laid upon the Table—

1. (8) Proposed sale post office site, Rondebosch.
2. (9) Proposed sale Part A, Erf 1, Block DDD, Middelburg (Cape).
3. (10) Proposed sale Lots 81 and 83, Albert Road, Woodstock.
4. (11) Proposed grant school site at Addo Station.
5. (12) Proposed deletion of certain condition in title deed of school site at Peddie.
6. (13) Proposed grant of Lot M, Bellville, Cape.
7. (14) Proposed withdrawal portion Kwelera Forest Reserve.
8. (15) Proposed allotment out of hand certain land adjoining Lot K.32, Kwambonambi.

Papers referred to Select Committee on Crown Lands.

laid upon the Table—

1. (1) Report of the Board of Trustees of the South African Public Library, Cape Town, for 1924. (Printed.)
2. (2) Statements of accounts of the following institutions:
   • South African Museum, Cape Town, for 1923.
   • Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, for year ending 31st March, 1924.
   • Natal Museum, Pietermaritzburg, for year ending 31st March, 1924.
   • State Library, Pretoria, for 1923.
   • National Zoological Gardens of South Africa, Pretoria, for 1923.
   • Michaelis Art Gallery, Cape Town, for jyear ending 31st March, 1924.

Documents referred to Select Committee on Public Accounts.

I shall move this day week that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee in terms of the Standing Orders.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

stated that the petitions (Nos. 279 and 277—1924) were upon the Table.

I move—

This matter was raised last year, and the matter was referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report. However, the dissolution of Parliament came, and nothing was done. The matter has remained in status quo since then, and it becomes my duty to bring the matter forward now. It will be seen that the motion is diveded into two separate parts, (1) that the petition from W. Runciman, Mayor, and eight others, members of Municipal Council of Simonstown, praying for relief in respect of the cost of providing drainage, roads, and other necessary works on certain land disposed of by the Railways and Harbours Administration at Glencairn. Quite shortly, the history of this matter is as follows. The Municipality of Simonstown was created many years ago, and a certain amount of land was included in the municipality which belonged to the Government. At a later stage the boundaries of the municipality were extended. Some years after the original inclusion of this land within the boundaries of the municipality the question arose as to the use of it for railway purposes, and the municipality having been informed that it was for bona fide railway purposes gave up their claim to that ground. Unfortunately, some years afterwards the Government exercised the powers conferred upon them by the Act of 1887, and sold the land for building and residential purposes without any reference to the municipality. The municipality, over a period of some years, contested this position, and having been asked by the railway authorities to spend money, or rather having been compelled to spend money in connection with residential requirements in the municipality, considered that as the land was not used for the purposes for which it had been acquired they were entitled to relief in respect of requirements necessitated by the growth of population there. They asked for the proceeds of the sale to be changed over to them, or alternatively, to some other relief. The departments concerned took up the position that the land had been legally sold in terms of the Act of 1887, and they were not willing to refund the money. It was admitted in the course of correspondence that the department had been in error in thinking that the land was not originally within the boundary of the municipality, but they took steps under the Act to sell the ground and have hitherto declined to make any return of the proceeds of the sale of the ground. Therefore the municipality presented a petition to this House. This was brought forward last year, and as I have already stated, the last Government accepted the motion that it should be referred to a Select Committee for enquiry and report. The second portion relates to the question of naval and military canteens operating at Simonstown. This refers to the petition from 36 licensed traders of Simonstown, praying for an inquiry into the effects on the trade and welfare of the community brought about by the operations of naval and military canteens, and for relief in respect thereof. The history of this matter, shortly, is that during the late war, the Imperial Government established a canteen to meet the exigencies of the officers and men at that time, It was financed and controlled by the Admiralty and the War Office, and no doubt served a good purpose. At the conclusion of the war it appears that the officers and men in their own interests desired a continuance of this convenience. Naturally the traders of Simonstown object to what they consider this unfair competition with ordinary trade. The Inland Revenue authorities at that time took up the position that the institution was a department of the Crown and was not subject to paying taxes or licence-fees.

Did they pay customs?

No. Subsequently it was admitted that a mistake had been made, and under the law it was found that this institution was liable to pay licence. Instructions were given, and steps taken to make those responsible for the management fulfil the conditions of the law. Unfortunately, however, the matter was held up, apparently by the instructions of the late Minister of Lands, for further consideration, and before anything was done, in the Amending Act, the Defence Act of 1912, there appeared a clause giving the Minister power to exempt from payment of licences and taxes these institutions, and the Minister in the exercise of his powers granted a certificate to this institution. As a result this competition still continues. There is this to be said; various other parts of the Empire have refused to allow these institutions to operate on the same terms: New Zealand, India, Australia, I think, and Canada have all refused to allow these particular institutions to operate under privileged conditions. It does seem somewhat hard upon the inhabitants of Simonstown that they should be compelled to submit to this competition. The matter is doubly hard for Simonstown because by virtue of the special conditions which prevail there the municipality is deprived of the ordinary opportunities which most municipalities have of deriving revenue from rates, inasmuch as a very large portion of the municipality is under the control of the Imperial Government and the Union Government, and the question of a contribution in lieu of rates has never been settled to the benefit of the municipality, to whom is entrusted the duty of seeing that municipal services are properly provided to all the people connected with the Admiralty and the Union Government, whose headquarters are at Simonstown. It will be seen, therefore, that this matter is of considerable importance. I do not think there is any desire to do anything which would be distasteful to the Admiralty, but it is felt that it is hard that these institutions which supply the wants of a large number of people who are employed by the Admiralty and by the Defence Forces should have the privilege of having their quarters on Government ground for which they pay no rent, and that they should not be subject to any licences or customs duties. I need not elaborate all the correspondence that has taken place. There has been lengthy correspondence with the department and with the Provincial Administration. The Provincial Administration, I may say, appeared to consider favourably the arguments put forward by the municipality. However, the amended Defence Act of 1922 settled the matter because a section in that Act which refers to canteens, enables the canteen to conduct its business without paying taxes or licences. It has been suggested that a certain amount of leakage takes place and that some members of the general public, through the instrumentality of their friends, derive some benefit to which they are not entitled, and that is a matter which requires investigation. I do not propose to deal with the matter at any further length, because the ministers concerned in these matters have been good enough to intimate to me that they are willing to accept the motion that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, and therefore there is no necessity for me to weary the House with further details. I, therefore, move the motion standing in my name.

I second the motion.

The hon. member has just said that the Government proposed to offer no objection to this motion, but, in saying so, I wish to make it quite clear that the Government does not accept the position entirely as stated by the hon. member and as stated in the petition. With regard to this land question, a good deal of this land, I understand, was alienated in 1905 and 1912, and it was Crown land. We do not accept the idea that it is obligatory for this land to be restored to the municipality or the proceeds thereof. We are quite willing that the matter should be inquired into. In regard to the other matter of canteens, I have already had complaints, not from here, but from garrison institutes elsewhere, that the objects of the Act which is to secure, to serving members of the forces, certain advantages of having their own canteens, have been in some cases abused by other members of the public being allowed to avail themselves of these privileges. I want clearly to indicate that the policy of allowing canteens to exist for the benefit of serving members of the forces and the troops is not one which we are prepared to go back upon. If there are abuses in connection therewith we, naturally, are willing to meet objections in this direction. With these few remarks I hope that the discussion may come to a close and that the matter may be investigated by the Select Committee and any further facts brought out which will affect the report.

I put the question that this petition be referred to the Select Committee for inquiry and report.

The motion was agreed to.

