laid upon the Table—

laid upon the Table—

Document referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

brought up a Report of the Select Committee on the Library of Parliament, as follows—

With regard to Notice of Motion No. I, standing in my name, I do not propose to move the second part, because I find that there have been no notices placed upon the Order List for the 15th April. I move—

I may say that in fixing this period the Government have been trying to act in consultation with the various parties and in the interests of the House generally. There is one matter which I should like to make clear, and this is perhaps the best opportunity, and it is this: The Government are most anxious that before the adjournment takes place over the holidays, we should put on the statute book the Drought Distress Relief Bill. It is I think, considering the state of affairs in many parts of the country, very urgently necessary that this Bill should be put on the statute book as soon as possible, and I hope our consideration of this Bill, which begins this afternoon, will be so expedited that we shall have time not only to pass it through this House, but through another place, and make it law before the adjournment takes place. The position in the country has considerably improved owing to the very heavy rains which have fallen within the last month, but even so there are certain areas where even the rain has not been of much assistance, and where the powers, which we seek under this Bill, will be urgently necessary to help the agricultural population to get along. I earnestly appeal to the House to expedite the passage of this measure as much as possible, so that before we go home on holiday we may see to this very necessary work and get it through.

seconded.

I do hope that this matter of an annual Easter recess is not going to be crystallized in this House. There are a very large number of members who feel that, seeing that they are brought away from their usual avocation for so long in the year, the period for; the recess ought to be made as short a period as possible, and think that members coming down here about the middle of January should be able to get away about the middle of May, and then be free for their ordinary occupations. This Easter break of three weeks makes it three weeks longer for us to be away from our ordinary businesses. I do not know whether it is possible to test the feelings of members on this point, but many feel that it is a mistake to have an Easter break at all. If we could arrange our ordinary work so as to set aside a period each year for our Parliamentary duties, and resume our ordinary work when this period was over, it would suit us better than having three weeks recess at Easter. Take the case of the ordinary professional man, a doctor, a barrister, or an attorney. What work can he do during the Easter vacation? If he comes down here in the middle of January and goes back in the middle of May, he has eight months for the rest of the year to resume his ordinary avocation. I do not know whether hon. members think that by taking a break of three weeks, we are shortening the length of the session. It has to be added on at the end, and we have to be here still, until the end of June. I do not know whether it will be possible to take the sense of the House as to whether this Easter break should be continued; if it is that it should be continued, then, naturally the minority of us who disagree will have to fall in with the views of the majority. I hope, however, that the right hon. the Prime Minister will not consider it to be crystallized in future years, unless the decision of the House be taken as I suggest.

Ek het verstaan van die edelagbare die Minister vir Finansies, wat nou nie in sy plaas is nie, dat ons die Begrotingsrede vóór die verdaging sou kry?

Ja, dit is so.

I am not a professional man, and am neither a lawyer nor a doctor, but as a man engaged in business I welcome this suggestion of the Prime Minister. It gives one an opportunity of getting into touch with things, and it is a very welcome one, and I hope the direct opposite to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). I hope the right hon. the Prime Minister will carry this through, and that in future years we will have a similar thing.

Dit spyt my; ek was nie van plan gewees nie om iets op hierdie onderwerp te sê, maar met die oog op wat reeds gesê is, wens ek net ’n paar woorde te sê, anders sou dit later miskien lyk asof ek my instemming betuig het met wat hier laas vind. Ek wens dadelik te sê, dat alhoewel ek heeltemaal bereid is my te onderwerp aan die beslissing wat nou deur die Regering geneem is om die jaar die verdaging te verkry, ek tog sterk voel teen sodanige verdaging van jaar tot jaar. Ek deel ten volle die gevoelens van die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell), dat dit wat betref lede in my posiesie, nie van die minste nut is nie en dat daar ’n verskriklike beswaar is, namelik, dat ons tengevolge van die verdaging minstens twee tot drie weke langel sal moet sit, en die gevaar is, dat dit ons in die meest onaangename tyd vir Parlement om hier te sit, sal bring, namelik gedurende die reenmaande; maar as dit so moet wees, dat daar ’n verdaging van enige lengte moet wees, dan sou ek aan die hand gee, dat die begin van die sitting andersins sal wees, en dat daar ’n verandering behoor te wees; maar soas dit nou is, terwyl ons anders maklik teen die einde van Mei klaar had kan wees, beteken die verdaging dat ons nie klaar sal wees nie voor die einde van Junie. Vir baie van ons weeg dit teen die gerief op wat ons deur die verdaging sal kry.

I disagree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). It is true certainly that for those of us in professions, membership of this House involves great loss—but that we must put up with. The length of our sessions can never be limited to four months as he indicates. In point of fact, the length of our sessions is not determined by the time required to do the country’s work, but by the time members will stick to the work. If we have no break in the middle of the session, the long continuous drudgery of the session becomes intolerable, and we are not fit to do our important work. For these reasons I entirely approve of the Easter recess.

Ek wil graag iets sê vir die seksie van edele lede, wat dieselfde beroep het as ek en moet sê, dat ons besonder dankbaar is. Sekere lede mag beroepe hê, wat hulle werk nie kan kontróleer van tyd tot tyd nie. Maar die seksie van edele lede, wat dieselfde beroep uitoefen as ek, is besonder dankbaar. Dit lvk vir my ook nie—soos die edele lid vir Bezuidenhout (de hr. Blackwell) gesê het—’n kwessie of ons dit vir die toekoms gaan doen, ja of nee. Ek beskou dat ons elke sessie die saak op sy meriete kan behandel om te sien of dit nodig is om dit te doen of anders nie. Ek wil graag onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister bring ’n kwessie in verband met die opbreek op Donderdag die 10de deser. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het gesê, dat die Huis opbreek op Donderdag 10 deser saans om 11 uur, en die edele lede, wat in die oostelike dele van die Kaap Provinsie of die Vrystaat woon, hulle trein vertrek Donderdag aand om 8 uur. Vrydag is daar geen trein na die dele en Saterdag ook slegs na sommige dele. Ek wou graag weet of die edelagbare die Eerste Minister dit nie so kan maak, dat die Huis om 6 uur opbreek, sodat edele lede vir die Oostelike Provinsie en die Vrystaat die trein van 8 uur Donderdag kan neem.

Ek wil nie objeksie maak teen die verdaging of teen die vakansie nie, maar graag onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Eerste Minister bring, dat die hervatting op Maandag die 28ste van April vir sommige lede, soos ook vir my, besware het, want ons sal dan die Sondag moet gebruik om te reis, as ons nie te vroeg of ’n dag na die heropening wil aankom nie. In hierdie geval moet ons die Sondag gebruik, want ons wil graag solank moontlik by ons huis bly en aan die ander kant ook in tyd weer terug wees by die opening. Ek sou graag wil, dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister die dag sou verander, as dit moontlik is.

These holidays are not only desirable, but extremely necessary. Some weeks ago I had occasion to remark that this House was the most orderly legislative assembly in the Empire. I think that is perhaps due to the fact that it is the oldest in the average age of members in assemblies in any part of the Empire. That may have something to do with our sedateness. Each session unfortunately, we appear to take a heavy toll in the shape of lives of our members for one reason or another, and it seems essential that we should have an opportunity of rest and recreation half way through the session. It is not to the advantage of legislation or to the good of the community that we should have, through deaths, bye-elections during the sitting of Parliament. These bye-elections have, I fear, a profound effect on the nature and quality of speeches, and I do hope that so far from being an occasional and perhaps unexpected break, it will be stereotyped and we may look forward regularly to it.

As one man whose home is a considerably long way from the legislative capital I intend to support the right hon. the Prime Minister with reference to this break. But I also wish to take advantage of this opportunity to say how much I am surprised that any member of this supreme legislative authority, or the chamber rather of this country should stand up in this Parliament and complain that, private professional duties interfere with his Parliamentary work.

I did not say that.

It has confirmed me m the opinion that there are far too many members inclined to make a side line of Parliament, far too much inclined to make the work of Parliament a side line—

Better than the professional politician.

And I ask those members who cannot find time to devote to their Parliamentary work to make room for those who can.

Motion put and agreed to.

moved—

He said: Although I am not proposing to ask the House to read this Bill a second time, but intend to move that the Order be discharged for the second reading, and that the subject-matter be referred to the Public Accounts Committee, still, I think it would be desirable to lay before the House shortly, the main principles of this Bill. The main object of the Bill, I think, I may say, is to give power to the Land Bank to extend its operations substantially beyond those which its present power enables it to do. At the present time the Land Bank is limited as to its advances to individual farmers. The Land Bank is limited to advance on first mortgage on land. I think everybody will agree that the Land Bank, since its institution, has done most valuable work in South Africa, and it has now a very large capital, a capital approximating £7.000.000, which is being used for the purposes I have mentioned, and also, to a certain extent, for the advancing of cooperating societies, but in large part for making advances to individual farmers on security of their land. That has been of very great service to the farming people of South Africa, but I think that while we all agree about that, something more must be done in that direction —in the direction of providing facilities for farmers to obtain credit. There are many men engaged in agriculture, who from time to time, require advances, whether it be owing to losses from drought or plague, or whether it be to enable them to expand their operations. There are many people working on the land now in South Africa who are in need of advances, and to whom advances could safely be made, who will use them profitably and repay then when the time comes, but who cannot, under the present conditions, get that advance from the Land Bank. Whether it be that their land is already bonded, or other reasons—

They may have no land at all.

They may not be owners of land, and for some reason or another, they cannot get that advance which they could use profitably, and which could be safely entrusted to them; they cannot get it from the Land Bank. This Bill is intended to meet that requirement of the country. Outside the Land Bank, what can a farmer in circumstances such as those I have described do, in order to get an advance? He can go to one of the commercial banks; we know that the commercial banks, like every other commercial bank, do not favour advances to farmers. The nature of agriculture is that you do not get a quick return, and the ordinary commercial banks of this country, with their large liabilities to depositors, must be given a large amount of liquid advantages of easily realizable advances in hand, in order to provide the necessary safety for their depositors The commercial banks in the past have not met, and probably will not in the future meet, that demand satisfactorily. The other alternative is the storekeeper, and I am afraid the storekeeper has been, to a large extent, responsible for financing South African agriculture in the past, not always to its advantage. The machinery provided for in this Bill is of a twofold character. The main financing will come through the Land Bank. The machinery for enabling the farmer to take advantage of that, will come in two ways. In the first place it is proposed to establish what are called Rural Credit Societies. These will be co-operative societies consisting of members who are actually engaged in farming. The society will consist of not less than seven members who are actually engaged in farming. The liability of the members of these societies will be unlimited, that is to say, they will be responsible jointly and severally for the liabilities of their society. The advantage of that system is that the small man, the man who cannot obtain an advance from the Land Bank or from a commercial bank, but who has assets in the form of character, energy, and responsibility, will be able to, because these are all good securities, and these qualities are known to his neighbours, who will form the members of this co-operative society—he will be able to get the credit in respect of these assets, and they are assets, just as more material assets of land and goods are. In the second place, the small man will get the advantage not merely of his own credit, but the co-operative credit of his society. That, therefore, is the basis of this system—the Rural Credit Society —consisting of men actually engaged in farming, each member responsible jointly and severally for the liabilities of his society, and Obtaining advances for its members on their bill or promissory note. The advances to be given to the members of these societies are limited in two ways. No advances are to be given in excess of £300 to any one member, and the total advance given to the members of any of these societies is not to exceed £200 per member. For example, there are ten members in a Rural Credit Society, the total advances made to the members of that society would not exceed £2,000. £200 for each member of the society and no more; £300 in the case of any one advance. As I have said, that society will obtain advances within the limits I have mentioned, for its members. How is it going to be financed? It will obtain its finance on the bills, or promissory notes of the members, who will get the advances. These bills the society will discount with the Agricultural Loan Company. What is the next link in the chain? The Rural Credit Society will pass the actual loan to the farmers in need of finance; the next step is the Agricultural Loan Company. That will be a company constituted under the ordinary company law, and that company will have limited liability, and will have a certain capital consisting of shares. The shares in the Agricultural Loan Company will be taken up partly by the Rural Credit Society in each district, and partly by outside people who may use it as a means of investment, and partly if there is any shortfall, by the Land Bank. The Agricultural Loan Company will operate within a certain area to be defined by the Land Bank. Its operations will be confined to that area. It must have, before it is allowed to commence business, a capital of £5.000, and the capital will be obtained by issuing shares, which will be taken by the Rural Credit Society through private individuals, or companies, and if the shares taken up through these various channels do not amount to £5,000, then the Land Bank can take up the balance. The intention is that ultimately the whole of the shares in the Agricultural Land Bank, will be held by the Rural Credit Society.

How is the hon. the Minister going to provide that?

It is provided in the Bill that every Rural Credit Society when it discounts a bill with the Agricultural Loan Company, will buy shares at the same time amounting to one per cent. of the particular bill, and gradually every share will be bought out, when the Rural Credit Society is in a position to take them up. Ultimately the shares will be held entirely by the Rural Credit Societies existing in the area. The Agricultural Loan Company, as I have said, will discount the Dills which the Rural Credit Society takes from its members, and in order to find funds for that purpose it will draw, on its capital subscribed by the issue of the shares, and it will also receive deposits from the public. The Bill also provides that the Agricultural Loan Company may take money on deposit. The Agricultural Loan Company will take deposits from the public at six months’ notice. The funds of the Agricultural Loan Company will be obtained in three ways. The first by the issue of share capital, the second by taking deposits from the public and the third by re-discounting with the Land Bank the bills of the Rural Credit Society. Eventually the Rural Credit Society will make advances to its members for certain purposes which are explained in Clause 13.

1. (1) A rural credit society may grant accommodation to any of its members for any or all of the following purposes: (a) to put the member in a position to sow and reap a crop; (b) to purchase agricultural implements and machinery, live stock, feeding stuffs, seeds, fruit trees, fertilizers and other farming requisites; (c) to erect buildings (including the purchase of the necessary materials) for treating and handling farm produce, and for housing live stock; (d) to pay wages for and costs incurred in reaping and threshing crops; and (e) for such other purposes incidental to farming as the directors of the loan company may permit.

But it is not intended that advances should be made by the society to members for paying off existing debts; it is intended that these advances should be for actual productive purposes, and not for paying existing debts. This is briefly the machinery in the Bill; firstly a Rural Credit Society with a membership of actual farmers, financed by the Agricultural Loan Company fund, which in turn is financed by the raising of share capital, or through deposits from the public, and the re-discounting of bills through the Land Bank in order to provide the necessary finances required by members of the society. The Bill contains a number of other provisions which I do not intend going into in detail. There are provisions about the liquidation of these companies; there are provisions for recovery by the Agricultural Loan Company of amounts outstanding and unpaid. These, I expect, will call for a considerable amount of criticism and consideration —some of them go very far. Some of the principles are still new in South Africa and will require careful consideration and examination at the hands of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I am going to propose to the House that the Bill should be sent to the Select Committee on Public Accounts, as that, I believe, is the Committee best fitted to deal with the financial and commercial problems that will have to be dealt with in considering the Bill. I think it would be advisable, and I intend to move in that direction, to add to the Committee two practical farmers. As far as I can see from the constitution of the Committee as it stands, with the exception of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Sir Abe Bailey) it is very short, in the matter of practical farmers. I think it would be desirable and I intend to ask the Standing Rules and Orders Committee to enlarge the Committee by including two practical farmers for the purpose of considering this Bill. I do not think it necessary to go into this matter at greater length. Two memoranda have been published, one by the Governor of the South African Reserve Bank, which, I think, has been already laid on the Table, and another which I will lay on the Table, but at any rate these two memoranda have been circulated, and explain very clearly and fully the provisions of the Bill, and the objects which are intended to be effected. It introduces a new principle into South Africa, a principle which has been more than successful in other parts of the Empire, and the world, the principle of co-operative credit, a principle of co-operation between the men working on the land for the purpose of obtaining the amount of finance necessary to enable them to carry on their business, a system of mutual confidence and mutual work. We have been told that this will be a failure in South Africa, because the conditions which exist here and where it has been a success in other parts of the world, differ, that co-operative societies cannot exist in South Africa. Well, that has yet to be proved. I believe that this Bill, which is constructed to meet South African requirements and conditions in the peculiar circumstances, will provide what is required here, and will be a success. Even if it starts on a small scale, I think it will be an object lesson, and if the Bill works, as it is intended, it will grow by the force of its own success. I think this is a step which will commend itself to, every practical farmer who looks ahead and has an interest not only in his own individual success, but in the success of agriculture, as the main industry of South Africa. I hope that the Bill will come back from the Select Committee in a form which will enable this House to accept it.

Ek sekon deer. Ek is jammer dat die Wetsontwerp so laat op die Tafel gekom het. Ek het al ’n heel tydjie terug met bevoegde persone so’n bietjie oor die saak gepraat, maar vandag is dit baie moeilik om iets oor die Wetsontwerp te sê, want ek het dit vandag vir die eerste keer gesien, maar as die voorstel na ’n Gekose Komitee gewys word, sal ons later weer geleentheid hê om daaroor te praat. Wat die beginsel betref, so is daar al vir jare op die landboukongresse daaroor gepraat. Daar is altyd gevoel, dat daar ’n Bank moet wees, ’n organisasie waar die boer aan geld gehelp kan word, anders as deur die gewone handelsbanke. Die Landbank het wel veel gedoen op sekere manier en sommige boere gehelp, maar die man wat in werklike nood is, word nie gehelp nie. Net die mense, wat by andere banke ook hulp kan kry, het die voordeel daarvan. Ons het altyd die gevoel gehad, dat daar ’n instelling moet kom vir die publiek om die manne te help wat die hulp die meeste nodig het, anders as op die manier waarop die Landbank help. Neem b.v. ’n kleine ding, die bou van silo’s. As ’n boer ’n silo op sy plaas wil hê, moet hy na die Landbank gaan en ’n verband op sy plaas passeer. Dis heelwat omslagtig en so is daar baie dinge meer. Maar waar ek besonder na druk op wil lê en ek het dit hier nog kort gelede in die Huis gesê, is dat die boere in die binneland in die gedrukte toestand is hoofsaaklik deur gebrek aan werkende kapitaal op die plase. Die kapitaal is nie daar nie en tog is daar sommige van die mense, wat op plase woon, wat geld op die banke gesit het. Waarom nie die persone in laat kom nie, wat geld in die banke het nie en die geld wat hulle het, gebruik om ander boere te help nie? Wat ons wil hê, is ’n regte Boerebank, sodat as jy b.v. silo’s wil bou of draadheinings wil maak op jou plaas, jy nie eers na jou verbandhouer moet gaan om te vra of hy wil toestaan dat jy die geld opneem. Die soort dinge moet ons vereenvoudig en ek denk as ons so’n instelling kry, ’n geldinrigting wat op die manier sal help, dan sal daal twee dinge bereik word, in die eerste plaas, dat daar meer werkende kapitaal op die boere se plase sal sirkuleer, en in die twede plaas en dit is van groot belang, dat elke boer sal moet deelneem en verantwoordelik wees vir die instelling. Die Landbou-unie het die saak reeds geruime tyd bespreek en aanbeveel en ek is daar seker van, dat die edelagbare die Minister die ondersteuning van elke boer sal geniet op die platteland. Oor die meriete van die Wetsontwerp kan ek nog nie oordeel nie, aangesien ek die ding nou maar vir die eerste keer sien; maar ek wil darem verklaar dat dit ’n goeie plan is van die Minister om voorsiening te maak vir die benoeming van ’n paar praktiese boere op die Selekt Komitee, opdat die Wetsontwerp aannemelik sal wees, as dít daarvandaan terugkom en dan sal dit ook, daar is ek seker van, een van die middele wees om die gedrukte toestand te help verlig.

Ek wens die Wetsontwerp te verwelkom. Die feit dat die Wetsontwerp tans voorgebreng word of staat voorgebreng te word, toon hoe nodig dit is dat hier in die Huis van tyd tot tyd gesproke word oor die noodsaaklikheid van te voldoen aan die eise, welke sig daar buite laat gevoel. Die onderwerp, waaroor die Wetsontwerp loop en waarmee dit sig besig hou, is een waarop al sedert verskeie jare voortdurend die aandag van die Huis gevestig geword is as noodsaaklik. Ek verwelkom die Wetsontwerp, wat ook al die uitwerking daarvan mag wees. Die beginsel is geen nuwe nie en word reeds jare lank toegepas in Amerika, waar dit, as ek my goed herinner, met groot sukses werk en ek glo, dat dit vandag nog toegepas word op grote skaal —ek spreek van die beginsel in die algemeen. Ek is bly, dat die oog gehou word op die besondere toestande en eise van die Suid-afrikaanse lewe. Daar sal wysiginge aangebring word, waf die wet sal laat verskil van die van Amerika. Dit is duidelik dat ons nie kan verwag dat ’n wet van die aard by ons vandag die uitwerking sal hê en die sukses sal oplewer, welke die kan verwag en ook gehad het in Amerika. Daar het hulle te doen met kleine boere, maar baie boere en dit is een van die vereistes vir sukses by ’n saak van die aard, wat in sig sluit dié beginsel van ’n Boerebank, dat dit sal binnen so’n beperk moontlike area van toepassing wees. Ons het die bewys dat dit ’n sukses is in die geval van díe Boerebanke, opgerig te Pretoria en Bloemfontein, maar ons weet, dat dit nie met dieselrde sukses toegepas kan word op die kleinere dorpies nie, omdat die vereiste toestande daar nie aanwesig is nie. Ons almal juig die poging toe om te bewerkstellig, dat die boere onderling so veel moontlik mekaar sal ondersteun, deur uit eie bron te put en nie telkens na die Regering te hoef hardloop nie. En ek dink die boer sal dit ook verwelkom, soas ek hom ken. ’n Swakheid in die Wetsontwerp is, dat die lede van die vereniging onbeperk verantwoordelik gemaak word vir die lenings, maar indien dit nie sou geskied nie, sou ons weer op die Staat moet terug val. Ek is bly, dat die begii sel aangeneem is en hoop dat in die Selekt Komitee daar nie alteveel mee sal omgespring word nie en die onbeperktheid beperktheid sal word nie, deur te bepaal dat die lede net vir ’n sekere bedrag verantwoordelik is. Hoe kleiner die bedrag is, waarvoor die verantwoordelikheid geld, hoe gereedliker sal die mense meewerk. Hoe ons ook al daarvoor skrik, dit is myns insiens onmoontlik om nie die eis vir onbeperktheid in te sit nie. Ten twede is dit my du delik, dat indien die Wet sukses het, dan sal dit stadig aan oorgaan tot ’n beweging, wat sal uitloop op die oprigting van ’n roeks praktiese Boerebanke, waar die kapitaal sal kom van die boer, die beheer sal wees in die hande van die boer en waarvoor die boer verantwoordelik sal wees. Dit is sedert ’n vyftal jare ernstig gevoel welke behoefte daar bestaat aan plaaslike banke, wat bekend is met die omgewing en bereid is die risieko te aanvaar, wat nie verwag kan word van verafgeleë Staatsbanke of banke waar die geld deur die Staat verstrek word. Of dit presies sal beantwoord aan die drang om te help, wat ons die laaste dae weer sterk gevoel het, betwyfel ek, maar dan neem ek aan dit dit nie so bedoeld was nie, maar meer ’n voeling ter plase, op ’n wyse, wat sowel nou as vir die toekoms sal toon, dat die mense gehelp kan word op ’n bepaalde manier en vir ’n bepaalde som.

