I move—

Some of us were hoping that during the recess there would be some further attention given to this Bill to accomplish what it purports to bring into effect. We know, of course, that the Minister who introduced the Bill has been somewhat occupied in India, and that he has not been in the very best of health, but we felt sure that if he had the opportunity of going more closely into this question he perhaps would defer pushing this measure any further until he had consulted those who are also interested in this matter, and who feel that perhaps he has not been altogether well advised by those to whom the Minister sometimes looks for assistance and guidance. This Bill certainly brings us no farther towards the promise definitely made by three ministers some two years ago; and made, too, I think, by the Prime Minister himself, as well as other prominent men of the Pact at the general election. The first Diamond Cutting Bill was introduced by the friends of the industry, the S.A. party! How far they got towards diamond cutting is seen by the fact that only three very small diamond cutting establishments had been in operation when the Smuts government went out of office. Some of us said last session that this was not a Bill to assist diamond cutting; it was really a Bill at the instigation of certain interests to effectually prevent diamond cutting, as the original Bill of 1919 has done. The present amending Bill takes us very little further towards what we want in this country. We did hear, indeed, something about an agreement made, or to be made, with certain big financial houses to establish a diamond polishing industry here. It was said that everything was hung up as far as diamond cutting was concerned unless this wonderful agreement could be completed. Whatever agreement may ultimately be entered into it has to lay on the table of this House, and resolutions must be taken to ratify it, so that we are a year off any possible business agreement to conform with the promises of ministers. I think the great mistake the Minister has made is that he did not take the advice given him to bring into existence the contemplated board of control to assist, so far as South Africa is concerned, the diamond industry. That board of control, composed of independent men, would have been able to advise the Minister disinterestedly. I can quite understand that ministers do not want boards of control, or boards of advice, because it is very tempting to them to have control entirely in their own hands, and the Minister has fallen to that temptation like weaker men. I hope he will reconsider that matter, and even at this late hour have a board of control, and also directors of the State on the Premier Company. This Bill proposes to assist diamond cutters by compelling producers of diamonds to sell less than “ a series.” It, provides that the Minister may say ” You shall meet the wants of cutters and sell only a portion of a series.” The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) has rightly shown that it is not quite the correct thing to go to a trader and say “ You must sell a certain portion of your stock and no other.” The Minister proposes to come in and do this extraordinary thing— which, of course, he will never do—but were it possible it is not going effectively to deal with this difficulty; to come in and try and control the price of that product which, though really belonging to the State, is temporarily in the hands of those more directly interested in it. During the recess I took the trouble, as I usually do, to find out what the actual position of the diamond cutting trade is. The hon. member for Kimberley gave us his assurance, and we always accept all his assurances at 100 per cent.—why should we not?—that he always saw that local cutters could get rough diamonds at a rate which would enable them to cut at a profit, and he was going away to Europe with such instructions to those under him here. He proclaims himself anxious to establish cutting factories in South Africa. The hon. gentleman is one amongst the greatest financiers in the world, so we are told, and if the hon. member had wanted to establish diamond cutting, he could do it in six days. But it is not done! I am satisfied that the price demanded of these cutters for the raw stuff put them in the position that when they went into the market with properly cut diamonds, they could not get a return on the cost of cutting. They could not even come out by cutting their actual loss by ten per cent., even though New York was buying cut stones. I ask the Minister if he is going still to listen to the control section when he has only to ask the cutters—there are but five—what their experience was during the recess, and how they were treated by these people who have licensed possession of our diamonds? I say ours, the possession of this country. Does the Minister really think, with the experience of those cutters, that his Bill is going to see that they get stuff to cut at a reasonable price? How does he know what is a reasonable price when the hon. member for Kimberley himself says that he would defy an expert to define the value of a stone to within ten per cent.? To say whether a stone is worth £95 or £105. I will ask the Minister why we lay down the principle that a diamond cutter should not be trusted as well as, and as much, as the diamond buyer? The diamond cutter has to put up his security just in the same way as a buyer, and he comes under exactly the same supervision as a buyer. The difference is that while a buyer is allowed to export diamonds, cut and uncut, the less fortunate cutter is not permitted to export in the same way. It is always said that cutters can buy diamonds from the alluvial diggings. How does it work out? Say the digger has five stones to sell, one may be fit to cut and the other four suitable to export; in fact, perhaps only boart. That unfortunate cutter must buy the five stones, and is not allowed to export four unwanted. Why does the Minister not put the licensed cutter on the same footing as the licensed buyer? Why does he not allow a cutter to export rough stones he does not want? If a cutter dares to cut a stone and have a piece over, if he wants to export that piece he cannot do it if it is over a carat in weight. Is that a way of helping the promised great cutting industry? Is it right to call this a diamond cutting Bill when the practical effect is to prevent cutting? Why should a cutter not export any size piece he has cut off a stone? He is making the same declarations as a buyer, and he is under the same supervision, even move so. The big interests would not allow buyers, or cutters, if they could prevent it. The Minister gilds his little pill with a decreased duty. What would the total amount to? Far better make the trade an open one, take the brake off, and let them trade freely with diggers as buyers and cutters. The hon. gentleman is with those who have made their slogan “ South Africa first.” For Heaven’s sake, then, let us have South Africa first, not as an empty slogan, but as an actual thing. Those of us who believe in this Pact Government thought there was reality in “ South Africa first,” and those who shout it should see to it that the South African cutter has a fair chance, if not favour. What is the result of all government activities in regard to diamond cutting? There are four or five little cutting establishments, and they have not added a single cutter during three years. They have added two apprentices. I ask you to remember that they are dealing with one of the huge things of this country. The consuming centres do not care whether the diamonds they absorb in millions are cut in Holland, Germany, France, or even South Africa. The greatest consumers of our diamonds are Americans who are so rich that they hardly know what to do with their money, and they would be paying for our diamond cutting industry. We will have the usual promises—next session, this year, next year, never—we shall have this cutting industry! The Bill is like half a dose of medicine; it annoys the stomach, but does not produce efficient results.