It affords me very great pleasure to be able to-day pointedly to draw the attention of Parliament and the country to this very important industry. It is a fact that practically the whole world over Governments are somewhat luke-warm in regard to this important industry. However, since the great war nearly all nations have realized the necessity for giving greater attention to the development of their latent industries, and I, therefore, think the time is opportune for me to bring this matter specially to the attention of Parliament and the Government. In addition to these facts I also have the honour to represent a coastal constituency, a constituency bounding on the shores which contain scientific evidence of being the wealthiest fishing grounds in the world. Consequently, there is another important reason why I should move in this important matter. Let me say that the fishing industry is a matter of national importance. It affects the well-being of every section of the population, and I am certain that there is no difference of opinion in this hon. House in regard to the principle underlying my motion. I think we are all united upon the necessity of making an attempt to advise and assist the Government in order to come forward with some practical schemes, to further and develop this important industry. No doubt the maritime provinces of the Cape and Natal are more vitally interested in this industry, but let hon. members make no mistake—I say this deliberately—that the Union, as a whole, has a very great interest in the development and prosperity of the fishing industry—not so much in this country as yet—but in other countries, has played an important part in the development of maritime nations. If the House will allow me just to cite one instance: It was the tremendous income derived by Holland from the herring industry which largely gave Holland her proud position among the nations of the world. Because the herring industry, to a great extent, gave Holland the large sums of money necessary to fight her great struggle against Spain in the sixteenth century and to humble the pride of her then great enemy. The fishing industry is of greater importance in a higher sense. By taking an interest in this industry as a State we shall, in a measure, contribute to revive the sea sense of our people, a great sea sense of which hon. members sitting in this House and who are mainly sprung from the two great nations—the Dutch and the English—have every reason to be proud. From a national point of view, I consider it is essential that this innate sea sense should be revived and encouraged by the State. I think we should to-day be honest and admit that the fishing industry of South Africa has thus far been left very much to chance. We are no doubt indebted to the old Governments of the Cape and Natal and since then to the Union Government. But, although we have done a great deal in the way of research work, nothing has really been done to show a fraction of the vast possibilities of this industry. We must be fair and admit that since 1921-’22 extensive investigations and research work have been carried out, thanks to the efforts of the late Government, and I am very pleased to see that the present Minister of Mines and Industries is continuing that good work, and I wish to give him every assistance in my power. Perhaps there is no industry which requires State assistance and guidance more than the fishing industry does. Not only is development required, but also adequate protection for the very large and varied class of creatures taken from the sea. This necessitates (1) a considerable knowledge of their life history, (2) the conditions of their existence and reproduction, (3) the effects of trawling upon the deeper spawning beds, and the extent to which immature fish are destroyed, (4) what limitations there should be in respect of areas to be trawled, (5) whether the destruction of whales has an evil effect upon the supply of fish, (6) the investigation of our coast-line with a view to the establishment of adequate stations, so that private capital may be attracted to undertake further development, (7) what are the seasons of our fish, when and where, and under what conditions do they spawn, and (8) the causes of their total, or partial, disappearance from their old haunts without apparent reason, and their equally inexplicable return after a period of years. Already a considerable amount of research work has been carried out by Dr. Gilchrist, to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude. But a great deal still remains to be done. The question is: How can this important research and practical work be carried out? In my opinion there should, as far as the financial and scientific aspect of the industry is concerned, be an immediate transference of the industry from the control of the provincial authority to that of the Union Government. To meet local wants and provincial difficulties the Government could, through local boards, and with assistance from the provincial authority, offer effective co-operation. I should certainly press for the establishment of a separate Fisheries Department with a properly qualified departmental head. It is essential that this department should be under the control of the Minister of Railways and Harbours. The provincial authorities, with the best intentions in the world are able to do very little. At present the people interested in fishing are buffeted between the provincial and central authorities, and in the end their efforts terminate in a deadlock. The late Minister of Railways and Harbours agreed to proclaim two of the harbours on the Caledon coast to be under the Railway Department, since when it has been easier to obtain money for their repair and maintenance. The Railways and Harbours Department is vitally interested in transporting the fish to the inland markets with the least possible delay. The next step is the selection of stations on our coast which should be provided with proper harbour and shelter facilities so that bigger boats, and also motor-boats, may be employed by the fishermen. In my own constituency we have two fishing stations at Hermanns and Gans Bay. Gans Bay is the property of the state. Hermanns is a public township. At these two stations there are sixteen hundred Europeans engaged in this industry. For generations they have been engaged in this industry. There is another salient fact in connection with these two stations. They are both very close to the great world-renowned fishing ground, the Agulhas Bank, practically in close proximity to it, but they are entirely dependent upon small rowing boats and sailing boats to carry out their arduous task. It is impossible for them to go as far as Agulhas, past Danger Point, in order to get the full benefit of that fertile fishing ground. One is surprised to find the quality of the men and women who are engaged in and dependent upon this industry, which, as I have said, has been carried on there for generations. Notwithstanding the rough and tumble of sea life, they are a superior type of Europeans. Yet what encouragement do we as a State give to these people? We have practically given them no encouragement. Still, in spite of that, they stick to their industry, an industry which is precarious not alone by reason of its dangers, but also from a pecuniary point of view. I marvel at times that these people are so loyal to this industry. Now what do I recommend? I recommend to the Government that there should be harbours and shelters constructed not only in my own constituency, but at other points along the coast. It should be inquired into whether these people and other people engaged in the industry cannot have bigger boats. I want to mention another instance to show with what difficulties these fishermen have to cope under present conditions. About six miles from Hermanus, on the False Bay side, there is another fishing station called Hawston. There are about three hundred or four hundred coloured people engaged in this industry with fifteen or sixteen small rowing boats. Will you believe me that, after these people have been to their good and fertile fishing grounds and have had large catches, they have to carry their fish from their little harbour, on which I do not think the local authority has spent more than £200, for a mile over sand dunes to the little fishing hamlet where customers come to buy the fish? These poor people, after being the whole day on the sea in the hot sun, have to carry their heavy loads of fish over a mile of sand dunes to the market, whereas, if this place were under the Union Government, with £1,000 you can construct a road to that harbour and with the expenditure of £200 you can put the harbour in proper repair and make it safe for these people. But it is impossible to get the Provincial Council and the Divisional Council to spend £1,200 on the development and propagation on an industry of this nature. If we have any vision, and if we have any confidence in the future of this great industry, I should say that the State ought to proceed immediately on these facilities which I have indicated. I want to give you a comparison. Say we spend £250,000 on these small fishing harbours and shelters along the coasts of the Union, we shall find that instead of the production to-day being worth £400,000 per annum it will soon rise to over one million sterling. What is the financial position of the industry to-day? The total value of fish landed in the Cape Province alone during 1923 was £370,000. The total value of our export trade from South Africa in cured, preserved and dried fish of all kinds for the same year was £305,000. The total value of imports for the same year of cured and preserved fish into the Union was £340,000. Now I want to quote an interesting passage from the Secretary for Mines and Industries (Mr. Warington Smyth), and I must say that his name can be favourably mentioned in connection with this industry. He has certainly endeavoured, with all the duties devolving upon him, at all times to favourably assist the development of the fishing industry. What does he say in regard to these, imports which amount to £340,000?—

