as Chairman, brought up the report of the Select Committee on Enfranchisement of Women.

Report and evidence to be printed and considered on 7th June.

I move—

The object of this amendment is to make the intention of the Minister quite clear, and that is that he is going to fix definitely the maximum price, and then the matter is closed. As the clause reads now, it is not at all definite, and I suggest that the Minister should make it clear once for all so that there may be no further controversy on this point, otherwise the position of the Minister will be almost unbearable. He will have to follow the overseas market and the home market for sugar, and he will be bombarded either by chambers of commerce or sugar millers for alterations and variations in his proclamations. As the clause now stands, with the constant variation in these proclamations the millers will be put in an impossible position. As I have already informed the committee, I personally think that the millers are making a very grave mistake in having anything to do with the Government in this matter. They are selling their birthright for a mess of pottage and, as far as I can see as the Bill now stands, they are selling their birthright for half a mess of pottage. It will only be a few years before no class of the community will be kicking itself so hard as the sugar industry will be doing through having chained round their necks this price fixing Bill. When the over-supply of sugar in the world has decreased and the price of sugar has gone up, they will be chained by this Bill and, whatever the price of sugar in the overseas market may be, their maximum price will be 3¾d.

interjected a remark.

If they are not making a fair profit, why should they do it? I quite recognize the point of view of the hon. member who interjected. His view is that the manufacturer, when things are good, should not reap a profit and, when they are bad, he should take all the losses. The difficulty is going to be, if the price of sugar goes up in the overseas market, that the industry Will be exporting their sugar, and we shall be in the unfortunate position here of not being able to buy our own sugar. These are only a few of the difficulties which the Minister will come up against when this Bill is actually working, and I do suggest to the Minister that we should, at any rate, make this perfectly clear. It is a bad Bill at the best, but let us have it perfectly clear, so that everybody, both the consumer, the wholesaler, the retailer and the planter, knows exactly where he is. With the amendment that I move the intention of the Minister when he originally moved this matter in his budget, will be made perfectly clear. That is the intention, I believe, of the House and, therefore, I suggest that it should be made perfectly clear in the Bill, so that the Board of Trade or any other part of the bureaucracy shall not have any right to interfere with the intention of the House.

I would like to support the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Stuttaford). There is no doubt, that, as the clause stands, there will always be some amount of uncertainty as to whether the price will be further interfered with. That is undoubtedly going to be detrimental to the sugar trade itself. It is far better that the price should be fixed and that traders should know where they are. For instance, in that case they will hold larger stocks. If the prices are uncertain, then the less stocks they hold the better, because they will never know whether the price is going up or down.

The amendment is really unnecessary. I have informed the House that I have no intention of changing prices from time to time. After we bring the Bill into operation the prices will be fixed. That being so, there is no harm in accenting the amendment, but it is really absolutely unnecessary because we have no intention of changing the price below the maximum price which we lay down here.

I want to move —

I have had a telegram from the industry, which shows that the average price of refined sugar will go up in Durban to £18 10s. a ton. That is the latest information. I want to point out what the Board of Trade say on this matter—

The difference between 3½d. and 3¾d. is 2s. 4d. a 100 lbs., or £2 6s. 8d. a ton, and it costs £3 2s. 6d. to refine a ton of sugar. I want to point out that the suspended duty has not yet come into operation, so the price of sugar to-day is being fixed upon actual existing prices, as has been ascertained for instance, at a place like Port Elizabeth, where the retailers have joined together to purchase a bundle of sugar from the industry direct ; 3¾d. is the actual price to-day without any additional duty. It is the lowest price that has obtained in this country for years. It seems to me that when we are fixing the maximum price for years ahead it should be a price which will enable the industry, on that, to come out somewhere near, but above its cost of production. Therefore I am constrained to move this amendment, and I ask the House to judge this question purely as an economic one and not from a political aspect.

No explanation is given as to what is to be understood by Durban, East London, Mossel Bay, etc. I am quite certain that in drafting the regulations the Minister will find he will have a great deal of trouble. To meet that point I move—

Otherwise the Minister will get the anomalous position that under the Bill as it stands at present, price-fixing may take place in Cape Town but not in Wynberg or Simonstown. I take it he intends the whole area of the Cape Peninsula to come within the purview of this Act. I have been looking up the Minister’s speeches where he announced this increased duty on sugar, and I see that in moving to go into Committee of Supply he did make it clear that the price-fixing Bill was to be limited in its operation to these coastal towns. He was then asked what about the inland towns, what protection was there for them, and the only explanation that he could give was to say that if overcharging goes on in inland towns they would then get their sugar from the coastal towns where the price is fixed. Does the Minister seriously think that would be any real check ? In effect—let us be under no misapprehension—this is a protection for the consumer in the coastal towns only and possibly within a very short radius of those towns. I never listened to anything more inconsistent than the Minister’s defence yesterday afternoon. He said—

If that is true why fix prices in the costal towns? Either competition will adjust the matter throughout the whole Union, or it will not.

Competition will adjust it if you allow sugar to come in from overseas ; otherwise not.

I am speaking on the assumption that you have these duties. I am also speaking about the retailer. If the Minister is right that competition among the retailers in inland centres will automatically adjust the price, then I say the same argument applies to the costal ports. I strongly object to an increased duty being put on and the public being told they would be protected from exploitation and then to find that the protection is for the consumers in coastal towns only. The whole tendency of legislation and taxation is to place the burden on the inland consumer. It is not right. If the Minister imagines that price-fixing at the Cape will influence the price on the Rand, I think he has made a mistake. Then there is the question of the wholesale price. How many housewives can afford to import sugar in pocket from Durban? The Minister must understand that so far as any benefits to the consumer in the inland areas are concerned this Act is worthless. The duty goes on—the so-called protection to the consumer disappears. I cannot understand why the Minister did not take power to fix the price by proclamation for the large centres of urban population inland. Otherwise it is not fair. There can be no doubt that the effect of this may be to drive trade into the coast ports, because manufacturers and others may have to pay more on the Rand. I say this is a hasty and a rash experiment. All price-fixing by legislation is bad, but this is a particularly evil form of it to try and adjust it at the coast ports only. I move the amendment I have foreshadowed.

The price proposed to be fixed is taken when the price of sugar is at its very lowest, and according to the Board of Trade, is below the cost of production. It would be unfair to saddle the industry with a price at which they cannot come out.

Owing to the upset caused by war conditions, a very large increased production took place in the West Indies and other parts. European countries have not recovered from the war. Unless the industry can get help I am afraid a great many will have to go out. I agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) that it would be better to have the price free.

I rise to support the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) on this question. As a matter of principle I think it is quite right. When this Bill was up before we pleaded that the price ought to be fixed at Kimberley, Johannesburg, Bloemfontein and Pretoria—at all events for inland centres. The position in which we are, after traders inland add railway and other charges, is that there is no protection for consumers at these centres, which is a very great weakness in price control. We on these benches are in favour of the effective control of prices on necessities of life. Natural competition has long ceased; you have big finance, and you have the great stores controlling producers and consumers. The Government should have gone further and seen to it that in the distributing centres inland the public are not overcharged. It must be remembered that in this sugar trade the “sugar kings” of Natal dictate wholesale and retail prices to be charged by distributing traders, who, if they do not conform to the conditions, cannot purchase further supplies. This monopoly must be controlled.

As the Minister knows, I hate this price-fixing, which I do not think is sound in any shape or form ; but when you are on the job, do the thing properly. Don’t treat the coast towns in a different fashion from that in which you are treating big centres like Johannesburg, or even Kimberley or Bloemfontein. Why not treat them all alike? The Minister says competition will regulate the prices to the same extent inland as at the coast ports. There is as strong competition in Cape Town amongst grocers and the wholesale people as in Johannesburg.

If you put on the increased duty how are you going to prevent fixed prices at the one centre where it is obtainable ?