I do not rise to refute the arguments of the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay). I can leave that to the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), who has known the hon. member for many years. There is just one thing I would like to say. I challenge the hon. member for Pretoria West to produce the diamond cutters who, he says, have been so badly treated by myself. As I said last session when speaking on the same Bill, I have given every assistance to diamond cutters in the Union. The people engaged in the trade have been able to purchase the diamonds they wanted, and to buy them cheaply, so that they could make profits. The hon. member said that there were three cutting establishments in the Union. Later on in his speech he spoke of five. Evidently he is not quite sure how many cutting establishments there really are. But he is never sure of anything in the diamond trade. As a matter of fact, he knows nothing about it. I challenge him to produce the people who, he says, have been so badly treated. I agree with him that this Bill will not bring diamond cutters to South Africa. The diamond cutters, who manufacture locally, manufacture for South African consumption only, and they can carry on a lucrative and successful diamond cutting industry on a small scale, not because of the 1919 Act, nor of the amendments which are now proposed, but through the protection of the very heavy import duty on brilliants into the Union. I do not intend making a long speech. I only rise to address the House because so considerable a time has elapsed since this Bill was last before Parliament, and hon. members and the public may have forgotten the arguments which were brought forward last session against passing this amending Bill into law. I again appeal to the Minister not to pass these amendments. They are not in the interests of diamond cutting, and one of the sections, which under certain circumstances permits the export of partly manufactured diamonds at a reduced export duty, lends itself to abuse. The present Bill has three main objects. Firstly, to secure cheap diamonds for the cutter; secondly, to secure that the diamond cutter gets the particular diamonds he wants: and thirdly, to allow the export of partly manufactured diamonds at a reduced export tax in order to facilitate the establishment or diamond cutting on a big scale. There never has been any difficulty for a diamond cutter to secure the diamonds he requires at a reasonable price. But the provisions in the Bill enable him to go to the producer and pick out a single stone and buy it at the price which the producer gets for the whole output. It is true that he pays five per cent. profit if he buys the stone from a dealer. But if this picking out were continued indefinitely, it would lead to a general upheaval in the diamond trade, and would turn a successful industry into an unpayable one. The hon. member stated that I said, when speaking on this Bill last year, that no one knew the value of diamonds within five per cent. What I did say was that in a single diamond there could, and would be, difference of more than five per cent. I said that a stone valued by one person at £100 might be valued by another valuator at £95, and by a third one at £105. But I said that if two experts valued a large parcel of diamonds, whilst these differences would exist in individual stones, the final result would be almost identical. Then again the Bill provides that instead of the diamonds being taken in series, they need only be taken in series if the Minister directs. Now nature does produce diamonds in series, and therefore a diamond cutter should also be obliged to buy his goods in series. The Bill wishes to make it quite certain that the diamond cutting industry shall be assisted by getting the particular stones they want at a cheap price. But both these amendments are reflections on the existing trade in rough diamonds, and they are uncalled for reflections. We have not made it difficult for a man to get the diamonds he wants, nor have we sold them to him at prices which were unprofitable to him. With reference to the provision that partly manufactured stones of one carat and under can be exported at a reduced export tax, the very fact that the gentleman who negotiated with the Minister asked for this concession should have made the Minister pause. It clearly showed that in the mind of that particular person diamonds of one carat and under could not be successfully polished in South Africa. Now the bulk of the production of diamonds, especially if we include fragments of big stones, is of one carat and under. The Minister must bear in mind that all diamonds produced in South-West Africa are under one carat, that at least 50 per cent. of the diamonds from the Premier Mine are one carat and under, and that 40 per cent. of De Beers stones and the alluvial diamonds are of one carat or under, so that clearly the bulk of the diamonds produced in South Africa can under the proposed Bill not be successfully manufactured here. The gentlemen who are so keen to establish diamond cutting on a big scale in South Africa asked for permission to export partly manufactured stones at a reduced export tax. Fortunately, the Minister inserted a condition (which I appreciate very much) that only partly manufactured stones, being remnants of bigger stones completely finished in the Union, shall get the benefit I submit, however, that the very fact that this exemption of duty for diamonds of one carat and under has been asked for practically proves that only the smallest portion of the production of diamonds in South Africa can be successfully cut, even if the present amendments are carried into law. As we have quite enough troubles in the diamond trade, I feel that this amending Bill should not be passed at the present moment. What is wrong with the measure is the very principle on which it is based. The advantage a cutter obtains under the Bill is an ad valorem advantage. He saves the export tax and he obtains diamonds at a somewhat reduced price. But the value of a particular diamond has very little to do with the cutting expenses. The poorer the quality of the diamond and the smaller its size, the less its value and the more expensive the cutting charges. Therefore, how can an ad valorem duty, which in the case of a very valuable stone would afford undue protection, be of help in the case of the bulk of the diamonds produced in South Africa, as at least 75 per cent. of them are of one carat and under and of low average price? If the Government are really anxious to have a diamond cutting industry established in South Africa, the only way to do it is with the assistance of the Treasury, and by giving a subsidy to any diamond cutters in Amsterdam or Antwerp for the first 200,000 or 500,000 carats of diamonds actually manufactured in the Union. That subsidy must be on a sliding scale, increasing in the case of the cutting of small diamonds. Only by actually assisting to cope with the cost of cutting can we establish a diamond cutting industry in South Africa, but we can never do it on an ad valorem basis.

