announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on the University of Pretoria Bill, viz.: Dr. H. Reitz, Messrs. Struben, P. C. de Villiers, Oost, Robinson, Roux and Sturrock; Dr. H. Reitz to be chairman.

I move—

1. (1) The position created by the judgments regarding the residence on or occupation of fixed property by Indians or other persons belonging to the native races of Asia on proclaimed ground in the Transvaal, viz.: (a) the North Eastern Districts Association (Proprietary), Limited, versus the Norwood Land and Investment Co. Ltd.; (b) the Turf Stores (Proprietary), Limited, versus the Municipal Council of Johannesburg; and (c) Franz Koltsch versus Max Pietsch and B. B. Dabhelia.
2. (2) The position created by the judgment in the case of the Town Council of Springs versus Fakir Moosa and Moosa Essop Sidat relative to the meaning and legal effect of Proclamation No. 190 of 1911, issued under the provisions of Act No. 35 of 1908 (Transvaal).
3. (3) In how far the intentions of Parliament, as indicated in Act No. 37 of 1919, are being given effect to, and whether, and if so, to what extent, an amendment of that Act is desirable.
4. (4) Any other matters cognate to those referred to in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) above which the committee considers it desirable to enquire into and report upon;

The circumstances which have given rise to the introduction of this motion are more or less well known to hon. members. For the last 18 months or so there has existed in connection with Indian trading rights on the Witwatersrand a state of confusion. At present, as the result of various judgments of the Supreme Court, there are between 300 and 400 Asiatics who occupy stands on the Witwatersrand and areas on proclaimed ground, illegally, and are actually exercising trading licences illegally. As a result of that state of confusion, the licensing authorities have been in a state of uncertainty and at the beginning of this year held up the issue and the renewal of trading licences to all those Asiatics concerned. Further, we find that the police authorities, in the expectation that something will be done to remove this uncertainty, are staying their hand. In addition to that, we find that the Government has all along been losing revenue because of these licence fees not having been paid. The motion, which I hope will be accepted, proposes to put an end to that uncertainty and that illegality. Closely allied to the problem I have described are two other problems; first of all, the problem in connection with Asiatic trading licences in the town ship of Springs, where we find there has been a judgment of the court as a result of which the protection which the inhabitants of Springs always thought they possessed against the influx of Asiatics has been taken away, and the appointment of this committee to go also into that matter is to take away the uncertainty and alarm which at present exist in that township. Then, further, in the terms of reference I have included the question of the evasion of the law of 1919 with regard to land ownership on the part of Asiatics. There was the Norwood judgment. Norwood is a so-called private township, and the land which was originally private property was given out as a township, the condition being laid down by the original owner that no coloured person should occupy any of the plots or hold any trading licence. There was no authority which considered it its duty to see that this condition was enforced, in course of time Asiatics encroached on this township, and when the matter was brought before the court we have the judgment that Asiatics in fairly large numbers were occupying stands and trading illegally in that township. Further, we had the so-called Braamfontein judgment. The Norwood case and the Braamfontein case are essentially the same; the only difference is that Braamfontein was originally Crown lands, a Government township, while Norwood was originally private property. Further, we find that the position generally on the Band in other areas was most unsatisfactory. From time to time legislation was passed, first by the Transvaal Republic, afterwards under the Crown Colony Government, and later again by the Union Government, where, under the gold laws provisions for the alienation of land were laid down more or less in the same way as they were laid down in regard to Norwood and Braamfontein, namely, that coloured persons could not occupy or trade on proclaimed land. These laws were evaded from time to time, and from time to time when legislation was passed by Parliament, vested interests, as they existed at that time, where there had been illegal occupation, were protected. The position now, as the result of the judgments of the Supreme Court during the last eighteen months, is that between three and four hundred Asiatics are occupying land illegally, and exercising trading rights illegally, on the Witwatersrand. To make the position more intricate and difficult another difficulty has arisen, and that is the position of the licensing authorities in connection with this matter. The Johannesburg municipality took this matter up. They wanted to know whether it was their duty to refuse trading licences to applicants whom they know are occupying stands illegally, or whether they should not do so. They referred the matter to their legal advisers, who advised them that it was not only their right to refuse trading licences under such circumstances, but it was their duty to do so. The matter was referred by the Johannesburg Town Council to the Government. I referred the matter to our own law advisers, and the result was that in their opinion the municipality had no right to refuse any of the licences on the ground that stands were being occupied illegally by the applicants. Fortunately this matter, where the lawyers differed from each other, was the subject of another judgment by the Supreme Court of the Witwatersrand. Judgment was given in the so-called Turffontein case to the effect that municipalities, even if aware that applicants occupy stands illegally, had no right under the Licensing Ordinance of the Transvaal to refuse licences. That is the position on the Witwatersrand to-day. There is no authority charged with the duty of enforcing the existing laws, and according to the judgment of the courts the local authority has got no right to refuse a licence on the ground that a particular stand is occupied illegally. The select committee which I propose must go into this matter and report to Parliament, and propose legislation to remedy this state of affairs. The other problem, which is allied to the one I have just described, is that of Springs. In former legislation passed in this House in connection with licences, it was generally taken that Springs was a proclaimed area in the same sense as the rest of the Witwatersrand, and that the protection given to the rest of the Rand in regard to Asiatic immigration was afforded to Springs. Recently a case was brought before the Supreme Court, and then it transpired that Springs was really a township which was created under the Crown Lands Disposal Ordinance of 1904, and that it became proclaimed land under the gold law only in 1911. When a case was brought before the Supreme Court to object to certain Asiatics who had occupied plots in the Springs area, the court held that the proclamation of the gold law in 1911 in the area of Springs did not affect the occupation and trading rights of Asiatics which existed before that time. That means that the township of Springs is not at all protected in the same way that the rest of the Witwatersrand is so far as proclaimed ground is concerned. I propose that the select committee shall also go into this matter, and if possible, carry out the intention of Parliament with regard to this proclaimed land at Springs. The third problem is the conditions which exist to-day under the Act of 1919. Act 27 of 1919 was passed by Parliament to prevent Asiatics evading in a certain particular way, or in all possible ways, the old Transvaal law with regard to land ownership. Under the Act of 1885 no Asiatics were allowed to own land in the Transvaal. That law was evaded. Asiatics formed companies and purchased land, and it was found by the court that they could do so legally. It was an evasion, but it was possible under the law which existed. That loophole was, according to the opinion of the House, at that time, stopped, but in the Transvaal there is a very general feeling that there are still loopholes in that Act and that Asiatics are still on a very large scale evading that Act. I propose to refer this matter to the select committee to decide what steps shall be taken to make the law effective and carry out the intention of Parliament. This second confusion which I described here and which I hope the select committee will put an end to, affects not only Asiatics but Europeans. In dealing with this question I suggest Parliament should follow the example which was set by the House in 1919 under similar circumstances when the matter was dealt with not actually by direct legislation but by a select committee report, and the legislation thereby suggested to the House.

I second the motion, but I would just like to add that this motion only refers to the state of trade in certain parts of the Witwatersrand, and does not also refer to the residential conditions in certain parts, especially Vrededorp. Vrededorp falls under Act No. 37 of 1919, which refers both to occupation and the carrying on of trade, and I want to ask the Minister if he will not accept a motion to extend the scope of his motion a little, so that it will also include, e.g., the hiring and letting of houses by Asiatics to natives and others in certain parts of Vrededorp. Those parts were originally intended as a residential area for coloured people, but subsequently they were, to a great extent, occupied by natives. A number of them went to other locations, but the special section is still excluded from the operation of the Urban Areas Act, and the result is that, at the moment, the houses are hired by Asiatics and sub-let by them to natives and coloured people. The position is particularly unsatisfactory because there is actually no direct method for municipal action. I also understand that the Railway Administration is interested in the localities I am thinking of, and I should be glad if the Minister would include this in the enquiry, so that a satisfactory position may be created for Europeans, Asiatics and others interested.

I am very glad to learn that the Minister of the Interior intends to refer the important matters dealt with in this motion to a select committee. I think I can assure him he will have the support of all the members representing Rand constituencies in this House. I do not think at this stage we need delay unduly in discussing the details of the Indian question, but I would like to impress upon the House the necessity of getting the select committee to grips with this question without undue delay. It has been our experience in the past when we have come to an agreement with the Indian community that the ink is hardly dry on such agreement before they find means of getting behind its terms. In 1914 we had the Smuts-Gandhi agreement accepted on both sides as a final settlement of this longstanding controversy. The Indians accepted the terms of that agreement, which confirmed them in their rights as then defined by law, but it was later found that by incorporating themselves into limited liability companies they were able to do things which were prohibited to them in their individual capacity. In a short time we had a large number of limited companies on the Rand who were doing things on behalf of the Asiatics which the law forbade them to do for themselves. Things got so bad that in 1919 this House passed the same restrictions on limited companies in which coloured persons had a controlling interest, as they had before placed on the individuals. But, unfortunately, between 1914 and 1919 no less than 370 companies with a combined capital of £480,000 were floated in the Transvaal for the purpose of evading the Smuts-Gandhi agreement in this way and these were already in existence. By our legislation in 1919 we stopped evasions for the future, but we said nothing about companies already in existence for the purpose of evasion of the law of the country, and they were confirmed in 1919 in rights which they had really obtained illegally. For these reasons it is dangerous to delay, as the more evasions we have before we amend the law the more difficult will become the position in respect of vested rights. If it is possible for the select committee to do anything in this direction, it should also give consideration to the evasions of the past to the end that we will not make more valuable the rights which Asiatics have seized in contravention of the law as we did in 1919. I speak for this side of the House when I say we desire to be fair in our dealings with Asiatics, but we must not be unfair to the European. It is no use passing legislation of the kind the Minister of Labour has just given notice of a few minutes ago, compelling people to pay wages on a white standard, if we are to leave the white trader absolutely unprotected. If we do, then only one of two things can happen—either the white trader goes under or he degenerates down to the scale of the Asiatic. With these few remarks I have much pleasure in supporting the resolution which the hon. the Minister has proposed.

We welcome the motion of the Minister because every time a law has been made our brother Asiatic has evaded it. At one time I ventured to bring a case to the notice of the Minister, and he promised to see whether anything could be done in connection with it. I merely explained that in various smaller towns the white man had tried to protect himself against the Asiatic by putting in the transfer deeds certain restrictions. All transfer deeds in the various small towns in the Transvaal, for instance, contain conditions that Asiatics cannot buy or lease or occupy ground. Well, our friends the Asiatics got past that again. Where people have created communities and have created trade, and have created commerce, the Asiatics have come and, in almost every instance, have placed their store just outside the municipality. If possible, it seems to me, the select committee might take evidence in connection with this matter too, of evading that part of the law. At all events, I commend it to the Minister. I do not want to move an amendment at this stage, but I call attention to this phase of the matter, and I can inform the Minister that it will be a great boon to, at any rate, many people in my constituency if the House could meet them in some way.

I do not think it is necessary to say much in answer to what hon. members have said. The first and the last speakers on the motion have, in my opinion, made definite criticisms, and they ask that certain things should be included which, in their judgment, are not sufficiently embraced in the motion, he hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) said that there was a certain undesirable state of affairs in connection with hiring and letting in Vrededorp to Asiatics and natives. He wishes this question to be included in the motion. Then the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) asked that something should be done about the position that had arisen owing to Asiatics erecting shops around townships, especially the smaller towns and villages. I think that if I went into those requests, then the committee I am asking for would become something else than what is really intended. The intention is to examine the Act as it is to-day, and to enquire whether there is any evasion of it, or not only such evasion, but the unlawful position which arises as a result of contravention of that Act, and which creates a difficult position in a certain area. That is the intention of my motion; the intention is not to appoint a committee to go generally into the Asiatic question. It may be desirable or not to have such a committee, but that is not the object of this motion. I think it will be better to leave it as intended, and to institute an enquiry on the basis of the existing legislation into the position that has arisen in consequence thereof, and if the intention of the existing law is not being carried out, to introduce legislation which will give effect to that intention of Parliament. I therefore think it better to leave the motion unaltered.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