Cape Town is not a producing centre. If you fix prices for the millers in Durban, that they cannot sell more than at £21 or £22 per ton, that would apply all round. That is the centre from which all the sugar comes. Particularly to save the consumer he sets out to squeeze the distributor at the coast ports, but he has left quite a free hand to the distributor up country. My hon. friend could just as well fix prices at Johannesburg for the retailer as in Cape Town.

The sugar people pay all the railage to the coast towns.

But my hon. friend must give the consumer the same treatment in Johannesburg as in Cape Town. I am pleading for the same treatment all round.

I move—

; What does that mean ? What is in the mind of the Minister ?

You have killed the Bill.

But what about the duty ?

The duty does not come on.

Motion put and agreed to.

House Resumed :

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

I move as an amendment—

I judge, from the Bill being on the order paper this morning, that it is the intention of the Government to steam-roller this through.

We are giving you all the time you want.

This is a Bill which should have been introduced weeks ago and referred to a select committee. This is touching private interests to a considerable extent indeed. We should have called evidence. Then, no doubt, my hon. friend would have got a good Bill. We are quite agreeable to the principle of the Bill—the control of me export of these perishable articles—it is simply the manner of the making up of the committee of control to which we object. The country must know that it is not fair to it to introduce an important Bill like this affecting hundreds, I may fairly say, thousands, of private interests, and steamroller it through. I am putting this amendment forward with the idea of giving my hon. friend an opportunity of coming to a compromise on the matter. The effect of my amendment is—why not put the other three men on the board and give them equal rights in voting and so forth? There are three members representing the railway department and the Government, if the Minister likes to say so and the other three represent the interests of the producers and the growers. What is fairer than that? Furthermore, I do not interfere with the right of the chairman to give a casting vote. In the ultimate result the department will always have the control. No decision would be come to without having representatives of the various producing interests present at the board meeting. I have not consulted the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) on it, but it struck me as an extremely fair compromise, rather leaning to the side of the Government,

I regret that I cannot accept the amendment, because it is quite clear, and it must be to the hon. member (Mr. Jagger), that the representative members of the board attend only when their particular industry is under discussion. When citrus and egg export matters are being dealt with, during the second half year, the deciduous growers will have little interest at all. Why should these members attend the board when their interests are not being dealt with ? The principle has been adopted of a board under section one, and the hon. member must submit to that. Let us deal with the Bill on the basis of Clause 1, and that being so, it is only logical that Clause 5 should stand.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

If this is going to be a regular Government board, I want to take it away from the Government to some extent. I want to move—

I am prepared to accept the amendments in sub-sections (1) and (3), as I think the board should have more direct control in regard to these committees. In regard to the amendment proposed in sub-Clause (2), I cannot agree. What we did last year was to ask the Chamber of Commerce at the coastal ports as well as the agricultural society to make nominations, and it has worked well on the whole. This work has been done without payment. I am prepared to consent to—

if the hon. member will alter his amendment accordingly.

Yes.

Are these committees in ports outside Cape Town to be paid in the future ?

That is a matter that can be considered.

Then we raise a vital point on this Bill. My point, and that of the fruit farmers, is that the co-operators whose produce is going to have a levy placed on it, should have some say and control, and if there is a possibility of these committees being paid, I object in the strongest possible manner. Will the Minister definitely promise the committee that these committees will not be paid ?

I will not do anything of the sort.

I move—

I am not prepared to accept that, as members of chambers of commerce who have helped us in the past will be excluded, and I want to express my appreciation of the work done at the ports by these members of the chambers of commerce and agricultural societies.

You have no right to appoint a committee at the ports, dealing with the products of the producers, on which committee the producers have no say, especially if that committee is going to be paid out of the funds provided for by a levy on their own products.

That has been disposed of under Clause 1.

No ; Clause 1 was steam-rollered through. We are now dealing with the permanent board.

The hon. member must not reflect on the vote that has been passed.

It is most unfair and entirely opposed to the whole co-operative principle, especially if there is a possibility of these committees being paid, that the people who are paying them should have no say in the appointment of these boards. It is not always the case that the interests of the chambers of commerce and co-operative organizations do not clash.

I do not want to raise this whole question again. We had a full debate on Clause 1 and there can be no question of the application of the steam-roller in regard to that clause. To test the position, take the Transvaal. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) the Minister of Lands, the hon. members for Barberton (Mr. Rood), Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost); do they not represent practically all the farmers who export citrus from the Transvaal. Has the hon. member seen the interview which Mr. du Plessis has given to the press in which he says this whole position, as far as he can see, has been engineered from Cape Town by a few wirepullers ?

Rubbish. We do not believe him.

Do you endorse that opinion?

And Mr. du Plessis is chairman of the Rustenburg Co-operative Union and is a member of the present board of control ; so he speaks with authority. Let us get away from this idea that the Bill is not acceptable to the fruit farmers. Take the Cape. The hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) represents very large exporters of citrus and the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) represents—

He never consulted them.

That is a responsibility that rests with the hon. member, not with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central).

I have seen several.

Take the exports from the Paarl. I have a resolution passed by the Farmers’ Association at Paarl. The secretary of the society states that this meeting was specially convened to discuss this Bill now before Parliament and other matters, and he writes—

Mr. Joubert told me that those present included a very large number of exporters of fruit. Take again a Constantia gentleman like Mr. Rousseau, the Registrar of the High Court and a keen business man—

You can always get a few individuals to support a thing.

I have never disputed that a number of prominent growers are opposed to the Bill, but to say that the measure does not meet with the approval of the fruitgrowers as a whole is not correct. I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.

I think it was in November or December last I discussed the question with the Minister, after a meeting I had with fruit growers in my district, which is one of the best fruit growing districts in the Transvaal. I suggested to the Minister the appointment of a board constituted more or less in the way this board will be formed. The Bill practically comes from the most enlightened section of the fruit-growing population.

I cannot quite see why the Minister is unable to accept the amendment. The Minister’s great point is that in order to obtain expert opinion he particularly wishes to have some representatives of the chambers of commerce. That is quite sound, but he should go the whole way. He also requires the expert opinions of certain persons who know something about the fruit export trade. I would suggest that the Minister accept the amendment and we can alter the clause by saying that—

The Minister referred to a meeting held at Paarl, and I understood him to say that Mr. Joubert gave him the information. It is curious that information regarding that meeting conveyed in the telegram published in the “Argus” also came from Mr. Joubert. If Mr. Joubert told the Minister that 100 persons were present at the meeting he told him what was not true. There are only 100 members belonging to the association, and I am one of them. My information from the secretary is that there were two dozen gentlemen present at the meeting in question. Mr. Joubert happened to be chairman of the society. He attended the meeting held on the previous Friday in Cape Town, returned to the Paarl and reported his impressions to the meeting at Paarl on the Saturday, influences it, and then gives the Minister and the press wrong figures.

What about the press reports? The Bill had been published in all the papers.

Even press reports do not always reach the fruit exporters.

They all get newspapers.

What opportunity had the farmers of Paarl district of reading a report of a meeting held in Cape Town the previous day ?

They could see the Bill themselves

Does an ordinary farmer read and understand every Bill ? The meeting in Cape Town condemned this Bill because of the autocratic powers the Minister takes in appointing the board. The Minister has read a letter from Mr. du Plessis, but there happened to be present Mr. Anderson of the Transvaal Citrus Growers’ Association, and he condemns the Bill. We are supposed to take the word of Mr. du Plessis, who remained in the Transvaal and did not attend the meeting. I have just as much right to take Mr. Anderson’s view as the Minister has to take Mr. du Plessis’ view.

What is your view about the Bill?

That you are creating a board and not giving proper representation on it to the people who are directly concerned, and who will have to pay the expenses.

The Minister has stated that from information he has received the opposition to the Bill is a wire-pulling one.

I did not say so.

The Minister must not deny what he says.

I read from Mr. du Plessis’ statement.

The Minister said the opposition was got up by a few wirepullers.

Mr. du Plessis said so.

You endorsed it.

I never said so—don’t misinterpret.

