I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

As far as I know, this is the first attempt made in this House to assist our maize farmers by way of legislation in their great fight against insect plague that threatens to completely ruin our maize industry. It is not therefore necessary for me to ask a few minutes patience of the House in connection with this matter. The maize industry has almost in record time become one of the most important industries in our country, and has to-day developed to such an extent that it can claim the greatest consideration and support from every member of this House. It has been observed that in recent times certain plagues and especially caterpillars, have so increased that farmers in maize districts have already found it necessary to stop operations and to go and look for an existence in other parts of the country. Recently there was a representative gathering of maize producers in my constituency, and this resolution arises out of a resolution of that meeting. It was very clearly pointed out that if nothing were done to systematically fight that plague, it would be necessary for some of our farmers and possibly for a great many of them to give up the maize farming and to seek another occupation. The losses suffered owing to the caterpillars have now assumed such dimensions that the farmer is never certain of his harvest altogether. It is calculated that in one year about one-third of our maize crop has been destroyed by the plague, and in some years even more. It is calculated that this year, 1930, the caterpillars will destroy at least 60 per cent, of the Union maize crop. If in connection with a very important industry, we have come to that stage, then every serious minded inhabitant of South Africa must enquire whether it is not possible to do something to systematically destroy the plague. At the meeting I have referred to, it was pointed out that all the other plagues we have had in the past, and which have depressed the public have been tackled. Although it was then also enquired whether it is actually possible to fight it, in all the other cases, or at any rate many of them, it was ultimately found possible to do something. The great, question is whether we are prepared to give attention to it, and to adopt an ideal to be striven after by us in connection with the subject. The loss in national revenue this year will be about £7,000,000 to £10,000,000. This may appear tremendously high to some hon. members, but it is a fact. Large sums have actually been lost in the past owing to the caterpillar pest, and this year would be one of the most prosperous the country has ever seen in maize, if it were not for the plague. There would be a record of it without that plague. It is therefore a national matter, and we ought all to realise the importance of it, and to ask what it means. The maize industry is, to a great extent, a new industry in our country. Before the second war of independence much maize was not produced in the Union. We produce less than our requirements, and to get an idea of the development that has taken place, I want to quote a few figures. Only after 1902 did South Africa give serious thought to the maize industry. In 1904 the yield was about 3½ million bags (of about 200 lbs.); in 1910 it rose to 8½ million bags; in 1915 it was 10 million bags; in 1923 about 19 million bags, and in 1925, the record year, the yield was more or less 25 million bags. 1930 would be one of the best years South Africa has ever known in consequence of the extensive planting, and the new improved methods of farming, and as a result of the fact that during the past two years many fertilizers have been used; but the caterpillar plague presents the 1925 record being surpassed to the extent of the yield this year being nearly doubled. The experts reckon that without plagues a yield of about 50 million bags could be got, but the expectation was disappointed by the great caterpillar plague. We have to deal here with an industry which has developed from quite an elementary one to one of great importance. In about twenty years it has increased 500 per cent., and in thirty years it would probably increase by about 1,000 per cent, since 1904, were it not for this plague. The importance of this industry is also to be seen if we notice what a large section of the population is dependent upon it. Take, e.g., our large native population, who depend almost entirely on it for food. They use about 7 million bags of maize a year, and it is such a serious matter for that population if our maize crop fails that it almost means a famine amongst them. The consumption of maize has also increased. In 1904 the yield was small, and we had to import from abroad. In 1920 the consumption of mealies made in South Africa rose to about 9 million bags, and now it is close to 12 million bags a year. Consequently the position last year, when we had a yield of about 18 million bags, was that we had about 6 million bags available for export. In return the population of our country could import other things. Besides what is proposed in the Bill we shall have to work in other directions. We do not only want to combat the insect plague, but also to give attention to more intensive cultivation of the mealie plant. Our yield per morgen, or acre, is particularly low in comparison with other countries. To a great extent this is due to all the plagues that exist here. I believe the yield in the Union is in the neighbourhood of 5½ or 6 bags per morgen. In other countries it is much more, and it ought to be much more in the Union. In the areas we are cultivating to-day the yield ought to be nearly twice as much than what it is, although we have the same labour, and the same land. But then the plagues must be systematically fought, and work done intensively. I know the Government has already done much. We remember, e.g., the special rates granted on the railways. We can remember the experimental farms and the big elevators that have been built. The great elevator system is specially intended for the export of maize. But there is another aspect of the matter, viz., that of all the industries in the country, maize cultivation is best suited for the purposes of closer settlement.

Yes, but how are we to eradicate the caterpillars ?

If the hon. member will wait he will hear everything. I say it is one of the industries which specially lends itself to closer settlement in our country. The wool industry cannot be carried on a small piece of land, but maize can be so produced, provided the land is suitable. A living can be made in my district from 100 morgen of land if the ground is suitable for maize. Maize not only is almost the only means of livelihood of the native population but also of a great section of the poorer people of our country who get a living out of maize growing. Going through the Free State one finds hardly any bywoners in the cattle districts. There is no chance of a living for the bywoner. They leave those parts and go to the Transvaal and the northern parts of the Free State. There it is possible for these people, if necessary by service, to make a living on a small piece of land. Maize is the only food of the natives and to a very large extent of the poor people in parts of our country. Take away the maize industry and a position is reached which cannot be remedied in any other industry. Wheat cannot do so, nor any other industry. The maize industry is too closely connected with the life of our people. But now we have the difficult pests which from time to time come and plague our country. Our greatest enemy this year is the caterpillar. We have already spent much money in the eradication of locusts and other plagues, but here we are now faced by a plague of a national character because it threatens a national industry. The stalk caterpillar, or borer, is indigenous to our country; it existed before the maize industry commenced. This plague is therefore particularly active and energetic in our climate, to which it is accustomed. The stalk-borer, or caterpillar can stand the cold of the high veld well, and then it can also thrive in the warm districts. During winter he hides in the stalk of the mealie under the ground almost in its roots; there he winters. Experts told us that if it were exposed to the cold of the high veld it could not survive, but it is because it has found these places in the soil that it can stand the cold and has become such a troublesome pest in our country. When in June or July we pull up the stalk, we find the caterpillar there, as I have described. Towards the end of the winter it turns into a chrysalis, and in the beginning of October it turns into a moth which lays its eggs in the young mealies. In October, and during most of November, the caterpillar is very busy in the tops of the young mealies, which in the beginning of September stand white on the lands, dead and eaten out. Then the first harvest of caterpillars is over. He then again changes into a chrysalis. On the surface it looks as if the plague had disappeared, but the caterpillars are then in the ground, and once more form a danger to future young mealies. The early mealies are already bleached. The young mealies appear green, but the danger to them is lying in the ground. It starts in February with the same unfortunate result. It is said that the third lot hatches out in April. The circuit takes place three times a year, and in the winter there are enough caterpillars in the ground to destroy the following year’s harvest. In the circumstances a spirit of despair arose in the maize farmers. A very pessimistic spirit prevails amongst them, and it is necessary to do something to assist them. They ask whether anything can be done, and I ask the question of the House; or can nothing be done? Is it possible for us to devise a scheme to do something to put a new spirit into these people? I say yes, it is possible. There was a time when we said it was impossible to get rid of scab, and to-day we find that it is indeed possible not only to fight it, but to eradicate it. Some years ago the coddling moth plague existed in the Western Province, it was so devastating that it looked as if fruit farming in South Africa would be impossible. We then asked the same question and replied: “There must be a means of fighting the moth,” and the result was the 1925 Bill, and it is that Act of 1925 which I now ask should be used as a means of fighting the caterpillar plague in the maize areas of the country. I ask for the 1925 Act, mutatis mutandis, to be applied to Kaffir corn and maize lands. The scheme of the Act is to put a weapon in the hand of the farmer to fight the plague himself. I know that the people are very much afraid of compulsory legislation, and therefore I am not proposing any compulsory legislation here. This is a Bill originating with the farmer. It has already been applied, at any rate partially, in the Western Province. I understand that the mere existence of the Act was practically sufficient to combat the coddling moth there. I understand that the existence of this Act would already have helped considerably to fight the caterpillar plague in the maize districts. The intention is to have a means of giving the farmer a method for his own use for fighting the caterpillars. According to enquiries recently made it appears to be possible to fight them. Various methods have been tested and I do not now want to stress any specific method, because this Bill is not meant to prescribe the method to be used, but to enable the farmers in each district to apply any method in their districts which they regard as effective. The Bill only proposes to make the Act of 1925 applicable to maize and kaffir corn lands in those districts where the farmers ask for it. It is further laid down in the Bill how the request is to be made. If there is a divisional council in the district, then after certain formalities a resolution must be passed by that council and sent to the Minister, who can then proclaim the Act in that district. If there is no divisional council, as in the northern provinces, special arrangements are prescribed for the districts which are divided into wards, and almost the same for other districts. It is laid down that any twelve farmers can make a request to the magistrate, then the magistrate must for at least one month, and at least three times during the month, publish it in the gazette. Thereafter a meeting of maize producers is held where it is discussed whether the Act ought to be applied in that ward or district. If it is so decided the resolution is sent to the Minister, who takes the necessary steps. Further, provision is made for the Minister holding an inspection whether the Act is being carried out, and if not, then the Minister can take certain steps to make it compulsory. Moreover, under the Bill the Minister can make regulations with regard to various matters, inter alia, the duties of certain officials, and regulations about the methods to be applied in fighting the plague, and also with reference to the payment of the costs of doing so. With reference to the officials, I want to point out that only a few officials will be required, in connection with this matter, because the matter is entirely one for the farmers, but provision is made for the appointment of an official if the farmers meet and ask for it.