Ek is werklik bly oor die Wetsontwerp, maar denk dat dit beter sou gewees het, indien die edelagbare die Minister die Wetsontwerp verwys had na ’n spesial vir die doel aangestelde komitee, want die Komitee, wat die oog hou op geldelike sake, is ’n baie besige, terwyl hierdie Wet ’n nuwe ding is, ’n eerste stap in ’n nuwe rigting. Dit is daarom noodsaaklik, dat die komitee, wat daarmee belas word, baie sorgvuldig op al die voorsieninge en aspekto van die saak sal ingaan anders is die gevaar van mislukking groot. Ek wens daaraan te herinner, dat die Wet op ko-operasie ook halsoorkop aangeneem is indertyd; etlike van die verenminge is verlore gegaan, met die gevolg dat die mense geskrik het vir die beginsel. Hier is weer ’n nuwe Wet en indien ons nie met baie oorleg te werk gaan nie, kan dalk weer dieselfde fout begaan word. Die twede ding wat ek wens onder die aandag te bring veral van die lede wat op die Komitee sal dien, is die kwessie van onbeperkte verantwoordelikheid; die boere is skrikkerig vir daardie beginsel en wel in so’n mate, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou twee jaar gelede sy Wetsontwerp oor ko-operasie moes verander en die beginsel van beperkte verantwoordelikheid moeé aanvaar. Of dit goed is of nie is ’n ander saak. Nog ’n ander ding is, dat sorg gedra moet word, dat die Wet nie in botsing kom met die Ko-operasiewet nie. Die lede wat daaraan behoort moet hulle produkte afgee aan die ko-operasie en onder hierdie Wet sal hy dit waarskynlik in eerste instansie verskuldig wees aan die Kredietvereniging. ’n Ander ding is, dat ons vir landbougereedskap gaan krediet gee. Die verslag van die bestuurder van die Landbank verklaar dat in die meeste gevalle, waar ko-operatiewe verenigings misluk het, was omdat daar teveel krediet gegee was. ’n Ander punt is, dat dit in die begin net van toepassing sal wees op die arm man, want die ryke sal nie aansluit nie, want hy kan altoos by ’n gewone bank genoeg geld kry vir sy behoeftes en wil nie verantwoordelik gestel word vir die skuld van ander nie. Om daardie arm man te help, moet baie fasiliteite gegee word deur die Staat. Die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou het gepraat van kleine ko-operatiewe verenigings en verklaar, dat die Staat 50 present van die verantwoordelikheid sou draag. Indien dit waar is en die beginsel word in hierdie Wetsontwerp opgeneem, dan sal ons werklik ’n goeie stuk werk gedaan hê, wat die mense die nodige moed sal gee om aan te gaan. Maar die beginsel van onbeperkte verantwoordelikheid, dat een lid die verantwoordelikheid moet draag vir almaal se skuld, vrees ek, sal die sukses van die Wetsontwerp sterk teengaan—die beginsel is nie populair nie.

The fact that the hon. the Minister is sending this Bill to a Select Committee makes it unnecessary to go into details of the measure, but there are one or two points I would like to bring forward. While one is glad that the farmer is to be enabled to carry on his business satisfactorily, one must also keep in mind that there is a saving, sanctified in a proverb, about borrowing and sorrowing. I would like the hon. the Minister in his reply to let us know whether the intention is that this Bill is to mean an extension of credit, or whether it is to be a substitution, because the effect might be one or the other.

Substitution for what?

Substitution for existing credit. The hon. the Minister in his remarks told us that the object of the Bill was to empower the Land Bank to extend its operations, and to give facilities to obtain credit, and that it would apply particularly to the smaller farmers, because the amount would be limited to £300 per man. We have had a very interesting and illuminating memorandum from Mr. Clegg, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, who deals with this thing, and he seems a little bit contradictory on the point. The first paragraph of his memorandum says—

Presumably that means they are not adequately financed at the present time; but later on, in commending the Bill he says in the last paragraph—

It would sound as if too much credit is being given at the present time.

That is by the wrong people.

He goes on to say—

From which the only conclusion can be that, in the opinion of Mr. Clegg, there is too much credit at the present time, which is locked up in debts, which cannot be paid to the merchants and storekeepers, and so it seems to me to be a question whether this is intended to be an extension of credit, which Mr. Clegg tells us is already too great, or whether it is substitution of one form of credit for another, because the credit given in one direction is not being stopped, but only being substituted by another. At the present time, the structure of credit in this country is as stated in the memorandum: The farmer buys from the local storekeeper, the local storekeeper gets his credit from the coast storekeeper, whom we call the merchant for the purpose of differentiation, and they both, in fact, they all three of them, until some time ago, were all helping in this state of credit by getting certain facilities from the banks. It is true there has been a great stringency in the last year or two, owing to the commercial banks restricting facilities all along the line, not only to the farmer, the local storekeeper, but to the merchants on the coast. But that does not mean that too little credit was being given. I am not presuming to criticize that; banks are the best judges of what they should do with their money, and there is no doubt that, as Mr. Clegg says, one of the curses of the country has been the long credit system. Too much credit has been given, and I think that if Mr. Clegg had opportunities of going round the country, examining into things generally he might have come to the conclusion that in a great many instances it was not the farmer who was in thraldom to the storekeeper, but the storekeepers who were in thraldom to the farmers. The amount of money that has been lost in this country through giving undue credit has been something colossal, and is still so at the present time, unfortunately. What I hope this Bill will do is, that it will introduce discrimination in the giving of credit. It is not that there has been too little credit given in this country, but there has been a want of discrimination, and I think that it is in this direction that this Bill will do a great deal of good. For the discrimination is apparently provided by these Rural Credit Societies. They are the basis of the whole structure that has to be built up. It is not the Land Bank—that comes at the top—it is not the Agricultural Loan Company—these come in between; but the Rural Credit Societies, and it remains to be seen, and one would like to know, whether that is a system that is going to suit the genius of this country. It is true that it has been successful in other countries, but for the most part those countries are closely populated, where conditions are different from those of this country, and I think the whole of the structure will depend on whether the farmers in veld districts are prepared to pledge then co-operative credit, whether they are to be individualistic in their work, or whether they are prepared to pledge their credit. That is what the whole thing depends on; that is the basis on which the structure will be built up and it is there that I say the discrimination will come in that I think will make for so much good in this country. There will be a winnowing of credit; there will be a winnowing of credit as to whether the people are prepared to stand jointly and severally for each other; then there will be a winnowing of the agricultural loans companies, then the winnowing of the Land Bank, and with that winnowing, which will clear the way for getting credit either from cash or character, we will get an infinitely better system than we have at the present time. We will also get this, which will be something of a new thing in this country, that according to what is laid down as to the bills of these credit societies, i.e., if the members of the credit societies, and the necessity of being paid at due date, he will get the fellow members of these societies seeing to it, that that paper to which a man has to put his name has to be met at due date This is something new. At the present time a bill is often looked upon as an acknowledgement of debt to be paid “sometime, somehow, perhaps.” That is the position. If the introduction of this Bill can have the effect of making it necessary that a bill has to be met at due date—and this is laid down in it— otherwise the people can be dismissed from their societies, or at any rate they are taking the joint responsibility, they will see that it is done and it will do a great deal of good to the credit system of this country. The result will be a better basis than we have I am not going into the details, because the Bill is going to be sent to the Select Committee of which I am a member.

I quite agree with the hon. member who has just sat down in expressing a further hope that this is not an additional credit, but that it is to be a substitution, because it will be unthinkable if we allow both this credit, resulting from signing what amounts to really a promissory note, to be an addition because that is credit which has proved itself unfortunately an all-round danger, namely the credit introduced by the storekeeper. I interjected when the hon. member was speaking that the danger of the storekeeper giving credit was not in the fact that the farmers are getting credit, because I know of no class, so far as I have been able to ascertain, to whom credit is more an absolute necessity. It is not so much that they are getting credit or even that they were getting long credit: the great danger was in the individuals who were giving that credit. The storekeeper is a man who is buying and selling at the lowest price, and when a farmer unfortunately has to take credit from the storekeeper he finds himself, when his crops are due to be harvested and then marketed, in the position that all the proceeds are likely to go in discharging his debts to the storekeeper. On the other hand he is restricted in the matter of prices, because the storekeeper has, in all probability, arranged that he shall have a lien on the products of this farmer’s industry. That is why I look upon it as a danger, and that is why I should say it is infinitely more dangerous if this were an additional credit to that hitherto given by the storekeeper. I think there need be very little fear because, I am not quite sure but I think, the Minister can tell me, it is exceedingly likely that the Rural Credit Society, the Loan Company, and the Land Bank, all three of them, or at least one of them, will have first call on the immovable property of the farmer who is pledging his credit, and on the crops that he will produce. I do not know that it is so, but I take it that according to the regulations to be framed, that provision will be incorporated, and if this is so, we will very soon find that the storekeepers will not be so ready to give credit as they have been in the past. It is one of these things which automatically adjust themselves, and I think the hon. member need have very little fear that even if it is not intended to be substituting credit, it will in practice turn out to be so, because the storekeepers will find that these conditions are not in their interests. They will be a bad second, the Land Bank, ultimately being a very good first; so I think my hon. friend in no way need fear that will happen. I want to commend the Government in having made an effort at all events in tackling this question, and I think they will have the support of all those who are interested, and I think their name is legion in the welfare and the development of the farming industry of the country. One must take this opportunity even though one generally disagrees with the Government in their general lines of policy, of congratulating them upon having taken one step forward. At the same time I must express my pleasure—I do not know whether I caught the hon. the Minister correctly, I hope he will let me know—does he intend to send this to a Select Committee before the second reading or after?

Before.

I am glad, because where one is very anxious to push on the principle of this thing, one does want an opportunity to analyse and consider it, and I think this Bill can be improved out of all knowledge For one thing take the principle of this advancing of credit to the farmers. My reason for that is that I do not think the system that the hon. the Minister proposes should be adoped, as outlined in this Bill, is likely to prove successful. I do not want to prophecy. I would be the last man to prophesy about agricultural matters. Any man would be bold indeed to do that. I must dissent from hon. members who have already stated that because this, that, or the other, has proved successful in other countries, it will not prove successful in South Africa. I want to enter a caveat against that. It is not a fair analysis of the position. There is no reason that because a thing went well in other countries, that it should not be a success here. I think that the Government would be wise to continue their attitude of drawing on the experience of other countries and applying them as far as possible with any necessary addition or alteration to this country. The whole system proposed by the hon. the Minister, and presumably the Government, is involved, and is. I fear, bound to failure. Here we start with the Rural Credit Society which is under the control of seven persons. I put the question: Who is likely to form the Rural Credit Society? The rich man. The rich men will never want to borrow money, it is not a necessity for them; they do not want money advanced to them at interest, and the Only idea they will have in the society will be that of investing money with the idea of a speculation, in order that they may obtain the land or crops of some of their poorer fellow farmers. The Government has offered no inducements. I understand that under this, the system of credit, there is something which is really a new departure in that the Government is trying to take the eye of the leading authority from immovable property and fix it on the personal character of the applicant. That is a most laudable object. Banking institutions wanted something more tangible, and I am delighted to find that something else is being substituted in this scheme, and that it has been laid down that personal character is to bulk larger than ever before. Still I think it is for this very reason there is great danger that the system will break down. I am not saying it will, but there is a great danger. I do not want all this involved. mixed system of rural societies loan societies and land bank. Why not let it be a direct transaction between the Land Bank and the farmer? You can have all the Rural Credit Societies and other intermediaries. but let them stand in an advisory capacity. This is one of the reasons why I am keenly anxious to have this go to a Select Committee, so that we can go through every possibility in every direction. There is one point which I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. When it comes to the question of character, and when a man has no other security, the man who has only leased his farm, and has only the security of his crops, I very much doubt whether that man is going to get any advance at all. This is one of the cases in which it is entirely necessary that he should deal with the Land Bank direct. What is infinitely more important, even than the mere advancing of credit, is the actual providing for the distributing of the crops of the farmers, so that the producer and the consumer should be brought into immediate touch with each other, so that both will benefit. Let hon. members not run away with the idea that this Bill will help every farmer. It is not going to help all the farmers. It will help some of the farmers, but none of the consumers, and let me suggest that it will only help those farmers who are well off and able to help themselves. I have to express my regret that the Government has not taken over distribution. I wish the hon. the Minister had gone a little further, and had taken a leaf out of the English Government’s book. The Labour Government has been only in power two or three months there, and although they had tremendous questions to deal with, that Government have had time to look into the question of agricultural distribution, and have decided upon a plan of campaign which they have put into effect. What are they doing? They are en couraging the promotion of real co-operative societies, not only for production, but for distribution. While prepared to encourage farmers through the co-operative societies, they are also prepared, not through involved method’s as proposed by the hon. Minister here, but to advance the necessary money, in some cases up to £10,000. Why should we not have a similar system here, and why should we not make the manufacturers dependent on the farmers and not the farmers dependent on the manufacturers, and adopt that advice which we are constantly talking about, namely, bring about more individualism, and that is socialism. Why should we not have jam factories fostered by the State, and different other factories? We talk about distribution and this is very important for the farmers. Help them through the means of cold storage. Help the farmers in every direction to carry on, and you will also be helping the consumer at the other end of the stick. Help them too by establishing wool factories. Let them assist in the installation of jam factories. Do you want precedents? Why go to Canada! How many years aero did they endeavour to foster the export of better by guaranteeing them a market? They guaranteed the market, they paid the money themselves, and became purchasers themselves, and went further than we are asking the Government to do this afternoon. They bought the butter and sold it on the European markets wherever they could get in and distributed the profits on the fifty fifty basis. Half went to the Government, and the other half to the farmers themselves. You should distribute so that you provide your own market first, and then export afterwards. How necessary it is to have wool factories established in this country. I do not think, Sir, you will charge me of going wide of the motion if I deal with this question, which I feel is a matter arising under this Bill, and every opportunity should be taken of dealing with the subject. Take wool! I think we are the third largest wool producing country in the world, I speak subject to correction, yet, how little we manufacture in this country. The hon. the Minister of Railways and Harbours if he were here would say: “Oh, leave it to private enterprise;” but private enterprise has failed to even touch the fringe of the subject. We are sending over millions of pounds of wool to every part of the world, and there is the cost of collection, the freightage to the coast—the big wool merchants like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South-West) (Sir William Macintosh), make their profits on the sales—then there is the handling at the ports, the cost of putting on the ships, there are landing charges at the other side, railway charges to the cloth factories, and, after being manufactured into cloth, they are put on the train again, sent down to the port, placed again on the ship, and carried thousands of miles back to South Africa, costs and duty are paid again, and if it does not come back in the form of clothes, it comes back in the form of cloth, and finally, the unfortunate farmer, who produced the wool, the raw material in the first place, puts his clothes on his back at a price which is 10 or 20 times higher than the cost of the original article. That is a sheer waste of time and of money, and to cope with this is not beyond the South African mind. The Government should take the matter in hand and arrange for factories to be instituted here, in order to manufacture these goods in which all have an interest and all play a part, and I guarantee the future of South Africa will be more rosy, glowing, and an infinitely happier one. With these remarks I support the sending of the Bill to a Select Committee, and I hope the Select Committee will there lick it into shape on the lines I have submitted.

Verlede jaar het ek die eer gehad om Voorsitter te wees van die Gekose Komitee op Pryse van Produkte, wat dieselfde kwessie van landbou krediet in oorweging gehad het en wat sekere planne aan die hand gegee het. Ek is nie van plan om op daarie plan diep in te gaan nie—die kwessie sal later weer opkom. Toen ek egter die Wetsontwerp oorgelees het, het dit my dadelik voorgekom dat die planne wat verlede jaar deur die Gekose Komitee aan die hand gegee was, ’n betere basis bevat om op te bou as hierdie Wetsontwerp. Natuurlik wil ons op hierdie stadium nie te veel sê nie, want ons weet, dat die Wetsontwerp na ’n Gekose Komitee sal gaan, maar daar is drie punte hierin wat w afwyk van wat voorgestel was deur die Gekose Komitee, dat ek die geleentheid nie kan laat verby gaan nie sonder om dit aan te wys. Die eerste punt is die gesamentlike en afsonderlike verantwoordelikheid van lede. Daarin lê die hele sukses of mislukking van die wetgewing. Die kwessie van gesamentlike of afsonderlike verantwoordelikheid is baie ernstig, en ek hoop die Komitee sal sy aandag daaraan bestee hoe om betere voorsiening daarin te maak. Ek is bang, dat as die Gekose Komitee dit so laat staan, dat elke lid van ’n plattelands leningsvereniging gesamentlik en afsonderlik verantwoordelik is, dan sal ons net so min slaag om die verenings op te rig as ons gedoen het met die klein ko-operasies. Die bedoeling van die Minister onder hierdie Wetsontwerp is, dat aandele in distriktsbanke deur plattelands leningsverenigings gehou sal word; sou dit dan nie beter wees nie om te bepaal, dat die aandele in distriktsbanke nie alleen nie deur plattelands leningsmaatskappye gehou sal word maar ook deur die bona fide boere, en om dan voorsiening te maak dat elke lid van ’n plattelands leningsmaatskappy wat een lening wens te sluit verplig sal wees om vir 5 persent aandele in sy distriktsbank te neem, en bepaal in die Wet dan verder dat hy waar daar byvoorbeeld 10 lede in die leningsmaatskappy is vir nog 5 persent, of waar daar 7 lede is, vir nog ongeveer 8 persent verantwoordelik sal wees vir enige skuld opgeloop, of in andere woorde elke lid waar daar net 7 lede is sal verantwoordelik wees vir ongeveer 13 persent en al die lede gesamentlik vir 100 persent. As een lid weet, dat sy verantwoordelikheid net 13 persent of net 10 persent of een bepaalde percentage is, dan sal ons die posiesie kry, dat boere, gemiddelde en andere boere, hierdie onderneminge sal ondersteun. Maar waar ons hierdie gesamentlike en afsonderlike verantwoordelikheid kry, sal ons sien, dat die vertrouw e van die handelsbanke dadelik ’n skok sal kry in die krediet van lede van hierdie maatskappye. Hulle sal die lede nie die gewone handelsbank fasiliteite kan gee nie, want hulle sal nie weet nie wat die verantwoordelikheid van die lede is, hulle sal nie kan bereken vir hoeveel die mense uiteindelik verantwoordelik is nie. Vandag sou een klient, wat ook lid van een maatskappy is, miskien £1,000 werd wees, maar môre gaan die maatskappy bankrot, en die bank vind dat hy vir £1,400 skuld verantwoordelik is. Dis die eerste moeilikheid—dat ons voorsiening moet maak om die verantwoordelikheid van elke lid te beperk, om te sê dat as daar 10 lede in ’n plattelands leningsmaatskappy is, dan is die verantwoordelikheid van elke lid 10 persent, en as daar 8 lede is, dan is die verantwoordelikheid van elke lid 100 persent verdeel deur 8 insluitende die aandele wat hy verplig is om te neem. Dan is daar nog ’n andere punt wat ek wil maak, en dis ’n punt van groot moeilikheid vir die boer. Vandag moet die boer, teneinde in staat te wees sy boerebedryf voort te set, al sy produkte op die markt gooi, hy moet verkoop, of die prys hoog is of laag; dis die gewone boer, nie die ryk man nie. Hy kan sy produkte nie terughou nie, hy moet geld in hande kry teneinde in staat te wees om aan te gaan met sy bedryf. Die Wetsontwerp behoor bepalinge te bevat om die man tegemoet te kom. Soos die Wet nou staat sal die plattelands leningsmaatskappye nie in staat wees nie om voorskotte te maak op byvoorbeeld mielies wat aan die graansuigers afgelever is. Ons het nou Regerings graansuigers waar die mielies van die boer geweeg en gegradeer word; wat beswaar kan daar nou wees om die leningsmaatskappye die reg te gee om aan so ’n man te sé: “Ons sal jou 60 of 80 persent voorskot gee op jou produkt”? As dit gedaan kan word dan kan die man dadelik met sy werksaamhede aangaan, hy sal daartoe die kapitaal hê.

Wat omtrent die ko-operasie?

Die Ko-operasie kan nie altyd voorskotte maak nie. Hulle kan net alleen voorskotte maak aan hulle lede, maar daar is baie mense wat nie aan sulke vereniginge behoor nie. Daar is ko-operatiewe veremgings met beperkte verantwoordelikheid en hulle kan nie geld kry nie om voorskotte te maak. Ek het mielies as my voorbeeld gevat, maar daar is ander produkte waarvoor daar nog nie ko-operasies bestaan nie. Ons moet die mense ’n geleentheid gee om voorskotte op hulle oest te kry, nie op die oest wat op die land is nie, maar op die oest wat ingesamel is. Onder hierdie Wetsontwerp sal daardie man na die winkelier moet gaan of anders sal hy sy produkte op die markte moet gooi, of die prys geleë is of nie.

Nee, nee!

Wat ons soek is dat die produkte van die boer nie in die hande van die spekulant sal kom nie, maar dat hulle in die hande van die boer self sal bly en dat hy die distributie daarvan sal behou en op die manier een redelike prys sal kry; dat hy nie verplig sal wees om sy produkte op die markt te gooi nie. Dan is daar nog ’n punt wat die krediet, wat die boer nou besit, affekteer. Hierdie Wetsontwerp maak nie voorsiening nie, dat die boer geld sal kan leen by sy maatskappy op sy ingesamelde oes. Daar is nie voorsiening daarvoor nie.

Waarom nie?

Omdat daar nie voorsiening gemaak is nie. Die Wetsontwerp maak ook nie voorsiening nie, dat die boer geld sal kan leen by sy maatskappy om sy skulde af te betaal. Dit mag miskien baie goed wees. Maar hoe gaan hy, as hy lid van een leningsmaatskappy is, geaffekteer word deur hierdie Wet? Hierdie Wet sê dat so’n persoon wat lid is van n’ leningsmaatskappy verpand nie alleen sy landbougereedskap nie, maar sy hele oest aan sy leningsmaatskappy. Al sy bate is dus verpand. Gestel dat daardie man nou opgedruk word, deur sy krediteure en hy het geld nodig watter handelsbank sal hom onder die omstandighede help?

It will be a good thing if he does not get it.

Miskien is dit goed wanneer die land op ’n gesonde handelsbasis is, maar ons moet die toestand neem sons ons dit nou het en ons moet die man nou help deur hierdie Wet nou te verander sodat hy hulp kan kry; doen ons dit nie, dan sal die man altyd verder sink. Die handelsbank sal hom nie help nie, daar is deur hierdie bepaling sy krediet afgesny. Dus dit sal dan die hele posiesie wees. Die man sal nergens fasiliteite kry nie en hy moet ondergaan. Die Huis moet nie vergeet nie daar is tye in die jaar, nou is die tyd daarvoor byvoorbeeld, dog in alle geval vanaf Januarie tot aan die einde van Mei, moet byna elke boer—die gemiddelde, nie die ryke nie— homself verlaat op sy bank of op ’n andere instelling vir die verskaffing van fasiliteite. Ek hoop dat hierdie drie punte die oorweging van die Gekose Komitee sal ontvang en viral dat die Komitee sal toesien dat die Wetsontwerp so gewysig word dat die beoogde instellinge meer in die aard van landboubanke dan net leningsbanke sal ontwikkel.

