to be put in the London area alone, and in the provinces there are to be exchanges at Brighton, Edinburgh, Manchester, Newcastle, Oxford, Plymouth, and other places—a tremendous list. All the modern development in telephones is going in the direction of automatic exchanges so far as England is concerned, and on the Continent there are already a number of them. I saw a note the other day to the effect that every big city in Spain was being fitted with automatic telephones. In-America, in one kind of automatic system alone —what they call the panel system—there are 250,000 lines. I will now deal with the question of the cost. In this address of the engineer in chief of the British post office, he says that the behaviour and running expenses of the exchanges have been critically watched, and that they have given, and are continuing to give, good service at a reasonable maintenance cost. There is also no difficulty as to the linking up of automatic and manual exchanges. There was an idea that it might be difficult to link up the two different kinds of exchanges. Take some of the savings they estimate. In the Sheffield exchange alone, they estimate that they will save £14,000 a year, as compared with the manual exchange, and at Newcastle they will save £7,000. As regards the capital cost, I have looked into the question and far from the capital cost being double, as the Minister thought, it is very much nearer 50 per cent. In the figures I am going to give you, the capital cost is included in the cost of running, and interest charges are included, and after you have dealt with the extra depreciation on the capital cost, the extra interest on the capital investment, and the extra depreciation, there is still an enormous saving as compared to the manual exchange. Another point one has to consider, from the subscribers’ point of view, is the question of saving in time. They found on testing that the disconnection after a call did not take one-tenth of the time it does with the manual exchange. It took 4.6 seconds for a manual exchange, and only .3 of a second for an automatic exchange. If one recognizes that many subscribers in South Africa have 100,000 calls within a year, if they save 4 seconds on each call it means many days in the course of a year. In 1918 Mr. Parsons went to America to examine the system there thoroughly, and made a general report. Evidently the result of that report was that in 1919 that circular was issued to the telephone operators which I mentioned in the earlier part of my remarks—they were to be prepared to do other work in the Post Office because it was the intention of the post office to put in automatic exchanges in Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pietermaritzburg and Port Elizabeth—I think those were the four. In 1925 they were going to proceed with the actual work, and sent an official, Mr. McArthur, one of their principal men, to Australia to examine the system there thoroughly. He gave a very interesting report which was entirely in favour of automatic telephones. I will read one or two extracts to give hon. members an idea of the report—

There is a very interesting select committee report of the Australian House of Representatives. All the evidence is given by highly technical experts on the question of labour—

The reason is that the average operating life of a telephone operator is five years, and the difficulty of manual exchanges is to provide them with operators. I would like to stress the point that these Australian figures are much better, sounder, and more businesslike than those in the Union. They not only charge them with depreciation and interest, but with the capital cost of all buildings, and the post office there has to pay rental on its buildings. They get a real businesslike profit and loss account.

We have that in the report here— a telephone balance sheet.

It is an estimated balance sheet.

No, an actual balance sheet. Every item is recorded—even contributions to pension.

But this “actual balance sheet” would be blown to pieces in five minutes by any accountant.

Tut, tut,

These estimates I am going to give contain every kind of expense, and there is no legitimate expense that has not been charged to these accounts ; therefore, they will show the net saving that will be available. When we get to an exchange of 5,000 to 8,000 subscribers—the size of Cape Town and the larger towns, the saving is very much larger proportionately, as well as actually, than as regards smaller exchanges. In Australia they work it out on two plans—the saving to-day, and the saving on normal increase in five years’ time. Here is a small exchange with 2,130 lines. The difference in favour of the automatic exchange is £1,793 per annum. In five years’ time, estimating the exchange to consist of 3,000 lines, the saving will be £3,291. Here in an exchange of 6,245 lines City South Sydney—Cape Town is about the same size. At the present moment the estimated saving is £19,064 per annum, and in five years’ time, with an estimated 8,000 lines, the saving will be £30,547.

You have not a leg to stand on.

Not half a leg.

Not a telephone pole.

108,735 lines are installed or on order in Australia and in New Zealand there are 29,750 lines. As regards the policy which is being pursued Mr. McArthur states—

With the evidence of the English post office, the unanimous evidence of the Australian Government and the clear and decided evidence of our own expert there does not seem the slightest vestige of a case for going on with another manual exchange if it has more than 3,000 lines. Therefore I hope the Minister will recognize that it is a matter of momentous importance financially to this country that we should now adopt automatic exchanges, and give up the idea of wasting further money on manual exchanges.

I would very urgently like to ask the Minister to give more attention to the extension of telephones on the countryside. We know, and are thankful, that the Government has done much during recent years in this respect but the needs of the countryside are very great. Then the farmers consider that the cost of construction is far too high. Many do not have the telephone because it costs too much. But I want to particularly advocate the extension of the conveniences for the public with reference to public telephones. The demand is very great. The countryside is much neglected in comparison with the facilities which we find in and round about the towns and I hope the Minister will come to the aid of the countryside more.

I see that the administration of the Aviation Act costs £1,200, out of which a salary of £569 is paid to the secretary of the Civil Air Board. So far as I know there is not a single civil aeroplane flying in South Africa, so what does this gentleman do ? I should imagine his job is on a par with the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds in England. It seems strange that a Government which has so insistently preached economy should agree to expenditure of this sort. What is the Bureau of National Information which costs £2,200 a year, made up as follows: Salaries, wages and allowance £1,850; subsistence and transport £200 and incidental expenses £150? We know those “incidental expenses.” What is the relation of the bureau to the already expensive census department ? Can the Minister tell us what is the unit cost of a telephone call in a large urban district, and if it is still necessary to charge threepence a call at public telephone call offices ? Is that really justified seeing that in Durban, where the telephones are worked by the municipality, the public can obtain a call for one penny?

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

When the committee adjourned I was speaking on the question of telephone calls at the call offices and asking the Minister if, on going into the figures, he cannot hold out some hope of reduction in those charges. Then I want to deal with the question of the charges for telegrams. There used to be a time before the war when a telegram cost 1s. for twelve words. Of course, the address was included as part of the words, but even in those days we thought that a high charge, at any rate as compared with the charges in other countries. In Australia the charge for a telegram used to be od and the address was free. At any rate I think the charge of 1s. 3d. for the first twelve words and 1d. a word afterwards is too high, and I would ask the Minister whether he cannot see his way some time in the near future, to put the charge back to the old rate of 1s. There are a couple of minor matters that I would like to mention. I do not know whether the Minister has ever experienced the difficulty of getting a telegram delivered to him when travelling by train. It seems to me that some arrangement should be made whereby, for instance, on the journey between Johannesburg and Cape Town a telegram may be sent to you at some particular address and delivered to you. Perhaps the Minister would tell us what arrangements are made and whether some improvement could not be made with regard to this matter. Another small matter is this; apparently there is some arrangement in Johannesburg that if a telegram is delivered outside a radius of two miles porterage is charged on that telegram. The trouble is that very often a telegram is not sent to the telegraph office. I may mention my own case to illustrate my point. I live in Parktown West. [Time limit ]

I presume I am not allowed on this vote to advocate the construction of new telephone lines. I suppose I shall have an opportunity to do that when the loan estimates are before the House. In the meantime I may say that I have received a telegram from the Agricultural Society of Ceres saying that the society strongly favours the gradual introduction of automatic telephones and immediate provision on the estimates, and adding “please support.” On behalf of the Agricultural Society of Ceres I plead with the Minister for the gradual introduction of automatic telephones, and in support of that plea I would adopt the arguments of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). I may say that very probably if we get automatic telephones subscribers at Ceres would be able to use the telephone during the whole 24 hours of the day In that connection I may mention that I have received a letter from Drostdy a village in the division of Tulbagh. They desire to be brought to the notice of the Minister the fact that they can only use the telephone during post office Pours, namely 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., so that they are only connected with the outside world during eight hours of the twenty-four. They ask me to use my influence with the Minister with a view to this matter being remedied. I hope the Minister will remedy the matter.

There are a few matters which I wish to raise on this vote. In the first place, I would ask the Minister whether he cannot make the statement that was promised on March 12th, 1926, in connection with post office learners. I would ask the Minister why no provision is made on these Estimates for an increase in the number of supervizing foremen. That is a matter which has been repeatedly urged by the men’s organization, and they complain that a large number of men are engaged on permanent construction work, and that these men ought to go on the permanent staff. This also applies to a criticism in regard to there being no increase in the number of first-grade men. The association draws my attention to the fact that last September a recommendation was made by the departmental committee that the barrier between second and first grades should cease to be a vacancy barrier, and become an efficiency barrier only, and unless more men are appointed in the first-grade, this recommendation cannot be carried out. There is a point about the Port Nolloth wireless station. It is not being used, and it is costing a good deal or money each year. There is no necessity for keeping it on, and the money spent on the upkeep of that station might be used for some better purpose. Then I wish to ask the Minister whether he will not take up the matter with his colleagues of putting the post office in the same position as the railways, and making it a separate department. It is one of the great business departments of State, and I see no reason why that should not be done. The post office should be treated exactly in the same way as the railways, in other words it should be a complete department of its own. The next point is the grievance of the engineering branch of the post office that they are still without their long-service increments. It is an old grievance. They have a grievance that while other branches, the general body clerks, for instance, get this long service increment, those who happen to be in the engineering branch, because they are in the general division, do not get it. Then there is the question of the mechanicians’ shop. That is a question which I put to the Minister’s predecessor, and the answer given was that the mechanicians would be provided for in the new building, the annexe, which is now going up. I am told that that decision has been altered, and that the mechanicians’ shop is to be in Prestwich Street. The men say that this will be most inconvenient. If they were housed, as they ought to be, in the annexe itself, they would be able to do all the repairs necessary on the spot, instead of doing them some distance away. In conclusion, I would like to ask the Minister when the time is coming when the telephone charges will be made more reasonable in Cape Town, and when Cape Town will be put in the same position in this respect as other centres ?

I wish to raise a matter which is always an unpleasant one, but one which we are constrained to raise from time to time. I have just read to-night that in Johannesburg post office there was a young lady, in the information bureau of the telephone department, who was addressed in Dutch by a subscriber, and refused to reply in that language. She also immediately cut off the wires, and refused to give the information asked for. The subscriber was then obliged to walk round to the post office and get the information. Complaint was made to the Minister, and a reply was received from his secretary that under Act 27 of 1923, unilingual persons could be appointed and given five years to qualify. I do not wish to hold that no unilingual persons should be appointed in the public service, but why appoint these persons to a position where they have to come into contact with the public and reply to enquiries, thereby causing all kinds of difficulties? The action of this operator, I cannot understand. Why did she not call someone else who does know the language, instead of snubbing the subscriber in that way? The Minister does not seem to have taken any action. Can the Minister say whether this is true, and whether he has taken any action in the matter, and whether it is his policy to appoint unilingual persons to posts in the public service where they can come into contact with the public and cause all these difficulties ?

There is a very large increase in this vote, namely, £134,000. There is a note at the bottom of page 157 to the effect that, in addition to the expenditure provided for on this vote, provision is also made in the pensions vote for different sums, amounting in all to £195,650. One item is C—Reorganization, £105,000. We always know what that means. It means retrenchment, and yet at the same time the Minister has increased his staff last year by 428. We have to pay £105,000 in pensions to retrench officials, and at the same time are increasing the numbers by 428. That seems a strange way of doing business. Then, there is the subsidy for civil aviation, £8,000. I thought that had dropped. I want some information in regard to item M—bureau of national information. Is this for the wireless? I see there is a controller at £700, and two first-grade clerks at an average of £425, and two shorthand typists, and so forth. The whole thing costs £2,200. Is this a new idea of the Minister?

I asked the Minister a question some time ago in regard to the conveyance of mails from Johannesburg station to the post office, and got the information that tenders had been called for for the service, but that none of the tenders had been accepted, because the department had decided to do the work themselves. I understand that up till the end of March last, the service was performed by a transport firm in Johannesburg, who used animal transport. They had the contract for about nine years, which had been renewed from time to time and fell in again at the end of March last, when new tenders were called for. The Minister informed me that this particular firm tendered for £1,200, and that, I understand, is the lowest tender ; but the department, instead of accepting that, decided to do the work by motor transport, and the Minister stated that it was estimated that the department could do it at £1,170. Not £1,199 19s. 11¾d. I understand that the lowest tender they got for motor transport was over £3,000, from a private firm, and the department say they can do it for £1,170. That is a striking testimony to the capacity of our State service, and I hope the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will take a note of it.

I should like to see the figures.

I should like to know what this estimate is based on. Are we to take it that the department has taken into account all the costs that a private firm would take into account, and that they can do it for £1,170?

I am very glad about the progress which has been made in connection with the telephone extensions on the countryside. I think last year 3,000 miles were laid on the countryside, and the intention this year, I think, was to build 5,000 or 6,000 miles. They are badly needed on the countryside, and I am glad that special attention is being given to it. I want, however, to bring to the notice of the Minister that there should be more and better connections. I tried recently to get through from here to Richmond and failed, but by a special favour of the department I got through. To-day, again, I could not get through to Victoria West. There is communication from Hutchinson to Victoria West, but I could get no communication from Cape Town to Hutchinson. It is but a small matter to alter this. Even for smaller distances one can often get no communication. I brought it to the notice of the Minister, and I hope he will go into the matter. Then the charges also are terribly high. The hon. members for Cape Town talked about Cape Town, but on the countryside the rates are indeed high! One has to pay 5s. for three minutes’ talk from Cape Town to Loxton. Very few people make use of it. Make it half a crown or two shillings, and extend the time from three to six minutes. The department will not lose much by it. The railway rates have been reduced, with the result that there is more business. So it may also be here. Then I understand that from Loxton to the various farms which are connected with it a new kind of instrument is being used with a movable earpiece. You can just hear, and must speak into a separate instrument. According to the people, it is not a success. The old method with the fixed earpiece is the best, and the Minister should retain it.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he knows what has happened to the hangar erected in connection with the aerial posts ? Apparently the Minister has lost sight of it. It was erected at Wynberg, but, although the aerial post has been closed down for more than a year, there are two natives who are being paid £8 a month each for looking after this hangar, which, I understand, is made of canvas. Why is it kept there at a cost of £8 a month ? Then I wish to ask the Minister if he will see his way to ease the position of the telephone subscribers in Cape Town ? Private subscribers have to pay £7 10s. a year, and have to pay for every extra call over a certain number. I can understand a high charge being made to business people who are making money out of the telephones, but we have in the Peninsula arbitrary sections, and the moment you go beyond that you have to pay double, and beyond that section so much more. Surely the whole Peninsula could be treated as one ? I understand this is the case at Durban, and at Port Elizabeth. Why not in the Peninsula? When you make a call, you never know what you are going to be charged. You find different exchanges with different names, although they may be in the same area.

I should like to say a few words of thanks and appreciation to the former postmaster-general who has recently retired. As the representative of a country district, I must say that in Col. Sturman we had an officer who was a very good friend of the countryside. We shall always appreciate the way in which he went out of his way to meet the countryside. We shall be glad if his successor will be just as sympathetic. That officer had his training under Col. Sturman, and we hope he will go to work in the same way as his predecessor. Then I also wish to say that the telephone extension on the countryside is much appreciated. I want to ask for additional work to be done than just recently. I mean that it should not always be asked whether a line is going to pay or not. The construction of new lines should not always be based on that, because it is the people in the outside districts, especially those who live a long way off, who require telephonic connection most. It is their desire to have telephonic communication with the outside world, and in times of sickness with the villages. The erection of telephone lines is not like the railway, which costs very much money. I think that I am entitled to ask where there is a certain number of people living far from the towns and villages, they should have telephonic connection in any case. The people’s lives are in danger there, and they are in a difficult position, because they are not in communication with the villages or have not an opportunity to get into touch with medical aid.: I can quote a case in the district of Potgietersrust. A few hundred people are living there high up along the Limpopo River at Maastroom and Swartwater. It is a long distance to construct a telephone, but the people are surely entitled to a little convenience because they are also citizens of the country, who live there with their families. I think they should be granted a telephone line. It has already been approved for the line to be extended from Saaiplaats to Baltimore, but Baltimore is practically just as far from these people as Saaiplaats, because it does not make much difference to them whether they have to travel 100 miles or 150 miles. Moreover, at Baltimore, there is no one living and the telephone there is not used. At Maastroom and Swartwater, where the people live, there is no telephone. The Minister of Justice assisted the people at Maastroom and permitted a police post to be placed there. There is also a post office and a school. As the other departments agreed to give facilities to the people, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs can also be ready to extend the line there from Baltimore. Then I also want to congratulate the Government and the Minister on the new South African postage stamps which have been in use since the beginning of the year. The new stamps are much appreciated, because it is a new South African spirit which is shown on those stamps now. I do not know whether I am wrong, but among all the stamps there is nothing which represents the history of the Transvaal. The history of the Cape Province is represented. There is also a stamp with a springbok on it, while the Free State is represented by an orange tree. There is, however, no stamp with an ox-wagon to remind us of the Voortrekkers. As I understand that there are a few stamps left in connection with which the Minister has not yet come to a decision, I want to ask him if he will not allow an ox-wagon to appear on one to represent the old Voortrekkers. There is still another point which, I think, can still be settled. One finds that when you travel by train you can possibly with difficulty get a telegram form, but often not. If you happen to have a form then you have to descend at a station and look hurriedly for a post office to have the telegram despatched. It is easy to arrange for telegrams on the train to be delivered to the stewards, who can then hand them in for despatch at the first possible station. It will not be much trouble to see that the telegram on the train should be collected by the postal department.

I wish to add my thanks for the conduct of the department in response to the countryside for the extension of telephones. The department has always come forward very willingly for the last three or four years in trying to meet the great demand which is constantly coming forward from the countryside. I must say that my experience is that I doubt whether the department has the full machinery to deal with the demand for the extension of telephones. You often find that applications come in, and people are asked to pay their money for the construction of the telephone, and then they have to wait months before the work is carried out. That is a genuine grievance in the countryside. I realize that there is an abnormal demand, and that the department is faced with a considerable difficulty, but I would try to impress upon the Minister to try to extend his machinery of construction as far as possible. There is another point, and that is the hours of service. I am sure the Minister wants to popularize the system, but to do so he must make the hours of service as long as possible. The public feel it to be a great grievance that they cannot have the full benefit of telephones in country towns owing to the curtailment of the hours of service. In Caledon I do not think I am wrong if I say that if all the demands of the farmers in the district were to be complied with, you would have 300 connected with telephones. Of course it pays the department. A farmer, who is connected up with a small exchange, where the service is seven hours a day, has to pay the same as a man in the country towns. The question arises very forcibly whether the Minister should not be prepared to reconsider his decision as regards the installation of automatic telephones, especially in these small country exchanges, where you cannot expect an official to be on duty for long hours. I would impress upon the Minister that there is a great hardship on the farming community owing to that shortage of hours. I believe that in the Elgin area, which is on the verge of very great development, there are many farmers connected with telephones, and representations have been made that as they have only a seven hours per day service, the hours should be extended. The farmers feel that they are very much handicapped in business and other relations in life through the shortage of hours.

I would like the Minister, when replying, to state what has been the increase in the number of telephones and their mileage since the present Government took office. Another matter about which I would like to ask the Minister a question is: Could not the Minister consider making arrangements with the Minister of Defence to use the airplanes which are under the Minister of Defence for the carriage of mails in time of peace, the expenditure to be on a fifty-fifty basis ? Under the vote, Aviation, £9,200, there is, I see, a subsidy of £5,000 for aviation. I believe it would be good training for the men, and the machines would still be available in time of war.

I hope the Minister will make some statement with regard to learners in the post office which will satisfy their grievances.

That old-standing grievance!

Yes. I understood the Minister to be a progressive man, but I am astonished to find he is not. That is with reference to his statement on automatic telephones. I have had experience of the manual system for many years, and now I have had experience of the automatic, and from the point of view of the user, I must say the automatic is far superior to the other. I specially wish to plead on behalf of the country districts. We are hoping to populate the countryside, and these people require communication for 24 hours a day, which yon can do with the automatic system. It is often found that the telephone is needed most during the night time for urgent cases, or to get the doctor. I hope that the Minister will prove that he is a live man and up to date.

I should be neglecting my duty if I did not bring to the notice of the Minister in the interests of Bechuanaland the bad state of telephone connections there. It sounds incredible but it is a fact that towns like Vryburg and Kuruman are not yet in telephonic communication with each other. In the western Transvaal there is a network of wires and members from those parts cannot imagine the conditions with us. Yet telephonic communications for us is not a convenience but an urgent necessity. The area I represent is 32,000 square miles in size and last year I got 30 miles telephonic communication, while if my information is correct we shall get 12 miles this year. That is of course entirely insufficient for such a large area. People have advised me to try a backdoor to see if I cannot get something. I can assure hon. members that I have already tried all the backdoors but there has been no improvement in the position. I consider that the north-western portion of the Union has been shamefully neglected. It is always said that no unpayable telephone connections can be made. Two years ago I secured the construction of a certain telephone line in my division and to-day they have to admit that it pays. My division is to a great extent too uninhabited but what man would go and live on a far-off farm if there is no telephone communication ? We have beautiful farms but people with capital do not want to expose their families to the danger of living miles from the nearest village without prospect of any telephonic communication. When a man needs the doctor he has at certain times to send a messenger on a donkey to go and call him and it has happened that when the doctor came the invalid was already buried. In another case they sent for the doctor and when he arrived the man was behind the plough. We ought to bear in mind the needs of the whole Union. I managed to induce the Minister to visit Vryburg and he knows the position. He went 50 miles outside the town in the direction of Kuruman and did not see an inch of telephone wire. We voted half a million pounds last year for telephonic extension. I got 30 miles for the stretched area and hear that I shall get 12 miles this year. I had a deputation down here from Mafeking, amongst whom were Mr. Keeley and Mr. Sonnenburg and we approached the Postmaster-General and said: Just give us the material and a man to supervise and we will take it to the place and do the work and we undertake to feed the man ourselves and to transport him wherever he wishes, but the reply was: Sorry, but unfortunately we cannot spend any money on Bechuanaland. During the last two days there has been a discussion about a large number of miles the Locust officers have to travel. If there is telephonic communication the number of miles will be reduced by half and the costs of the Department of Justice will also be reduced by about half. There are police posts at distances from 100 to 150 miles without communication. If I only succeed in getting the police posts connected I shall be satisfied.

I wish to support the plea of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) for the installation of automatic telephones. The Worcester Chamber of Commerce has urged such a step upon the Minister, and I want to impress upon him the great need for these telephones in the rural areas. Country subscribers are at a very great disadvantage, for the time when they can use the telephone— mid-day and evening—the exchanges are closed. The Minister, I believe, intends erecting new public buildings including a post office at Worcester ; instead of building a new switchboard he should put in an automatic exchange. Many people in the town of Worcester have been waiting for six weeks for the telephone to be installed on their premises.

That was under the late Government.

No. The telephone system is worse now than it was under the late Government. The telephone service in the town and district of Worcester is far from satisfactory, and there is no reason why there should not be an immediate improvement.

I wish to thank the Minister for the farm telephones erected in the Barberton and Carolina districts. If everything that is said on behalf of the automatic telephone is true, its use should obviate many of the difficulties experienced in the country areas when it is necessary to make a telephone call for a doctor. The Carolina Chamber of Commerce objects to paying £10 as an annual telephone subscription seeing that it has only an eight hours’ service against a twenty-four hours’ service, and Sundays in a big town which, however, do not pay more than Carolina does. It must be obvious to the Minister that the request of these country subscribers is justified and I trust he will be able to meet them.

The Pietermaritzburg postal service is all that could be desired, but the postal staff should be put on an equality, so far as allowances are concerned, with their more fortunate fellows at Durban and elsewhere. Due largely to the agitation of the Durban members of Parliament, the cost of living allowance was extended to Durban, and a further agitation resulted in the allowance being extended to include the suburbs of Durban as far as Malvern. I would like the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to bring his influence to bear on the Minister of Finance and, if possible, get the Government to extend the living cost allowance to Pietermaritzburg. The excuse made by the Government for refusing to consider this very reasonable request is that the figures supplied by the Director of Census do not justify such an allowance or other relief being given. In the cost of living allowance review for April, May and June of last year (nine principal towns of the Union), Pietermaritzburg is shown as being the dearest living centre so far as commodities are concerned. The only reason that it reverts to seventh position on the list is because of the lower rentals, and it is contended that in averaging house rents at Pietermaritzburg at £5 2s. the Director of Census has included dwellings occupied by Asiatics. I specially look to the eleventh Minister to advocate for the extension to Pietermaritzburg district of the cost of living allowance, if not to the higher paid postal servants, at least to those on the lower scales.