This Bill is to amend the University of South Africa Act of 1916. It is a short little Bill consisting of two clauses; the first deals with the recognition of degrees granted by other South African universities, by the University of South Africa including its constituent colleges, and also with the recognition of work and courses with a view to the recognition by the University of South Africa of certain degrees of certain other South African universities. The second clause may be a little contentious. It deals with the sale of certain property of the University of South Africa situate in Queen Victoria Street, Cape Town. I do not think there can be any difference of opinion about the first clause. It is a pure oversight that that power has not already been granted to the University of South Africa in the existing Act. That university has the right of granting degrees to its graduates, but it has not the right to recognize the courses of a student who has obtained his degree in another university, and who then comes to the University of South Africa to take his doctor’s or master’s degree. Power to do so ought to have been given in the original Act. In connection with the second clause, I must give the history of the property. It originally belonged to the University of the Cape of Good Hope; it was acquired by way of a gift from the Hiddingh family, who gave the University of the Cape of Good Hope a piece of ground, plus £25,000. The Currie family also donated £25,000 to the same university. That is, however, not all the capital that was spent on that property. Altogether the University of the Cape of Good Hope spent £110,000 on it. The donations, therefore, only amounted to 50 per cent, of the expenditure. When the Cape University ceased to exist or was transformed into the University of South Africa in 1916, that property was transferred to the latter university. This university owned the property, although it made no use of it, because it is established in Pretoria. The University of South Africa, therefore, let the building to the University of Cape Town for £20,000 a year. The University of Cape Town, however, no longer requires the property; its new buildings at Groot Schuur are nearing completion, and the University of South Africa can, therefore, not let the building in Queen Victoria Street on the same favourable terms. It therefore now desires to obtain some benefits from it in another way. In 1916, when the University of South Africa Act was passed, certain provisions were made with reference to the sale of this building. The building might not be used for anything else than educational purposes, and such a stipulation must, therefore, be always incorporated in the sale, although legal opinion is not definite that this provision was still in force after the property was transferred to the University of South Africa. It is further provided that it may not be sold at a price lower than the municipal valuation. The municipality have valued the property at £55,210. The University of South Africa will find it very difficult to get that price, especially as the servitudes I have mentioned are imposed on the property. For this reason the Government was approached to pass legislation to assist the university to convert the building into money to enable an income to be derived from the capital invested in it, because otherwise serious financial difficulties may result for the University of South Africa. Let me make it clear that this is not a question of the right of sale. That is not involved, because the right of sale is already given in the Act. The question merely is whether the servitudes shall continue, and so make a favourable sale impossible. Now, if the Bill is passed, as introduced, it does not mean that the donors will lose all interest in the future of the property. It does not mean that their object will be thwarted. Preliminary discussions have shown that it is quite possible to use that building for educational purposes, or for semi-educational purposes. The fact is that it is possible to use that building for archives purposes, although they would rather have had a separate building, of course. In the circumstances, they will, however, yield and be satisfied with this building. The building will, therefore, be indirectly used for educational purposes. The donors are not opposed to this. It is further stipulated that the building can only be sold with the consent of the Government, and I undertake that the names of Hiddingh and Currie will always, in the future, remain connected with it. The hall will remain the Hiddingh Hall, and the funds which the University of South Africa obtain will be administered separately and be the Hiddingh-Curry fund. This motion was submitted to the donors, or their representatives, and I think there is a fair amount of satisfaction about it. This Bill affects private rights, and, therefore, it is one of a hybrid nature according to the ruling of Mr. Speaker, and must be referred to a select committee. After the second reading, I shall move for the committee.

I would like to deal with that portion of the Minister’s speech which refers to the University Hall in Queen Victoria Street, Cape Town. The Minister has shown how it was provided for the University of the Cape of Good Hope by bequests from the late Mr. Hiddingh and by donations from the family of the late Sir Donald Currie, but I would like to point out that a considerable sum of money was raised for the erection of the hall by subscription in Cape Town. I am informed that very nearly £27,000 was collected from private subscribers for that purpose. I hope when the Minister thinks of consulting the representatives of the donors who made the building possible, he will also bear in mind those who subscribed the sum of approximately £27,000. The Minister has not told us at what price it is intended to dispose of the hall, the municipal valuation of which is about £60,000, but it is suggested that the building should be taken over for £35,000. I hope no authority will be given for a proposal of that sort, because the buildings are very fine, and are erected on a very valuable site. I understand that an offer was received for them of £58,000. The whole intention underlying the original bequest was that the building should be used for educational purposes. The late Mr. Hiddingh’s will provided that his gift should be used for building a university hall, and, if the money were not utilized for that purpose, it should revert to his estate. The late Mr. Hiddingh was a member of a very old Cape family, the daughters of the late Sir Donald Currie were connected with the Cape, and, in addition to that, the persons who subscribed the sum of £27,000 were Cape people. All that money was provided for educational purposes for the benefit, as I would submit, of the Cape, and now we have the position that this building is the property of the University of South Africa, and we do not know what the intention of the Minister or of that university is in case the property is sold. I submit that if it is, the original intention of the testator and donors should be carried out. The University of South Africa is no longer solely a Cape institution, and consists of constituent colleges in other parts of South Africa. The position would be, if that university is allowed to dispose of that money without any restriction, it might be applied to educational or university purposes connected with parts of the country other than the part for which the money was raised. With regard to the suggestion of perpetuating the memory of the testator by calling it the Hiddingh Hall, we know that already in Cape Town there is another building known as the Hiddingh Hall, and a suggestion of this sort should be scrutinized carefully, because this building may not be suitable for the archives. It would certainly not be fitting that it should be called the Hiddingh Hall irrespective of the purposes to which the building is to be put.

While I support the provisions of this Bill, I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to another provision in the University Act which needs amendment. I want to ask the Minister whether it will not be possible to do so in this Bill. It is the provision which deals with the election of members of the council by past students of and donors to the university.

I fear the hon. member

I think it is an amendment

The hon. member may proceed.

According to the University Act, past students and donors to the colleges can elect a number of members for the council, but the method of election laid down is, in my opinion, undesirable and very difficult to apply. It is laid down that when an election takes place calls for nominations shall be sent out to the past students and donors; then the nominations are sent in, and notice is given to the electors that the election will take place on a day fixed. The persons who do not live more than 10 miles from the college must come and vote personally at a meeting, and those who live outside the 10 mile radius must either come personally or authorize a proxy to vote for them. No voting papers are sent out, and a person can only vote personally, or by proxy It is felt generally amongst past students that voting papers ought to be sent out to every person, so that they can vote by post, and the voter need not go in person. It is felt that if such action is not taken many persons will not take the trouble to vote, but if it is laid down by law that everyone can vote by means of a voting paper through the post, they will much more easily send it up and take part in the election. The existing provision is very unsatisfactory, and I hope the Minister will be willing to consider this small point, which will be very much welcome in the committee stage, and to incorporate an amendment in the Bill.

I just want to say a few words in reply to the request of the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart). The Bill will go to a select committee, which will deal with it. This question raised by the hon. member is not directly connected with the matter, and in the circumstances I do not know if it would be well to allow the select committee to deal with all kinds of other things in connection with legislation regarding universities. Moreover, I think that the matter about which the hon. member has complained can be rectified by means of an alteration of the regulations.

No, the Act itself prescribes the procedure.

Well, I will give my attention to the matter. We will see if it is possible to do something in the matter in one or other of the amending Bills in connection with universities. What the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) said amounts to this: that the money that we have got from the proceeds of the property in Queen-Victoria Street actually belongs to Cape Town and ought to he spent here. That was pretty generally the impression of the people who took an interest in the matter, until the original letter of the donors, at any rate of the last£25,000, which was given for the building, was recently discovered. That says very plainly that it is not intended that the money shall only be used for Cape Town, but that it shall enure for the benefit of the whole of South Africa. For that reason I think the ground on which the hon. member based his complaint cannot actually be justified.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time and referred to select committee for consideration and report, committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.

I move—

Coupled with sheep farming, cattle farming is certainly one of the most important industries in the Union, and this Bill is an attempt to improve the industry, and to put it on a better footing than it has hitherto been. When we see the amazing progress of cattle farming, and that owing to the finding of remedies for so many cattle diseases, cattle has increased so much that the consumption in our own country cannot keep pace with it, we feel that we must gradually take steps to see if we can find markets abroad for the surplus. Hon. members know that the price of meat overseas is much lower than here, and to this must be added the great distance of the market abroad, and the great expense of transport. We must therefore assist a little in this direction. The argument is often used that our cattle are not suited for export, but I think that if they are handled properly we shall be able to satisfy the overseas markets. If hon. members went to Armoedsvlakte and saw how the cattle are treated there, and fed with bone meal, they would see that cattle that have been there for two or three years weigh from 1,000 lbs. to 1,200 lbs. What the European market wants, of course, is young meat, and if our animals are properly treated and fed I do not doubt but that we can develop a market. We must then learn, however, how to treat the cattle. Our climate is different from others with a regular rainfall, and we must see, if we want to get an export market, that we can satisfy it when it asks for meat. During the last year about 31,284 cattle were exported from the Union and Rhodesia, which is very little. The Imperial Cold Storage sent them to the Italian market. Our cattle are increasing so much that not only with regard to slaughter animals, but also with regard to dairy produce, we must look for more markets. Last year the dairy factories made 18,321,606 lbs. of butter, and the farms produced 9,610,964 lbs., which is more than South Africa can consume. I may add that from September, 1929, up to date, 2,888,100 lbs. of butter have been exported. If it were not for the stabilization of prices effected last year, I fear that the export would now be nil. This shows how important cattle farming is. This Bill, in the first place, aims at allowing those parts in respect whereof a proclamation is issued by the Governor-General, to only sell animals by weight. The farmers have urged this for years. As things are now, a price is simply usually paid regardless of the weight. The price is arbitrary. In Durban there is already a system on the municipal markets for the selling of cattle by weight, and when one notices the difference in price obtained, we see the necessity for selling by weight. I have already said that the public is afraid of the export of animals or meat because the overseas price is lower. The second part of the Bill, therefore, proposes a levy on every animal that is slaughtered. For the most part, the levy will be used for grants on exported meat. It is felt that it is better for the industry to look after itself, and give the grants, rather than that the general taxpayer should pay them. The proposal is a levy on all stock slaughtered, viz., 1s. on full-grown stock, and 3d. on animals under six months. Let me, however, say at once that I am not insisting on this. It is my intention to refer the Bill after second reading to a select committee, which can go into it, and make improvements, and then submit their proposals to the House. I do not at all want to say that the steps I am now proposing are perfect, but it has been urged for the past fifteen years that something should be done, and I am now trying to tackle the matter. I feel we must do something, inasmuch as the position of the cattle farmers will otherwise become intolerable. We have about 11 million cattle in this country, and during the past five years the increase has been about 2 million. The consumption does not keep pace with that. We must, moreover, not forget that the land on which the cattle run is expensive, and the position is such that the industry is practically no longer payable. The stock are only sufficient to keep the pot boiling. A board of advice has been mentioned, but I do not intend to go into that now. The select committee can do so. Let me just add that I notice that butchers in the big towns are now saying that if the levy is imposed the price of meat must be raised. I want to ask the butchers, when they kill an ox weighing 800 lbs., and a levy of 1s. is imposed, what fraction of a 1d. that will come to on one lb. They go so far as to say that thousands of people will have to be dismissed as the result of such a levy. The butchers can explain their position in select committee and the farmers will have an opportunity of throwing light on the other side.

I am glad the Minister is going to send this Bill to a select committee. It is really only a small instalment of the legislation which is required to alleviate the present cattle position in this country. One thing which strikes me about this Bill is that it is not only not going to increase the sale of our cattle, nor will it assist us in getting rid of the surplus in the overseas market. This surplus is a big difficulty we are faced with, particularly as it is composed of scrub stock. We have 12,000,000 head of cattle in this country, and the annual increase under proper farming conditions is approximately 1,000,000 head, whilst the consumption in the Union is only 500,000 head. We are therefore faced with a dual problem, to find a means of getting rid of the annual increase of the 600,000 head of cattle and to find some outlet for a million or two of the scrub cattle. The cattle industry will go ahead of itself if we can lift part of this surplus. If we are going to simply grade our cattle up, it is going to be generations before we are going to compete with the world, but if we can dispose of a number of scrub cattle, it will be easy to replace these with, say, a quarter of the number of good cattle which, properly farmed, will be an asset to our country. The cattle question is very slowly solving itself. It is coming about by improving the dairy properties of our cattle by using good dairy bulls, but the beef side of the cattle business is on the downward grade, as very few farmers are breeding on beef lines nowadays. I do not want to labour the position, but with 12,000,000 head of cattle, the annual export of both beef and dairy products would not run to anything worth consideration from this country, whereas Australia, with only 1,000,000 head of cattle more than we have, is sending out £11,000,000 worth of dairy produce annually, and New Zealand, with only 3,500,000 head of cattle, is exporting £13,000,000 annually. That shows what the future holds for us if we can get at the root of this problem. I hope we shall be able to do something more in the select committee than we can do at the moment. The Bill really consists of two clauses. It provides that in the areas defined in subsection (1) no person can sell or buy any cattle (other than certain classes of cattle specified by regulation) at a place to which the public has access otherwise than at a price based upon the live-weight of such cattle, and stated in a sum for every 100 lbs. of such live-weight or stated in such other manner as may be prescribed by regulation. Now I hope the Minister will alter that in the select committee, because that is an interference with private enterprize which is not going to be justified by results. I cannot see how you can dictate to a man how he shall sell his cattle. It is not going to benefit the farmer in any shape or form. If you get an offer of £10 a head for your slaughter cattle, the Bill states in effect you must not sell them except at per lb. live-weight over the weighbridge. In Durban, they have developed an excellent system. One consigns cattle to one or other of the livestock auctioneers at the abattoirs, they are then slaughtered and dressed. The hides and skins, offal, horns and hooves are sold separately at the rating market price and the beef is sold off the hooks to bidders by weight. The system suggested in this Bill, whereby we substitute compulsory sale by live-weight for that I have stated, cannot do any good to the cattle business. If, in any area in which the Minister may decide, he takes power to order that weighbridges shall be installed for the weighing of cattle and that cattle should be sold by live-weight, should the seller so wish, the Minister would be taking a useful stand. By making it optional, this will be a useful clause, but to prohibit a man from selling under any other method would be a big mistake. In Durban all sales are in the hands of private auctioneers. I may say that everybody prefers to consign stock to these men, who are making their living by their business, in preference to the municipal auctioneer, as the latter has no personal interest in the business, and does not worry too much about the job. The abattoir committee made the following suggestion to the Town Council at Durban—