Ek wil net ’n paar opmerkinge maak met betrekking tot die Wetsontwerp. Ek sien, dat die Ontwerp oor die algemeen goed ontvang word en ek is ook bly as die Regering, waar moontlik, sal probeer om middele aan die hand te gee om die arme klasse te help. Ek dink dis ’n goeie Wetsontwerp, maar is bang, dat soos die Wetsontwerp nou staan daar geen hulp verleen kan word aan mense, wat in dorpe woon nie. Ek wil nie sover gaan om te sê, dat dit ook mense in die groot stede moet insluit nie, want die is geen boere nie, maar ek verteenwoordig ’n kiesafdeling waar baie buitedorpies is, wat nie eintlike dorpe is nie. Die Wet praat te veel van die platteland en ek voel, dat die mense naby die dorpe, wat klein stukkies grond het, dat die ook ’n kans moet kry om gehelp te word.

Hulle val ook onder die Wet.

Ek hoop dat dit so is dat hulle ook onder die Wet kom, maar hier staan, dat die Raad sekere sirkels kan maak. Ek wil graag, dat die Selekt Komitee behoorlike voorsiening sal maak om die mense naby die dorpe, wat klein stukkies grond het, vir vrugteboerdery, hoenderteelt, ens., ook gehelp sal word. Onder die Landbankwet word hulle nie gehelp nie. Ek hoop dat die punt besonder in aanmerking geneem sal word deur die Selekt Komitee. Daar is baie van die mense, wat in die nabyheid van groot markte woon en wat vyf óf tien morge grond in bewerking het. Hulle plant bome vir vrugteboerdery, of hulle dryf groenteboerdery of hoenderteelt en op die manier maak hulle hulle lewe. Die mense moet onk ’n bietiie gehelp word en as daar sewe van hulle bymekaar kom, dan moet die ook onder die bepalinge van die Wet val. Ek dink dat ’n wet van hierdie soort die mense sal leer die een die ander te vertrou, dïlt dit gaan in die regte rigting van goeie ko-operasie. Ek weet nie of dit so gretig aangeneem sal word nie, want die mense is baie bang vir ko-operasies, omdat daar in die verlede so baie ko-operasies mislukkinge gewees het, mislukkinge omdat daar die verkeerde mense aan die hoof was, of om andere redes, maar as die Regering probeer om die mense te help, nie net die groot boere, maar die man wat op ’n kleine skaal boer, dan dink ek behoort iedere edele lid van die Huis die Wetsontwerp te steun.

I welcome this Bill. I think that it is a step in the right direction, although to my mind it does not go far enough. I am confident that what the farmer wants to-day, more than anything else, is credit at the time he reaps his crop, so as to avoid being forced to sell that crop in the first market that comes his way. He wants credit when he gets that crop so that he can hold it and put it on the best market. There is no doubt that what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South-West) (Sir William Macintosh) says is correct, that the storekeepers have acted as the financiers of the farmers to a very great extent in South Africa, but I see this, that many of the storekeepers have become very rich men, whilst the farmers whom they supported have gone under, because of this system. The farmers having got credit from the storekeeper, is under an obligation whenever his crop is reaped, to deliver it to the storekeeper, and when every farmer is selling, prices naturally are low; when the storekeeper get control of the crops naturally the price hardens, and the storekeeper gets the benefit. I do not want to belittle the storekeepers, but I say they have come very well out of the arrangement. It is the duty of the Government to see that the primary producer is assisted with the necessary rural credit, to keep him on the land and place him in a position to produce more wealth for the country. I would like to see the Land Bank figure more directly in connection with the granting of these credits to the societies, rather than these loan companies. These loan companies will naturally be looking for higher rates of interest. I see it mentioned here that they are allowed to charge up to 8 per cent. interest; what the Land Bank must do is to see that the farmer gets the necessary credit at the lowest possible rate of interest. Our Land Bank has done splendid work in this country, and I think very great credit is due to Mr. Herold, the General Manager, that the bank is in such an excellent position as it is to-day, is largely due to him. The Land Bank has helped many a farmer and many a co-operative society, but at the same time I feel that the Land Bank is making too much profit at the present time. I want to see the Land Bank go all out for the benefit of the primary producer; that is what it is for, and the country benefits. Whenever a man produces something, whenever he produces a crop, the country as a whole benefits. I would like to see the Land Bank come more into the picture in connection with this Bill. In fact I would like to see it able to take the farmers’ deposits, and I am very anxious to see how that part of the Bill which allows these loan companies to take deposits will emerge from the Committee upstairs, whether the Committee will not take that provision away, as they did once before when it was suggested that the Land Bank should be allowed to accept deposits from the farmers. This Bill proposes to allow loan companies to take deposits from the farmers, but I would like the Government to go right ahead and bring in legislation to allow the Land Bank to take deposits from the farmers. I am sincerely hoping that this Bill will emerge from the Select Committee upstairs in a better form than it is at present. I am very much afraid that, if we are going to lay it down that the only way the farmers are to be financed is through more prosperous farmers taking them on their shoulders, you will not get the success we want to see. In other countries, we know, farmers, more of a class in regard to their farming operations, go into these co-operative societies. You may get that in your closer settlements here. I hope you will, but simply to say that a rich farmer in any district should carry half a dozen others on his back, is not the direction in which you are going to make a success of these societies, and I am afraid that the Land Bank has been looking too much in that direction in order to protect itself in the past. I would like to see it more on the basis which we had in mind when we passed the Limited Co-operative Companies Bill. If these limited co-operative companies had been in a position to receive credit from the Bank against produce in store, I am quite sure that we would have still had the Farmers’ Co-operative Meat Industries and the Meat Producers’ Exchange in existence, but we could not get any credit or facilities from the Land Bank, unless they became unlimited co-operative societies. I hope that the day will soon come when the Government will introduce a Bill amending the Land Bank law, to allow it to give credit to limited co-operative societies and to individual farmers against produce in store. I am always pleased to see anything being done which will assist the primary producer to remain on the land, and I wish the Bill every success.

Ek wil elke woord onderskryf wat geval is van my vriend die edele lid vir Turffontein (Maj. Hunt). Ek ondersteun elke poging, wat aangewend word om ons boerebevolking in staat te stel of voorligting te gee om los te kom van die kommersiële banke en wat hulle in staat stel om hulle eie bank te hê en ek dink, dat enige voorsiening om voorligting te gee of hulp te verleen in die rigting, verdien die ondersteuning van enige reggeleerde lid van die Huis. Ek erken dat die edelagbare die Eerste Minister hier ’n heeltemal prysenswaardige doel het, wat in die rigting gaat, waar ons almal na streef, om die boerebevolking los te kry van die kommersiële banke en die boer te laat verstaan, dat hy op sy eie bene kan staan. Ons sal almal saamstem dat die kommersiële banke, toe daar voorspoed was en toe die geld volop was, te rojaal gewees het met hulle voor skotte en te gewillig was om die volk te help, maar toe die dag gekom het, toe gebeur wat ons gesien het in 1920 en wat die boerebevolking nie maklik sal vergeet nie, toe die moeilikhede gekom het, toe was die kommersiële banke nie meer ge willig om te help nie, toe het hulle hulle hulp terug getrek. Toe die tydperk aangebreek het, het die banke ons boere in die steek gelaat en hulle het maar moet sien hoe om hulle self te red. Dis ’n baie prysenswaardige stap van die edelagbare die Minister, maar ek vrees dat Klousule 11 die grote struikelblok sal gaan wees in sy Wetsontwerp. Sodra die lede afsonderlik en gesamentlik verantwoordelik gestel word vir skulde en laste, sal jy die groot gros wegdrywe. Hulle sal nie bereid wees om deel te neem nie. Nou sal edele lede vra, wat mens in die plaas daarvan kan stel? Enige edele lede, onder andere die edele lid vir Klerksdorp (de hr. Smit) het al aan die hand gegee, dat ons die verpligtinge moet distribueer, dat dit nie allenig moet val op die lede van die bank nie. As dit gedaan word sal ons die groot gros van die bevolking kry, maar die boerebevolking is deur die mislukkinge van dergelike banke in die verlede kopsku geword en die Klousule 11 sal oorsaak wees, dat die saak geen sukses gaan wees nie. Ek hoop dat die Gekose Komitee besondere aandag sal gee aan Klousule 11. M.i. is die Wetsontwerp na ’n verkeerde komitee verwys. Daardie Komitee het al meer werk as hy kan afdoen. Die Openbare Rekeninge Komitee het al so veel werk te doen met al die rekeninge, dat dit amper onmoontlik vir hulle is om nog meer werk te doen. Ek het al vroeër daarop aangedring om meer kommissies aan te stel met minder lede. Waarom nie ’n kommissie aan gestel met spesiale bevoegdheid in hierdie geval? Ons kan die kommissie in die Huis kry. Daar is lede wat spesiale studie gemaak het in die rigting en ek dink, ons kan ook genoeg lede kry om die kommissie te vorm. Die kommissie behoef nie so groot te wees nie. Ons het in die laaste tyd te werk gegaan met ’n paar grote kommissies, wat al die werk moet doen, terwyl, m.i., deur ’n aantal kleinere kommissies die doel beter bereik kan word. As ons so’n kleine kommissie in hierdie geval aanstel, dan sal die beter aan die doel beantwoord. Ek juig van harte toe die poginge om die boerebevolking selfstandig te maak en ondersteun die Regering daarin ten volle. As ons kan kom tot wat bereik is in Denemarke op die gebied van landbou en wat betref die kredietstelsel, dan wens ek die edelagbare die Minister geluk, as hy dit kan bereik.

I rise to support this Bill, but I trust that in Select Committee they will consider not only what is in the Bill, but other matters germane to the same principle. Unfortunately, up to the present, farmers in this country, and in other countries, have had to sell their products to suit the merchant. They are not in a position to withhold the sale of the commodity until it suits them to sell, that is, when the position is favourable. They have to sell at the moment, to the merchants. It is very difficult to control quantity or quality of agricultural produce. On the other hand, we know that in the manufacturing line it is easy to regulate exactly the quality and quantity, and therefore, it is of the utmost importance that legislation should be brought in to enable the producer of the commodity, the farming class, to have some profit from the price of the output. In this country we know that in the past the merchants have had all the power over the farmers. In regard to wheat, we know that when the harvest is being produced, that a number of ships laden with wheat arrive from oversea, with the object of bringing down the price of the farmers’ product here. They know full well, by bringing about that position that the farmers being unable to withhold, they have to sell. Therefore it is necessary that we should introduce into this country conditions which exist in the United States, Canada, and Australia, a system to enable the farmers to withhold their commodity until such time as they wish to dispose of it. In the United States, and in Canada, they have a system whereby the State Bank advances money in exchange for a certificate from the warehouse. In other words these warehouses are practically controlled by the agricultural department, and when the commodity is specially graded the warehouse gives a receipt of the grading of the article. Besides this, the product in the warehouse is insured and with the receipt from the warehouse and the insurance policy, they are enabled to obtain a loan from the State Bank. In the United States they advance practically up to 80 per cent. of the value of the commodity. If it were possible to get an average of 60 per cent. here, we would find that the farmers would be able to withhold their commodities until the time was favourable, which they are not able to do at the present time. We know full well that the harvest is not always at the time when there is a demand by the consumer, but in a system of warehousing, the farmer could put on sufficient to suit his own plans, the price, and the consumer. These conditions must be brought into being unless we are to allow the farmers of this country to be practically in the power of the merchant classes. We know full well that only 25 per cent. of the purchase price of the commodity really goes into the hands of the producer. We have, for instance, the remarks made by Professor Paul T. Cherington, of the United States, who gives interesting statistics and who makes out a typical case of the components of the retail price of an article, in arriving at the following figure. The prime cost, that is, the material and labour necessary for the production or manufacture of an article is 25d.; the manufacturers’ cost of doing business is 22d. and his profit is 3d.; the price of the wholesaler is 50d.; the wholesalers’ cost of doing business, such as advertising, etc., is 13d.; the wholesalers’ profit is 2d., which increases the prime cost from 25d. to 65d. to the retailer. The retailers’ cost of doing business is 25d., and the retailers’ profit is 10d. This makes the price to the consumer of l00d. Under the system of warehousing commodities, we do not do away with the manufacturers’ cost, but we do away with the middleman’s costs and profits, and the retailer’s cost and profit. In other words, if we adopt the warehouse system, we would reduce the cost of the commodity by over 32 per cent., which would be a benefit not only to the consumer, but also to the producer. I hold that a Select Committee should consider and create some means whereby we can eliminate not only the wholesaler, but the retailer. We know full well, from statistics, that wasting costs are 50 per cent. of the total, and if we calculate on the average profits of the commodity we get practically 15 per cent. This will show you clearly the enormous advantage of Government controlled warehouses. If this Select Committee would only follow the precedent in other countries, it would redound to the credit of the Government, and every institution in this country. For instance in Australia 93 per cent. of the wool produced there is warehoused, and as security it is held by the Government for loans advanced, until sold at annual auction sales. This 90 per cent. of wool, in Australia, is placed in the warehouse, and not only is the farmer benefited by getting the cash advance, but through the Government holding that security, it is very particular in the grading, the result being that Australian wool is the best graded wool, exported. The Government by bringing the producer and the consumer together, will not only benefit themselves, but will benefit the whole country. In referring this matter to the Select Committee, I ask that the Government should see that a channel is made for the farmer to send his products to the consumer, and also to facilitate grading and warehousing, so that the farmer can get a larger percentage on loan than he otherwise would, and thus be able to carry on his business. We know that at the present time the manufacturer can quite easily get an advance through the ordinary channel, but the farming community, their produce being of a perishable nature, are unable to get the same, therefore, I trust that through the warehouse system and the State Bank, facilities will be given to the producers in this country.

Ek verwelkom die Wetsontwerp, maar daar is ’n klousule wat ek nie mee akkordeer nie. Ek is daarvoor dat die Wetsontwerp sal verwys word na ’n Gekose Komitee met die allenige doel die Wetsontwerp te behandel. Ek meen seker dat die edelagbare die Minister meen, dat die Wetsontwerp nog hierdie sitting wet sal word en die Publieke Rekeninge Komitee is baie besig en ek vra, of daar een man op is, wat van die boer se sake en moeilikheid genoeg weet. Hier is genoeg manne, wat die nodige bekwaamheid besit en dit sal beter wees dat die Wetsontwerp na so’n Komitee verwys word, waarop ek graag sou sien, dat die praktiese boere in die Huis verteenwoordig sal wees. As hulle boere van buite daarop aanstel, dan is die moeilikheid wanneer moet die boer daar wees, daar die Komitee soveel ander werk het; daarom is ek liewer vir ’n spesiale Selekt Komitee.

We have had a very interesting discussion, and I am glad to find that the principles of the Bill have been welcomed by both sides of the House, I do not intend to deal with the points which have been raised in regard to the principles of the Bill, because I think these matters should be best left to the Committee. I am sure it will be of great advantage to the Committee to have heard the views expressed by hon. members on both sides of the House. There is only one point I wish to refer to, and that is the question of sending the Bill to a special Committee and not to the Public Accounts Committee. Hon. members have objected to this being sent to the Public Accounts Committee, because they say that the Committee will not have time to deal with it. I have ascertained from the Chairman that if the Bill is referred to them, they will start on it at once, and carry it through until they have finished with it, and they will be able quite easily, not perhaps easily, but comfortably, to find the necessary time to deal with the Bill. As I said when introducing the motion, the Standing Rules and Orders Committee will be asked to include two members who are practical farmers, to give advice as the result of their experience. I think the House will be well advised to accept the motion to send the Bill to the Public Accounts Committee, constituted in the manner I have intimated.

Motion put and agreed to.

moved—

He said: I do not think it is necessary at any great length to take up the time of the House in expounding the principles of this measure, as they are clearly expressed in the various clauses of the Bill. Neither do I think it necessary to emphasize very strongly the necessity of a Bill of this character, to meet with the unfortunate condition of affairs which has arisen through the unprecedented drought through which this country has passed for the last year or two, and the manner in which the damage wrought by the drought has been considerably accentuated by the large number of locusts which have done so much damage to the pasturage. The conditions are well-known to hon. members of this House, and I refer more especially to the districts in the western portion of the Transvaal and the north-western portion of the Orange Free State, where the condition of affairs, owing to drought, is of a most serious character indeed. Fortunately, the drought in most cases has broken up, and copious rains have fallen, but many people have been unable to take advantage of the breaking up of the drought and the rains that have fallen, and it is for the purpose of seeing whether it is not possible for us to come to the assistance of these people that this Bill, which is now before the House, has been introduced The Bill is modelled very largely on the lines of the Bill which was introduced into this House in 1916, when provision was made to deal with certain districts in the Cape Province which had been subjected to very severe drought followed by rains which were responsible for heavy floods taking place. In that instance we had to deal only with a couple of districts and a Commission was appointed which travelled through the districts and made recommendations upon which the Land Board acted. In the position in which we find ourselves at the present time I think that would be rather too slow a process. The distress to-day is very great indeed, and in dealing with that distress any steps which may be taken by this House should be taken as quickly as possible. It was only to-day that I received a telegram from the president of the Agricultural Union of the four provinces, pointing out how strong were the representations which had been made to the Agricultural Union that this Bill should be dealt with as soon as possible. I would make an appeal to hon. members of this House, as the recess will very soon take place, to let the Bill go through as soon as possible, so that it can then be forwarded to another place and come into operation before the House rises for the recess. The Bill, as I have said, is modelled largely on the Bill which was introduced in 1916, except that we make special provision for certain areas of the country to be declared “drought-stricken areas,” and though the general administration is in the hands of the general manager of the Land Bank, he is to be assisted by committees in each proclaimed district, a committee consisting of three members, one the magistrate of the district, and the other two, representative farmers, with special knowledge of local circumstances and of the requirements of the case. In 1916, if may interest hon. members to know, though some £50,000 was expended in relief principally in the district of Willowmore; when that Bill was before the House, many views were expressed that we were embarking on a very hazardous policy, yet there is only £600 outstanding of all the money which was advanced to the farmers. True, it would not be fair to keep the House in the dark as to the amount of money which the Land Bank expended in administering that Bill. This was something in the neighbourhood of £4,000. Practically every penny of that £50,000 has been recovered and I would ask hon. members of this House who know all the circumstances, that the loss of £600, plus the administrative charges, were they not more than justified in view of the fact that they had kept the people on the land, who otherwise would have migrated into the towns and been added to the numbers of the unemployed? I think that the House can readily agree to the provisions of this Bill when, with the experience of 1916, it is a self-evident fact that deserving people can be helped without any great loss to the finances of this country. I would like the House to understand at once that this is not a general relief Bill for the relief of distress throughout the whole of the country, it is a Bill framed and designed to meet the requirements of a certain class of people, and those are people who are occupiers of the land, and who in every circumstance are deserving people, whose characters are above reproach, and whose losses are due to the unprecendented droughts through which they have passed. I have been asked in connection with this Bill why has it not been of a more extended character, and I have been asked by an hon. member of this House why this Bill and the Bill moved by my hon. friend, the Minister of the Interior, should not be incorporated in the same measure. This is a Bill of a different character to that moved by my hon. friend, because the Bill proposed by him is for the purpose of dealing with rural credit on an entirely different basis—and not to deal with an emergency such as this Bill proposes to do. The person to be benefited under this Bill must be the owner or occupier of the land, and it must be made perfectly clear that he is in a position through drought, and through no circumstances over which he had control himself, of not being able to carry on his farming operations; but if the State should come to his assistance he will be in a position to rehabilitate himself and remain on the land and not drift into the towns to swell the numbers of the unemployed, of whom there are too many at the present time. The committee appointed in the proclaimed district must be satisfied as to the character of the individual, and the manager of the Land Bank, before he makes advances, must also be satisfied as to his character. Hon. members will see there are two descriptions of loans in this Bill. In 1916 we made loans for the purchase of stock, but in this Bill we are making loans for the purchase not only of stock, but for implements, fertilizers and seeds. Payment so far as the advances are concerned, so far as the stock loans are concerned, begin within 15 months after the granting of the loans, and the Bill requires them to be paid in three yearly instalments afterwards. When the Bill is in Committee I am prepared to reconsider this period. In 1916 farmers were able to repay within the three year period, the loans which they had received, but it was largely due to the fact that after 1916 the price of live stock increased very much indeed, so that the man who got a loan of £300 in 1916 to buy live stock, found that in a couple of years time that live stock had practically doubled in value. I am prepared to give this period of three years further consideration as I think that three years is a little too short, and it may be advantageous to extend it to five years. The animals which are given to deserving people practically remain the property of the Land Bank. They and their increase are branded and cannot be dealt with except by the authority of the Bank. You cannot introduce legislation of this sort for the purpose or helping individuals and trying to keep them on the land if, immediately these loans are granted, creditors could step in and take over the stock. Some provision must be made in so far as a man’s credit is concerned, that when a man gets his live stock he should not be deprived of that stock, given to him by the State. If he were so deprived he would be in no better position than he was before. If you get a suitable class of man and make provision with the Land Bank, the Bank should be the owner of that stock until the man pays off his debt. There are a large number of people, who if they are helped in this way, will be able to rehabilitate themselves. I have some knowledge of some of the drought-stricken districts in this country, and my mind goes back to the year 1883 when I remember in the Karroo men who had 3,000 or 3,500 sheep, and after the drought of 1883 many of these people had only 300 sheep left, and wherever they were not unduly pressed, it was found, as has often been found in the experience of this country, that two or three good seasons following the drought enabled them to rehabilitate themselves within the three or four years. There is another departure from the Bill of 1916, and that is where hon. members, and I see them on all sides of me, owing to the drought and the failure of the crops in their districts, have been coming to the Agricultural Department for advances of seed. We are now in March and shall soon be in the month of April, the sowing season, and we have provided for the advance of seed in this Bill. The hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) came to me a couple of years ago with a deputation from the part of the country which he represents—in connection with seed advances. The divisional council of Calvinia gave security for the seed, which was advanced; in this Bill we now make provision for the advance of seed, and I think it is a good provision. We lay down that in all cases where seed is to be advanced to farmers—to have an opportunity of taking advantage of a good season—the State shall have a lien upon that crop grown from the seed which was advanced to the farmer. Well, my hon. friend says the return of the seed that is a matter of detail. The hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) will be able to tell him that the return of the seed was rather a difficult business, because when the people got seed at a time when prices were very low, they did not like to be asked to return the same quantity of seed when the price of the seed had enhanced very much, owing to the fact that there was a failure. I think that is the best way in which we can deal with seed advances— that there shall be a lien upon the produce. I am inclined to agree with what has been said in the course of the previous debate, that there has keen a great deal of distress in this country in the past owing to the fact that there has been no legitimate rural credit of any sort whatever. People have obtained advances from time to time, the eventuality. Being that they pass a mortgage upon their properties, and when times get bad their creditors foreclose, and they cease to be land owners. True, a large number of people who will be helped under this Bill will not be land-owners, they will be what are commonly known as the bywoner class. They will be people who have been occupying land, who have a certain number of stock, or an interest in ploughing a certain quantity of land, and those people, unfortunately, during the last six or twelve months have been drifting into the towns and to the diamond diggings which, from knowledge I possess, is a most unfortunate thing, and is the worst place that a farmer of this class can go to. He goes to a diggings where, perhaps, one man makes a certain amount, but when you go through the whole of those places you will realize how little the majority are making, and when you see the condition in which their wives and children are living, I say it is a good day’s work in trying to keep them on the land, instead of letting them drift to places of that character. That is one thing which I hope the Bill will assist in doing. I want to say that this is not a matter of assisting them by doles; there may be, and no doubt there are, a certain number of people who may require assistance. Their distress may be so great that provision may have to be made to supply them with the ordinary every-day requirements of life, but this Bill does not attempt to deal with conditions like that, it simply purports to deal with deserving cases, who, after the fullest investigation, are shown to be in need of the assistance this Bill provides. They will be able after a couple of seasons to rehabilitate themselves, remain on the land and bring up their families and remain respectable members of the farming community. I only hope that hon. members will let the Bill go as quickly as possible to another place so that these investigations can be carried out and acted upon without delay. We already have reports from the various magistrates in the districts I have referred to, dealing with the conditions there, and I would like to inform the House that if this Bill is placed on the Statute Book the most careful investigation will take place in every individual case, as the intention is only to help those people who deserve help and who, by help, can make a success of their occupation. The hon. members for Hopetown (Capt. P. S. Cilliers) and Prieska (Mr. Coetzee) and Colesberg (Mr. Louw) brought to my notice the other day the fact that the Bill only makes provision for dealing with cases in which losses have occurred during the previous twelve months, and these hon. members also pointed out that in many cases the drought in 1922 was a more severe one than in 1923, and that the people had not been able to rehabilitate themselves. When the Bill comes into Committee I am quite prepared to consider that proposition, because I have made enquiries and found it is correct. I found in this respect that in Prieska the South-Western Transvaal and North-Western Free State greater losses had occurred in the 1922 than in the 1923 drought, and I think it would only be fair to make such provisions. But I am not prepared in a Bill of this character to make it a general relief Bill. Its intention is to deal with definite cases, some of the most deserving cases— I consider—you could possibly ask this House to deal with, and I hope that in that spirit the House will not long delay the second reading, and give me every opportunity of putting it, with the least possible delay, through all its stages.