I just want to bring something in connection with telephone extension to the notice of the Minister and I hope that he will listen. Under the previous Government about 20 miles of telephone lines were constructed. When the first farmers’ line was made the people who wanted to share in it had to enter into a contract with the Government for five years. The fee that had to be paid was £15 per member. I can assure the Minister that we struggled very much the first two years to put the line in order and we had subsequently to complain that the line was inefficient. Thereafter the position improved a little. Last year the fee for the line was reduced to £11 and some shillings but where the difference comes in is the fact that where you could talk gratis on the telephone formerly it is now only gratis to the farms on the line and to the town and station. To Trichardt, however, and to other places you have to pay for every call besides the full fee to the department. It is very unfair if it is so. I have been told that, and I am myself also on the telephone. The Minister consented to the construction of a telephone line and the people are asking a great deal for it. We are much indebted to him for doing so. Telephone construction, however, to-day costs half as much as it did in the case of that line and the people have just as much use as in the other case. Now I want to ask the Minister if the telephone system in connection with farmers’ lines cannot be brought on to a similar basis. It would then be very fair. Another inconvenience the people have is the fact that they can only use the telephone between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. From 6 p.m. to the next morning 9 o’clock they cannot get through to the head office. The position is that the larmers outside should be in constant communication with the village—with the police and the doctors— and if they do not have that convenience then the telephone is not of much use. The people require the doctors and the police in case of mishaps, accidents, murders, thefts and sickness and when they require the doctor or the police in the night they have to wait until the following morning. I hope the Minister will alter this. I am very pleased about the extension of the telephone line and I want to say that I approve of it. I should also like to have more extensions. One finds that there are many applications to-day for extensions. There is something else I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice. Girls are mostly employed in the telephone service and in the large towns they have to do much harder work than their physical powers permit. I found out that in a certain place there are girls who have to do two people’s work. I do not think that is fair and further they are people who will not make a complaint. They are the weaker vessels, take things as they find them, and suffer discomfort. It is also the case in Cape Town that one girl has to do the work of two for reasons of economy—I think the Minister ought to look into the matter and appoint more people, other wise he will lose useful people from the service because they will not want to do their work in that way.

I am sure the Minister is having a very enjoyable evening, I noticed the rapt attention with which he listened to the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer just now, and I am sure the Minister will give him a very full reply. I have risen to add my voice to the request for automatic telephones. I have a telegram from the most important co-operative citrus organization in the Union, that is the Kat River Citrus Co-operative Organization, who have got through the kindness of the post office department, telegraphic communication and they have wired asking me to urge upon the Minister to establish automatic telephones in the country districts including their own. All these people have combined into one co-operative organization. A couple of the growers there are recognized on the European market as the leading citrus brands in this country. They have cooperated in regard to the whole of their produce and it is all sent away by the new line which is being constructed in the Kat River Valley. They point out to me that their business will be very much interfered with, except you instal something in the way of automatic telephones, so that they can be constantly in communication. Then I think the committee and the country would like to know what the position is at the present moment in regard to the ocean mail contract. This is a very important matter, not alone in connection with the carriage of our mails by sea, but it is important to know how we stand in Connection with regular sailings for the carrying of our fruit and other perishable products to the European markets. I understand that at the present moment the contract is simply running on to the end of September each year.

Yes, the old contract stands as from year to year.

Twelve months’ notice at any time on either side.

That is rather unsatisfactory. I may inform my hon. friend that the producers of perishable products wish to know how they are likely to stand in the future in regard to a weekly fast service that will carry their produce to the European markets. I think this would be a favourable time for the Minister to tell the committee whether any further negotiations have taken place. I think his predecessor let the psychological moment pass, when there was an opportunity of entering into a fair arrangement in connection with the carriage of the mails, etc. I am afraid the Minister of Labour tried to strike too hard a bargain when he had an opportunity of accepting favourable terms; perhaps more favourable than we are ever likely to get again.

I want to bring a particular case to the Minister’s notice about a young man in my constituency. His father writes that the boy applied in 1924 for an appointment as postal clerk. He filled in the forms and sent them off and they were approved, the reply being that as soon as there was a vacancy they would let him know. In 1925 he applied again and he again got the same favourable answer. Subsequently the post-master-general wrote that he should write to the Surveyor of Posts, Port Elizabeth. When he made the application he was 16 years. Now he is 18 years and 4 months and he gets the reply that he is too old to be appointed. This is a hard case and I hope that it does not often occur that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs keeps young fellows on the string until they are too old to be appointed. With reference to telephones I want to express my appreciation at what the department has already done in constructing telephone lines in the north-east of my constituency. I fear however that I must endorse what the hon. member for Bechauanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) has said that it looks as if the far-off parts of the Cape Province are neglected and that too much attention is given to closer places in the interior. Little attention is paid to the applications far away there. Representations have been made to the Minister for joining up Rhodes over the Drakensburg in the direction of Antelope Park and from Elliot to Gubenxa. I understand the department states that there is not enough material for these lines. A main line has been built from Elliot, and Gubenxa is not far from the main line and it is easy to connect Gugenxa with the main line. I could use the same arguments as other members with reference to the inconveniences of these parts. I therefore make an appeal to the Minister to have more sympathy for the far distant parts. He is new in his position and I cannot be too stern with him but I hope that he will not shame the confidence put in him.

I wish to reinforce the plea of the hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Lennox) in relation to the learners of the post office. We hear that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has made a definite promise that he will give a statement during the course of the discussion on these estimates, and we confidently look to him to redeem that promise. There is another matter concerning the health of the post office officials in a very important post office in the Cape Province. I refer to the conditions in the East London post office, to which I have drawn attention three years in succession. The condition under which the officials do their work are lamentable in the extreme. Will the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs give us the assurance that conditions will improve ? I understand that the building has been taken in hand. When will it be finished ?

We hope that the new Minister will be able to give us a more satisfactory reply in regard to the post office learner than the previous Minister. Last year we raised an important point in regard to casual workers. When they meet with an accident on duty they only receive half pay. I think the postal department should come into line with the railway department and give full pay in the case of accident on duty. It may come as a surprise to hon. members to know that the postmen, who render such useful service to the community ; honest, reliable men who handle valuable property in many cases, and get very little in the way of holidays and privileges, after years of service can only reach a maximum of £18 per month. I think hon. members will agree that that is a disgraceful state of affairs. They should at least receive a long service increment, and a reasonable wage in view of their onerous and valuable duties. I know the Minister is handicapped very much by the Public Service Commission and would like to pay them more. And that brings up the question of the Graham report. I hope the Minister will urge the Government to adopt the fifth report, whereby the postmen and other poorly paid grades would benefit. Failing getting over the difficulty of the non-adoption of the Graham report, I ask the Minister to see what he can do to give these postmen increased facilities for promotion, so that they can get something like a respectable salary. Then with regard to supervizing foremen, further provision should be made. The postal department is a business concern which is constantly expanding, and yet in face of that many have to do more work than they should do. Many more men should be on the establishment proper who are doing permanent construction work, and some of these men are in charge of important country stations, and are engaged on purely maintenance work. It needs no words from me to emphasize the point with regard to the mechanical side of the postal service. There has been a tendency to discriminate too much against the mechanical and engineering side. As far as the service is concerned the mechanical side is absolutely indispensable, and it should be treated with the same consideration as the secretarial side. The Minister being a mechanical man himself knows the importance of that, and I hope he will see that the engineering and mechanical side is given the same treatment as other branches of the service. This tendency of the lion-technical man to have charge of technical men is as prevalent in the postal service as in the railway service, and I trust that the Minister will see that the technical men are given a full share of the responsibilty and credit. The railway administration has seen fit to appoint a welfare officer, and I want the Minister to appoint a similar officer as far as the post office is concerned and give him similar powers. I am glad that in the departmental committee we have the nucleus of what will one day be a Whitley Council, and whenever this committee meets I hope the Minister will see that the representatives of the service organizations are present at the discussions. If the Minister does these things the postal service will be more contented and the country will benefit.

As a representative of a remote country district I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) in expressing my sense of high appreciation of the excellent services rendered to this country by the late postmaster-general, Col. Sturman. We feel that in him we have a live man, keen and zealous. I feel equally sure that his successor will prove worthy of the high appointment he occupies, and that he will continue the good work that has been started. Like the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North (Mr. Strachan), I have parochial wants, but experience has taught me, if it has not taught him, that this House is not the place in which to succeed in obtaining them. It is unsympathetic, hostile or jealous. My experience has been that if you want to accomplish something for your district—any local matter—you should go to the postmaster-general and beard him in his den. I hope to beard the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in his den one of these days.

I have unfortunately not been so lucky as the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) to be able to boast that I got 30 miles of telephone lines last year. He represents 3,000 voters and I 4,000, but I got nothing. I, however, associate myself with the hon. member in congratulating the Minister on the progress in this matter during the last two years, I think, however, that much more can be done, because the member of Parliament and the public are often disappointed. It happens that necessary lines are not built, and even lines which are promised on account of the fact that there are no funds left. If one, on the other hand, thinks how much is done in the way of public works which in many respects are not necessary, and which the public could do without. If telephone extension is necessary and it is not granted, we are disappointed. We are still more disappointed when we remember that the money spent on farm telephones is not unproductive. Every penny invested in farm telephones is productive, because the users of the line must pay 10 per cent, on the money. Why does the Minister not put a larger amount on the estimates, so that the telephone system can be completed ? Why is there all this delay, and must the people be disappointed year after year ? It is said that if we do everything all at once, then we shall not subsequently have work for the people who are not building the lines. The poor people we have always with us, and why should the public for that reason wait so long for telephone communication? I think the policy ought to be to complete the lines as quickly as possible. If I manure my fruit trees, then I expect more fruit than when I do not. My expenditure is therefore productive. In my constituency there are a few lines for which I asked. Some were promised to me, but I have always been disappointed and have to hear that there is not enough money. I live on the doorstep of the Postmaster-General, and go to the Minister every day.

They are accustomed to you.

I worry them a great deal, but the lines are not built. It is the same with the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux), but they are accustomed to him also, and he does not get telephone lines either. I asked for a line from Brand River—

The hon. member must not go into details. He can do that when the Loan Vote comes up.

If the Chairman will not allow me to mention the line, the Minister in any case knows which one I mean. I think, nevertheless, that it is necessary for me to say that the line should be extended to Van Wyks Dorp and Welgevonden. The people live far from the village, and the telephone line is very necessary. Not long ago I went through a constituency in the northwest, and for a distance of 40 miles along the river I saw no telephone line. I have nothing to do with those parts, but I mention it to prove how the people have to exist there without the telephone. It is not that their representative has not applied for it. There are so many inhabitants, that one can throw a stone from one house to another. I think that more should be done in this direction, because the telephone lines are just as necessary to the farmer as a coffee not to a woman. It brings people nearer to the civilized world and to the market, and they are better off in every respect when they have the telephone. I think the Minister should do somthing and put a larger amount on the estimates next year. It will assist the development of farming and at the same time it will stop the flow from the countryside to the big towns. As the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) has mentioned, the people require communication with the towns in case of sickness. I know of a case where a farmer had ostrich feathers, and a buyer came to his farm to buy the feathers. The farmer did not know how much they were worth, but while the buyer was weighing the feathers, he went to his bouse and rang up the village to find out the then market price of feathers. The feather buyer offered me £30 less than the actual value, but the farmer insisted on having £30 more, and the purchaser subsequently agreed to pay that. If he had not had the telephone, he would have lost that £30. I hope the Minister will give further attention to the matter of extending the telephone communications.

We hear rumours that negotiations are still in progress for a civil aviation service. I should like to know whether this is true, and what is the nature of the negotiations, and whether there is a possibility of the idea coming to fruition? Does the Minister still adhere to the original idea of a subsidy of £8,000 a year, or is he considering increasing the amount very materially ? Is there any truth in the rumour that there is a possibility of landing the letters at Walvis Bay and conveying them by aeroplane to Johannesburg and Durban, so that they can be delivered at these two places before the mail boat arrives in Cape Town ? Another matter I would like to refer to is that the rent of letter boxes was increased a few years ago under the stress of bad times, but I think the time has arrived to revert to the old charge. It is a common habit to put up charges against the public for various temporary reasons, but it is most difficult to get those increased charges reduced again.

I have no parochial matters which I wish to discuss under this head, but I desire to draw the Minister’s attention to an important question concerning his department. There is a crying demand throughought the country from farmers and police for the linking up of police posts with the main telephone system. Owing to the absence of this facility, an enormous amount of time is wasted when stock thefts occur in getting the police on to the scene, resulting often in the investigation ending in failure.

The Minister, by acceding to this demand, would be benefiting not the farmers of a particular district, but of the whole country. For this reason, I hope the Minister will not forget to give this question his personal attention.

This really belongs to the police vote.

When stock thefts are committed, a great deal of time is wasted, owing to the absence of proper telephonic facilities, because the police posts are not linked up with each other. This frequently results in police investigation ending in failure.

For a change, I wish to extend my sympathy to the Minister, although I strongly associate myself with the demands made by hon. members on his side of the House. There is a strong feeling in the country particularly amongst the farmers, at the extortionate charges for farm telephones. If the rates were reduced, the number of farmers who would become subscribers would be increased threefold. As the Minister was recently at Swellendam, when numerous requests were made to him, I shall leave the wants of my own district alone for the moment, with the hope that our legitimate demands will have a satisfactory result.

When the Minister is considering the question of granting a cost of living allowance to any particular area, he should also consider whether that system has proved very unsatisfactory. In place of the cost of living allowance, it would be more satisfactory to restore the scales of salaries embodied in the fifth report to postal officials, who would then receive 10 per cent, more than they are being paid at present, instead of, as at present, different salaries, owing to allowances, in different parts of the Union.

I desire to support and endorse the plea that has been put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) in respect of the postal employees at Pietermaritzburg. The cost of living allowance should be extended in that direction, and I hope that this question will receive the attention of the Minister. The house rents in Pietermaritzburg are so low that they do materially affect the statistics in connection with the cost of living, and I trust that this point will be taken into consideration by the Minister. The hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Lennox) has referred to the question of the learners in the post office. It has also been referred to by one or two other members. I hope that that question will receive the consideration which a subject of so much importance deserves at the hands of the Minister. We do not want our boys employed in the post office to find themselves in dead-end occupations. With regard to the question of the ocean mail contract, that is a matter which I think the country wants to know something about. It is true that we are going on from year to year on a year’s notice, but I think the time has arrived when the country wants to know exactly where it is in regard to this matter. Then I would like to touch upon the item of £33,000, subsidy paid to the ocean mail contractors in respect of the ocean mail service between Cape Town and Durban. I cannot see, and never could see, why this money should be paid. It is a matter which I think the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, together with the Minister of Finance, should take up. I recognize the excellent service that we get from our ocean mail steamers, but why this country should pay for a mail boat service between Cape Town and Durban, is a thing I never could quite understand.

Don’t you want the mail steamers to go to Natal?

They will go to Durban, whether you pay for it or not. There is another small matter, and that is the tax of 3d., or 25 per cent., which was put on to the charge for telegrams as a war measure. I see that the revenue from telegrams has increased tremendously, and I would like to know whether the time has not arrived when that tax, which is bearing very heavily on the commercial and private people of this country, should not be removed. In that connection, there is the question of the additional 50 per cent, charged on Sunday telegrams, which was also, I think, put on as a war measure, and I would like to put it to the Minister whether it is fair that 50 per cent, should be added to the charges for telegrams sent on Sundays. As to automatic telephones, we have had these installed at Pietermaritzburg, together with Port Elizabeth, as an experiment, and, so far as Pietermaritzburg is concerned, I desire to pay a compliment to the department by saying that, as far as I know, they are doing excellent work, and we are very pleased with them.

I want to invite the Minister’s attention to the telephones in this House. There are only four telephones, and they are used by about 135 members and 20 messengers. Amongst them there are a few who cough, which seems to be something chronic—I do not know what—but everyone in the House is not as healthy as possible, and the telephones are the old-fashioned kind where one has to put in your nose and mouth. I think the telephones are only a benefit to the doctors, and I should be glad if the Minister will see that we get a different kind. I emphasize this point the more, because the use is gratis. I should prefer to have better telephones, and have a small payment made by members.

I desire to draw the Minister’s attention to the charge for table extensions of telephones. The department charges £3 15s. for a table extension, although this entails no extra labour on the department, and I do not think that the machine even costs as much as £3 15s. I think the Minister would find that if he reduced this charge the table extension system would become very much more popular, and be more extensively used. There is another point which is quite a serious one to the country districts. In the larger centres the department arranges evening classes and, I believe, these classes are attended by telegraph and other messengers employed in the post office. In the country districts absolutely nothing is being done for the unfortunate messenger boys employed there. The position is even more serious, because they are kept on until they attain the age of 18, and then they are told that they must leave the service. I think that something should be done in the nature of correspondence classes, in order to help these boys in the country offices. One other point I would like to mention is in connection with telephone construction. We find that when these gangs are sent along, they generally consist of people who are taken from other districts or towns, but we think it is only fair and reasonable that where construction takes place in a particular district, the local unemployed should receive preference. We should be pleased to see the Minister and the postmaster-general visit the country districts. I think it is essential that they become acquainted with local conditions and the difficulties under which people live. They would then realize the necessity for better telephone facilities.

I should like to say that most of us are thoroughly satisfied with the service we get from the telephone department. We are all proud of the good show put up by our railways, and I think most of us rank the post office with the railways, especially the telephone department. I wish to say a word in praise of the much-abused telephone girl, and to say that one gets invariable courtesy from them. Inattention or discourtesy is a rare occurrence. I was, therefore, surprised at the reply to a question put by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Fordham) in regard to espionage that has been going on. Secure efficiency by all means, but I can understand that an operator, knowing she was being listened to, would from sheer nervousness be prone to lapse from some artificial rule. The Minister’s reply was satisfactory so far as it goes. I would like the Minister to elaborate that reply. The public generally are satisfied with the attention they receive from the telephone exchanges.

Except that we pay too much.

The call-office, at any rate, is too expensive. The question of call-offices raises the point that no provision seems to be made in the booths for ventilation, and the air is foul.

Provision is made now.

Two little holes have been put in the top, but these are inadequate. Then I want an assurance from the Minister in regard to the secrecy of conversations over the phone. I have frequently heard it stated that you cannot be sure that if you have an important business conversation over the telephone, that it is not listened to, and possibly advantage taken of information given, say, in regard to some share transaction. Then I notice that a new postmaster-general has been appointed. I think I am right in saying that since Union we have had a succession of postmasters-general who had served for a year or two and gone on their way. I am told that the new incumbent is a much younger man ; but, as a Transvaaler, may I say that, as far as I know, every post-master-general we have had since Union has been a Cape man. Is it a tradition of the service that the postmaster-general must be a Cape man ? I am told the reason is that a Transvaal or Natal man can go at 55 years of age, whereas a Cape man may go on to 60. It seems to me to be grossly unfair. It blocks promotion and the legitimate aspirations of Transvaal and Natal men. Then, in regard to wireless, three or four years ago this House ratified an agreement with the Marconi Company in England, whereby they were to build a wireless station and float a company in South Africa for that purpose. I believe shortly after that, the discovery of the beam system necessitated a recasting of the plane. What is the position today ? Has that company been floated and when is the new station likely to function? Will the Minister also tell us the position in regard to the post office in Johannesburg ? In regard to the porterage on telegrams, which I was dealing with when my time expired, if you live, as I do, in Parktown West, just outside the two miles radius from Johannesburg post office, you have to pay 6d. porterage on a telegram. But this house is only a mile from the Braamfontein post office and the telegram could quite as easily be sent from Braamfontein, but it is sent out for delivery from the General Post Office, and porterage has to be paid. In a big town like Johannesburg that is absurd. Some scheme ought to be devised whereby anybody who lives in the municipal area should get free delivery of his telegrams, especially while the charge is 1s. 3d., which includes the address.

I have not risen to attack the Minister, because he has appointed a Cape man as postmaster-general, because he did the right thing and appointed the best man. I only want to speak about the trouble the farmers have with the telephone wires over their lands. Our farmers burn the veld a good deal. Some experts say that it is not necessary, but we cannot do without it. It is absolutely necessary for sheep farming, but yet it often happens that the fire, even if it is lit far from the wires, gets under the wires, which melt. There are two solutions, viz., that the poles should be made higher, or that the wires should be laid along the roads. I have called the Minister’s attention before to a case where a small and poor farmer in my district had to pay £53 12s. for melted wires. He lighted a fire 1,200 yards from the wires, but a storm came up and blew it under the wires. Some farmers have three lines over their farm and they no longer know where they can burn. I want to heartily thank the Minister for the lines which have been constructed during recent years. I understand that nearly 8,000 farmers have got telephones in their houses since this Government came into office, and that during the fourteen years of South African party Government only 2,221 people were connected. I want to thank the postmaster-general and the department. Then I want to mention further the charges for calling up. If I call up a man in Riversdale, even if he lives only ten yards from the post office, I must pay 1s. 3d. to have him called. I think that is far too much. The Minister will say that he ought to have a telephone in his house, but, unfortunately, I am the sufferer. I have a telephone, but if I want to speak to that man I have to pay 1s. 3d. Then the expense of constructing the telephones is complained about. It is said that no difference is made whether a new line is laid or that new wires are merely connected with existing poles. I do not understand that. The people in the towns do not have to complain of this, but people living far away have to pay much. When a long line is constructed going past many farmers, then it could surely be done cheaper if various people contribute.

The people in the towns and villages can be satisfied with the construction of telephones, but anyone acquainted with conditions on the countryside, especially in my division, can certainly not be satisfied. I at least am quite dissatisfied. Last year the Government again constructed a small piece in my division, but things are proceeding very slowly. When I was a member of the House in 1920 I was promised a piece and it was only completed in 1924. What we chiefly complain about, however, is the circumlocution there is to get communication. I can state the position in my constituency in this way that if I want to telephone from here to Stellenbosch I must go via Malmesbury for communication with Stellenbosch. The north-western districts have been very much neglected in the past. They require telephone communication not only for business purposes and convenience, but especially in order to exist because when one is sick and sends for the doctor he comes when the patient is dead. If a doctor can be summoned by telephone the sick man can be saved. Farmers sometimes live forty to one hundred miles from the nearest doctor and the nearest telephone is sometimes from fifty to sixty miles distant from the farm. I can well understand that the representatives of towns and those of the Free State have no appreciation of the distances in our spread-out country, where Bechuanaland, Barkly West, together with Gordonia are just as large as the whole of the Free State. I hope the Minister will soon visit us and see how we are being neglected. The Minister of Railways paid us a visit and immediately after the 1924 session acknowledged that the north-west was terribly neglected, in view of the fact that the Barkly district contributes more to the treasury than most of the other districts in the country.

I cannot congratulate the Minister because the countryside and especially my district has always been and remains neglected. Two years ago I got a promise of a certain line which was to be built in my district, then the new Minister came into office and I approached him, and he also promised to build the line. I do not know whether it will now be built because I cannot tell from the estimates. Probably it will appear in the Loan Estimates and I shall wait till they are laid on the Table to see whether we are to be assisted. I want to refer to the report of the Auditor-General. I see that last year, i.e., the last financial year, £46,519 was paid for conveniences in the large centres. That is a large amount and as I see from the report it is for extra allowances during the past year to the various postal officials in the large centres, Cape Town, Johannesburg and Pretoria. Now when I go further into the matter I am not surprised that we cannot get these facilities on the countryside, because the money is chiefly spent to provide conveniences in the large centres. There money is spent so that people can have their letters delivered on Sunday morning and evening and that during all the hours of public holidays they can receive telegrams and letters. The convenience which the public gets in the large centres is probably the reason that the people on the countryside are neglected. I want to bring it to the notice of hon. members on the Government side that there is on the estimates a large sum available for overtime done by officials. They work overtime to provide facilities for the townspeople. I do not wish to oppose those facilities being given if they are necessary. The people in the large centres must have facilities, but then the Minister should also pay some attention to the neglected countryside. I agree with the hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) that we have long distances on the countryside and that it is not always possible to send in thirty or forty miles to the villages. If the Minister will pay attention to our complaints on the countryside then he will not spend so much money on the townsmen’s conveniences mentioned in the Auditor-General’s report. Thus I hope that the Minister will give his attention to the countryside. Then I should further like to know whether the promise made by his predecessor to me will be fulfilled this year. It is only a short line of forty-four miles. I should like to know whether it is to be built this year or whether we shall have to watt another year. It is the line Randfontein, Doornfontein and Holfontein.