And who will pay him ?

Yes, wait a little; I will make it plain. The farmers can decide to make a levy to pay that official. That is laid down in the 1925 Act, and the provisions will also apply to this Bill. The farmers have also the right to decide that official be appointed to see that the law is properly carried out, and also to ask for the inspector to be paid out of the levy on the maize yield of that year. The hon. member opposite, who just asked a question, seems at once to fear that levy. I want to ask him which is the greater loss to South Africa; for us to have an annual loss of 5 to 10 million bags of maize—it now runs even to about 20 million bags, which we can reckon at 10s. a bag, amounting to a national loss of from £5,000,000 to £10,000,000—or that the farmer should pay 1s. or 6d. or 3d. a bag as a levy to fight this plague. Does the hon. member think that they would rather suffer that loss, which sometimes exceeds 60 per cent, of their income, than to fight the plague? That is the question we must ask. Then the Bill goes further, and provides, as I have said, that the Minister can issue regulations. I admit at once that there are various methods to-day which are being tried, but there is not one which is considered as the only effective method, and which can be employed successfully in all circumstances. It is therefore better to leave the question of method open. What has been applied successfully in the high veld may possibly not succeed in the low veld, and vice versa. I just want to mention here a few methods, which have already been successfully used By some farmers in destroying the plague. The first is the destruction of the stalks during the winter months. Experts tell us that if the stalks are taken out of the ground the moths cannot stand the cold. A further step, of course, is to burn the stalks. Another method is to plough during the winter months. Most moths, the experts say, will not be able to hatch out if the ground is properly ploughed. Another scheme is when spring comes to create trap areas where the moths concentrate and can be destroyed. In such areas the whole mass of caterpillars are then collected and can be destroyed. In summer, however, when the caterpillars already exist, further particularly good work can be done. The Agricultural Department, after enquiry, found that good work could also be done by spraying with certain materials. At the moment experiments are especially being made with three kinds of fluid, viz., “pulvex,” “kymac,” and “cryolite.” The last-named has to be imported, but can be so cheaply sold here that, as I understand, it works out at about 1s. 6d. to 2s. an acre. The remedy is prepared with water, and the maize is then sprayed. I understand the results are very good. It is, however, said that in heavy rain it is washed off the stalks, but perhaps it could be mixed with a sticky substance so that it would stick to the stalks. We do not know whether it will be quite sufficient, but the fact is that something must be done to save the industry. The ideals we have will never be realized, but if we can save ninety per cent, of the harvest, we can also probably save a large section of our population. There is another method which can be used in the harvest-time and that is to plant certain pieces of ground with mealies at that time, where the late caterpillar can be caught. The matter, however, needs much further enquiry; but a third scheme which also is only in the primary stages, which may be important, is to find a parasite to fight the caterpillar. There must necessarily be such a parasite, otherwise there would be no fluctuations, and the caterpillars would not increase and decrease in numbers. Various arguments have been used against this matter. It is said that we can anyhow not do much. Such pessimists are out of place in South Africa. We cannot despair with regard to any matter in our young country. We must show enough energy and enterprise to even tackle the most difficult question, and attain to success. It is said that if a farmer does his duty the work will be destroyed owing to the negligence of a neighbour; that object is not insuperable. It is true that we have negligent neighbours, but the fact is that the caterpillars do not travel very far. In ordinary circumstances they only trek a mile, or even still less, with the result that the caterpillars can be destroyed in one area, while they will still continue to hatch out in another. It may be possible for good maize harvests to be obtained in one ward, while in another, where the plague is not being fought properly, there will be no good harvests. There are a large number of farmers in the Free State to-day, especially in the northern districts, who are anxiously awaiting the decision about this Bill. They argue that they have sufficiently tried in the past to fight the moth, but that without a little help from the Government, and in any case, the thing being made compulsory by law, they will not get any further. In every district where the farmers wish it, and show enough enterprise to tackle the matter, they will be able to do so under this Bill. The revenue of the country, which can maintain a big industry, will be saved. I admit that the matter is complicated, and will cause trouble, but it is not impossible.

It was interesting to listen to the hon. member and we at once agree with him. It is not necessary to enlarge in this House, where there are so many farmers, about the importance of maize growing. If the Bill will rid us of the caterpillar plague, he will be rendering this country a great service; but we know that mealies are planted every year. It is an annual crop, and how can we now compel the farmer to clean his mealie land under the Cleaning of Orchards and Vineyards Act? It is impossible, and impracticable.

What about the cleaning of orchards?

Yes, an orchard can be cleaned, and sprayed. The orchard remains, and if it is infected by a plague, it can be sprayed and cleaned. We can also tell a farmer that his sheep are scabby, and that he must dip and clean them because the sheep remain. It can also be done with apple trees infected with codling moth, because the trees remain standing, and can be cleaned and sprayed. That is not the case with maize. It has possibly already been harvested before the spraying is finished. But what I feel is that the farmers have every right of saying to us: “Very well, but show-us how to fight the plague.” I cannot see what good legislation will do before we have found a remedy against the caterpillar. There are also other serious plagues in maize. There is, e.g., the fertilizer worm, which the hon. member has not mentioned. Many farmers say that it is a more dangerous pest than the caterpillar. The hon. member does not even refer to it. I am certain that if a means can be found of fighting the caterpillar, it will not be necessary to pass an Act to induce the maize farmers to fight the plague. They will at once do their best to clean their lands, if only they are convinced that the remedy recommended will actually be effective against the plague. It may possibly be laid down that the farmers must sow a “trap crop.” The maize farmer can possibly be obliged to take out his stalks, and this is his winter fodder, or rather his winter veld. He must do so without our being able to assure him that it will be effective in fighting the caterpillar. The Bill seems to me to be premature. When once an effective remedy has been found, the farmers will welcome the Bill, but we must not compel the farmers to fight the plague without telling them how to do it. When we have found a remedy against the caterpillars, and the fertilizer worm, we will welcome legislation, but, as I have said, it will not then be required. If I know the maize farmers, and I am one myself, they are yearning for an effective remedy against the plague. I understand the Agricultural Department is succeeding with a dip and a parasite against the plague. That is what we would like to hear from him about. It is a matter for investigation so that the Government can give us information how to fight the plague. When we know that, we shall ask for nothing else.

I am really astonished at the speech of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). He stated that the Bill was premature, and that it was unfair to impose this Bill on the farmers. We are dealing here with a case where the farmers can themselves decide whether they want the Act to be applied or not. The Bill is permissive. It is only applied to them if they ask for it. He knows that the farmers have certain remedies against the plague. They have doubtless been used by him. But the farmer is so placed that they do not assist him a bit. If a native farmer alongside of him does not fight the plague

There are no native farmers in my parts.