The total number of persons employed in the Cape Province alone in this industry is estimated at over 4,000. The amount distributed in wages in Cape Town alone is estimated at between £15,000 and £20,000 per week. As evidence of the possibilities of increased development I may state that we are developing a considerable export trade to Australia, that the Australian steamers take from our shores almost weekly more tons weight of fish than they took in boxes a few years ago, and they deliver this fish in different Australian ports. Experimental shipments have also been made to the Argentine Republic, and there are the greatest hopes that, if we bestow proper attention upon this industry, we shall be able to develop a very large trade, with that great country in connection with our fishing industry. By developing this industry we shall also instigate the establishment of subsidiary industries, such as ship and boat building, engineering, net-making, sail-making, and last, but not least, the production of fertilizers of high nitrogenous content which will be of enormous benefit to our farming community. By stimulating a key industry the scope for development and employment is very much increased. I estimate that the fishable area of the Union is in extent 110,000 square miles, and of this we have only so far surveyed something under 20,000 square miles. The Minister of Education is not in his place. I would like to have made an appeal to him whether the time has not arrived when we should establish a marine biological station in connection with one or other of our universities, where students in zoology from the whole Union could during vacation time attend lectures. I am proud to say that I was instrumental in getting for the Stellenbosch University twelve acres of foreshore ground on the Caledon coast. After that particular site had been inspected by the professors and other experts they were so taken up with the sea-life on that coast that they said there could not be a better station anywhere in the world for studying marine biology. But where is the money? They have got the transfer, they have got the ground, but they have no means to erect an hostel or small lecture room where the students can meet perhaps once a year for a month or two and study sea-life. In that way we shall also inculcate a greater sea sense amongst our own people. I have no time to discuss the industry from the inland point of view. I understand the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) is seconding this motion, and that he will deal with the question so far as inland fishing is concerned. I am pleased to have had this opportunity of bringing to the notice of the House this important question, a question upon which we can all be agreed and in which we should all assist the Government in propagating and fostering it to the best advantage. I move—

I second the motion. The member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has dealt with this subject entirely from the point of view of the sea-fisheries, and that I think, is the difficulty which I find myself in in dealing with the subject in so far as the possibilities of the development of inland fisheries are concerned. Apart from the sea, an industry which is capable of being developed into one of great value we have inland waterways and artificial lakes in the construction of which millions of pounds have been spent, and which are capable of being stocked with a very valuable article of sport and diet in the way of fish. The difficulty is that so far as South Africa is concerned the stocking of the inland waterways has been left more or less to private enterprise. Natal started in the early days entirely by a few enthusiasts, who were successful to a certain extent and within certain limitations. In the Cape Province you have two stations, one at Jonker’s Hoek, which is supported by the Provincial Council, and which is doing most excellent work, considering the very limited means at its disposal, and the other at The Pirie, which is conducted by private enterprise with a small subsidy of something like £250 a year. That is practically all that is going on to-day in South Africa in regard to the stocking of the magnificent waterways throughout the length and breadth of this Union. I have urged the Minister for a considerable time to give this matter his serious consideration, and I hope I am right in saying that he is interested. What I would like him to do, in the first place, is to employ his board of officials, which he can do without any expense to the country, in making a general survey throughout South Africa, and, on that survey, drawing up a report for submission to the Government, so that we may know exactly where we are. There is a clear necessity for something in the form of central control. Take for instance the Hartebeestpoort dam, which is practically an inland lake five miles in length and eight miles wide. I am told some enthusiastic individuals are placing carp in that water. If that is true, then one of your most magnificent sheets of inland water is being ruined for ever so far as any possibility of development of stocking the water with really good fish is concerned. Putting carp in that water is like turning wild cat kittens into an aviary with the hope that as they grow up with the inhabitants they will live in peace and mutual goodwill. If that is being done irretrievable damage has been caused to a magnificent sheet of water simply through ignorance and the lack of a central authority to look after these matters. I believe in Natal the revenues which the railways derive from visitors runs into many thousands of pounds per annum. That is the direct return the Government gets from an industry which does not cost the Government sixpence. This is also of great value in view of the high cost of living and unemployment as it means providing cheap food, and there is no cheaper food than fish. Coming back to the Jonker’s Hoek trout hatchery they are producing not only trout, but perch and other high-class fry. This magnificent hatchery is supported entirely by the Provincial Council, but the means at their disposal are so limited that the possibilities of extending their operations are also extremely limited, and I want to suggest to the Minister that here is a nucleus of an organization and under one of the best men in the world, who in no other country would be living under such unsatisfactory conditions at little better than a starvation wage. He has a nucleus of a department which he can build up and by utilizing the information and knowledge which they have there obtained and the technical advice in respect of different waters in South Africa, he can see, as we proceed with the stocking of our rivers that no more mistakes are made which may mean irretrievable damage. I do ask the Minister if he will in his reply say he is going to take some steps in connection with what I have asked— first of all to have a survey made, and after that survey, give us the information with which we can go ahead. I think it is of the utmost importance that we should start stocking our rivers, inland dams and lakes with fish which are certain to become a considerable asset in the future.

From the appearance of the benches it is perfectly evident that the majority of the House has gone fishing of quite a different kind—fishing perhaps for Royal smiles. But we are interested in a larger and more important business—that of the development of this country. I can say to our friends on the opposite side of the House that it is unfortunate they should be praising the present Government, not only for following in their bad footsteps but also urging on them rigid economy as the one thing to preach and practice in this country. Unfortunately that advice is responsible for a policy that governments will fall too easily into, and I want to urge this as one of the questions that brings bad economy to the front. It is time that some bold Minister of Finance, instead of sitting upon every proposal for expenditure, spent with both hands on a lavish scale—indeed, spend every penny he can beg, borrow or steal—to develop a country that is worth developing. When we consider what is being done inland with such success; when I think of the opposition given to the Land Bank, which has been such a splendid stand-by to farming interests, I regret that down here in this glorious portion of South Africa there has not been the provision that should have been made long ago for industries which would have been beneficial—such an industry, for instance, as the fishing industry. It is pitiable that after our occupation of this portion of the continent for over a hundred years we should have the paltry figures that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has brought out in support of his motion. I congratulate the hon. member on his persistency in view of the apathy he has met with from time to time. Here is this harvest of the sea produced by Nature in the greatest profusion. One of the most glorious opportunities to develop a great fishery is on the Agulhas Bank; there are no finer grounds in the World. I congratulate those who in a small way have struggled on. Where are those with big ideas to develop these vast fishing grounds—a Minister of Finance who will say: “I will find half a million”? But what do we hear from members on the other side? Their cry is for economy—the Merriman idea, the idea of Mr. Burton and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)—the paltry idea of economy, the ideas of the corner grocery! When we talk of a proposition like this I regret to find that two of the papers representative of great interests and of “the only loyal party”—one of these papers, either the “Argus” or the “Cape Times,” has a whole column of praise of our Minister of Finance. I regretted to see he was being praised because he followed obsolete orthodox methods and kept to the old rut and was against a State Bank. He was applauded for being against the notion of using the credit of the people for the people. I believe in a Minister of Finance who will use the credit of the people for the people. I believe the turn will come for those who are trying to go ahead, who see what other countries are doing and who urge Our people to the utmost development, if they believe in this country, and surely we believe in it enough to back it to win, and not, as has been done in the past, back it to lose. The Leader of the Opposition saw fit to say we could easily meet forty millions obligation for war; it then is quite within the capacity of our country to spend forty millions for constructive purposes, even if only to pay interest charges and redemption on money we have wasted in other ways. It has been pointed out how this fishing enterprise could be encouraged. We have other precedents before us. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has pointed out certain ways. I would ask the Government to deal with this in a practical way, I would ask them to provide sufficient capital and say “We will find the best boats suitable for deep sea fishing that can be made,” we will provide the finest equipment, and hand this over to fishermen, and make repayment on the building society principle. We will give fifteen years in which to repay in installments, and not only that, we will insure the boats, so that if they are wrecked others will be provided in their stead. In that way it will be possible to build up one of the finest industries that could be established in this country. But that proposal is altogether too practical for a Minister who is urged in every way to have a surplus and to pursue everything from the point of view of bad economy. When one of our hon. Ministers is blamed for the expenditure which he has made in an effort to bring about the destruction of one of the greatest plagues—locusts—that has ever threatened our prosperity, one can quite understand that it is difficult for the Government to raise the pluck necessary to deal with a matter like this in a large and practical way. There is not merely the question of prosperity and profit in the establishment of an industry like this; there is far more in it than that. We are a sea-faring race who have made a name throughout the world as maritime people, earning our living on the sea. We at least should value that sea as a training ground for defensive purposes. That has, however, already been alluded to. If we encourage, practically encourage, the establishment of a huge fishing industry, we would be imperceptibly training men in the event of their being required for the sterner duties of the defence of our shores. From that point of view alone it is well worth encouraging; and surely it should appeal to those who, generally speaking, look only at the mere expenditure of £ s. d. from the point of view of trade. Their connection, unfortunately, with trading in this country is more concerned with increasing imports and increasing exports, and they have little concern with the development of the resources of the country itself. I congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Krige) again upon very forcibly putting this question before us. It is not his fault if sufficient attention is paid to it; it is not his fault if once more it is passed over, but I do hope that a new Government with new ideas and with an intention to the development of this country will insist at whatever cost on raising the necessary capital—and it need not be so costly to raise as it has been in the past—and that they will face this question in a large way, and show their successors something for their term of office. I have very much pleasure in supporting the motion.