I hope all the members are now exhausted and that we shall get the Vote through to-night. I want to express my appreciation of the good spirit in which hon. members have tackled the question, and I assure them that I shall approach it in an equally good spirit, and if I do not find myself quite in agreement with the views expressed by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), it is not upon any personal ground. I am rather surprised to find the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) suggesting on the one hand that an increased expenditure is not warranted, and on the other calmly backing up the suggestion to convert our manual telephone exchanges into automatics at a tremendously increased cost.

I said not a word about telephones. Be careful, otherwise you will never get this Vote through.

I am pleased to see that wiser consels are now prevailing.

I am still of the same opinion.

I do not see eye to eye on this question with the hon. member for Newlands, and I am convinced that the figures he used are almost entirely wrong. The hon. member did not go quite to the best authority for the estimated cost of the installation of automatic telephones. There is a joint committee of manufacturers’ agents in this country, and they have no doubt supplied him with many of his figures.

No.

When he says that the cost of the introduction of automatics is not twice that of the cost of manuals, he is, generally speaking, wrong. They surely do not write me down sufficiently great a fool as to turn down the idea of installing automatics without having gone thoroughly into the matter and being convinced that I am reasonably right in my attitude. It never has been part of the settled policy of the department to instal automatic telephones, although the officials have, naturally, anticipated the possibility of development in many directions and have made inquiries into the subject. Whatever stage may have been reached, it must be overwhelmingly proved that there is an overwhelming advantage to be gained before one could decide on such a revoluntionary change as replacing manual with automatic exchanges.

What more proof do you want ?

My hon. friend has not produced proofs, but has just made statements. He has quoted a report by Mr. Parson who was sent to America eight or nine years ago.

That did not bear on the question of costs.

The hon. member claims that in 1919 it became the settled policy of the department to introduce automatic machines. If that is the case why does he find himself in the position to quote from a report by our technical adviser, the chief mechanical engineer of the department, who made an investigation of the same question in 1920 ? I want to say that experiments have taken place at Camps Bay, Port Elizabeth and Maritzburg and that these proved themselves, but they did not prove so tremendously superior to the manual installation that we have to-day. May I express my obligation not only on behalf of myself but on behalf of the operators to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) for his generous words of appreciation in regard to our operators at the telephone exchanges. It is admitted all round that the telephone service in South Africa is almost perfect.

Oh.

My hon. friend always spoils things. Perhaps I rather misused the word “perfect,” but we certainly are in a very high state of efficiency, a state of efficiency that is not reached or, at all events, not surpassed even by the automatic systems anywhere else in the world.

The efficiency of an old-fashioned machine.

No. That, is where my hon. friend has not inquired with that thoroughness which is always characteristic of him into the whole question of our telephone exchanges out here I do not want to say for one moment that the automatic telephones have not proved a success from a mechanical and an electrical point of view. What I am trying to point out is that, owing to the circumstances of the country, the tremendous capital cost, the necessity of dragging out very good, almost perfect, material that we have at the present time in order to substitute something else, in addition to the many other disabilities attaching, there is no ground for introducing automatic machines into this country.

Is that the scientific view of your advisers ?

I am glad my hon. friend mentioned that because it reminds me of another aspect of the quotation made by the hon. gentleman. Our technical adviser did not deliberately state that it is advisable to introduce automatic machines in place of our present manual system. All he said was that unless something were done (he was speaking of Johannesburg) and done quickly we are going to find ourselves in deplorable condition. That was because we were not meeting requirements. We can meet those requirements equally and at less capital expenditure with up-to-date manuals than we can with automatics. My hon. friend says that automatics do not cost twice as much as manuals. When he asked me before I quoted the actual figures of installations. I find that in Port Elizabeth the installation of automatics cost £55,173.

When was that?

We have just had our first year's returns on it. Now let us take the Maritzburg system, which has not yet been handed over by the makers. The automatics at Maritzburg cost £42,000 and the cost of manuals was £21,000. I should state that the cost of manuals at Port Elizabeth was £25,148.

What about working costs ?

The working costs are admittedly smaller in the case of automatics. I have already said so. When we want to get to estimated figures we have to come to Cape Town. I find that the estimated cost of an automatic installation which would be required here is £136,000, while the estimate for manuals is £84,000. That is for an equal service. The estimate is £136,000 for the installation of the automatic system in Cape Town and £94,000 for your manual exchange. I am dealing with capital cost. It must be remembered that you cannot instal an automatic exchange without wiping out the whole of the subscribers’ equipment. Each subscriber would have to have a new telephone in his house or business.

Is that included in the Estimate ?

Yes. Whatever my hon. friend may be able to prove on the general principle, you have no right to begin to think about automatic machines in regard to Cape Town, because to do that you have to scrap everything else you have in the exchange to-day as well as the subscribers’ equipment, and the telephone exchange that is there to-day has another fifteen years’ life. If there is any occasion anywhere in the country to have an automatic exchange, there is no excuse for it in Cape Town or Johannesburg. You have to consider the capital cost of £136,000 and the cost of the manual exchange still standing on your books that you have to scrap and to-day is perfectly good.

It depends on what your annual saving is going to be.

What saving is there going to be? We are talking about capital expenditure. It certainly has this bearing upon the annual cost that your interest rate is considerably increased, and in considering the question of cost of working you have to consider your interest. If you have £136,000 plus your manual equipment, which is no longer in use, at £94,000, that makes £230,000 for your Cape Town automatic distribution system plus the subscribers’ apparatus. The interest on that is £10,000 a year.

You say that an exchange in working for fifteen years is equal to an exchange just installed.

You have not yet had any proof of the life of an automatic machine.

They have been in work for twenty years, and are still going.

Quite recently, on the 4th March, 1926, in an address to the City Business Club at Glasgow, Mr. A. B. Coombes of the Glasgow Telephone Service, regarded as an expert in that important city—next to this country, I suppose one of the highest telephonized spots in the world—said that the telephone equipment in Glasgow was, short of the automatic system, up-to-date, and there was no justification for scrapping it, if only on account of the capital cost involved, and that exchange is more than twelve months older than the Cape Town exchange.

How old is the Cape Town exchange ?

Thirteen years.

Would you object to scrap your cart and horses when you bought a motor car ?

I would if I found the horses were doing equally well and I had not the cash to buy a motor car. My hon. friend will fairly bear me out that that is the position in this country. In regard to the engineer-in-chief of the British post office, it shows the contrast between a highly centralized, closely populated country and a country such as ours where it is sparsely inhabited. But even in London the engineer-in-chief of the British post office has only put automatics right in the densest parts in London, like Woolwich, which is considerably bigger than Cape Town. In all their new works they are putting manual exchanges. We have to take these things on their merits and apply them in the best possible way. There is about £4,000 difference in the working costs of the Cape Town Exchange in favour of the automatics.

In ten years you pay the difference.

At what expense? I do not know how my hon. friend feels about it. I approach the matter from a rather different angle from him and I say you have to make out an overwhelming case in favour of the change before you agree to it, and it would be at the expense of the jobs of hundreds of people.

These girls get married.

My hon. friend is not going to argue that the same girl gets married every time. Other girls come along. On the one hand you are opening up avenues of employment, and on the other hand you want to close them. I notice in the press talk about some people who want to destroy spinning jennies— it is not an analogous case at all. Where it applies to a highly industrialized country like England, it does not apply here, because there is no alternative employment in South Africa, when we find ourselves faced with an increasing youthful population being turned out of the schools, and a not very quickly expanding avenue of employment. Fifty per cent, of those who leave school do not get employment.

Mr. Cousins, who made that statement, has withdrawn it.

Does he say that every person finds employment? Whether it is 50, 30 or 20 per cent, does not vitiate the argument. There is an overplus of individuals who do not get employment. If my hon. friends could show me that you have such a tremendous money saving, there might be something to be said for their argument.

And the girls could go hang.

Do not put words into my mouth I did not use. I hope my hon. friends will not pursue that argument any further.

You should not—it is thoroughly rotten.

My hon. friend is a follower of the old Manchester school. I do insist that the men and women of the country have also to be considered. As for the argument of efficiency, I am not going to argue that the automatic machine is not efficient, but I am going to say that it is not more efficient than the present manual system.

It is much more secret.

I will deal with that. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) made great play with the release taking about one-tenth of the manual, but he did not say anything about the time it took to make connection.

Equally as short,

Oh, no. The time taken to dial a three-figure number—anything below 1,000— is eight seconds, and it is difficult to do it in any less time. I have tested it over and over again on a standard instrument.

In Durban they work one every day.

You have not an automatic in Durban.

For years we have had them.

The time taken to dial a four-figure number is 11 seconds. We are getting spontaneous complaints from various parts of the country about automatic exchange. When telegrams were being read from various parts of the country, I could not help thinking of the headings of a copybook which everybody copied. I do ask you what opportunity the people of Elgin have had to consider the pros and cons of an automatic exchange ? I make bold to say that there are only the hon. members for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who, on the other side of the House, have given any study at all to that question. This is a letter from the Natal Estates, Ltd.—

Overport is an automatic exchange. I am satisfied it is not written with a desire to decry the automatic machine, because we are fighting that question to-day. We are building telephone lines in the country as cheaply as we possibly can, and we are concentrating as far as possible on the country areas, in order that they may be brought more closely into touch with the amenities of civilization. The Civil Air Board was instituted when we were contemplating civil aviation. The whole question is not dead yet. The £8,000 subsidy is still held in reserve. We have agreed to pay that sum to anybody who will give us an aerial service, but we are not asking for tenders. We are prepared to give assistance to the extent of £8,000, certain ground equipment, and certain hangars, etc., and that is the reason we are maintaining the aerodrome at Young’s field, Wynberg. Of course, when people come along with suggestions that may or may not involve increased expenditure, and we consider that action may be necessary, the Minister of Finance will, no doubt, give the proposal his most favourable consideration.

What is the secretary to the Civil Air Board doing, beyond twiddling his thumbs?

He draws up voluminous reports. He is a sort of liaison officer between us and the rest of the world on aviation matters, and he is a very able fellow. He is in touch with all the aviation services in the world, obtains reports on the development of aircraft and aerial routes, and the results of experiments.

And that is all we get for £1,200 a year.

Surely the hon. member would not have us smash up that department!

I must ask hon. members not to interrupt so frequently.

As regards the possibility of landing European mails at Walvis Bay and conveying them by aeroplane to Johannesburg and Durban, I am rather partial to that route, and during the recess I propose to meet the Administrator of South-West Africa with a view to exploring all the possibilities of getting the mails in Johannesburg and Durban a week earlier than they are delivered at present. Tentative suggestions have been made, and various groups of people are coming along, although officially I have not had any suggestions from them. The proposal is in the air. As to the bureau of national information, I hope that will be extended. Its object is to disseminate information throughout the country, and more particularly to the farmers, with regard to the state of markets, not only in South Africa, but all over the world, as well as weather reports and news of vital importance to the agricultural community. We have not perfected the bureau yet, but we hope to be able by its means to secure farmers against being exploited unduly by speculators. I have not had much time to go into the question of charges for telephones and telegrams, for I do want to see the effect of the reduction of the postal rates to one penny for six months, before I decide to make any drastic cuts in any of the services. I shall give my serious attention to the suggestion to reduce the charges for telegrams. I would like to see sixpenny telegrams, for if we make a reduction it should be a substantial one, so as to bring in a largely increased use of the wires, in order to make up for the revenue which must be sacrificed by a reduction in the charges. My hon. friend (Mr. Blackwell) wants to know about the delivery of wires to passengers by train. That is a simple matter. He has only got to look up the time table and say that he will be at a certain station at a certain hour, and a telegram can be dispatched and delivered to him at that station. A very serious matter was brought up by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart). He complained about impertinence in the telephone department. I want to assure him that I believe that to be, if it is true, an isolated instance. There was one other case, and as a result a circular has been sent out to all exchanges to be very careful and treat everybody with the utmost courtesy, and if there happens to be a unilingual operator on who is spoken to by a person who uses another language, that operator must get into touch with a bilingual person or a person using the same language as the member of the public. I will not permit any impertinence or any derogation of one language or the other. The equality of the official languages has got to be recognized. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has spoken about the increased expenditure. The business of the post office has grown enormously. Even since the compilation of our estimated revenue only four months ago, the revenue collections have increased by over £100,000. Hon. members and the public have no idea of the growth of post office business in South Africa. I am delighted to see it, because it reflects the expansion of trade in the country.

Is that not due to the three-cornered stamps ?

I can assure my hon. friend that some of it is. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) also referred to the increase of pensions and new appointments. The reorganization with its £108,000 of pensions, is an unfortunate heritage that we had from the late Government. They decided to reorganize, and we have got to “carry the baby.” We pay the pensions and it goes against our funds. As indicating the growth of the department, I would mention that between last year and this our telegraph offices have increased by over 200. Telephone exchanges, 897 to 1,100; telephone calls (public call offices), 114,000,000 to 121,000,000 ; telephone trunk calls, seven and a half million to eight and a half million— enormous strides in every department of the postal service. We have started a real organized scheme in the direction of educating our youths to supply really trained material in the department, and it includes no fewer than 200 learners. I am sure that my hon. friend, will agree that that is money well spent. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) and others dealt with this question of the resolution of 12th May, 1925—application of Fifth Report salary scales. The position in regard to the learners bristles with difficulties, but the whole matter is being considered by the Public Service Commission at the moment. I laid it before the Commission with the view of eliminating those who happened to be appointed before that reduction came in, and it possible for the Public Service Commission to agree to their automatically taking their place, and the others would become a matter for further consideration. I am trying to find how many there are who can be brought under this scale as my hon. friend desires.

; Have you any idea of the numbers ?

No. In regard to no provision being made for supervising foremen, that is being provided for. I expect my hon. friend will introduce additional Estimates which will make provision for quite a number of posts which are at the moment being filled and included in these are certain supervisory posts and certain first-grade posts. In regard to the plant at Slangkop, that is a question of almost international policy, and that is one of the matters upon which I am going to confer with the Administrator of South West Africa. My hon. friend desires me to run the post office as a complete entity, without relation to the Minister of Finance. I will undoubtedly confer on that point. The matter is receiving our consideration. In regard to long service increment, that also is before the Public Service Commission. In regard to mechanicians’ shop, there again I concede the request. We are now about to build a comprehensive building in Prestwich Street on the vacant piece of ground which will house the Government garages, the mechanicians’ shops, postal stores, etc.

Report progress.

I have done now.

There are many other points.

I have answered most of the points. With regard to the development of telegraphs and telephones in the countryside, that is engaging the most serious attention, and the details can be settled in consultation with the postmaster-general. We are going in for a complete reorganization scheme with regard to our workshops and garages, and will be able to compete on very favourable terms.

I hope my hon. friend will now agree to report progress and ask leave to sit again. He has not touched on the most important matters touched on to night, the ocean mail contract, and the wireless station. I am sure, if he were sitting on this side, he would not expect the postal vote to go through in a few hours. We started at half-past live. Hon. members have many questions to ask which constituents have brought to their notice.

The committee had a good innings. Nearly every member of the committee had his say. I have answered most of the points. With regard to the ocean and mail contract, negotiations are going on in a very spasmodic way. The position to-day is, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) pads it—we have a yearly agreement—the old agreement standing subject to 12 months’ notice on either side. Neither side has seen fit to give notice. When that time comes along, the country will not find itself unprepared to deal with the situation as it arises. In the meantime we are prepared to carry on.

I do hope the Minister will consent to our adjourning now.

No.

I move—

May I appeal to the Minister to accept this motion ? I appreciate the courtesy with which he has replied and the full information which he has given ; but some of the points I raised have not been answered. I do not blame the Minister—we are tired, and the hour is late. The Minister has not said a word about the Johannesburg post office, wireless, and porterage on telegrams.

I think it is quite unreasonable to expect the House to adjourn now. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Black-well) interrupted the Minister so much all the evening that he could not get on with his speech. Did not the hon. member know that it was getting late? He now wants the House to adjourn, but I think he is quite unreasonable.

The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) has just come into the House like a giant refreshed after enjoying himself, while we have been here the whole evening. It is not fair to ask the House to pass large and important votes without giving hon. members an opportunity of discussing them. The Minister has nothing to hide, but it is very necessary that we should have the fullest information. Hon. members have other questions to ask on behalf of their constituents who demand that these subjects should be ventilated.

Hon. members opposite have had a full innings. Nearly every member on that side has spoken.

Motion put.

Upon which the committee divided:

I want to assure the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that there is no ground for fear in regard to the overhearing of conversations. Strict instructions have been issued which are followed by discharge if any operator is found to be listening in. But it is a sheer impossibility to listen in, the operators are so busy, and as for connecting up with another subscriber, it is unthinkable.

Is it not possible to tap a telephone ?

Yes, all things are possible.

I must ask hon. members not to interrupt so frequently. I wish to draw attention to Rule 63. [Rule read.] Of course the chair does not wish to prevent interruptions of every kind, but this continuous interrupting should cease.

I want to pay a tribute to the operators for their high conception of their duty to the public, and I am happy to be able to say so. In regard to wireless, singularly enough, only to-day the Government representative on the board of directors of the original company—Marconi (South Africa), Limited— came to see me with a proposed prospectus which was going to be considered to-morrow by their board. It is too short a notice for the Government to agree to that prospectus going out, or that we should allow the imprimatur of the Government to be placed upon it. We feel there is a possibility of the public not understanding the position and, until we have had an opportunity of thoroughly investigating it, we do not propose to subscribe to that prospectus. That does not prevent the directors of that company from considering that prospectus and tentatively passing it, but the position is that the company, whilst it was originally told that the agreement carried with it the institution of a super broadcasting station radiating with the rest of the world, yet as a result of considerations put before us, the Government decided to allow that company to experiment with the beam system. It is cheaper and, whether it will be more efficient remains to be seen, but we are allowing them to experiment while, at the same time reserving, as a Government, the right to insist upon the original scheme going through. If and when this beam system proves itself successful, the Government again will consider the matter, and decide whether they will look to that company for a substitution of the original agreement or whether it will be an adjunct of the original. It ought to be ready within a fortnight or so.

Will it be receiving messages ?

I am not advised on that, but it must be pretty close. With regard to the porterage on telegrams, I agree with the hon. member that it does seem absurd. I will go into it, and if I can give some relief, I promise it will be done. As to the Johannesburg post office, we are not going to build another. Capital expenditure is too high at the moment, and the country is practically overwhelmed with it. We have got some arrangement whereby we can get over the congestion. I agree the present building is congested and not suitable in many respects. In conjunction with the new railway station scheme, the post office contemplates putting £100,000 on the estimates for the purpose of having a sort of sorting post office there which will relieve the situation for many years to come. With regard to the telephone girls, it was represented to me that they were being reduced to a very nervous state with the known and yet unknown secret supervision over them, causing them almost to break down. It culminated in one girl being discharged in losing points, which the girls complained was not a legitimate method of marking. I sent up a gentleman who is one of our best telephonic experts to enquire into the question, and the result has practically substantiated the complaints made by the girls. It has been decided to reinstate the girls and arrange for an altered system of marking, and to remove the man who was in control of the Johannesburg exchange, who was put into another post where his abilities will have greater scope and play. That official is not to be reduced, but the net result of the change will be a tremendous accession of contentment amongst the girls and more efficiency. I will go into the matter of the charges for table telephone extensions, and if there is anything in favour of a reduction, I will make it. Correspondence classes for messengers and others have already been started. As far as possible we shall give preference to local men in the construction of telephone and telegraph extensions. If telephone boxes are insufficiently ventilated, steps will be taken to effect an improvement.

Over a year ago the House adopted a motion asking the Government to consider the advisability of applying the recommendations of the fifth report in regard to 171 men who entered the service as learners before March 28th, 1923, but who were not permanently appointed to a post before that date. The Government accepted the motion. Two months ago I put a question on the paper, and the Minister replied that he would state the Government’s position when his vote was taken. This is a matter purely of Government policy, and the Public Service Commission cannot initiate a Government policy. I hope the Minister will bring the matter before the Government, so that a decision can be announced before the session is over. The answer he has given to-night will not satisfy the men because it does not fit the situation. They were all in the service before the reduced salary scale came into force. I say that in fairness to these men and to the rest of the service who are backing these men’s claim we are entitled to ask the Minister what the decision is and, if the Government has not arrived at any decision after a year has passed, why no decision has been arrived at.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the country telephones are not showing an enormous profit. Judging by the big rents we have to pay I should imagine that they are showing a very handsome profit and surely the Minister must realize that the farmers are taxed sufficiently without adding to their burden in the way that the Government are doing in regard to these telephones. In my constituency one has only got to have an extraordinary thunderstorm and half of the telephones are out of commission and some of the farmers are three days without any service. The Minister should provide some means whereby the telephones will not be placed out of commission through a thunderstorm, such as lightening arrestors. I would point out to the Minister that some of his linesmen get about the country to repair lines on foot. Why not be up-to-date in this department and have mechanical means of getting about ? When I pick up my telephone, for which I pay the Government a heavy rental, I can overhear conversations taking place over the line. Now this is a private line and I want to know whether the Minister does not think that such a state of things is a scandal. In view of the heavy rent I have to pay, I do say that I am entitled to have privacy at all events.

I was very glad to find that the Minister had no valid reasons to offer against automatic telephones. I do not suggest, and nobody has ever suggested that every manual exchange should be converted. The suggestion was that if you are to put in new money into exchanges you should put it into the most up-to-date form of automatic exchange. No one in his senses suggests that the whole of the manual exchanges in South Africa should be scrapped and automatic ones immediately put in. The Minister made great play with the question of capital costs ; but the capital cost has to be considered in connection with working costs. If you borrow money at 5 per cent, and save 15 per cent, it is good business to borrow your money and that it what the Minister does not seem to appreciate. If hon. members will look at page 116 of the Votes they will see that this year alone the increase in payment of telephone operators in one year has gone up 100 per cent. That £20,000 increase is 10 per cent of £200,000 capital invested—more than enough to pay interest and depreciation on the Cape Town automatic telephone exchange he was speaking about. I suggest that the Minister should take the whole of the facts into consideration. He is only looking at it practically from two aspects. He is frightened of the capital expenditure and says it will decrease the number of telephone operators. If he will kindly examine the position he will come to the conclusion that Australia, England, Canada, Spain and America are right and he is wrong. If he reads the report he gave me to read he will find that in the estimate of the cost as made in Australia, the expense of scrapping the old material is all taken into the calculation, so that all these side issues he has brought in do not affect the argument in any way whatever. He said the saving in expense in the Cape Town exchange would amount to £4,000 in a year. I should very much like him to submit these figures to a competent authority to see if they are correct, but in a further part of his argument he said that to save £4,000 would mean the loss of jobs of hundreds of people. How can £4,000 a year make a difference in the jobs of hundreds of people? If the Minister should say that the whole of the clothing that is made should be made by hand, it would use more labour. He ought to say that no more sewing machines should be allowed. I would suggest to the Minister that Col. Sturman, who told the Select Committee that he was proceeding to England, should have his services made use of to give an absolutely independent judgment on this matter, and let him make enquiries wherever he is travelling. He knows the whole of the circumstances of this country ; and let him give advice to the Minister before we put a lot of money into an obsolete machine. The automatic telephone, at any rate, is secret. I understood the Minister to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that there was absolute secrecy.

I said all things are possible.

I have not seen a telephone exchange for some time, but all the telephone "exchanges I have seen have special lines for cutting in. Supervisors can cut in and yet the Minister says nobody can cut in. [Time limit.]

I don’t.