The Minister must not lose his temper. You have a responsible position in the House. May I tell him the story of “vaulting ambition which o’erleaps itself and falls on t’other side.” At the meeting in Cape Town 64 persons voted against the Bill. They were supported by Maj. Anderson, who is a citrus grower in the Transvaal, and their views were also supported by a representative from Rhodesia, which is affiliated with the Co-operative Fruit Exchange. If anybody says that these people are wire-pullers I desire to give that the most unqualified denial. It is a disgrace to make such a statement.

It is.

A statement which is much more justifiable is that certain people, owing to the difficulty in which the Government is placed, have been led by political considerations to hold meetings and express opinions in favour of the Bill.

You have no right to say that.

I have a perfect right to say it.

You will say anything.

In many cases influences have been brought to bear to get people—I cannot say to get members of the committee misrepresenting the fruit growers— to come under the crack of the party whip and they are not expressing the views of the fruit growers but those of the Minister. What confidence can the fruit growers have in a board which is nominated by a board, the chairman of which, I should imagine, must have lost the confidence of the members of the fruit exchange by making representations to the Government behind their back ?

That is true.

I protest against the Minister saying this is a wire-pulling opposition. The Minister thinks that people should not express their opinions. We have been sent here to express our opinions. I express the opinion of the Kat River co-operative organization, who are intensely in favour of doing everything they possibly can to retain the cooperative principle, and are intensely opposed to being called upon, through their product, to pay charges which may be very heavy for administration in which they have got no say or control of any sort whatsoever. This Bill strikes a vital blow at co-operation. If this Bill goes through and it is administered, as most likely it will be administered, it will be a most serious blow to the co-operative fruit exchange. There have been many attempts to burst that exchange, and if they cannot burst it from without, I hope they will not try to burst it from within.

It is difficult to understand why the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) brings such an unworthy complaint against hon. members of the House, and the more, as in the past, he has occupied a position representing the farming population. I speak as one of the smaller people who has an interest in fruit export. Last year proper provision was not made for the smaller grower who did not necessarily belong to the co-operative societies. There are some of the young growers who are non-members, and we as small growers have more confidence in the Government than in the larger body of growers as regards the export and marketing of our produce, as the lastmentioned, from the nature of things, must be partial towards its members. Therefore I hope that the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. I do not want to put a spoke in the wheel of the co-operative societies because I support the co-operative principle, but it was our experience in the past that the cooperative body was partial towards its members, and that we can trust the Government to look after the interests of the fruit farmers. The Government recently met us in connection with the railway rates, especially on fruit intended for export.

The speech we have just heard shows the other side of the story. My hon. friend (Dr. Stals) would like to put everything in the hands of the Government to let them manage. We, on this side, representing a large number of the fruit-growers, very much object to that. It is far better surely to let people manage their own business, than to let the Government manage it for them. The Minister says that we are making an unworthy attack upon these people. If any unworthy attack has been made, it has been the letter quoted by the Minister from Mr. du Plessis. If the Minister thought about the interests of the fruit industry alone, this Bill would be allowed to stand over until next session. We are not against control, but we do object to being in the hands of the Government or their officials. We hold, and hold very strongly, that the biggest half of the fruit-growers, and the best and most enterprising part of the fruitgrowers are against this Bill. With reference to what the Minister of Finance has said, I have made enquiries this morning, and I find that the fruit-growers, as represented by the Fruit Exchange, take up exactly the same position as they have always taken up. They are against this Bill going through in its present form. Why does not my hon. friend the Minister take the suggestion now made to him that we should continue under the present regime for another 12 months? This season was much more successful than the previous one. If my hon. friend is thinking solely of the fruit industry, he will report progress now on this Bill and let it stand over until next session, then bring it up and appoint a select committee to go into it, and then we may have a Bill which will probably stand for years. Will my hon. friend accept a motion to report progress ?

No.

What has my hon. friend to gain ?

It is really difficult to gauge the mentality of hon. members opposite. This Bill has been before the country now for a considerable time.

Since when ?

I cannot at the moment say the exact date when it was first published, but certainl 14 days or more. I have had representations from all parts of the country. Surely the Government has the right to look to those who represent particular districts for information. I am not going to deny the allegation the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has made. It is unworthy of him. The two allegations which he made this morning are utterly unworthy. In the first place he made the unworthy and untruthful statement that the party whip had cracked in this matter. I say deliberately that is not correct. The second very unworthy statement made up by him was that in giving the committee the opinion of Mr. du Plessis, who is the chairman of the Citrus Board at Rustenburg, I was giving my own opinion. I never did so. I gave the interview which Mr. du Plessis gave to the press.

Do you endorse it?

What I do strongly object to is that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort should be making these incorrect statements. He made this statement knowing, as he ought to have known, that it was not correct. With regard to the interview with Mr. du Plessis, he is responsible for his own views.

Do you agree with him ?

I do not agree in regard to the allegation about wirepullers. I believe that these gentlemen who oppose the terms of this Bill are bona fide in the view they have taken in regard to the constitution of the board. I have discussed this Bill on the most friendly terms with the directors of the Fruit Exchange. We frankly disagree. I discussed it with the directors of the Exchange, who unfortunately were not able to agree was me on the first clause, but broadly speaking they agree with the rest of the terms of the Bill. I have stated that on many occasions, so why should all this feeling be aroused, and why should the allegation be made that the Government is riding roughshod over the view of fruit-growers and exporters? I say that is unworthy. Let us deal with the merits of the Bill, but do not let us introduce all this unnecessary feeling with regard to a Bill which except for the constitution of the board is generally agreed to by all interests.

One never doubts that my hon. friend has had an amicable discussion with the board, but here you have the advice of experienced men who have been working the business for twelve months and have made a success of it, and yet my hon. friend wants to put his own opinion against theirs.

And the expert opinion.

Just the chairman of the board. Surely these members have just as much experience, and even more experience, because they have been in the business for years and years. Why does my hon. friend not refer it to a select committee and let them consider it ? Why does he want to force his own opinion at a time like this? Why does he not adopt the reasonable suggestion and say he is quite prepared to take evidence and let the select committee decide as to what should be done ? That is the fair thing to do. There is another mystery. Why should my hon. friend want to steam-roller this through this session ? There is plenty of other work we can get along with, work which is called for. I hope my hon. friend will look at it from a reasonable point of view.

I think it is common cause that the intention of the Minister is to do his best for the fruit-growers of this country, but I ask him to remember that there is a volume of strong feeling on this question of the composition of the board and committees among the producers. We feel after these years of solid hard work to get the co-operative spirit imbued in the people of the country, that he should not come along with something which is going to inflict a very severe blow to cooperation in this country? The Minister well knows that we all realize that a measure of control of this nature is necessary, but I want to appeal to the Minister again not to give this blow to the co-operative spirit. He says the producers agree with the Bill except for the clause which constitutes the board. That is the crux of the whole question. The wisest thing to do is not to proceed with the Bill now but to give the country full time to consider and digest it. The Minister quoted the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux), the hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) and the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) as the mouthpieces of the fruit producers. Without saying anything derogatory, I do not think the hon. member for Ceres represents the views on this question of the producers in his area; and with regard to George, to-day it is really rather a minor fruit producing area, though it has bright prospects. On the other hand in my constituency there are numbers of citrus and other producers of perishable products on a large scale. I quite realize the Minister’s position. He quoted a public servant who has a place in Constantia. He may be a farmer but his livelihood does not depend upon it. The livelihood of the men for whom we are speaking does depend upon the success or otherwise of our export trade. I advise the Minister in a friendly spirit to withdraw this Bill for the time being and come forward next session with a measure which will have the approval of the whole countryside. I hope we are not going to meet with obstinacy, that because the measure has been introduced it must go through. I fail to see the necessity for this Bill going through now. We carried on very well last year and the export of perishable products is on a sounder basis and under better control. Surely, we can let them go on for another year as they have done in the past, and with every prospect of improvement in the light of their experience. So leave it at that, and let this thing drop, and I am sure the Minister will find next session that he will have full support right through the country for a measure amended in the direction indicated.