Hierdie Wetsontwerp is een van diegene, wat gelukkig, wat die beginsel betref, deur, ek dink, al die kante van die Huis kan en sal ondersteun word. Dis ’n baie ongelukkige omstandigheid wat aanleiding gegee het tot hierdie Wetsontwerp en dit noodsaaklik gemaak het. Ongetwyfeld is die omstandighede, waarin die boerebevolking in die algemeen die laaste jare verkeer het, baie ongelukkig. Daar is nie alleen die droogte gekom, die ernstige droogte in sommige dele van die land twee jaar agter mekaar, maar in dieselfde tyd kom ook nog die so ernstige besoeking van sprinkane. En nie alleen dit nie, as dit alles gepaard gegaan het met ’n toestand waarin die boere van die platteland betere markte gehad het vir hulle produkte, dan sou daar nog ’n kompensasie gewees het vir wat hy moes verlies in die hoeveelheid van sy produksie deur droogte en deur die besoeking van sprinkane. Maar terwyl aan die ene kant die produksie afgeneem het, het die boere aan die ander kant te doen gehad met vallende markte. [Een Edele Lid: “Wat omtrent wol?”] Dis gewis ’n uitsondering, maar daar is nie te veel wol van jou skape, as die skape doodgaan nie. Om die redes sal die Wetsontwerp, wat die beginsel betref, seker die ondersteuning hê van alle kante van die Huis. As daar net iets is wat ek betreur, dan is dit, dat die Wetsontwerp nie reeds vroeër op die Tafel van die Huis gekom het nie en deur die Huis gepasseer geword is nie en wel om twee redes. Die eerste rede is, dat veral vir die boere wat van sabaiery afhanklik is, hierdie Wetsontwerp baie laat kom, want daardie Wetsontwerp sal seker nie afgekondig wees en in werking kom voor sê die 15de van April en dan sal dit nog geruime tyd duur voor die hele masjienerie in werking gestel is en die nodige ondersoek gedoen is en ek dink in baie gevalle sal dit nie voor die saaityd wees nie. ’n Andere rede waarom ek dink, dat dit Wetsontwerp vroeër moes ingedien gewees het, is, dat baie van die boere wat in moeilike omstandighede verkeer het, het nie geweet van die Wetsontwerp nie en het in die tussentyd die toevlug geneem tot geldskieters, in plaas van goedkoop geld te kry soos die Wetsontwerp voorstel. Nou moet hulle deurkom met die dure geld, wat hulle onder die omstandighede moes geleen het. Ek betreur daarom, dat die Wetsontwerp nie vroeër ingedien is nie. Waaraan die toe te skrywe is weet ek nie. Miskien het die edelagbare die Ministers in die roses gewoonlik soveel te doen met andere sake. En die helfte van die Ministers het oorsee moet wees vir feitlik die hele tyd van die reses, sodat werksaamhede van hierdie aard nie op die regte tyd deur hierdie Huis aangeneem kon word nie. Nou ek wil graag in verband met die besonderhede van die Wetsontwerp ’n paar aanmerkinge by wyse van kritiek maak en die eerste is omtrent die rentekoers vir die geld. Die geld word gegee teen 6 persent. Nou wil ek net die edelagbare die Minister daarop wys, dat hierdie geld gegee word vir produktiewe werksaamheid, vir produktiewe doeleindes. Daar is deur hierdie Huis verskeie jare agter mekaar geld gestem geword vir huisbou en ek was een van die wat die voorstelle hartelik ondersteun het en ek dink van dag nog, dat dit ’n stap was in die regte rigting, maar ons moet nie vergeet nie, dat dit geld was wat geleen geword is vir onproduktiewe doeleindes en ons moet goed die verskil in die oog hou van geld geleen vir produktiewe en geld geleen vir onproduktiewe doeleindes en dat die geld wat vir produktiewe doeleindes geleen word, teen ’n laëre koers behoor geleen te word. Geld is geleen vir huisbou vir ’n groot gedeelte teen 4 persent en later teen 5 persent. Waarom word die rente vir geld wat geleen word aan noodlydende boere wat in hoë nood verkeer dan vasgestel op 6 persent? Die geld word volgens hierdie Wet geleen teen 6 persent per jaar. Dis waar die Regering ’n sekere mate van risieko loop, maar die edelagbare die Minister het volmondig hier erken, dat die risieko baie min is en daarom sou ek bly wees as die edelagbare die Minister sy weg sou oop sien, om die geld te leen teen ’n laëre rentekoers. As dit moontlik is—ek weet nie teen watter koers die Regering vandag geld kan leen nie—maar as dit moontlik is, dan sou ek graag sien, dat die rentekoers in ieder geval dieselfde sou wees, as waar teen die Regering vandag geld kan kry. En verder wat die rentekoers betref dit, dat selfs al sou die Regering die geld aan die mense leen teen verlies, al sou die verlies gedra word deur die Staatskas, dan sou dit tog heeltemaal billik wees en wel om die rede, dat die boerebevolking nie alleen die nadele behoor te drá, die skade behoor te lv, wat veroorsaak word deur droogte of sprinkane, waaroor niemand kontrôle het nie. Die verlies deur natuurlike besoekinge behoor gedra te word deur die volk in sy geheel. In tye van droogte, wanneer daar minder geproduseer word, het die produsent, behalwe die verliese in produksie, ook nie die kompensasie wat ontstaan sou deur hoëre pryse nie. Die verbruiker betaal nie die hoëre pryse nie, omdat deur invoer van buite die pryse laag gehou word, sodat dus die verbruiker altans betreklik nie altyd ly onder die gevolge van droogte en van plaë wat oor die land kom nie, terwyl die boer nie alleen ly deur die effekte van die droogte in sy produksie, maar hy mis ook die kompensasie van betere pryse wat ’n sekere vergoeding sou wees vir die verlies aan produksie. Daarom dra die boer ’n veel groter aandeel van die skade wat gely word deur droogte en plaë, dan die res van die bevolking. As dit uit die Staatskas geneem kan word en aan die boer geleen vir minder rente desnoods as wat die Staat self betaal in daardie tye van kriesis, sou dit ’n billike handeling wees en beteken dat die skade van die droogte billiker en egaler verdeel word oor die hele Bevolking. Wat betref die aan te stelle komitee’s, natuurlik keur ek die in beginsel goed, maar wil net die verwagting uitspreek, dat die edelagbare Regering by die aanstelling van die lede nie sal tewerk gaan, soas hulle meestal in die verlede met aȧnstellinge van die aard gedaan het nie, deur dit te doen op politieke lyne d.w.s. steeds net politieke aanhangers aan te stel en ander daaruit te hou. Waarom moet dit gedaan word, as wanneer dit geen politieke kwessie is nie, maar ’n saak geld, waarby ane partye belang het? Die edelagbare die Minister van Lande het onlangs ’n toespraak gehou, in die loop waarvan hy die uitdrukking gebruik het: “Show me a man of sense, and I will show you a member of the South African Party.” Die wonderlike ewewel van die geval is, dat so baie S.A.P. aanhangers dan so gedurig besig is om hul “sense” te verloor en dat hulle die S.A. Party verlaat en lede word van die Nasionale Party. Alle mense, wat logika verstaan, sal begryp, dat as elke man van “sense” ’n Sap is, dat nie alle lede van die S.A. Party “sense” het nie, en ek reken, dat die edelagbare die Minister van Lande daarvan ’n sprekende voorbeeld is. Die saak waarom dit gaat is een waarna almaal reeds lank verlang het, en wat sal bydra dat daar vertrouwe sal kom, as nie gekyk word net na die politieke man se gesindheid nie, maar na sy meriete. Ek is bereid om manne van die S.A.P. wat aangestel word op grond van hulle deursig en karakter te vertrou; en ek hoop dat die mense van die S.A. Party, ook sal tevrede wees, as daar lede van die Nasionale Party op dieselfde manier en om dieselfde rede aangestel word. My laaste punt is dat die Wetsontwerp in sekere opsigte nie ver genoeg gaan nie, maar dit het die edelagbare die Minister van Landbouw reeds erken, want die bewoording toon aan, dat feitelik net mense geholpe kan word, wat bankrot is of op die rand van bankrotskan staat. Dit lui—

As ’n man op daardie punt beland het, is hy bankrot of op die punt om dit te word. Maar tog is daar ’n hele klas van mense, wat ook nood het en nie vermogende mense is nie en hulle verkeer ook nie op die rand van bankrotskap nie en hulle kan nie gehelp word met goedkoop geld nie, daar hulle die toevlug moet neem tot geldskieters, wat hulle tot oor die ore laat betaal. Die effek sal wees, dat hulle die volgende jaar in die toestand sal verkeer, dat hulle onder de stelsel gehelp sal moet word. Op die plek moet die Wet ruimer gemaak word en ek meen, dat dit in 1916 die geval was. Dit is goed dat die edelagbare die Minister erken het, sonder dat ek daarop behoef te gewys het, dat in sommige distrikte, waarby my kiesafdeling gereken moet word, in 1922 ’n erger droogte deurgemaak het as in 1923. Daar is mense, wat ernstige verliese gely het en saadkoring van die Regering moes kry en in sommige gevalle was hulle in 1923 en dieselfde omstandighede as in 1922 of die toestand is ernstiger. Daar is ’n ander klas, wat in 1922 niks geoes het nie en weer saadkoring moes kry en die volgende jaar het hulle wel iets gekry, maar nie veel nie en miskien sal die mense nie onder die Wet val nie en omdat die oes in 1923 swak was, sal hulle nie in staat wees om die Regering te betaal vir die saadkoring nie, terwyl die toestand, waarin hulle gedruk word ruim so ernstig is as die van 1923, toe hulle die sware droogte moes deurstaan en ek vertrou, dat die Wet sodanig gewysig sal word, dat hulle ook gehelp sal kan word.

Dit spyt my regtig dat die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) niks kan bespreek nie, of hy moet daar politiek bysleep, soas ook in hierdie geval. In 1916 was in al die distrikte wat vertegenwoordig word deur Nasionaliste, soas Humansdorp, Graaff-Reinet en Aberdeen, byna al die lede van die komitee’s Nasionaliste; daar word nie gevraag of iemand Nat. of Sap. was nie, en ek hoop dat as die edelagbare die Minister met betrekking tot hierdie Wet vind dat daar drie of vier Nasionaliste die beste manne is in ’n bepaalde distrik, hy hulle sal aanstel. Die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) sal miskien nie vertrouwe hê in Sappe nie, maar die boere onderling het genoeg vertroue in mekaar om die werk goed te doen. Ek moet die Minister bedank daarvoor, dat hy gehoor gegee het aan die edele lede vir Prieska (de hr. Coetzee), Colesberg (de hr. Louw) en myself om die tyd uit te brei, want as dit sou gebly het op 12 maande sou die doel nie bereik word nie. In my kiesafdeling het ons drie jaar agtereen aanhoudende droogte gehad, en dit sou goed wees dat Klousule 3 so gerek word, dat die mense almal gehelp word. Die edelagbare die Minister het melding gemaak, dat onder die Droogte Noodlenigings Wet van 1916 daar nog £1,600 is uitstaande, dog die edelagbare die Minister sal vind in die laaste verslag van die Ouditeur-generaal dat daar nie meer as nog £218 uitstaande is. Die boere het eerlik rente en kapitaal terugbetaal, en ek veronderstel dat die asnog verskuldigde bedrag ook sal inkom. Ek wil die edele lid daar oorkant sê dat met die uitroeiïng van sprinkane in die distrik Britstown die edelagbare die Minister byna almal lede van die Nasionale Party aangestel het as beamptes, en daar tegen het niemand objeksie gemaak. Die mense het ook hulle werk, so ver ek weet, goed gedaan, maar die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) die moet objeksie maak, al kom die Regering met die beste ding ter wereld. Dit is ’n goeie Wet waaroor ons hier praat, en ons moet almal die Regering dankbaar wees vir die genome stap om so een Wet in te dien. Ek wil net die Minister nog meedeel dat ’n groot deel van Beervlei was onder water, deurdat die rivier afgekom het en daar is nou ’n groot deel grond gereed om besaai te word; die edelagbare die Minister kan dadel ik 300 of 400 sakke saadkoring stuur, sonder gevaar om daar verlies op te ly. Die grond is daar en die mense kan geholpe word.

Ek verwelkom ook die Wetsontwerp, en is bly dat die Regering eindelik voorwaarts gekom het met ’n maatreël wat enigsins hulp sal verleen aan die dele wat swaar gely bet onder die droogte. Dit spyt my dat die Wet m.i. nie ver genoeg gaat nie. Volgens die bewoordinge is dit duidelik dat net twee klasse sal gehelp word, dit is die grondeienaar en die okkupant; as leek het ek informasie ingewin en volgens dieselwe word bedoel die man wat aanspreeklik is vir die bebouing, maar die man wat werklik gely het onder die droogte, word nie gehelp nie; dit is die bywoner klas. Ek is bly dat die edelagbare die Minister dit voel, dat maatreëls geneem moet word om dadelik hulp te verleen aan die swaar geteisterde distrikte. My kiesafdeling is van die gedeeltes, wat die meeste gely het of altans ’n groot gedeelte daarvan. Ek het onlangs ’n telegram gehad om op een van die dorpe te kom kyk en die toestand te bespreek. Ek het die magistraat op my platform gehad, en laat my toe te sê, dat die informasie wat ek van die magistraat ontvang het was, dat hy alreeds honderd famielies had om kos te gee en dat hy binnekort meen, dat hy tussen die 300 en 400 famielies sou kry om kos aan te gee. Wat is die toestand in die Hoopstad afdeling? ’n Groot gedeelte van die Hoopstad boere kan net alleen mielies groei. Verlede jaar het ons ’n ongeevenaarde droogte gehad met die gevolg, dat nie een uit die honderd boere in staat was om ’n ploegvoor te trek nie. Die mense daar bestaan uitsluitend van die mielie produkt. Wel, hulle het met hulle hande in hulle hare gesit; dis waar, daar is pragtige reëns gewees, maar lede wat bekend is met die posiesie daar sal realiseer, dat daar ongelukkig net seker tye is dat mens mielies kan saai en toe die reëns geval het was dit te laat, en die mense is in die ongelukkige posiesie, dat daar hierdie jaar geen oes sal wees nie. Hulle kan die volgende jaar niks verwag nie, nie voor Augustus of September die volgende jaar wanneer die oes inkom. Die Minister sal insien, dat ons buitegewone toestande het. Ek appresieer die Wetsontwerp wat sekere klasse van boere sal help, maar die nood is van sodanige aard, dat mense dadelik hulp moet kry, en ek wil sover gaan en sê, dat hierdie Wetsontwerp die mense nie aan die lewe sal hou nie, want hulle moet vee koop en gereedskan en hulle het niks om kos te koop nie. Op die vergadering wat ’n baie verteënwoordigende vergadering was, is daar unaniem besluit en is die gevoelens uitgedruk, dat daar op aangedring moes word, dat die Regering dadelik “relief” werke in die afdeling moes begin. As die Minister konsekwent wíl wees, en ik meen hy wil dit wees, en as hy die boer op die land wil hou en wil verhoed, dat die boer sy grond sal opgee en na die delwerye sal gaan of na die stede, as hy dit wil doen, dan is daar net een manier om dit te verkry, en dit is deur dadelik “relief” werke te begin in die geteisterde streke. In Bothaville byvoorbeeld, een van die swaar geteisterde dele, vind ons dat daar oor die 12,000 kaffers in die distrik woon. Die magistraat getuig, dat in die laaste drie weke diefstalle onder die kaffers meer is toegeneem as ooit tevore; die kaffers het nie kos om van te lewe nie; ons weet, dat die naturelle wat daar op hulle land woon van die mielies lewe totdat dit ge-oes is. Vandag het hulle nie mielies nie en hulle moet hulle toevlug neem tot diefstalle. Ek is bly om te sien, dat die Minister die helpende hand wens uit te steek, maar ek wens ’n beroep op die Regering te maak om in die buitegewone toestande wat ons nou het, te help. Wat die Wetsontwerp betref, meen ek, dat daar ’n paar kleine puntjies is wat verduidelik behoor te word. Ek kom terug op die woord okkupant. Die Minister sal voel, dat die man wat nog ’n land eienaar is, of wat land kan huur, hy kan op één of twee plase krediet kry, maar ons het hier die bywoner klasse, die absoluut arme man, ek sal bly wees as ek die Minister misverstaan het.

Die bywoner is die okkupant—hy woon op die land.

Met alle beskeidenheid; ek is nie ’n regsgeleerde nie, en ek weet nie of die Minister ’n regsgeleerde is nie, maar volgens my informasie beteken die okkupant òf die man wat die grond gehuur het, òf die eienaar van die grond—die man wat verantwoordelik is vir die grond. Dis die uitleg wat ek gekry het. As dit die bedoeling van die Minister is om die bywoner onder die Wet te laat val, laat hom dit dan duidelik maak. Maar die magistraat van Bothaville het vir my gesê dat as die ontwerp Wet word, en as hy die Wet moet administreer, dan sal hy die bywoner nie kan help nie. Ek is bly van die Minister te hoor, dat hy meen, dat die bywoner ingesluit behoor te word. Maar ek vra hom om dit duidelik te maak. Dan is daar nog ’n puntjie. Klousule 3 maak voorsiening, dat iemand wat aansoek wens te maak om gehelp te word, dit binne drie maande nadat die Ontwerp van krag word, moet doen. Ek wens die aandag van die Minister hierop te vestig, dat dit ’n bietjie kort is. Ons kry byvoorbeeld gevalle van mense in die afdeling wat vir groot mielie sabaiery ingaan; ons het gevalle waar ons boere kry wat twee of drie span osse van ’n privaat persoon gekoop het, om voorwaarde dat hul elke jaar so veel van die koopprys sal afbetaal. Die man het hierdie jaar niks te verwag nie en hy kan sy pabaiement nie betaal nie. Miskien sal die krediteur wag op sy pabaiement net tot die ploegtyd en dan sal hy nie net die twee span osse vat maar enig ander ding wat die man het, as roukcop. Ek wens te sien, dat die drie maande verander sal word tot ses. Dit sal ons dan tot kort voor die ploegtyd bring, sodat enig persoon applikasie kan maak binne ses maande na die tot krag koming van die Wet. Dan sal ek ook bly wees as die edelagbare die Minister sy aandag sal gee aan Klousule 3 (a) wat bepaal, dat ’n persoon 12 maande agtereen op die grond geboer moet hê as hy applikasie maak. Mens kry toestande daar, dat ’n bywoner ’n seker tyd op ’n plaas gewees was en dat die eienaar hom dan daar afjaag; dis miskien drie of vier maande terug, en hy kom dan op ander land; sou die man dan nie in staat wees om applikasie te maak nie? Ek wil dit verander kry, sodat enigeen wat in die distrik woon en wat sy bestaan maak uit boerdery bedryf, applikasie kan maak. Wat betref die kommissie wat aangestel sal word, ek is nie so wantrouig nie as die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) wat betref die mense wat op die Kommissie sal wees; ek neem dit aan, dat die magistraat die mense in die afdeling sal ken, en dit kom daar nie op aan nie of ’n man ’n Sap is of ’n Nat, solank as hy die vertroue van die publiek het. Dit sou baie treurig wees as ons op elk gebied op partylyne te werk moes gaan. Ons het hier te doen met iets wat die ruggegraat van die land raak, en dit sou voorwaar treurig wees, ás party-politiek ’n rol sou speel in die nood van die mense, in gevalle waar die bestaan van die volk in die weegskaal is. Daar is nog ’n puntjie waarop ek die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister vir Landbou wens te vestig, en dis die geval van die man wat ’n lening het, òf van die Landbank òf van privaat geldskieters. Ons weet, dat die mense hulle jaarlikse pabaiemente moet betaal. Ons het nou die posiesie wat ek geskilder het, dat die mense geen inkomste sal kry vir 18 maande nie, ek wens nogmaals met nadruk te verklaar, dat dit uitsluitend die enigste inkomste is wat die mense het—die mielie sabaiery, en van hierdie jaar is dit ’n absolute mislukking, sodat hul glad nie inkomste het nie. Ons het die uitstaande gevalle van progressiewe boere wat ’n lening gekry het van die Landbank of van private geldskieters, maar ongelukkig is hulle in die posiesie, dat hulle hul rente nie kan betaal nie. Ek sal bly wees, as die edelagbare die Minister voorsiening sal maak dat die Kommissie, as hulle oortuig is, dat die man solvent is, in staat sal wees om die man ’n voorskot te laat kry. Ek wil nie, dat die Regering links en regs geld sal uitdeel sonder waarborg nie. Maar ek neem aan, dat die Kommissie uit mense sal bestaan wat goed op die hoogte van die posiesie is, en hulle behoor die bevoegde autoriteite te wees om te sê of ’n man solvent is of nie. Ek sal bly wees as die edelagbare die Minister sover kan gaan om die nodige voorsiening daarvoor te maak. Voordat ek gaan sit, wens ek ’n ernstige beroep op die Regering te maak. Die edelagbare die Minister het dit hier in sy toespraak duidelik laat uitkom, dat hy in erns is, en hy het dit in die sterkste bewoordinge veroordeel, dat die boer na die delwerye sou trek. Ek stem daar volkome met hom in, en elkeen sal instem met wat die edelagbare die Minister hier gesê het. Maar as dit so is, dan wens ek ’n spesiaal beroep op die edelagbare die Minister te maak en ook op die Regering, en ek vra hulle om daardie mense te help. Ek gee hom die versekering, dat honderde van die arm mense alreeds van die land af is en ons vind hulle nou op die delwerye van die Vaal Rivier. Elkeen van ons, wat met die toestand bekend is, kan getuig van die nood van die mense, daar is net één toevlug vir hulle en dit is die delwerye. Ek sê, dat dit absoluut noodsaaklik is vir die Regering om dadelik met “relief” werke te begin om die mense met kos te voorsien. Ek vra nie dat daar kos uitgedeel sal word nie. Ek weet, dat dit demoraliserend vir die mense is as hulle aalmoese aanneem van die Regering, maar ek vra die Regering om daardie mense werk te gee; hulle is bereid om werk te doen, en as hulle werk kry, dan meen dit dat hulle op die land sal kan bly, en hulle sal in staat wees om hulle land klaar te maak vir die volgende seisoen, en dit sal meen dat daar volgende jaar veel groter produksie sal wees. Ek hoop, dat die Regering hulle weg sal sien om die leemtes wat ek aangedui het te verander, maar indien nie, dan sal ek verplig wees om die nodige wysigings voor te stel.