I wish to take exception to the Minister speaking of the farmers of Elgin as being incompetent to speak about automatic telephones, and—

That is not the way to treat people because they are farmers, and to pass a slur upon them that they are ignorant. I can give the names of twenty farmers in the Elgin area whose general knowledge on very many topics, including automatic telephones, can any day be compared with the knowledge the Minister has on this and any other subjects. They are just as competent to judge of the efficiency of automatic telephones as the Minister himself.

I must express my dissent from the line of attack adopted by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). The suggestion underlying his remark was that I, in a sort of supercilious manner, looked down on the farmers. That was not my intention. My point was that a man engaged in ordinary farming occupations has not the time to study highly technical subjects such as this on which there is a clash of opinion even among scientific experts. So how can you expect an ordinary farmer who is a splendid fellow and knows his job to be able to arrive at a decision on such matters ? The Elgin, or any other, farmers have the right to make representations, and we will do our best to meet their requirements. There is an attachment which can be installed in small country exchanges which will give an opportunity of making communications during the night, and I have sent for one of these instruments and if they prove successful they will be installed in country exchanges. The hon. member for Newlands states that the Minister has already increased the number of telephone assistants by 100 per cent., but he has overlooked the fact that this is really only a transfer of telephonists to telephone assistants. Last year we had 808 telephonists, but this year we have 701. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) talks about the enormous profit we make on farm telephones. Nothing of the sort. This service is practically rendered at cost. In regard to thunderstorm appliances, I can assure my hon. friend that we do have thunderstorm appliances, lightning arresters, etc.

They are no good.

What are we going to do? We have got the best that science can produce and money can buy. There is no appliance that is absolutely lightning proof. With regard to the transport of linesmen, I may tell the hon. member that we provide mechanical transport where it can be used. I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Serteet) (Mr. Alexander) rather misunderstood me. The point is this, that we are agreed that the whole of the learners to whom he referred were in the service, but there were a certain number of the 170 odd who were actually appointed before the date mentioned and it is those whom I have referred to the Public Service Commission to see whether, without any further bother, we can bring them under that scale. Then come the others and these are the matter for Cabinet decision and I want to say quite frankly to my hon. friend that we have not yet come to a decision on this question.

I appreciate the fullness of the answers given by the Minister on the various points I have raised, but I do not wish to join issue with him in his reply with reference to the Civil Air Board. His answer was really this plea—

My first reply is to point out that so far from abolishing this board the expenditure under that head has increased very largely during this particular year. If ever their was a case for the Geddes axe it is in this expenditure. The Aviation Act of 1923 provided for a Civil Air Board, but they are not paid. The expense arises in this that as soon as you set up a board to do anything it seems to involve an office, typist, etc., etc. Why could not all the functions of this board, which I do not suppose meets more than once a quarter—if they meet oftener what do they discuss—be attended to by a clerk in the Post Office. Why should the State pay £1,200 a year for a gentleman to correspond with the outside world and tell us what is being done in regard to aviation ? We have newspapers and periodicals and there can be no justification for this particular item of expenditure. Will the Minister promise me that between now and the making up of the next estimates he will consider whether this expenditure is necessary ? Cannot the clerical work of the board be done during a portion of the time of the staff of the Postmaster-General ? Why set up this bureau inside a bureau ? I extremely regret the Minister’s announcement that we cannot hope for a new post office at Johannesburg. We are led to understand that the Government were going to give the matter favourable consideration and that the only difficulty was one of site. The Minister’s statement will be a great disappointment to Johannesburg and possibly to the whole Reef. The post office is the most antiquated and obsolete building of its kind in the whole Union and is quite inadequate. It is exceedingly difficult to get proper attention because of the structural difficulties. If the Minister does not face it this year he will have to do so next year. The sooner the problem is faced the better. We cannot accept as final the Minister’s statement that we are not getting a new post office. Johannesburg won’t accept that statement.

What will you do ? Burn it down ?

The hon. member will see in Adderley Street a building has been pulled down for the purpose of building a better building on that site. The next question I want to raise is that of postage stamps. I used to collect them when a boy at school, and I understood that one of the main sources of revenue of South American republics was the printing of very handsome stamps of little value which they offloaded on to the public. I wonder if that is the policy of the Minister or of his predecessor. There has been a re-issue of some of the old triangular stamps of the Cape, and was that done for the stamp-collecting market ? If that is the intention, it is a somewhat undignified procedure for this country, and we are not, I hope, reduced to the shift of raising revenue by issuing fancy postage stamps. Up to now stamps have been printed in this country for purposes of postage, and they have been ugly enough, I admit. I have seen the complaint that immediately the new stamps were issued they were snapped up by the London dealers, and the South African public could not get them. [Time limit.]

The Minister has not had a word to say about the important matter I brought forward. When the Minister gives an exhaustive reply to hon. members who have been dining, wisely, but not too well—

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I ask if the hon. member is in order.

I do not know whether the hon. member, by what he has said, imputes anything to the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane).

The hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) made a general statement which must apply to some hon. member. He said the Minister had replied to hon. members who had dined not wisely but too well. The hon. member did not identify anyone. But is that not a reflection on some hon. member amongst those to whom the Minister has replied ?

I do not consider that is a reflection on any particular member. The hon. member made some jocular remark, which need not be taken seriously.

I want it on record that it is the Chairman’s ruling that an expression of that sort can be made as a jocular remark. I ask in all sincerity if that is the Chairman’s ruling?

The hon. member may proceed.

I have nothing further to say.

I want to know whether it is the Chairman’s ruling that that remark does not reflect on any member of this House, and whether it is open for any other hon, member to make use of similar remarks. Hon. members are constantly called to order for giving vent to expressions which I do not thing reflect nearly as much on hon. members as the remark of the hon. member for Maritz-burg (North).

In rising to a point of order I took the remark as an implication of inebriety. Having come in in a dinner jacket I took it that the remark applied to me.

I hope that if any ruling is given it will be based on the actual words used and not as represented by hon. members opposite. I never heard the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) say that any member had dined wisely but not too well. The words used by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) were not the words used by the hon. member for Maritzburg.

I understood the hon. member to say that the Minister had devoted a good deal of time to an hon. member who had dined not wisely but too well. Is that not a reflection on a member ? It was not a general joke but was applicable to a particular hon. member. I would like the Chairman to say whether that is not a reflection.

The rule says that no member shall use offensive or unbecoming words against either House of Parliament or any member thereof. I don’t know how it strikes the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), but I would take it as an insult if an hon. member used that phrase about myself.

If I have offended the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) in any way, I am very sorry. I did not intend to be offensive to any member of the House. I hope the hon. member has enjoyed himself to-night.

I accept the hon. gentleman’s apology, and I am glad he is able to recognize that I am quite sober.

There is only one other point that I would like to raise, and that is a point that I touched upon with a certain amount of delicacy. I see on page 158, one private secretary at the grade £420, with an allowance of £64. I only want to put a question on that and that is whether, after certain regrettable occurrences some months ago, the Minister has now arranged that this secretary shall not attend public political meetings and not there publicly and, in the presence of the press, criticize his (the Minister’s) brother Ministers.

This item appears as a new item. There is no reference to the previous year’s salary. Will the Minister tell us what the predecessor of this officer drew ?

I am not satisfied with the Minister’s reply to my complaint in regard to telephones being placed out of commission. There is no greater annoyance to farmers in a busy time than to have their telephones dislocated in that way by a thunderstorm. I want to put in a plea for the country telephone girls, who are wretchedly housed. At Seven Oaks you have a post office and telephone office in a building of wood and iron, 12 by 12 and 10 feet high. There is no ventilation in this place, bar the door and the window, and 25 per cent, of this space is taken up with a counter, and on a not day with half-a-dozen natives perspiring the air is unpleasant. It is not right. In winter, what with frost, they have no stove and are cold ; these officials should be able to do their work in comfort. This is not the only case. The Minister was boasting about the telephone system being so perfect yet the country telephones pay such a high rental and are deprived at 5 o’clock of any further service. If there is anybody who needs a night service it is the farmer, and not only for medical reasons. Within 25 miles of my farm recently a serious faction fight occurred amongst the natives. These are frequent, and it is necessary that the police authorities should be warned early in order that they may prevent the spread of the fighting. If we had automatic telephones there would be no question of clerks working overtime. And this disturbing element of native faction fights is getting worse year by year.

I just want to revert to the point mentioned by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane). The post offices on the countryside are in a parlous plight. Take e.g., the post office at Skeeppoort, where telegraph and telephone business is done. The building is 5 feet by 6 feet and the whole postal, telegraph and telephone business has to be done in it. There are not sufficient shelves to dispose of the post in a proper way when it is made up. Skeeppoort is one of the warmest places in the country, and in the summer it is so not that the girl who works in the post office is not able to stop in the room. She is compelled in summer to work outside the building. Then I may also say that if the Minister came to Marikani he would find that the post office is so small that it is impossible to do the postal business properly. There is a settlement in the neighbourhood, and there are consequently many letters, but the post office is so small that there is very little room behind the counter. Moreover there are police and natives in the native location close by who send off post office orders and all of them have to get them at the post office. The post office at Marikani is a scandal to any country. If you want to send a telephone message from there then you cannot do so without others hearing it. It is impossible to do business over the ’phone if you want to keep it secret. I hope the Minister, consequently, will give his attention to the matter to see if something cannot be done to these two offices.

I want to ask the Minister about the idea that has got abroad with regard to the issue of the fourpenny stamps, that it was really done with the idea of makings money through sales to stamp dealers. A nation which issues stamps for this purpose is discredited. It is known that the fourpenny stamps as first printed—because there have been subsequent prints since then—have been obtainable in London from the beginning in blocks and sheets though they were unobtainable here, within a couple of days. That is so to this moment, and they are only obtainable from the London dealers at much higher prices than face value here. I have been assured of that on very good authority, and we ought to have a most definite public disclaimer from the Minister that the issue of these stamps was not a speculation on the part of the postal department. As regards automatic telephones, I must say that the reply of the Minister has been signally unconvincing. The points made by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) require closer attention and argument than were given by the Minister. In his reply the Minister made two main points: that the capital cost of automatics is greater, and that the effect of substituting automatics will be to cause unemployment. Of course, the fact of the capital cost of automatics being greater, is a very important point to be taken into consideration; that is not all. If the annual saving would be so great in the case of automatics, as even the Minister has indicated, it does seem to an ordinary layman like myself that in a comparatively few years this saving will have extinguished the cost of the automatics. [No quorum.] The Minister has not satisfied me that the result of the argument as to cost is in favour of the manual system. As to the fear of unemployment—I object as much as the Minister does to creating unemployment, but the substitution of automatic for manual telephone exchanges need not have that effect. The substitution will take a long period during which the ordinary natural “wastage” of “operators” will take place by marriage, resignation and so on. The idea that the creation of labour-saving machinery causes unemployment is an old and exploded one. The Minister in his argument on this point is what he himself used to call a “back-number,” using the arguments of a hundred years ago. What would the Minister think if we did away with all labour-saving machinery in order to reduce unemployment ? On this point I quote to the House par. 175 of the Economic and Wage Commission (1925) Report. This is very high authority. [Time limit.]

I understand that the Minister presides over a department that has got a very large personnel—the department of posts and telegraphs. He also presides over the public works department. I can understand that in some department for particular purposes it may be necessary to bring somebody from outside into that department, but I would say this to the Minister that he might have followed the example of his predecessor, who I do not think found it necessary to bring an outsider temporarily into the department to occupy the post of a private secretary. I want to ask the Minister if he thinks it is an encouragement to the young men in our public service, who have made it their career, when it is necessary to get a private secretary to find that there was no one in his department who was competent to fill that position. If my hon. friend, the Minister of Labour, when he was Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, was able to find a private secretary who was a member of the public service to do this work, why was it not possible, when the offices were changed, to allow that officer to remain in the post? We should thus have been saved an incident which was no credit to the officer concerned when he attended a public meeting for the purpose of passing strictures upon the actions of a brother Minister in the same Cabinet.

Why should you worry?

I consider I have just as much right to worry as my hon. friend about the dignity of this House or the dignity of this country. I consider that if there are suitable young men in the service, the Minister should have followed the example of his predecessor in office, and appointed a permanent member of the civil service to fill the position of his private secretary. Had he appointed a member of the public service to that office and had he gone to a public meeting and criticized a brother Minister, he would have found he would come very soon under the disciplinary regulations. The Minister should certainly have given one of the young men in his department an opportunity of filling that position and if he felt compelled to bring in an outsider he should have taken care that he followed the same rule as the secretaries of other Ministers and did not take part in public meetings and criticize other Ministers.

May I ask the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) why he did not take the matter up with the former Prime Minister when he appointed Mr. Brebner, Mr. Fourie and Mr. Strauss in succession from outside the service as his private secretaries.

I do not think we can carry on that discussion profitably. I am deeply touched at the kindly interest of hon. members in my own personal affairs.

; The country pays the money.

It is recognized that the Prime Minister’s private secretary is his own choice entirely and I am not coming either to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort or the hon. member for Bezuidenhout for a lead as to where my choice shall lie.

I said nothing about your choice but his conduct.

You rather cheered the expression of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. I shall take it in future when the hon. member cheers that his cheer is one of those automatic things. How anxious hon. members opposite are to remove any possibility of difficulties arising—a lift in the lute—in the Cabinet as at present constituted. That gentleman, when he became my private secretary, did not surrender what unfortunately the public servants have done, his full citizenship rights. He is a member of the S.A. Labour Party. He did not go to a public meeting but to a meeting of the S.A. Labour Party to which he was entitled to go. Do you want me to sack him ?

No, tell him to be a good boy in future.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is really interfering in what amounts to a domestic matter, and kindly and courteous as the act is, it does not impress me one whit. The only thing I can promise the hon. member is that I will report his kindly interest in the affairs of the South African Labour Party, especially the Ministerial members thereof, to the next annual conference of the party which will take place in Capetown. Now the things that matter—the hon. member refers to the Civil Air Board. I will promise to look into it—that is all I can promise. The items for transport and subsistence were due to the fact that the secretary had much running about to do in arranging the air service that was projected at the time, and may still possibly be projected. I think we would do foolishly if we broke up that department. I will see whether we can profitably employ him in any other capacity without any undue hardship to him. As to the Johannesburg post office, we have not decided not to do anything—all we have decided not to do is to build a new post office. Our experience of a similar adjunct at Germiston has been that it relieved the situation so greatly that we are constrained to try the same system at Johannesburg. Half of the internal staff will go from the post office to the station there. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) were very much concerned as to the possibility of our falling into line with the South American republics in issuing our stamps to make money. I want to assure both gentlemen that nothing of the sort was intended, or was in my hon. friend’s mind. The old Cape’s association with stamps was the triangular one of 1860, and it stood high with philatelists, and the idea of my hon. friend was to give effect to that. In philately everybody is out to make money, partly for the monetary value, and chiefly because they like to be the possessors of new issues, and that will happen whatever issue you have. It was merely a concession to the old Cape sentiment which both my colleague and I thought would be highly appreciated. It is not true that these stamps were sold on the London market before they could be purchased here. We are enquiring into the complaints that these stamps could be obtained in sheets in London and not here. The matter of local allowance is a serious one. I will bring it before my colleagues and see if an allowance can be made to public servants at Pietermaritzburg if circumstances justify it. Representations have also been made from Port Elizabeth that the census figures do not reflect the true position in regard to the cost of living at that place. That statement has to be examined, and if it is proved hon. members can depend upon this Government doing the fair thing.

No one has ever cavilled at the Prime Minister having as his private secretary a person who is not a member of the public service. In other departments, however, where there are large numbers of young fellows competent to fill the position of private secretary they should have an opportunity of obtaining such appointments as they may fall vacant. It is not right that a private secretary to a Minister should criticize another Cabinet Minister. It is undignified so far as the service itself is concerned. It is not only the taking in of an outsider, but the way in which the outsider has behaved that has aroused criticism, on the ground that it is not good for the service generally.

There is a fundamental error in the remark of the Minister that this is a domestic concern of his. As a matter of fact it is a public concern because of the item of £484 on the vote for the private secretary. I think the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has fairly stated the general position about private secretaries. But in this case though the secretary is not in the public service yet Parliament has to vote the money to pay the salary of the private secretary. Members of Parliament are for that reason at liberty to express their opinion perfectly freely on the matter upon which the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs chooses to lay down the dictum that it is his private concern. The matter of public concern is that not only have we to vote the salary—

You know you are only talking.

I hope I am talking sense and I do not think the hon. member has contributed anything in that way for the last two or three months. I say it is a matter of concern to us that the ordinary dignity and decencies of the public service and of public life in this country should be observed by members of the Cabinet and by their private secretaries over whom they have control. I should like to know from the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether he will answer this passage and try and remove the doubts I still have about the automatics.

I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) in regard to the country telephones. All the bad material the department has seems to be sent to make our country telephones. The repair staff in the Stellenbosch district must be at least twice what would be necessary if you had decent materials. The post office are very prompt in dealing with repair work but the amount of unnecessary labour expended is terrific. The telephone apparatus in the country is generally the worst pattern you can find. With the machine I have if you are expecting a message the only hope you have of hearing the bell is to sit alongside the machine. I think they charge an annual fee of something over £5 a mile.

I was hoping to get a reply from the Minister.

You will get no more reply tonight.

Mr. Chairman—

The hon. member may not speak twice in succession. I proceed to put the question.

The point is that the Minister has been impressing on us that the income of the department is going up by leaps and bounds, and I put a question worthy of consideration, and now at this early hour of the morning he declines to answer any more questions. I hope the Minister is not going to give in. We are prepared to go on with the work. The matter I want answering refers to the increased rent charged in postal boxes in the country districts.

I move—

Question put, and Sir Thomas Smartt called for a division.

Upon which the Committee divided:

brought up the report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Catering as follows—

stated that unless notice of objection to the report was given on or before Monday, the 24th May, the report would be considered as adopted.

There is a wrong cross-reference in line 13 of this clause. The provisions of sub-section (4) should read “the provisions of sub-section (3).” I move—

These cross-references will be rectified automatically.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

It is said that the commission will make a report to the Government at the end of each year. The commission will, however, not go personally to make investigations, but will send someone to do so. Now I should like the Minister to tell me if the commission does not itself thoroughly investigate matters, but founds its report on somebody else’s report, whether the latter report will be available, and not kept secret.

I do not know what the position will be. The Bill deals with what the commission will do and not with other reports submitted to it. That will have to be settled when such a case occurs.

The Minister did not understand me. If a railway line has to be built, or application is made for a railway line, a trade expert is sent as an agent to make enquiry in order to find out what the revenue of the railway will be, and he then makes a report to the Railway Board, and thereafter the Railway Board makes its report. I do not know whether the same practice will be followed here, but that agent’s report which discusses the matter from the commercial side, we are not allowed to see. It is secret. Now I want to ask the Minister whether the report I have in mind will also be secret ?

I do not know precisely what the position is. In any case only the report of the Irrigation Commission will be laid on the Table.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title put and agreed to.

I move—

They might get over the difficulty by making the loan a short one.

That amendment was also suggested by the law adviser. The difficulty is that supposing a loan is to be guaranteed for a month, it would work out at a very small percentage. You would find that type of business would no longer be done, and yet in some cases it might be a useful form of business, There are two difficulties. The difficulty of the short time is a substantial difficulty, and it would also be a difficulty to put in “per annum.”

Say 5 per cent for three months.

No, I think it should remain as it is. I do not want to tinker with that.

In view of what the Minister says and with the leave of the Committee, I withdraw the amendment.

New clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

The words “or to be paid” ought to be inserted after “paid” in sub-section (b).

I believe these words were left out advisedly in select committee. The committee wanted to know the exact amount paid over, and we were afraid if you put in the words “or to be paid” they would lump together in one amount and say that is the amount to be paid. On that ground we left that out advisedly. It might obscure the issue if we put that in, as it would be possible to hide the actual transaction.

Clause put and agreed to.

On old clause 8,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to.

House Resumed :

Bill reported with amendments, and specially an alteration in the title.

I move—

I do not want to object, but it is not quite fair to ask us not to object. We should have every opportunity of considering the whole position, and I ask the Minister that we can consider it on Friday.

There is one objection—we save £20 in printing expenses if we take it at once, which is an important matter, too.

Motion put and agreed to.

Amendments put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted ; third reading to-morrow.

It would be rather ridiculous after the first amendment of the Senate has been rejected to omit subsection (3) of Clause 2, because it says the examination should take place by a woman, and I hope the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) does not want that to be by a man, having caused that amendment to be rejected. He should allow me to move subsection (3) in again, otherwise we will have an unfortunate condition of affairs. I want to make certain on that point. I move—

Amendment in lines 39 to 41 put and agreed to.

Proposed omission of sub-section (3) put and negatived.

On amendment in Clause 36,

Will the Minister tell us what the reason of this insertion is? Has a difficulty arisen?

A difficulty that has arisen is that in a very recent judgment it is laid down that you cannot impose a punishment of imprisonment at a later stage if the fine remains unpaid. If the fine is not paid there is no recovery of any kind.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 59 and 62 put and agreed to.

Message to the Senate—

I move—

This is the Bill which has been brought up by order of the House in order to give effect to the tariff proposals that have been adopted by the Committee of Ways and Means, and later adopted by the House. Besides making these alterations effective, we also propose to amend the existing tariff schedule in order to give effect to the proposed decreases in the tariff schedule which I also laid on the Table of the House for the information of hon. members. Then we have added a few short clauses to deal with a few matters in connection with the administration of the Customs Act which have cropped up during the last few months. The amendment in the first section deals with the question of granting a preferential rebate on goods imported from the United Kingdom. It is essential that the goods shall not only be the produce of the United Kingdon but imported directly therefrom. Paragraph (b) extends the preference at present given to Canada, Australia and New Zealand to the United Kingdom. That puts right the question of binding twine, over which a lot of misunderstanding occurred. I said last year that if any agreement should be arrived at with the dominions under which preferences were given to them, these concessions or privileges would automatically be extended to the United Kingdom. We made provision for that in the Act, but what we omitted to do was to definitely lay down the existing preferences to the Union, and it escaped notice that one or two items given to the dominions were not included in the United Kingdom list. We deal also with the withdrawal of the existing preference schedules to the dominions under certain circumstances. As far as the preferences to the dominions were concerned they were more or less on a quid pro quo basis. Instead of giving to the dominions the general list which formerly operated in favour of the United Kingdom, we selected certain items which they were in the habit of exporting to us, and included them in our preference list to the dominions. The result was that as far as Australia was concerned we cut off a certain amount of preference she formerly enjoyed. Since the passing of the Tariff Act there have been negotiations between the Union and the other dominions in regard to the conclusion of new trade agreements. These negotiations are still proceeding, but in the meantime Australia has given us notice that the preference at present enjoyed by South Africa will terminate at the end of this month. We are still negotiating for a new agreement, but it is obvious that under these circumstances we must make provision that if any of the dominions withdraws preferences the preferences we have given in exchange should automatically also be withdrawn.

Are they withdrawing all the preferences ?

Yes. We are endeavouring to see if we cannot select any items which it would be to the advantage of both countries to have. It is not a reprisal for what Australia has done. We do not want to criticize or attack the tariff policy of any of the other dominions; they are at liberty to do what they consider to be in the interests of their own country. Australia has a protectionist policy. With regard to maize it has been ruled in Australia that our maize has been grown by black labour—I do not know how that operates, but we do not question Australia’s rights. This is not a reprisal clause, but this amendment becomes necessary for if any of the dominions should withdraw the preferences we have enjoyed, then we do the same until such time as new agreements are entered into. We also deal with the question of the dumping duty on Australian flour. This is to give effect to the policy I indicated when we dealt with the wheat and flour proposals. We deal here only with flour, because in the case of wheat we added an increased duty to take the place of the dumping duty. We say that the existing provisions in regard to the dumping of flour will not apply. If any dumping takes place, that is if there is a difference between the domestic value in Australia and the price at which the flour is sold for export here, a dumping duty is levied. But it will not be levied until this difference exceeds 7d.

They can dump up to 7d.