I have allowed the committee a great deal of latitude on this clause. Clause 1 is again being discussed and other irrelevant matter dragged in. I must ask the committee to confine themselves to this clause.

I think I may claim that I have never approached any agricultural matter in a factious or party spirit. What we feel about this is that it is striking a vital blow against the spirit of co-operation.

May I remind the hon. member he is now discussing the general principle of co-operation ? We are now discussing Clause 6.

May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that I have moved an amendment in Clause 6 protesting against these subboards being nominated by the Government, that they must be nominated from members of co-operative organizations. Under these circumstances is the hon. member not perfectly right to point out how essential that amendment is ?

I will hear what the hon. member has to say.

I was addressing myself to the first paragraph of Clause 6. It is this that we think should be essentially representative of the producers. That is the opinion of the greatest apostle of co-operation the world has ever seen, Sir Horace Plunkett. He is dead against anything savouring of compulsion in the co-operative movement. I would ask the Minister to consider that there are some 20 million fruit trees growing in the Union. The produce of these would be enormous. We know that the management of the produce of these trees would be of the utmost importance to the growers. It is found not only here but in other parts of the world that it is absolutely necessary to maintain the continuous interest of the producers in the control of all matters affecting their welfare. If it is taken out of their hands through a board nominated by the Minister, that continuous interest will not be maintained, and there will always be the suspicion, I do not say that this Government, but whatever Government is in power, may be led by considerations emanating not from the most numerous, but the largest, growers. It is idle for the Minister to say that he has the approval of the growers to everything except Clause 1 which is the vital portion of the Bill. On the 22nd of May the Minister paid a well-deserved tribute to the existing board. It is a poor compliment to their work, zeal and efficiency that the Minister proposes to take another line altogether now. I do not think that this Bill will have anything but a bad effect on the minds of the growers.

The hon. member is now discussing the general principle of the Bill.

I am leading up to this committee. They will not feel that confidence in a committee appointed, not directly by themselves, but practically directly by the Government.

I move, as an amendment to the amendment by Sir Thomas Smartt—

What I urge is that the people who are producing these perishable products should have some rights and some voice in the method in which these products are going to be handled and exported. I must say I agree very heartily with the remarks which have fallen from this side with regard to the necessity of reporting progress, and leaving this Bill over for another session. On the last order of the day the Minister of Finance took a wise course when he found he had a weak Bill, and one in most respects a most unsatisfactory one, and withdrew it, so as to enable him to consider the matter during the recess. I suggest that the Minister of Railways and Harbours should follow the example of his colleague, and withdraw this. It seems to me that it is quite easy to find a via media between this proposition and that of the views of the exporters of fruit. If he could get a conference of these men he could give them certain rights for the control of the export of their products, which this Bill absolutely takes away from them. In this Bill the producer has no right as to the disposal of his goods.

The hon. member must confine himself to Clause 6.

I am confining myself to this amendment of Clause 6.

The hon. member is now talking about the Bill. Does the hon. member wish to move to report progress ?

In order to come to some arrangement with the fruit-growers to get some control of their products.

The hon. member is now asking for a postponement of the Bill.

We should report progress to deal with this clause of the Bill. Take this clause alone—the producer has not a single say, as the clause stands, in the handling of his products. The Minister of Railways and Harbours has power under this to appoint a committee on which there may not be a single man sitting who knows anything about the technicalities of the fruit trade.

What are the technicalities of the export of fruit? You cannot deal with that.

I do not suggest that the Minister should put me on the committee. I should consider myself incompetent to do it ; but I do suggest that the people who have worked in this industry during the last quarter of a century should have some say in the distribution of their products. I suggest that the Minister should report progress. We are going to put on the statute book hasty and ill-considered legislation.

You have still got the Senate.

But you have a depleted and a tired House.

Of course, I shall be told I know nothing about the growing of fruit and the fruit business at all. After hearing the bleating of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), and after hearing the roaring of the lamb, what is behind the opposition to-day? It is certainly not the fruit-growers.

The fruit-growers.

Nothing of the sort. I know the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is an honest and an honourable man. Will he tell me that the fruit-growers have come to him and asked him to oppose the Bill ?

Yes.

Will he tell me who they are ?

The committee of the fruit exchange.

They made a fine mess of things, until it was taken over by the present hoard. We to-morrow will do a big export—

The Central Mealie Co-operative Organization has been a success.

It has not been run by the farmers. They got in clever business men to help them.

Would you abolish cooperative societies?

No, I only want to do things that are practical. I do not want hon. members from the Western Province to divide the fruit-growers, because the eastern Free State is going to be a very large fruit-growing district. Big growers of fruit are against the opposition.

No.

Not the real co-operator.

Well, the members of Parliament who represent the big fruit-growers of the Transvaal are against it. An hon. member referred in sarcastic terms to the Wednesday afternoon farmer. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is a Saturday afternoon farmer, and he has made a very great success of it. There is nothing to sneer at in that, and if we hadn’t got the Saturday afternoon farmer, a lot of good and progressive farming would not be done. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has always been a good friend to the agriculturist, and I appeal to him not to carry on this fight, and to withdraw that amendment.

We are pressing that this Bill should be withdrawn this session and be brought forward early next session and sent to a select committee.

The hon. member must not deal with the question as to whether the Bill should stand over until next year.

Well, I want to say that a representative of the citrus fruitgrowers of the Transvaal is a member of the board, and is just as heartily in support of the action against the Bill as any other member. It means leaving it to the Minister’s officials. That is what we object to. We say leave it to our own people. If we make a blunder we have to pay for it ; whereas if the officials make a blunder it is the people who ship the fruit that suffer. The Minister intends not only to put in fruit but also eggs. I have been a member of the Egg Circle for years and, perhaps, contribute to the circle the second largest supply in the Western Province. I have been approached indirectly and pressed to make contracts with people on the other side to send eggs regularly to a certain port, London, as a matter of fact. The Board of Control under this Bill can send these eggs to Liverpool and Hull.

They won’t do it in practice.

Even Ministers come and go.

Surely you do not suggest that the board will do anything unreasonable.

Well, I put it to the Minister to impress him with the necessity of taking evidence from all the interests affected.

All the interests have agreed that there should be control.

You have confined yourself to fruit up to the present. Last year alone we exported £175,000 worth of eggs. That deserves consideration and the business is rapidly growing. I only mention that fact to show the Minister that in an important matter of this kind he must consult every interest, and he can only do that in a fair manner by referring the Bill to a select committee. I, therefore, move—

I have also been approached and spoken to, and asked what would be the position under this Bill. The only way in which you can ever arrive at a workable arrangement in regard to the export of fruit, eggs and dairy products, is for the Minister to have a round table conference with the representatives of all these co-operative organizations This will not lead to friction, and when the Minister comes to the House he will have a Bill approved by the fruit, poultry and dairying people.

I hope the Minister will not accept this motion. Hon. members opposite have twitted me and said I did not represent the fruitgrower. Well, I have received no communication from any constituent of mine, who is a fruitgrower, against this Bill or against its principles. I have just telephoned to a fruit grower in my constituency who, last season, exported 400 tons of fruit and he says he is quite satisfied with the Bill as it stands, especially with the provisions concerning the appointment of the Board of Control.

I did not intend to intervene in the debate, but I must refute the statements made about the dairying industry by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow).

I have just stopped the-hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux). I don’t-think the question whether the Bill is a good or a bad one should be discussed now. The question at issue is whether we should report progress.

The Government has given very careful consideration to the Bill, and we are satisfied that it is not only in the interests of the deciduous fruit growers, but also in the interests of all exporters of perishable products that the Bill should become law this session. Of course, if hon. members opposite continue the practice they are now following of endeavouring to block the Bill at every stage they must carry on, but as far as the Government is concerned this Bill will become law. I regret I cannot accept the motion to report progress.