This House will realize that this means that we shall give Durban an absolute monopoly in the sales of slaughter stock if the Minister makes this clause applicable in that area. Now the Durban corporation has advanced two reasons for doing this. One is that it will protect the interests of the consumer, I suppose, by getting better prices, or that the consumer will get his meat cheaper. I have received a list from Durban of prices on the 28th January. It is interesting to see that beef has been sold at 12s. 6d. for compound beef, up to 26s. per 100 lbs. for the best. Medium mutton is 2d. per lb., prime hamel, 3½d. and lamb 4½d. I do not think that the municipality, if it lakes the job as auctioneer, will be able to give beef or mutton to the consumers in Durban at a lower price than those I quote. If we have to look for a reason for the consumer being charged exorbitant prices, you must not look at the producer or the auctioneer, who is his agent. You must look further than that, and you will find that somebody else is responsible for the high prices complained of. Another argument is that the auctioneers finance the small butchers and give them long credit. I think that is for the benefit of the consumer. If you cut out the small butchers, then you throw the whole of the meat trade into the hands of the bigger interests. I think a mistake will be made by adopting this clause, for, in the end, it will throw the business into the hands of the bigger corporations and the meat rings. That clause should be very severely modified. In regard to the levy, I thoroughly approve and endorse the principle of the levy, but I think a levy should only be agreed to by the Minister when it is the direct wish of the majority of the producers of any form of agricultural product. If the majority of the producers come to the Minister and ask him to impose a levy, I shall heartily support it. Under the Dairy Act I shall deal with the question of a levy being imposed on cheese. We appreciate it, and we thank the Minister for doing it. That, however, is a voluntary levy, where 75 per cent, of the producers of the article ask the Minister to put the levy on.

And the wool farmers?

The wool farmers did not ask for it. Where the Minister comes to this House for authority to impose any so-called levy without the request of the majority of the producers, it becomes, not a levy, but a tax. I think the Minister has gone wrong in suggesting a levy here, until he knows that he has the majority of the cattle farmers behind him, just as he was wrong when he proposed a wool levy, unless he has 50 per cent, of the wool growers behind him. Under the Agricultural Industries Advancement Act he laid down the principle that at least 50 per cent, of the producers of specified articles should request that a levy should be imposed before it could be done. I do not think that any steps have been taken to ascertain if 50 per cent, of the cattle owners or of the wool industry or of the sheep industry, were behind the levy. If an industry puts up money for its own interest, that industry should have the spending of that money. You do not find that here. The Minister is the sole authority, and the hoard can only make recommendations to the Minister, but it does not follow that he need carry them out. The board is in the position of only being allowed to investigate any matter which has any bearing upon the cattle industry in the Union, which may be referred to it by the Minister. But no power or initiative rests with the board. They sit round a table and discuss matters which have been referred to them, and they give the Minister their opinion on them. Whatever their experience may be, or whatever important matters they wish to bring before the Minister or the public, unless those matters have been deliberately referred to them, they are not allowed to express their recommendations on them. I say, again, that the spending of the money should be in the hands of those who put up the money. It is our money, and we cattle owners should have a say as to the spending of it. When you talk of a levy, paying for the expenses of the board, for research, for investigation and for the erection of weighbridges and other purposes, which are in the interests of the industry, I ask the Minister if he realizes what it will be. I ask him if he realizes what the amount of the levy will be. The consumption of cattle is only 500,000 head per annum, and at the rate of 1s. per lb. the levy will bring in £25,000 to assist the industry. Then, it is only the local authority that is made responsible. Many cattle are killed outside the scope of the local authorities, and no levy will be paid on these. When you have erected weighbridges, paid for the expenses of the board, research and investigation, I am afraid that there will be little money left over in any way to be of any use in subsidizing the export of cattle or getting rid of the surplus cattle we are faced with. This is not the time to ask for too much money. I would ask the Minister to look at it as a national question, as something bigger than merely affecting the cattle-owners. He must realize that the prosperity of the cattle-owners also means prosperity right throughout the country. If you put on a levy—and I am in favour of it—let us do it on the pound for pound principle, or even put up £2 for one, and so create a fund which can be of real use in subsidizing the export of cattle and doing something towards establishing a canning industry, because that is one of the few directions in which we can look for any real outlet for cattle, and we should use some process of preservation of meat such as the Watkins-Pitchford method. The cattle farmers have a right to some assistance from the State. I think we should then evolve some scheme which would be of real use, and which would get at the root of the problem. Let the Minister, therefore, use his influence with the Government, and deal with the surplus cattle by export and we shall be able to do something, but we shall not do it with a one shilling levy on 500,000 head of cattle, which will only bring in £25,000 in the maximum. Of course the matter will go to select committee, and we shall be able to make concrete proposals which it would be out of place to do to-day. I shall support the second reading, because it gives us an opportunity to go into the whole question, and we shall be able to knock something out of it, I hope, which will be of real use to the cattle-owner, but not on the lines of the existing Bill, or of the two principal clauses of the Bill which I have perhaps somewhat severely criticized.

I do not think any hon. member will take exception to any of the hon. the Minister’s statements in introducing, this Bill. He rightly said that it is a very big industry. I wish he had gone a little further. I think it is a really big industry. There is a difference of opinion as to the exact number of cattle in this country. Some people put the number at 12,000,000 head, and the Minister, I think, puts it at 16,000,000 head. At all events, the number is very large. It is estimated that about £150,000,000 are invested one way or another in the cattle industry of this country. I believe that exceeds the amount invested in our railways. In 1928 the Minister said “The cattle industry is not in a sound position, and I fear the capital is very largely locked up and is not profitable.” We all agree that the money invested in the cattle industry is not profitable to the country, and in many respects shows a dead loss. This sum should return a net amount of at least six per cent, per annum, and on that basis there should be a profit from our cattle industry of £9,000,000 a year. I doubt very much, however, if £1,000,000 is recovered. In fact there is very good reason to believe that there has been a loss all round. Our cattle farmers are not prosperous and their investments are not showing a fair and adequate return. We should do what we can to put an end to this very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I am glad that the Minister is going to send the Bill to a select committee, because I cannot see that the Bill, as it at present reads, is calculated to remedy the position to any appreciable extent. As the Minister has said, one way to assist the industry is to provide an overseas market, but there is no hope of doing that unless the cattle are of a far better quality than we have at present. If you send poor quality meat overseas it will not bring an adequate return, as it will not stand the charges which, obviously, are the same for indifferent as for good meat. The first thing to do is to improve the quality of our meat. I have no doubt that bone-meal is a requisite for cattle, but something will have to be added to it. It is absurd that we should have a large export of mealies and at the same time our cattle should be in such a poor condition that we cannot dispose of them either living or dead. We should take stock of the position, and see that our country elevators are used not so much for the storage of mealies for export, but for making the mealies available for food for man and beast in South Africa. No form of farming in this country is in a very good state at present, and in this respect we are in the same position as the rest of the world. A century ago it took 90 people to grow enough food for 100 persons, but now the work can be done by only 20 individuals. With the unorganized position of farmers prices will not be so remunerative in the future as they have been in the past, and we have to take serious stock of the position. The production of farm produce is going to be so great and so easy in the future that there will be a surplus in the markets of the world, and with the well-known want of organization amongst farmers it will be difficult for them to dispose of their produce at a remnuerative figure. Cattle are no longer an asset but a liability to our farmers. Fortunately, there is always a demand for the best article, and that especially applies to farm produce. It is the poor stuff that is practically unsaleable, so our policy should first of all be to get rid of our poorest cattle, by converting them into meat extract or in other ways. The production of sugar too throughout the world is becoming bigger than the world’s requirements. There are large tracts in hiatal where sugar is grown on the basis of 50 per cent, efficiency as compared with more tropical lands to the north. This cannot continue indefinitely and our sugar farmers will not be able to compete with Cuba and Java, where there are soil, climate and labour which enable a very much bigger production to be obtained per acre than from Natal. It has been suggested that some at least of the Natal sugar growers should devote their energies and their soil into developing a good dairy industry. This is not a wild notion, for it has been done successfully in other parts of the world. There is always a good market for dairy produce. New Zealand, which is double the distance from England that we are, is doing a very good trade in dairy produce. It is exporting a larger amount of butter to the United Kingdom than is Denmark, although one is distant six weeks and the other only about 30 hours from Great Britain. We might very reasonably concentrate on dairy farming. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) was, I think, a little wrong in his figures when he said that the number of animals slaughtered in the Union every year was about 400,000. The last official year book gives the number slaughtered in the abattoirs for 1926-’27 as 569,904. As I understood the hon. member, he wished to point out that so many claims would be made against this levy fund that there would be little indeed left to fulfil the purposes of the Bill, which is to improve cattle. When we remember too the figures that are likely to be reached with cattle in this country it will give us many thoughts. Twenty-five years ago there were three million head of cattle, and the number has at least quadrupled in that time. The Minister told us it was increasing by a million every year, which makes the position more serious, and I cannot really see that this Bill is going to go very far. We all welcome the Minister’s wise decision to send it to a select committee where some other means may be found. When we look at the vast amount of money spent in the development of other industries and other branches of agriculture I think we may reasonably ask that some considerable sum might be devoted to improving the position of the cattle farmers. On irrigation we have spent millions, and on elevators 2½ millions, and very much of that is wasted.

Who is responsible for the waste?

This is not the first time I have called attention to this: I said it years ago in this House. It does not help making party capital of it. It was a wrong move to put up coast elevators to induce farmers to export the fertility of their land. The best use to which we can put these coast elevators is to equip them with an intake leg to facilitate the arrival and distribution of grain in this country rather than its export. We become poorer and poorer every year by the amount of mealies we export. If every farmer realized that when he sends a wagon-load of mealies off his farm he is sending ten hundredweight of valuable fertilizers away he would see that cannot go on for ever. Our farms and our farmers are getting poorer and our cattle are no longer an asset, but a distinct liability, to this country. There is a distinct remedy, and it would take a long time to reduce the number of our cattle. We should make an earnest endeavour to improve the quality. Some have had very painful experiences—I have had myself—I was very interested and moved when a friend of mine told me that 100 shorthorns averaged £3 per head when sold. I know my hon. friends opposite know of similar experiences. This was several months ago. I am sure my hon. friends will agree with me that the position is even worse now. I hope, therefore, that there will be a strong select committee formed to go earnestly into this matter, and that the result of their deliberations will be a Bill, which, at all events, will give more confidence, that it will achieve a more desirable result than the Bill in its present form.

If there ever was a Bill before this House which is in the farmers’ interests, especially in the parlous condition they are in in the northern Transvaal, it is this one. It ought to be welcomed by everybody. After listening to the previous two speakers, I wonder whether the two together have ever produced an actual beast, or have actually bought or sold one. That is the conclusion one arrives at after listening to their eloquent speeches. Let me say at once that I am not only a producer, but also a seller of cattle. I have here an order for 200 oxen, and they are merely a small portion of the 8,000 oxen, which I have on hoof, but have sold by weight. That is the result of the bitter experience I had years ago of what it costs a man by selling cattle on hoof, according to the reckoning of a man inexperienced in such matters. That was my personal experience, and I looked for another market where I sold no less than 7,000 cattle by weight. That is the result of my experience in selling on hoof. Accordingly I welcome the Minister’s Bill because it is a step in the right direction to put stock-farming in South Africa on a sound basis. I only deplore one thing in the Bill, and that is that the Minister has forgotten to rectify a great hitch; one of the greatest difficulties I have found in my practical experience. We have now made provision for the exact weight, but then we are met by the trickery of the purchaser who says: “These animals are of a grade the public do not want,” and before he arrives at the grade under which the cattle must be placed, the farmer has already lost his profit. The great point is that we must not only regulate the weight carefully, but also the grading of the stock, the latter is the most important, because the so-called “compound” possibly fetches 15/- per 100 lbs., but first-class meat may possibly fetch 36/- per 100 lbs. An ox of the best kind will possibly be graded between 15/- and 36/-, and that is where the farmer’s loss comes in. I should like therefore to call the Minister’s attention to this, so that when the Bill goes to the select committee, it should not be constituted of those people who are, according to the Bill, to be nominated by farmers’ associations. There is another difficulty. The existing so-called farmers’ associations in some parts of the country are, in my practical experience of the north, merely a sort of second-class South African Party organization, because they do not represent one-tenth of the farmers. Practical farmers, like myself, and others, are virtually excluded from such associations. I can assure the Minister that those associations do not represent even one-tenth of the farmers. That is the position, and I will willingly leave it to the sound discretion of the Minister. Let me repeat that I welcome the weight stipulation, and ask the Minister to also insert provisions about the grading of stock. If we introduce the expert system into South Africa, let us see that impartial experts are appointed to grade the meat, and if a butcher comes to buy “compound” meat, let him get " compound” meat, and if he wants first-class meat, let him get first-class meat according to the advice of an expert. We must have a grading system just as in the case of maize. If that is done, it may prove the salvation of our stock farmers. My last point is that terrible levy about which so much noise has been made by hon. members opposite. We, as producers, and the traders as well, are not at all afraid of that levy. We are quite prepared to pay it if we get value for our money. If we have the right grading and the right weights I am certain that we are not only ready to pay 1/-, but 5/- for every ox that is slaughtered.