There are many of them in the country. I am convinced that many farmers are doing their best to fight the plague. There are methods they have applied by experience. There are also methods which are suggested by the Agricultural Department, but it is useless if we have no protective legislation of this kind, because when we clean our land we like our neighbours to do so as well. If we do nothing in this direction we may as well say goodbye to the maize industry. The yield of maize per acre has decreased during the last twenty years in our country. The yield is about 3 bags an acre to-day, and it does not pay a farmer to grow mealies. If it were not for the caterpillars, it would have been three times as much. It is of the utmost importance to the maize farmers that we should support this Bill, so that we can get rid of that plague. Hon. members will know what remedies there are. I want to mention what has already been announced by a certain Ripley of Cedara. We find that the spray cryolin is efficient and cheap. This fluid will kill the caterpillars. It costs money of course because the spraying must be done at a definite time when the caterpillar is very small, so that it can reach them. We were a little afraid that the poison would be injurious to the grazing of the stock. Our stalks are our winter veld, but we have made enquiries. We sent a cable to Germany, to which unfortunately we have not yet had a reply. But I have been informed by the Agricultural Department that as far as they know, the fluid will not be poisonous to animals, because it is washed off again by rain. I also want to mention that a farmer, in my constituency, has made an experiment. He sprayed 400 acres with cryoline and it worked out at 4d. an acre. He assures me that he will get 50 per cent, maize, and that he would not have got 3 per cent, if he had not sprayed. That shows us what we can do if we use that remedy at the proper time. He made his own apparatus. The department has also recommended an apparatus, but we find that the native who has to carry the pump, and the fluid, becomes tired. He then throws out the water and says that there is no fluid left. His apparatus is a vat with a trap in it, and five or nine cross pipes coming out of it, to which the hose is annexed. He has found that with the help of five persons, and they may be children, it is possible to spray from 10 to 15 morgen a day. Here then we have a very effective remedy, but I agree with my hon. friends that it will he very much more effective if we can find a parasite to deal with the caterpillar. We have one, but it only lives in warm areas in the western Transvaal, but not on the high veld. The department is very busy trying to cultivate a parasite for use on the high veld. But we cannot sit and wait for five or six years for a parasite. What would become of the farmers? We must see that steps are taken to resist the plague. We must see that we check it, if we cannot eradicate it. Let us at least check it so that the farmers can exist; hut as things are to-day with 50 to 60 per cent, of the maize being lost through caterpillars a living is almost impossible. What will happen if the maize farmers throw up the sponge? What will become of the country? To-day there are about 8 million acres of maize, and if they are no logner cultivated, what will the farmers do? They cannot keep sheep because the ground is often not suitable, and the poor farmer has been advised to grow maize. Therefore I hope that at any rate the farmer representatives here will not oppose the Bill. We can so amend it in committee as to be suitable to all parts of the country. I hope the hon. member for Ermelo will make no further opposition, and that he will support the Bill. We can see that it becomes a proper Act, which has been given the necessary alteration in committee, to assist the maize farmers. It is not a compulsory Act, but a permissive one. If the farmers do not want it, it will not be enforced. I am certain that with such a sympathetic Minister, as the present one, all the necessary remedies will be supplied, even if perhaps it is not possible to supply everything, then at any rate sufficient to experiment to ascertain the best method.

I think we all agree with the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. it A. T. van der Merwe) when he points out that the mealie industry is one of the biggest things we have in this country, and that it is up to us to find some means of combating the cutworm and the top worm, but I do not think that in applying the terms of the Orchards Cleansing Act to mealie growing he will help matters. He asks the farmer to accept the terms of that Act, but should he do so he would be in a worse position under the Act than if left alone. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) has dealt very fully with the necessity of investigation with the possibility of finding some means of combating insect pests. We have really no remedy. We have certain palliatives that are recommended by the department, but I do not think the Minister of Agriculture would claim that dipping your mealies is an absolute preventative of top grub. It certainly assists but it is not a remedy. I want members to realize what the Act is and what onerous conditions we shall lay ourselves under if we accept it. It provides there that twelve owners in a district can call upon the magistrate to convene a meeting to decide whether the Act shall be applied or not. After due advertisement that meeting is called and by a vote taken at the meeting it is decided as to whether the Minister can apply this Act. It does not say the majority of the farmers in the district must request its application. It is merely a snatch vote that may decide it. Now we know how difficult it is to get a fully representative meeting to discuss anything. A dozen people may commit a district to the provisions of this Act. When this resolution has been taken and it is decided that the Minister of Agriculture is to apply the Act, I think the Minister will have a good deal more hay on his fork than he can manage. I do not think he can apply it, but supposing that he does apply this Act. We have several pests in our mealies at present. We have the cut worm, the top worm, and now another pest will be imposed on us. That pest is the inspector. I think we have too many of these pests already. That inspector is not to be paid by the state. He is to be paid by a levy imposed on us to inspect our mealie lands. When we have had this third pest among our mealies it may be he will decide that the crop is infected and will have to be cleansed. If any farmer is ordered to cleanse his lands within three months or six months, how can he possibly do it. If ordered to cleanse his lands from cut worm that would be impossible to do so within any given period? Will the Minister give us some method of cleaning our lands of cut worms? It is impossible with the knowledge we have at present to exterminate that pest in the land, but if you do not do that within a reasonable period the Minister steps in and says he is going to clean it for you at your expense. He is empowered to send a gang along to clean your lands from cut worm and top worm, and you will have to pay the cost plus 10 per cent. I do not know who will get the 10 per cent, still you will have to pay. Let me go a little further. Suppose this land is leased. If it is not owned by the occupier of the land; if the land is held by a tenant-farmer, and the Minister cannot recover the expense incurred from the lessee or the tenant-farmer, what happens? He gets six months within which to recover it, but a lot may happen in six months’ time. The tenant-farmer may go “broke” and he may not be in a position to pay. In that case the owner of the land has to pay. Does the mover of the resolution realize that? He is saddling every owner of land who has leased that land, with the cost of paying for the cleansing of the farmer’s annual crop of mealies, and apparently he will have to pay their liabilities, there may be native tenants. It is an impossible Act to apply to mealie-growing. If you could cleanse for ever, the mealie-lands in one year of the pest, it is possible that a district might get to work and in one year end it all. But the borer will come back again and it is an annual cleansing which must take place, and the unlucky owner of the farm is responsible for the cost of it if the tenant is unable to pay. I have never heard of such an impossible Act. It may be a useful Act if you apply it to orchards. It might be possible to apply it to half an acre or to two acres of ground; but to tell us that a man with 1,000 acres of land in mealies or kaffir corn must cleanse his lands of cutworm and top-grub, and that if he does not do it, the State will do it, and the owner of the ground must be responsible for the cost, I think is asking too much, and the farmers of the country will say that such a measure should not be forced upon the agricultural community of this country. Whether this Act is passed by the House or whether it is not, it is going to be an absolute dead-letter in this country. I am convinced that no representative body of farmers in any district who understand the operation of this Act, will ever ask for it to be applied to them or to their district. There is no finality about the Act. You will find that if one district accepts the Act, and the mealie lands of another district are adjoining, then ipso facto such lands come under the operation of the Act. Take the Transvaal and the Free State. There you have miles and miles of mealie-growing lands in one stretch, one district adjoining another district. So far as I can see, if they ask for the Act to be applied, then its provisions become extended to all the lands that adjoin them. Therefore, the farmers in one area can saddle two or three districts with the operation of this Act, if it is strictly carried out. I think we are all grateful to the mover for having opened this discussion, and I think possibly that he has moved his motion with a real endeavour to assist the farmer. It is not every gentleman who moves a motion who tries to assist the farmer, and when you get a member of the profession telling us how we should clean our lands and trying to bring in legislation to assist us in that way, I think we should express our gratitude to him. At the same time, I do not feel inclined to swallow the Bill. I do not think we should lend ourselves to it and for the sake of the momentary glamour surrounding an idea of the sort, fall and pass a Bill of this sort. We have had the Minister of Agriculture doing his best for the last five years to evolve some scheme to deal with these pests, but the jolly little cut-worm is more active than ever. He is raising bigger families and is continuing his activities in spite of the Minister of Agriculture. To turn round and say that we shall make a man a criminal for not doing what the Minister of Agriculture has himself entirely failed to do, is asking too much. I shall oppose the Bill. I hope the majority of farmers, in an honest endeavour to do their best for the farming community and not to saddle the mealie-grower with an utterly impossible Act, will make it plain by the vote that such a measure is not acceptable to this House.