Ek dink dat enige lid wat bekend is met die toestande van sekere distrikte op die platteland verwelkom die Wetsontwerp. Dis ’n stap in die regte rigting om die mense wat in treurige toestande verkeer as gevolg van die droogte, die sprinkaanplaag en andere plae waardeur die distrikte geteister is, te help. My kiesafdeling is ongelukkig een van die wat bitter swaar onder droogte en sprinkane gely het gedurende die laaste twee jaar. Ek het aan die edelagbare die Minister oorhandig die besluite wat die Landbou-unie in Ventersdorp geneem het en ek het vir hom gevra om die saak daadlik sy aandag te gee, om te sien wat gedoen kan word, ek dink die edelagbare die Minister het die besluite sy aandag gegee en dat dit ook die rede is waarom die Wetsontwerp reeds so vroegtydig voor die Huis gekom het. Die landbouers van daardie gedeeltes wat geteister is deur droogte en andere plae en wat ly onder die finansiële druk wat gevoel word oor die hele wêreld, so stem ek in met die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan), dat waar die mense gehelp moet word deur die Regering, die rente so billik moontlik gemaak moet word, want hoemeer die mense kan produseer, hoe meer inkomste sal daardeur verkry word en die eetware sal vir die volk goedkoper word en die Regering sal meer inkomste kry uit die belasting van die landbouers. Ek hoop, die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou sal sy kragte inspan. In daardie kiesafdeling kom baie van die arme mense voor wat nie grondeienaars is en wat ook nie grondhuurders is nie, maar wat stukke grond kry van persone wat baie land het en daar werk hulle hard. Ons weet wat die toestand van die bywoners is. Tref hy ’n grondeienaar wat hom goedgunstig gesind is, dan kan hy in tye van moeilikheid bly, maar anders moet hy weg. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal ernstige aandag gee aan die punte by behandeling van die Wetsontwerp in Komitee en ek wil vooral nog nadruk daarop lê, dat dit noodsakelik is dat die voorwaarde dat die man 12 maande op die land geboer moet hê, verander behoor te word; laat hy twee of drie maande daar wees en as hy in die tyd getoon het dat hy wil werk, dan behoor hy gehelp te word, want as dit nie gebeur nie dan word mense feitelik verder gedrewe na die stede en na die diamantdelwerye. Die feitelike bedoeling van die Wet soos ek die verstaan, is om mense op die platteland te hou. Ons kan nog verder gaan en ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou sal sy aandag aan die kwessie gee dat die mense op die land gehou word en dat meer en meer die grond bewerk sal word. Sodra as hulle geld kan leen om oor die moeilike tye heen te kom, is hulle gered. Hulle wil nie van gawe of gunste lewe nie. Hulle wil al die geld terug betaal, maar moet net geld hê teen billike rente om die swaar tye deur te kom. Sodra weer goeie geseënde tye aanbreek, dan betaal hulle die geld af. En wat betref die boere, wat nie genoeg grond het om geld te kry by die Landbank en wat nou na private banke moet gaan om teen ’n baie grote rente geld te leen, die moet gehelp word en ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou sal voorsieninge maak dat die mense leninge kan kry van die Landbank in tye van droogte en plae. As dit nie gebeur nie, dan sal meer en meer mense hulle eiendom op die land moet verlaat en sal die moet trek na die delwerye en na die dorpe en stede. Dit is die punte wat ek onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister wil bring, maar daar is nog een ding waar ek besonder nadruk wil op lê en dit is—soos ook blyk uit die besluite van die Landbou-unie in Ventersdorp—dat die publiek daar nie vra vir kos of geld nie, al wat hulle wil hê is werk. Hulle sê: “Gee vir ons die nodige werk, as ons nie kan geld kry om die sware moeilike tye deur te kom nie.” Ek hoop dat die edelagbare die Minister ook in die rigting sy bes sal doen. Laat die mense wat wil werk, dit is die arm mense wat die hulp nodig het; hulle sal dit weer terug betaal en wat deur die hulp vir hulleself ’n middel van bestaan sal skep, laat die mense gehelp word. Ons kan nie almaal geld gee nie want daar is nie geld genoeg nie, maar laat ons daardie mense help om oor die moeilike jare te kom. Dis vernaamlik die mense wat klein stukkies grond het, wat gehelp moet word en waar die nie met geld gehelp word nie, laat ons hulle daar help met werk. As ons op die wyse te werk gaan, dan sal ons die mense op die land hou wat vandag nog daar is en ons sal betere toestande vir die toekoms skep.

Ek wil net wys op ’n paar tekortkominge in hierdie wetjie. Ek dink dat verteenwoordigers van die westelike Vrystaat en westelike Transvaal nader bekend is as edele lede van die Kaapprovinsie of van die oostelike Vrystaat en Transvaal met die toestande wat geheers het gedurende die laatste paar jaar tengevolge van die droogte en die besoeking van sprinkane. Ons het die erns van die toestand gevoel en daar het herhaaldelik deputasies by die edelagbare die Minister gewees om daarop te wys, dat op die een of ander manier stappe geneem moet word deur die Goewerment om die mense te red. Daar is vandag twee Wetsontwerpe deur die edelagbare die Eerste Minister ingedien waarvan die een verwys is na die Publieke Rekenings Kommissie. Eintlik is dit tweelingswette en hierdie wette sal seker in grote mate tegemoet kom om die boerebevolking in die dele van die land te help om weer op die been te kom en daarom is ek die edelagbare die Eerste Minister erkentlik daarvoor, dat hy die Wet ingedien het. Ek sê daar is ’n paar tekortkominge en andere edele lede het al op sekere punte gewys. Ek wil nie oor dieselfde grond gaan nie, maar daar is nog ’n paar punte, wat vanmiddag nie aangehaal is nie. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Eerste Minister sal ’n bietjie aandag daarop gee. In die eerste plaas wil ek sê dat ons die Wet feitlik in goed vertroue moet aanneem. Hier staat alleen in Klousule 1 dat die Goewerneur-generaal sekere distrikte of gedeelte van distrikte kan proklameer. Dit is distrikte waar dit nodig is. Daar word nie aangegee nie welke distrikte behoort geproklameer te word nie. Ek hoop dat dit nie beperk sal bly tot een of twee distrikte, wat in baie moeilike toestand is en andere wat ook swaar gely het van die voorregte, wat onder die Wet gegee word, uitgesluit is. Ek hoop die Wet sal verder uitgebrei word. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister sal vind dat die hele westelike Vrystaat en ook die westelike Transvaal onder die bepaling van die Wet behoort te val. Dan —dis eintlik meer ’n saak van die Regering— as nou ’n plek geproklameer is, hoe lank gaan dit duur en wanneer sal so’n plek weer gedeproklameer word? Daar word geen voorsie ning hieromtrent in die Wet gemaak nie. Daar word kritiek uitgeoefen op die kommissies wat dikwels aangestel word. Ek wil die edelagbare die Eerste Minister dit sê dat wanneer hy die kritiek wil ontgaan dan moet die edelagbare die Minister die raad aanneem van die boerevereniginge, van die Landbou Unie en die ko-operatiewe vereniginge. Dis ongelukkig in baie opsigte waar, wat die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) gesê het. Dis nie ’n oppervlakldge kritiek nie. As die edelagbare die Minister die versobering wil gee dat hy met die vereniginge in oorleg sal gaan wat die aanstel van lede van die Kommissie betref, dan sal hy geen kritiek kry nie, want die vereniginge bestaan uit lede van die twee politieke partye en hulle sal seker die beste mense aanbeveel vir aanstelling in die Kommissie. Ek kan die edelagbare die Minister die versekering gee dat hy op die manier die bes moonflike Kommissie sal kry. Dan is daar ’n ander saak dis miskien iets wat in Komitee bepraat kan word, maar dit is dat die edelagbare die Minister die mense wat deel uitmaak van die Komitee heeltemal onvoldcende vergoed, en dat hy daarom nie mense vér van die dorpe sal kry nie. As dit so bly soos dit nou is dan sal hy net die mense uit die dorpe kry, of mense wat ryk is en uit hulle eie sak onkoste kan betaal, maar wat nie altyd die geskikste is nie. En dan die kwessie van die rente. Die koers van 6 persent is werkelik te hoog vir ’n nodlenigingswet, wat bedoel is om mense wat in nood verkeer te help. Daar is al deur die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) op gewys dat die rentekoers vir die bou van huise veel laer was dan nou voorgestel word in hierdie Wet. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal kan sien om dit te verander. En wat betref die terugbetaling dink ek dat die edelagbare die Minister ook ’n verandering behoor te maak. Hier word nou bepaal dat die geleende geld terug betaal moet word in drie jaar tyd. Ek weet, dit sal in sommige gevalle onmoontlik wees. Veronderstel iemand leen £300, dan moet hy elke jaar £100 terug betaal.

Die eerste betaling begin pas vyftien maande na die datum van die voorskot.

Dit doen niks van die feit af, dat die bedrag binne drie jaar terug betaal moet word nie.

Nee, in vier jaar drie maande.

Laat ons net sien wat die Wetsontwerp sê—

Ja, en lees verder.

waarvan het eerste verschuldigd en betaalbaar wordt na het verloop van een tijdvak van vijftien maanden na de datum van het voorschot.

Dis nie vier jaar en drie maande nie.

Maar hoe dit ook al sy, selfs dit is te kort. Die mense verkeer in baie moeilike omstandighede en hulle kan dit nie doen nie, want as jy sê dat dit terugbetaalbaar is in 36 maande en jy trek die vyftien maande daaraf dan meen dit dat die overige £200 afbetaal moet word in twee jaar. Ek dink dat die tydperk te kort is en ek wil voorstel dat die edelagbare die Minister die diskresie moet het om die tyd te kan verleng. Veronderstel, wat baie gebeur het in die land die afgelope jare, dat die man wat die geld geleen het en saad daarvoor gekoop het, daarop weer ’n misoes kry, dan dink ek moet die edelagbare die Minister die diskresie hê om die tydperk te verleng. Ek dink daar behoor ’n tydperk van minstens vyf jaar vasgestel te word, maar as dit nie gedoen word nie, dan behoor die edelagbare die Minister die diskresie te hê om dit te kan verander. Dan met betrekking tot die Bylae sien ek, dat die geld kan gegee word tot aankoop van vee en saad, maar ongelukkig word wat saad betref net daaronder bestaan koring, hawer en mielies. Dis nie die enigste produkte nie, daar is ander produkte wat vir sommige mense voordeliger is as koring en hawer, maar die uitdrukking “saad” is hier net beperk tot die drie dinge. Hier ook weer behoor die Kommissie, of die bestuurder van die Landbank, of die edelagbare die Minister, of wie dit ook al mag wees, die diskresie te hê om dit uit te brei. ’n Man sal miskien ertjies—[Een Édele Lid: “En katoen”]. Ja, en katoen wil verbou. Die edelagbare die Minister sal miskien weer aanmerking maak, dat ek altoos oor katoen praat. Maar in die gevalle behoor daar ook gehelp te word. Ek sou dus aan die hand gee om ’n bepaling in die Wet af te neem waarby bepaal word dat die Kommissie die reg sal hê om waar gewens, aan andere sade toe te staan, dan die bepaal in die Wet. Die punte door my aangegee sal seker die Wet meer prakties maak.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.10 p.m.

Toe die Huis verdaag het, was ek net amper klaar en wou net die edelagbare die Minister wys op die Bylage, waar dit handel oor die uitgee van saad en, wat beperk is tot hawer, mielies en koring. Ék vrees dat die artiekel sal ook moeilikheid veroorsaak, as so vas bepaal word welke soort saad uitgegee kan word. Dit verdien m.i. aanbeveling, dat ook ander sade, welke die Kommissie mag goedkeur, uitgegee kan word as iemand daarom vra. Neem b.v. die geval, dat iemand boontjies kom vra, omdat sy stuk grond goed is vir boontjies, dan is dit wenslik, dat die Kommissie die reg sal hê om bom boontjies te gee; is hulle van oordeel, dat wat iemand vra die gewenste saad is dan moet hulle dit kan gee. Dit is moeilik om dit te spesifiseer. Ek sal baie bly wees, as die edelagbare die Minister die paar punte wil aanneem en veral met betrekking tot één punt die Wet me al te streng toepas nie. Die tyd kan die edelagbare die Minister gerus van drie jaar verleng tot vyf of tot so ’n langer periode as hy sal goedvind. Ek verwelkom die Wet en erken, dat die invoering van so ’n Wet, veral vir ons in die westelike dele, van grote hulp sal wees—ek bedoel om opbouende kritiek te lewer.

Toe ek ’n paar jaar gelede daarop gewys het, dat die regte ding om die arm mense te red daarvan om arme blanke te word, was om die mense op die land te hou en nie eers dorp toe te laat gaan nie, was baie daarop teen en is gesê, dat ek altvd klaagliedere van Jeremia aanhef en net geld wil laat spandeer. Die tyd het geleer dat ek reg was; ons het die saak in die Adviserende Raad bespreek en die algemene opienie was, dat dit nodig was om iets in die rigting te doen. Die Wet gaat miskien nie ver genoeg nie, maar ek glo nie dit sal verstandig wees om hom vir die teenwoordige verder te laat gaan nie, want ons moet altyd in gedagte hou, dat ons te doen het met die belastingbetaler se geld. In verband met die aanstelling van die Komitees reken ek, dat die edelagbare die Minister sal verstandig handel om die landbou en ko-operatiewe verenigings in die verskillende distrikte te raadpleeg; nie dat ek dink dat daar op partylyne gehandel sal word nie, maar hulle ken die mense. Die aanmerking van die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) dat dit altyd op partylyne geskied, daaromtrent moet ek verklaar dat dit in my deel van die wêreld nooit gebeur nie, maar daar handel die Regering onpartydig. As jy die boerevereniginge en die ko-operasies raadpleeg, is ek seker dat baie goed gehandel word. Ons moet aanneem, dat ’n groot deel van die sukses van die Wet sal afhang van die Komitee en as in elke distrik die regte manne aangestel word, wat die regte raad sal gee, sal die Wet ’n groot sukses word. Ek dink verder dat drie en ’n kwart jaar soas dit nou in die Wet staan te kort is vir die., terugbetaal van lenings. Die edelagbare die Minister praat van vier jaar, maar as ’n mens dit goed nareken, is dit glad nie soveel nie. Stel die geval, dat ’n man ’n span trekdiere ’n ploeg en andere gereedskap binne drie jaar moet betaal en intussen nog sy lewe ook moet maak, dan glo ek nie dat hy dit sal reg kry nie. Ek juig veral die Wet toe, omdat dit gaat in die rigting om die mense te probeer te behou en dus te red voordat hulle na die stede toe afsak en arme blanke word. Hierdie Wet en die ander een, vandag deur die edelagbare Minister van Binnelandse Sake voorgestel, gaat beide in die rigting en die edelagbare die Minister kan seker wees van die steun van die hele land. Terselfdertyd dink ek, dat ons nie te ver moet gaan nie, maar net die nodgie hulp gee.

Ek verwelkom die Wet want dit sal in vele behoeftes voorsien. Dit lyk of die Wet sal kan uitgebrei word dat ons ook vir die mense beeste kan aankoop. Nog elke jaar is hier voorgestel om die arm mense met vee te voorsien; ek het ondervinding van die uitdeling van vee, en wanneer die Wet deurgaan is ek seker dat die Komitee sal sien dat dit een van die grootste werke is, wat ons kan en moet doen. Daar moet net so’n verandering aangebring word, dat die Wet nie net van toepassing sal wees op sekere geproklameerde distrikte nie, maar ook vir ander dele waar die mense geen trekvee het nie. Daar was nog nooit so’n goeie tyd as die teenwoordige vir die doel gewees nie, omdat die Regering die vee goedkoop kan verkry ten einde onder die Wet die mense te help. Daar is honderde en honderde op die platteland wat as hulle ’n bietjie steun en aanmoediging kry, seker nie dorpe toe sal afsak nie. Dit gaat vandag so, dat die arm man in die dorpe ook geen lewe kan maak nie; alle werkvakke is opgevul, en die mense moet van honger doodgaan. Dit is veral bemoedigend dat die doel van die Regering en van die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou is om die mense op die land te hou en die landbou vooruit te help. Ek sal baie bly wees as die edelagbare die Minister in sy antwoord hierdie paar punte van my ook wil behandel. Maar daardie edele lid hou die edelagbare die Minister nou so besig dat hy nie kan hoor wat ek sê nie, en ek vind dit vervelend Ek voel dat dit ’n oplossing sal wees, en daarom moet dit nie tot sekere distrikte beperk word nie, maar uitgebrei tot alle dele waar verdienstelike mense is wat hulp nodig het.

Wat zoëven aangehaald word door het edele lid voor Pretoria Distrikt (Zuid) (Gen. Muller) brengt ons weer in gedachte de uitdeling van beesten enige jaren geleden, en in verband met dat uitdelen van beesten aan de armen was ’n bepaling welke ik in deze Wet tevergeefs zoek. Klausule 3 bepaalt dat de Kommissie zich moet vergewissen dat de applikant eigenaar is van, of een kontrakt heeft op grond, waarop hy minstens twaalf maanden landbouwwerk verricht heeft. Dat betreft dus de twaalf maanden, die voorbij zijn, maar niets wordt gezegd van de drie en ’n kwart jaar die nog komen. Er was bepaald dat niemand van de beesten krijgen kon, of hij moest ’n sertifikaat vertonen dat hij een stuk grond te zijner beschikking had om op te boeren, als hij zelf geen eigenaar was. Voor een gewone bijwoner die de ene dag hier en de andere dag daar is, en niet zeker is van zijn grond om op te werken, behoort nog de voorwaarde ingevoegd te worworden, dat zij bewijs moeten geven dat zij het recht hebben op ’n bepaald stuk grond te wonen en te werken gedurende de drie en ’n halve jaar dat de beesten betaald worden. Ik acht dit ’n tekortkoming in de Wet, die gemaklik te verhelpen is door de invoeging van ’n bepaling ten effekte, dat zulke sekuriteit gegeven moet worden voor de terugbetaling van het geld. Dit is nodig, want dit is ’n noodleniging en hoe beter voorwaarden gesteld, en hoe beter stappen genomen worden voor de terugbetaling, des te meer vrijmoedigheid zaI het Parlement later hebben om de mensen in andere gevallen ook te helpen, wanneer erom gevraagd wordt. Een andere vraag is of £300 niet te hoog is. De meeste mensen die om hulp vragen, zijn niet welgesteld; zij hebben hun trekdieren of aanteelbeesten verloren, zij hebben geen oogst gehad, maar ik geloof niet dat de droogte schade gedaan heeft aan hun ploegen bijyoorbeeld, en daarom weet ik niet of het nodig is in de Wet te zetten dat zij ook met geld voor Werktuigen geholpen kunnen worden. Alc wij nu narekenen voor één persoon, zeg twaalf ossen tegen £8, dat is £96; 20 zakken zaad £20, en £20 voor kunstmest, dan komt alles nog niet op £150, en ik denk dat de meeste applikanten met £100 tot £150 goed geholpen zullen zijn. Men moet niet uit ’t oog verliezen, dat er altoos ’n neiging bestaat om zeer lichtvaardiglik te denken over het aangaan van leningen en over de terugbetaling. Wanneer de mensen voor £200 applikatie kunnen maken zullen er heel weinigen zijn, die £100 zullen aanvragen, want de meesten zullen het maksimum trachten in handen te krijgen. Ik denk daarom dat het goed zal zijn het maksimum op £150 vast te stellen.

Ek is bly dat die Regering tog sover gekom het om voorsiening te maak vir die nood in die binneland en aangesien ek een van die distrikte verteenwoordig, wil ek sê, dat ek bly is oor die voorgestelde maatreëls. Die edelagbare die Eerste Minister het verklaar, dat daar grote verbetering is sedert die mooi reëns wat geval het, maar ons moet weet dat die reënval breng nie dadelik gras nie. 80 persent van die mense het nie geploeg nie en die mense moet nou 18 maande wag om iets te kry uit die grond. Ons is dankbaar vir die reën, maar dit sal die boer nie dadelik help nie. Ek is bly om te verneem, dat onder die Wet van 1916 £50,000 aan die boere uitgegee is en dit terugbetaald is, sodat daar maar nog £600 uitstaande is en ek neem aan, dat die balans ook nog terugbetaal sal word.

Daar is darem £400 van afgeskryf.

Die Landbank het ook nog nie ’n pennie verloor nie en daarom meen ek, dat ons met die grootste vrymoedigheid die Wetsontwerp kan aanneem, sodat die mense gehelp kan word, dat hulle weer op hulle bene kom—daar sal geen skade gely word nie. Dit is die plig van die Staat en die plig van ons as lede van die Parlement om iets te doen in daardie rigting. Dis vandag ’n vreeslike toestand in ons land, om te sien dat die stroom van armblanke jaar na jaar vermeerder. Ek het die laaste keer by die bespreking van die armblanke kwessie al daarop gewys dat dit die plig is om te sien dat nie eers armblankes gemaak word nie en dat dan gehelp moet word nie. Die maatreëls van hierdie Wetsontwerp werk in die rigting om die mense op die land te hou. Ek het dit al vroer gesê en ek praat van ondervinding, dat die mense net die helpende hand moet kry en kan ek die edelagbare die Minister die versekering gee, dat die mense manne sal word. Die edele lid vir Hoopstad (de hr. Conroy) het al op die punt gewys en ek wil dit ook nog weer doen, dat dit van die grootste belang is dat die arme bywoners gehelp word. As daarvoor onder die Wetsontwerp geen voorsiening gemaak word nie, dan hoop ek dat ons verder in Komitee die ding gaan reg maak, ’n Andere gevaar, waarop al deur die edele lid vir Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) gewys is, is dat die Wetsontwerp alleen voorsieninge maak om die mense te help wat feitelik bankrot is, wat uitgeboer is, wat geen stap voorwaarts meer kan doen nie. Dis nie genoeg nie. As iemand agteruit gegaan is, dan behoor hy onder hierdie Wetsontwerp ook gehelp te word. Wat die aanstelling van die kommissies betref, behoor die edelagbare die Minister baie versigtig te wees. Laat dit manne wees wat die vertroue van die distrikte geniet en as hy ons die versekering wil gee, dan sal die grootsmoontlike sukses behaal word. Ek besef die groot moeilikheid om onder een Wetsontwerp al die mense te bring, maar ek hoop seker dat tog ook iets gedoen word om die mense wat reeds op die delwerye en dorpe is te help, dat ons die mense weer terug kan bring, dan sal hulle weer wees ’n bate van die land in plaas van ’n las. Die Regering het die eerste stap geneem, ek hoop hy sal verder gaan om ook in daardie behoefte te voorsien. Ek verteenwoordig ’n distrik waar die mense baie hard ly en ek hoop dat die mense onder die Wetsontwerp sal gebaat word. ’n Andere ding, waar andere edele lede ook al op gewys het, is dat die tydperk van drie maande in Komitee verander behoor te word. Ek hoop dat dit minstens verlengd sal word tot ses maande, dan kom dit net mooi tot voor die ploegtyd. Ons boere mense is baie huiwerig om skulde te maak en hulle wil ook nie so lang voor die tyd skulde maak nie, maar as hulle by die ploegtyd kom, dan kan hulle applikasie maak om hulp te kry, as dit nodig is, en in die geval moet ingespring word. Ons moet die boere nie mismoedig nie, maar aanmoedig. ’n Andere kwessie, en dis ’n baie onbillike ding, waarop ook al deur andere edele lede attent is gemaak, is die feit dat alleen persone wat 12 maande op die grond gewoon het, gehelp kan word. Dis ’n onbillike voorwaarde, veronderstel die man het van ’n ander distrik daarheen getrek, hy is nege maande daar en is deur droogte uitgeboer. Die man kan nie gehelp word nie. Dis nie billik nie, en ek hoop dat die edelagbare die Minister so billik sal wees om as daar so’n amendement kom, om die amendement aan te neem. Daar is nog baie andere dinge, waarop edele lede ook al gewys het en ek hoop dat die in Komitee reg gemaak sal word. Ek wil nie in besonderhede gaan nie, want ek wil ook graag dat die Wetsontwerp so spoedig moontlik aangeneem word, want dis in die belang van die boere, en dis ’n dringende noodsakelikheid. Ek is bly dat die Wetsontwerp deur almaal goed ontvang is en ek is seker daarvan dat nie een enkele stem daarteen sal gaan nie, want as die boer ly, dan ly alle klasse. Ek is bly dat nog geen enkele edele lid van die wetsgeleerde of kommersiële klas daarteen sy stem het laat hoor nie, en ek twyfel nie daaraan nie of die voorsteI sal unaniem aangeneem word nie.