How did America do it?

America did not do it. It tried for twenty-five years, and it has failed to establish a diamond cutting industry on any scale. There are not more than 350 diamond cutters in America now. On the second reading debate, the Minister stated that 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. I would like to state most emphatically that I am not opposed to diamond cutting in South Africa. On the contrary, I have given it every assistance, and I would welcome it if such an industry could be established at Kimberley. But if the Government are really serious in its endeavours to see that object attained, they will not pass this Bill, but will call in the people who understand the trade and try to establish the industry on a different basis to that now proposed. This Bill will not help, but it will further aggravate the difficulties the diamond trade has to meet.

After the very able speech of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), there is very little left for me to say, but I should have thought that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), with his vast experience of diamond mining, and after his association with that mighty concern, the Roberts Victor Mine, would have had a better knowledge of the diamond industry then that which he has exhibited to-day. He has dealt with the subject in a most academic manner, and has not enlightened the House in the slightest degree. The hon. member implied that the big producers in this country are opposed to the establishment of a diamond cutting industry. Does it follow that because someone does not establish a grocery business, he is opposed to all grocers? Or if he does not become a farmer, he is opposed to farmers? The position is that the big producers do not embark on diamond cutting because they think it is an unpayable proposition. For one thing, they could not finance diamond cutting in this country. They are in the happy position of producing raw material, for which they obtain immediate payments. It suits them far better than starting an industry which would land them into financial difficulties.