As a young member, I want respectfully to find fault with an old member; the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). He said that if the farmers only had a remedy against caterpillars, legislation would not be necessary. Certainly, there are farmers of that kind, but we still read very frequently that these farmers are convicted of having scab in their stock. How is that? Do not the farmers fail in their duty in that respect? For the same reason we must here also bring the careless farmer into line with the careful one. Many hon. members have practically wasted time by discussing various methods, and finally they sat down by saying that there was no remedy. Why then did they discuss it? The point of the Bill has possibly not been studied by many members, because it clearly provides that the provisions will not be compulsory unless upon application of the farmers. Let us give the farmers the credit that if they decide that they have discovered a remedy they can regulate their own affairs, and can resolve whether they will make its application compulsory or not, and what method should be followed. This talk about the making of criminals is quite unnecessary. The Bill simply provides that if the farmers decide that they have found a remedy against caterpillars they can come together. Nor will all the farmers be compelled because it is only made compulsory for certain areas where the farmers in their own interests ask for it. I have, however, a few remarks on the Bill. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has also pointed out that in its present form it is unpractical in respect of the provision that where it is made compulsory in a certain area it will also automatically become compulsory for any adjoining land. If it is therefore made compulsory in a district, it means ipso facto that it is made compulsory throughout the Transvaal, because the maize districts all adjoin each other there. I hope the hon. member will remember this point, and accept an amendment in committee. I know that in the Transvaal farmers have to plough their mealies three times, and replant them, and if they ripen early nothing may come of the harvest. In the western Transvaal they have not had the plague at all this year, which shows that certain areas can be free, while others are infected. Another point the mover of the Bill must remember is that Clause 2 of sub-clause (4) should include the word “orchard” in mealie land, because otherwise it will be impracticable. Then there is another thing I have personal experience of, viz., that the present law considers as maize land any portion not less than a morgen. In my district there are hundreds of plot schemes, possibly two or three morgen in area, the people do not apply themselves to maize farming, do not make their living out of it, out they will have just as much say with regard to the compulsory eradication as a farmer who possibly has hundreds of morgen, and to whom it is a big question whether he should be compelled to eradicate caterpillars. I will not admit for a moment that the people will be dishonest, but we give the power to people who do not make a living out of maize farming to make the eradication compulsory to people who do, and the latter may be involved to a great extern. I want to quote another example from my district. In Vereeniging there are more apple trees than anywhere in the rest of South Africa. The big farmers have struggled there to make the spraying of trees compulsory, but they found that the small farmers—who do not take Up apple growing to make a living out of fruit—oppose it, and prevent it. They need only have 100 fruit-bearing trees to exercise a vote. Although therefore a farmer who has thousands of fruit trees wants to introduce compulsory spraying of the trees, it can be prevented by a man who only has a 100 trees, and does not make a living out of farming and yet 100 diseased trees are enough to infect thousands of other trees. The same argument applies to maize growing and the eradication of the caterpillar. I hope the hon. member will permit amendments in this connection.

If this measure became law it would drive many farmers out of mealie growing. The market price of mealies is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 8/- per bag, but it is problematical whether they can be produced at that figure. The Bill will add an additional burden to those already borne by the farmer, and will increase the cost of production. The mealie growers will have to pay a levy to provide an inspector, who will go round at the instigation of the Minister of Agriculture to inspect mealie plantations. This officer is given the following powers. He may remove the stalks or leaves, expose the roots, cut the cobs, or otherwise mutilate the mealie plants and then may report to the Minister that the plantation needs cleansing. The Minister may thereupon order the farmer to cleanse his land. Try as he may, however, the fanner may not succeed and the Minister may attempt the task with the same result, but the bill of costs incurred will be sent in to the owner for payment. Although it will be impossible to determine whether the Minister’s representatives have succeeded in cleansing the land, the Minister is empowered to hold a pistol at the farmer’s head and say to him “pay up the cost.” How will it be possible to grow mealies at a profit if these additional burdens are to be thrown on the farmer? I am inclined to think that the cost of cleansing will amount to a very considerable sum, probably run into hundreds of pounds in the case of large fields. Should the unfortunate farmer not be able to pay, the Minister is empowered to endorse the amount on the title deeds of the farm, and henceforth the farm would be mortgaged to the Agricultural Department. As long as that endorsement remained on the title deed, the owner would not be able to transfer his farm, although he might be able to mortgage it subject to the first bond held by the Minister. Thus the farmer would have a burden of debt hanging around his neck which he might never be able to free himself from. I can hardly think that hon. members who grow mealies will lend themselves to vexatious legislation of this nature. There is another aspect of the question which will meet with the very greatest opposition from maize growers in Natal. That is tile question of native labour tenants on farms. There are very few farmers in Natal who farm extensively who do not keep native tenants on their farms, this being the most dependable labour procurable, the farmer giving them land to cultivate and for grazing their animals. But if the farmer’s agricultural land is to be taken possession of by the Agricultural Department for the purpose of being cleansed and you have your native lands alongside, who is going to cleanse them? Is the Agricultural Department going to do so? Who is going to pay for it? What on earth is the good of incurring all this liability if you have native land alongside which is badly infested? The whole thing is impracticable. If there had been any merit in these proposals I have no doubt the Minister of Agriculture would have introduced legislation long ago to deal with the question. Another hon. member, who is a big farmer in the north of Natal, has something in the neighbourhood of 1,000 acres of ground on the boundaries of a native location Is the Minister going to insist on this man cleansing His land? It would be nothing short of a persecution to attempt such a course. It is the old old story; we have these vexatious restrictions imposed on the farmer against his will; he has the maximum of interference with the minimum of benefits—often with no benefit at all. I hope the mealie farmers, together with the other farmers, will, to a man, oppose this measure If you happen to be in an area which is brought under the provisions of this measure, it compels you to come under its operation, and where it is going to end one does not know. Twelve farmers may attend a meeting in a magisterial division and pass a resolution which will bring the whole of the division under this law.

That is not the law.

Yes, it is. In Clause 5 (1) it provides that the same principle applying to wards can apply to a division where not less than ten farmers meet, and decide to come under the operation of the Bill.

You are wrong.

No, I am not.

They must sign a petition.

They attend a meeting and pass a resolution asking the Minister, and the effect is that the whole of the district is put under the operation of the law, which is a monstrous proposition, and is going to inflict much damage on the mealie farmers, that is if this Bill becomes law.

I should also like to say a few words about this Bill as an old maize grower for the last 42 years. I had the honour of even being called a mealie king in the Transvaal. I therefore think I can speak authoritatively on the Bill. I still grow maize, but on a small scale. My two sons are nearly mealie kings now. I feel so nervous when I look at this Bill. I should not like to disappoint my hon. friend here, but yet I feel that there is too much idealism in the Bill, and too little sign of practical experience. Our farmers must be very careful now a days; we have heard here that we must sell and produce our maize at 9/6 a bag, that means practically a loss, and as measures are now being debated which will cause extra expense, we must be very careful about an extra shilling cost of a bag of mealies. If that were necessary, I should like to see a Bill to ask the Minister of Agriculture to do everything in his power to seek a remedy against this plague. But here we have a Bill before we know any effective remedy against the caterpillar. I am afraid about it. We all know that our mealie lands are only fallow in August. The mealie stalks are our winter veld, and the stock graze there until September. Then we have to plough again. Labour is very scarce. It is almost impossible to get labour, and now we want to compel people to take out all the stalks. It is impossible because there are millions. He will say that we must ourselves ask for the application of the Act. But what will happen ? Twelve farmers may demand a meeting. At that meeting there will be possibly twelve present. Some are too busy, others do not hear about it, and we find that the twelve farmers present decide what shall happen in the whole maize-producing area. A negligible minority brings the Act into operation over the whole area. I am frightened of that sort of thing. I should like to see the Minister getting good advice. I have no more than 2 per cent, of worms in my maize. Some of my neighbours are here, and I invite any hon. member to go and look at my sons’ maize: worms are an exception in their lands. We plough the ground early in winter.

That is what we advise.

Yes, we found it out. We then let the ground lie fallow, and we do not plant the mealies early. People plant the mealies too early. The moth flies around early; one does not know how far it flies, because it flies at night. We do not put our mealies into the ground before the first of November, and the moth is then finished. The mealies have come up and they look splendid now. The mealies sold in October are small and shrivelled up; the moths attack them.

The plague can therefore be combated.