The principle of a levy is prominent in the discussion on this Bill. I am in agreement with the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) when he expresses the view that a levy should only be imposed on the expressed will of the men who have to pay it, and that they should have the allocation of the money. I would, however, like members to understand the position with regard to the levy on the wool farmers. There has been a great deal of misapprehension in regard to it. The Minister of Agriculture is perfectly justified in imposing the levy for the simple reason that it was done on the request made to him by the wool farmers of the Union. In September there was a gathering in Cape Town of farmers representative of the Cape Province, and a resolution to impose a levy was passed unanimously. The matter was discussed by the farmers of the Free State, and while they were of opinion that it would be better to impose a levy next year, they were in favour of the principle. The Natal Union assented to a levy, and the farmers of the Transvaal were also in agreement. A meeting of wool farmers was held in Bloemfontein in October to come to a final decision, and it was unanimously decided that a levy should be imposed. Therefore the Minister of Agriculture was perfectly justified in imposing the levy. The levy has been welcomed by the wool farmers. It is quite possible there may have been men who were not represented at the meetings to which I have referred, but if that is the case, who are to blame but themselves for not attending or not being represented ?

I just wish to express my appreciation to the Minister of Agriculture for what he is doing for the cattle farmers. It is not necessary for me to delay the House in order to explain the parlous position the cattle farmers are in. I can only say that in the northern districts of the country they are in a desperate state. Many have already been so desperate as to commence thinking of finding another outlet. Now the Minister, however, has come forward to assist, and I therefore heartily appreciate. Out cattle farmers are in the hands of speculators, many of whom are unscrupulous, with the result that the farmers do not get a proper price for their animals at all. We are, therefore, glad that this attempt is being made to stop the swindling. I have no objection to the proposed levy of 1s. If we are to wait for the farmers to ask for it, we shall have to wait until eternity. The matter is so pressing, and the need so great, that the Minister must intervene. If we make it clear to the farmer that the 1s, will be used in his own interest, he will have no objection to it. I should like to be clear about one little point in the Bill. In paragraph 2 of Clause 1, the Bill speaks about cattle: “(Other than certain classes of cattle specified by regulation)”, I should very much like to know what classes are being excluded. With reference to Clause 4, I should like to know whether the board therein referred to will also have the duty of advising in connection with the cattle to be exported overseas. I want to support the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Vorster) in welcoming the Bill.

Every member who has spoken has welcomed this Cattle Improvement Bill, and I think the country is grateful to the Minister for bringing it before the House. He has not committed himself entirely to all its details and provisions, so that I don’t think it is necessary to discuss these in view of the Minister’s statement that he intends referring the Bill to a select committee. There are, however, one or two points that I would like to call the Minister’s attention to. There is one thing which has seriously affected our cattle industry. I refer to the practice which exists in other countries of the licensing of bulls. We are not going to improve our cattle industry in this country until we eliminate scrub bulls, and until we insist on a better standard of bull. At present we have a large number of scrub bulls of every conceivable kind, many on native areas which are an absolute danger to European owners of adjoining farms. It is not a new practice that before a bull is used for stud purposes it must be licensed, and I think the Minister should take into serious consideration at some propitious time to introduce legislation that all bulls should be registered. We speak about scrub cattle in this country very glibly, and perhaps do not realize that more than 90 per cent, of our cattle is scrub. This is not merely because it has been bred from scrub bulls. There is something in this country which tends towards bringing our cattle to a lower grade. There is always a downward tendency in all our stock, unless we artificially feed. Whether it is something deficient in the pasturage or climatic conditions, it should be investigated further. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has called the attention of the Minister to our export of maize. A friend of mine who travelled through Germany some time ago told me that he found 12 oxen on a farm being stall fed and fattened for sale. The owner expected to get between £40 and £50 for them, and on being asked will at these cattle were fed on, the owner replied: “I feed them solely on imported South African maize.” Well, if it can pay a man in Germany to get maize from South Africa, 6,000 miles away, to feed his cattle, and then sell them at a profit, I think the hon. member for East London (North) is right. I appreciate on behalf of the farmers the Minister’s effort to improve the cattle position in this country. The position amongst the natives is more than serious as at present with the restrictions there is no sale for their cattle. They too will welcome any measure that will bring them relief.

The Minister has realized what an important industry the cattle industry is, and has agreed to send the Bill to a select committee after the second reading. I would like to point out that if it goes before the select committee after a second reading it will be impossible materially to alter the Bill in any way. You will only be able to deal with the Bill as it is, not to improve it, and I appeal to the Minister in view of the expression of opinion from both sides of the House, to try to import new conditions into the Bill in order that it may be a workable one, and assist the cattle industry. I appeal to the Minister to allow the Bill to go to a select committee before a second reading, as otherwise the select committee will be restricted in its investigations.

I cannot understand people who are so keen on their rights being ready to surrender them so easily. Let me deal with one or two of the clauses which bear this interpretation. First in reference to the selling by live weight. I do not know that this is a desirable method of selling stock, because the live weight of an animal varies in proportion to its dead weight. It is dependent upon the food and water which the animal is carrying at the time. The live weight is much greater in proportion to the dead weight than when it reaches the Rand or Cape Town when the animals are empty of all the food and water they were carrying. When we come to the appointment of a board to control the sale of cattle, I must say it seems to me that we are going to incur many additional expenses in regard to such cattle. The board will have to be paid reasonable salaries for their work. In regard to Section 3, sub-section (2), the Minister may, on the recommendation of the board established in terms of Section (4), expend any moneys in the fund for any of the following, purposes (Section 3, sub-section (2), (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) quoted). Thus delegating to the Government all those rights which the farmer has enjoyed in the past, and which he has no desire, I am quite sure, to surrender. In this we are embarking upon a most dangerous system and following the example of Russia. I have a paragraph here of similar-action taken by the Russian Government only last week by which they take control of practically all the commodities of the nation. Last year the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) referred to a wage determination which had been put upon cattle in Durban. The original price of slaughter was 2s. 6d. per head, and it was raised to 14s. per head. These additional measures are putting up the cost of living. We have had the question asked at various times and in different ways: “What is responsible for this increased cost of living all over the country?” Bills of this kind help to supply the explanation. We are invoking the aid of Government, and increasing the number of people who have to live out of those industries, and it cannot be otherwise than have a reaction upon the cost of living. Now the Minister has told us that it is necessary for us to sell young cattle, and also necessary to sell prime cattle, and that they should be artificially fed. I think when we approach the cattle question we should look at the general conditions obtaining in this country, and when we remember that about nine-tenths of the country does not lend itself to artificial feeding, we should pause for a moment. It is those cattle, fattened on the natural veld we have to find a market for, and the suggestion which has been made so much of, that we should free the country from scrub cattle, seems to me to be unreasonable. We have to consider what cattle will survive under those conditions. It is no good importing highly bred animals and putting them on the veld and expecting them to do well. They will become worse than our scrub cattle in a very short time. There are certain cattle that will thrive, and perhaps the Afrikander is a very useful type of animal which I should like to see pushed ahead. But this idea of eliminating the scrub bull and cattle, and replacing them by some highly bred and perhaps delicate beasts is not sound policy. It is easy enough for us to obtain a market for prime cattle. Personally, I have never had any difficulty in getting a good sale for prime cattle. It is the second-grade animal that we have to look after. That is our trouble. I think that a way out of that difficulty is by the establishment, as has been suggested, of some canning process. What about the farmer who has two or three spans of trek oxen, and is obliged to keep them in order to cultivate his land? All over the country we do our ploughing—that is the smaller farmer—with trek bullocks, and when those bullocks reach a certain age they are fattened and sold, and if he cannot fatten them artificially, he must depend upon the natural grasses. Are we going to penalize those oxen? Are we to penalize those cattle and class them in a grade below these young slaughter animals which the Minister has suggested? No, I think any measure which is intended to assist the cattle industry of this country must be based upon a very clear recognition of the conditions existing in the country, and we must not lose sight of the fact that nine-tenths of this country does not lend itself to the artificial feeding of cattle. I hope the Minister will take that into account. I object to the principle of the Bill, and can see no good in its details, and, therefore, oppose it.

When the announcement was made that the Minister intended to introduce this Improvement of Cattle Bill, we received the news with great satisfaction. We felt that at last we had a Minister who recognized the importance of the cattle industry, which is in such a deplorable state at the present time. But when we read the Bill, it was a great shock to our hopes. The Bill we have before us now would take a man with great imagination to see where the improvement of cattle comes in. When you read the objects of the Bill, you see that it is to provide for the sale of cattle on the live weight basis, for the establishment of a cattle industry board, and for a levy on slaughter cattle, and the manner in which this levy is to be spent. The speakers who have spoken previously seem to think that the cattle industry is bound up with the question of sale of slaughter cattle. The question of slaughter cattle is really a very small matter in comparison to the other great problems we have in the cattle industry. Personally, I agreed with what the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has said with regard to referring this matter to a select committee before passing the second reading. If that select committee is not going to deal with all these various matters of great importance, the question of improvement of cattle will get very little consideration, and this can only be done if the second reading is not passed. Our cattle industry has been called the Cinderella of all branches of farming, but, like all Cinderellas, when its opportunity occurs, cattle raising will become a wonderful industry, and will also solve a great many of our other farming difficulties. For instance, if the cattle industry were put on a proper footing, the problems of closer settlement would be solved, the troubles of our irrigation schemes would be removed, and the difficulties of our mealie farmers and lucerne growers would disappear, as they would have a ready market for their produce by feeding to their stock and marketing our crops in this way. Many definite plans have been placed before the Minister for the solution of the cattle problem, but they seem to have had very little consideration, for, if the Minister studied all the proposals made to him, he would find some means of improving the position. One of the worst features of the position is the attitude of the Minister and some of his head officials towards the cattle industry. The Minister has told us that there is very little reason to think that the cattle industry can be improved, and he has advised farmers to divert their energies to sheep raising. The result has been that many farmers, believing the Minister, have gone in for sheep in places most unsuitable for sheep raising; if they had remained cattle farmers they would be in a better position to-day than they are. One of the chief difficulties to any improvement is the ignorance of our farmers on matters pertaining to cattle raising. If they could be educated as to the value of good cattle, they would willingly take up their breeding, instead of selling their lucerne and maize at ruinous rates. For some years I was organizer and inspector of one of the biggest cattle-breeding associations in South Africa. I visited 500 Friesland breeders, inspected their cattle, and gave them advice as to improving their animals, and I always found that they were keenly interested and profited by good advice. The Friesland Breeders’ Association interviewed the Minister on many occasions, pointing out that the sheep farmers, who had been making huge profits in the past and living in ease and luxury for many years, had had the benefit of a sheep division in the department. These Government experts have been an enormous benefit to the sheep industry, and to their efforts in a large measure is due the improvement in our sheep. The cattle farmers have just as much right and far more need to claim consideration as the sheep farmers, but, unfortunately, we have a Minister of Agriculture who is more sympathetically inclined to sheep raising than to cattle raising. If the select committee would deal with the question of how best the Government should help the cattle farmers, it would do more good than merely by worrying about selling cattle by live weight. All our cattle farmers want is education. We have a huge agricultural department, including highly-paid and specially-trained men, but there are not half-a-dozen of them who can give proper advice to our cattle farmers. If the Minister would establish a cattle division, practically all the troubles of the cattle industry would be solved. South Africa is second to none as a cattle country. Scrub cattle are not due to the unsuitability of the country for cattle breeding, but to our huge native population, whose chief use for cattle is the securing of wives and supplying of food for their families. As long as we have a vast native population we shall have scrub cattle. Then some of our sheep farmers also keep scrub cattle, but we have Natal, the eastern Free State and the eastern Transvaal, which are eminently suited to cattle raising. Any country that can raise mealies and lucerne, such as these areas I have mentioned can do, have all the essentials for the carrying on of a successful farming industry. But if farmers think they can make a success simply by allowing cattle to run on the veld and leaving them to starve in the winter, they are only playing with the business. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) made the statement that this country seemed to be deficient in some respects, and that stock always had a tendency to depreciate. That is very easily explained. If an animal is starved for half its life it is bound to deteriorate. If we supplement the feed of an animal by feeding it well in time of shortage, this country can produce stock as good as any in the world; this has been proved by the principal stock breeders, who have produced cattle equal to, and, in many instances better than, the cattle that come from their native countries. I would ask the Minister to do what the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has requested, and not to press for the second reading, but to refer the Bill to a select committee before the second reading is passed, so that we shall have an opportunity of exploring far better means of improving the cattle industry than this Bill provides for. There are many things the select committee can consider, and, at a later date, the Minister can bring up a Bill which is more useful to us.