The careful consideration of the Government, I suppose means the careful consideration of the Minister. We have also the opinion of at least four members of the committee of control who have been in the business for twelve-months, and their judgment is as good as that of the Minister himself. If the judgment of the Minister is so sound why cannot he leave the Bill over ?

Because it is necessary. Has the hon. member read the report of the Egg. Commission ?

I have.

Does he know that the Egg Commission have recommended that the Railways Administration should take over the whole of this business? Do hon. members opposite want a repetition of the losses which the egg exporters suffered last year? This Bill is urgently required, not only on behalf of the fruit growers, for whom I have every respect for the grand work they have done, but the Bill is also necessary in the interests of the exporters of eggs, butter and cheese. The House would make a great mistake if it does not pass the Bill.

Now it is coming out. All these things should be considered. The Minister wants to put the matter in the hands of the general manager of the railways as if he had not too much work to do already.

Who wants to put it in the hands of the general manager?

This report does.

We have not adopted the report.

But it shows what their judgment is worth and how ill-considered it is. We have got to the bottom of this thing at last, although I rather suspected it coming from these people who are the last in the world to give a judgment. The Minister has rather given the case away.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is a reasonable man. What I said was that the report of the Egg Commission clearly indicated the necessity for some independent body to deal with this question of the shipping of perishable products. I did not say that the Government endorsed the report. The Government, after considering all the facts, including that particular report, came to the conclusion that the best way to deal with this problem was to handle it in the way we propose. Do hon. members not realize that if we allow the whole position to drift, as it must under the existing procedure when there is a board in control which deals only with fruit? I warn hon. members opposite that the egg circles have given their approval to the Bill, and if the hon. members opposite continue their opposition they will be doing incalculable harm to the export of eggs.

I cannot understand the procedure. I attempted to support the motion to report progress, and when I commenced to state my reasons the Chairman called me to order.

There was then no motion to report progress.

Oh yes, there was!

I understood the hon. member was replying to the hon. member for Ceres.

Incidentally, I was going to reply to him, but it is necessary, as one interested in the dairy industry, to give my reasons for supporting the motion to report progress. A most extraordinary statement was made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), who said he spoke as a representative of the dairying industry and that co-operative societies would prefer to be represented by a business man.

I said a member of the cooperative society could not come down here.

I have never heard a more extraordinary statement. If there is one business which is organized on co-operative lines it is the dairying industry.

In supporting the motion to report progress, I would like to say a word on behalf of the dairying industry. That industry will have no say on this Bill. The Government nominees are going to spend our money—

The hon. member (Mr. Gilson) will have to confine himself to the motion to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

A very extraordinary statement was made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North; (Mr. Barlow) and—

The speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) was made before the motion to report progress.

If I am ruled out of order, I had better wait until the motion to report progress is out of the way.

With leave of committee, Mr. Jagger withdrew his motion to report progress.

A statement was made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North), speaking, as he said, on behalf of the dairying industry. He said he did not know anything about the fruit part of the business, but he did know what he was talking about when he spoke about dairying. He said that the people connected with the dairying industry would prefer not to have a member of the co-operative societies on the board, but would prefer to have a business man. There is probably no industry better organized, from the co-operative point of view, than the dairying industry when it comes to dealing with the export business. I could give the names of a number of companies interested in this industry which represent by far the bigger proportion of the butter-making concerns in the Union, and they practically control the export of butter in this country and if we asked those people whether they would prefer to have an outside business man on this board to represent their interests, or whether they would prefer their own nominee, a nominee of the co-operative concerns, there can be no doubt what their reply would be. I can assure the Minister that it is not only necessary that the dairying industry should be represented on this board, but it is necessary that the co-operative companies should have a chance of putting their views before the Minister. I contend it is absolutely necessary that there should be a nominee of the butter interests, and that the co-operative concerns should have an opportunity of nominating a member to that board. We shall be compelled to contribute our share to the expenses, and yet we have not got one iota of control in return for spending that money. I hope the Minister will consult the dairy industries. I can assure hon. members that the co-operative companies do want direct representation. I hope the Minister will look into it in that light. I can assure the Minister that the dairy industry is a growing industry ; it is going to have a big say in the future of this country, and it desires recognition when you are going to control the export of its products in the way this Bill proposes to do.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Jagger, in line 5, put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Stuttaford put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Sir Thomas Smartt was put and Mr. Jagger called for a division.

Upon which the committee divided:

I am prepared to accept the 12 months.

Does that mean that the period of appointment must not exceed 12 months ?

Yes. They can reappoint him.

Remaining amendments proposed by Mr. Jagger put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

On the motion of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, an amendment was made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

I would ask the Minister to accept an amendment making it quite clear that the provision only extends to those goods which are exported in refrigerating chambers. It seems to me quite unnecessary to prohibit the export of all perishable goods, except those which are going to take up freight in refrigerating chambers. The whole necessity of this Bill is because there is not sufficient refrigerating space to take the products. I move—

I am prepared to accept that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

The powers given are very wide here. I am perfectly well aware that the definition of perishable products is given in Clause 16. But how about meat now ?

That is not included.

What are you going to do about it ?

I am not including it.

But you may include it under a proclamation some day.

The Governor-General cannot issue a proclamation, under the terms of the Bill, including other perishable products. It must be done in terms of section 16. Unless there is a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, we cannot include any other products.

Will this clause prevent a person sending a box of fruit overseas?

If it is in a refrigerated hold, yes.

Surely that is carrying things too far ?

Surely the hon. member does not think that the board will raise an objection to that? Does he suggest that we should leave that out ?

You should provide for that.

We want to encourage the export of fruit, and not hinder it in any way.

De minimis non curat lex. Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

Here the Minister proposes first of all that the board will have power to call for estimates of growers’ intended shipments. If a miscalculation is made in the amount to the extent of 20 per cent., they are liable to a penalty. I think this is too small. I think 25 per cent. is the least margin you ought to give.

I accept that.

I move as an amendment—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—

I want to call attention to the first sub-paragraph of Clause 11. This may land shippers in a very heavy loss. This committee of control may charter ships, as they have done on two occasions already, to carry away the fruit. First of all, it is an expensive business, and there is also a fair amount of risk attached to it. The two ships, fortunately, have come out fairly well, but still, it is somewhat of a risky business. Then there is the remuneration of the employees of the board and other charges. That is, of course, where we come up against it—the shippers have to pay for the expenses incurred by the board, with which they have nothing to do. There would be no objection to paying for this if we had our hands in it. The expenses should be incurred by the men who represent us.

I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) for the valuable support he has given on this clause and the principle of Clause 1. He has laid his finger on the whole of the weakness of the present position—we have excellent producers of fruit, but they have not the knowledge to handle the highly technical subject of shipping. He points out, perfectly correctly, and I am absolutely in agreement with him, that to charter a ship is a very big risk, and that is the very reason why the Government has decided that this should not be in the hands of men who are capable of producing fruit, butter, eggs and cheese. I do not agree with the hon. member’s conclusions ; but I thoroughly agree with his arguments.

I must say that I support the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger).

I am sorry.

I am surprised that the Minister is sorry, because he has just been saying how pleased he is with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central).

With his argument.

We get back to the same point—that you are asking people to foot this account and they have no say in what is being done I do feel that if the Minister is going to run this business himself he ought to pay for it, and let the Railway Department put up the expenses if they are going to run this thing There is no check to the expenditure of this committee in any way. The larger the levy, the more extravagant it will be. It will be nobody’s interest on these committees to control the expenditure. If I could do so, I would move that we delete the last words, so that the expenditure should be met by the Railways and Harbours Department. I move—

Provided the House has sense enough to adopt the amendment, the Minister can devise some other method of handling this expenditure. I consider this is a grave imposition on these men, to make them pay for these expenditures without giving them one iota of influence in deciding what expenses are necessary and what expenses are unnecessary.

I regret that I cannot accept it, for the following reasons: The hon. member must not forget that the representatives of the co-operative society who form the representative members of this board, have full power as members of the board when present—they are full members of the board while they act. So it is only fair that the particular organization should pay for their representatives on the board. I regret I cannot accept the amendment.