Yes, but I am afraid that twelve farmers with the magistrate will decide what method must be adopted in a specific area. I would not have opposed the Bill if it were not that the Minister is engaged in finding the best remedy to use. I will give him all the information at my disposal. Let us first find out the right thing and then I will support the hon. member. This Bill is dangerous. It puts a halter around the farmers necks because we do not know the right remedy yet. If the Bill is very necessary, the Minister would soon have been prepared to introduce it. Why is it Left to a private member? The Minister is afraid. He introduces many Bills but this he prefers to leave to a private member. But then there is still the tail of the whole thing, and it is possible that there will be a sting, perhaps a levy will be imposed. I am afraid that the maize farmers will not be able to bear the cost. Let 75 per cent, of the maize farmers ask for the Bill and sign their lames. Then it will be reasonable, but it is not reasonable to allow a few farmers to decide to compel everyone when those who decide only possibly cultivate a few morgen. I am sorry but I cannot vote for it.

A plague worse than the one referred to by the mover is the inordinate craze of running to the Government with regard to matters which should be dealt with by individuals. I think the position has been clearly put by the member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins). If the Government is in a position to give useful advice I feel sure that the mealie growers of the Free State and elsewhere will make use of such means as may be at their disposal to combat this pest. I would ask the mover whether he would apply his motion to potato fields, lucerne lands, wheat and oat lands. All those are subject to the same pests as mealie lands. The whole scheme is impracticable and absurd. Would be apply it also to the army worm, and other grubs, caterpillars, and the small fly, which infest our mealie lands and devastate our turnip fields and other crops. No, sir, the whole measure is ill considered and unworkable and I hope that the Minister will not consent to constitute him-self the managing director of every branch of our farming industry.

I am very sorry to say at once that I cannot support this Bill. As a maize grower, and representing one of the largest producing areas and who knows the farmers’ troubles, I see no chance of doing so. In the first place, I have had to battle with caterpillars myself, and have travelled a lot among the farmers. There was not one who asked for legislation like this. Every farmer must fight the plague in his own way. I think it is a superfluous Bill, before we have found the proper remedy against the plague. We have heard to-day about the boring worm, but let me point out that in my constituency much more loss is suffered from the so-called ground worm, which eats the mealie before it comes up under ground. In my opinion they are not at all the same thing, that worm that eats under ground, and the maize stalk-borer. Now we come to the point as to how to fight that worm. We have not the least knowledge of how it lives or how to fight it, and the caterpillar is not such a great danger in my opinion. One hon. member has already stated how he fought it, and I can, myself, state that my lands are clean, and that there are no caterpillars in my mealies. Why should we introduce legislation to compel the farmer to fight the plague before we know the best way of doing so”. We do not know what burden we shall be laying on the maize farmers. Therefore, I am not now inclined, as a representative of maize producers, to vote for the Bill. We shall possibly be placing an impracticable burden upon them. Without having consulted my constituents, and knowing their views, I cannot support the Bill.

As a maize farmer, and a representative of maize growers, I am compelled to oppose the Bill. I sympathise somewhat with the hon. member who introduced the Bill, but he has employed a wrong method. He ought to have drafted a separate Bill, which would be applicable to mealie lands, and not to have used an Act which has to do with trees and apply it to maize. I should like to hear from the Minister whether a method of killing the caterpillar has been found, an effective method. I am certain the Minister cannot rise and say that it has. I speak from personal experience because I have tried everything. I have tried cutting down the stalks; I have tried ploughing the ground, but still I get the caterpillars. As long as we have no remedy, which the expert can assure us will be effective to kill the caterpillar, I think the Bill is premature. I am speaking now as a wattle farmer. A few years ago I asked an expert what the best remedy was against the so-called sap worm. He replied that I must catch them all in a bucket and kill them. Just imagine where there are hundreds and thousands in a plantation, that I must catch them all and kill them. I should have to climb the trees to catch them. Before the experts suggest an effective remedy, I say the Bill cannot be passed. I think it is a matter for the country. We look to the Minister for such a Bill. Why did he not introduce it? Clearly because his department is not certain how actually to eradicate the caterpillars. I say that the Bill is premature, and will cost the farmers a lot of money. If the hon. member had introduced a Bill, which would reduce the cost of production of the maize farmers, or which would result in them getting a better price for their maize, we would all vote for it, but, as it is, I think it will be a burden; the farmers will have to pay more. As the maize farmers are having a very bad time—they only get 8/- a bag—it is not the time now for such legislation.

The debate has been very interesting, and it was useful to discuss this matter. I want to give the hon. member credit of having made a thorough study of the subject, and making a splendid speech. I agree with what he says, but I want to issue a warning against being too hasty. Only one district, his own, has asked for the Bill, but there are other districts, which are just as much interested, and I do not think we ought to act too fast. Much legislation has been introduced this year in the interests of farmers, and we are afraid that we shall be running too quickly to the Government every time for further legislation. One great difficulty is that no definite remedy has yet been discovered. Many things have been suggested, but on examination they seem unpractical. The hon. member who has just spoken mentioned his splendid maize crops in the Transvaal. Only big men can afford to let part of the ground lie fallow, and to plough the other part. It is said that the stalks must be taken out, but a large section of the farmers feed their cattle with them. The stalk can only be effectively removed during a certain time of the year; but the Bill will then make it difficult for the stock to live on them. The Government has experimental farms, and I agree with hon. members that we should first find a remedy. The hon. member has represented that this Bill is based on the 1925 Act, and is very innocent. I do not think it is so very innocent, and therefore I move as an amendment—

We, as practical farmers, can meet and draft a better Bill than this is at present. In my experience the plague is worse one year than it is another year, and it is very possible that the following year it will totally disappear. Thus, we should not be in too much of a hurry.

I second the amendment, and want to add that it has clearly appeared from the debate that there are still various points requiring solution. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Boshoff) had made a very sensible suggestion, viz., to give us, the representatives of the various constituencies, a chance of consulting our electors. Other hon. members have already pointed out that section 6 of the principal Act might give rise to many difficulties. Think, e.g., of the natives in the bushveld who produce a patch of mealies on the farm, while the owner lives in the Free State or the Cape. We have many practical men, and kings in the department of maize production. Let us therefore refer the matter to the select committee, and in the meantime we can consult our constituents.

I do not want to delay the House. The hon. member meant well in the advancement of the farmers’ interests, but as a maize farmer with considerable experience I must say at once that I think that the application of this Bill is quite unpracticable at present. One cannot collect five in a hundred farmers who are in agreement about the eradication of caterpillars. They all suggest differing and conflicting remedies. The Agricultural Department has as yet no fixed plan for its eradication, and in the circumstances we cannot possibly legislate. Experts say that it takes fifteen days before the eggs germinate and that thereafter it takes fourteen days before the chrysalis appears. Experienced farmers again state that it takes three weeks to three months before the chrysalis comes out. The department is looking for remedies and I think legislation is undesirable now. The Bill proposed would be nothing else but an irritant to annoy the farmer and they already have had enough of those irritating little Acts.

I wish to oppose the motion that this Bill be referred to a select committee. I think that it is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture and his department to deal with it. I think, after they have investigated this question of pests and diseases in mealies, and can come to us with some concrete scheme, then will be the time when we should deal with it. I have listened to the arguments put forward by the mover of the Bill and by those who are supporting it, and while they have been most interesting, and the thanks of the House are due to them for bringing it to the notice of the Government, I am more convinced than ever that the Bill is an impossible one, and it is quite impracticable at the present time. One of the arguments brought forward in favour of the Bill is that it is not compulsory, but that it is optional. I think that is one of the weakest arguments in favour of this Bill. If the problem is such a serious one that it is going to affect the mealie industry as has been represented, then, if the remedy suggested is of any value at all, it should be made compulsory and it should be applied to the whole country. Permissive laws are of very little value when you come to deal with stock diseases or plant pests. What would be the position of the Scab Act in the country if it was not a compulsory one? We would get nowhere at all if it were optional and the farmers in any particular district could apply it or not. Although the farmers would probably like to support the Act because it is permissive, thinking that some foolish district may apply it, and they may get the benefit of the experience in that district, this Bill does not provide anything for those districts which would be foolish enough to apply this Act. Once having had the Act applied to a district, it provides no means, if it is a failure, for being released from such an Act. I feel that the introduction of this Bill has done a certain amount of good. It has drawn the attention of the Minister to this serious problem, and I feel certain that he and his department are going to take some action in the matter. I think if something reasonable is put before us, then would be the time when we should deal with the question. I hope that hon. members will be willing to wait until such time before we deal with this Act.