Yes, because that 7d. we have taken into account in our general rate. That does not apply to wheat, the dumping duty in regard to which remains unaffected. In the case of goods short shipped we place the onus of paying the duty on the shipping companies. Up to a certain time ago the importers were called upon by the Customs Department to pay duties on goods which, although shipped, were never received by the importers. Then there was a magistrate’s court decision under which it was doubtful whether we could continue that policy. Subsequently there was the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the Minister of Finance versus Mitchell, Cotts and Company, from which it appeared that the department had no option but to ask the merchants to pay this duty. It is to obviate that that we now lay down that when a shipping company has received goods on board one of its ships, the onus is placed on the shipping company to prove to us that those goods were either lost at sea or were never landed here, and unless they can do that we ask them to pay the duty instead of the merchants. I think it is only fair, equitable and just that if a shipping company has given a receipt for the goods and they do not prove that they were actually landed here, they should be asked to pay the duty.

The merchants have recourse against the shipping companies.

No, under the bills of lading the merchants contract themselves out. This amendment will generally be welcomed by the merchants. These are the only principles which are dealt with in the Bill, besides the clause which gives effect to the tariff.

I want to thank my hon. friend for having amended the matter of the preference to Great Britain. I am sorry, however, that the clause in regard to the dumping duty on flour is put in, for in my view there is no such thing as flour dumping. Has maize ever been dumped from South Africa ? Is a man going to sell his produce for export a cent, below the price he can get for it in the open market ? We dump sugar, I admit, very much indeed, but we never dump maize, and just as little do other countries dump wheat or flour into this country. There is no surplus of wheat or flour, and no man is likely to sell it for less for consumption in South Africa than he can get for it in any other market. The effect of this will be to put a stop to enterprise. When contracts are made for wheat or flour they are frequently entered into at the harvesting period when prices are rather low, and then the importer tries to place contracts for delivery say in March, or even June, of the following year. He has thus, as a rule, bought at the lowest price, but when the produce is shipped in March the price has gone up a little, and naturally his foresight has given him a little advantage. The duty is a tax on the enterprise of any man who imports, and the people of this country will not reap the benefit they otherwise would. This is a reflection on the policy of this country as well as Australia, which has put a heavy duty on our maize. We shall be robbing the people of both countries for the benefit of a certain section. I wanted particularly to make a few remarks in reply to the speech of the Minister of Finance the other day. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) gave certain figures showing the burden of these heavy duties which had been put on this year and last year upon the population of this country. He took it that the average artizan paid in the shape of duties £50 a year and the farmer paid something like £25. The Minister said that such a statement could not be correct because with the number of farmers in this country, if they all paid the average amount mentioned by the hon. member for Kimberley, it would mean that they would pay something like six millions in the extra price they paid for their stuff and the artizans would pay something like eight millions, exclusive of the other classes of people in respect of whom he estimated the amount at three millions. He asked how they could pay these amounts when the total that the Treasury receives is eight millions. The Minister added that in his opinion no value could be attached to the figures given by the hon. member for Kimberley. If I may say so, the reply of the Minister shows that he has not grasped what the burden of this tariff means to the people of this country and how it affects them. Does my hon. friend think that he gets into the Treasury all the extra prices which have to be paid on account of the increased duties which have been put on wheat, flour, sugar and manufactured goods like boots and clothing ?

That is quite a different case from that of the hon. member for Kimberley.

It is the same case. The burden falls upon the people just the same, but unfortunately the money does not go into the Treasury by a long, long way. The Ministers’s whole case in reply to the hon. member for Kimberley is based on a fallacy. He assumes that all the extra prices we have to pay for these things, boots and so forth, go into the Treasury. I will endeavour to show him that they do nothing of the kind. If he will reflect, he will see that the biggest part of the increased prices due to these extra duties which have been put on, does not go into the Treasury at all, but it goes into the pockets of the interests concerned, the manufacturer, producer, etc. Let us take sugar. The consumption of sugar in South Africa is estimated at 170,000 tons. The customs duty to-day is £3 10s. a ton, which means a total of £595,000. If there were no £3 10s. to pay the consumers would get their sugar considerably cheaper. The £595,000 which they have to pay for the South African sugar which they consume goes, not into the pockets of the Treasury, but, into the pockets of the various sugar interests concerned. It is exactly the same as regards breadstuffs— wheat and flour. The price of wheat to-day is 26s. 6d. If there were no duty on wheat and flour, the price would be considerably less, but the extra price which we pay for the South African grown stuff goes, not into the Treasury, but into the pockets of the producers. Let us take manufactured goods, boots, for instance. There is a duty of 30 per cent, on boots. We imported in 1924 £1,163,000 worth of boots, and we produced in South Africa about £1,500,000 worth. The duty on the imported boots comes to about £350,000. That goes to the Treasury. But the extra price which the consumers of this country have to pay for the South African made boots on account of the duty comes to about £450,000. I do not hesitate to say that the consumers of this country pay millions which never go into the Treasury at all on account of the extra duties which have been put on, but go into the pockets of various interests. We pay close upon £20,000,000 in taxation to carry on the central Government of this country, irrespective of what is paid to the provincial administrations, and besides that we have to pay millions to keep these various interests going. This country groans at the present time under heavy taxation in one form or another. Many members of this House, my hon. friend the Minister amongst them, support this tariff and this policy for the purpose of finding work for the people of South Africa, but that idea is founded entirely upon a fallacy. All trade is exchange between the products of one country and the products of another. If you import, as we imported in this country, several million pounds’ worth of stuff, how do you pay for it ? We have only one way of paying for it and that is by sending stuff out of the country that you produce yourselves. If we import a certain amount of stuff, that means that we have to export a certain amount of stuff to pay for it. So that when you hamper, as you are hampering business to-day, you are just pro tanto hampering the export trade in the same way. Take the farmer in this country. Can he buy a shilling’s worth of stuff except he is in a position to pay for it by what he produces on his farm ? The country is in exactly the same position. If you hamper the import trade you hamper the export trade in the same way.

I am not going to attack the Minister's policy, though I would say that I go very much with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in a lot of things that he has said. I would put it to the Minister whether it is not possible to withdraw this tax on ready-made clothing, especially in so far as boys’ clothing is concerned. Boys’ clothing is not made in South Africa and here we are putting on a tax to protect something which is not made in this country. I would seriously ask the Minister whether it is not possible to take this tax off. If not, being members of the Pact Government, we must go with them. At a recent sitting of the Wage Board in Cape Town some interesting evidence was given by Miss E. C. Steenkamp, of the A.C.V.V., With regard to the very low wages paid to women engaged in the clothing industry here. She said that women earned 15s. a week, and had a family to keep, and that they never eat vegetables. Those are the people employed by concerns which are going to make the boys’ clothing that we are protecting. Miss Steenkamp mentioned that she knew of girls who bought shoes on the instalment system. Mr. Lucas, the chairman, put this question to her—

The reply was—

Then she goes on to say that in these factories coloured examiners were put over the girls. I have no sympathy with building up these industries by the sweat and blood of these girls. Let the Minister defer helping these people until the wages board has reported. With this duty, on boys’ clothing a working man with three or four sons will have to pay from 30s. to 60s. extra because this boys clothing is not made in South Africa. I am a free trader to a large extent and always have been. I know that I do not get any more for my mealies in London, but I know that the price of my hat goes up. The workers who have been sweated to-day are the daughters of men who were well to do, or their grand daughters, who have been driven into the towns through force of circumstances. The Cabinet should go closely into this question of the tariff on boys’ clothing.

I was very glad to hear the Minister say in regard to Clause 1 that it is not a retaliatory clause, for I had taken it as such. I understood the Minister to say that the Australian Government had given notice to terminate the preference arrangement at the end of this month.

Yes.

Does that mean that part 3 of the Customs Tariff Act of last year, whereby this preference was given on butter, wheat, flour and hosiery will cease?

If this is passed and they withdraw.

Unless you have come to some agreement with them in the meantime, that will cease, so that there will be a further tariff to be paid on wheat and flour imported into this country. Flour and wheat will cost us more than appears on the face of it, unless an agreement is entered into before the end of the month. Section 2, subsection (1) makes provision that no dumping duty shall be imposed in respect of flour shipped to the Union prior to publication in the Gazette. Would the Minister not make a similar provision in regard to these preferential duties that are to lapse, if they lapse while goods are on the water ?. I think in connection with this Bill the Minister should let us know what he considers will be the revenue position from the bringing into force of this Act. I think we should know how much more expense the people will have to pay in customs duties owing to the introduction of this Act.

I have given that on several occasions.

In regard to the effect of the dumping duty I was in hopes from what the Minister said in the budget debate that we were finished with dumping duties. It absolutely destroys any enterprise ill the buying of these articles because it does not matter when an importer buys them and we are bound to have flour in this country. It seems to me such an unstatesmanlike thing to bring in something that destroys all enterprise in the buying of this article which we must have, as according to the way in which the dumping duty is applied, it does not matter what enterprise is shown, it is all wiped out by the application of this duty and making it depend on the price at the time of export. It seems to me to do nothing but harm to us. The hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow) has spoken unusually weightly words of wisdom in regard to clothing, which I hope will influence the Minister.

As usual we have had the Free Trade policy of buying in the cheapest market argued by the hon. member for Cape Town Central (Mr. Jagger). I do not altogether agree with the Government’s policy as regards certain tariffs. I personally would rather the Government have the bounty system ; but we are sharing in the Government of this country, I am quite willing to accept the tariffs as the opinion of the Government as a compromise on what is best for the country. The Pact Government have already proved during the last eighteen months that they have improved the conditions of the people of this country. We have 4,000 apprentices working at present against only 200 before this Government went into office, also 14,000 more South Africans in work than when this Government took office, all because the Government has a policy that looks at development from a humane point of view and, incidentally, from a true South African point of view. It is an old argument that in producing any commodities that 50 per cent, of the price of this commodity paid by the consumer can be attributed to the cost of raw material, and 50 per cent, in the form of wages and profit. If an article does cost more to produce in South Africa, you have at least 50 per cent, of the ultimate value of that commodity in circulation in South Africa, the more money you have in circulation the more naturally the Government gets in taxation. Therefore the Government would have a larger amount of money, which would ultimately mean development. If on the other hand we adopted the policy of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), what would happen? Let us take the extreme point of view, and let us suppose that we purchase everything in the cheapest market. It would simply mean that industries would flock to the countries where there was the cheapest production either by lower civilized standards or mass production. Naturally that is so especially if the climatic conditions are favourable. For instance, capitalists have tried to move the cotton goods industry from Lancashire to India, but to a certain extent the climatic conditions were not suitable. Take, for instance, the cost of boots and the amount the users would pay back in direct and indirect taxation arguments by the South African party. Is it not better for these persons to pay back something to the State rather than to be unemployed and have no money. These individuals who have no money would eventually have to get assistance from the State, if the policy of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was carried out. If we carried out the hon. gentleman’s policy and we imported all the commodities we required in South Africa, they would be imported either from eastern countries where the people live on a low economic standard, or from Great Britain, America, Canada, Germany and so forth, where they have mass production. This country has to look first of all after the needs of its own people, and when we stipulate that people must work to live they should get a decent opportunity of working so that they could live. Pre-war the cost of boots in South Africa was 17s. 3d., the pre-war cost of the same quality boots would be in Japan 6s. 2d., India 6s. 3d., Italy 7s. 5d., Austria 8s. 4d., Germany 8s. 10d., Great Britain 10s., and Canada 14s. 6d. Would not the capitalist class in Asia be able to make a greater profit owing to the low wage paid, also in Europe and America owing to mass production. If we imported all these articles no work would be offered to the people of South Africa, and instead of building up a virile race you would have a few importers and a large number of shop assistants and store-men. The rest would sink down to the level of the uncivilized people of South Africa. We have heard statements from all parts of the House that we should endeavour to build up a prosperous country, but I ask whether it is possible to do so if we carry out the policy of importing all cur requirements from those countries where these commodities may be nominally cheaper, but in which they are not really produced more cheaply when you consider the matter from the true economic aspect—the purchasing power of money earned. I believe the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is sincere in his endeavours, although I oppose his arguments. The present Government with its protectionist policy, in the short time of its existence has found employment for numbers unheard of at the time of the election ; in fact, it has exceeded expectations in creating what is for the good of South Africa. This fact is substantiated by the reports of fathers and mothers of the boys who have obtained employment, whereas in the past they have been crying out for years for an opportunity to obtain a living. In 1923, I believe, when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was Minister of Railways and Harbours, they found vacancies for only 14 apprentices in the Government workshops where they now employ hundreds. South Africa should advance, not only in civilization, but in giving everybody an opportunity of working so that they may live in a civilized manner and become true South Africans.

The hon. member who has just sat down has proved, to his own satisfaction, that the more people have to pay for what they require, the better off everybody will be. Persons who have to buy ready-made clothing do not, I think, subscribe to that doctrine. The hon. member for all his enthusiasm of the Government in general, and its protective policy in particular, will hardly pretend that the number of people employed is due to the success of the industries which have been raised under the Government’s protective policy. I am sorry to find that the Minister of Finance has made no provision in this Bill for the point which I brought up on a previous occasion, that is, the question of the charge which is made in dealing with goods which are, in the first instance, foreign goods, but are exported through England, having been in bond there. Under the practice which is at present pursued, when these goods are sent out here, so far as the ad valorem duty is concerned, the customs officials here are bound by law to add on the English duty payable if these goods had been sold in England. It affects, first of all, the consumers in this country, who have to pay very much more than they otherwise would have to do. Secondly, it affects many of the merchants in England who do much of this forwarding trade which, I believe, is called the entrepot trade. Thirdly, it is bound to hurt British shipping, because the natural result of this policy is to encourage people to import these goods direct from foreign countries whence they in all probability come in foreign ships. If it is the object of the Government to damage British traders and British shipping, I can see there is some method in the system ; but if that is not the object of the Government, frankly, I cannot see what is gained. The consumer has really to pay duty on what is an artificial value. It is not as if the Government is logical in the imposition of the duty, because in matters where an excise is levied in England, in this country the customs officials are not expected to add to the value of the article the cost of that excise ; for example, it should apply to whisky, but they do not apply it to whisky. Although, technically, there may be a difference between an excise and another duty, the principle is precisely the same. We have a good deal to gain from the prosperity of British trade and shipping, and seeing it is a hardship on the consumer here also, I cannot see what is to be gained through this policy. I will not do the Minister the injustice of thinking that the reason for inserting that in the Act is to make people pay more.

I do not think it caused any surprise to anyone who knew the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) to hear that he is quite prepared to leave his political conscience in the safe keeping of the present Ministry and to cross their t’s and dot their i’s. I congratulate the Minister on having so loyal and enthusiastic but, perhaps, indiscriminating supporter. I was glad to hear for the first time from the Labour benches a word of protest against the proposed increased duty on ready-made clothing, and I congratulate the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) on the courage with which he has spoken against the suggested impost. I am perfectly certain that when we test this proposal we shall not only have his support but that of other members of the Labour party, because this is a matter which comes home to them. Even middle-class families always buy ready-made clothing for their boys. This proposal is, in effect, a tax on every male person who wears ready-made clothes.

This Government is giving parents the money to buy clothes with.

I wonder if the hon. member read an extremely arresting and remarkable article by Mr. H. O.’K. Webber which appeared in this morning’s “Cape Times.” Mr. Webber, who is one of our greatest, authorities on mining, points out that with working costs at their present level the Rand gold mining industry must inevitably come to an end within a certain time, but if the country is prepared to extend the scope of the industry by reducing the cost of living and thus make it possible for the miners fairly to accept a lower wage, then the life of the industry will be extended indefinitely. It is idle for the hon, member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) to talk as if we could live by taking in one another’s washing. We can only live by selling our products in the world’s markets, and we have only two staple industries—mining and agriculture. By reducing mining costs we would increase the industrial sphere of activity. Any policy which is calculated prematurely to bring to an end the mines of the Transvaal or to prevent fresh mines being opened, is not a sound economic policy. I will take ready-made clothing as an example of how not to do things. We put a tax on ready-made clothing and the miner says—

Not exactly—that is where you make a mistake.

By putting duties on ready-made clothing and other commodities you increase the cost of living. The worker, therefore asks for higher pay. The mineowner says—

The farmer has to pay his workmen more wages, and so the thing goes on in a vicious circle. As a start we should foster our two primary industries, and not waste time with any tuppeny-happenny concern existing mainly on sweated labour. A fundamental error has been made by the Government in agreeing to the claim of the ready-made clothing makers for protection. The Board of Trade’s memorandum on the subject amounts to this: “These people have asked for protection, give it to them.” They ask for an increase from 15 to 25 per cent, duty, plus a remission of duty on the raw material they use. Even the Minister is shy at going the whole length recommended by the Board of Trade. No attempt is made by the board to view the repercussions of this increase on the general economic life of South Africa. I don’t want to say that this duty on ready-made clothing is going to have an enormous effect, but it is a milepost on the road along which the Government is travelling, and that road leads to the high cost of living. The Minister should pause and ask whether South Africa is going to benefit in the end. If we can make this country one of cheap living, trade and production will fly here as iron filings do to a magnet. Do not let us go in for a policy of taking in one another’s washing. If the hon. member for Liesbeek thinks we have a great future as an exporting manufacturing country, can he tell us where the markets are? We are in a remote corner of the world.

Nonsense! We are in the centre of the world.

We manufacture boots, but how many of them do we export to Nyassa land, the Congo, and Kenya? If we cannot do that successfully, what is the use of asking people to pay excessive prices as the result of this ultra-protective policy which will lead to the closing down of mines, to the stagnation of agriculture, and in the end will bring about a state of affairs entirely opposite to that anticipated by the hon. member for Liesbeek ? I hope the Minister will agree to forego this duty on ready-made clothing. I have a feeling that the Minister’s own convictions do not really support this increase. It is not a party question, and we do not want to make party capital out of it. If the Minister is not prepared to delete the item, will he accept an amendment eliminating from the operation of the duty boys’ and children’s ready-made clothing ? I should be sorry, representing a poor man’s constituency, as the hon. member for Liesbeek does, to defend a policy which makes the task of the family man more and more impossible.

What about America ?

America is a manufacturing country, but we are a mining and an agricultural country. Can America pay the high wages for mining that she pays in her engineering industries? I have read the valuable report of a trades union mission sent by the London “Daily Mail” to enquire into the problem of how America can pay higher wages and compete successfully in the world’s market for manufactured goods. Our main products are gold and wool. Gold has a fixed price, and if it costs 20s. 6d. to produce 20s. worth of gold, the mines will close down. That has been Australia’s experience. The price that we are being asked to pay for increasing employment in one small industry will ultimately lead to the ruin of our big industries, mining and agriculture.

Every labour man will admit that the evidence given before the Wages Board recently, proves that a rotten state of affairs exists in South African factories. A lady proved that in Cape Town some of the so-called factories were nothing but sweating dens. There is no stronger advocate of manufacturing our requirements in South Africa than I, provided we do it under fair conditions, but the trouble is that we are protecting industries which are already sufficiently protected because they pay miserable wages and sweat their employees. It has been shown that the Johannesburg readymade clothing factories pay wages only up to £1 16s. a week, and claimed that they could not pay more, because the wages at the coast were so low that the Rand factories could not compete against them, and it appears as if one centre is to be played off against another in future. Where is this going to end ? It is a bad system. It is bad for labour. We protect a factory system which is already sufficiently protected, because it is employing what I call sweated labour. In regard to children’s clothing, as far as I can gather the sum of money involved in this transaction is about £30,000 a year. If the Minister wants to raise £30,000, it is wrong to raise it from the poorer section of the community, the fathers of children ; and why not tax luxuries further to that extent ? If you want to protect the readymade clothing industry, I would say—

That is far more satisfactory than this system of protecting things willy-nilly, simply because they come into this country. What has been happening all along? We have had factories for some years in South Africa. They have not been able to compete evidently, although we have paid the lowest wages almost in the world. Take the railways. I have alvocated manufacturing our own requirements in the railway workshops. Why ? Because I know they are produced under decent conditions. I think that we should encourage the manufacture of our own necessities as far as possible, but on the essential condition that the work should be done under decent conditions, otherwise we are simply perpetuating the scandals of the factory system in the older countries.

In this House, on almost every platform and on street corners the members of the Labour party have advocated a decent standard of living. Now in this House they are supporting increased customs which will enhance the cost of living. Under no circumstances will I vote for an increased customs duty which will fall upon the working classes, even though, while I represent a labour constituency, I am not a Labourite. When the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was in power, whenever the Finance Minister brought in a Bill to increase the customs duties on the necessaries of life every member of the Labour party got up and strongly denounced the Minister of Finance, and I supported them. I did not say very much at the time, but when it came to a vote I voted with them. What do we find to-day ? If I vote against this increase of 5 per cent, on ready-made clothing, I find all the Labour members voting on the other side. That is an anomaly which I really cannot understand. It appears to me that when the Smuts Government was in power the economic laws prevailed, because if you increase the duties on goods the cost of the article is increased, but now, when the present Government put on an increased duty it does not matter. You have such a marvellous Government in power that the economic laws stand aside, and the cost of the article is not increased to the consumer. On the river diggings there are thousands of diggers who have families. The majority of these alluvial diggers eke out a miserable existence. A large number of them drift into the towns, so much so, that there are 700 poor children, mostly the offspring of these alluvial diggers, who have had no “luck,” as they term it, and these children are provided with one meal a day and clothed by public subscription in Kimberley. These people will have to pay more for the clothing required by the children. Can you say to the river diggers—

They won’t get anything more for their diamonds. I am surprised and pained to see Labour men who are supposed to represent the poorer classes of this country not alone get up and support the increased duties on the necessaries of life, but vote for the Government with both hands. For some reason or other, they have abandoned every policy that they proclaimed to the electors. Under no circumstances will I vote for this additional duty on the clothing of the poor people, and I hope the Minister will soften his heart in favour of the people of this country who are much worse off than we are.

The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) has spoken about the apparent difference in the attitude of the Labour members in this matter with the change of Government. Probably that is brought about by the fact that we are behind this Government, and have decided to give it a chance to put its policy into operation. We had no confidence in the old Government, and everything they brought forward we viewed with suspicion. The present Government has a policy of protection, and we all know that the idea of protection is to give employment which must meet with approval on these benches. The hon. member who has just sat down talks about helping the poorer classes. It is the poorer classes who want employment, and I know protection gives employment ; that is why I am supporting it. Price does not seem to me to be so material in the purchase of anything; the material thing is employment, so that a man may be in possession of the ready money. It does not matter to him how cheap an article may be, he cannot buy it if he is without employment. The hon, member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) did very well from his standpoint in quoting Mr. O'Kelly Webber. Mr. Webber is the author of a book suggesting that it is time that South Africa recognized the fact that it would never become a white man’s country, and that we should train kafirs to do all the skilled work of the country and let the remainder of the people act as overseers, and those who could not get jobs as overseers should pack up and get out of the country. My hon. friend (Mr. Pearce) has been asked what industry can South Africa foster which is likely to get an outside market ? For the time being we are not troubling about outside markets ; what we want to do is to supply our own market, and keep here the millions of pounds now yearly sent out for goods which could give employment here. All this argument has arisen on account of an extra 5 per cent, duty on ready-made clothing, which is, after all, a very small matter. Assuming that a suit of clothing produced in an European factory costs 30s., it means that the extra duty on it will be 1s. 6d., and from that it has even been deduced that we are going to reduce the life of the mines through excessive working costs. That shows the mentality of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, as also his assumption straight away that the miners who produce all the wealth in the Transvaal will be forced to wear ready-made clothing, whilst the middle classes will wear the tailor-made clothing. My hon. friend (Mr. Snow) has spoken about the horrors of sweating. We are all very much opposed to any system of sweating, but no one can tell me that if you import all your clothing, instead of having it made here, you are going to avoid sweating in its manufacture. The Government has done a practical thing in regard to sweating by the appointment of a Wages Board to regulate wages. The members of the Opposition have known very well that sweating has been going on for years in these industries, and it is the greatest hypocrisy for them to hold up their hands in horror to-day when they did nothing to stop it when they had the opportunity. The Wages Board will abolish sweating in time, but it is not going to do any good to abolish the factories. We want to foster the factories instead. One of the reasons of sweating is because the protection is not enough and, in order to make factories pay, wages are cut. We have heard a harrowing tale of women being paid sweated wages and being forced into immorality. What is going to be their position if we do not continue their employment ? Is their position going to be improved when, instead of earning scanty wages, they are walking the streets unemployed, or would they be more moral, or even as moral, under such circumstances ? I want to ask the Minister to make a slight alteration in regard to juvenile clothing. I was unaware until recently that this was not manufactured to any extent in this country. Though I am an ardent protectionist, I think we should not put on protection until the factories are ready to manufacture. The Minister should put on a suspended duty on juvenile clothing ; because, while they are making their arrangements, the extra money taken from the public will merely be going into the public exchequer, and not fostering industries.