What the Minister now says applies to the members of the board, applies only in so far as the salaries of the board members are concerned ; but the other expenses are entirely uncontrolled. In section (3) they have very large powers, and may incur any amount of expenditure without being controlled by the Minister or anybody else. This is most unsatisfactory and may lead to extravagance.

The Minister has stated that he recognizes that the making of contracts for freight is a very difficult and technical business, and that we ought to have the best brains we can get to control these matters. May I ask whom he has in view in connection with these things ? There are not many men available who can do this work. Men have to be trained from their youth to it. If the Minister intends to carry on as he is doing now, he should have at least one man on the board who is thoroughly experienced in the chartering of vessels, and obtaining of freight ; otherwise a great deal of unnecessary trouble and expense is involved, and heavy losses may be incurred.

I fully appreciate what the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) has said, and that is why I have not been able to agree with my friends on the other side. I have said that the political aspect will not enter into the matter at all. I repeat it, as a pledge to the House, that the political aspect will not influence me. The Government are out to study the interests of the exporters of perishable products.

I am glad to have that assurance from the Minister, because our experience of boards has been the reverse, and I hope the Government are going to turn over a new leaf, and put the best men in, irrespective of politics.

Certainly.

Will the Minister see that no representative of any individual interest is on the board ? If these men are going to be autocrats, let them have some judicial function. It will be a judicial function to decide whose goods are going to the best markets, and whose are going to Rotterdam, Milan and so on. I should prefer to send my fruit to the English market. It would be unfortunate if there is any member of the board who has any direct interest in any fruit exporting interest at all.

I know what fruitgrowers will say, after what we have heard from the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), namely—

Let us take note of his selfish declaration! He says that if he had anything to say, he would send his fruit to the old established English market, and the others could send theirs to Rotterdam and Milan, where the market must still be developed. The spirit in which the Government has tackled this matter is that of assisting producers, not only the big, but the small man. I am surprised, and now I see what is behind this opposition. It is the selfish interests of men like the hon. member for Newlands.

I am perfectly satisfied with what I said just now, and that is: That, as far as I am concerned, I should prefer to send my goods to the best market. My whole complaint about the Bill is that I am not allowed to do this. I have to put myself at the disposal of anybody who wants to create fancy markets anywhere. As an individual, I should send my goods to the British market. Under the proposal of the Minister I have not the right to send my goods to the best market, and the whole result of my labour may be entirely frustrated by sending my goods to some fancy market which they are trying to extend. That is my position, and I maintain it.

If the Minister is out to protect the small interests, I think he would have everybody in this House with him. My objection was because I feel in my soul that it is not to protect the small interests, but other interests, that this Bill has been introduced.

What other interests ?

The Minister knows the trouble he had last year. I am glad he fought it out—all credit to him—when his whole party were banded against him. My hon. friend then defended the co-operative principle. If you will refer to sub-section (c) you will see that the people who have no say in the administration of this are the people who are going to be called on to pay, and that is why we object to this clause. I maintain that it is unrighteous of the Government to do this. The hon. member says that certain people say they are entirely in favour of it. The legitimate producer in this country who has had an opportunity of studying the Bill is intensely opposed to a board being set up of Government officials and Government nominees which will enter into contracts not only for the shipping of our fruits to British ports, but who can deflect them to the Continent.

If you look at the amendment you will see that the board has power to deflect cargo, but not from a British port to a continental port, and, within certain areas, from one continental port to another.

The producer does not object to that. Last year it was done by the representatives of fruitgrowers themselves. It is now done under an entirely different board. That was one of the great points of contention last year, and which caused all the trouble.

I have allowed the hon. member a great deal of latitude ; but I cannot see how what he is discussing at present is relevant to this clause which deals with how the expenditure under the Act is to be met.

On behalf of the fruitgrowers, who will have to supply the money, we have the right to protest against this clause. When I had anything to do with the fruit exchange, I said we should deal with the individual and not with the tonnage, and that every individual should have an equal say. That protects the small man.

The arguments of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort would be more effective if he gave the figures of the exporters who are members of the exchange, the relation between the number of producers who are members and those who are not. I take it that when the hon. member speaks of exporters he means all the producers, and not only members of the exchange. For the very reason that I allege that only a small percentage of the exporters belong to the exchange, I do not agree with the hon. member that the exchange should govern the Board of Control. The exchange can have representation provided the other exporters are also represented. The very unfairness that the other exporters were not properly represented led to the Opposition last year. The proportion is not as stated by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. He states that 90 per cent. of the exporters are members of the exchange. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) gave the figures last year, figures which he did not get from his imagination, but from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. With permission of the House I will quote the figures again—

I have just received information that last year only 32 per cent. of the exporters belonged to the exchange. During last season there were 583 exporters of deciduous fruits and 980 exporters of citrus fruits. Unfortunately, I cannot find the percentage of them that belonged to the exchanges, but we see that the number of exporters is larger than last year, and it would be interesting to know how many more exporters belong to the exchanges this year. The argument of the hon. member is not sound, and it gives a wrong impression, viz., that all the producers will be represented on the board if the exchange nominates the members. That is our difficulty that all the producers will not be represented. If they were all represented it would be another matter.

I have permitted the hon. member to go so far, but I cannot any longer permit it, because the matter has nothing to do with the clause under discussion.

I have not taken part in the discussion so far, but I should now like to add a few words. My hon. friend opposite (Sir Thomas Smartt) will not accuse me of wanting to injure the co-operative movement, because I think he knows that I have always taken a large part in it, in my district, and am still a member of two co-operative societies. He also knows how I insisted on a better Co-operative Societies Act, and supported him when he put such an Act through the House in 1922. So I do not wish to injure or keep back co-operation. I can really not see where the Bill does that. I do not say this because I am a member of the Cabinet, but because I really cannot see it.

The question now before the committee is how expenditure shall be met under this Bill.

I shall come to that.

Let him go on.

I cannot permit discussion of this kind under the clause.

I am sorry that I cannot say what I want to under this clause, but I see that it has to do with the payment of the members of the Board of Control. With reference to the payment of the members, I want to say that in my district there is a very large society of citrus growers, and the members of the society were against the Bill because they thought that they would have to pay the members of the board of control who are being appointed by the Government. I have heard from Mr. du Plessis, the chairman of the Rustenburg Society of Citrus Growers and of the Rustenburg Society of cotton growers, director of the Tobacco Cooperative Society, and member of the Agricultural Union, that the objection which exists against the Bill has been completely removed by the proposal of the Minister of Railways and Harbours for the Government to pay the three nominated members of the board of control. The growers have no objection to the board of control looking after the shipping of fruit, as long as the co-operative societies have the right of regulating the packing and the finding of markets for the fruit. They do not, e.g., want the board of control to send the fruit intended for England to Holland or vice versa. As the Bill now reads they have not the least objection to it. Mr. du Plessis is a man who ought to know what the members of the co-operative societies think, and he can speak with weight and authority. As he feels that there is no objection to the Bill, and as another member of the society who has come here with him also thinks so, I cannot see what objection there can be to the Bill. If the Bill injured the co-operative societies, I should also be opposed to it. After what I have heard, however, I am compelled to take it that that is not the case. This Bill agrees with the Australian Act which provides that the Government should appoint three members and the growers three members of the board of control. Three members have been nominated by the Government of the Commonwealth, two of whom are men with business experience, and three have been elected by the producers.

Four.

I only wish to say that three members were elected and three nominated by the Government.

I really cannot allow a discussion which is so irrelevant. I have already given a great deal of latitude.

My hon. friend has taken a great interest, in co-operation, and if he would take time to study the Bill he would agree with me in the position I have taken up. Why I object to the clause is that it is non-co-operative. Co-operation is never a success unless you leave the power to the co-operators to manage their own affairs.

So they do.

No. The board will consist of three Government nominees and one individual representing the fruit, dairy or poultry interests. My hon. friend has referred to the Australian board, but that has a majority of people representing the producers.