We must certainly rejoice that the hon. member for Lindley (Dr. Conradie) has made an attempt to pass this Bill. Our farmers have long realised how serious the caterpillar plague is, but I fear that the time is not yet ripe for this sort of legislation. I do not like to throw cold water on his enthusiasm, but I am sorry I cannot support him, but will vote for the amendment for a select committee. I cannot support the Bill because it is entirely new legislation. The country has not yet expressed an opinion about it. The hon. member says that a meeting was held in his constituency, but that was possibly the only one in the country where this matter was discussed. Secondly, I am opposed to it because there is apparently no effective remedy against the pest to-day. We are still at the enquiring stage, and we cannot now pass the Bill. Another reason seems to be that we are a little bit panicky because the plague is particularly bad this year—worse than ever before. We have, of course, had it for many years, but never so severe, and always merely in the early mealies that are planted in October. All the insect pests are bad this year, the blue fly is worse than ever before, and so also the house fly. I therefore think that we must not be too hasty in running to the Government for further legislation.

It has been said from various sides that I remain silent on this matter. It is sometimes a good thing for hon. members to debate a subject in the House, and I certainly think that a discussion about legislation like this is very useful and instructive. For this reason, I think, we can be glad that the hon. member has introduced the Bill. The people in the districts where mealies are grown, will be brought together, and they will think about the matter. I also think that the farmers on both sides of the House must stand together in agricultural matters of this kind, so that we can pass the best legislation. Let me now say with regard to the destruction, our department has found a remedy by which 75 to 85 per cent, of the mealies can be saved. The hon. member who introduced this Bill has referred to spraying. The question arises whether we are merely to sit still in the hope that the caterpillars will disappear by themselves. I feel that it may be possible to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers), and I hope it will be agreed to by hon. members opposite. Let us go to a committee room and find out whether it will be economical, seeing we can save about 95 per cent., and whether it will be worth while to incur the expense. If hon. members opposite do not agree to the suggestion for a select committee, I fear that the proposer ought not to proceed with the Bill. The country will, however, see what a great effort he has made to progress; it will be discussed and members will get a mandate when they come back here. My objection to the Bill is this. Hon. members will see that the Bill is permissive. I want, however, to call attention to the objection mentioned by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), which, is fairly well grounded. I have had experience of such legislation. The meeting which is held is often a small one, and the other people wake up after a resolution is passed. There is then no right of appeal. I may not allow the resolution to be withdrawn. I must carry out the law, and I shall get the blame. The maize farmers are practically restricted to the Transvaal and the Free State, and we must consider whether at least 75 per cent, of the maize farmers ought not to be present at a meeting in favour of the Act, or sign their names to that effect. When 75 per cent, of the farmers in the district are in favour of applying the Bill, then I don’t think there can be much objection. The hon. member did well in bringing up the Bill. He advocated the matter very ably, and even if we cannot pass the Bill in this form, let us, at any rate, co-operate to see what way we ought to take. There is, however, no suggestion made by the other side of the House. It seems as if hon. members think that we should allow matters to take their course. The new remedy which has been referred to, viz., the spraying of mealies, works out at 4d. an acre, labour, of course, excluded, and I think we should try to do something to assist the farmers to eradicate the plague without interfering with them too much. It has been pointed out that it already costs the farmer 8s. 6d. to produce a bag of mealies, and such remedies will further increase the expenditure. But the question occurs to me whether it will not be better to spend 4d. more, and to keep the maize, rather than throw away the whole 8s. 6d. I can just say this, that I think we ought to go to a select committee with the Bill, and I hope the hon. member will agree to that. I want to appeal to hon. members opposite to consider it. I feel it is difficult to take such a step by way of a resolution of a meeting. I must see to the carrying out of the resolution, and all the criticism comes to my share. We must be careful not to exercise any force. Our people follow us, but we know that we cannot drive them. It is very easy to pass a Bill like this, but it is very difficult to administer it in such a way as to carry the public with us. One thing is certain, we are going to have trouble if we try to drive the people. I think, however, that it will be worth while our seriously considering whether we ought not to make an attempt to fight the plague more successfully. If our present remedies give satisfaction, let us bring them to the notice of the farmers. The advice given by the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Heyns) was given years ago to the Department, of Agriculture by the farmers, and I hope our formers will give their attention to it. We may find a solution in select committee. There are, of course, farmers who have suffered severely this year, and they want immediate legislation, but we must be careful to debate the matter very well before we pass a measure which will be so difficult to administer, and before we act hastily. I have been asked whether there is an absolutely effective remedy against this plague, as in the case of scab. Both at Cedara and at Potchefstroom and on the high veld we are searching for an effective remedy, but I cannot yet say we have found it. On the other hand, I must also say that we have not yet found an effective remedy against a disease like east coast fever. We are only fighting the bush-lice, but that, of course, does not mean that we must take no measures for the fighting of east coast fever. So, also, in this case. I think, however, that we must not push legislation of this kind through. We ought rather to try to get the co-operation of all sections of the House.

I just want to make a few remarks in answer to the arguments of hon. members this afternoon. In the first place, hon. members do not appear actually to understand the principle I am aiming at in this Bill, because each time one rises he argues about the methods that should be applied. The Bill does not deal with the methods; its object is nothing else than to create machinery, and if in some district a remedy is found, and the people there want to have a chance of applying it, to give them an opportunity to do so. When scab was originally fought no method was laid down; when the Act of 1925 was passed, no method was laid down either. The fact is that there are farmers in certain districts who think they have discovered an adequate remedy. In other districts the farmers were possibly not sufficiently bothered, hence they had not thought about a method. I have noticed to-day that all the farmers from the districts who have not many caterpillars on their lands, are against the Bill, but all the farmers who know the necessity of it, are prepared to give it a trial. It is a peculiarity of the South African farmer that he has to experience a setback and trouble before he thinks of a way to counter the reverse. I represent a district where the caterpillar plague is much worse this year than ever before, and I can assure hon. members that half of the mealies have already been destroyed, and the other half runs a great risk of yet being destroyed. Then there is another misunderstanding. Certain hon. members representing maize farmers think that we want to apply a compulsory method. That is not the case. The Bill merely proposes to create certain machinery to enable the farmers to apply their own methods. We only want them to have the Minister’s authority to apply this method in their own way, and the Bill will not be imposed on farmers who do not ask for it. It is therefore not correct when hon. members, like the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) and Klip River (Mr. Anderson) say that we want to inflict compulsory legislation on farmers who do not want it. It is clear that hon. members have never been in the difficulties that my constituency has suffered during the past year, and especially the present year. The pest has assumed a national character, costing the country millions every year. It is of so serious a nature that the whole industry is threatened with destruction by it. As for the remedies, it is not necessary to lay down what methods must be followed. The high veld will probably have its own methods, and the low veld others. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Maj. Rood) mentioned the question of Clause 6, as I think did another member. I want to point out that they are wrong. The clause does not speak of adjoining districts, but of adjoining farms. Therefore on proclamation the Act will not apply to adjoining districts, but only to adjoining farms. In the circumstances hon. members need not be afraid of the Act being applied elsewhere. Then it is further objected that twelve farmers in a district can enforce the law. It seems to me that hon. members exaggerate. It is laid down that twelve farmers can sign a petition. Then a month has to elapse before the meeting is advertised and the meeting decides whether the Act shall apply to the district. It is not the twelve farmers who pass the resolution; they can, of course, attend the meeting, when the resolution is passed, to approach the Government to proclaim the Act in the district. If the Government were to get the resolution from twelve farmers, it could say that there were only twelve farmers and that they would therefore not proclaim the Act before they knew the opinion of the whole district. I believe that the Government would act in this way, and I do not see any concealed danger. The hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) said that there was no danger in his district. That is exactly what I said that, because hon. members do not see the danger, they will not fight it. When are we to fight it? When it is serious or not ?

To a point of order, I said that the pest was not more serious than ever before, but I also said that the following year it would not be so serious.

I quite accept the hon. member’s explanation. I want to add that experience shows that it is not equally serious for two successive years. During the following year the hatching out will possibly be too late for the harvest, but during the third year they will once more be very bad. It is therefore not enough to comfort ourselves with the thought that the plague will not be so bad next year. What about the third year, when the harvest is again ruined? I feel that it is a very serious and important question, and I should like to accept the hint of the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers), which is supported by the Minister, for the Bill to be referred to a select committee to see what can be done, and if necessary to introduce legislation.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, viz.—

put and agreed to.