When this question of increased duties was in Committee of Ways and Means, I took the view that investigation in regard to the duty proposed on ready-made clothing should precede the imposition of any higher duty, and I expressed a fear that sweating conditions existed in Durban. Since then, there has been most remarkable corroboration from Durban to show that my misgivings were not only well founded, but that the position in Durban is very grave indeed. The Wages Board held an investigation there quite recently, and as a result people were astonished to read that white girls working from 8 to 5 on Monday to Friday, and 8 to 1 on Saturday, grinding at their sewing machines were only able to earn from £3 to £4 10s. per month, and the task they are given shows how hard they have to work to earn that money. For machining the front of a shirt, including two pockets, a girl is paid 1s. 3d. per dozen for men’s shirts, and 11d. for boys’ size. That is 1d. and a fraction of 1d. for large size, and less than a 1d. per shirt for boys’ size. A similar scale exists for almost every other kind of work that can be mentioned. Unless they do from three to four dozen shirts per day, they cannot earn more than 3s. or 4s. At the end of the month, the girl’s work is totalled up, and she has probably just scraped through by the skin of her teeth and managed to earn the minimum of £3 to £4 10s., according to her classification. Should she be below, she is not wanted, and is paid off. These girls are on piece-work, and the conditions have certainly been very onerous indeed, and such as nobody would desire to have continued in working conditions in this country. Then for trousers they get, for doing side seams and putting in pockets, 8d. per dozen large size, and 4d. per dozen small. One is constrained to say that if the ready-made clothing is produced under these conditions, it would certainly be a great pity to protect the industry. A very complete investigation in this matter has been made by a social worker in Durban, who published an article indicting those who are responsible for this state of affairs. If anything she has said is actionable, I take it recourse to law would have been had before this. It is a sweeping indictment, and one I should commend to the Minister’s attention. The article is illustrated by a picture of a repellant looking gentleman counting the shirts, and presumably taking his pound of flesh out of his unfortunate victims. The article says that many girls have tried one or other of these factories, but have had to give up within a few weeks, as they were only earning starvation pay ; that in this trade the poorest wages are paid in Durban, and the conclusion arrived at is that if these industries must depend on the cheapest labour possible to make them pay, then they have no possible reason for their existence. I, in common with other members, understood, when the protective tariff was introduced last year, that there was power under the customs law to see that industries were carried on under labour conditions acceptable to the Board of Trade ; and surely, if the Board of Trade were investigating the imposition of a higher duty, it would have been advisable then to have ascertained whether the conditions of labour were acceptable and suitable, and whether they were such as did not constitute the exploitation of these poor people. There is some connection between these factories mentioned here and the letter which the present Minister of Labour produced on the 30th June, 1925, which stated that since the Government had removed the duty on shirting, the writer had started a shirt factory in Durban, and that he would like to see a cotton mill established in Durban if the Government would stick to the shilling duty on cotton blankets. The Minister read a further passage—

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) then interjected—

and the Minister of Labour replied that they would be governed by the Wages Board, adding, “the fact remains they are busy making shirts.” Did the Minister know that they were making these shirts under conditions that can only be described as out and out sweating ? On a debate like this, one would have expected the eleventh Minister to have entered in and to have, told us how he would stand to the last ditch for the workers, and see that everybody got his due. The position is that the Minister of Labour, when he read that letter in the House, knew it was written by Mr. Linder, the head of the factory who was asking for further protection, and who wanted to start a cotton blanket factory. I understand he has not started a cotton blanket factory. But the Minister read this letter knowing that it was from a man who had been before the board that was at that period constituted to deal with sweating conditions, and that, owing to a defect in the law only, he escaped punishment. To my mind, this further request for a duty is altogether unjustifiable in view of the disclosures that are made in regard to labour conditions in Durban. I believe wholeheartedly in the honesty of the Minister of Finance, and feel sure that if he had known of these conditions, he would have asked the Wages Board to enquire into the matter, and until that was done and wages levelled up, I doubt whether he would have agreed to the imposition of this higher duty. To my mind, it would be a reflection on this House if we agreed to the imposition of a higher duty when we are well aware of the conditions existing in this industry in Durban. The person who investigated these conditions says that some of these girls have no parents, and have to live in town. After paying £3 for a room—even if she earns £6—she has £3 over to purchase three meals a day and obtain clothing and other incidentals. How many of these girls get three meals a day? She says she has been surprised at the class of women employed in these factories. None of them are rough-spoken, and all have the same grievance of overwork and underpay. It is pretty clear that these girls are made to work alongside of native and coloured girls, and this investigator asks whether you would like your sisters and daughters to work in one of these factories under these conditions, where white and black mingle on the same footing—

These things cannot be overlooked in the circumstances, and I think it is altogether unthinkable that we should impose a further duty when we know that these conditions exist.

I hope that the Minister will not in any way be dissuaded from the task he has undertaken owing to the speeches we have heard to-day. We have heard that it is his duty to take off this tax because wages are not being paid on the proper scale. I have always stood up for the protection of the worker, and the Wages Act, passed by the last Government, was in that direction. Suppose we took off those duties—true, it is a tax on the worker, but there is no country except Great Britain which has not gone ahead and succeeded by imposing these duties. The direction in which the agitation should go should be to strengthen the Wages Board, and to compel these employers to pay their workers a living wage ; but not to take off the duty. You must remember that in the most stable industries the wages are according to standard, and in the boot industry it is admitted that the wages are of the trade union standard. I think the Minister might think that every voice was against him on this side. I do submit that an argument which has not been answered is: What guarantee have you that there is no sweating in the countries from which you import goods? I appeal to anyone who knows the district from which I come—that, in consequence of the industries there, there is a feeling of comfort amongst the workers, and more money is going into the houses than before these industries were protected. Whatever duty is imposed, you hear the same class of person crying—

but the worker has not raised that cry. You have had no meetings in the country protesting against these duties. The voices have been raised in this Chamber. Duties in this country have been a means of raising revenue, but I feel that the extra that is put on is coming back to the country in the shape of extra demand for its produce. I hope the Minister will keep to his position, and I feel confident that this House will support him.

I would like to get back to Clause 1, sub-section (c), of the Bill. It seems to me this is a very drastic clause as now drafted. If there is the slightest change made in the preferential rates of the other dominions, the whole of their preference goes with one stroke of the pen. I would point out to the Minister that there may possibly be a change made which is beneficial to the Union. I think, when we come into committee, the Minister might consider making that clause a little less drastic, and giving a little more elasticity, even to our own Government in the matter. As regards the clause dealing with the shipping companies, the Minister believes that this would be very satisfactory to the commercial community. Well, to a certain extent it is—at any rate the commerical community will not suffer the injustice which the Customs Department wished to put on them a short while ago, but transferring the burden to the shipping companies. Could the Minister give the House any information with regard to the sugar position ? Could he give the House any information as to any arrangements that may have been entered into that will enable him to put his duty into force? Is he still, after a short week or two's experience, so wedded to the price-fixing principle? I still hope that before he commits himself to price fixing he will bear in mind the belief of a great many men in this country who have experience, that price-fixing is unwise, unfair and a very unsatisfactory precedent. It is quite clear that when you once start price fixing it will be extended to many other commodities, and lead to a position of affairs which will not conduce to individual freedom. I submit that, especially as regards sugar, there has been no evidence of any kind whatever that the price is exorbitant, and that any exorbitant profit has been made on its sale. Apart from establishing a very ugly precedent there seems no reason for the Minister interfering with the ordinary laws of supply and demand and of competition. I hope that the Minister will, at this last moment, refrain from entering on a course, the end of which, one cannot foresee.

I must say it was rather refreshing to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) after the dreary afternoon we have had. I am truly grateful for the assistance he has given us in this debate, because I must say anybody coming in and listening to hon. members opposite and to their free trade arguments, must inevitably have come to the conclusion that the protectionist policy has no friends on that side. I know it is not true, and I know I have a few friends there. Although a few hon. members attacked the principle of the duty on ready-made clothing, the majority of the speeches on the other side have been directed to the general question of free trade or no free trade. I do not want to go into the merits of the general question, but I want only to deal with the arguments against this particular proposal, with regard to clothing. The arguments we have heard about sweating have really nothing at all to do with the case, and they go to obscure the whole position. We have other legislation to put that right. I do not think we have ever contended that there was no sweating in this country and that the labour conditions are wholly satisfactory, but the Government thought they were creating the necessary machinery to deal with those conditions. Is it absolutely true that these conditions operate in all the clothing factories in this country ? There may be unsatisfactory conditions in some factories, but you cannot say that the industry, as a whole, does not merit any encouragement on the part of the Government.

Cannot you expect the Board of Trade to enquire?

The board knows there is other legislative machinery. In certain instances it would be possible to take action by means of the tariff if labour conditions are unsatisfactory, but not in all instances. You can deal with the question by way of the Wage Act, and these wages boards are only beginning to function now. We hope that, as a result of their action, we will have more satisfactory conditions later on. As the hon. member for Three Rivers has rightly pointed out, if I withdraw this protection, what will be the result ? Probably you will not have people employed under sweating conditions, but you will have no employment at all. Is it impossible to have a ready-made clothing industry in this country with all our labour resources? If they can have it in other countries, why not here ? It has been proved that in the case of boots it is only by giving this assistance in the initial stages that you are able to build up an industry. It has been urged that this duty is going to be a burden on the consumer. It may be true that at the beginning the public will be asked to pay increased prices, but as soon as the manufacturers are protected, and they are able to compete on more advantageous terms with the imported article, in the long run the price the South African manufacturer charges will be as cheap as that of the imported article.

No.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) referred to the speech in the previous debate of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), who pointed out what the result of a protectionist policy would be. The hon. member for Kimberley discussed customs taxation, and I dealt with the matter on that basis. He now says, what I want to avoid was the increased burden on the public as the result of this protection. If that is so, would he mind saying where he obtained his figures? The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) stated that it meant the addition of several millions, but how can anyone make an assumption on that basis? It is impossible to say what the effect will be in increased taxation. The argument which I used was quite different to what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has put up this afternoon. I showed that the argument of the hon. member for Kimberley were altogether impossible from the figures. With regard to the ready-made clothing proposal. I regret that it is impossible for the Government at this stage to make any alteration. I am advised that, although boys’ clothing is not manufactured to any large extent in the Union, there is no reason why it should not be.

In the meantime we have to pay.

It is part of a big question—it is one of the sacrifices, you have to make if you want to encourage industries. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) dealt with the flour question. The dumping legislation is on our statute book, and I have to carry it out. I say that the dumping duty shall not apply unless the difference exceeds 7d. per 100 lbs. We are really remitting taxation. It does not serve any useful purpose to discuss whether dumping duties are justifiable or not. Maize differs from wheat, because maize is sold on the world’s market, and our maize farmers have to take the world’s price. That is not the case with flour, because the Australian people can decide whether they shall export flour or not. It is possible for Australia to dump flour. Before the dumping duty is applied, it must be shown that flour is being exported to this country, and that the price charged by the exporters is less than the price to the Australian consumer, and unless these facts are present, we cannot apply the dumping duty. The third factor is the detriment to local industries, and unless all these factors are present, the dumping duty cannot be applied. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) suggested that in the case of the withdrawal of these preferences, they should not apply to goods already on the water. I think that is a very reasonable point, and I shall probably be prepared to accept an amendment on these lines. The hon. member asked why I did not give any figures as to the effect of these proposals on the revenue, but I have pointed out that from calculations made by the Customs Department, it will have no effect on revenue. We have deliberately designed these duties so that they will not mean any increased revenue. The proposal in regard to ready-made clothing will bring in a considerable amount to the Treasury, but it will be offset because of the very considerable reductions we are making in the duty on cotton-piece goods. There are other proposals which will mean an increase, but they will be offset by reduced duties on other goods. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) again raised the question of the drawback of customs duty. When the matter was raised some months ago, I asked the Board of Trade to go into it, and the board’s report has been laid on the table The customs officials entirely agree with the conclusions arrived at by the board, and point out that if we do alter the basis on which we calculate our customs duties—that is the current value for home consumption—we would at once get into difficulties, in the case of goods which were originally imported into the exporting countries, manufactured into articles and then exported. Then we would have to find out what was the drawback on the imported material. The trouble has arisen through Great Britain altering her customs policy, and it is only in the case of goods manufactured from materials on which she imposes a duty that the difficulty has occurred. I do not agree with the hon. member that if we alter our system, it will be to the interests of British trade, because it depends whether Great Britain considers her entrepot trade more valuable than her manufacturing trade. If, instead of encouraging that manufacturing trade, we give benefits to the entrepot trade, I doubt very much whether we shall be doing that benefit to the British manufacturing industry which the hon. member thinks we should do. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) thinks that we ought to look to the wording of the section in regard to the withdrawal of preferences, but I think that, as the section is drafted, it is quite all right. It will only apply when alteration is made in regard to any particular item on the schedule. The hon. member for Newlands also asked about sugar. The matter has not been reconsidered. If we increase the duty on sugar we shall have to make provision for some sort of price fixing. However, I do not want to go into details, and the hon. member will have to wait for the introduction of the necessary Bill. I think I have dealt with the more important matters which have been, raised, and I trust the House will now take the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time ; House to go into committee on the Bill to-morrow.

I notice there is a large increase in this vote, no less than £33,800. When I come to examine the details, it seems to me that the Minister has been out to increase his staff a good bit. He has increased his clerks of works from 30 to 50. There is an increase in the permanent staff of 87 and temporary staff of 52. Is there so much work in hand as all that ? Caretakers are increased from 10 to 20. There is a new vote for 11 lift attendants. Are they now put on the permanent staff? The number of doorkeepers is increased from 1 to 5. Why should there be such a considerable net increase as 55 in this comparatively small department ? I think the House should have some explanation from the Minister on that point.

I would like to ask whether Government contracts now include a fair wage clause? Another question is whether the department is stricter than it used to be in the enforcement of the penalty clause in building contracts. We had it brought to our notice in the Public Accounts Committee a year ago that, notwithstanding that the building contracts with contractors contained penalty clauses, these clauses are practically a dead letter. I believe there has been a tightening up, but I would be glad if we were reassured by the Minister on that point. I notice that there is provision on this vote for one architect, two assistant architects and five architectural assistants. What is the policy of the department when a really big new building is to be erected ? Is the matter left entirely to these architects or is it submitted to public competition? If and when the new Parliament building is erected In Pretoria, when the legislative capital is removed there, would that building be designed by the architects whom we see here or would it be submitted to public competition? The day is nearer than some of my hon. friends think when the capital is removed to Pretoria. I notice an item, motor transport, £10,000. That strikes me as being exceedingly high for a department like the P.W.D. I notice this is the vote under which assessment rates come. I saw the other day that a judgment had been given under which the Government has been held liable for municipal rates on Wynberg camp from the time it was taken over by the Union authorities. Will the Minister explain what the position of the Government is in regard to that question ? Finally, I notice that in the personnel there are 324 European and native cleaners, messengers and store boys. That Seems a very large number. One wonders what they are doing.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the increase under the item of clerks of works from 30 to 50, and to ask whether the Minister is carrying out this policy of State building which he has been preaching in season and out of season. He has recently stated in a letter to the National Federation of Building Trades Employers of South Africa that it is the policy of the Government to extend departmental work and that this was no new departure in principle. If the Minister extends this system of departmental work. I would like to ask him whether he has considered the increased cost of building. This question is causing a good deal of suspicion in the minds of builders that the Minister is carrying out that policy of his in which he is very anxious to nationalize everything. Will he state how he expects the Minister of Labour, in those circumstances, to carry out his Apprenticeship Act? A further question I see under assessment rates is a grant to Pretoria of £13,500. When the late Government were in power they were bringing in a Bill to amend the rating law with the idea of putting the rating system on a more satisfactory basis. This £13,500 was the amount paid at the time of Union and though the Government are getting greater facilities now they are still paying the same amount. If they paid at the same rate as the ordinary citizen, they would be paying in the neighbourhood of £47,000. Does the Minister not consider that it is time that the Rating Bill was brought in ?

I should be glad if the Minister would make a statement in regard to Groot Constantia. It was reported that he had refused to consent to its restoration on account of the cost. I hope the Minister is not going to allow a few thousand pounds to stand in the way of the restoration of this building to its original condition.

I should like to ask the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of the Union Buildings, Pretoria. Evidently they were constructed without due regard to the material employed, which is freestone and is weathering rapidly. The stone contains a certain amount of mineral and a number of the blocks are peeling off and have a disreputable appearance and in a few years may crumble to pieces. I do not know whether it is possible to stop the decay, but the stone will have a mottled appearance before long. You notice a number of these blocks have a greenish look and the surface has peeled off. In view of the large amount of money sunk in that pile of buildings I want to know whether the public works department is taking proper care to see that the building is protected from decay.

I should like to know what is the intention in regard to the public buildings at Worcester. The Minister visited the place to see for himself the conditions under which the officials are working, and the municipality agreed to give him a bit of ground free. Will the Minister place a sum on the estimates this year to make a start with the work? I wish to remind the Minister that, about 18 months ago, the municipality agreed to the public works department building a gaol lock-up in a part of the town, on certain conditions. I hope the Minister will put a sum on the Estimates so that the work can be started this year and redeem the promises of his department.

For some years negotiations of a semi-official character have been going on between the Basutoland Government and the Union Government in reference to the bridging of the Telia river, which is the boundary separating Herschel from Basutoland. I have a letter here which says that it was stated recently that the Basutoland Government had not yet received an answer from the Union Government regarding the building of the bridge over the Telia river ; that the resident commissioner had assured the deputation that an amount was on the Estimates for this bridge, and that he had written the High Commissioner regarding the erection of this bridge. I would like to give the history of this matter. The Telia river is a stream of some considerable size, and often holds up traffic between Herschel and Southern Basutoland. The only outlet from Southern Basutoland is through Herschel, through this river and on to Lady Grey, where the railway is reached. During the visit of the Prince of Wales to Maseru, a large party of people from my part of the country were held up for 10 days by the river being in flood, and traffic is frequently so intercepted. About six years ago, the then commissioner for Southern Basutoland and I met and discussed the matter, which we regarded as one of mutual interest. My constituents are very anxious to overcome this difficulty which affects intercourse. He asked me if I would approach Mr. Burton, the then Minister of Finance, and said he would lay the matter before the Basutoland authorities, who at that time were quite prepared to pay half the cost of such a bridge. At Mr. Burton’s request, I obtained an estimate of what such a bridge would cost, and submitted it to Mr. Burton. That was about 1921, but the Government was not in a position to find the money, so the question hung fire. In the following year, when I understood Mr. Burton was prepared, the Basutoland Government was not ready for it. In 1923, Mr. F. S. Malan, then Minister of Native Affairs, and I went through Herschel and visited the spot where this bridge is wanted, and went right on to Maseru and interviewed the commissioner of Basutoland with a view to persuading him to go on with the bridge. Mr. Malan was quite satisfied that the bridge was necessary, and that it was in the interests of both the Basutoland and Union Governments to have it constructed. Unfortunately, just before Mr. Malan and I arrived there, the Basutoland Government had entered into a contract with a party to put up a causeway, for which our Government was jointly responsible. The causeway has proved a failure, and is not satisfactory at all. I would like to know from the Minister whether the correspondence, referred to as having taken place between the Commissioner of Basutoland and the Union Government, has received any attention, and what steps they are taking about it?

On last year’s Estimates provision was made for building a bridge over the Vaal river at, or in the vicinity of, Bloemhof, and the Minister of Irrigation informed us that he was going on with a scheme which would make the building of a bridge there impossible. A deputation from my district saw the Minister, and asked whether a bridge could not be built at Christiana. We have not heard anything since from the Minister, and I should like to know what his intentions are—if he intends proceeding with the building of this bridge, and if so, when ?

I think I could save a lot of time and discussion of a fruitless character if I were to tell hon. members that the right place to raise matters such as bridges, and buildings of that or any other description, would be on the Loan Vote. In the Loan Vote, so far as public works are concerned, all the items appear.

And if they do not appear ?

Yes, you can raise it. If it does not appear, you want to know why it does not appear.

Then it is too late.

This is the “mechanics” of the department.

Unfortunately, we have no Loan Vote in front of us. It is very difficult for the Chairman to rule.

I want to raise a question of mechanics—of mechanical wants, as the Minister calls it, and a matter which concerns Parliament very closely ; that is the long outstanding question with regard to the improvement of the parliamentary premises.

Movement ?

No, improvement. The Minister will know it has been a burning question for many years. Once Parliament referred the question to a select committee, and proper plans were then framed, and laid for adoption on the Table of the House. They were then amended by the Minister’s predecessor, who took exception to a certain part of the scheme as being too expensive. We met again, and the select committee agreed to the amendment, and the plans, as amended, were adopted by the House. The Minister knows that hon. members are very seriously inconvenienced— the public is inconvienced, and also the press. I wish the Minister would go upstairs to see how badly the press is housed.

I have done so.

And also the Hansard part of the press. It does not reflect credit upon the principal institution of the country to house what we call the “fourth estate” in the way in which they are housed—apart from the conveniences for hon. members, which are very bad, deplorable, as my hon. friend says. I hope the Minister will be able to report progress in the long-looked-for scheme for the improvement of our premises.

It seems as if the Minister does not want us to discuss the construction of bridges, etc., but We are anxious to do so, because we know that when such things are done provision has to be made on the Loan Vote. I support the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) in his plea for a bridge across the Vaal river. To-day the people in that large area cannot transport their produce to the other side. If a bridge is built they will get into touch with the railway from Christiana. I therefore heartily support the request.

I see in the Auditor-General’s report that certain officers of the Public Works Department spend part of their time in working for the Imperial War Graves Commission. We who come into contact with the Public Works Department find we have to wait a long time to get our building plans through, and many of the clerks have a lot of time on their hands. We find now that some give their services, and not for nothing, to the Imperial War Graves Commission. The Auditor-General says in his report that six officers were used on that work. Let me read to you what the Auditor says. With regard to head office staff, six officers would appear to have been engaged during 1924-’25 at some time or other on this work. They were in receipt of salaries and allowances of £831, £674, £569, £464, £259, and the secretary of the commission received £464 per annum. In addition, the district engineers and their staffs gave a certain portion of their time to this work. The sum contributed by the Union to the Imperial War Graves Commission was £12,991 for the same year. Relieving the commission of the cost of the work in South Africa is tantamount to increasing the grant to the commission by administrative Act. I fail to see how these men can be used for this while they are being paid by us.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that this place is a death-trap. I think there is a general consensus of opinion that it is a death-trap. I do not know what it is like in other parts of the House—I have sat in various parts of the House—but I can say I am not the only one who has lost his health in this House. Take to-day—the draughts are unbearable. There should be some little warmth, so that we can sit in comfort and do our work. How can hon. members carry out their duties if they are not well ?

This is not a matter which is in the hands of the Minister. In the first instance, it is in the hands of a committee of this House.

I hope my remarks will be brought to the notice of that committee.