The growers are afraid of the expense that will be incurred by the board. The only expense the railway department will be put to will be for the salaries of the three permanent members. A board like the one provided for in the Bill will not be so careful about the expenditure as would a board composed of people who have to pay. The expense of running the board is far too high, amounting to 5s. a ton, which, I think, is a pretty stiff levy when one realizes the extremely narrow margin there is on a shipment of fruit. I have a letter in which the fruit exchange say the cost of control is too high. I have tried to put in the Bill something to keep a check on the expenses about which there is nothing in the measure before us. If an amendment could be inserted to limit the expenses, it would be a great advantage. As it is, the shippers have to pay the expenses, whatever they may be.

I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding about the question of the port of discharge. If a shipper wants his fruit to go to Great Britain, the board will have no power to deflect it to the Continent.

We understand that thoroughly.

In my negotiations with the exchange, it would appear from the statement made by a director (Dr. Hewitt) that two-thirds of the expenses of the board go towards shipping. He said that if shipping were taken away from the exchange, two-thirds of their expenses would disappear, so that if we remove shipping from them they will have one-third left for marketing and organization. I am prepared to go into the matter to see if I can frame an amendment to meet the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I am prepared to consider that further, and see whether it is possible to move an amendment which will meet that point.

Not alone the fruit that we are paying for under this clause will be sent to whatever port a ship is going to, but I gather that it can be deflected on the railways to any port in the Union the moment that it goes to the railways. I would say to the Minister of Lands, who, I began to hope, takes a reasonable view, that the payment to the three members of £1,500 or £2,000 a year is a bagatelle to what the fruit farmers have got to pay for every contract that is entered into, running into thousands of pounds. I suppose the chartering of the “Edda” cost some thousands of pounds. Who was responsible for that? We, the fruit-growers. We have no word of control in any way about entering into contracts of this character under this Bill. Suppose it suits the Minister that he chooses to go chartering a ship to carry our stuff, and takes it away to bring out some railway supplies, that he finds necessary ?

Is that likely ?

He has got his board. They are not our board. My hon. friend knows that when he pays for a thing, whether a good venture or a bad venture, he likes to have the administration of that venture. We have not that confidence in bureaucratic organizations such as is here set up, neither has the fruit exchange. With regard to what the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) said, I may say that since the amalgamation last year, 95 per cent. of the deciduous and citrus fruit exporters of this country are in the fruit exchange.

I hope that the control of this is not going to be under the head officials of the Railway Department. I do not say that in a nasty spirit. Will the chairman of this board have direct access to the Minister? It won’t come under the officials of the Railway Department ?

No.

All I want is a clear understanding that this board does not come under the ordinary administration of the Railway Department.

I would like to ask the Minister, will that board submit to the fruit exchange a balance sheet of their expenditure? Will my hon. friend give me this assurance, as he is not going to allow the chosen representatives of the individual growers on this board, that there will be no representative of the big combinations on this board ? I can tell him that I have had representations from individual fruit-growers all over the country that they are very much afraid of that also. Will the hon. gentleman give me that assurance?

In regard to the first point raised by the hon. member (Sir Thomas Smartt), whether an estimate of expenditure will be submitted to the fruit exchange, I do not see that there is any necessity for that. If it is done, it will have to be submitted to all the different exchanges. I have no doubt that the Minister of Agriculture will be prepared to advise them as what the cost is. Of course, they are a public body, and their expenditure will be published from year to year. With regard to the other point, the hon. member must leave that with the Government. They will make the best appointments.

So there is something in the anxiety of the individual fruitgrowers, the small man whom my friend is so anxious to protect, as to the constitution of this board. Under the law at present, the fruit exchange makes the levy, and the levy goes to the fruit exchange. Does that power of the fruit exchange now cease, and will the levy, so far as shipping is concerned, be made by the board, or will it be made by the fruit exchange and the board have the first claim on it?

It will be dealt with in the same way as it is dealt with at the present time, under the control of the Minister of Agriculture.

The levy is made by the fruit exchange. It is paid into a fund controlled by the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture before filched about £1,200 for other purposes from that fund. It was always understood—

What has that to do with this clause? The hon. member (Sir Thomas Smartt) is now making an allegation about the Minister of Agriculture having filched £1,200. I submit that statements of that kind are out of order.

A portion of that money was taken by the Minister of Agriculture last year and devoted to other purposes.

I know nothing about that.

The Minister ought to have known, because a denutation went to my hon. friend.

Amendments proposed by Minister of Railways and Harbours, put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Stuttaford put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the committee divided:

I move, as amendments to these amendments—

seconded.

I would like to discuss the amendments made in committee: first, because if they are agreed to, we need not consider the Minister’s amendments. If the amendments made in Committee of the Whole House are deleted in the first part of the clause, it won’t be necessary for the Minister to move these amendments.

The proper way will be to put the Minister’s amendments, and then put the amendments as amended. I will first put the amendments of the Minister and then Clause 1, as amended, if the Minister’s amendments are carried.

Amendments put and agreed to.

On amendments to sub-section 56 (1), as amended,

I would like to make an appeal to the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels) not to press these amendments. We voted under a misapprehension the other day, and could not hear the amendments being put, the hubbub was so great, and only fully realized what had happened afterwards. I think the hon. member is a fair man, and does not want anyone to be under a misapprehension. It seems to me a great pity that, on the eve of the closing of our Parliament, all this personal feeling should be introduced on a matter of principle. Either hon. members are entitled to receive their salary or not. Either the salary is commensurate with the duties of a member or not. I do not say the hon. member was not justified in putting his amendments before the House, if he was of the opinion that some hon. members opposing it might want the salary passed nevertheless ; but there would be nothing inconsistent in a member opposing the Bill in principle, and applying for the higher salary, once Parliament had decided on that salary. Nearly all the hon. members on the Opposition side who have spoken have stated that they will apply, and I think the hon. member for Frankfort has obtained what he wanted. But now he persists in this amendment which will compel all of us to go through this humiliating position of applying as though we were applying to a charity board for an allowance.

It is not humiliating.

I say it is. I would feel it humiliating to have to make an application to receive money which Parliament had decided I was entitled to. We are certainly going to end the session in a way which is most regrettable, as whatever differences there may be among hon. members, I regret very much what has taken place during the session. I am not going to say that one side or the other was particularly to blame. We must all take the blame ; but there is no doubt that the tendency, when this matter was under discussion, was for members of Parliament not to be able to attribute honest motives to those who differed from them. I believe that the discussion of these amendments shows that we as a House are degenerating, and that we cannot differ without assuming that there must be some motive or something undesirable behind the difference. Surely we can agree to differ without imputing personal motives to one another, but if the amendment is left in there will be a great deal of ill-feeling, and I can see no necessity for such an unusual amendment. Once the House has agreed to the extra salary, each member should receive it without any further question. The retention of the clause will lead to considerable rancour and personal feeling, and possibly may cause sufficient understanding as to wreck the Bill altogether. If the hon. member presses the amendment, I hope the House will reject it, so as to prevent hon. members having to go through the humiliating procedure of having to apply for the extra grant. If for no other reason than that of promoting better feeling, and showing that we can agree to differ without it being suggested that we are insincere in our arguments, the amendment should be dropped, and thus remove from the Bill something which seeks to hurt the feelings of people who do not agree with the measure. I think it is the general sense of the House that the amendment should not be persisted in. Certainly hon. members will be able to say “good-bye” to one another with much better feeling if this amendment is not forced to a division.

On a point of information, are we voting for the amendment of the Minister together with the amendment of the hon. member for Frankfort (Mr. J. B. Wessels), or for the Minister’s amendment alone?

No, the Minister’s amendments have been put into the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Frankfort. Hon. members are now voting on the amendment as printed, plus the amendments moved by the Minister.

As there were so many members out of the House just now, would you explain, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister’s amendment was a purely verbal amendment ?

Yes, hon. members must understand that the amendment moved by the Minister and accepted by the House was to omit the word “commencement” in lines 12, 15 and 16, and substitute “promulgation.”