What are the arguments against starting it?

The answer is that there are many enterprising people in this country, and they have never attempted to start an industry. The diamond industry has been established in this country for 60 years, yet no one has come forward to cut and polish diamonds on a large scale. That is because they do not think it is payable. Some years ago the De Beers Company made a proposal that they would erect factories, install mills and provide power at a low cost, and would allow the polishers and cutters to work the mill on the basis of five per cent, rental on the capital expenditure. We had not one application. Yet the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) says that we are putting difficulties in the way against people establishing the industry of diamond cutting. That is not correct. There are at least 80 diamond buyers on the alluvial diggings who compete in the purchase of these diamonds. In Europe all the cutters, polishers and factors are competing in the open market, and the industry gets the benefit of the competition. Why should not the diggers and others get it? I have no objection to cutters coming into the open market and buying, but why should they be put on a different footing to other people? I am very pleased there is an amendment in this Bill which did not appear in the original Bill. In the original Bill it said—

That Bill almost passed the House. But my hon. friend in front objected. The effect of that Bill would have been that in a diamond consisting of 64 facets, only one need have been polished to constitute it a partly manufactured stone. The cutters would have bought as many one carat stones as possible, polished one facet at a cost of perhaps 6d., and have exported the diamond in competition with the producers. They would have paid 6s. in duty, whilst the producer would have paid 24s. I am pleased to see that provision in the old Bill has been improved in the present. That shows the danger of hurried legislation. If that Bill had been passed, there would have been a loss to the Treasury, and the cutters would have made several thousands of pounds.

I would like to say that during the discussion on the diamond control Bill, Mr. Arend Brink was the adviser to the Government, the principal adviser to the Government, and he wrote a little brochure. You must not encircle a gentleman with laurel leaves when you agree with him, and ignore him if his opinions do not quite suit you. In that little brochure he described the starting of the diamond cutting industry as—

I will give you a few extracts from the book—

He says further—

He goes on further—

Like the hon. member who has just left the Chamber.

He is coming back. You have not scared him away.

The whole book condemns the probabilities of establishing a diamond cutting industry in South Africa. I don’t want to do so, because I feel it will land men in a loss. Let those who advocate it exercise their influence with other people to start such an industry, and they will not have the slightest difficulty in procuring all the diamonds they wish to polish. I hope the hon. Minister does not think that the passing of this Bill will establish a diamond cutting industry in South Africa. It is not a commercial proposition. That is proved by the fact that we produced £200,000,000 in the last 60 years, and there has been no one up to now to start the industry of diamond cutting on a big scale. If South Africa consumed all the diamonds it produced in the shape of brilliants, then I say that diamond cutting in this country should be made compulsory. But taking into consideration that last year we exported from this country and South-West Africa—I will be well within the mark—£12,000,000 worth of rough diamonds, and that only £10,000 worth of diamonds were consumed in jewellery in this country, how can you establish an industry on those lines? You can pass as many laws as you like, but you cannot force sensible people to embark upon an unprofitable business. We in South Africa and South-West Africa produce an article of extreme luxury. It is easily handled—no expensive elevators, no docks required, no heavy cost in handling to the Government. The State is put to no expense in handling such a big value of exports, and it derives an enormous income. Then why not leave well alone? Why fight against prosperity? We are producing an article of extreme luxury which we cannot consume ourselves, and we have the world’s markets open to us. How can you improve upon that? Every reasonable government should rejoice at such a state of affairs. Let me say that diamonds are produced in large quantities in the Belgian Congo, Angola, British Guiana, West Africa and elsewhere. The governments of those countries are not meddling with the industry in any way. The only tiling they do is to control the output, which is of great benefit to this country. I don’t want to touch upon politics in connection with this matter. If I did, I might say that those countries are not blessed with a Pact Government. These cutters and polishers have the right to-day to come to your office and say “ I want that diamond.” They can pick out the diamonds that they consider saleable. Naturally, they pick out the best diamonds. If these people were to buy enormous quantities of diamonds in this country, the diamond buyer would be heavily handicapped in the market. The Continental buyer would say, “ Where is this series and that series? Where are those fine stones that we used to get?” How would the farmer like the dealer to go round to his farm and have a legal right to select his best fruit, his best mules, his best oxen, and leave him with the unsaleable portion? The cutters can pick the diamonds they fancy. They naturally pick the most saleable, and that disturbs the whole shipment. Here is an enormous business in the products of this country amounting to over £12,000,000 per annum, and that industry is being penalized in the interests of a few paltry cutters who are merely nibbling at the whole business. We are producing platinum in this country. I hope that will be a great industry in course of time. Platinum is used largely in the mounting and setting of diamonds. Why not pass a law that the people who cut the diamonds shall be legally entitled to select the platinum they require for the setting of those diamonds? Why not go further, and say that the diamonds so set and mounted in this country shall be disposed of in this country, and that the directors of De Beers, the Premier Company and the Government, who are largely interested, shall hawk these brilliants, tiaras and diamond rings round this country? The whole idea is impracticable and absurd; it is only encumbering the statute book with ineffective and innocuous laws. I do not intend to oppose the third reading of this Bill, because I would be only protesting against the impossible. This Bill won’t have the slightest effect. The only thing that is possible to bring about the establishment of a diamond cutting industry in this country is that it should be a payable proposition. You can only make this a payable proposition if you give a bounty of £1 per carat for all the diamonds that you cut in this country. Then I think you would establish an industry, I would not say on too big a scale, but on a certain scale. Otherwise, whatever you do will be ineffective.