I want to support the appeal made by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and the hon. member who has just sat down. We are all anxious to see the cattle industry improved and to be second to none in the world. This House, through its select committee, will not have the opportunity of delving so deeply into this very important subject if the Bill is sent to a select committee after the second reading where we stereotype, as it were, the sub-heads of the Bill. We are not permitted, as a select committee, to go outside the question of the sale of cattle on a live weight basis, and the other sub-titles of the Bill. We would not be able to call the evidence of eminent vets, who could give us a tremendous amount of important information, but having a most distant relationship to the sub-titles of this Bill. The select committee now can consider only the alteration in a very unimportant way of the details of the Bill. I therefore take the opportunity of impressing on the Minister the desirability of that course of action of referring the Bill to a select committee before the second reading, and I hope he will give some consideration to the matter. The appeal, as made by the hon. members for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson), and certainly by myself, is made in all good faith and seriousness. It has to be considered that if the House throws out Clause 2, it has thrown out the Bill, the object of which really and fundamentally is to raise a levy. If the select committee or the House throws it out, there is no method of substituting something else to raise the standard of the cattle industry, and that is an additional reason why the Minister should allow the Bill to go to a select committee before the second reading. I have listened in vain to any hon. member to argue this point of view—the position in which the poor unfortunate consumer would be—to mention only one branch of the cattle industry—if this Bill is passed. I do not propose to enter into a controversy as to the selling of cattle by live weight. That has not been put in because it is desirable from the consumer’s point of view. The person who has bought the cattle is to pay the levy once it is sold by live weight. The man who has bought the animal has to pay 1s., and then the local authorities have to collect it, and ultimately it either gets passed on to the consumer, or to one small section of the population, which has to bear the brunt—the person who has bought it—probably the wholesale butcher. That is a wrong principle. Of course, it is passing it on. The Minister said, as I understood, that it is too small a tax to be passed on. Our experience, however, in this or any other country is that, however small the original impost may be, it is passed on, and with very good interest indeed. The result of this legislation will have very little effect on the uplifting of the cattle industry, but will have a very great effect on the out-of-pocket expenditure as far as the consumer is concerned. The levy is to pay the expenses of the board. Mark sub-section (c) of Clause 3 (2)—

In other words, the consumer is to have the meat he consumes made dearer in order that he may provide a levy to send cattle out of the country, and to make his meat still dearer. I want to have the Minister’s attention engaged on this aspect and factor, as well as that of the people of the country, through hon. members. For all these reasons, I hope the Minister will agree, for his own sake, for the sake of Parliament and of the country, to allow the Bill to go to a select committee before the second reading is taken. I urge that with all the seriousness I have at my command.

I hope this Bill will be sent to a select committee before the second reading, but not for the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). I move—

I should have expected that in a Bill brought before this House for the improvement of the cattle position, we should have had a clear statement as to how we are to improve it, but I cannot regard this Bill as giving us such a statement. South Africa is essentially a cattle producing country, and anything we can do to improve the position of the cattle industry must improve the whole economic position of the country. The Government has been a long time in labour to bring forward this small mouse. They have had the benefit of enquiries and investigations. I have before me the report of a cattle investigation commission sent to the Argentine for the purpose of enquiring what we should do in South Africa to enable us to compete with the Argentine. The commission expressed the opinion that certain recommendations they submitted should be given effect to. Their first recommendation was that proper freezing and canning factories be provided in the Union. The report goes on to say that if a proper factory were started in the Union, the scrub cattle question would be largely settled. We have not heard a word from the Government respecting this recommendation. It is now proposed to settle this scrub cattle question under this Bill merely by selling our stock by live weight, and by the imposition of a levy. Another recommendation put forward by the commission is that the shipping facilities to Europe must be improved. I have not heard a word from the Minister as to how this is to be tackled. Another recommendation was that the methods of sale by weight as practised in the Argentine should be adopted in South Africa. This is the only recommendation of the commission which has been adopted in the Bill. I think we cannot adequately discuss a matter like this on the second reading of a Bill of this nature, and I think in the interests of the cattle industry the Minister should accept my amendment.

I second the amendment. We, of course, are much interested in the Bill, and we have, with a considerable amount of anxiety, awaited the proposal which the Minister said that he would introduce to improve the cattle of South Africa. It seems to me that he has let loose a theorist in the Agricultural Department, because I must say that most of the Bills so far introduced contain much theory and very little practice. It seems as if nothing but new levies and extra trouble are proposed for the farmers. The time chosen for this is very unfortunate. I do not know whether the Department of Agriculture actually appreciates the position of the farmers. They are shouting for help, and not for further levies and difficulties in disposing of their produce. I have a letter here from a very live farmer in the Wakkerstroom district, who says the position is very bad, and that no one can sell anything. He adds that there is no chance of getting cash for their animals in order to pay interest. He says that he is very sorry that the young farmers are being ruined, because they cannot pay the interest. Sheep are being sold at 7s. 6d. and there is no price for oxen at all. It seems to me that the time of introducing this Bill is particularly unfortunate, because it is wrong to put further difficulties in the farmer’s way at present. It seems to me that it is necessary rather to assist the farmer to find a way out of his troubles. It is certainly something that the Minister states he is prepared to send the Bill to a select committee, but I want to support the previous speaker’s point, when he says that when once the Bill has been read a second time we shall be bound to two principles, viz., the levy, and the sale by weight.

What principle do you oppose?

It is not for me to say. Let the select committee make an enquiry and report, but do not let them be bound by levy. I do not think it is right to bind the cattle farmers to a levy without, at least, getting the opinion of the majority of them. I agree with the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) when he says that if we impose a levy without the farmers asking for it, it will be nothing but an extra tax on them. I do not think the time has come to put such a tax on the cattle farmers. Perhaps the result of the levy will only mean the farmer getting a worse price, because it is he who will eventually have to pay the levy; not the seller, the auctioneer, or the municipality. I am surprised at the speeches of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Vorster) and the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. Mr. Naudé). They seem to say that if we only pass this Bill the cattle farmer will become rich. I cannot see that we ought to proceed with the Bill now, and if the Minister wishes us to assist, which we heartily wish to do, he must not bind the select committee to the two principles which will be the case if the second reading is passed. Let the select committee report, but we must not bind our hands beforehand by laying down that a levy will be made. It is possible that the select committee may have other recommendations, e.g., that it is desirable to adopt the £ for £ principle, but we cannot bring that proposal before the House after the second reading. Moreover, it was the custom in the country’s legislation that when a premium was paid on export, the State should pay the premium. Now the Minister of Agriculture comes and says that the balance of the levy that is left must be paid as a premium. I ask where is your farmers’ Government that has been talked about so much. The previous Government, which was called Unionist, could, at any rate, find the money to pay the premiums from the treasury, but this premium must be paid by a levy on farmers. I want further to point out to the Minister that there will be very little left of the levy after all expenses are deducted, so that the premium will possibly not be worth having. The Minister should understand that our objection to the second reading is not intended to thwart him, but to do better work. We do not wish the select committee to be bound to principles which are not the best, and I hope the Minister will consider our request and send the Bill to a select committee now.

I think we all appreciate the difficult position of the farmers. All the markets have unfortunately dropped at the same time. The stock market, as well as the produce market, have sagged, and this makes the farmer’s position extremely parlous. The Minister is now making another attempt—rightly or wrongly—to assist the farmers, and I think we should appreciate it. I think the suggestions of the various Bills he has introduced have come from the agricultural associations of South Africa, but I fear that he is not getting the support expected here. The principle of selling by weight is possibly not quite new in this country, but certainly it is not generally adopted, and in matters of this kind we are certainly trying an experiment. I hope it will have the desired result. We feel in this connection how little the farmers are organized. When one sees in the Johannesburg market how excellent the organizations dealing with the cattle, after they leave the farmer, are, you realize how badly the farmers are organized. The buyers are organized; the men who buy stock and want to sell it are organized; the trains are ready to carry the stock, and everything is splendidly regulated. When, however, farmers send stock to the Johannesburg market they do not know how much it can take. They just send the stock and are then left to the mercy of the speculator. The stock cannot be brought back. I therefore hope that the experiment will have the desired result. As for the method of living, I should like the Minister to tell me how it will be applied in small places where there are municipalities, but no abattoirs, and no authorities to exercize the necessary control over the slaughtering. Who will in such places see to the payment, and supervise the collection, of the levy? Another point mentioned by hon. members opposite to which they apparently attach great value, is the best way of disposing of the surplus stock. One point in this connection is possibly lost sight of, and I want to refer to it. It is that we are bounded by the mandate territory, South-West Africa, which is par excellence a country suited for stock raising, where the cattle thrive very well. We know how the stock has come to our markets and the question with me now is, if we get rid of our surperfluous cattle, whether we shall not once more get into the same position by imports from South-West. I hope this point will receive consideration.

It is strange to see hon. members opposite opposing the principle of the levy so strongly. When they were in office the then Minister of Agriculture introduced a general levy Bill, and members opposite all supported it enthusiastically. Now that a general Bill has not been introduced, but one for a levy on certain private individuals, they quickly jump up and say: “The principle is unsound.” I think it is nothing else than an attempt of the other side to persuade the people that the Government is not looking after the interests of the farmers. They want to make the impression on the farmers, although they know that they do not represent them, that they want to advance and protect the interests of the farmers. I do not think they will succeed. The country will be glad and thankful, and at this very time special attempts are being made to assist the farming community. In view of the surplus production, it is necessary that the local markets should be more or less regulated, and the Minister’s attempt in this Bill is in the right direction. As for the principle of selling by weight, I am surprised that hon. members opposite are so lukewarm. We know that it is done in Durban, and what an outstanding success it is, but yet we find hon. members from Natal who suggest that this Bill ought to be sent to a select committee before the second reading. I am convinced that this attempt is in the right direction, and as the object is to bring about the marketing of our produce in the best possible manner, we must support it, and I also will support it. Possibly small amendments are required in the Bill, but I cannot see at all why, for that reason, it should go to a select committee before the second reading.

During the last five years this question of the cattle industry of this country has come frequently before the House. I think that the Minister has promised on several occasions that the matter is receiving his attention, and two or three years ago a commission went across to the Argentine to enquire into the matter. The Minister subsequently promised to put something concrete before the House with the object of improving the position. After five years of thought this little Bill is now brought forward, and for the life of me I cannot see how it will improve the cattle industry of this country. The mere fact of selling cattle by weight or imposing a levy on a beast is not going to improve the industry which, at the present time, is threatening the whole country with desiccation or erosion: as the commission which sat recently has reported to the House. One of the chief causes of the erosion of the country is the overstocking by scrub stock. Unless the Government does something to ease the position I can see that in ten, fifteen or twenty years’ time the country will not be able to grow any cattle at all. I think it is essential that the Government should do something, something drastic perhaps, to improve the position of the industry in this country. The Minister knows that over 50 per cent, of the cattle in this country belong to natives. I represent a constituency in which the natives are very much interested in this Bill. It stands to reason that if a levy is placed upon a beast, even if the native is fairly treated, half of this levy will be paid by the natives, because they own more than 50 per cent, of the cattle in the country. The native would not be given any say in any board which may be appointed under the Bill, but he will still have to pay the levy. I think native interests should be represented. I can tell the House this, that the natives have set an example to the Europeans They have realized the danger and menace of these scrub cattle. They themselves at a general council meeting in the Transkei, some two or three years ago, asked for regulations to be passed dealing with the question of bulls and rams in the native territories. To-day there is a board sitting there which controls the breeding of stock. The natives asked that stud stock should be controlled, because they realized that that is the way in which they can improve your stock. You will not improve your stock by imposing a levy or saying that a beast must be a certain weight. The natives have asked the Government to legislate and measures have been passed dealing with that specific matter. If the natives are prepared to do these things to improve their cattle, then I say that the European farmers should also be prepared to have control of this kind. It is only through such measures that we shall strike at the root of the matter. It is only when we come to the heart of the thing and deal with bulls and rams, and see that we have decent animals for stud purposes, that we shall have any real improvement. I suggest to this House that when this matter comes up before the select committee, this is one of the phases the committee should consider. I cannot see what benefit is going to be derived by the country by sending this Bill to a select committee after the second reading has been passed. Hon. members know perfectly well how frequently after a second reading a Bill has gone before the select committee and somebody has asked that this or that should be done, and has been informed that it is against the rules of the House. Exactly the same thing will happen here. The select committee will deal with the question of a levy and the weight of cattle, and you will not carry the thing any further. I am informed that a canning industry is being started by the Imperial Cold Storage Company in East London.