The House divided:

I move, as an amendment to these amendments—

Agreed to.

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

I move—

The object of this Bill is to amend the Diamond Cutting Act, No. 38 of 1919, in certain respects. The first amendment is in sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the present Act, where it speaks of two sufficient sureties. I am proposing to alter that to one or more, because often it is difficult to get persons to become sureties and, where you have a reputable fidelity office, the suretyship is, of course, in all respects adequate or may be in all respects adequate and facilities ought to be afforded for getting a fidelity office and nobody else to become surety. The object of the next amendment is to do away with the anomaly which now exists that a certificate cannot be taken away even if a man has been convicted of I.D.B., unless there has been in terms of sub-section (5) of section (1) a notice of the breach of non-compliance by the Minister. It is of course absurd that where a man has been convicted, for instance, of I.D.B., that his licence should be granted where there has not been a written warning in terms of this sub-section by the Minister. Then the next amendment is in section (3) of the present Act. It is proposed that the words in sub-section (3), section 1, “if his diamonds are sold to a purchaser within the Union then by written notice that purchaser” shall be omitted, and the words “to any diamond dealer” shall be substituted. So that you are not confined to the Union. The next amendment that is contemplated by Clause 2 of the present Bill, is in regard to the prices to be determined. The object is simply to facilitate matters and to improve the present Act as regards putting it on a basis of fixing prices. Then in section (4) of the present Act, subsection (1) (a) it is proposed to insert the words “to a dealer or” after the word “diamonds ”, So he can sell these not only to another licensed diamond cutter, but to a dealer. Then we come to section 4 of the Act and to the real point of substance in this Bill. That is the amendment to section 4 where it deals with the export duty on diamonds, and it is proposed to add the words—

The object of this is to facilitate any contract that the Government may decide to enter into and which would always be subject to the approval of this House in regard to the establishment of the diamond cutting industry. I propose to amend this proposed amendment still further by making a provision that such diamonds are to be the remnants of diamonds cut and polished by such cutter in the Union, and that the export duty which is proposed to be lowered by this amendment, shall be increased correspondingly in the event of any increase above the present percentage rate above the export duty on rough diamonds found in the Union, and exported therefrom. Then I come to what may prove to be a very contentious matter, and that is referred to in section (3) of the present Act, and referred to in Clause 2. sub-clause (2) of the present Bill. That is, the deletion in section (3), sub-section (1) of the present Act, of the words—

The reason for this is as follows: It is very desirable to encourage diamond cutting in the Union, and necessarily reasonable facilities ought to be afforded to cutters to acquire diamonds for their purposes at a reasonable price. As the Act stands to-day it reads as I have stated. The result has been that the cutters have to buy a whole series of diamonds. Say, they buy a series for £3,000. The portion of the price representing their actual requirement may be only £1,000, so the result is that £2,000 of their capital is blocked up. It is fairly notorious that the producers are very much against the establishment of a diamond cutting industry in the country, and especially at Kimberley. They say—

We want to follow the old custom of leaving these things to private enterprise. By altering the working of the present Act you leave an opening to the Minister to see that the diamond cutter shall be treated fairly in acquiring and purchasing diamonds that are reasonably necessary for his purposes. These are the objects of the present Bill, and I move the second reading.

I hope the Minister will agree to the adjournment of the debate. This Bill was set down for consideration on the 12th of March, and it is only now in the closing days of the session that it has been brought in for second reading, when every member conversant with this trade is absent from the House. I hope the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) will be in his place to-morrow and will be able to deal with the matter from the point of view of the producer. I move—

seconded.

The hon. member spoke to me previously on the matter, but I thought he would give an opportunity to some other speakers to say what they have to say before moving the adjournment of the debate. This Bill has been on the order paper since last year in the same terms, except for a few additional precautions I propose to embody in the clause dealing with the export duties. I am not opposed to adjourning the debate until tomorrow.

Motion put and agreed to ; debate to be resumed to-morrow.

I want to ask the Minister to agree to allow clauses 1 to 5 to stand over until we have passed clause 6. The whole of the question of the remuneration of owners of settlement ground is raised in that clause. I move—

I accept the hon. member’s amendment that Clauses 1 to 5 stand over, which will mean to the end of the Bill. The hon. member cannot move that they stand over until we pass Clause 6.

I hope the hon. member will not press that amendment, because he is wrong in saying that the whole matter hinges on Clause 6. My amendment goes much further than Clause 6, and says that the settler shall receive the same mineral rights that the private owner shall receive. The vital clause, to my mind, is Clause 2. If you accept the hon. member’s statement, it means we have accepted this basis of differentiation in the Bill, to which I, for one, very strongly object.

Clause 6 reads—

We all want to help settlers, but the question is how far are we going to help them ? Clause 1, I think, we ought to pass as it stands.

If we discuss Clause 6, you are achieving everything that the hon. member is discussing there.

I hope this amendment will not be accepted. It seems an extraordinary procedure for the hon. member to ask that all these clauses should stand over. Clause 2 deals, not only with holdings, but with actual title. In Natal most of the titles are subject to reservation of the mineral rights to the crown, and therefore you cannot say that Clauses 1 to 5 only deal with settlers. The Act goes back to every grant of land within the Union where the mineral rights have been reserved to the crown.

My amendment of Clause 2 affects the clauses right through to Clause 9 and the schedule. So if we have to skip Clauses 1 to 5, it is going to make it very difficult for me and for other members to discuss the points I raised, and the point of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) can just as well be raised on Clause 2. My amendment to Clause 2 runs like a thread through the Bill. I do not think the discussion should be embarrassed by cutting out Clauses 1 to 5. The points that arise in Clause 6 are more fully dealt with in my amendment to Clause 2. I think, broadly, my hon. friend and myself are aiming at the same goal.

With leave of committee, motion withdrawn.

I move the amendments as printed on page 323 of the Votes, to Clause 1. These amendments simply mention the particular Act and number. The amendments are purely formal, as follows—

I would be glad if the Minister would explain the meaning of this clause. I take it there is some differentiation now being made in the Cape Province between settlers under the Land Settlement Act of 1912, and the settlers in other provinces.

It is rather complicated. In the Cape, where mineral rights have not been reserved to the Crown, the owner is so much the owner that he is untouched by this Bill, but in the large majority of cases mineral rights have not all, at any rate the most important, have not been reserved to the Crown. As regards precious minerals, the legislation of the Cape Province already provides for everything, and we are not interfering with that. We are leaving the law of the Cape exactly as it is. As regards base minerals, there is no provision in the Cape Province as to what the legal position is. The base minerals are reserved to the Crown and it does not say what rights the Crown has in respect of them. They are taken away from the settler and it does not indicate that the settler has any rights or privileges in regard to them, and therefore, in regard to base minerals this Bill will provide.

My difficulty in dealing with Clauses 1 to 5 is that one of the strong arguments I have in favour of the amendment I have introduced is the tremendous diversity in the four provinces in regard to the mineral rights. I have no objection to Clause 1, except that it becomes entirely redundant. If you take the Cape Province to-day the mineral laws apply only to Crown land, and private land with the reservation of minerals to the Crown. We refer to private land in the Transvaal as ground which has no reservation against it. In the Cape private land has an entirely different meaning. In the Transvaal private land means non-Crown land, but in the Cape it means land held by private persons, but where the minerals are held by the Crown. In the Cape laws we use the term surface owner. In the event of a discovery being made in the Cape the surface owner obtains the mineral rights to the extent of one-tenth, and in the case of an alluvial discovery 30 claims and the licences. No provision, however, is made for dealing with base metals so far as private land in the Cape is concerned. If precious stones are found in a mine the owner obtains a half a share of the mine, and in case of alluvial diggings he receives SO claims. All these laws relating to base metals are entirely different in the various provinces.

I am afraid I still do not agree with the hon. member as to procedure. We should pass Clause 1, and the hon. member can raise his points just as easily on Clause 2 as on Clause 6.

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

HOUSE RESUMED :

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