The hon. member who has just sat down has imparted into this discussion, a certain amount of what I suppose he believes to be party spirit. I do not propose to follow him on those lines, or to reply to the usual clap-trap about big interests. This is purely a business proposition. My hon. friend the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) brought forward the motion just now in a very practical manner; he asked for the institution of a proper policy. At the present time it is extremely difficult to get anything practical done in this direction. A certain amount of research work is being carried out in that direction, I suppose by the Board of Trade and Industries. But as hon. members know these matters are to some extent under the control of the provincial administration and they are short of money. We have the provincial administration trying, and not unnaturally in the circumstances, to get the Divisional Councils to bear their share of the expenditure in different localities. The result of that is, that with the best will in the world, all these different bodies get very little done that is of any use. I have had some experience of that in my constituency. Last session I asked the hon. the Minister of Railways to provide money for the erection of a pier at Hout Bay. Well, I think the Minister was most kindly disposed to that and I still have some lingering hope that some provision will appear on the estimates when they are laid on the Table of the House. I know that the course of matters has been complicated by the question of the provision of roads and other matters, and also the inevitable question as to who should pay. But I do think as my hon. friend has said, that it is high time the Union Government took the whole matter into its hands, laid down a proper policy, and after due investigation provided a certain amount of money. There is, however, no necessity to embark upon the expenditure on an enormous scale, and, of course, it is absurd for the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) to suggest that we should not have expenditure of this kind because we have laid stress upon the necessity of economy in administration. When the spending of money is necessary for development, there is no objection to money being properly spent in that way. I think it can hardly be denied that with proper expenditure the development of our fisheries would lead to very valuable results. We have here almost undeveloped a practically unlimited food supply. There is also the advantage that it will bring down the cost of living, and it will be extremely valuable if at any time, it became necessary—I trust it will not—for this country to take part in war. Then there is the possibility, to which my hon. friend has alluded, of increasing the existing trade with other countries and I see no reason why a valuable trade in this commodity should not be built up. It seems to me that the practical thing to do if once it is decided that this matter should be taken in hand by the Union Government, is to have a proper investigation, and in that way the best places for headquarters of our fisheries could be decided upon. There are various suitable places along the coast. My hon. friend has alluded to some of them. A feature of this particular industry is that it cannot be concentrated in one place, and if one brings forward the advantages of one particular place, that is in no way in itself prejudicing the interests of another place which is at some distance therefrom. There are two places in the Cape Peninsula where it does seem to me that development is possible and desirable. There is, of course, Hout Bay, to which I have already alluded. There is great necessity for further facilities there, there is very poor protection for boats there and the fishing in bad weather is attended with considerable danger. As already indicated, I know that investigations have been going on between the different parties concerned, and I am still hoping that something may be done there. There is another place in the Cape Peninsula where the industry could be established under favourable conditions. I refer to a place in the neighbourhood of Simonstown known as Dido Bay. At any rate if it is not a classical locality it is a place in which the headquarters of an industry could very conveniently be situated. It is not a residential locality at the present time, but there is a good deal of land on the slope of the mountain on which the people concerned could make their homes. It is obviously desirable that the people concerned should live near their work. There is plenty of room there for the establishment of cold storage, for curing apparatus, and as my hon. friend has suggested for the manufacture of fertilizers. The place has a great advantage in being close to the railway and, therefore, the fish products of the various industries which would be established could be distributed about the country. The municipality are prepared to give every possible facility, and there would therefore be security of tenure, and no danger of eviction which is always the danger when industries of this kind are established, without previous forethought, in residential districts where the continuance of the industry becomes impossible. On the coast, at the spot I have mentioned, near Simonstown, it seems to me a beginning may very well be made. I understand the Admiralty have some rights, but I am informed that there is no reason why suitable arrangements should not be made. I hope the Minister who replies to this discussion will take a favourable view of the request that has been made. What is wanted is that someone should take over the whole subject, work out a proper scheme, induce the treasury to provide a sum of money, and generally infuse some enthusiasm into the whole matter. There has been a great deal of talk in the past, but nothing has been done. Every year it becomes more difficult to establish these industries because the land adjoining becomes more built over, and there is less and less available. I hope the Government will take the matter into very serious consideration and that it will be dealt with at least not later than next year.

I am very glad that the interests of our fishing industry are being discussed to-day by the House and that I can support the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). I am sorry that the interest taken by hon. members of this House is not always what it ought to be. One meets hon. members who say that they have no interest in fisheries. I should like to see what they would say if fish did not appear on the menu of the boardinghouse. Then we shall all see long faces. What should we do without fish! In my constituency 200 families live out of fishing, but there is no shelter for the fishing boats. Our fishermen catch their fish in Still Bay. That is our chief place for fishing, and we can catch as much fish there as we wish and provide for the requirements of the country, but the place is rocky and only three boats can obtain shelter. I only received a letter yesterday from the fishermen there, and they ask that the Government will make provision to make the bay safe for our boats. We have very high breakers there.

And you call it Still Bay?

Yes, but we have first to go through the breakers to get into Still Bay, and naturally the boats cannot remain overnight amongst the rocks but must remain outside. The provincial administration says it has no money for these improvements and the Divisional Council says the same. It is unfair. We must get money to help the fishermen. They are a poor section of the people. The poorest section in my constituency. If the fishermen are not assisted they swell the number of unemployed. The people do not ask money to-day, they ask only for assistance. In Mossel Bay we have a factory that can cure fish. From there thousands of fish go to the interior, but of great importance is the fish flour that is made there. How can we feed our fowls without fish flour? The cows will give less milk if they don’t get fish flour. It is very important that the harbour of Mossel Bay should be improved, and I would like to impress this upon the Minister. There are two sorts of fishermen. The one sort go out in steam boats and catch fish further off the coast, and then there is a smaller sort of fishermen that must also be protected. They have no opportunity of preserving their fish in cold storage, but must sell their fish immediately as soon as it is caught; and I should like to see that the Government run trains so that our fish can be sent to the interior, and the people in the interior will have the fish in the afternoon that comes in in the morning. I am very glad that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has introduced this motion, but I am only sorry that in the past, when there was money in the land and I made representations to the former Government about improvements, that nothing was done. Instead of that they wasted £200,000 on elevators. I therefore hope that this Government will do something.

I am really glad that the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) agrees with the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). I hope, however, that he will never go fishing, because he will not find any companions to go with him. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has said that the greatest problem is to take the matter out of the hands of the Provincial Council and to put it into the hands of the Union Government, because the Provincial Council is always without money. It is not a provincial matter, but a matter of the interest of the country, because if the fishing industry disappears many people who make a living out of it will become poor and helpless. I have here a letter from the Fishing Association who ask the same thing as the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards), viz., that the fish hatcheries shall be taken out of the hands of the Provincial Council and transferred to the Government. We wander far from the actual question when we talk here of economies, etc. We want money which the Government invests and which will pay good interest. We have already had instances on our coast where a man goes to sleep at night in possession of a motor boat which the following morning lies wrecked on the shore and he is ruined. We have muddled along with the Provincial Council, but got no further. I heartily support the motion of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige).