My motion represents two of the greatest grievances affecting railwaymen throughout the Union. Had the department carried out in full the recommendations of the Hours of Duty Committee and the schedules promised, there would have been no complaints to-day. The recommendations of the Hours of Duty Committee, according to the Minister’s statement in the House. January 25, 1926, were presented to the Administration after the fullest enquiry. The report was unanimous, and broadly the recommendations of the committee were that a general eight hour day, on the basis of a guaranteed fortnight of 96 hours, should be applied under certain conditions to all sections of the running staff. That includes the drivers, firemen, guards and ticket examiners. The committee went on to say that the estimated cost of giving effect to the committee’s report, as a whole—it does not apply only to the running staff, but to the whole of the railway staff, the traffic staff and the construction staff— would be approximately £500,000. The half million costs do not apply to the running staff only, because their numbers are approximately 6½ per cent, of the total staff of the railway; that is to say if we include the construction staff; or per cent, if we include the traffic staff only. The numbers are 84,405 men in the traffic staff and 6,467 men in the running staff. If we allocate 10 per cent, of that half million to the cost of the committee’s report, as regard to the running staff, that would mean £50,000. The Minister replied to this recommendation, and on page 6 of the Minister’s statement in this House, of the 25th January, 1926, he states—

When they said this they made a grave mistake. The only partly acted on the recommendation of the committee. They agreed to an eight-hour day for drivers and firemen and a nine-hour day for guards, examiners, and guard-examiners. The Minister’s intention was to make his proposals on a basis of cost. What is the result? This system was inaugurated in 1925. I have not the latest figures for 1929, but I have the figures of the overtime paid for the 12 months ending March 21st, 1928, and they are—

The system, therefore, which was inaugurated in 1925, has been a far more expensive one from a finance point of view; and from the point of view of public safety, it has been a failure. There were more railway accidents and derailments between 1925 and 1929 than in any similar period in the history of the railways. The reason is not far to seek.

Was not that a system recommended by the committee ?

I recommend the Minister and the House to read the Minister’s statement to this House on page VI on January 25th. 1926—to refresh his memory.

In what respect ?

In respect of the eight hour basis, and on account of the cost. The Minister says he can only go part of the way because he could only concede a quarter of a million pounds. He certainly did not adopt the committee’s report as far as the running staff is concerned.

I adopted the basis the committee laid down.

No, sir, your own words prove you are wrong, and I will prove it to the hon. Minister as we proceed. The operating officers are able to manipulate the time of these men. Some of these drivers and firemen are on duty 16 hours a day, and they get nothing for it, because their operating officers watching these men’s time sheets see that they have a short shift in the following week to balance, and when complaints are made the men are victimized in some manner. Sometimes they are booked off for a whole day. The men complain bitterly of these long hours, and is it any wonder that accidents occur under these circumstances? The Minister knows there are limitations of the human frame. A man driving an engine for eight hours a day in this country suffers from fatigue, and with the heat from the fires sleepiness follows. Can you wonder there are derailments and accidents? But the cruel part is where these men are called upon to be upon the footplate for 16 hours a day, and receive no benefit at all. In one case, an officer slides a man back to the five hour day in order that he may not exceed his 96 or 108 hours as the case may be. These long shifts in spite of the Minister’s undertaking, which was given on page 6 of his statement to this House, and here the Minister says—

This was His undertaking in regard to the schedules, but there is a more important one on page 20. Here it says definitely under subsection (d) that—

I say this has never been adhered to and I challenge the Minister to deny it. These excessive hours are going on continually, and the Government have ignored their promises to these men. Let me give the House a few examples in regard to this running staff. On the Worcester section there is a shift working from Cape Town whose overtime often extends to 16 hours. Sometimes the man is returned spare and in other cases he runs on a fast train on the following day giving only six or seven hours. On the suburban sections where the day is made up of short runs, some shifts are 12 hours or over for the week, and the corresponding week the hours are reduced to eight hours or less, which does not really count for overtime, which means 96 hours for which the man gets paid nothing extra. But the public safety is endangered by these excessive hours. Now, here is a roster from a guard on the Wynberg-Simonstown line. One week he worked 12 hours and 3 minutes a day, and in the following week he worked 8 hours 20 minutes per day. It will be readily seen that the first week is to be paid at overtime rates on the basis of a 54 hour week (6 days) and there would be an overtime payment of 18 hours 18 minutes. The opposite week, of 50 hours, would be four hours short, and these four hours are taken off the 18 hours Worked in the previous week. I can give a case in Natal. From Pietermaritzburg to Cato ridge, an all-round run of six hours: Men called upon to do double journey 12 hours a day, and I can give the Minister an instance of a driver in a recent derailment where there was a loss of life. He signed off at 11.30 p.m. and signed on at 5 o’clock next morning, giving him five-and-a-half hours rest.

Slavery.

In the Hours of Duty report the men, themselves were called as witnesses, and on page 12 of the report what they have to say about these long hours is interesting. On page 12, paragraph 25, it says—

These men know the danger they run, and yet they were unanimous in giving evidence before the committee, that no run should be scheduled for more than ten hours, and the running staff said that their duties were sufficiently arduous and responsible and continuous to warrant eight hour shifts. Here is the most important part of these men’s statement—

What can we expect with a system such as this that has been working for five years? We know that never in the history of this country have we had so many derailments and accidents, and the remedy lies in the reasonable request of these men that they put up, that the running staff be put on an eight hour basis, and that each day stand by itself, and that if any man works more than eight hours in a single day he receives overtime at the rate of time-and-a-quarter. If the administration had to pay on the day basis for each trip of eight hours and were definitely committed to pay overtime at enhanced rates of time-and-a-quarter on each trip, the train schedules would be very soon altered to meet the situation in order to avoid the payment of overtime. The result would be shorter hours and not these excessive ly long hours. At the present time the men working 16 hours get no overtime, and as I have pointed out the system has failed, not only financially, but also so far as efficacy is concerned in the running of the railways. Now I come to the second portion of my motion: That is the workshop artisans. In 1923 a regulation was made that any new entrant should be paid 2s. per day less than the ones engaged prior to him. It did not apply only to the artisans. It was called the “Jagger cut.” This was made by reason of the bad times the country was going through, and it was applied in the form of a 10 per cent, reduction in the salaries of civil servants. I say this that it was by no means intended this cut was to be permanent. It was an expedient for the time being to tide things over. The civil servants agreed to this cut because they knew it was only a temporary measure. The hon. Minister who is now laughing at what I say, in the 1924 elections, he and his colleagues were going about the country telling these men that when they got into power they would put these things right. I am sorry that the Minister of Finance is not in his seat because he was one of the Ministers who made that statement and the Minister of Railways and Harbours was another.

Do not make wild statements; give us the facts.

Those statements were made by you, but if the Minister wants me to give him the place and time to a second I cannot give it to him. The look on the Minister’s face, however, shows that he is one of the culprits. The rail way men were promised that this two shillings difference a day would disappear and that all would be levelled up alike. It was never intended by the previous Government that it should be permanent. Since 1924 this Government have boasted and blown out their cheeks about the surplus. They then had an opportunity to do this and a good opportunity. They said “Look at the railway surplus we have got”. They said, “Look at the money we have got as compared with the South African Party surplus.”

A non-existing surplus.

I am sorry that I do not see the Minister of Labour in his seat because this Government introduced a wages Act during their term of five years. I want to know what the Labour Minister has been doing, because this differentiation of pay of artizans is in direct conflict with the Wages Act which lays down equal pay for equal work done. There we had the greatest protagonist in Africa who has preached from the Limpopo to the Cape L’Agulhas that we must give equal pay for equal work. Why is the Minister of Labour absent this afternoon? I counted on his support; but I am compensated by the presence of the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister how he can sit there complacently with his arms folded and tolerate this handicap on our young South African artizans. I feel sure his fair-mindedness will impel him to support the motion. Can the Minister of Railways quote a similar case in which artizans in Government or municipal employ receive different rates of pay for precisely the same sort of work? If he does, let him tell the House. I claim the support of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, for I can see by his beaming face that he is all out for the motion, as it embodies one of the cardinal principles which he has been preaching for many years. Then I count on the support of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown).

You will get my support, but I don’t believe in half of what you say.

You have no right to judge me by yourself. We are told that the railways are expanding in every direction, but it must not be forgotten that the men who are responsible for that expansion are the very men whose cause I am pleading to-day. Our railwaymen are self-respecting, industrious and patriotic; I commend the motion to the House, and if the motion is carried there will be greater efficiency and contentment in the Union railway service.