When my hon. friend, the member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) began to speak I thought that for once he would not have to withdraw anything. I thought he was right this time and I wanted to support him, but unfortunately he was ruled out of order. I rose to make a few remarks in connection with the bridge over the Vaal River at Bloemhof which the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) has mentioned. What astonishes me is the fact that he now advocates that bridge, and everyone who knows the facts will agree that it is a cause for surprise that he now advocates it. For the last six years, since I have been a member of this House, I have asked for this bridge. The previous Government were on the point of granting it, but then the Wakkerstroom by-election took place. In the short session of 1924 I mentioned the matter, and the then Minister of Public Works made provision, on the Estimates for the bridge at Bloemhof, but as soon as the election was over the hon. member for Christiana began to agitate to have the bridge built elsewhere, with the result that its construction was postponed. Eventually an irrigation scheme at Kromellenbogen was suggested, and this prevented the Minister of Public Works from having the bridge built. I am therefore surprised that the hon. member for Christiana now asks for that bridge to be built, because if he had not agitated against it, the bridge would then have been built. Now he advocates it as in the interests of Christiana. I do not grudge the hon. member the bridge, but what I object to is that when it is agreed to on the request of a member of Parliament, a member for another constituency should agitate against it. I know the difficulty in connection with the Bloemhof bridge, but I understand there is a good chance of the Kromellenbogen irrigation scheme not going through. If that is so then I hope the Minister will take the building of this bridge into favourable consideration because it has already been approved by Parliament, but in the circumstances it was allowed to remain in abeyance. I therefore hope that if there is any chance of building the bridge and if the irrigation scheme is not passed, the Minister will have it done. There are other reasons why the bridge is necessary. It is the only chance that Hoopstad has of getting railway communication. The new railway line will not be much good to Hoopstad. There is a good hard road from there to Bloemhof on the Vaal River, and if the bridge is built it will remove this difficulty for Hoopstad and provide the people there with railway communication. There is now an extensive area below the Vaal River without any railway communication. I hope the Minister will consider the matter favourably and that when we come to the Loan Estimates he will provide at least two bridges over the Vaal River in my constituency.

Will the Minister make a statement about the cutting down of trees in Groote Schuur Avenue, Rondebosch? I regret that the point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria District (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) was brought up. Good work is being done and it has not interfered with the ordinary duties of the department. Nobody would begrudge the House giving every help it could in perpetuating the memory of the dead and helping to keep these graves in proper condition. I don’t think the hon. member wished to create trouble but the point had much better been left alone.

Before dealing with the remarks made by hon. members this afternoon, I would like to make a statement on a matter brought up by the hon. member for East London. The contract price for the new post office at East London is £55,000 and it is expected that the building will be finished in December, 1927. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) quite rightly draws attention to the increase in the Public Works Vote.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) rather expressed a suspicion that I was more anxious to increase the staff than otherwise, merely with the desire to increase it. I want to assure the hon. member that that is not so. The increase in the staff has been more than amply warranted by the tremendous amount of work which has to be dealt with by the department. Every post that has been authorized, every increase of officials in the department, has been subjected to the most close scrutiny by the Public Service Commission.

Except the private secretary.

The private secretary is outside their purview altogether and the hon. member, I think, need not drag that in again. The hon. member instanced certain classes such as caretakers, doorkeepers, clerks of works, etc. Every one of these is accounted for, his services are required and the approval of the Public Service Commission has been received beforehand for these appointments. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) brought up the question of the fair wage clause in all contracts. We do insert the fair wage clause in all Government contracts right throughout the Union and we see that that fair wage is paid. In regard to the penalty clause for failure to come up to time, the hon. member is quite right. The evidence that was given before the Public Accounts Committee to the effect that we are now tightening up this clause is perfectly correct. No leniency is given to contractors who have overstepped the mark, except, of course, that leniency is warranted by the circumstances. I have put my foot down solidly on this question. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout also asked whether the plans or designs of public buildings are put out to private public competition. No. The architects of the department draw all the plans, they do all the designing and I want to say that we have one of the very finest architects in the country presiding over the architectural side of the P.W.D. I think if hon. members will look round at the public buildings of the country they will realize that the architecture and the design, and the carrying out of both are in very safe hands indeed. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants to know what is going to be done about the extension to the Houses of Parliament. The hon. member for Caledon also asked a question on this point. The tenders have already been called for and are in and the work is going to proceed very shortly indeed, and I am hoping that the extended accommodation for hon. members will be at their disposal before the opening of Parliament next year. The hon. member (Mr. Blackwell) said that the cost of transport is inordinately high. That is a point which, directly I came into office, I noticed, the high cost of transport for all departments. In my capacity as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the Government garages now come under my control. I am keeping a sharp eye on this question of transport, but the matter of £10,000 for the P.W.D. is quite warranted, because our departmental officers have to cover the whole of the Union. Not only does the P.W.D. supervise and carry out all Union work, but it also carries out all Provincial work, and in point of fact the expenditure upon provincial works—bridges, schools, hospitals, etc.—at present in hand is more than the Union expenditure. The one is now £2,000,000 and the other about £2,250,000. When the total amount involved in the supervision by the P.W.D. of works in the Union is over £4,000,000, I think hon. members will agree that we are not too costly a department, but rather a cheap department, both in numbers and money cost. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout brought up the question of assessment rates in regard to Wynberg camp. That is a matter that has nothing to do with the P.W.D. It is a matter of Defence. On the question of assessment rates generally, raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti), I may say that this matter has been engaging our serious attention and will engage it more closely in the ensuing recess. I do not know whether the trend of the possible legislation will be in the direction desired by my hon. friend, or whether it may not go diametrically opposite.

It is bound to be better.

I must say that the case for uniformity is undoubtedly very strong. The hon. member (Mr. Giovanetti) drew attention to the increased number of clerks of works and wanted to know whether it was the direct outcome of the extension of my policy of State building. The hon. member will see from the Estimates that in the aggregate there are very few more clerks of works, the total being 103 as against 97 last year.

The others were temporary.

I will explain that point. The difference is that whereas there were only 30 appointed on the permanent staff last year, there are now 50. That has arisen from the fact that we find that there is a fairly regular flow of work in the P.W.D, and we tried to bring into line the amount of work being supervised with the number of supervisors. Taking into consideration the remarkably long time the majority of these clerks of works had been in the service of the P.W.D., and in view of the fact that these are the policemen of the department, we think it is advisable to give as many as we possibly can complete security of tenure, so that they will not be subjected to the temptation possibly of some unscrupulous contractors. It is not the result of our extension of departmental work ; rather the reverse, because the extension of departmental work connotes fewer policemen. We do not require so many.

You want more of them.

We don’t have to watch ourselves. We might have foremen of works. I do not want to hide facts. I am extending the works being done by the department itself, and more particularly the painting work of the Union. If there is one direction where the contractors are able to diddle the P.W.D. it is in the quality and number of coats of paint put on a job, unless you watch them closely, and as far as I can arrange it, the painting work of the Union is going to be done departmentally. I can assure hon. members that it won’t cost more.

Don’t paint them red.

The hon. member can rely upon my artistic taste. Sentimental as I am towards red, as a decoration I am not at all partial to it. In the matter of training mechanics, my friend will be pleased to hear that we are going to give your building confreres every encouragement to train merchanics and to take part in that good work myself. And to revert to the postal vote for a moment, we have instituted an apprenticeship scheme for the training of mechanics and our attention will be devoted to that training rather than to the providing of cheap labour. In regard to Groot Constantia, what happened was, I refused to pay what I considered to be an exorbitant price. Originally the department estimated that the cost of actual restoration would be £5,000. When we came to go into it in association with the Historical Monuments Commission, and an architect recommended by them who was engaged to supervize the job, and tenders were called for from quite an ex-aggerated point of view in regard to the building the lowest tender was over £12,000. I could not see where it came in until I began to look at some of the items extra to the original building. I found ironmongery, £1,000. I could not see £1,000 in ironmongery in restoring an old building. Then I found a special stone specified which made £250 difference, and things of that description, and I could not possibly agree to more than an increase of £1,500 on the original estimate of £6,500. When I was in Johannesburg inspecting the general post office and other buildings, I received a telegram from Cape Town stating that the lowest tender upon which they could actually restore the building, with a fire-proof roof and other additional requirements, was £8,250, including the architects’ fees. In fear and trembling, because I had still to meet the treasurer, I took the bull by the horns, and after consideration wired consent to £8,250.

According to the original architectural plans ?

Yes, the real original plan is without gables, but we are restoring it as it was before the fire; but, of course, a better structure. I am sorry that anybody should ascribe to me a desire not to restore this building, as I am as well-disposed to restoring old buildings like this as any hon. member in this House, and I, therefore, agreed to this expenditure. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has drawn attention to the rather friable condition of the stone work of the Union Buildings. This is already engaging the attention of the Public Works Department and will receive more serious attention on our return to Pretoria. We are getting rather anxious ourselves. We do not like the look of it. In regard to the public buildings at Worcester, I acknowledge with pleasure that the municipality has given the ground free, and it is the settled policy of the department to insist upon the free presentation of a site where a local body desires public buildings. I think it is a fair thing to expect from them, and we are considering the erection of public buildings at Worcester, which are most urgently required, in the loan estimates to be placed before the House shortly. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) wants to know about the bridge across the Telia River. Our capital expenditure this year is restricted very much indeed, and we shall not be able to touch that bridge this year, but is down for consideration for next year’s estimates. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) wants to know what about the bridge at Christiana? I think the time has now arrived for me to tell hon. members what is the bridge programme on the Vaal River. As a result of a committee of experts that went into the position, a programme has been recommended to the department, been adopted in toto, and accepted by the Government. It is a matter that has got to be faced. The question of our communication between the Free State and the Transvaal, over the Vaal Hiver, is a burning one. The decision is that there shall be six bridges as part of a settled plan across that river, one at Commando Drift, one at Villiers, one at Scandinavia Drift, one at Roberts Drift, one at Christiana and one at Klerksdorp. This cannot be given effect to this year as we are restricted in our expenditure. I am not in love with spending loan money, and the expenditure has to be spread as much as possible from a financial point of view. In regard to the question of seconding certain officers to do gratis work with the Imperial War Graves Commission, that is hardly a matter that we ought to cavil at. Both races represented in this country are very heavily represented beneath the sod in France, and I do think no body should object, even though it may be adding somewhat to our contribution in an indirect way. There will be no continuation in the direction of wastefulness, if one can use that expression, but I am going to give effect where it is necessary, to my own sentimental interest in the position. Two hon. members have referred to this House as a death-trap. This question of abnormal ventilation in the form of draught is engaging the attention of the P.W.D. Wherever a draught can be indicated and run to earth by the hon. member for von Brandis (Mr. Nathan), we will do our best to put a sprag in the wheel of that little draught. In regard to the cutting down of the trees in the avenue of Groote Schuur, we had to get that done. They had reached such a state of rottenness that they were a danger, not only to the passer-by, but to the residents in the cottages. I delayed the matter for some time as I did not like doing it, but when it was shown how perfectly unsafe they were I had to acquiesce, and we had with us the highest authorities in the Union, both of whom had sentimental objections to cutting down the trees, but who agreed, namely, H.E. the Governor-General and the prime Minister of this country. In cutting these down, we are not guilty of the act of vandalism that one might suppose. We are going to substitute other trees for those cut down, and we are going to plant as we go along. My department is proposing—subject to general approval—to deviate that road and join it up to De Waal Drive, and I propose to cut across to shut these two gentlemen off from public intrusion. I believe Col. F. Rhodes had an idea of cutting a road through there.

Never.

Then I am sorry I made the reference. The point is that the deviation is to take place there, and we hope, in future, the aspect will be once more restored.

First of all, about contractors and penalties—it does not look as if the penalties are enforced. It is not fair that they are let off.

I agree.

One man may give the time that is required, and another man does not carry out his contract. I notice that in the engineering branch there are nine temporary draughtsmen, and the salary is put as “various,” which is something new. In the architect’s branch there is provision for temporary draughtsmen and the salaries are also put down as “various,” which is not a sound principle to go on. In reference to district officers, there are five assistant district engineers and one assistant engineer. There were six the previous year, and whereas the cost last year was £3,062, this year it is £4,145, or about £1,000 more.

I congratulate the Minister on the fact that he is doing his own painting. I hope he is going to do it better than the Defence Department, because in my constituency they have been doing it with black labour. We have taken up the cry of white labour, and the first time we paint a thing we do it with black. Then I would like to know, are my hon. friend’s architects giving him a plan for the new Assembly Chamber and Senate Hall for Pretoria ? I understand the idea is to get plans for the new Assembly Hall, if the capital is going to be removed to Pretoria, which is going to happen before long.

We are quite content to remain here.

I thought the hon. member would agree to it, being such a stern economist. I thought he would be the first to agree to it, as we would save half a million. Here we have found a wonderful thing—the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) wants to waste money. I cannot go into the question whether Pretoria is to be the capital or not, but we know it is coming, and coming before long—everybody knows that.

Question!

How far have the department got with the sketches of these particular buildings, and I would like to know whether it is the intention to bring the matter up before the House next session. The whole of the north and the whole of Natal is calling for this, and the people of the Eastern Province want it. If the Minister does have the drawings made, he should also ask his department what provision they are making for proper flats to house the members, because in Cape Town members cannot get anywhere to live— they are chock-a-bloc with people, and it is difficult to get into an hotel.

I am sure the committee was interested in what the Minister said about the necessity for removing some of the trees in Groote Schuur Avenue, and I am glad to see that new trees are going to be planted as carefully as possible. I hope he will plant the same description of trees that grew there before, and that if there is going to be an alteration of the road, the matter will be gone into very carefully, because when the late Mr. Rhodes owned Groote Schuur that place was open to all members of the public, including the glen and the garden. I do not think it would be the desire of my hon. friend that, in a property that had been presented to the nation, any arrangement should be made to depart materially from the intentions of the giver of that property. I would like to impress this very strongly upon my hon. friend.

I was misunderstood by the Minister. If these men of the Public Works Department wish to give their time and their energy to a sacred cause, as many of us do, free, gratis and for nothing, let them do it. We all feel that the graves of the men who fell must be kept, and must be sacred ; but if these men use the time of their office and get paid for it, I am afraid that there is very little patriotism and devotion in their work. They must do that work in their spare time and receive no money for it.

On page 166 there is an item—

A footnote states that this includes provincial programmes. Are provincial tender boards working independently of the Union Tender Board ? Unless there is some uniform method of dealing with the tenders sent in for both provincial and Union work, there is a serious risk of tenderers being misled. For instance, tenders were called for in connection with public buildings at Bloemfontein. One firm tendered exactly in conformity with the terms under which tenders were invited, while another tenderer submitted a lower price, but indicated that they would be unable to do the work within the specified time limit. The latter firm received the contract, notwithstanding the fact that they could not do the work within the time specified. If there was any intention to depart from the original terms of the tender, fresh tenders should have been called for. At the Union Buildings in Pretoria, a large number of European youths are employed, but I regret to say that they display an utter lack of interest, smartness and respect. I brought this matter to the notice of the Minister’s predecessor, who promised to look into it, but I have not noticed any improvement. For the sake of the policy which advocates employing the youth of the country, it is essential that the Government should insist on these lads showing discipline and smartness. Anyone visiting the Union Buildings must be struck by the slackness and want of respect shown by these youths to people who are their elders, and also by the lads’ utter irresponsibility. The State should not place a premium on laziness and slackness.

While thanking the Minister for what the Government proposes to do in respect of the old Drostdy at Swellendam, although we are highly gratified we are not quite satisfied.

Then all I can say is that Swellendam will never be satisfied.

Seeing that the place is going to become of national importance, Government should bear a proportionate share of the cost of the upkeep. I also desire to call attention to the disreputable residency we have at Swellendam, and also to the old and dilapidated public buildings, and hope that it will receive the attention of the Minister at an early date.

I do not wish to enter into any controversy with the hon. member for Pretoria District (South) (Dr. Van Broekhuizen) on the point he raised, but I should like to know whether the work is done by the officers of the department in what is practically their own time. I wish to endorse every word uttered by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) when he expressed the hope that the Government will maintain means of access for the public to Groot Schuur, and that it will also preserve the beauties of the Glen there.

I should like to call the Minister’s attention to the necessity of new public buildings at Prieska, a magistrate’s court and a post office. The accommodation there is poor and unsatisfactory ; as far as I know, the inspector who visited the place condemned the building now in use. I think the position is unsatisfactory, and that Prieska should have new public buildings. A deputation came to see the Minister, and he promised that he would go there during the recess and look into the position. I hope he will be so convinced that next year he will give the new public buildings to Prieska.

I am sorry the Minister has taken up a certain attitude with regard to departmental as against contract work. It is rather difficult to argue with the Minister because of his well-known belief that the more a thing costs the better it is for the country, the idea being that you thus increase the amount of money in circulation. The Minister, however, does not always take up exactly the same attitude. The Auditor-General reports that certain alterations were required in regard to office accommodation for the Cape Town gaol, and the work could be done for £300 by utilizing prison labour, but the Minister gave instructions for the work to be done by contract at a cost of £530, thus involving an unnecessary expense of £230. I am one of those old-fashioned people who do not quite understand why a man who has committed a crime should be allowed to sit still while I work to provide him with accommodation in the gaol. Why did the Minister deliberately spend £230 of the country’s money quite unnecessarily ? I would again ask the Minister whether, in regard to this departmental work versus contract work, he will not give contractors an opportunity of tendering.

As against the P.W.D. ?

Yes, provided the contractor can show that he can do the work at a lower price than the P.W.D., it is only fair that he should have the work, and it is only right that the work should be done at the lowest possible cost. With reference to the question of Government offices in Parliament Street, we have been told by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) and Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) that you propose removing the capital to Pretoria,

They know nothing at all about it.

I do not think the hon. member ought to go into that.

It is a grave reflection on the intelligence of the Government to suggest that they contemplate removing the capital to Pretoria.

The hon. member is not allowed to discuss that question now.

I would like to know what the Minister is going to do in regard to the rabbit warrens which are used for Government offices in Parliament Street. You have an extremely valuable site there, a big quantity of ground which you are utilizing very inefficiently, and I suggest that if that site is properly laid out and the buildings are put further back from the street, it will stop all that difficulty of noise from which you suffer, and it will make for the efficiency and comfort of your staff. There is a good depth to the property behind the buildings nearly all the way down from Marks Buildings ; you can put up buildings of a certain height and get very much space and very much more comfort. I would like to know from the Minister what he is doing in that respect for the legislative capital of the Union. Is the Minister not prepared to get out a comprehensive plan dealing with the whole of that very valuable site which is at present used very inefficiently ?

I think there has been some misunderstanding between the hon. member for Pretoria District (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) and myself in regard to the matter which he raised. I cannot quite understand how that reference comes up in the Auditor-General’s report. I suppose there must be some other service that is being rendered. I am happy to pay this tribute to those men who are carrying out the work for the War Graves Commission out here. The members of the P.W.D. who are engaged in that work do it in their own time ; they do it voluntarily and they do it without payment. How the other thing comes in I am quite unable to say. As to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), I do not think he expects me to take him too seriously. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), backed up by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), expressed some fear as to the exclusion of the public from Groot Schuur. It is going to be a difficult position. I think the time has arrived when we should recognize the fact that Groot Schuur was donated not as a show place, but as an official residence for the Prime Minister. What I am anxious to obtain is as much privacy as possible for His Excellency the Governor-General and the Prime Minister of the country, and I think I can count on the support of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort and the hon. member for Rondebosch in that regard. As far as it can be done, I will secure the rights of the public and besides they have got free access for six months in the year to both places. I am completely at one with the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Allen) in regard to the desirability of ensuring discipline, smartness, etc., in the lads. I shall certainly insist upon it in the boys who happen to be under my charge in the Union Buildings. My predecessor actually took on an ex-sergeant-major to discipline these boys. They had night schools and so forth in order to inculcate into them the habits of discipline that my hon. friend is so anxious to obtain. In regard to tenders, I may tell my hon. friend that the provinces have their own tender boards. In regard to the engineers, I may say that the public service commission went into this question and they have agreed that the responsibility of the work itself, which has grown so much and become so far-reaching in character, and extremely technical, requires that the men supervising should have the highest degree of efficiency and skill. The commission have graded the posts higher. In regard to the drostdy, I do not think I need say anything more about that. I think we have made a most generous offer. As to the residency, I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Buirski) that the residency is not a residency at all. It is not a building that we have a right to expect a public servant and his wife to live in. I am taking the earliest opportunity of providing the necessary building. I shall be going to Prieska as soon as it is possible. In regard to the question of allowing private tenderers to tender against the P.W.D., where it is a question of departmental work involved, I do not think that is a desirable thing, but I am going into the whole question. There is a deputation meeting me to-morrow on the question from the Cape Town master builders, and I have already agreed to meet a deputation of Transvaal master builders when we return to Pretoria.

I want to ask the Minister a question with reference to the old Supreme Court building half of which has been pulled down and the front is being rebuilt. I want to ask the Minister if it is not a mistake to have an inelegant building in the heart of Cape Town. As Cape Town is the Parliamentary capital, I want to ask him if it will not be better to remove the building completely and to erect a suitable one which will be an ornament to the town.

I may say that the position in regard to the bottom of Parliament House grounds and the top of Adderley Street and its relationship to the Old Supreme Court buildings will be the subject of deliberation to-morrow or in the near future by the Joint Internal Arrangements Committee of the two Houses. It is for the House to decide what it should do on their recommendation. With regard to these buildings here, he and all loyal Capetonians will be glad to hear that plans are already out for a palatial set of offices along that frontage. May I hope that he will enable us to interest the Cape Town public sufficiently to be able to get these buildings erected. I am hoping also to get the agreement of the public of Cape Town to the closing of that road altogether and to turn it into gardens and make the whole block stand in its own grounds, leaving a right of way for the public, but we want to stop vehicular traffic, the noise of which makes it, impossible to carry on work. If there is anything to tempt me to do the Mussolini trick and move Parliament to Pretoria, it will be the noises that assail us here.

In regard to noises,. I have lived for 30 years in the noisiest corner of Cape Town and am never troubled with any noises. It is simply a question of getting the builders to put up a building in the proper position, equipped with elevators and the Minister will live in an office where he will hear no noises from the street.

That is in the future.

I am rather disappointed if it is in the future. I understood the Minister was a quick mover. I shall be sorry if he is going to stop after having got the plans out.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 33, “Lands,” £186,121.

I shall be glad if the Minister of Lands will tell us what is the relationship between the Department of Lands and the Department of Labour in regard to the purchase or hiring by the Government of lands. We find that the Labour Department has been engaged in some land purchase and land hire. They have been hiring land belonging to the Doornkop Company which two years ago was characterized as a swindle in this House, and the Labour Department goes out of its way to hire land from this company. I may be wrong in my facts, but the Lands Department seems to know little about it. The Labour Department is spending a large sum of money and I want to know if it is going on its own. The Labour Department at Hartebeestpoort has bought land for £25,000. Does the Lands Department know anything about that transaction? And does the system hold good whereby all land transactions pass through the Minister of Lands ?

At Doornkop they have not bought or hired. There was a plan, a sort of hire purchase arrangement, which was referred to my department, which went into the matter, but it dropped because the owner would not take the terms we thought necessary. I understand from the Minister of Labour that he put tenants and that he has given this gentleman a number of tenants. As far as Zandfontein is concerned, there the Labour Department has hired a farm from Mr. Jacobsz for a number of years and they have a sorting station a little higher up where all the unemployed are together and the men who show any aptitude for farm labour are put on Zandfontein where they are taught to farm, and their savings are put away for them, so that eventually they can come and buy land under section 11. In regard to the purchase of land, the preliminaries may be started by any department, but my department must be consulted before any land is bought.

Here are two cases where the Lands Department were consulted and turned down both propositions. There is no difference between hiring and purchasing. I condemned Zandfontein root and branch as poor soil, from my knowledge of it, and would have nothing to do with it. Doornfontein was similar, and in both cases the Labour Department has evaded the spirit of the existing system, and hired this land and put tenant farmers on it. The Minister of Lands has thousands of acres of good sugar soil belonging to the Government in Zululand. Why has the Labour Department gone out of its way to hire ground from a company which, to say the least of it, is one of questionable character? We aired the whole matter two years ago in the House They consulted the Minister and received an adverse opinion.

I want to tell my hon. friend that, as far as I know, the land was hired. My colleague of the Labour Department will be able to reply. It was not merely to plant sugar, but the owner was obliged to put up a mill to give facilities to these tenant farmers. When it was originally intended to hire or purchase, I went into it and the valuation, to my surprise, was very much higher by the Natal Land Board than I expected. The owner of the company objected to the terms of the contract, which were thought necessary to be imposed, and the matter dropped. It was only afterwards that the Labour Department agreed to send tenant farmers there. Zululand is the same thing—I inspected the land some years ago when I was a member of the Transvaal Land Board, and I turned it down. It is hired for a period of ten years, and not purchased.