The House has listened to the two experts and the two authorities on the diamond question on the opposite side of the House. I must say that one listened with considerable interest to the statements read from the brochure by the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris). The hon. member’s memory is very short. That brochure in which he tells us of all the criticism which is levelled by Mr. Arend Brink was published in 1915, when the hon. member was sitting on the Government side, and Mr. Arend Brink was one of his employees. I want to quote the hon. member’s own paper on this brochure to give the House an idea of the importance that they ought to attach to the hon. member’s statements. On September 25, 1915, the “ Diamond Fields Advertiser,” in a leading article, stated—

The very words that the hon. member for Beaconsfield comes and reads to this House to-day, and the very thing that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) objected to —that the Minister had been misled by the people in authority and by the people who are tendering him advice to-day, that that advice was biased—and yet the hon. member for Beaconsfield has the impertinence to get up in this House and tell us that that is the opinion of the only authority on the diamond cutting question in South Africa. I want to draw the attention of this House to this sort of propaganda which is being put up against this industry, the national industry of South Africa, out of which the inhabitants of South Africa have been swindled for all this time. The measure brought before the House was very lengthily gone into at the second reading, but the measure which the Government of the day brings forward as a palliative for the diamond cutting industry—what does it amount to? It is a Bill of three clauses. Clause 1 does away with the two sureties and provides one instead. Clause 2 is the clause in which the Minister shall have the power to cancel a cutter’s certificate. Clause 3 deals with the amendment of Article 4 of that Bill, wherein it is proposed to give them a rebate of 2½ per cent. on stones of 100 carats exported. I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) that the measure is damned with faint praise when it comes from the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) and the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), and we on this side tell him that this measure is merely tinkering with the diamond industry of South Africa. If he thinks this is going to induce diamond cutters to come to South Africa, he is going to have a rude awakening, into which he has been misled by these gentlemen who have an interest in misleading him and in seeing that the industry does not come to fruition. The hon. member for Kimberley has taken an interest in this measure. He told us at the second reading that he was interested to the extent of £8,000,000 per annum in the diamond buying industry, and he told us that if anything were to upset that, the industry would be in a very sorry plight and condition. That was the reason why we brought forward that control measure in that Bill. The hon. member to-day is faced with a growing alluvial position. The figures are that for November last the alluvial output amounted to something like £531,000, and it does not require much calculation to see how far his eight millions are going to go if the alluvial diggers are allowed to expand any further. I want to give a word of warning to the Minister here. This measure can be made a palliative for the digger, but if this measure is going to be a reflex of the action of the Government, if it is going to act against the digger in the way the hon. member for Kimberley suggests—and it is common talk that Mr. Solly Joel has been to see the Minister and has come to an agreement as to how these diggers are going to be curtailed with regard to the alluvial output in the future—if the Minister is going on these lines, he is on very dangerous ground as far as the diggers are concerned. Any curtailment beyond direct control, ministerial control, of the diamond industry of South Africa is going to have a very malevolent effect upon a class of the community which is growing very largely, and which is employing a very large number of white citizens who have not been able to make a living in any other sphere of life at the present time. I can quite see the difficulty of the hon. member for Kimberley, that if this alluvial position is going to continue and expand, the world’s appetite for diamonds is going to be satisfied by the diggers themselves, and there is not going to be any room for the diamond syndicate or for those people opposed to a cutting industry in the past. I want to warn the Minister that unless Mr. Joel gets his way and controls these alluvial diggers, that he can expect the water tap to be turned on in the other direction, and then the 80 buyers mentioned by the hon. member for Kimberley will have instructions not to buy diamonds on the alluvial fields; there will be a slump on the alluvial fields, another of those periodical slumps to which we are accustomed in South Africa. It will not be a question of the prosperity and number of the diggers in the alluvial fields, but what the Government is going to do with 60,000 to 80,000 white men struggling to-day to make a living on the alluvial fields. I want to give this bit of advice to the Minister; it is merely bearing out what the hon. member for Kimberley has stated. On the second reading, the hon. member for Kimberley stated that the only salvation for the expansion of the industry was that the Government should introduce a bonus system. Let me read what Mr. Arend Brink says—