I have listened with interest to the speeches on this subject and I think the House should congratulate the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) on the manner in which he put his case. I want to take advantage of this opportunity to say that although the motion as it reads is very admirable, I do not think it goes far enough in the direction of safeguarding the interests of the working people of this country. The point of view I wish to emphasize in this debate is that even if the Government does provide all the necessary fishing harbours and shelters required for the proper development of the fishing industry, all the expenditure will be of no avail, unless steps are taken at the same time to ensure that the benefits go to the people of this country, instead of to private trading monopolies. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) and others have dealt with the position from the point of view that fish should be looked upon as one of the articles of food for well-to-do people, but I would point out that fish is, or should be, the staple diet for a very large number of people not in well-to-do circumstances. I have seen a constant increase in the price of fish in the Cape Peninsula since I landed here about 20 years ago. In those days a poor man could buy a good sized snoek for 2d. or 3d., and for 6d. or 9d. you could then get a fair-sized stock fish. Unfortunately, since then the price has increased threefold or fourfold. Seeing that the State has spent a large sum of money in developing the fishing industry, it should take steps to secure that people should be able to obtain fish at a reasonable figure. The motion should be amended so as to provide for the control of the industry with a view to preventing the establishment of a private monopoly for the disposal of the fish when and where it likes and at what figure it would like. I agree with the mover that it is high time that the Government took this matter in hand. If Government controls the industry it may reduce the cost of living, but if it is not controlled the consumers will have to continue paying high prices for this valuable article of diet. At present some of the big trawlers go to the fishing banks, which have been discovered as the result of the expenditure of State money, and when they get a big haul they make a careful selection; the best fish is retained, but the rest is thrown overboard because it will not command a high price. In this way the food of the poor people is wasted. When Government takes steps to encourage the fishing industry it should establish cold storage accommodation to which surplus fish can be sent instead of being destroyed, and be distributed to the people at a fair price. To-day the fishing business is virtually in the hands of a big monopoly, which spends thousands of pounds telling people to “Eat More Fish,” and then the fish is sold at three times the price which ruled in the old days. Hon. members who know anything about the poor people in the Peninsula will realize that what should be a staple article of food is now almost beyond their reach. What with fruit, meat and fish in the hands of monopolies, I do not know how our poor people manage to keep body and soul together. Unless Government adopts precautions on the lines that I have indicated the people will not benefit, but the persons who will benefit will be the exploiters of private enterprise. I hope the Minister will indicate in his reply that he proposes to take further steps, not only in the interest of an industry in which thousands of men do not make a decent living, but that he will see that practically all the profits do not go into the hands of what is virtually a monopoly.

I have no knowledge of fishing, but everyone who visits Cape Town and other places along the coast can see that the former Government—I speak of former times, before the Union—has neglected the fishing industry. I was at Hermanus the other day and saw leading people and, according to them, there is no place along the coast more suitable for fisheries than Hermanus. At Hermanus the sea is full of fish of the best kind. But because the necessary provision for shelter of the boats is not made the people cannot extend the industry there. Large waves come in to where the people have to shelter their boats. I think the House is practically unanimous in favour of the Government doing something in the matter. I will therefore not discuss the motion further, but I will only ask a few questions and shall be glad if the Minister can answer me upon them. In the first place I have noticed that some millions of birds fly round our coast. I have noticed them in the morning as well as in the afternoon. The question arises, what all these birds live upon. If they all have to live on fish I can well understand that it is not advisable for the Government to establish harbours. If the birds catch only one fish per day that means millions of fishes. Enquiry has been made in various directions with regard to fisheries, but the question to me seems to be whether it is not advisable to exterminate the birds. I do not understand the matter, and perhaps the hon. Minister will say something about it. The second point upon which I would like to have information is about the sea lions and the seals. Near to Muizenberg there is an island where many of these seals congregate, and I heard from someone that each of these seals daily consumes about 500 large fishes. They are of no use and drive the fish away from the coast entirely to the deep water. If my information is right, I think it is necessary to make an end of them. They do not only consume little fish, but 500 large fish each per day. In the neighbourhood of Cape Town there are certainly 200 or 300, and if they each catch 500 large fish per day then it will be useful to have a hunt of those animals. If the hon. Minister thinks that these things must be exterminated, then he can have me as the first of a shooting party. A point is made by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) viz., that the Government could give serious consideration to our dams and the large irrigations works of the interior and provision should be made to have the best kind of fish there. We know that the fresh water in the interior is to-day full of fish. I do not know whether if other fish are brought there they will drive out the interior fish. I understand that carp destroy some other fish, but the carp is in any case a better fish than what we have in the interior. I am thinking chiefly of the Hartebeestepoort dam. Good fish must be introduced and then the Government will be able to obtain considerable revenue by issuing licences for fishing. I shall be glad if the hon. Minister will enlighten me upon the questions I have asked him in connection with the seals and birds. We destroy injurious animals on land such as jackhal, the lion, and other animals that do damage. Consequently, it is of importance to consider if we should not destroy the animals which do damage to our fishing industry.

Considerable success has been achieved this afternoon in this debate in showing that the people who live from fishing should be protected. But one point that has not been touched upon and that we feel strongly upon in the Transvaal is this, that even if the fishermen are helped the fish will nevertheless not be able to be sold. Shortly before the commencement of the Parliamentary session it happened in Pretoria that a fishmonger there was not in a position to provide his customers with fish, and amongst such customers were important institutions such as hospitals, where the people required fish. The fishmonger could not supply his customers for the simple reason that a monopoly exists here at the coast. Fish cannot be sent to the interior without ice, and the fact that here at the coast the delivery of ice has become a monopoly, it prevents the fishmonger from sending fish to Pretoria and the interior. There is only one person who can do this, and that is the person who delivers the ice. Naturally, the Imperial Cold Storage. In consequence of representations that we have made to the department concerned, the said person, the Imperial Cold Storage, was good enough to say to the fish purveyors, “Good, we will sell ice to you, but you must pay more for it than the other persons.” This is specially intended to prevent the fishmonger from competing with the cold storage. I therefore think, with all the good schemes suggested to-day, the fishing industry will not come into its own unless the fishmonger also is protected so that it shall not come into the hands of the monopoly. For this reason I want to propose as an amendment—

seconded.

I would like to ask if the amendment is in order, if it is consistent with the tendency of the whole motion. I am just as much against monopoly as the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost), but we must not in this instance drag in a general question into the discussion. I think that the amendment is of a different tendency to my motion.

It seems to me that the motion suggests certain ways of pushing the fishing industry of the Union, and the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) proposes the amendment as a further extension of the means of advancing the fishing industry. I think there is a connection between the two, and the amendment is accordingly in order.

I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the motion before the House. We all wish to develop our industries, and this fishing industry should be one of the finest in the country. We have one of the longest coast lines in the world, but we have very few harbours. Anything which could be done to develop the harbours should be done. In the coastal area of Cape Province, fish to a great extent is the staple food of the people, and I think the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) and the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) have intruded an aspect we need not deal with here. The hon. members seem to think this motion is going to throw the industry into the hands of a strong corporation which has a monopoly of the fish supply. There are thousands of men on this coast who dare not go out regularly to get fish on account of lack of harbour facilities and our own peculiar condition of suddenly arising south-east gales. As to the trawler fleet, whether they are in the hands of a large company or not, they are finding food for the people of South Africa, and should have harbours as well as the boats of the smaller men. I would point out that a comparatively small outlay in dredging would create one such harbour at Port Alfred. I hope the amendment will be withdrawn and the House will concentrate on the problem of developing the industry without complicating the issue. I think any Government which takes this matter up and provides harbourage and shelter for the fishermen of our coasts and gets fishing control out of the hands of the provincial councils will do good for the country.