Yes.

A meat canning industry, and the factory has already been constructed. My information is that in the course of the next month or two they will purchase scrub cattle from the Transkei. I do not know whether the Minister knows anything about it. The representatives of this industry have already been through the Transkei making arrangements to purchase stock. In my opinion that is one of the chief ways in which some solution will be arrived at. I urge upon the Government to try and associate itself with any measure of that kind, and to come to the assistance of the industry. You have a wages Bill to assist the workers and other measures which are aimed to assist the workers of this country. I maintain that it is only by measures of that kind by which you will assist an industry which to-day is in a critical position, and which should be one of the most important industries in this country. I therefore support the motion of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls). I think it is absolutely farcical and a waste of time to send the Bill to a select committee after the second reading. I think the Minister should accept the proposal that the Bill should go to the select committee before the second reading, so that hon. members of the House on the committee will not be hide bound by the provisions in the Bill. It may be desirable to sell cattle by weight, and I think it is essential that there should be a levy, but there are more important phases of this question which hon. members and experts in this House should have the right to consider when the Bill goes to a select committee before the second reading. If the Minister goes back to the country with this Bill he goes back with nothing. If he obtains a Bill amended by the committee as a result of this debate he will be able to go back to the country with some sort of solution of one of the greatest problems we have to face.

I have listened to the various remarks of hon. members opposite. They all welcome the Bill, but they all think that it does not go far enough, and that it ought therefore to go to a select committee before the second reading. But no hon. member has actually used an argument why it should really be so referred before the second reading. One has mentioned the issue of licences for bulls. He wants to make the position of the cattle farmer still more difficult. I agree that we must do everything possible to improve the breed of cattle in the country. But has the time come for the licensing of bulls? I do not think so. We must wait a little for that. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), who made the proposal, has a few objections. He mentioned that there was a commission in connection with this matter, and that I sent people overseas to make recommendations. One thing that was suggested was the export of cattle to an overseas market. Does the hon. member expect me to take that on myself? Is the department not doing enough with propaganda to that end? It was recommended that the farmers should feed their stock for that purpose. The department is also making propaganda in this connection. That is one of the things which is being done, but if the hon. member thinks that we must tell the farmer what to do; that we must compel him to feed his animals with mealies, and not to export it, then he does not know our people. I can advise the people, and my department can try to lead them, but we cannot prescribe how they are to feed their animals, and compel them to obey. He has a further objection. He says the committee recommended the preserving of meat. Let me say we are considering that matter, but it is surely impossible for the Government, itself, to put up a factory of that kind. It is a matter we must leave to private enterprise. We can encourage it and we are considering the matter. I may say that we are corresponding with companies, but I have no further statement to make now. He says the only recommendation of the committee that was adopted is the selling by weight. As a matter of fact, we are dealing with all three things. We are negotiating about the factories. I do not know whether we shall be successful. With regard to better feeding, we are making propaganda amongst our people. The sale by weight is supported by every member, but they say that we must leave it permissive so that the people can decide for themselves. But then we shall not attain our object. Hon. members say that the farmers have not been consulted. Farmers will all say that they cannot get a proper price for their cattle, and therefore they welcome the provision. The select committee can recommend amendments, and I am prepared to accept them. I have said that I am introducing the Bill as an attempt to improve cattle farming in which so much money has been invested. We can later on amend the Act when once it has been a year or two in operation, and we have had experience with it. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) says that it looks as if my department was a theoretical one. He is the only one who says so. Everyone admits that they have never yet been served better by an agricultural department, but that hon. member, of course, is trying to make party capital out of the matter. He is opposed to the levy. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) rightly said that the opposition formerly introduced a general levy Bill in respect of agricultural produce.

Not a levy on cattle.

Yes, on everything. The Minister of the day asked for the power to do it by proclamation. Hon. members opposite supported it, but as I have said, I do not exactly stand by this. Possibly the select committee will not want it, and possibly the House will not want a levy to encourage export, I want to say that it is a matter for the House, and therefore I am prepared to refer the matter to a select committee so that we can ascertain the views of the butchers and the farmers. The department has found that our people are not getting fair prices, and consequently we have introduced the proposal.

If we pass certain principles now, then the select committee may be prevented from making recommendations.

The two principles mentioned in the Bill are, the sale by weight to which there is no objection, except that it should be optional, and the second that the levy is too high. If that is objected to, the select committee can reduce it. Further nothing new has been mentioned, except the licensing of bulls. Is the hon. member in favour of that? I do not believe it. Therefore I do not see why the Bill should go to a select committee now. In connection with feeding, my department is giving advice about improving it. We cannot compel the people by legislation to follow that advice. We can only do what we did in connection with sheep farming. We did not compel the sheep farmers. We gave them advice which they took. This we must also do in the case of cattle farming.

What about the bulls ?

The time is not yet ripe for licences. I can understand the hon. member favouring it, because then he expects a monopoly. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) welcomed this Bill, and he wished at least 75 per cent, of the farmers to be in favour before it was enforced. We can consider that in committee. Then the hon. member further objected that the board, when they receive the levy, will not have the right of spending the money without the consent of the Minister. My experience with boards has taught me that they are sometimes too keen on spending money, and it is necessary to see that the money is not spent too quickly, or in a wrong way. That is the reason the Minister is retaining control.

But you do not do so in the case of cheese and butter control.

We have not come to cheese and butter yet. It is not good to commence anticipating. The hon. member is always in a great hurry. He will have full opportunity later to discuss it. The hon. member further wants the Government to subsidise the levy on the £ for £ principle. If we are going to subsidise the industry on that system, we shall have to assist all the other farmers; the maize farmers; the grain and sheep farmers, and all other farmers, in the same way. I think it is quite impossible. What about the fruit and cotton farmers, and all the other people who will ask for subsidy? I do it think the hon. member was serious in asking it. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has again mounted his hobby-horse about reducing the number of cattle, but he does not say how we are to do it. He follows the same policy as the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) who said: “Let all the cattle die.” No, we cannot go so far as to say that each farmer may not own more than a certain number of cattle. That is practically what he wants, but I do not think he really means it. The other points mentioned by him will be considered. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Vorster) has mentioned a few subjects including the grading of cattle. That is a question which can be further discussed, and I can assure him that I will consider the points he has raised. I shall also consider those raised by the hon. member for Potgietersrust, (the Rev. Mr. Naude), and if possible meet his wishes. He asked a question in connection with clause 2 about certain classes of cattle. Let me tell him the object there is that dairy cattle, e.g., shall not be included. The hon. member for East London (North) said that our farmers are now exporting all the maize instead of keeping it in the elevators, and feeding the cattle with it. I agree with him, but is the Government to see to the feeding of the cattle? The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) nods affirmatively, but I want to challenge him to dictate to the farmers that they must not sell the maize. We are not so autocratic yet. I am a little surprised that the hon. member for Aliwal North (Mr. Sephton) argues that people will have to surrender their rights. It is wonderful has the hon. member ever thought that all the legislation during his Government’s time was carried out by regulation, and that I have the right to issue regulations? And has the hon. member heard of any dissatisfaction with the regulations promulgated? He says now that the regulations may possibly cause damage. I can assure him that I will not make drastic regulations. I have dealt with most points. I feel that we must not take drastic action, but must improve matters slowly. We ought rather to enlighten the people, give them advice and spread information through the agricultural schools to get the industry on a good basis. I am introducing other legislation. This Bill principally refers to slaughter cattle, and I have merely tried to make a start. Hon. members opposite talk so much now, but they sat on the Government benches for fourteen years, and never made an attempt to put cattle farming on a sound basis. We do not dread difficulties. As for the request to send the Bill to a select committee before the second reading, I may say that if I were convinced that there was a just and honest intention to co-operate on behalf of cattle farming, I would be prepared to consider it; but the speeches this afternoon did not indicate cooperation, they were merely critical. The hon. member for Tembuland tried to throw a little mud and to bring the Government into discredit, although he was a little fairer than for a long time. The hon. member for Zululand, who made the request, also merely criticized, and I feel that no substantial points, not a single one, have been raised which would justify the reference before the second reading. The only point was the licensing of bulls, and I think hon. members opposite are not all in favour of it. We can pass the second reading, and if important points do arise in the select committee, the door is not locked because I can always come to this House, and propose a further reference.

Question put: That all the words after “That,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I have an amendment on the paper to Clause 1. I understood the chairman was reading sub-section (2) of Clause 1.

No, Clause 2.

I ask you to consider my amendment.

I cannot revert to Clause 1.

May I not move that we revert to Clause 1 ?

No, not at this stage.

When there is an amendment on the paper the Chairman always refers to the hon. member in whose name the amendment is put down.

Even if an amendment has been printed, the Chairman has no right to take notice of it unless the hon. member concerned moves it.

We have had very little time.

It has always been the practice —it was always understood that the Chairman refers to the amendments on the paper. Has it now been changed ?

The hon. member will, perhaps, be able to do it at the report stage.

I move—

I move this because otherwise I foresee a difficulty for the trek farmers who are, say, at an outspan. When animals die there, the farmer might otherwise come and prescribe the way they are to be disposed of. The regulations, however, already prescribe how an animal must be disposed of, because there are only two ways—by burning or burying it. Trouble would only be caused to the trek farmers. As the regulations already prescribe how an animal must be disposed of, these words become superfluous. I think the Minister will not object because it would otherwise give trouble to the trek farmer.

I have no objection to the amendment.

Agreed to.

I move—

My objection to the clause is that I think it is a matter for the owner of the land to decide as to the manner in which the carcase should be disposed of. If you are going to have a cumbersome provision of this sort, which requires the calling in of a stock inspector or policeman in case of dispute, it will entail considerable delay, and in the meantime you will have the carcase on the veld spreading contamination and disease; apart from that it is only right that the owner of the farm should be the proper person to determine the manner in which and the place where the carcase should be disposed of.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I have an objection to Clause 3 (14), which speaks of Government veterinary surgeon, stock inspector, etc. I would like to know whether the words “sheep inspector” cannot be inserted.

That is embraced in the words “sheep inspector.”

Then I am satisfied.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to,

I move—

Conditions in Cape Town differ completely from those on the Rand and other parts of the Union. In Cape Town everything is sold by market agents, and not on behalf of the municipality by market masters. The agent has to pay a £5 licence and give a guarantee of £250. Recently the committee on markets here recommended the raising of the guarantee to £500, and it will probably come into force shortly. It would be unfair if the Minister demanded a further guarantee.

I support the amendment. The object of this clause is to provide that security be given, and I think the amendment will meet the case.

Why are co-operative societies exempted from the operation of the clause? Why should they not give the same security as the ordinary individual? Is it only the agent who is so unbusinesslike as not to pay accounts? I think that portion of the clause should be deleted. If security be required, let everybody give it. I move—

A municipality need not give security because market masters pay daily.

I sympathize with the hon. member and also want to appeal to the Minister not to exempt the societies. The position is that the co-operative societies appoint agents who hold the auctions at their own risk. The societies get a certain percentage. They appoint the auctioneer, and he is accordingly not obliged to give security. The societies collect the goods. The auctioneer, however, is responsible for the sale. The position may, therefore, be that the auctioneer may escape under the protection of the co-operative society, which, however, is not responsible for the selling. There are cases where the co-operative societies do not appoint an auctioneer who is financially strong, and with this protection he competes with the auctioneer who has served the public well. Why should we not apply the law to such auctioneers? If we provide for security, we ought not to make an exemption.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the last amendment. We must remember that the members of co-operative societies are jointly and severally responsible. Every member is, therefore, responsible. We cannot, therefore, put the cooperative societies in the same position as the auctioneers. It seems to me as if hon. members now want it both ways. We preach cooperation, but we do not want to assist it. I hope, therefore, that the House will not pass the motion. My object is to protect the farmer, and now hon. members want to get rid of the security. I have mentioned how an agent used a farmer’s money, and could do nothing except promise to pay it back in future; for that reason I want to protect the farmer against its occurrence.

I am glad the Minister will not accept the amendment. We have long since reached the stage where the farmer should have a guarantee for the produce he sends to the agents. I am not surprised at the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Buirski) agreeing with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser), because the auctioneers are interested in it. The sooner, however, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) understands that the time when the farmers were dependent on irresponsible agents is now ended, the better. The hon. members want the co-operative societies also to give security, but they must not forget that the co-operative societies books are always open to inspection by Government inspectors, and I want to ask him whether he would be prepared to lay the obligation on private agents. Certainly not. I am, therefore, glad of the Minister’s action. We must have security for the farmers’ business.