I move as an amendment—

I cannot possibly hope to emulate the eloquence of the proposer of the motion, but I should like to give my reasons for bringing forward my proposal. Possibly there may be a number of members who are not fully acquainted with the reasons which have actuated the railwaymen in asking for this act of justice. We are now discussing a question affecting a large section of the population of our country, and we should give it the same attention as we do when discussing agricultural questions and questions of cattle. The position is that an Hours of Duty Commission sat in 1925, when the whole question of the eight hour day was considered. Prior to that time it had been introduced but taken away, and the engine-drivers and firemen were working on a nine-hour day and the guards and the ticket examiners on a ten-hour day. It was the unanimous desire of the running staff that a uniform eight-hour day should be introduced, that each day should stand by itself, and that overtime be paid for any part of a day which exceeded an eight hours’ day— for eight hours’ work. That commission consisted of representatives of the Administration and of the running staff and seemed an admirable commission, if I may say so; after hearing evidence it came to a unanimous conclusion which was that the eight hours’ day should be extended to members of the running staff— engine drivers, firemen, guards and ticket examiners. The full request of these men was not accede! to, that each day should stand by itself. Instead of doing that the commission recommended that the hours should be pooled and that there should be a 96 hours’ fortnight. I stand by that report. The hon. member who has spoken last has put forward, undoubtedly, a strong case for carrying out to its full extent the request of the men, but I realise the difficulties in the way of the Administration. The Minister has given the engine-drivers and the firemen an eight hours’ day but not the ticket examiners and the guards. We find that this commission took figures and gave an estimate of the cost of extending the eight-hour day to the running staff, and in its report it is stated that the estimate of the additional cost of the 96-hour fortnight, would amount to approximately £202,166. In 1925 the Minister explained in this House how far the Administration was going to give effect to the report, and he stated that after dealing with the matter very thoroughly, and with a desire to carry out the recommendations, the Administration had come to the conclusion that their present proposal, i.e. to give the eight-hour day to engine drivers and firemen only, would cost one quarter of a million pounds, and that was as far as they could go. There seems to be an inconsistency between the Minister’s estimate and the estimate arrived at by the commission.

It was purely an estimate.

I understand that this was a properly constituted commission, and the ordinary layman would imagine that the evidence given before it would be reliable.

Our actual experience confirms the larger figure.

I accept what the Minister has just said. However, the Minister cannot get away from the fact that there were unanimous recommendations by a joint sitting, as it were, of members of the staff and members of the Railway Administration, and some sort of attempt should be made to carry them out. One must not forget that these guards and ticket examiners who are not getting the benefit of the eight-hour day are subjected to a great strain in the course of their work. Many of these men spend a great deal of time away from their homes. Their life is one of movement and of nervous reaction. Very little criticism can be legitimately levelled against the members of the running staff so far as their efficiency is concerned at the present time. If those men justly deserve consideration of this sort, I suggest it is not for the Minister to say that we cannot find the money. The Government is able to find the money for other purposes. There is no difficulty about finding it for appointments overseas, extra emoluments in connection with appointments overseas, and for climatic emoluments.

It just happens that the railway finances are divorced from the general finances.

I quite agree, but, according to last year’s figures, the railways are run at a handsome profit. In regard to the differential rates of pay, I spoke on this matter last session, and the Minister then indicated it was not his intention to go back on his clear decision. We ask that the differential rate of pay should be removed as far as the artisans are concerned. It leads to dissatisfaction. I am perfectly convinced that the Minister would consider it somewhat of an injustice if he found himself drawing emoluments at a lower scale than his colleagues sitting on his right, and the same sense of injustice must apply to the railway workers. Coming to the motion which I ask should be added to the motion of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane), which concerns the question of the pay of the workmen who have been brought into the service as civilized labourers, the Government has taken great credit for providing work for a large number of European labourers. I have not the exact figures before me, but I understand that something like 14,000 have been drafted into the railway administration. Certainly no reasonable person could take exception to this, but while the hon. Minister takes credit for drafting Europeans into railway service, those men are not being paid a living wage. The more one investigates the matter, the more clear it becomes that a wage of 5s. a day for a single man, or 6s. 6d. a day for a married man, is not a civilized wage. The hon. Minister has given figures to-dry in regard to payments to these labourers, from which it would appear that, excluding casual labourers, 11,412 European unskilled labourers are employed at 6s. 6d. a day or under; of these, 5,370 receive 5s. a day, 1,217 a lower rate, and 432 3s. a day. Does the Minister consider, as a protagonist of a white South Africa, that this is a civilized rate of pay? The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) said he hoped he would have the support of the Labour members for his motion, but I was surprised at the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) who stated that the hon. member would get his support, but that he did not believe what he was saying. We, on this side of the House, are trying to speak according to our convictions in this matter, and certainly believe in the justice of this motion.

Are you speaking for the party ?

There is not a man on this side of the House who would be a party to this rate of pay. When I look around this House I cannot help asking, paraphrasing the words of a famous writer—

I appeal to the hon. Minister, because I think he must realize that this wage is not a civilized wage. The other day I was approached by a man who had come in from the country because of the lure of good wages on the railway. He said, “How can I live on 6s. a day with six children and a wife living in one room?” I consider that these are grossly demoralizing conditions. It seems to me that this question is very much allied to the question of the drift of Europeans to the towns. The hour is getting late and I cannot carry on as long as I should like to.

Go on.

I say this that I would ask the hon. Minister and the Government seriously to consider this question of the drift of Europeans from the rural districts to the towns. I am convinced that the Government is responsible for the idea that if one only went to the towns one could get work, and I realize that that has had an insidious influence on the life of the workers. But while we have got these Europeans from the rural districts, while they are working in the towns and getting employment with the Railway Administration, I submit that the Government must face the facts. This idea of the Government is illogical; for the Government to say that they cannot pay these people any higher wages. It has fourteen thousand white labourers in its employ. It should set an example to others, instead of attempting to lead other employers by the nose. Through the wages Act it is laying down what a private employer should pay his employees. If the Government does that, unless it wants to be accused of gross hypocrisy, it should itself pay proper wages. At the present time the Railway Administration is being inconsistent with the professed principles of the Government. I am sorry that the hon. Minister of Labour is not present, because I should like to hear him express his opinion on the subject. However, he has his stalwarts here and the members of the Labour party. I feel certain I shall get the support of hon. members opposite. I appeal in all sincerity to the hon. Minister to give this matter his careful attention. Ministers may say that it is financially impossible. It seems to me that that is no answer. If it is not financially possible the Government should not have allowed these men to go into the railway service.

Would you go back to the natives?

I am not discussing that question.

Answer it.

I am quite prepared to answer it. I say without fear that it is an excellent policy if the Minister can get white men to work for the Railway Administration, hut unless you can pay them a living wage you should not employ them. Are the mines employing white men? No. Why? Because they must employ the natives because conditions are economically impossible otherwise.

If the Railway Administration do not give higher wages you will go back to the native ?

I never said that. I do not for a moment admit that the Railway Administration cannot pay them a living wage. My contention is that the state of the railway finances at the present time is such that they can pay proper wages if the business is properly managed. I plead with the Minister so to arrange his finances that these men should be paid the proper wage which they deserve. I also plead with him to see that men are not lured from country districts unless he pays them proper wages. I had an example given to me the other day by a farmer up-country who told me of one man who was down and out. He allowed the man to work on his farm at a small wage, and each year gave him some sheep, and in ten years he was able to hire land of his own. Another man came to the farmer, but after working a short time became discontented and obtained work on the railways as a labourer at 5s. a day, but in 12 months he was back on the farm with hardly anything on his back. It is the duty of the Government to face facts, and to realize that thousands of our men are being lowered in the moral scale simply because the Government refuses to recognize its obligations to them. I sincerely hope that I shall obtain the support of hon. members not only on the cross-benches but also on the Government benches.

I second the motion. I can easily understand that this debate is a very painful one to the Minister of Railways, for chickens are now coming home to roost. The present Minister is not responsible for the inauguration of the white labour policy, as it was in existence before he took office, and I am informed that the pay was considerably higher than it is at present. I do not believe that any man would dispute the fairness of the principle that men doing the same work should receive the same rate of pay.

On the motion of Maj. Richards, the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 14th February.