I am pleased in this instance to support the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). I do not understand how the national convention could have decided to leave fisheries to the administrator and the Provincial Council. If the meat industry and all other industries come within the scope of the Government why should such an important industry as fishing alone be left to an inferior body? The work and responsibility of the Government and the Provincial Council are repeatedly conflicting with each other in connection with the interest of the fishermen. I once approached the Administrator with the request to make better provision for the safe landing of fishing boats of Velddrift. The answer was that the coast belonged to the Government and that the Provincial Council had no control over it. When I approached the Government the answer was that fishing fell outside the scope of the Government and it was with difficulty that I could induce the then Minister of Lands to interest himself in the matter and do his duty. On another occasion I approached the Minister of Railways and Harbours with a request to provide a safe little landing place for fishermen at Elands Bay. Certain rocks had to be blasted. The answer was that such a matter was germane to the Provincial Council as it only concerned fishing. Finally the work was done with money out of the Provincial Council Treasury, but by Government officials. Such conflicts under the circumstances are unavoidable, but not profitable to the industry. The sources of income of the Provincial Council are moreover entirely too small to develop fisheries in a proper way. The work must be done as in other parts of the world by the highest body in the land. I expect naturally that the motion will be accepted, but I also expect that the Minister concerned will see that the desired alteration is made.

I hope that the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) will withdraw his amendment. I ask him to withdraw the amendment if he will. I think it is best.

I agree with previous speakers when they say it is rather unfortunate that an amendment of this description should have been introduced in connection with this motion; but the question of a monopoly having been referred to, and the hon. gentleman having declined to withdraw his amendment, perhaps a few remarks in regard to this question of monopoly may be of some utility. As regards the fish trade, in which I have no personal interest, I have been informed that something in the nature of a monopoly is absolutely essential if the trade is to be carried on successfully in this country—whether it should be a private or a Government monopoly we cannot discuss here now. I would point out in regard to the machinations of that firm which has been mentioned that these must be on a very great scale. Not only have they to catch the fish, but they have to distribute it over every small village in South Africa and that requires an enormous amount of management as the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) may appreciate. I am told that work in connection with this fishing industry requires the most detailed management of that particular company and anything in the nature of competition must of necessity upset the whole of the arrangements of that company. The same thing applies, I think, very largely in the meat trade, and that question will have to be faced by this House in the near future, because at the present moment the overhead charges in connection with these large freezing works and cold storages which were really put up in connection with export, have to be borne directly by the ordinary consumer at the present time owing to the absence of that export trade. The same applies in regard to fish, if fish is to be retailed at anything like a reasonable price. This is a question of a State or private monopoly, which will have to be taken into consideration. I remember the discussions when the electrical supply commission was set up. When the matter was before the House, one of the most important questions the Select Committee had to consider was whether that commission should be in the nature of a public or a private monopoly; and in that case the House decided to set up a monopoly which is in the hands of a semi-State institution, not a Government institution. It is a very easy thing to raise the question of monopoly, and I would ask the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment to consider again, and afterwards to make some enquiries in regard to this question. I think he will find that to run this industry something in the nature of a monopoly will have to be countenanced if the operations are to be successfully carried out, and that they cannot stand competition of a very extensive nature. An influx of other competition would mean considerable loss to them. So I think it would be better if the hon. gentleman would agree to the appeal made to him, and allow the House to come to a decision without voting on an amendment which raises highly controversial issues.

The debate that we have had this afternoon has been interesting and I think that it has now lasted long enough. The mover and his supporters have made their point of view clear, and naturally there is no objection to the motion. It is, however, amusing that while the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) wants to impress upon the Government that certain steps should be taken that will mean expenditure, he was yesterday busy in criticizing us strongly and accusing us of wasting money. That is, I fear, the unhappy position of many members. Year after year we find that members criticize the Estimates and say that too much money is spent, and later they come to the Government for favours and gifts. I will immediately deal with the objection of the hon. member that the fishing industry is under so many bodies and that the control of it is so divided. Under the constitution fish and game are specially reserved to the provincial councils as matters over which they shall have supervision. The central Government has to do with the financial control and the survey of the sea in the area of the fisheries. That is the jurisdiction of the central Government. If we wish to make the alteration new legislation will be required, and one of the great objections of hon. members on the opposite side of the House is that the Order Paper is so full of draft Bills that they cannot cope with it. I therefore do not know whether the hon. mover intends that we should add another to the number. I think rather that we should see what we can do with the existing means. I have every sympathy with the matter. I agree that our fishermen should be saved from poverty and that it should be made possible for people to find work at the fisheries; that we should develop this industry so that we can export fish on a large scale. With the eye on all these things the mover has deserved every support. The hon. member goes further and suggests that the Department of Railways and Harbours should take over the control of fisheries. I cannot appreciate and follow this. He might just as well propose that the Department of Railways and Harbours should take over the control of agriculture because agricultural products are carried over the railways. Let us continue with the departments as they exist to-day. On the 31st March of last year £7,000 was spent on the fishing industry. In the future Estimates this item has been increased to £12,000. This is not indeed such a big increase, but anyhow it will mean more for the fishing industry. For inshore fishing the insignificant amount of £500 has been put down, but the Government is prepared to consider the whole matter and to go into it. I attach great importance to it, although I am new to this question, and I should be glad if members from time to time when they have practical suggestions will communicate them to me. As a matter of fact the permanent head of the department is enthusiastic about the matter. He knows a lot about it and is out to advance fisheries in every possible way. The position is this. We have actually two sorts of fisheries, the trawlers that go to the deep sea with Cape Town as their base, and then we have the inshore fishing, which is carried on by motor or rowing boats and the fish is then caught with large nets or long lines, and some undertake the catching of cray fish. I take it from the first portion of the speech of the mover that it is chiefly with regard to inshore fishing that he wants protection. Progress has been made with the survey of the sea and it is undertaken by the “Pickle.” Last year I set out the policy of the Government in connection with this matter and what has already been done. The work is being carried on with great expectations. Then it is further asked in connection with inshore fishing what is done to help the fishermen, also with regard to the catching of cray fish? Between Hout Bay and Robben Island a lot has been done. Further, the mover asked that we should provide harbours for the fisheries. I must point out to him that this is a matter which could easily run into an enormous amount of money It can so extend that it will mean sums of money out of all proportion to the value of these fisheries. This is a technical subject and it may be necessary to appoint a committee, not a commission, but a departmental committee, to obtain information and to give the best advice. Then also enlightenment can be given by meteorological investigations that may be to the advantage of the fishermen, although they often are themselves good weather prophets. Information can also be given by diagrams of boats and ships so that large boats may be built on those models. Another aspect of the matter is this we hope, as one of the most important countries in the world, for development in the matter of the fishing industry. With the development of the fisheries we shall develop the sea sense amongst our people and in that direction much good may be done by the fishing industry. During the discussion it has been said that, regarded from an economic point of view, deep sea fishing is of more importance to us than fishing along the coast in a small way. I understand that our prospects on the world market would be much improved by the chances which will be given to us by the Argentine, and I know that the day is no longer far off when the deep sea fishing will be so far developed that we can export fish on a large scale. Now it has been said that fish sometimes is thrown overboard. I think it was the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) who mentioned that, and he says that in that way the usual food of the people is wasted. I understand that fish in certain instances is thrown overboard because it cannot arrive in good condition. I will, however, make inquiries, and if it is as the hon. member says, I will stop it. Now with regard to the monopoly. We are naturally against monopolies, but I wish to point out that each mile of extension, each mile that is surveyed, and any step in that direction, is a breaking down of the system of monopolies inasmuch as all progress, all further development, produces more competition, and in this way any monopoly that exists to-day will be encroached upon. With regard to the destruction of birds and seals, I must say that the survey commission has had this question under consideration, and the department is taking steps to destroy the seals as far as possible and as far as necessary. Their skins, moreover, bring considerable profit. As regards birds, the production of guano which is necessary for the farming industry must be taken into consideration. This is chiefly obtained from duikers, malgash and penguins. The fertilizer is necessary to agriculture. There are, however, many persons who think that this protection of the birds is overdone and that a certain number should be destroyed from time to time, but this naturally must be done on such a scale that a sufficient supply of guano remains. With reference to the remark of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) concerning the Imperial Cold Storage, I think the matter could be considered. The Board of Trade and Industries is at present busy inquiring into the meat industry, and an inquiry can also be made to investigate the hon. member’s grievance. I think that I have now shortly dealt with the points which were raised, but there is still an important point raised by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), viz., that when our fisheries are developed and enormous supplies of fish can be obtained, that consideration should be given to the price of fish and the supply of it to the poorer population. It is known that fish forms a large part of the food of the poorer portion of our population, and the Government will not lose sight of this point. The last point I think that I have still to deal with is the remark of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson). He says that a monopoly is in a certain measure necessary. I must say that my feeling generally is against monopolies of whatsoever kind and the Government thinks that the price of fish and meat is being artificially raised by the monopolies. Thus I cannot share the opinion of the hon. member. There is another observation made by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) to the effect that the central Government should have the control of the whole fishery question, the surveying, the preservation of fish, etc., just as it has full control in connection with other subjects. But I have already pointed out that our constitution has given the preservation of fish and game to the Provincial Council, and it cannot be expected that we should introduce legislation this session to bring everything under the central Government. Let us go as far as we can with the means that we have and let the Government do its best to develop fisheries to become the greatest or one of the greatest industries of the Union.