It is unfortunate that we are in a position that such a Bill as this should be necessary, but I quite agree that the Bill is necessary, and will be willing to vote for it even if I have not the optimism which the right hon. the Minister of Agriculture has, as to the result. I do think he is unduly optimistic if he is basing it upon the result of the 1916 Act, for in this Act he is including seed, and if he will look up his records he will find that with regard to the provision for seed the losses have been considerable. We have lost already some £2,400 and there is some £11,000 outstanding in connection with that. I think the right hon. the Minister shows his optimism also when he provides that these people shall pay back these advances in yearly instalments for three years of £100 per year. I do not know how these people who are down and out are going to pay this. I think it is expecting too much of them, and I feel sure that the advances will not be paid back in that time. Of that the right hon. the Minister may be pretty sure. But the reason why I got up on this Bill at all, is to deal with two matters in the Bill which I do not think should pass as they stand. One is that the right hon. the Minister says in Clause 1—

That is the form of legislation we have got into; of leaving everything to proclamation by the Government. The provisions of the Bill are to be applied only to drought-stricken districts, so why does the Bill not say so? Why should it be left to the Government to decide this afterwards? Then the other point is with regard to the finance. In Clause 2, sub-section (1) it says—

Further on in Clause 2 it says that—

Further on it says that—

We set off right from the beginning that the expenses will remain on the loan fund, but when you have got your repayments made, there will still be a balance remaining on the loan funds. I am calling attention to this because we are getting into the way financially of getting money from the loan funds and the balances left are left on the loan fund. I think we ought to take the money advanced from the loan funds and that the Administration should take a vote from the revenue for the administration of the Act. That seems to me the only sound financial way of dealing with this, and I hope that in Committee the right hon. the Minister will cut out those sections, which say that the administration of this Act shall be paid out of loan funds and that it shall be done in the proper way by taking a vote from revenue for the administration of the Act.

Ek is bly, dat die edelagbare die Minister met die Wetsontwerp voor die Huis gekom het en ek dink, die distrikte wat onder die droogste en die sprinkane en andere plaë swaar gely het, sal daardeur baie gehelp word. Ek hoop, dat die publiek in my kiesafdeling wat baie skade gely het, van die voordele van die Wet gebruik sal maak. Om die Wet doeltreffender te maak sou ek in Komitee ook ’n amendement wil voorstel, om aan die end van Klousule 2 te laat volg, dat wat die aanstelling van die Kommissies betref, die edelagbare die Minister die boere-organisasies en die vooruitstrewende boere sal raadpleeg, dat behalwe die magistraat ook die boere vereniginge geraadpleeg sal word.

Ek wil my net aansluit by die andere sprekers, wat die Wetsontwerp van harte het verwelkom. Ek kan sê, dat dit ’n genot gewees het om te luister na die edelagbare die Minister van Landbou en ek beaam alles wat deur hom gesê is gewees, ook wanneer hy gesê het, dat veranderinge in Komitee gemaak kan word. Die edelagbare die Minister het ook gesê, dat ons met die Wet spoed moet maak en weer beaam ek dit. As die Wet nou so noodsaaklik is en die is noodsaaklik, waarom het die edelagbare die Minister die dan nie ingedien by die begin van die sessie nie, waarom eers drie maande gewag? Maar ek gaan verder en sê, waarom is die Wetsontwerp deur die edelagbare die Minister nie laaste jaar al ingedien? Die Regering was tog volkome op die hoogte van die toestand van die land. De heer Cross het die hele land deur gewees, die hele Unie, om te ondersoek in daardie toestande en hy het ’n treurige toestand geskilder. Vooral ook in my kies afdeling, waar hy gewees het, is die toestande baie ernstig, in die 4 distrikte Williston, Carnarvon, Prieska en Kenhardt en meneer Cross het daaroor rapport uitgebring. Daar word gesê, dat die boere vee het verloor tot 60 en 90 persent en daar word verder gesê, dat die boere wanhopig is, doodbloei en nie weet wat te doen nie. Hoekom is die Wetsontwerp dan nie laaste jaar al ingedien nie? Die edele lid vir Hopetown (Kapt. P. S. Cilliers) het ’n voorstel gemaak en ek het laaste jaar ook gepleit vir n dergelike Wetsontwerp, maar dis te vergeefs gewees. £150,000 is nodig gewees om die boere te help in die vier distrikte wat ek net opgenoem het, volgens die verslag van meneer Cross. Maar wat het die edelagbare die Eerste Minister gesê? Hy het geantwoord, dat hy geen geld het nie, dat dit te groot is. Hy kan nie help nie. En nou na verloop van een jaar, waar die toestand nog erger is as laaste jaar, nou kom die Regering met die Wetsontwerp. Nou vra ek nogmaals hoekom het die Regering nie laaste jaar die Wetsontwerp ingedien nie? Het hulle die laaste jaar nie gehoor die geroep, die gekerm om hulp van die boere? Waarom dan so lank getalm om die mense te red? Nou is reeds weer ’n groot getal gesink en is ondergegaan. Die edelagbare die Minister het by die begin van hier die sessie gesê, dat die toestand in die Transvaal so hartverskeurend was, dat dit jou hart breek, dat hy homself het moet inhou om nie te ver te gaan om die boere te help nie. Hy het gepraat van die weergalose lyde in die westelike Transvaal en gesê, dat die toestand hartverskeurend is en dat hy briewe het gekry omtrent die ellende in die westelike Transvaal. Maar ook die toestand in die vier distrikte Williston, Kenhardt, Prieska en Carnarvon is diep ernstig. Gedurende die laaste drie jaar het ons daar bykans geen reent gehad nie. Hier van die bo-land het die mense daar aan famielies kos moet stuur om die mense te red van hongersnood. En die toestand is vandag nog heel ernstig. Bbaie het na die diamantvelde getrek. Ek het verneem, dat alleen in die Lichtensburgse ring daar 10,000 in die diamantvelde is. Die boere trek na die diamantevelde toe, die boer is wanhopig, hy bloei dood. De edelagbare die Eerste Minister of liewers die Regering het sover baie simpatiek gewees teenoor die mense, maar hulle het nie met praktiese hulp gekom nie. Dit laat my dink aan wat dikwels gesê word: “Jy het die mosterd, maar nie die vleis nie.” Wat help mosterd sonder vleis en wat help simpatie sonder help? Wat het die Regering tot hiertoe gedoen? Seker hulle het saaikoring vir die boere gegee en ek is dankbaar daarvoor. Ek wil dit ook sê as die Regering iets goeds doen, en dit was edelmoedig om die mense met saaikoring tegemoet te kom, maar verder is daar baie min gedoen. Die waaksaamheids komitees is aangestel, maar wat beteken die? Hulle het niks agter hulle, hulle kan na die mense gaan en sê: “Julle moet nie mekaar opdruk nie,” maar verder kan die komitees niks doen nie, hulle kan nie na die Landbank gaan en sê, dat die man gehelp moet word met geld nie, en dat hy daardeur nog gered kan word nie. En daar die ko-operatiewe verenigings waar so baie van gepraat word en waarvan veral laaste jaar so baie gespreek is. Wat beteken die? Ek is jammer om te sê, maar hulle is bedoeld om nog meer arm blankes te maak.

Die edele lid moet nou kom by die Wetsontwerp.

Ja, ek kom nou net by die Wetsontwerp. Die vereniginge het niks gehelp nie. Twee distrikte in my kiesafdeling het daar nie eens gebruik van gemaak nie, Kenhardt en Prieska, hoewel die nood daar baie groot was. Dit bewys dat die ko-operatiewe vereniginge niks beteken om die boer te help nie. En dan gaan die edelagbare die Eerste Minister nog heen en sê dat hy hom moes in hou om nie te ver te gaan om die boer te help nie. Die enigste oplossing vir ’n goeie hulp sal wees soos dit geskied as in 1916. Daarom is ek bly dat die edelagbare die Minister gesê het dat hy gaan so doen as in 1916, toe die Regering £50,000 toegestaan het vir 250 boere. Dit was prysenswaardig en die volk is die Regering vandag nog dankbaar vir daardie hulp. En nou moet dieselfde gedaan word. Hulle het in 1916 die proef gehad laat hulle deurgaan op die weg. Die mense wat onder die „droogte gely het, moet net so gehelp word as b.v. die Regering gehelp het in verband met die sprinkaanplaag. Daar is £300,000 uitgegee die laaste jaar, en toe die aardbewing in Japan was het die Regering daardie mense gehelp. Laat ons dan ook die boere help wat nou in die moeilike omstandighede is, al kos dit miljoene, al kos dit ek weet nie wat, maar die boer moet gehelp word.

Ek wil nie soos sommige edele lede die Regering beskuldig dat gehelp word, omdat die verkiesing naby is nie, want ek gee niks daarom nie, solank ek maar net die boere kan gehelp kry. Maar nou kan ek tog onmoontlik die edelagbare die Minister maar so van die staansspoor af hartelik dank, soos die meeste edele lede gedoen het nie, want die Wet is vir my nie uitgebreid genoeg nie. Die Wet heet die Droogtelenigings Wet. En ek is so bang dat die Wet net gemaak is vir streke waar droogte is, waar droogte besonders grote skade aangerig het, en dat daar alleen die Wet toegepas sal word. Ek wil by die edelagbare die Minister nadruk daarop lê, dat die Wet in Komitee baie verbeter behoor te word. Die Wet moet nie alleen net van toepassing wees in gevalle waar daar grote droogte geheers het nie, maar die edelagbare die Minister moet toesien dat die arm blanke in die algemeen gehelp word met ’n kleinigheid. Kyk in my distrik. Soos ek vroeër al gesê het, is daar verskrikkelik baie arm mense. Nou is die ellende nie soseer gekom deur droogte nie, maar deur sprinkane, roes en haelstorme. Ons het daar party kere vérskrikkelike haelstorme. Die groot nood wat daar bestaan is meestal om vee te kry, en om die arm mense op die platteland te hou en te voorkom, dat hulle na die dorpe en delwerye trek, moet in die opsig iets gedoen word. Ek wil nie die Minister so seer vra om die persone geld te laat kry nie, maar hy kan honderde en duisende van mense help as die geld wat beskikbaar is goed gespandeer word. Baie mense kan hy op die land hou deur die mense net ’n span trekosse te laat kry wat die Regering by die teenwoordige lae pryse nie meer as omtrent £40 of £50 per boer sal kos nie. Dis ’n ou beproefde skema en al vanaf 1910 het dit met sukses aangewend geword. En jy hoef geen moeite te doen vir ’n sekuritiet nie, jy kan maar net die Regering sy brandmerk op die beeste set. Op die manier laat jy die mense op die platteland. Die edelagbare die Minister kan my woord daarvoor neem as praktiese boer wat vir die laaste 20 jaar met arm mense daar gewerk het, dat die groot moeilikheid is om die mense op die platteland te hou. Die grond kan nie meer bebou word nie en een van die hoofoorsake is, dat hulle geen osse het nie. Die Wet is nou ’n Droogtelenigings Wet, maar hoe word die mense gehelp wie se vee deur die krediteure is weggeneem. Die boere word altoos beskuldig om mense weg te ja van die plattland. Dis onbillik. Dis nie soseer ’n kwessie van grond nie, maar sonder trekdiere kan hulle niks doen nie. Ek het gesien, dat mense omdat hulle geen trekosse het nie, die klein kalwers, so gou as hulle maar net ’n bietjie opgegroei het al die juk oplê en die gebruik om te trek. Maar ek hoop, dat die edelagbare die Minister die Wet so sal verander, dat in elke distrik waar die mense dit waardig is en waar dit nodig is, iéts gespandeer kan word. Dit hoef nie veel te wees nie, maar as die mense maar net gehelp word met ’n span trekdiere, dan is hulle in veel gevalle al gered en die sekuriteit is daar. Ek hoop, dat die edelagbare die Minister dit nie oor die hoof sal sien nie en dat nie net sekere distrikte wat deur droogte gesteister is in aanmerking geneem sal word nie, maar dat ook andere distrikte, waar sprinkhane gekom het, of haelstorm of roes, dat daar ook die helpende hand gegee sal word. Ons moet net ’n bietjie dink aan die groot somme wat in die land gespandeer is, dan sal ons sien, dat daar tog seker ook nog wel geld sal wees vir hierdie doel. Dink b.v. ’n bietjie aan die irrigasie werke wat opgerig is en wat honderduisende van ponde gekos het, maar hoeveel mense word daardeur gehelp? Maar net ’n klein getal. En dink aan die graansuigers wat miljoene gekos het en wat, ek is bang, aan die end nog ’n mislukking sal wees.

Ons het tog die genoeë, dat die heer Littlejohn Philip ryk gemaak word.

Laat ons die arm mense wat na die stede en delwerye getrek het, laat ons probeer die weer terug te bring na die land en laat ons in die eerste plaas sorge, dat nie nog meer daarnatoe gedrywe word nie. Laat ons vir hulle die hand uitsteek en help met ’n klein sommetjie geld. Die kommissies kan aanwys waar die hulp nodig is. En laat die Wetsvoorstel nie net beperk bly tot streke waar droogte gewees het nie, maar laat daar ook onder van distrikte waar sprinkane gekom het of haelstorme. Ons weet dat haelstorme in die oostelike Transvaal dikwels verskrikkelike verwoestinge aanrig en ons moet daar die helpende hand uitsteek, want ek kan die edelagbare die Minister die versekering gee, dat in die distrik van Middelburg grote nood heers. Die edelagbare die Minister sal dit self ook weet, want dit het af en toe nodig gewees vir die Regering om kos na die streke, veral in die noorde, te stuur. Ek hoop dat Middelburg nie oor die kop gesien sal word nie.

Die edelagbare die Minister het die kans om van hierdie maatreël iets te maak wat so naby perfeksie sal kom as maar moontlik is, omdat hy wenke gekry het van boere wat werkelike ondervinding het opgedoen. As die edelagbare die Minister net gebruik wil maak van die kostelike wenke hom gegee, dan sal hy as die Wetsontwerp in verdere stadiums kom, ’n hele paar amendemente op die Orde Papier kan aanbring, want dit is seker, dat hier in die Wetsontwerp sekere beperkinge gestel word wat baie ongewens is. Ek wil aantoon, dat in die aanhef staan, dat die Wetsontwerp voorsieninge maak vir die leniging van die nood veroorsaak deur droogte in sekere distrikte. Dus die nood wat hier gelenig word is vir skade veroorsaak deur droogte alleen. Maar is dit dan die enigste nood wat lenigings vereis? Het ons nie al andere gevalle gehad? In 1916 het ons ’n dergelike maatreël voor die Huis gehad. Toe was dit ook leniging van nood veroorsaak deur droogte, en toe ons nog hiermee besig was, het dit nodig geword om leninge te verstrek vir nood wat veroorsaak was deur oorspoelinge. Verder het ons soms leniging gegee voor nood veroorsaak deur sprinkane. Ons het laaste jaar n besoeking gehad van sprinkane, soos nog nooit te vore in grote dele van die land en sulke dele van die land verkeer vandag nog in grote nood. Ons behoor nie net so’n noodlenigingswet te maak vir droogte, maar ook vir besoekinge van sprinkane, vir oorstrominge, haelstornie en wat dies meer sy. As ons die wisselvallighede van die land neem, vind ons dat ’n wet van permanente aard nodig is vir noodleninge en wanneer daar werkelike gevaar is in die een of andere deel van die land, dat so ’n wet dan in werking kan tree om leniging te verstrek waar dit nodig is. In die eerste artiekel sê die Wet, dat die maatreëls van toepassing is vir persone woonagtig in sulke distrikte of gedeeltes van distrikte as die Goewerneur-generaal by proklamasie mag bekend maak. Maar ek dink, dat dit baie wyer omskrywe behoor te word, want hoe gaan die edelagbare die Minister sy distrikte of gedeeltes van distrikte bepaal? Dit is somtyds so dat ’n sekere plaas in ’n streek daar groot skade word aangerig deur verwoestende haëlstorme. Gaan die Minister in so ’n geval help of nie? Elkeen in ’n sekere sirkel sal onder die bepalinge van die Wet val, terwyl dit slegs nodig sal wees om een of twee mense wat deur die haëlstorm gely het te hulp te kom. Dit is te onbepaald in die Wet, want wat sal nou val onder die term “distrikte of gedeelte van distrikte”? Ek hoop die edelaghare die Minister sal sy oog daarop hou, dat dergelike mense ook gehelp kan word en dan moet verder die terme van terugbetaling ’n bietjie meer lieberaal gemaak word. Ek hou my daarvan oortuig, dat as die noodleniging maatreëls op gesonde besigheidsvoorwaarde gegee word, dan sal die verlies baie gering wees. Ons het ondervinding daarvan gehad in 1916. Toe is daar ’n bedrag van £51,600 uitgegee vir die leniging van die nood en was die verlies maar net £419. Die leniging is destyds verstrek op gesonde lyne en die verlies was gering.

Moenie vergeet nie dat ongeveer £400 afgeskrvwe is op die lenings.

Wat die £419 betref sal dit miskien ook nog nie eens almaal verlies wees nie. Die edelagbare die Minister sal miskien inibrmasie daaromtrent gee, of van die £419 waarskynlik nog wat in sal kom. En al was dit die posiesie, dat daar enig verlies gely is, dan moet dit nie eens in aanmerking geneem word, wat hoeveel mense is daardeur nie gered geword nie? Die edele lid vir Port Elizabeth (Zuid-West) (Sir William Macintosh) het daarop gewys dat daar ’n groter verlies gely is op die saadverskaffing. Dit is wel moontlik, dat ons ’n verlies daarop sal maak van £10,000 tot £11,000. Ek wil dit aanneem, dat dit moontlik is, maar ons moet nie vergeet nie, dat die bedrag wat hier uitgegee is baie groter is, dit is £40,000 of meer gewees. Laat ons dit net neem dat in die tyd van gedruktheid daar ’n bedrag van £40,000 uitgegee was vir saad, en hier sal daar ’n verlies wees van, laat ons sê, £10,000; £30,000 het weer ingekom. Maar hoeveel mense is daardeur nie gered nie? Die £40,000 is uitgegee om die arme boerestand oor geheel Suid-Afrika te help en daar is baie van die mense daardeur gered van ondergang. As die geld nie uitgegee was nie, dan is dit heeltemal seker, dat baie van die mense ondergegaan sou het. As ons sou let op die verlies wat gemaak is, dan sou ons sien dat die Regering vir ander nywerhede, wat lank nie van soveel belang is as die boerdery nywerheid nie, groot somme uitgegee het wat heeltemaal afgeskrvwe is. Daar is die S.A.I.F., ’n present van £10,000 is aan hulle gemaak.

Ja, en ’n half miljoen vir meel is verloor.

Wel, ek sal daar nou nie oor spreek nie, maar ek sê, dat die £10,000 verlies, wat miskien gemaak sal word op die verskaffing van saad, nie iets is waaroor ons Behoef te treur nie. Ek hoop, dat die Minister, met die goeie Wetsontwerp voor hom, van die geleentheid sal gebruik maak van die advies, van die raad en van die ondervinding wat hy ontvang het van mense aan hierdie kant van die Huis wat weet, en ook aan daardie kant van die Huis, en as hy op daardie lyne te werk gaan, dan is ek dat hy ’n maatreël op die wetboek gaan kry wat ’n groot hulp vir die land sal wees.

Ek sou my plig versuim teenoor my kiesers en ook teenoor die Minister van Landbou as ek hierdie Wetsontwerp nie sou welkom heet nie. Ek voel net alleen jammer dat hierdie Wetsontwerp nie drie jaar vroeër ingedien was nie, -en ek sê, dat as dit drie jaar vroeër ingedien was, dan voel ek daarvan oortuig dat ons nie so baie arme blanke en nie so baie werklose in die land sou gehad het nie. Ek is van gevoele, dat dit die Regering baie beter betaal om die mense te help terwyl hulle nog op die land is dan om te wag totdat hulle arme blanke geword het of na die dorpe het getrek as werklose. Dit sal goedkoper vir die Regering wees om die mense te help terwyl hulle nog op die land is. Maar ek is bang dat hierdie Wetsontwerp die alombekende krediet stelsel van die platteland sal ondermyn. Daardie krediet stelsel was gebaseer op die wisselvallige toestande wat mens hier in die land aantref, en onder die stelsel het boere hulle toevlug geneem na die prokureurs, die banke en die winkeliers. En terwyl hierdie Wetsontwerp die produkte van die boere beskerm, teen beslag is ek bang, dat dit ’n opening sal gee om die vertrouendheid wat tusse die krediteur en die skuldeiser bestaan het sal skok of sal ondermyn, dat die hele krediet stelsel ondermyn sal word en dat dit allerhande moeilikheide vir mense sal skep. Ek sou die Minister aanraai om die tydperk van drie jaar onder hierdie Wetsontwerp te verleng. Ek meen, dat drie jaar maar baie kort is vir ’n man om die geld wat hy kry terug te betaal. Gestel dat in die drie jaar daar een jaar sou wees wat ’n mislukking sou wees, dis moontlik dat daar droogte sou wees of dat sprinkhane weer sou kom, en gestel dat die Minister daar op staan dat die geld terug Betaal moet word, dan sou hy in die eerste plaas die mense ruineer; dit sou aanleiding wees dat die mense geruineer sou word, terwyl dit anders nie sou gebeur het nie. Ek meen, dat om die rede daar ’n langer tydperk vir die terugbetaling behoor te wees en ek hoop, dat wanneer ons in Komitee is, die Minister daarin sal toestem om ’n verandering te maak Wat ek in die eerste plaas graag sou wil sien is dat die arme man gehelp sou word. Daar is baie skema’s om mense te help, maar dis meestal die man wat homself kan help wat gehelp wórd. Dis verkeerd. Ek is van insiens, dat die Regering iets behoor te waag om die man te help wat nie vir homself kan help nie. Die Wetsontwerp wat vanmiddag na die Gekose Komitee gestuur is was niks anders nie as genade, en hier is dit weer genade. Dit sal nou weer aan die genade van die kommissie oorgelaat word of ’n man sal gehelp word of nie sal gehelp word nie. En ek meen, dat dit in die Wet bepaal behoor te word wie gehelp sal word en wie nie. En dis ook nie duidelik nie in die Wetsontwerp waiter man aanspraak sal kan maak om hulp te kry. In my kiesafdeling is daar honderde plattelands boere. Hulle is nie arme blanke nie en hulle het nie hul toevlug in die stede geneem nie, maar hulle het na die alluviale delverye getrek, en ons weet uit ervaring dat net 50 persent van die mense ’n bestaan kan maak die ander 50 persent word arme blanke. As daardie mense gered kan word voordat hulle hul toevlug soek in die stede is dit honderd persent beter. Ek verwelkom hierdie Wetsontwerp en ek hoop, dat die Regering dit so sal uitbrei, dat dit ’n heil en segen vir die hele land sal wees.