I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister a matter on which we feel strongly in the Cape Province as to the settlements under the new Land Settlement Act. Last year the Cape Province got little of all the money available for that purpose—I think £8,000 or £12,000. I am one of the last persons to encourage provincialism. We entered into Union, but in this case the Minister must try to divide the money more proportionately. Our people feel strongly on the matter. I do not wish to reproach the Minister and say that the Transvaal and Free State are getting most, but I think a reasonable amount ought to be spent in the Cape Province. There are thousands of young men anxious to buy ground, but in the Cape Province people are not so quick in applying. The misfortune is that they are not so accustomed to being assisted by the Government as are the people in the Transvaal. The money should, however, go as much to the Cape Province as to the other provinces. Our people are not usually in a hurry with their applications, with the result that when they are sent in, all the money has been spent in the northern provinces. I think I am right in asking the Minister to earmark some of it for the Cape Province, because, as a Minister, he represents the Cape Province as well as the others. Then there is another matter. I sometimes get telegrams and letters from my constituency that applications are sent in there, but that the people hear nothing about it, and then their options lapse. It looks as if matters in connection with the Cape Land Board are slowly disposed of, with the result as stated. I hope the Minister will see that the officials here do their work. I know that one of the members of the Land Board sat for months at home, but could not get hold of the papers in connection with the farm because things are done so slowly at the Cape. I bring this matter to the notice of the Minister, because it is important. He knows that in the past the Cape Province did not use its opportunities in this direction, but we intend to do so now. The members of this House representing the province will see that it gets its share.

I would like to ask the Minister of Lands—the only Minister whose salary it has not been proposed to reduce by £1—if he will give the House some information about these probationary lessees on the Hartebeestpoort and Olifants River settlements, which is a comparatively new departure. To what extent can the experiment be said to be satisfactory ; how many lessees are there ; what percentage are shaping satisfactorily, as far as a department can judge, and to what extent are the advances made thoroughly sound and recoverable ?

I would be glad if the Minister could give us some information as to what is happening on the Sundays River settlement, whether the difficulties that existed there are being straightened out, and what has happened in regard to the water supply. Then I want to ask the Minister about a matter which I mentioned to him privately—the policy with regard to occupation farms in the Transvaal. I brought to his notice a case where a man has acquired one or more of these farms, and one of the conditions is personal occupation. He was not in a position to occupy the farm personally because he was working in Johannesburg, but when he retired from business he hoped to occupy it—in the meantime he put a white man there. The department was not satisfied with that, and have cancelled his grant. I am not complaining about that, because I understand that was the law, but I would like to suggest to the Minister that it seems to me a very promising way to get the land of the country developed if you can allow men engaged in the towns to acquire farms, put a white man on to look after them, and put their money into the improvement of these farms, as they can afford to do so ; and when they retire, go on the farms themselves and get the benefit of their development. I am all in favour of the Minister being as strict as he can in the case of people buying land for speculation, holding it and selling it at a profit. But where a man is bona fide intending to occupy the land himself and to improve it, we ought to try to meet cases of that kind.

I want to congratulate the Minister on having reduced his vote somewhat— it is down £11,400—but at the same time he has increased his staff. The clerical assistants have increased from 110 to 119, and the messengers from 10 to 20. In the field staff, inspection of closer settlements, has he not had a division of that kind before and abolished it, and it has now been revived. Then, with regard to this Western Land Board, I presume it is for the Western Province. I thought the irrigation settlements at van Wyksvlei and Brandvlei had been got rid of. I should like some information about the probationary lessees. What do the committees of control do ? The Auditor-General calls attention to the large accumulation of arrears, the amount of money that is outstanding in regard to the sale of land being enormous. The outstandings on capital account increased from £130,000 in 1923 to £284,000 in 1925, while the amount of interest on Crown lands outstanding rose from £83,000 in 1923 to £143,000 in 1925. A little pressure should be exercised to bring the money in, for the amount of money owing to the Government for land is simply enormous.

Can the Minister tell us when he will bring forward the Land Survey Bill, which has been prepared for some time ?

I would like to endorse what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said about personal occupation. It frequently happens that owing to stress of circumstances, climate, drought and so on, that a settler is compelled to leave his land and take work elsewhere. The Minister looks rather leniently at that practice, but the Land Bank regards it in a different light. Where a settler has put money into land, and has met with misfortune, but is willing to work to obtain cash to put into the land, he should be encouraged as much as possible. I see a congestion coming in the Lands Department in the very near future if all the applications come in under Section XI. The time is ripe for some reorganization, so that we shall not have a select committee solemnly debating whether we should charge £2 or £5 10s. for an acre of land when the Minister has been given £15,000 to be written off for depreciation. This is reducing land administration to an absurdity.

Can the Minister give us a definition of probationary lessees ? What is the difference between them and the tenant farmer ? There seems to be some overlapping, as the Labour Department also deals with probationary lessees. It seems to me that a tenant farmer and a probationary lessee mean the same and, if they are not, the dividing line is exceedingly vague. It is extraordinary that two departments should deal with the same matter.

I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister and the House a matter of importance to my constituency in regard to certain farms belonging to the Government which come under the so-called Boegoeberg scheme. The House knows that for the last 25 years, even under the old Cape Government, farms belonged to the Government there, and the intention was to establish an irrigation scheme there. Eight or ten farms there belong to the Government, and under the previous Government, I think when the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) was Minister of Lands, those farms which were not being irrigated were surveyed with the object of issuing portions of them to farmers, instead of leasing them, as is still the case to-day. I think that it would be the most fatal mistake if commonage lands are to be sold, because the large scheme there is one of the few which can still be carried out in the country. It is said that the Auditor-General objects to the farms lying valueless there, as all the survey expenses have been paid, and it is asked why the ground is lying idle? The ground is, however, not getting worse, but improving in value year after year. Formerly it was to be got at 1s. 6d. per morgen ; to-day it could not be bought for 10s. if it were put up in the open market. When the scheme is fully developed, the commonage lands could certainly also be irrigated, and the value would rise tremendously if the larger scheme is carried out. In this connection there was a large deputation to the Minister, consisting of people from the whole country from Prieska to Kakamas, and they urged that the land should not be sold. If the Government now sells the ground for a few shillings, it would have to buy it back again later for pounds if the scheme is carried out. It is stated that the common-age is not necessary. The lack of all the settlements is grazing. Experience has taught us that everyone must have his trek oxen and a few cows and slaughter stock at each settlement where there are a group of people—because the poor people cannot buy meat from a butchery—therefore grazing land is necessary. None of the settlements has got adequate grazing, except Kakamas. There is grazing there for every 300 morgen, and everyone acquainted with the condition there testifies as to its insufficiency for the various breeding animals, trek oxen and slaughter stock. The Orange River valley, where lucerne grows splendidly, is suited for tremendous development in cream and cheese. If the settlers get so far as to keep good milch cows, where are the animals to run when dry ? They must all be kept on the erven and winter fodder provided. The milch cows must be fed in summer with fodder that could be stored, but if the dry cattle are also to be herded on the erven, the position becomes impossible. I hope that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who knows conditions there, will support me. It has happened along the Orange River that the Government has sold ground for £1,500, and 10 years later has had to buy back half of the original quantity of ground for £9,000. It will be the same with the Boegoeberg farms. They will be sold at £2,000 or £3,000, and later be bought back again for £30,000 or £40,000. I hope the Minister will give the matter his earnest attention.

I should like to ask the Minister a few questions in connection with his land settlement scheme. I want to know whether persons not so well off will be given a chance in connection with land settlement, or whether only people are selected who have a fair capital. Many of the people feel that there is no opportunity for them to get ground, because they have a very small capital. Many of them have some stock and trek oxen, and if persons who have succeeded well so far are given a chance of obtaining ground they will be a success and go ahead. I should like to know the Minister’s policy in this connection. Then I should also like to know from the Minister whether the people who have already got ground are paying up their rent properly, and whether he has a system of control over the people who took up farms under the agricultural settlement scheme. Is inspection done to see whether the people are doing good work? A splendid opportunity is being given, but those who do not do well ought not to be kept on the ground to enjoy the advantages. Then there is another point I want to mention, viz., that we feel very much in the Cape Province that so little money is spent here in connection with land settlement. At the commencement of the session, the Minister answered in this connection that there was so much money spent in the Transvaal and the Free State, although I understand that there is also dissatisfaction in the Free State. Why is it not possible to divide up the money between the various provinces ? Then I want to ask the Minister whether the money spent in the Transvaal, e.g., is only spent on people who applied in the Transvaal, or also on people from the other provinces who want to go there. I should also like to ask what success there has been with people put on settlements under the irrigation scheme. Have many applications been received, and have many been approved ? I should also like information with reference to the probationary lessees.

I should like a little information with regard to probationary lessees. Can the Minister tell us how, e.g., things are going at Hartebeestpoort, how many probationary lessees there are, and if they are progressing well ? Then, with reference to the applications received, the hon, member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) complained that the Cape Province, compared with the Transvaal, was not getting its share. As far as I know, a number of people trekked from the Cape Province to the Transvaal, especially to the towns, as, e.g., my constituency. They have better chances there and make good progress. I know of people there who came from the Cape Province very poor, and have made fairly good progress. The hon. member said that in the Cape they did not run so quickly to the Government. I admit that, in the Transvaal, on the contrary, they are a little fast. In the old days, moreover, when we had the old Transvaal Government, they had a more open heart for the poor people than in the Colony. The hon. member will, however, still have to learn that he has a pact with the Labour party. He will experience that many times more. He said in one of his first speeches here that they would do very well with it, but he will have much trouble with his brothers.

I hope the Minister will tell us how these probationary lessees are selected. It has always been a fundamental principle of land settlement in this country that no Government land shall be given out without advertising in the Government Gazette, so that every citizen shall have an equal chance of getting some land. I do not know how this is being done. Unless every citizen in this country is notified through the Government Gazette that there are vacancies, that fundamental principle of our land laws is being evaded. If the Minister of Labour can simply designate nominees of his own to be tenant farmers, the spirit of our land law’s is being evaded. I have not yet seen in any Government Gazette an advertisement calling for applicants as probationers. Are any returns laid on the Table with regard to this?

I think the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. Conradie) was referring to land in the vicinity of the proposed irrigation works at Bukuberg. It has always been my view that if any major works were going to be constructed in the near future on the Orange River, perhaps Bukuberg was one of those places that might receive the attention of my hon. friend. The Minister should go carefully into the question, and nothing should be allowed to interfere with the possibility of having sufficient communal grazing round this area should these works eventually be carried out. What might happen is that if the State did eventually go in for building these works begun many years ago at Bukuberg and a certain portion of the surrounding land had been sold, it would eventually be essential for the State to step in and buy it at a far higher price than they have given for it.

I should like to ask the Minister what the position is regarding arrears due by settlers under the Land Settlement Act, since the amending legislation of last year came into force providing for extended periods of payment. Are payments coming in more readily now than prior to the coming into force of the amending legislation. Could the Minister, for the purpose of comparison, give me any idea of the total arrears at the present time and what they were at the same time last year.

How do you come to have two sets of officials carrying on land settlement of a certain character? In the department of my hon. friend there are these probationary lessees and then under the Labour Department there is the proposed establishment and maintenance of training farms, relief camps, etc., £145,000. Surely this work is overlapping. Where do you draw the line? There is bound to be waste and I do not suppose the Minister of Labour knows very much about land or farming. I do not mean any disrespect. I should have thought it would have been better to keep this settlement matter entirely in the Lands Department.

What I would like to know is, do all these applications and grants and permission to occupy—whether they come in among probationary lessees or tenant farmers—come under the Minister of Lands? When the Land Settlement Act of 1924 was passed, there was a good deal of discussion as to the somewhat wide powers which were sought to be given to the Minister, and it was agreed that whatever the Minister did should be reported to the House within one month of the meeting of Parliament. Do these returns include the grants of land which are made to tenant farmers which will appear under another vote? If not, can the Minister tell us how they are allocated, and what control he has under those allocations ? Are they reported to the House in a way similar to the way the Minister of Lands has to do it? If the Minister of Labour has an entirely independent jurisdiction and there is no control such as the House has under the Act of 1924, we have dual control of a very unsatisfactory description.

Under A.3, Land Boards and Inspection Parties’ fees and expenses, it seems to me that the Land Board, in valuing land for settlement, is valuing it according to the market value in that area. It seems that the Government allows the value of the land for settlement purposes to rise with the rise in the value of land in that area. It is carrying on business just as a land company would do or any other purveyor of land. I think the Government ought not to exact the last quota of value out of land which it has at its disposal for settlers. I am sure such persons farming that land find it almost impossible to make a living on it, of necessity, they cannot employ the implements and adopt methods which would make it possible for a wealthy farmer or a syndicate to succeed. Yet the land is valued on its worth in such a market. Land is progressing artificially in value in the Transvaal, and is drifting into the hands of a certain type of storekeeper. The Land Board should put some check on artificial prices of land, which make it more difficult for the settler type to come out successfully. The whole burden of purchase and development falls on the pioneer, or first settler occupier, and a high price for the land is an insurmountable initial handicap.

May I draw attention to there being only 6 members across the way on an important vote like this, and that there is no quorum in the House. [No quorum.]

The land boards are the only bodies which can value land. If land is bought under section 11 the land board sees that the purchaser does not pay too much for it, in fact we do everything in our power to keep down the price of land, especially now when we have such a number of applications. We do not, of course, want to force land below its market value. Last year we passed an Act giving the settlers many facilities, and adding their arrears to capital, so there is not much chance if a man is willing to work of his not making a success of land settlement. We are doing as much as we can to collect arrears. Since the Act was passed last year a considerable improvement has taken place, but the payments are not yet what we should like, and we have pointed out to the debtors that they must do their best and toe the line, and that we cannot allow arrears to accumulate again, because there will not be another consolidation of arrears, In the 1924 Act it is distinctly laid down that holdings have to be advertised in several newspapers. Applications are sent in, and the names of the most suitable candidates are selected and sent to me. In order to carry out the promise made by the right hon, the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) to the men who worked on the construction of the Hartebeestpoort Dam, 50 per cent, of the settlers were selected from amongst their number. Then the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) raised a question about the occupation clause. There was a strong agitation in the Transvaal that the law should be carried out. What happens is this, if any lessee has got to go away from his farm to earn money he applies to the Land Board for exemption. That I invariably approve. I may make it a little less, perhaps six months instead of twelve months. I never make the time less if I can see that there is a necessity for the man to go somewhere else so as to earn money for his farm. In the case which was brought to my notice by the hon. member, this gentleman got three farms in 1921, and they have never been occupied. There was a white man on the farm and the only improvements that were made were the planting of a few orange trees and bananas and the erection of a rondavel valued altogether at about £40. I warned him repeatedly that he must comply with the conditions of occupation and I eventually cancelled the grant. If a man takes in a partner he must be a bona fide partner and not a mere dummy. One partner stays on the farm and the other generally gets exemption provided he leaves his partner on the farm. There are many such cases. To have a bijwoner there, that I cannot tolerate. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) asked me about the Survey Bill. I am very anxious to get it on and I hope to bring it before the House towards the end of this week or early next week for second reading. In reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) I would point out that it is quite impossible not to increase your staff when the work increases so enormously as it has done in my department. I may take section 11 applications as indicating how that work has increased. In 1921-’22, we had 370 applications and in 1925-’26 2,489. That also applies to the board I have appointed. In the Cape it takes you a much longer time to go through the title deeds so as to see whether they are in order. I am told by the Registrar of Deeds that you may reckon on an average that one can be done per day. In the Transvaal or Free State you can do twenty or thirty. I was compelled to appoint another board and I took a slice of the Transvaal and a portion of the Cape above the Orange River and made that into one board. With regard to the inspector mentioned by my hon. friend, I may say that one of the wants of my department was that there was not sufficient supervision of these holdings bought under section 11, because there were not enough inspectors. I can assure the hon. member that I could do with ten more instead of three. I abolished the office of inspector for closer settlements after I had been in office a little while. I thought I would be able to manage without him, but I found it was impossible. These closer settlements have to be very closely watched and I had, to appoint another inspector for this purpose. With regard to the questions put to me about probationers, I would like to give the House the information as far as that matter is concerned. At present there are at Hartebeestpoort 120 and 60 more holdings are being arranged for now. These men are being trained there. There is a superintendent and a committee of control consisting of practical farmers., also an expert from the Agricultural Department, training these men how to farm. According to the Act they have to make good within three years. There are 60 probationers who have now been there nearly two years. When I went to Hartebeestpoort during the recess I was agreeably surprised. Some of these men I shall have to turn off, but the vast majority of them have made good. I think this year they will have a tremendous tobacco crop. I think that the committee of control reckoned that out of the first 60 about 40 made good. I have made provision in my Estimates in order that towards the end of this year these 40 men will be passed out and they will become ordinary settlers under the Land Settlement Act. The tobacco crop for several reasons was not very good last year, but still considerable revenue was derived out of the holdings. The Government is entitled to a two-fifths share and that amounted to £2,400 or thereabouts, which was paid into the Treasury.

Do you give them land in the Hartebeestpoort Settlement or other land ?

I will be compelled to do that. That is the type of farming they have done. They are trained for tobacco farming, fruit trees, beans and potatoes, and it is no use putting them somewhere else. Eventually, of course, the whole settlement will pass away from us. I am clearing up the department and have passed certain bills to get rid of these things.

Is the work divided at Hartebeestpoort ? How much to the Lands. Department and how much to the Labour Department ?

The Government has three farms on the western side. These were given shortly after we came into this. The Minister of Labour said there are a great number of men here ; the work is petering out at Hartebeestpoort, and I must have somewhere to sort them out and to release them for relief works, etc. Instead of buying land we decided to give the Labour Department these farms for that purpose. That is on the other side of the river. Of course, there is this Zand-fontein which is a recent development; but that land does not belong to the Government. It is only leased from Mr. Jacobs?,. On the eastern side of the river is where I have my probationary settlement. Part of the ground is not suitable. It is gravelly, poor land, and so I am going to give that out under section 11. The applicant must pay one-tenth, and he can have the rest on long terms. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) put a question about the Sundays River settlement. Hon. members will remember the Act I got passed last year to settle matters there, which gave me certain powers. The Land Board has gone into the matter and made full recommendations, of which I have approved, and the matter is now with the Treasury. Settlers are being met most liberally. The water position is not so satisfactory. They had rain yesterday, but when the superintendent was last there, they had only half a turn of water left in the dam.

†*The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. C. van Heerden) asked if people with small capital could also be assisted. Under section 7 people are assisted who can pay at least one-tenth of the purchase price, and then they must further have enough to be able to work the ground. Then there is Government ground. There the man does not require the one-tenth. There is enough if he has a little stock, etc., to work the ground. Thus it is a class of man who is fairly poor. Even under section 11 of the Bill, however, fairly poor people are assisted, as e.g., a large number of bywoners in the Free State especially, but also in the Cape Province. They have saved a little money enough to pay the one-tenth. Then for the man with absolutely nothing there is the tenant farmer scheme. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. Conradie) spoke about the Boegoeberg scheme. It is a difficult matter. Years ago, I think in 1912, the farms were bought by the Government, and my predecessor referred it to the Land Board, quite rightly I think, to see what could be done with them. The board had the ground surveyed and sub-divided and considerable expense was incurred. It was done on the advice of the Land Board. I must admit that what the hon. members for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) and Gordonia (Mr. Conradie) have said, is very serious, and I will reconsider the matter. The farms cost a fairly large sum of money, some were bought at £14,000 and a few more at £15,000, and since 1912 the capital invested has all been unproductive. The Auditor-General complains about this in his report. As long as the scheme is not carried out the capital will, of course, remain unproductive. The Land Board at first reserved 30,000 morgen and subsequently another 30,000 morgen for grazing, against the time when the scheme should be completed. I will go into the matter further. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) asked what the difference was between probationary lessees and tenant farmers. It is laid down in the Act. The lessees are people who go to the farmers, not on Government ground, and work there under them on a five years’ contract. They are provided with tools and ploughs in order to carry on farming. There are many farmers quite willing to give ground, but not trek oxen, etc. The tenant farmers come under the Minister of Labour, and are on Government ground. The Minister of Labour should give more information with regard to this.

†Complaint has also been made that some options lapsed because it took such a long time to consider the application, but when you get in a month and a half 1,153 applications, it is a huge task to undertake. I always advise people to get an option for two months at least. Although the regulations say six weeks, there are men who take it for a few weeks.

†*I want to answer the remarks of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) in connection with the money available for land settlement. I have already explained that the people of the Transvaal and the Free State applied last year when the Bill was read a second time in the House. There were, therefore, applications from the Free State and Transvaal, but the people in the Cape Province were too slow and they, therefore, did not get the share last year to which they would have been entitled. I, however, instructed the Cape Land Board to advertise twice a month instead of once in two months, and the position with regard to applications up to 18th May was as follows: From the Cape Province there were 242 applications, of which 19 per cent, have been approved so far. Some are, however, still under consideration. From Natal there were 23 applications, and 30 per cent, have been approved. From the Transvaal there were 602 applications and 16 per cent, were approved. From the Free State there were 237 applications and 26 per cent, were approved. Hon. members will thus see that there is more equality this year. The Natal percentage is the highest, but there were very few applications from there. They are dealt with as soon as they come in. I now want to make it clear to members who want a certain sum of money allocated for each province, that it cannot be done, because it will make the administration impossible. Hon. members will, however, see that the applications are dealt with as soon as possible, and that an attempt is made to keep the percentage of requests granted proportional. I cannot help it if there are more applications from the Transvaal than from the Cape Province. From the 1st of April to the 18th of May there were 1,152 applications from all four provinces.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 34, “Deeds,” £48,489,

I should like to say a few words in connection with the registration of deeds. I want to say at once that I am strongly in favour of there being a proper system of registration, and we are proud of the safe manner in which our deeds of transfer and mortgage bonds are preserved. It is possibly one of the safest systems in the world. In 1918 we passed an Act consolidating all the laws with regard to registration offices. I want, however, to tell the Minister that the public are now having great trouble with the way in which registration takes place. I am speaking especially of the Cape Province. In my opinion, unnecessary trouble is given the people. Very often stupid objections are made when deeds are sent up for registration. It seems to be that in the Deeds Office in Cape Town it has become a rule that if a deed of transfer or a bond has not been once rejected or a query or some other objection raised, the Registrar does not feel happy, and the result is that subsequently it causes a great bother and additional costs to the public in the outside districts. Then one finds very often that the Registrar of Deeds and the Master of the Supreme Court differ in opinion with reference to transfer and other matters in connection with the administration of estates, and also in connection with the incidence of death duties. I want to bring it to the notice of the Minister that if ever there was a bureaucracy, then it exists in the office of the Registrar of Deeds, and it is gradually becoming intolerable to the country people. We are all in favour of safe registration, but it can be exaggerated, and the public suffer in consequence. It is the lawyers in Cape Town who profit from the objections made by the registration office. The result, however, is that the people on the countryside have to pay. If there is a well grounded and reasonable objection, nothing can be said, but very often the objections are unreasonable and absurd, and in the long run it causes hardship to the public. I want to bring this specially to the Minister’s notice, because I do not know yet whether it has been done. People do not get properly to work. I do not say that the officials in the office are negligent, but I think they are very changeable, and ask too much. We have a very safe system to-day, but it will have to be considered later what is to become of the thousands of deeds of transfer and bonds we register, not only in the Cape Province, but also in the other provinces. I ask whether the Government will not appoint a technical commission to go into the matter. I want the safe registration to be preserved, but I doubt whether it is necessary for all the documents to be registered. What shall we do in fifty years with all the papers? Cannot a more simple method of registration be found ? In the past and at present, deeds of transfer, bonds, and ante-nuptial contracts are registered. Cannot it be arranged differently, because later on there will be insufficient room and the Government will be obliged to build additional accommodation for the documents. The matter is very technical, but if the Minister will consider the appointment of a small commission to see how less registration can be brought about, and at the same time will enquire into the way in which the registration is actually done here, and whether the public cannot be met in the matter, then it will be much easier for the public, and will cost less, especially on the countryside.

The complaints of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) seem to me to be those of advocates, etc., and not of the public. If I go to the office I get all the information I want, and I think it is one of the offices where we can get most information. The attorneys possibly object, but it is their own bureaucratic manner. Certain questions have to be asked by the office, but one gets all the information that is necessary.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 35, “Surveys,” £63,567, put and agreed to.

On Vote 36, “Irrigation,” £186,218.

On the motion of the Minister of Lands, it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed :

Progress reported ; House to resume in committee to-morrow.