The Government’s only salvation, and I would commend this to the Minister of Finance, lies in an increased tax on the export of the raw diamonds, with a rebate to the digger for the first two years of the tax until such time as the increased value given to local cutting reaches parity in price. Until we get to that stage, the Minister of Finance has another 15 per cent. that he could collect in revenue, and, as an hon. member stated over the way, the only effect of the 10 per cent, tax on diamonds in the past was that it brought three to five cutters, as the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) stated, to the country. It is reasonable to suppose that another 15 per cent, would bring more cutters to the country. I do not believe any tinkering would bring the cutters to South Africa unless we are prepared to put an increased export tax on uncut stones.

The hon. member seems to be under the impression that a spell has been cast on me by persons unknown—evidently by interests on the other side. Well, of course, if he is under that impression, he is entitled to it, and I cannot argue further with him. The arguments that have been adduced this afternoon are really a repetition of some of the main points raised at the second leading debate last year, and I do not propose to detain the House long. As regards the observations of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) and the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), it seems to me that they are advocates of an export duty, and if I remember rightly, the suggestion of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) on another occasion was a 40 per cent. export duty—

The Government is not prepared to bring forward a scheme of that nature. The intention was to proceed with the Bill in the ordinary course during this session, and that was indicated last session. The hon. member asks what has been done with regard to the promise of three ministers as to the establishment of a diamond cutting industry in Kimberley or the Union. The Government did what it could. When we assumed office we found that a draft agreement had been drawn up by my predecessor, and had indeed been discussed by him with his colleagues, or some of his colleagues, at all events. We went into that and made a certain offer which, to my mind, was very favourable. We had, on the other hand, to insure the State and the interests of South Africa. Well, it was not our fault if that offer was not accepted. The Government did what it could to get these people to establish this industry or factory in Kimberley, and there the matter remains. The hon. member also referred to the Diamond Control Act, and stated that we should have appointed a board. I think I have made it abundantly clear when the Bill was introduced which resulted in that Act, that the Government were merely taking powers, and I told the House explicitly at the time that the Government would not appoint such a board unless it was driven to doing so. I told the House that the establishment of that board would presuppose the disposal of £5,000,000, and surely it is a very serious thing for this country to provide £5,000,000 in connection with the establishment of such a board, and to render this large amount available for the proper functioning of such a board. At any rate, I made the position of the Government quite clear in introducing the Diamond Control Bill, and nothing has occurred since that time to alter their views in that regard. The hon. member says it is flattering to the Minister to retain that power in his own hands. Well, it is rather an unworthy suggestion, and I think ministers would sometimes rather be rid of the responsibilities that devolve upon them, and pass them on to other bodies. The hon. member referred to “ they ”. I certainly cannot answer vague statements like that. Who are “they”? The hon. member also said we abandoned the principle of “ South Africa first.” I hope the hon. member will accept my assurance that no cutters have made any representations to me, and come to me and said that the effect of this clause in this Bill is that—