Aangesien die edelagbare die Minister goed bekend is met die toestand in my afdeling, is dit onnodig vir my om te sê, dat ek die Wetsontwerp verwelkom, maar daar is darem ’n paar puntjies waaroor ek iets wens te sê. Ek is jammer om die Huis op te hou, want ek weet, dat die Huis angstig is om tot stemming te kom. Dar is ’n puntjie in Klousule 3, waar dit sê, dat die mense gehelp sal word in streke waar daar droogtenood is. Die edelagbare die Minister weet, dat ons vir twee jaar lank dioogte gehad het en ons het ook sprinkane gehad en baie ander moeilikhede, en die mense is vandag in sulk groot moeilikhede dat hul nouliks kan bestaan; die Regering het die mense saad moet leen, en ek verstaan van die edelagbare die Minister, dat die mense in sulk geteisterde streke nou onder hierdie Wetsontwerp kan gehelp word. Dan is daar nog ’n puntjie onder Klousule 4 (b)—die tydperk van terugbetaling. Ander lede het alreeds hieroor gepraat; daar is die kwessie van die lening van lewende hawe en landbougereedskap en die tydperk wat bepaal is vir die terugbetaling van die voorskotte is onmoontlik. Ons het hier te doen met noodhulp en dis onmoontlik om iets van die mense terug te verlang in twee jare. Ek hoop, dat die Minister dit in hierdie geval minstens vyf jaar sal maak; hy kan die eerste betaling na twee jaar maak; maar anders sal die mense nie deurkom nie as hulle die hele bedrag in twee jaar terug moet betaal; hulle sal net maar in moeilikhede geraak en dan sal hulle weer by die Regering moet kom aanklop. Dan is daar nog ’n puntjie wat ek wil opbreng. Ek is jammer, dat die Wetsontwerp nie verder gaan nie; as ons iets goeds wens te doen, dan behoor ons nie so bekrompen te wees nie en ons behoor nie so klein te wees nie. Ek beskou dit, dat ons bang is. Ander lede het hieroor gepraat en die kwessie is elke jaar opgebring; ons behoor voorsiening te maak om die mense te help. In my distrik het ons mense wat sê: “Ons wil gaan werk, maar ons het nie trekdiere nie; ons kan grond kry, maar wat kan ons maak sonder trekdiere?” Dis die soort van man vir wie ons hande diep in ons sakke behoor te set om hom te help. Hulle kan die grond kry om op te bly en om te bebou, maar hulle het nie trekdiere nie. Ek hoop dat die edelagbare die Minister nog ’n klousule in die Wet sal set, sodat ons daardie mense, wat grond het, met trekdiere sal kan help. Dan is daar nog ’n puntjie wat ek voor die edelagbare die Minister wens te bring, en dit is, dat wanneer ons die mense gehelp het met trekdiere of met lewende hawe, dat ons hulle dan aanteelvee sal gee. In 1907 het die Transvaalse Regering £80,000 hierop gespandeer; ons het daar £30,000 kontant by verloor, maar as ons in aanmerking neem hoeveel mense daardeur gered was, dan kan ons sê, dat ons vir die heil van die land gewerk het. As ons die mense aanteelvee gee, dan sal ons hulle in staat stel om vorentoe te boer; hulle sal die beeste nie kan verkoop nie, maar hulle sal melk kry vir hulle families en hulle sal in staat wees vir die toekoms te werk. Dan is daar ’n voorsiening in die Wet, dat as ’n mens met die lewende hawe van een plek na ’n ander plek wil verset, dat hy dan die toestemming moet kry van die Direkteur van die Landbank; ek meen, dat die magistraat die persoon behoor te wees wat daardie toestemming sal gee, want dis onmoontlik om telkens, as die man sy vee wil verset, die toestemming van die Direkteur van die Landbank te kry. Ek hoop dit sal verander word, en ek hoop dat die edelagbare die Minister daarin sal toestem om die Wetsontwerp degelik te maak en nie net ’n halwe stuk werk te laat.

Ek hoop dat die edelagbare die Minister my sal toelaat om net één punt onder sy aandag te bring. ’n Kort tydjie terug het ek ’n vraag gestel oor die verskaffing van saadkoring aan die boere in Ladybrand, Clocolan en Excelsior. Die Minister het op my vraag geantwoord, dat die saad koring hierdie jaar weer uitgereik sou word met die oog op die mislukking van die koring oes. Hy het verder gesê dat die voorwaardes, waarop die saad uitgedeel sou word, later bekend gemaak sou word. Ek het nou ’n skrywe ontvang van my kiesers op Excelsior; Excelsior val in die Ladybrand kiesafdeling, maar in die magistraatsgebied van Winburg. In die skrywe word my meegedeel, dat die mense van Excelsior applikasie gemaak het by hulle magistraat op Winburg vir saadkoring, maar hier is die brief van die magistraat dat hy nie instruksies ontvang het nie om saadkoring uit te deel; die mense wat onder die ander magistraatsafdelings daar val, kry hulle saadkoring alreeds, maar die magistraat van Winburg het nog nie instruksies ontvang nie. Ek hoop dat die Minister daarop sal let, dat die instruksies nou gegee sal word.

Ek kan nie hierdie geleentheid laat verby gaan nie sonder die toestande wat in de westelike Transvaal en die noordwestelike Vrystaat heers onder die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister te bring. Ons het by ’n. vorige geleentheid, namelik op die 18de Januarie, kragtig geprobeer om die Minister te kry om te kom kyk hoe hopeloos die posiesie daar is. Die antwoord van die Minister was toe, dat sy parlementêre pligte dit vir hom onmoontlik gemaak het om na Klerksdorp toe te kom om die boere daar te ontmoet. Dit mag so gewees het maar wat baie opvallend was en wat vir die boere baie eienaardig was, was dat terwyl die Minister vir Landbou getelegrafeer het, dat sy parlementêre pligte dit vir hom onmoontlik gemaak het om te kom, die Minister vir Verdediging daar, met die trein verby gekom het om ’n wapenskouing op Wolmaransstad te gaan hou. Die posiesie van die boere daar was veel ernstiger en veel meer belangrik as die bywoning van ’n wapenskouing. Die Wetsontwerp wat nou voor die Huis is maak voorsiening om te help oor 12 maande of oor 15 maande, maar ons moeilikheid in ons distrikte is, dat dit beslis noodsakelik is om dadelik voorsiening te maak, om sodanige voorsiening te maak sodat die boere deur die komende wintermaande salkan kom. Dit help glad nie om vir mense, wat twee jaar lank sprinkhane en droogte gehad het, en wat allerhande teisteringe deurgegaan het te sê: “In Oktober kan julle osse en ploeë kry, en in July volgende jaar sal julle dan miskien ’n oes kry.” Wat help dit om so aan die mense te sê as hul nou van honger omkom? Dit is die posiesie van die mense in die westelike Transvaal en die noordwestelike Vrystaat. Daar is duisende en duisende boere wat hierdie jaar nie die geleentheid gehad het nie om ’n ploegvoor te trek, duisende sal nie ’n enkele mielie win nie. Die kwessie is dus nou wat daar gedaan sal word. Die Wetsontwerp maak voorsiening om mense wat uitgeroei is, die volgende jaar te help, mense wat nog op hulle grond is, maar wat omtrent die mense wat daar sit sonder die minste vooruitsigte? Die Minister het gesê dat hy haastig is met die Wetsontwerp; ek kan hom sê, dat onsin die westelike Transvaal besonder haastig is; maar dit sal nie help nie om later in Mei beeste te verskaf; ek sou nie graag sien nie, dat ons boere, teminste nie baie van hulle nie, beeste al in Mei sou kry, want daar is dan nie geleentheid nie om hulle te gebruik, en die meerderheid van die boere sal nie weiveld hê nie. Hulle kan in die winter ploeë, maar wat sal die mense doen met die vee wat hulle in Mei kry en waarvoor hulle nie weiveld het nie? Dis een van die moeilike kwessies wat opkom. En tog—die Wetsontwerp sal hier en daar tevredenheid gee, dit sal hier en daar help, maar dit sal nie te veel help nie, want die meerderheid van ons boere, die meerderheid van ons bywoners het, toen die reëns nie gekom het nie, weggetrek en hulle is nou op die delwerye; sommige van die mense is op die bos plantasies, sommige van hulle is op die Hartebeestpoort Irrigasie Werke, en daardie mense kan glad nie onder hierdie Wetsontwerp hulp kry nie. Onder daardie omstandighede kan ek die Wetsontwerp nie verwelkom nie op die wyse wat ander lede gedoen het; ek kan dit nie verwelkom nie omdat vir ons boere in die westelike Transvaal en die noordwestelike Vrystaat daar dadelik voorsiening gemaak moet word, die nood druk nou. Die gevolge van die Wet sal eers oor 12 of 15 maande gevoel kan word. Die boere in die westelike Transvaal het die raad gekry om skaapboere te word, maar hulle het nie die vereiste kapitaal nie om skape te koop na die droogtes en die ander moeilikhede wat hulle gehad het. En dan nog blyf die vraag of die westelike Transvaal en die noordwestelike Vrystaat geskikt is vir skaap boerdery in normale jare. Ek sou die Regering wil versoek om die boere wat nog iets oor het nie aan te raai nie om somaar so al hulle geld in skape te belê nie, want ek is bang, dat hulle dan in ’n jaar of wat glad niks meer sal hê nie. Dis beter om te wag en langsaam aan te gaan om eers seker te maak of ons deel wel geskik is vir daardie boerdery. Ek wens die Minister te vra waarom hy afgewyk het van die aanbevelings van die Adviserende Raad; hy het ’n Raad aangestel, en wanneer dit vir hom te pas kom dan neem hy toevlug agter daardie Raad en dan gooi hy dit in ons gesig, dat ons nie die boere verteenwoordig nie maar dat daardie Raad dit wel doen. Die Raad het hom aangeraai om die landbouverenigings te gebruik in die aanstelling van die liggame wat bedoel is in Klausules 2 en 3 van die Wetsontwerp. Waarom het die Minister daarvan afgewyk? Die Minister van Landbou hou daarvan om rond te gaan en om boere aan te raai om te organiseer en om landbouverenigings te vorm, en hy het dikwels gesê, dat sonder landbouverenigings hulle niks kan doen nie. Dis wat hy self preek, maar hier het hy die geleentheid om te toon, dat die landbouverenigings van groot nut is, dat hul liggame is wat invloed het, en wat doen hy? Hy wil sy eie aanstellings maak en hy wyk dus af van die aanbevelings van die Adviserende Raad en hy laat nie toe nie, dat die Landbou Unie iets sal te sê hê. Hy kan help om die landbouveremginge invloedrike liggame te maak, waar hy doen dit nie. Daar is nog ander puntjies waar ek op sou kan wys, maar ek sal dit nie by hierdie geleentheid doen nie, liewer in Komitee, wanneer ek hoop, die Minister sy aandag daaraan sal gee.

Ek wil maar net ’n paar woorde sê; ek sal vir die Wetsontwerp stem en ek ondersteun dit. Daar is lede wat hier gesê het, dat hulle die Wetsontwerp van harte toejuig, maar ek wil nie so ver gaan nie. In die eerste plaas het die Ontwerp ’n bietjie laat gekom. Die edelagbare die Minister had dit drie of vier jaar terug behoor in te bring en dit behoor een staande Wet te wees, en elke jaar had die Regering ’n seker bedrag op die Begroting behoor te plaas vm die doeleindes van die Wet. En dan sê ek, dat die Ontwerp nie ver genoeg gaan nie. Dit gaan net so ver om van toepassing te wees op seker distrikte waar droogte geheers het of waar die boere ernstig geteister was, maar as ons kyk wat daar in die laaste paar jaar gebeur het, dan sal ons sien dat daar in die laaste 5 of 6 jaar droogtes oor die hele land gewees was en duisende boere het uitgeboer geraak en nou sit hulle in die groot stede. Ons kry vandag in die groot stede goeie boere wat goed verstaan om die grond te bewerk. As daardie boere hulp sou kan kry, as hulle omtrent £300 sou kan kry, dan sou hulle terug kan gaan na die land en hulle sou ’n groot sukses van hulle werk maak. Die werk, wat hier in die Wetsontwerp gedoen word, is ’n goeie begin, maar die Regering, soas ek alreeds gesê het, behoor ’n staande Wet te kry en die Regering behoor elke jaar ’n sekere som op die Begroting te plaas. In die derde jaar kom die geld, wat in die eerste jaar uitbetaal is, weer terug en dit sou dan weer uitbetaal kan word. Baie van die mense wat nou in die dorpe is sou dan weer terug gebring word na die platteland en dit sou die sware druk wat nou in die stede is verlig en dit sou die industriële mense ook verligting gee. Daar is vandag mense in die dorpe en stede wat grond besit op die platteland, maar daardie mense het niks nie om die grond te bewerk en hulle moet na die stede gaan om geld te verdien om hulle grond te bewerk. Maar ongelukkig het ons die ernstige krisis in Suid-Afrika gehad, dat mense nie in staat was gewees nie om werk te kry in die stede. Daar is sonder twyfel bekwaam landbouers in die stede en as hulle maar net hulp kan kry, dan sal hulle in staat wees hulle land te bebou, en die geld, wat hulle leen, terug te betaal, en ek is seker, dat hulle ’n sukses daarvan sal maak. Die Wetsontwerp gaan nie ver genoeg nie; dit behoor uitgebrei te word om daardie mense te help en te verseker dat die landbou voortgeset sal word en as dit jaar na jaar in hand geneem word, dan sal ons sien, kom daai binne kort tyd groot verligting sal kom.

One feels somewhat diffident to interfere in a debate like this, where, to a certain extent, expert knowledge of farming conditions is necessary. My only justification for saying a word is that recently they have added to my constituency a hundred square miles of country, and one ought to take an intelligent interest in these matters, as they affect the country generally. It would be perfectly orthodox to begin by saying that I am very pleased the Government have brought in this Bill, but I think, in this corner of the House, we may say we are genuinely pleased, because it is an indication, after all, that a few of the socialistic ideas of the right hon. the Prime Minister are at last appearing on the surface. This is the application of a principle for which we have been pleading in this country for a long time—that is, using State aid to help, wherever help is necessary, to get a man cut of his difficulties and put him firmly upon his feet. Now the principle of the Bill from that point of view is thoroughly good. It is one thing to do as the Government has been doing, to give a little help here and there in the way of doles to those in distress. We have always held that the dole system leaves a man where he is, but it is quite another thing to give a man help which makes him self-supporting, self-respecting and independent, and the principle underlying the Bill aims specially, we believe, in that direction. This principle of the application of the credit of the State might be very considerably extended in this country. It is of supreme importance that we should make an attempt to save the prime producers of this country, as I believe, the Bill is intended to do, and to keep them on the land. But the question comes to this: what does the Bill really do for the man who is down and out, who is in a pretty helpless condition in the country side in South Africa? We have often been told in this House that behind the distress which exists among the farmers and the lessees of land, you have a number, amounting to over 100,000 who have no hope whatever of coming under the provisions of a Bill like this. That being the case, one is anxious to know when are we going to extend the principles in this Bill to get them out of the mire. We do that a system of doles, by relief works, and help of a temporary character, but the principle we lave been standing for, such as that which is embodied in the Bill—is the principle we would like to see extended in many directions beyond those we find in the Bill. We can extend it to the industrial areas; we can extend it to the poor white population. I believe that under certain conditions the principle can be so largely extended, that perhaps we can do away with the necessity for relief works altogether. While giving this Bill our support, I want to say that we look forward to the day when instead of just a little trickle of this class of legislation issuing from the Government benches, there will be a real flow of it, which will cover a wider area and will help in checking the distress which exists in this country. I may tell the right hon. the Prime Minister that when that time comes, he will receive the support of this side of the House.

I am very glad indeed that this Bill has received the favourable consideration of the majority of the hon. members of this House, who have given me the benefit of their views and their information on the measure. I regret, however, that one or two hon. members insinuate that the Bill was introduced for political purposes, such as the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit), I regret that he is not in his place for I know something about the district he represents, and if the hon. member were here, I would ask him what he has done in his particular farming district to show how deeply he was interested in the conditions of the people in that district. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) also made an allegation, and it should not be my purpose to answer him at all. He is constantly making insinuations, but he has gone very far by saying that if there was not an election in the near future this Bill would not be brought forward now. I say this in all earnestness, that if hon. members are not prepared to support us on a measure of this nature there is very little hope of anybody being able to improve the position of the people in this country. I would welcome all assistance when we are trying to do all we possibly can to meet the extremely difficult situation existing in this country, but that situation is not met by members making proposals which it is impossible for this, or any other Government, to fulfil in a measure of this character. The Bill is a genuine Bill to try to meet the conditions which are now existing in the country. The hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan) has asked me why the Bill was not introduced at an earlier stage. The Bill was introduced on the 5th March. It was the first order on the paper below the financial measures, which it was essential to pass before the last day of this month, and which owing to an enormously prolonged discussion—I may say an unnecessarily prolonged discussion in many cases as far as length is concerned; member after member getting up and repeating the same thing—it was not possible to bring this Bill before the House before to-day. It remained the first order on the paper below the financial measures right through from that day. In these circumstances I think it is rather ungenerous to suggest that one might have made a more rapid advancement. As I told the House there are certain things one can do in a Bill of this character and there are certain things one cannot do. I do not deny, neither does the right hon. the Prime Minister deny, that there is a great amount of distress in this country of a character which cannot be dealt with in a Bill of this nature. It will have to be met in another direction. This is not a Bill dealing with relief works, but with the particular condition of affairs which exist in this country and with a particular class of people. It was thought by the kindly assistance of this House that it would be possible to help this particular class of people and to keep them upon the soil, for which they are eminently suited. They have suffered from the most dreadful drought, losing the majority of their stock, and it is important that we should come to their assistance. I have in many parts of the country realized that if only these men could retain their hold on the land—the Government giving them a few necessary animals—there would be a possibility of their making good. There is no intention in the Bill to help everyone. Not at all. Other members want to know how the committee is to be appointed. The House knows of the good work done by the Locust Commission, and when that commission was being appointed, or the officers, the question was never asked as to their political opinions, the whole question with the Agricultural Department was to obtain the most competent men and the men who had the confidence of the farmers. I do not see how one can appoint others but competent men. Some hon. members wanted to know, because I have taken such a great interest in the formation of agricultural organizations and co-operative societies, was I going to consult these organizations with regard to the appointment of the people. I think it is quite unnecessary to have a provision of that sort in the Bill. As I have slated, the intention is not to help everybody who comes along but the farmer on the land, the owner and occupier. He is a farmer whether he occupies under a written lease or a verbal arrangement—if he cultivates and produces the crops.

Does the right hon. the Minister mean that that includes bywoners?

I say that it includes the occupier as well, but I do not mean to establish the man who comes along and says he wants Government assistance, but does not belong to the class specified in the Bill. These people will have to be helped in another direction. Another hon. member asked why the Bill is not made general, as droughts occurred year after year. The Bill is introduced to deal with the peculiar conditions of affairs which we hope is not always going to exist in the country. I have been farming since 1884, and I do not think there have been two successive years in which the farmers of this country have had to cope with such disabilities as have been occasioned by the drought and locusts during the last two years. We do not expect that this will last for ever. This Bill, unlike the Bill of 1916, has to apply to a much more extended area, but I hope this is a temporary condition of affairs, and there is no intention—I do not think any hon. members would desire it—to pamper the farmers of the country. We are dealing with extraordinary conditions and circumstances, and we do not want the House to look on and say, if the Bill is law, that we are going to make it possible to assist everybody who happens to be in stringent circumstances. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. D. F. Malan), who has just come in, said it was a pity this Bill was not introduced a little earlier, because the season is getting late, and it would have been advisable if provision could have been made so far as the supply of seed was concerned to the farmers at an earlier time. My hon. friend evidently has not read the Bill carefully. If the hon. gentleman had read it carefully, he would have found we put in a special clause for the purpose of easing the hands of the Agricultural Department, and we have gone out of our way to put a special clause in to say that all seed issued after the 15th of February will come under the provisions of this Bill.

That is not my point at all.

And that the Department, instead of acting as last year, put in a special clause in this Bill which makes provision that all the seed which was issued after the 15th of February comes under the provisions of the Bill, and we have a lien on this seed. I say that if you advance seed to farmers for the purpose of getting crops, the first lien on those crops should be held by the State which advanced the seed. There are many cases I have to deal with in my position as Minister of Agriculture, in which applications are made for seed, and which, on investigation are found to be made by fairly well-to-do people. And the majority of those cases want a certain amount of investigation, because if those people are going to get the profit out of the seed which is sown, owing to the fact that they have a great deal more land than they can sow, then I say if they are in a financial position they should produce the seed themselves. That is fair and reasonable, but we have refused nobody who brings forward a legitimate case and shows us it is impossible to get the seed in any other way, and that, having got it, they have the ground on which to sow, with the prospect of using it themselves. We are giving such cases every possible assistance. I know that, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South-West) (Sir William Macintosh) said, there is a certain amount of money outstanding in connection with that seed, and there are many cases in which, when the seed is issued by the State, it does not go into the ground at all, it goes to other places, and I have been exercised by that. I have been trying to see if it is not possible to get some substance in which we can dip that seed which will be rather a benefit, so far as sowing is concerned, but will make it rather difficult for anybody who has not a very strong stomach to use it as food, because seed is given for the purpose of producing crops. I quite agree with hon. members who say that is a fair criticism, that three years is too short a period to expect these loans to be paid back. As I said, in moving the second reading of the Bill, the conditions were different in 1916. Stock alters materially in value, and I would be quite prepared, in committee, to receive any reasonable suggestion as to the period over which the loan should be paid. I should say myself that a five years’ period would be a fairly reasonable one. With regard to the period to which we should go back, whether it should be one year or two, as I have said, and I have been strengthened in that by what has been said, it would be fairer to make it apply to a two-year instead of a one-year period, which would meet the conditions existing in parts of the country. May I also say, in reply to a number of hon. members who have taken a deep interest in this matter, that we ourselves should be able to do a great deal more than we have done in the past, and if the farmers of the country, those of them who are fairly well off, and are blessed with very large acreages of ground, would do their duty in trying to assist those people less well-situated, there would be a very much better condition of affairs in this country.

We are doing it.

We ought to, and I include the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit) in that. We are apt to think that when we make fine, patriotic speeches we have fulfilled our part—

Do not spoil a good speech.