Has the Minister nothing whatever to say about the other industries?

Yes, I made a note of that. Comparatively it is naturally only a small thing, but it is of some consequence and I am glad that my attention has been called to it that the dams, the great lakes, such as the Hartebeestpoort dam and other places, that these dams are actually being made useless for other fish when carp is put in them. I shall have this investigated and as far as possible action taken accordingly.

I wish to thank the House for the generally favourable reception that my motion has enjoyed. I have shown that this is a matter of general interest. I am sorry that the hon. Minister of Mines and Industries has not met me on my chief point and I think that the public would be disappointed with reference to the taking over of the administration of the fisheries from the central Government by the provincial authorities. I am sorry that the hon. Minister sees no chance to take this over from the provincial authorities. The Minister says that it will require legislation. I think the Minister of Finance is going to introduce a Bill to further regulate the relation between the Union and the provincial administration, and when this is done, cannot this individual point also be dealt with then? This will raise no difficulty if the Minister will only agree to it. The public is convinced of it that we shall never in this way be able to develop fisheries and to put them on a national basis unless they are brought under the central Government. Other hon. members, for instance the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) have made it clear that with the best intentions in the world it is impossible under the existing division of control to do anything for the development of fishing. I regret this, and I think that other hon. members also regret that the Minister will not take over the control of the industry, and I am sorry to say that there the Minister has made a mistake. Then the Minister says further that he cannot understand why I propose that the fisheries should be placed under the Department of Railways and Harbours. If he knew the facts of the matter he would see how necessary this is. When a fishing bay is proclaimed under the railways and harbours then it is automatically taken out of the hands of the Minister of Mines and Industries and the Provincial Council, and controlled by the Department of Railways and Harbours. Hermanus was so pro claimed some years ago, and at the moment the Minister of Mines and Industries and the Provincial Council have nothing to say over the bay of Hermanus. The same is the case with Gans Bay. A bay thus comes automatically under the Department of Railways and Harbours and I do not think the Minister should raise any objection to this point. I think it is the natural department to which the fisheries and the fishing bays belong. Let me also say further to the Minister that I am also surprised about another matter. He says that more importance is attached to fishing and catching fish by trawlers which go out to the deep sea. Does he not know that the trawlers are controlled by people with large capital; that they only employ a few people? But there are thousands of people who are dependent upon inshore fishing. The Minister says that the inshore fishing is not worth as much as the catching of fish by trawlers. No, it touches the actual interests of the people. I am sorry that the Minister attaches more importance to the industry of capitalists who keep trawlers than to the other fishing industry which touches the poor people. I have introduced this measure as a practical proposal. It was actually my chief point that the control of the fisheries should go over from the Provincial authorities to the central Government. I am very sorry and the public will be disappointed that the Minister did not concede the point. Allow me to make a request to the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost). I am just as much opposed to monopolies as he. I am supporting here a matter of general interest and the Minister has given us the assurance that the question of a monopoly is being investigated by the Board of Trade and Industries. Do not let us now confuse the fishing industry with other matters; we have to do with a matter of great interest and I therefore hope that the hon. member will not persist with his amendment.

Amendment put and negatived; original motion put and agreed to.

I move—

I do not intend making a long speech. Perhaps it would have been better if I had at once introduced the motion in the form of a draft Bill. Everyone will agree that this is a very delicate matter and therefore I have thought it right to again come to the House to ask for a Select Committee so that every party in the House will have the right and opportunity to be represented in the committee and to make their point of view clear. I want it to be clearly understood that I do not introduce this motion to throw any blame upon persons in the past nor to wound the feeling of any member of this House. I introduce the motion from a feeling of duty and because I wish thereby to meet the wishes of the very large majority of the people. I hope the House will accept my word that I have no wish to hurt anybody’s feelings. I appeal to the Government and to every member of the House to accept this motion without debate. If there are members who object, then they can make the matter clear to the committee. I am well aware that in the past certain technical objections existed. But I am also well aware that the great objections which existed hitherto have now disappeared of themselves and stand in the way no longer. I shall not detain the House any longer. I hope and trust that we shall not debate the matter and that we will accept the motion.

I second the proposal. I am glad to-day that such a motion has been introduced and that I have the opportunity of supporting it. I am certain that it is the wish and desire of our whole people that the Government and the House will go so far as to adopt the motion in order that the name of the Almighty can be put into our constitution. I shall not say much about it. I hope that the committee will be appointed and that this motion will be accepted without opposition.

It is not clear to me why a Select Committee should be appointed in connection with this matter. There is no difficulty connected with it as far as we can judge. In any event I also wish heartily to range myself on the side of the proposer and seconder of this motion. It is strange if we follow the history of our own people and keep account of the motives of the half of the people from time to time that the acknowledgment of the guidance of Providence does not appear to-day in our constitution. This acknowledgment lies deep down in the heart of the Afrikander people and expression has repeatedly been given to this, now in this way and now in the other. The people have never hesitated to give expression to this feeling. The Government can have no objection to the acknowledgment in our constitution of the guidance of Providence. The formal objections which can be raised appear to me to be more in the nature of evading the question. I hope therefore that the inquiry of the committee will not make a report such as we have had in the past. We have here to do with a feeling that lies very deep with our people. It has always been so. Sufficient proofs could be produced of that. We do not wish, however, to go to the past to support this motion. All the elements out of which South African people have been built up have always acknowledged in all things the leading of Providence. The peoples out of whom the Afrikander people have sprung deeply believe in it. Our people have sprung from Hollanders, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans, Scotsmen. These nations were never ashamed to acknowledge the leading of Providence. This acknowledgment was their great driving force. The large background which enabled our fathers to do what they did. I want to draw the attention of the members to the expression of this feeling by the first father of the Afrikander people, Johann Anthony van Riebeek, who on the 9th April, 1654, in Table Bay, in the presence of his colleagues, the sturdy Dutch navigators, acknowledged the leading of Providence and thereby gave an example to our people. From those people the first elements of our people came. The other elements that joined us and which conjointly established the Afrikander people were forced to the greatest sacrifice to the giving of the best services only through their deep feeling with regard to the guidance of Providence. We go further, and then we see that the same motive inspired the voortrekker. They always acknowledged the hand of Providence, and if we now hesitate to acknowledge this guidance, then we shall make our ancestors ashamed. And this we may not do. I will not go further into detail. We have not to do here with an insuperable difficulty. I only ask for an inquiry to be instituted. The large majority of the Afrikander people feel very strongly on this point, and we will show ourselves unworthy if we do not with all our power support this matter. I hope that the committee will submit a unanimous proposal. To that end I want to make an appeal as one of the members in the House, as one who believes in the value of lessons from history, and one who deeply believes in the guidance of Providence, that the motion should be accepted.