The Minister struck a right note when he said that the object of this Bill is to protect farmers, and not auctioneers. If he wishes to attain his object, he must remain firm. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) spoke about auctioneers. I, too, am an auctioneer, and am quite prepared to hand over my books to the inspectors, but just because I am an auctioneer it would be wrong of me to put a stone in the way of good protection for farmers.

It seems to me that the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) does not understand the position. I actually want to protect the farmers, and more than the hon. member; hence I appeal to the Minister not merely to exclude certain persons. If the hon. member and the Minister had had to do with certain co-operative societies I have had to do with, they would speak differently, and not merely talk about things they know nothing about. I want everyone to be treated in the same way. Does the hon. member for Hoopstad know of the cases where co-operative societies decided to hand over the risk to the auctioneers? They merely take a certain percentage, and the auctioneer takes all the risk. I am just as much in favour of protection as the hon. member, and I am possibly as big a farmer as he is the hon. member for Hoopstad need not tell me what to do. I am a representative of the countryside, and I have shown in the past, I think, that I am out to protect the farmers. Do not let the Minister merely exclude one portion.

If the hon. member will look at the Bill, he will see that there is a provision which covers the case he mentions. If a co-operative society employs an auctioneer it must give security. They are only exempted when they sell through their own officials.

I must congratulate the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) on his timely fight with the member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy), but I do not see why co-operative societies should be exempted in this matter. We know that many co-operative societies have gone wrong and particularly in the Karroo. It is an insult to auctioneers and others that cooperative societies should be left out. I think members on this side of the House will agree with me, and I am confident we shall get good support from the other side as well.

I am not surprised to hear hon. members speaking like this. I thought we were now getting a little closer to the pocket of the people. May I congratulate the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) on his defending the interests of the farmers so well. I know that as a big farmer he will protect his own interests, but the position is that the day is past for us to be in the hands of brokers without being able to get any security. The position is that the farmer wants to sell his produce co-operatively for himself. Why, if he sells on his own behalf, must he give security to himself? Have not co-operative societies gone wrong in the past because the persons for whose interests the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Buirski) and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Col. Wares) are speaking, had an interest in their going wrong? Those people from the nature of the case made good incomes out of the farmer, and I can quite understand that when co-operation is making a great advance, those interested persons are feeling bad about it. The co-operative principle is for the farmer through the farmer. I hope hon. members opposite will repent of their evil ways.

How long have you been on the front bench?

Well, the hon. member will never get into the front bench, because he never speaks up for the farmers.

My objection is: why make fish of one and flesh of another? If security be necessary, all the more reason there is for the Minister to get security also from the cooperative societies. Our experience has been that some of these societies have gone wrong. Why make fish of one and flesh of another? I ask: why make a change? I am afraid that the hon. member has been unfortunate, and if he had been a wise mail he would have got another agent. I cannot understand why the Government should legislate so that there is a difference between the co-operative society and that they shall not be called upon to give security. Why not? I do not object to other people being called upon if the Government, think it necessary. Do you want to save the co-operative society more interest? You are giving them money free, and we have to pay for it. Why make this difference? I feel that in common fairness, the same security should be demanded from each and everybody who handles the farmer’s goods, and then the farmer will be entirely safe.

I can explain why co-operative societies are exempted. I will explain, because I know it is very hard for the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) and for his hon. friend immediately in front of him, the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Buirski), to understand why co-operative societies should receive these benefits. In passing, let me say that both hon. members have been delving into very ancient history to-night. They have both remarked that co-operative societies have gone wrong. That is very ancient history, and I heard that story years ago. I generally hear it from one source, namely, from those people whose interests are opposed to cooperative societies.

They want something for nothing. That is the point.

How can you ask a farmer to give security to himself? He sells for himself.

Does the society not sell tor members ?

When the hon. member sells for himself, he is not asked to give security. In that case he does not sell for anybody else. The farmer sells for the farmer. The co-operative society is in the position of being a trader, a broker, or an agent for somebody else.

Does he sell for somebody else ?

Why fine a farmer if he does not send his goods to a co-operative society

I know that is a very strong grievance in Port Elizabeth. The farmer finds himself with the Chamber of Commerce and the brokers imposing certain penalties on their members when they fail to comply with the regulations, say, of the Chamber of Commerce or the association of brokers.

Have they the power to impose penalties ?

Yes, they have the power to impose drastic penalties, and they have the power of expulsion. Is it or is it not a fact that the brokers in Port Elizabeth—the wool brokers’ association—have penalties on their members who fail to comply with the regulations?

No, it is not a fact.

If they fail to comply with the regulations, have they no penalty? Can the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) say “No” to that question ?

I say there is no fine. They may have to leave the association.

That is my reply. The brokers, to protect themselves, have penalties. The farmers choose to have it in the form of a fine, but they are on exactly the same footing.

That is a penalty.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) asked why make fish of one and flesh of another? My reply to that is that the cooperative society is not an organization or an agency such as the brokers are. It is the farmer himself in this case who is only selling collectively instead of individually.

Does he not also sell for his members ?

Only for farmers. The co-operative societies refuse to sell produce on behalf of traders. Let me ask the hon. member to remember that I happen to know what is going on in Port Elizabeth. I was also in Port Elizabeth for a few years, and I know the ins and outs of the trade.

Farmers’ co-operation.

The Boere sell together, collectively, and because they are able to look after their own interests, they no longer require the assistance of the brokers, who have had a good innings for many years.

Hence those tears !

Hence those tears. Therefore, they are not to be asked to give security to themselves. They are perfectly satisfied that their interests are fully secured, and let me again remind the hon. member he need not be concerned about the farmers of the co-operative society going wrong, because they are not going wrong.

But they have gone wrong.

That is very ancient history, and it was before the Co-operative Societies Act was pessed. Let the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Buirski) mention one case where a cooperative society has gone wrong since the passage of this Co-operative Societies Act. That sort of nonsense could have been spoken years ago, but not any more to-day.

The hon. the Minister said that co-operative societies sold only for farmers. I should like to put one direct question to him. Do the co-operative societies sell for farmers who are non-members of the societies ?

What security will they get ?

Yes, I can answer that question. Societies that were in existence when the Cooperative Societies Act was passed were specially exempted, and they do sell for non-members. But let me say this further, that we do not compel any non-member to sell through the co-operative societies. When they do sell they do it of their own choice, and the members of the co-operative societies are more than sufficiently secured for the proceeds of the sales towards non-members.

It is only fair to the House that the Minister should have given a direct answer to a very plain question.

I did.

If co-operative societies are in the habit of selling to non-members, they are acting as brokers for non-members, and they should therefore be asked to give security to these people, just as the ordinary brokers have to give security. At the ports we find merchants who act as brokers, and they afford quite as good security as any co-operative society, so if they have to find security I fail to see why a co-operative society, when it acts as brokers for non-members, should not also provide security. A number of farmers prefer not to be members of a co-operative society. Why should they be compelled to send their produce to a co-operative society?

I should like to know whether the Minister is going to accept my amendment?

I can give the names of co-operative societies who sell for dealers. For instance, the F.C.U. sold for Mr. Thorne of Basutoland. If security is to be given it should be supplied by co-operative societies as well as brokers.

When I find the amendment supported by the hon. members for Woodstock (Mr. Buirski) and Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) I feel the hon. members must be quite wrong in this matter. In the bushveld, where I come from, the auctioneers will be quite satisfied. It will eliminiate the mushroom auctioneers. Members say that they support co-operation, but as soon as the Minister assists the co-operative societies hon. members opposite object to it. Who constitute the co-operative societies but the farmers themselves? They sell their goods through their own society, and after the sale they are paid out.

The Minister has challenged us to mention the names of merchants who have sold through co-operative societies. I have done so myself, at Mossel Bay and Port Elizabeth, and through the F.C.U. Why should a cooperative society be exempt from giving security ?

It seems to me that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. Wares) is very strongly opposed to the co-operative societies giving no security, and the hon. members who oppose it say that they, also deal with non-members. Let me point out that when the Cooperative Societies Act was passed provision was made for companies which were already carrying on business co-operatively before the coming into force of the Act. It was then provided that if those companies amended their articles of association so as to become acceptable by the department, they could be registered within six months under the Co-operative Societies Act. They were the F.C.U. and the Boere Saamwerk. They were registered under the previous Government as members of cooperative societies. It seems to me that the hon. members are now a little jealous of the success of the co-operative societies. They must, of course, protect their own business. It is also strange that hon. members opposite who, during the past weeks have shouted about farmers’ interests, are quite silent now when it is going against the traders. The co-operative societies to-day stand practically directly under Government supervision and the books can constantly be gone into by the inspectors. That is not the case with the agents.

We have nothing against it.

But when a proposal to that effect was made a few days ago, hon. members opposite opposed it. I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure). We do not cause unnecessary trouble, and we do not want to demand double security. If the people already have to give a guarantee, we do not want a second.

Do I understand the Minister to say with reference to my remarks that they were caused through jealously? I have personally not the slightest interest in the sale of wool, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) has not either. As to being jealous of any co-operative society, that is a little bit too ridiculous to suggest. I think this measure is distinctly unfair.

I move—

The position simply is that the people are satisfied with the way wool is being sold. Here and there is still a flaw, which allows people to escape. The system is, however, satisfactory and we therefore ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

I move—

The Minister, I understand, has inserted this in the Bill because of his desire to protect the farmer—a very laudable object. Incidentally there seems to be no effort on the part of the Government to protect the ordinary man in the street who sells his goods through a broker or auctioneer. If a poor unfortunate man, who is in the town, finds it necessary to sell up his furniture to meet his bills, an auctioneer has not to give him any security whatever. But the farmer is protected. I am not objecting, but it is time we called a halt to this sectional legislation. The Minister is responsible for bringing legislation in and it is considered by the Cabinet assembled, subject to the pressure of the Labour men in the Cabinet. One would think that sometimes we would get legislation to deal with all, and not with a section. The Minister of Mines and Industries, who perhaps, according to his lights, is correct, took my hon. friend to task and said that because they were members of a co-operative society the net result was that, the farmers sold their own produce for themselves. Where does the State come in? When we come down to bedrock you will see on the legislative stocks a Bill immediately succeeding this, which gives co-operative societies the power to sell, on behalf of the State, farming produce, and what security is to be given? This House will be dragooned, because you have a deadweigh majority on the other side, to pass this clause, establishing the position that co-operative societies may sell, on behalf of their members, or anybody else, without any security at all, and the succeeding Bill makes it possible and almost obligatory to sell through the co-operative societies—with no security whatever given. It can hardly be imagined that the State as a whole can be induced to become a member of a sectional co-operative society. I want to see a huge co-operative society on the production side, and also a huge co-operative society on the consumers’ side, both dealing direct with one another, with no intervention, no matter how honest they may be. But that is impossible: that is why I am always preaching in this House that the Government, as the executive committee of a huge co-operative society, should be acting on both sides. The main thing I want to drive into this House is that the Minister, however desirous he maybe of protecting the farmer from the machinations of dishonest brokers and auctioneers and unscrupulous merchants—and there are quite a few—tends to defeat his own object. Those auctioneers in Johannesburg who have got hold of all the meat trade there, are among the wealthiest people in Johannesburg, and it is the easiest thing in the world for them to give security up to £2,500, but you can have many a dozen auctioneers, poor, but honest, who cannot find the money. I am astounded at the Minister agreeing to put such a Bill on the statute book, and I am surprized at the Minister of Mines and Industries agreeing to it. Surely the Cabinet discussed this measure, and surely the Creswellites had something to say. It looks as if they said: “Oh, it is one of Kemp’s Bills; let us put it through.” The fact remains that the Bill will not accomplish what it is after. What matters in the ultimate is whether a man is getting a square deal for his produce, but by this measure you are making a closer preserve than ever, and you are not accomplishing your object.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Kayser put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Faure and the Minister of Agriculture put and agreed to.

I move—

Other things are being sold on the market at the same time. It is like Babel, and it is necessary for one man to sell at a time. It is fair to the auctioneers, and also to those who have sent goods. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

I move—

I move—

The amendment of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) is, I think, impracticable. It is impossible in a place like Johannesburg for one auctioneer alone to put up a thousand cattle at once.

I hope the Minister will not accept it. The intention is good, but it is impossible and the farmers will suffer damage.