Every farmer in this country has an opportunity of assisting his neighbour, not merely to give the seed, but to come forward and give some little assistance himself.

We are doing it.

If he has ground on which he wants such people to sow on shares, and he is able to supply the seed himself, he should not allow these people to come to the State and ask for the seed, but should supply it himself.

How does the right hon. the Minister know what we are doing?

And if there are any men who are desirous of giving to another a piece of ground on which the Agricultural Department have the assurance he will be able to plough and sow, but that he has not the seed, I do not think the Department will be unwilling to supply the seed. That, I think, is a very fair and reasonable proposition, but I will say that the Bill has been introduced after the very fullest consideration, and it would be impossible to schedule all the districts. We are making the very fullest enquiry, and there are many cases which have been referred to this afternoon which it is not the intention of this Bill to deal with. I have been looking at what has been taking place since the right hon. the Prime Minister visited the western districts of the Transvaal last year, where he did a very good piece of work in trying to impress upon the people the advisability of trying to establish co-operative societies, whereby combinations of people in the district, the better-to-do farmers were able to give assistance and advice to their poorer brothers.

That is a snare.

Who said that?

I did.

The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit) says it is a snare because he is not prepared to do what many of the farmers in the Western Transvaal have done. They have established 52 of these co-operative livestock organizations, and if the hon. member would go up there and see what they have done and take advantage of, and then go to his constituency and with his influence and advice encourage people to establish co-operative societies and become members of them, and back it by his credit, he would do a great deal of good. These 52 societies have done a great deal of good, and I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the farmers, that is the farmers who are getting no benefit out of these co-operative societies and have joined them as directors. They have thrown in their lot and their credit with those societies, and have undertaken to bear the losses that some of these societies might sustain. The Government have made an arrangement with these people whereby the State bears 50 per cent. of the losses. I say there is no better way of encouraging people to be thrifty, or showing them how to make the best use of any advances they get, than having co-operative organizations which are responsible for the work they do, and which take the deepest interest in their welfare. As practical farmers we all know that there are certain farmers in this country who not alone are unlucky, but who, without the assistance of their brother farmers, are not likely to make a success of their business, and it’ is in cases of that sort I think these co-operative societies will do a great deal of good. I hope the House will take the second reading of this Bill. As I said before I am prepared to consider any reasonable proposition, but I would not like the House to imagine that we are going to introduce into this Bill principles which are foreign to it. It has a definite object, which I think is a good one, and when hon. members talk about the large amount of distress which can be met only by relief works, that is an entirely different proposition which must be dealt with in an entirely different manner, but do not let that distress and the necessity of dealing with it, prevent us trying to put on the statute book a measure which I believe will be of material assistance to a certain number of really deserving people, who, after they get a little assistance, can rehabilitate themselves and eventually become substantial farmers.

Motion for the second reading put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on 2nd April.

moved—

He said: This Bill is introduced as the outcome of a desire on the part of the railway men to make provision for their widows. I might just state for the information of this House, this desire on the part of the railway men for a widows’ pension fund has been increasing in recent years, especially within the last half’ dozen years, for one or two reasons. Under the old Cape Government we had one widows’ fund in which the Railway Department and the general service were jointly interested. At the time of Union the railway part of the fund’ was separated from the other and closed. No new entrants into the railway service could join that fund, so that, as I say, it was closed. In recent years the benefits accruing from this fund have considerably increased, increased, in fact, twice. The first increase of the benefits was to the extent of 15 per cent., and at the present time they get benefits to the extent of 25 per cent. over and above what was promised at the time of the formation of the fund. Last year the hon. the Minister of the Interior introduced a Widows’ Pension Fund for the benefit of the public service, apart from the railways, and this Bill I now introduce is drawn on very similar lines. The fund which is to be built up from which the pensions are to be paid, depend entirely upon the contribution of the railway servants themselves, no contributions are made by the State, but on the other hand the State does guarantee 5 per cent. on the amount of the fund. Further, the Railway Department undertakes the cost of management and running the fund, and for the actuarial valuation each five years, so that there will be no expenditure in any shape or form. The Bill in some degree is dependent upon the passing of another Bill before the House, that is to say, the Railway Service Amendment Bill, which deals also with the superannuation fund. Under that fund it is proposed to make all railway servants from the moment they enter the service, become members of the superannuation fund compulsorily. It is also proposed here that all males who enter the service of the Railway Department, and become members of the superannuation fund, also become members of the widows’ pension fund. Those who are members of the Railways and Harbours Pension Fund will also become members of this fund.

Whether they are married or not?

Yes, that makes no difference. Bachelors have always a chance of getting married; we do not bar them from it. The only people who are debarred from it, are the present members of the Cape Widows’ Pensions’ Fund. A man cannot be a member of the two funds. If he is a member of the Cape Widows’ Pension Fund, he cannot become a member of this fund. The other classes are those earning less than £120 per year, and those who are above fifty years of age. Those are the only ones excluded. Now I come to the contribution. It is based upon a contribution of 1 per cent. Whatever salary he may get, a contributor pays 1 per cent. to the Civil Service Pension Fund; he may at the same time, if he is not content with the pension which that 1 per cent. will bring to his widow at the date of his death, increase his contribution so that his widow will get a pension up to £250 a year. He cannot date his contribution back, but he can increase his contribution to ensure that his widow will get an extra pension up to £250, plus the ordinary contribution that may bring it up to £300. He cannot go beyond that. Table 2 at the end of this Bill sets out what the ordinary contributions will bring. For instance, if he joins at the age of 20, his widow will get 11.42 of his pensionable emoluments. That will, of course, increase with his pensionable emoluments. I may just mention some of the features of the Bill. Suppose a man is not satisfied with 1 per cent. and he wants his widow to enjoy a better pension, and makes an additional contribution to the fund, suppose later he gets into a position that he cannot afford to pay his extra contribution; in that case he can discontinue these payments, but when the pension is made up at the date of his death, those contributions are actuarily valued and his widow gets the pension. Suppose a servant is retired through re-organization, which pretty well means compulsory retirement, then, if he is not awarded a pension, he gets a refund of the actuarial value of the contributions he may have made. If a servant retires voluntarily or is dismissed, then no refund of the contribution is made at all.

And the amount she has paid in?

No, not in case he retires voluntarily or is dismissed. That is the proposal. I might say that these tables have been extremely carefully drawn up, and are based upon the provisions of the Bill as it stands. Suppose now that any alteration is made, these tables will be required to be redrawn. There is one matter which may give rise to a lot of discussion. In case a widow remarries under the Bill as it stands, it is not proposed that she will continue to get the pension. She loses the pension. If that is departed from, if the widow continues to draw the pension after she has remarried, then these tables will have to be withdrawn, as we cannot afford to give the pensions we propose to give if that is altered. We have endeavoured to give the biggest possible benefit we could for the very small contribution of 1 per cent., and if these provisions are departed from, well, then, of course, as the fund is self-sustaining, the benefits ultimately to be derived by the widows must be decreased. There are also one or two other features I might mention. For instance, suppose a man wants an additional pension, and his wife dies, and he takes another wife, then the pension would not apply. Then, again, as I have already mentioned, a widow’s pension ceases if she remarries. If the pension is less than £18 per annum, it may be commuted for a single cash payment. Supposing the difference between the ages of a man and his wife is only eight years, that difference is not taken into account; but if it is more when the pension is made up a certain deduction is made to make allowance for the fact that the widow was some ten or twelve years younger than the husband. On the other hand, suppose he has contributed for some years when he was a bachelor, before he was married; that is taken into account at the other end. Another point of great importance is, there is no ante-dating of contributions. For instance, take table 2, ordinary contributions. Suppose a man whose age next birthday is 18 joins, the percentage the widow will get of his pensionable emoluments will be 12½ per cent. However long he may be in the service she will get 12½ per cent. on his emoluments; but suppose that man dies within three months of paying his first contribution, she will also get 12½ per cent. Well, suppose a man has a little money, and he makes one payment and has done with it, and after he has made a single payment with a view to getting £250 for his widow, and he dies within the three months, in that case the widow gets the £250. I think I have mentioned most of the main principles of the Bill, membership, how the funds are to be built up, and how the pensions are provided. I have also mentioned certain features of the Bill, and it is my intention, if the House agrees to the second reading—and there should be no difficulty about that, because it is the express desire of the great bulk of the railwaymen to make some provision in this matter—to refer the Bill to the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours for consideration.

Ek is nie van plan om veel oor die Wetsontwerp te sê nie. Ek meen dat die edelagbare die Minister bale duidelik was in sy uitleg van die terme van die Wetsontwerp. In verband met die toesegging van die edelagbare die Minister om die Wetsontwerp te verwys na ’n Gekose Komitee, hoop ek dat die edelagbare die Minister daarby sal voeg “met mag om getuienis te hoor van die betrokke persone.”

Certainly.

Ek is bly dat die edelagbare die Minister dit sal doen. Ek hoop dat dit nie ’n lange ondersoek sal wees nie, maar die sienswyse van die vereniginge van die personeel sal noodsakelik verkry moet word, om te hoor wat hulle mening omtrent die Wetsontwerp is. Dat die Wetsontwerp noodsaaklik is, sal niemand betwyfel nie en ek dink dat dit besonder noodsaaklik is met die cog op die afsluiting van die ander fonds vóór Unie. Dit is in die belang van die spoorwegamptenare om versiening te maak vir hul weduwes. Wat betref die bedrag wat deur die personeel inbetaal moet word aan die pensioenfonds, is dit moeilik om ’n idee van die genoegsaamheid te vorm daarvan, tensy die edelagbare die Minister bereid sou wees om op die Tafel te lê die rapport van die aktuaris wat die skema opgestel het. Dit sal goed wees as die lede dit kan na sien, maar in elke geval is dit nodig, dat die lapport gegee word aan die Selekt Komitee wat aangewys sal word om op die saak in te gaan. Oppervlakkig beskou skyn die kontribusie laag en om die rede is dan ook die pension baie laag. As ons daartoe oorgaan om ’n pensioenfonds te stig, dan ontstaan die vraag of die kontribusie nie hoër moet wees nie, sodat, die som wat betaal word by afsterwe aan die weduwee ’n behoorlike bedrag sal wees. Dit is egter waar dat wanneer ons begin te verander aan die voordele onder die Wetsontwerp, ons gevaar loop die hele skema van die aktuaris omver te werp. ’n Toestand word verkry dat na ’n seker aantal jare die fonds moontlik in insolvente toestand geraak, en men ’n herhaling kry van die toestand waarin die superannuasiefonds tans is. Vandag is die superannuasiefonds so word beweer, feitelik in insolvente toestand. Die fonds onder die Ontwerp behoor op gesonde aktuariële basis opgebou te word. Al wat die Staat doen is om 5 persent te waarborg op die geld wat van tyd tot tyd in die fonds mag wees. Nou ontstaan die vraag of die Staat nie iets behoort by te dra nie. Ek meen nie dat die Staat op die pond vir pond stelsel behoort by te dra nie, maar die vraag Ontstaan tog of die Staat daar nie genoeg belang by het dat amptenare die versekering mag hê, dat wanneer hulle sterf, hul weduwes en nablywende behoorlik sal beskerm wees. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal dit inoorweging neem, om van die kant van die Staat ook iets by te dra tot die fonds, al is dit maar 25 persent van die bydrae van die personeel, om op die wyse die pensioen ’n bietjie groter te maak. Graag vra ek die edelagbare die Minister om besonder aandag te gee aan Artiekel 16. Aangesien die lidmaatskap van die fonds ’n gedwonge saak is, so wil ek tog die edelagbare die Minister vra om te oorweeg dat ’n amptenaar wat vrywillig uit die diens tree, die bedrag wat hy inbetaal het behoort terug te kry, net soos die man wat deur re-organisasie uit die diens tree. Hy verlaat die diens uit eie beweging en ek dink dat vir hom dieselfde moet geld as vir die man wat onder die reorganisasie bepaling die bedrag terug kry. Dan wil ek graag die aandag van die edelagbare die Minister by Klousule 19 bepaal. Daar word vasgestel dat die fonds elke 5 jaar gewaardeer sal word deur ’n aktuaris deur die edelagbare die Minister aangestel. Die edelagbare die Minister weet dat die gevoele heers dat daar ook ’n aktuaris benoem sal word deur die personeel. Ek hoop dus dat die edelagbare die Minister ook hierdie beginsel sal toestaan, net soos in die geval van die superannuasiefonds. Ek hoop die edelagbare die Minister sal dit nie weier nie, omdat, soos in die Wetsontwerp bepaal word, die fonds geheel sal gevormd word deur dié personeel self. Dit word vandag gedaan wat betref superannuasie, en die Minister weet dit; hy het daarin toegestem en hy behoor daar vandag ook in toe testera, sodat ’n onafhankelike aktuaris ’n ondersoek sal kan maak met die ander een, en die personeel sal dan verseker wees dat daar reg sal wedervaar. Met die paar woorde wens ik die Wetsontwerp my ondersteuning te gee, want ek glo dat dit voldoen aan ’n groot en lang gevoelde begeerte van die personeel.

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has brought this Bill forward, and I am more than pleased to hear that he is going to send it to a Select Committee, otherwise he would have had an exceedingly lengthy and hostile discussion on what we consider the difficulties in the Bill, and they are very considerable. One of the disadvantages in the Bill is that no attempt has been made to take out some of the provisions in the old Cape Civil Services Widows’ Pension Fund Act. I fail to understand why it has not been found possible to utilize the balance standing to the credit of that fund, and to use it as the nucleus of the new fund, so that the whole of the various widows’ pension funds could be consolidated. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister has not moved in that direction. Hon. members know that for many years there has been a scandal so far as the railways are concerned; the so-called widows’ pensions were so small that it is almost impossible to refer to them as pensions. I do not know how the figures work out on the average, but I think, so far as the artizans are concerned, that the widows’ pensions work out at about £1 10s. to £2 per month.

37s. 6d. per month.

Of course, for any hon. member to pretend that this is adequate provision for a widow is farcical. The reason for that is, that whereas you contribute to your superannuation fund on a pound per pound basis, the widows’ pension fund consists only of the members’ contributions plus 5 per cent. interest, That is the real reason; and that is why the pensions are so small; and I cannot understand how the widows’ pension fund, to which a member contributes, should not exist on the same basis, because, in the first place, the contribution is extremely low—l per cent. I do not class it as a pension at all; in fact, it sometimes hardly pays the expense of the widow going to get her pension. It certainly does not provide her with any of the necessaries of life to the extent to which she has a right to expect and to which she has been used. I am sorry that an attempt has not been made to consolidate these various sections of the widows’ pension fund, and to have one fund, to which all members shall contribute on a pound per pound basis. I wonder what the hon. the Minister has to say as to why discrimination should be made between the widows’ pension fund and the pension fund for the ordinary members? I understand that great exception will be taken to men who are not at present members of the widows’ pension fund being compelled to join it. That is inflicting a penalty on men who have been prevented by the Administration from contributing to a widows’ pension fund. In many cases they have been compelled to make provision by insurance policies, after which you come along and compel them tö join the widows’ pension fund. I think hon. members will find there will be great exception taken to being compelled to join the fund. I think an option should be given to present members of the service, and then make it compulsory after a fixed date. That is another proposition entirely, but I certainly think that railway servants should have the option of joining, especially, if I may refer again to the fact that the fund consists only by contributions of the members plus 5 per cent. interest. That is another reason why you should not compel a man to join the fund, and it is certainly not a case of the Government going “fifty-fifty” but of one fifty supplemented by 5 per cent. interest. The Bill also proposes to cut out poorly paid men. It is laid down that no person shall become a member of that fund until his pensionable emoluments amount to £120 per annum or 7s. 9d. a day. I do not know what the hon. the Minister proposes to do with the widows of the men who are not fortunate enough to draw the sum of £120 per year, I suppose they do not count. I should have thought that would have been the very class of widow the Bill should deal with, but they are cut out, and I am afraid that the Pensions Committee are going to have a considerable amount of work in the future. There is another point in Clause 4, sub-section (4) Here again you are penalizing a servant who has not been able to make provision for his widow because you make no provision for a member to ante-date his contributions, whereas in the Superannuation Fund full provision is made for ante-dating contributions, so that a member may receive the benefit of previous service. It seems to me that there should be no discrimination between a member himself and his prospective widow. If you want to do something for the widow, do it properly and do not do it in a cheap way. We used to say that the old Cape Widows’ Pension Fund was a sort of matrimonial agency; that where a railway servant’s wife died and he had contributed to a widows’ pension fund, if he took a second wife, the pension reverted to her and so on. That was quite a good provision, otherwise he was losing the benefit of the previous contributions to the fund, and, of course, hon. members know that even single men had to contribute to that fund, although they might never marry. I do not see why this fund should be any different to the old Cape Widows’ Fund. Clause 15 says—

To my mind that is not fair. If a widow chooses to remarry I do not see why she should lose this little pension which has been paid for in accordance with the law. It is not a gift, it is something which she is entitled to, and why should she forfeit this small pension because she remarries? That is another case where you want to build up the fund at the expense of the deserving widow. She might have young children, and she might marry a man who is earning far less money than her former husband, and because of that, her pension ceases. I shall be very much surprised if the railway service takes that lying down. Then Clause 16 says—

That is to say, if you retrench them for redundancy, as you can always do, they shall be entitled to receive a refund of the fair surrender value of their contributions. I know what the surrender value usually means. If you have paid in £30 you will probably get £10 back. In such cases you dispense with their services for your own purposes, I mean that if he has been compelled to join the widows’ pension fund, he should be entitled to all the money he’ has paid in, and not the fair surrender value, because that means approximately the sum of one-third of what he has paid in. That is another case where you want to bolster up your fund at the expense of the members. You go on to say in sub-section (2)—

There, again, this is far less liberal than the way in which a member of the superannuation fund is treated. Because under the Service Act of 1912 if a servant is dismissed from the service or leaves voluntarily, the contribution is refunded, but here it is proposed to withhold the widows’ pension fund contribution, and I cannot see why this discrimination should be made. With regard to the valuation of the fund, in our experience of the valuation of the superannuation fund there is alleged to be a deficiency of nearly two million pounds, but provision is being made for more than one actuary. We are really making provision for an actuary to be appointed by the Administration, and one to be appointed by the contributors. I think that in these funds we should secure the best actuarial advice, and there should be more than one appointed. I should like to see the hon. the Minister adopt the same plan as he has adopted in the Service Bill, especially as contributions from the members are only supplemented by 5 per cent. interest. I do not want to deal more fully with the Bill, because it is going to a Select Committee, but I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that if the scale is going through as it is laid down Here, it is not going to solve the problem of widows’ pensions, because if a widow is only going to be paid 10 per cent. of her husband’s pensionable emoluments, it does not solve the problem of widows’ pensions; it may do so if the Government contributed it oh a pound per pound basis. The hon. the Minister knows that in Australia they have done something quite different to what they have done in this country. In their Superannuation Act 28 of 1922, Section 33 reads—

There you have something which we regard as an equitable provision. The hon. the Minister and other hon. members know we have many cases in the railway service where the average pensioner does not live more than five years to enjoy the benefits of his pension, and after he dies, the widow is put on the widows’ pension fund, which enables her to get only £18 or £20 per year. In the Commonwealth the pension of the widow is placed on quite a different basis, and I think the hon. the Minister should do something in that respect here. I would certainly like the hon. the Minister, when the Bill comes before the Committee, to do something which will provide for decent provision being made for the widows. Those are just a few of the remarks I want to make on the Bill. I hope the hon. the Minister will see that various sections of the staff are allowed to give evidence with regard to this Bill. These men consider more as to what will happen to their wives and children after their death than anything else, and therefore every facility should be given to them to state their views.

I quite agree that this is not the time to discuss the Bill at any great length, seeing that it is going to a Select Comittee, but I would like to say one or two words concerning it. I assure the hon. the Minister many railwaymen will be very displeased with this Bill, as they thought it was going to be a big advance on the pensions which prevail to-day. I attended a railwaymen’s meeting just before I came to Parliament, and one question which I was asked there was would I do something to see that widows’ pensions were put on a proper basis. The men assured me that the average pension for a widow was £18. [An Hon. Member: “£37.”] Well, that is a little more. In this Pension Bill it lays down that if a widow marries again, she loses her pension. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether a woman can bring up a family on £37. Every year a large number of railwaymen’s widows are handing in petitions here asking for something to be done in order that they’ may be able to bring up their children, and to introduce a Bill like this is simply playing with the matter. One man told me that he was paying a contribution to the widows’ pension fund, but he had decided to discontinue doing so because after he died his wife would only get £16 a year, and he considered it was not worth it. You are bringing forward a Bill which is going to put widows in a worse position than they are at present. I would give a widow a pension which will at least enable her to bring up her children decently. Many hon. members here know of instances where a man has died and his wife has had to bring up 7 or 8 children on a pension of £37 a year. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what can a widow do under such circumstances? I consider that these pensions should be more liberal. This Bill is not going to give satisfaction at all. The pension will be so small, it will be a misnomer to call it a pension. I hope when the Bill goes before a Select Committee that it will be dealt with in a much more liberal manner than at the present time. Otherwise it will be a farce and will not give satisfaction.

I am afraid from the reception this Bill received from the Labour benches it is no good going on with it. That is the position—it is not much good. This fund is going to be self-supporting. The conditions are the same as in the general service—one per cent. from the contributors and the State guaranteeing 5 per cent. interest and paying all the cost of management. That is practically the same as the old Cape Civil Service Pensions Fund.

Self-supporting?

Yes, self-supporting.

Will it support a widow?

The Bill makes provision for the contributor to pay a certain amount, but he can increase his contribution, and bring the total of the pension up to £300 per year. Further than that the Department cannot afford to give. One cannot expect that the State can make a bigger contribution to the Pension Fund. We are contributing on the £ for £ principle to the Superannuation Fund, and we have contributed £100,000 per year to the Railways and Harbours Pension Fund. If that is not going to be considered fair, the fund will not become operative, that is very certain. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) asked about the consolidation of the funds. That cannot be done. It would mean depriving beneficiaries of the payments they have made for years to the old pension fund.

Start them all alike.

We cannot do that. We cannot take away from the beneficiaries what they have contributed in past years to start a new fund. We want to make the Bill in such a form so as to make everybody contribute and thus increase the fund. Every representation that has been made to me has been to make contributions compulsory. As to the question of ante-dating there is no necessity for it, as by paying the extra contribution the member can insure a maximum of £300 per year. It is not necessary to ante-date in the circumstances. He can start paying the extra contribution so as to entitle the beneficiaries to a pension not exceeding £300 per year. There is also another question to be taken into consideration. The case of a wife dying and the man marrying again. He cannot pay an extra contribution for one wife and then marry another woman, considerably younger. I quite agree that this is not so liberal as the Superannuation Fund, but then the Superannuation Fund is insolvent and we do not want to start this fund on terms that must lead to insolvency. I am sorry that the hon. members in the corner cannot afford to give me more assistance in this matter. I have no objection to the appointment of another actuary, and I have no objection to his being nominated, but I want the Department to make the appointment. The Department can make no further contribution, as it would be putting a burden on the railways until the amount became such, they could not afford to pay it. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan) objected to the refusal to make refunds in the case of voluntary resignation. If it is a case of compulsory resignation the man will get a refund, but in the case of voluntary resignation—

But it is compulsory membership.

Yes, that is true, but if we alter the conditions the Government will have to recast the tables on a lower scale. If the restrictions are taken away the benefits of the Bill fall away. I hope I will have an opportunity of full discussion when in Committee.

What about the actuary?

I have no objection to that.