The only representations of the cutters were their difficulty to obtain diamonds, and especially their being obliged to purchase them in series. If you allow then to export fragments of any sized stones, they can simply scratch stones, and export the lot. Surely that is a conclusive answer. It is said that this Bill will utterly fail in its object. Assume it is successful, we want a genuine cutting industry in this country, and we do not want stones to be scratched and sliced and then exported. I am informed that it will pay the cutters handsomely to export them in this manner under this benefit of the reduced 10 per cent. if there is no limitation on the caratage and in other respects. Now with regard to the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) and the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), my answer to them is that if, as they say, this is an ineffective and innocuous measure, then the only disadvantage is that we are wasting the time of this honourable House, and no disadvantage will result to the industry. If no diamond cutting industry is going to result, what danger are we then up against? As to the exporting of fragments of stones, I have taken precautions in the amendment. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Kimberley that about 75 per cent. of our production consists of diamonds of one carat and under, I have to point out that there are three conditions—the export must be of fragments, the fragments must come from a licensed cutter, and they must be the fragments of stones completely cut by him. The low export duty is only for certain purposes, and is subject to effective restrictions and for a limited period. After five years the cutter pays the ordinary ten per cent. export duty. Any agreement is subject to ratification by both Houses of Parliament. So Parliament will have absolute control over every agreement entered into, and I cannot conceive of any party entering into an agreement with the Government and acting upon a purely provisional agreement (having no binding effect) until Parliament has confirmed it. Hence the whole control always remains in the hands of the House. I think the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) is under a misapprehension when he says that but for the objection of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) last year to further stages of the Bill being taken last session, the Bill would not have been in its present form. Let me assure the hon. member that I had that amendment all along. The amendment was drawn weeks before the second reading debate, and I told the House frankly that I intended to take this precautionary measure, so that the amendment was not an afterthought on my part. As to the argument re 75 per cent. of our production being one carat or less, if the cutters succeed in cutting the whole diamond production, so much the better for South Africa. The hon. member for Beaconsfield used the argument that last year we disposed of an enormous quantity of rough diamonds, but bought only about £10,000 worth of polished diamonds. I do not see the applicability of the argument that this country’s capacity for buying the finished article is so small compared to the export of uncut diamonds. The whole of the trade relies on foreign countries, and we should not dream of establishing a diamond cutting industry if we thought the result would be to disable us from selling to foreign countries. Then the hon. member said that if a cutter could select from a series, why was that principle not applied to platinum? The hon. member knows, however, that under the Diamond Trades Act, which has existed for years, very heavy penalties are imposed, and we have an expression which conveys a great stigma that a man is an I.D.B. Apart from gold, have we a similar state of affairs in regard to any other of our products? That shows that the practice is peculiar to the diamond trade, and this Bill also deals with this peculiar trade of diamonds. Hence the problem of selling this article to advantage must be dealt with in a special and peculiar way. I am always ready to learn, even from my opponents. I would advise the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) not to be caught by loose rumours; before making the statement he did, it would have been very simple for him to ask me whether I had entered into any agreement with Mr. Solly Joel. Since I have had the honour of occupying the position I do, I have impressed upon people that our Government was as accessible to a man in the street as to the so-called big men—no more and no less. It so happens that yesterday evening I gave an interview of three hours’ duration to ordinary humble jiggers, and if Mr. Solly Joel came and asked me for an interview, and it was convenient to do so, I naturally would give him an interview, and I gave him one. There is no need to draw distinctions. We are concerned here, not with persons, but with principles, and there is no foundation in the statement that I have concluded an agreement with Mr. Solly Joel, or anybody else. A Bill is to be introduced early this session dealing with the complicated question of alluvial diamonds. But the idea is preposterous that the Government in anticipation would conclude an agreement with anybody whatsoever. Under these circumstances, I think it is not necessary to say anything further, and I move the third reading of the Bill.

With leave I amend notice of motion for to-day, and move—

seconded.

Why not refer it to the Select Committee on Public Accounts?

I have no objection to that. Then I move—

seconded.