I move—

It is not my intention in any way to relieve the auctioneer of his obligations. All I want to do is to make the clause a little clearer. This clause provides that any party to an agricultural purchase from an auctioneer can demand in writing that the auctioneer should produce his books to an accountant, and further on it provides that if any auctioneer, agent or factor fails to produce his books, that auctioneer will be liable to a penalty. Now you can put two constructions on that clause. It is one of those clauses on which you should get counsel’s opinion to know exactly what it means. If you read the latter part of the clause, it says, “fails to produce,” but the question is where is the auctioneer to produce these books or papers, and when, and at what time. It seems possible that a man in Cape Town may be sending produce to Beaufort West, but may not be satisfied with the price he has obtained, or may be suspicious, and he may write to that auctioneer to produce his books to an accountant in Cape Town, which would be a very great hardship on that auctioneer. The clause here is by no means clear as to where those books have to be produced. It is an important clause, and I think that whilst we must protect the person who delivers these goods to the auctioneer, we must not make it impossible for the auctioneer to carry on his business. The clause seems also open to abuse on the part of opposing auctioneers. Any man could take advantage of an auctioneer by ordering him to submit his books to some accountant 500 or 1,000 miles away, which would certainly cause inconvenience. I move, therefore—

for such inspection at his place of business at all reasonable times. That will make the position clear. Then at the end of the clause I would like to protect the auctioneer whose books are to be inspected in such a manner that the accountant may not disclose anything in the books which is irrelevant to the case concerned. I, therefore, propose the following additional amendment—

I hope the Minister will accept that in order that the position may be clear. As the clause stands now, it does not seem that the layman would be quite clear as to its meaning.

I object to some of the amendments. I cannot accept that of the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson). That of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) is impracticable in the Johannesburg market where thousands of cattle are sold, then sales would have to take place 365 days in the year, day and night, and yet not finish the business. If the produce of a farmer arrives on Saturday, they will not be able to sell any more, and the stuff will have to stand over until the following Monday. The farmers will suffer loss, and I cannot accept it. The amendment by the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. Chiappini) is merely an explanation, and I am quite prepared to accept it. As for the last portion of it, I think it is a fair request that the inspectors should publish no secrets contained in the books.

I understand the objections of the Minister and hon. members to the amendment of the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler). It is impossible to have only one auctioneer, but also impossible to have fifteen or twenty at the same time. The result is that the public stream to one of the two, and the other one has no buyers. Will not the Minister meet us and limit it to five, e.g., at the same time. Then everything can be sold within a few hours.

I feel I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member which wants merely one auctioneer sitting at a time. What would be the position on the Johannesburg market? They sell, as it is, from eight in the morning to one o’clock at present, when ten or twelve are selling at the same time. I hope the Minister will not accept it.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Chiappini put and agreed to.

In sub-section (5) I should like to ask the Minister if the word “produce” includes “hides and skins” ?

There is a further amendment to exclude hides and skins.

I should like to support the hon. member if it excludes hides and skins, and I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment.

I am quite prepared to accept it.

Then there is no necessity for me to say any more.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Bekker and the Minister of Agriculture put and agreed to.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Anderson and Mr. Bekker (for Mr. Steytler) put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to,

I move—

The amendments I am here proposing have appeared to be necessary through the administration of the Co-operative Societies Act. Before I come to them I want to say a few words generally. I do not think it is necessary for me to come and show this House how necessary co-operation is. We all feel that the salvation of the inhabitants of the countryside is bound up in the co-operative societies, carried on pure and sound business principles. We have had failures in the past; failures about which we have heard in the House to-day. But failures of those times are fortunately past. We are now living in a time when people are beginning to run cooperative societies on business principles. The people managing them know something about it. Accordingly we are proud of our co-operative societies, and we realize they are the salvation of our farmers. I am glad to be able to say that business men are beginning to agree that it is necessary for the farmers to cooperate. We recently had a congress of millers and wheat farmers, they clearly said that it was easier for them to deal with the farmers co-operatively so that they could buy through one channel, and it would not be necessary for them to send agents about the country in motor-cars. These agents often depress the price of the grain. They frankly say that it is easier for them to do business with a society. This statement was, I thought, a milestone in the history of our societies, viz., that our business men acknowledged that it was necessary for the farmers to co-operate, and that they would rather deal with the co-operative societies, than with the farmers separately. Nor is it our object to eliminate business men, but we want them to co-operate so that the farmers can work with them in a way satisfactory to both. I therefore welcome the statement by the millers, and am glad that they took up that line. I hope the other business men will follow their example. They can therefore eliminate their agents and the middle men and deal direct with the farmers. Then I come to the few amendments of my own. May I just say that one amendment is with reference to the sale of Government property. The law does not permit the Government or the Agricultural Department to be a member of a co-operative society. Nor does the law permit Government property to be sold by the society unless the Minister has given special permission for the produce to be sold by such a society. It is a very circuitous procedure because the board of the society must first call a public meeting to decide whether the produce of the Government can be sold. They are only too glad to do it, but it is very circumlocutory to always call an extraordinary meeting when there is anything to be sold. We do not think it necessary, and we provide instead that the Minister can give instruction for the produce of the agricultural schools, such as sheep, wool, etc., to be sold by a co-operative society. Then we also make it clear that cooperative societies, as we now allow the Government to sell through them, shall not do business with anyone who is not a member. We make it plain here that co-operative societies may only do business with members unless the Minister consents. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) will remember what happened with the co-operative sugar mill in his constituency. That mill’s members did not produce sufficient for its subsistence, and it was therefore necessary to allow the cane of non-members to be ground by the mill. It is however only in special cases that we may make such an exception. Then there is another point in connection with the inspection of books. The law provides that if it appears necessary, the Minister is empowered to send an official of his department to inspect the books of a co-operative society. But when the inspector arrives at the society’s office he is asked why he has come, and they first want to know the reason. We feel that if we consider it necessary to inspect the books we must have the right without giving any reason. Those people enjoy certain facilities from the Government; they are exempt from certain stipulations; they pay no income tax, and it is no more than fair that the members should have the guarantee that the department has the right to inspect the books of the societies. That is provided in this Bill. The third amendment proposed is necessary to see that on the dissolution of co-operative societies the available funds are properly and fairly distributed. That was not clear in the principal Act. When the Minister has to appoint a liquidator we must have a guarantee that a proper distribution will take place, so that there may be no complaints thereafter. Then Section 8 of the principal Act describes how the reserve fund must be divided. The new Bill only elucidates the matter. Then there is a clause which will probably be objected to. In Section 2 of the principal Act it is laid down that societies that existed before the coming into force of that Act, will be permitted, under certain special conditions, if the articles of association are suitably altered, to be registered as co-operative societies. Of that opportunity the Boere Saamwerk Society and the F.C.U. availed themselves. They are both dealers in wool, who buy wool from members and non-members, and their profit is exempt from income tax. I know that when one talks of income tax people are immediately scared. What is here proposed is that those societies, in so far as they deal with members, shall be exempted from income tax. But when we come to non-members, I consider, and the hundreds of co-operative societies who may not deal with non-members consider, that they ought to pay the tax, because it is an unfair competition. As those societies came in under special circumstances, it is here provided that they, just like the co-operative societies, should only be exempt from income tax on transactions with members. The co-operative societies may not deal with non-members at all except in extraordinary cases like the sugar mill at Umlozi, but that is the only exception I have allowed. The cooperative societies ask whether it is fair for those societies to be treated differently. The F.C.U. and the B.S.W. say that it would be difficult to make a difference between members and non-members. But it ought to be possible to separate them in the books. I will not press that question because certain members have said that the B.S.W. and the F.C.U. entered into that agreement and that we are now going back on it. If they had known it, they would possibly not have registered as co-operative societies. I feel that they are making out a moral ease. Personally, I want to submit the matter to the decision of the House. But hon. members will feel that we have already exempted the societies in respect of business they do with their own members, and it will not, in my opinion, be fair to allow them to continue that unfair competition. As I have said, it is a matter I would bring before the House. I sympathize with it, but I would like to have the views of the House on it. Then there is a new principle, viz., organizations on a co-operative basis, organizations established by people who want to farm together. In the past it was not permissible to do such a thing. We find however that people with money—people advanced in years— no longer want to farm, but they want to allow their children and family connections to farm with them. They want to do so by helping those people to farm on a co-operative basis. I feel that we must meet them. There is a very strong spirit amongst people of getting away from the countryside, and going to the towns, and when we can do something to get people with money back to the land, we must agree to allow them to farm on a co-operative basis, provided it is seen to that the profits are proportionately divided. Then we come to the old difficulty we had with co-operative societies, viz., that of members who are disloyal to the society. We have so often to do with it. Such members go and deliver a part of their produce to other people. It is a very difficult matter for the co-operative society, because it often confuses their affairs. It happens that a lucerne co-operative society, knowing how much lucerne it will deliver, enters into a contract to sell a definite quantity. If then the members are disloyal when the society calls upon the members to deliver lucerne, they are not able to deliver the right quantity. The society is then obliged to buy in at a higher price in order to fulfil its contract. We are making the provisions against this stronger. The fine for infidelity will be increased. The question is whether we ought not to go further and whether we ought not also to penalize the business man who buys the produce from the member. I did not wish to put such a provision in the Bill, but I mention it so that members can consider whether it is desirable to do such a thing. We find that members of the tobacco co-operative society often go and sell their tobacco to non-members; this leads to much trouble. It is desirable that we should face this matter to see if we ought not to lay down that the buyer shall be just as punishable as the seller. If an amendment is moved, I will favourably consider it. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) says “hear, hear.” It seems to me he will do something in that direction. He has often urged it upon me. I had certain objections, but I will now leave the matter to the House. The more I think over the matter, the more I think that it will assist us out of the difficulties with the disloyal member. It will then no longer be such a bait for the people to try to seduce members to sell to them when they know that they will be punished. If we do not make the penalties severe the co-operative societies will have a very bad time in the future. My department preaches co-operation all the time, and we must try to put our co-operative societies on a sound basis. If that is not done we shall probably get another setback as we did before the co-operative Act was passed, and it will take many years to recover from it. Accordingly my department and I are engaged in putting things on as sound a footing as possible. I have explained the chief amendments. I think there will be no opposition to them. Ambiguities in the old Act are being corrected, and only a few new principles are being inserted.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on 6th February

I move—

I would be glad if the Minister would explain to us why he wants to change the wording.

The law adviser advises that these words should be altered.

I move—

My reason for moving this is to restore the confidence of the bastard towards the white man. There was a time when every farm along the Orange River south of Upington belonged to these bastards. These farms were given to them for services which they rendered to the Cape against the Hottentots in the Koranna War, but the unscrupulous trader and liquor seller had got in among them with the result that they have lost their farms. The consequence is that when you deal with them now they look upon you with suspicion, and think you are trying to take advantage of them. I am sure that if we give them a hand in the administration it will restore their confidence. These people are not uneducated and stupid, who are still in possession of land. Only quite recently one of these bastards who lived at Keimoes died, being worth at least £15,000. When we inspected this settlement we visited the farm of a bastard by the name of Gordon Reytenbach. I presume he was named after Sir Gordon Sprigg. That man has a large house, and a large dam which must have cost about £1,000, he also had about 600 head of cattle and about 2,000 sheep. They are a little race by themselves, with a language of their own. I am sure that if the Minister were to put two of these men on the committee, it would restore confidence, and that it would not only assist the committee, hut also assist the Minister. These people are hardworking. I hope the Minister will also put up irrigation works for them. If this is done I am sure they will leave the Orange River and the islands and go to these farms which the Government have bought for them, and I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.

Why does the Hon. Minister take out the words “officers in the public service” and substitute “officers in Government employment”? If you say “public servants” that may he taken to mean permanent public servants, whereas “officers in Government employment” may be temporary. Surely it is better that members of this hoard should he permanent public servants, and not men who may be taken on one day and discharged the next.

The hon. member knows that there are officials who are not on the permanent staff. They are permanent, but not on the permanent staff. Take the chief of the police. When he leaves, someone else takes his place; take the superintendent of settlements along the whole of the Orange River. He is in the public service, but not on the permanent staff. If there are few suitable people at a place it will give trouble to restrict it to persons who are on the permanent staff of the public service.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Now another amendment is necessary. I move—

In line 36, after “quorum” to add “: Provided that, when the number of members of the board is increased in terms of subsection (2), three members of the board shall form a quorum.”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move—

Agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Lands certain amendments were made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

I move an amendment to insert the word “dwelling houses,” but withdraw it on the assurance of the Minister that dwelling houses are embraced under the term “improvements.”

I would like to move that the word “irrigation works” be included in the Dutch text,

If the hon. member reads the clause he will see that it is already included.

On Clause 6,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

1 move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clauses 12 and 13,

On the motion of the Minister of Lands, certain amendments were made in the Dutch version which did not occur in the English.

Clauses, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 14 and title having been agreed to,

When this debate was adjourned I had practically replied to the various objections of hon. members, and I moved the adjournment to go carefully into certain objections like that about the fruit boxes being provided with various marks; that every bag of potatoes should bear marks, etc. I then decided that only specific agricultural produce laid down in the Bill should come under it, and I am now meanwhile only going to apply it to the grading of wheat, because the wheat farmers ask for it; to tobacco, because the tobacco farmers wish it; to lucerne, because it is one of the things in connection with which there have been many complaints about cattle dying through wire in the packing. I will further move that it be applied to hides and skins, because I am not going to allow the farmers to lose another million pounds over it, and, in conclusion, to wool bales. This is already generally done, but I think we should make the marking of wool bales compulsory. If thereafter there is a desire to apply the Bill to other produce, it can only be done by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that the dissatisfaction has in this way been removed.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on 6th February.