There has been a good deal of agitation in the past in this country in regard to the matter embraced by the motion to-day before the House. It is also not the first time that a motion of this kind has received the attention of the House. I have here before me the report of the Select Committee which reported in 1914 in this matter. I read the report of that committee with great attention because it was a question that touches me deeply, and I fear that I shall surprise the mover and those who have pleaded hard for the acceptance of the motion if I say today that I am not so convinced of the necessity for it. That the Select Committee will have to go into a matter again that has already been investigated fully by the previous committee. I know if the motion is adopted and it is possible to introduce a change in the legislation it will be a great satisfaction for the church people of this country. Yet I do not feel able to support the motion, and I will give my reasons for my attitude. I will say at once that if there is anyone who has said this in public then it is I, that the legislation on which authority is based in this country does not depend upon us who have been chosen by the people, but that all authority on earth is derived from the power of God. Nor do I believe in State sovereignty, but in God’s sovereignty. And yet, notwithstanding this, I do not feel called upon to support this motion. I wish shortly to give the difficulties which I have against the motion as such. The first objection is that in the preamble of the Constitution an amendment will have to be made I personally am sorry—I say this frankly— but our National Convention at the time did not feel itself able to put the required and desired article in the preamble to the law. That would have been a great satisfaction for the religious feeling of our people if the National Convention at the time had been able to resolve unanimously to incorporate it. But on the other hand I feel that the fact that it is not contained therein does not mean as much as some of us to-day try to give to it. I will return later to this, but I come now first of all to the historic character of the matter. If we look at the preamble it says that at a certain time the representatives of the provinces of South Africa came together and formed the national convention and they mentioned the motives. Now no one with any historical feeling will say that we can add nothing to these considerations. It is in conflict with all historical feeling to do this. Thus as the preamble of the law did not at the time name the Supreme Being it is in conflict with all historicity to put it in now. It is historically impossible. So much for the preamble. Now there are people who say: If then it can not appear in the preamble then it can still be done in the provisions of the Act. To that also I understand great objections exist. But let me first make it plain that the fact that the name of the Almighty is not expressly mentioned in the constitution does not cast a reflection on the religious feeling of the people. It does not necessarily cast a reflection upon the religious feeling of the people or of the framers of the constitution. If this is so then this applies also to the Transvaal and the Free State who also had no such article in their old laws. If we look at some of the most godly countries in the world we shall not find it in the constitution. I believe that with the exception of Switzerland and Russia none of the more important countries of the world has such a section in its constitution. And we will surely not say that Switzerland and Russia must be regarded as more God-fearing than, e.g., America. Now it will be said that America originally had this in its constitution. That is so, in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 such a provision was included and subsequently also in the Confederation, but in the constitution of 1787 it was intentionally left out. It was the same in France. France also similarly had such a provision in its constitution and finally it was removed. When I further try to ascertain the feelings so far as the political parties are concerned especially of the parties who as much as possible strove to keep count of God in their law I think we can do no better than to look at the programme of these parties. Perhaps nowhere is there a political party in the world that lays itself out so much to get the authority of the Almighty acknowledged as the anti-revolutionary party in Holland. The leader of that party was for years Dr. Kuyper who is well known on account of his attempt to have religious authority acknowledged in the legislation of the land. He was the chief person at the drafting of the programme of that party and of the drafting of its principles. I find that it is made clear in that programme that they are not in favour of an article of this kind being brought up in the constitution or any direct legislation if it will bind the conscience. When I read the third article thereof—I have it before me here—then we will see what they actually meant by religion in their politics. The article is as follows—

Dr. Kuyper says in connection with this—

They want more men in their legislation and as leaders of the people who have so much knowledge of the ordinances of the Almighty that it binds their conscience. They feel that religion is not an external matter that anyone can force on to the people. If that is done we go back to the middle ages to the time of compulsory church going. Dr. Kuyper indeed goes so far as to say that if a man is a citizen (of Holland) and he cannot accept the interpretation in reference to the Almighty—a man who does not believe in the existence of God, and there are such people; although here with us they are the exception—such a man cannot swear allegiance to the constitution in which there is a provision about the acknowledgment of the Almighty and, at the same time, remain true to his own conscience. We shall ascertain that this will go within the conscience of our citizens and that this will bring a certain amount of compulsion into religion. Dr. Kuyper himself acknowledges this and says that even with the measure of acknowledgment of God in the Netherlands constitution he cannot see what must become of the conscience of a man who believes in no God and who must swear fidelity to that. That is the difficulty of people who value very highly the introduction of more religion in the schools and in the State who heartily appreciate the attempts to find a way to get more acknowledgment for religion. With these feelings in me I feel that I cannot support the motion. It will perhaps astonish many, but still I feel it. I wish to be clear that the fact that the acknowledgment of the Godhead is not made in so many words in our constitution is no sign that our people no longer possess their God-fearing character—just as little as the omission of this in the constitution of the Free State meant that the Free State did not acknowledge God. Any Parliament can alter the constitution and if we incorporate it to-day in the constitution we shall thereby do nothing more than assert that our Parliament, i.e., this existing Parliament, acknowledges the hand of God in the affairs of the country. We shall produce nothing permanent because other Parliaments can take it out again. This happened in France where the legislator abolished religion. In the rules of procedure we already acknowledge the guidance of God by the prayer which is read, which to some is a formal matter, but which to many of us is a very earnest matter, and if anyone in the future wants to know what the attitude and motive of this Parliament in connection with this matter was in this year then he will see that the Parliament acknowledged the guidance of the Almighty and that we acknowledged that we are in His service for the salvation and best interests of the people. I thus feel that if we incorporate this in the constitution we shall say nothing more as what is actually already acknowledged in the constitution. The great thing is to have the ordinances of the Almighty in our mind and conscience then they will be reflected in our social life and in the life of our people. For these reasons I feel that we have only to remove a little misunderstanding on the part of our people and then they will understand the position. There are many people who think that it is a terrible sin that the said words are not in the constitution. Some say that this is the reason why the locusts came and that the plague would not have visited us if the guidance of God had been acknowledged in the constitution and these people are really serious. I think this is only because the people think that we have left it out of the constitution out of disrespect for the Almighty. I am convinced that we have not acted in such a way and that by the incorporation of these words in the constitution nothing further will be brought about than what has already been obtained under the rules of procedure. I feel that we can do much more to give expression to the ordinances of the Almighty in the building up of our national life. But if this article is incorporated which will be an example of a force measure, which anyhow can take us no further than we are to-day, then I am against it. We shall thereby bring some people a step lower. It is a delicate question with many. We touch the feelings of the people. I am glad that the introducer of the motion did it in such a nice way. I think that we can satisfy the feelings of everybody without again appointing a Select Committee who possibly again would come to the same decision as in 1914 when the Select Committee reported that it had considered the matter and had met so many obstacles that the position had better be left as it was. I feel that we have here to do with a matter that is no longer necessary.

I am very sorry to hear the speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) who has just spoken. I do not agree with him. The question must depend on what the people think, on what the feeling of the people is, and what the House does must depend upon the feeling of the people. When the Union came into existence and the constitution was drafted the guidance of the Almighty was not acknowledged in it. Feeling runs very high in this matter amongst our people. I was present some time ago at a large national festival where there were also a number of ministers of religion and the gathering unanimously accepted a motion to authorize me to introduce a motion into this House to amend the constitution on the same lines as is now proposed. And therefore I think that the opinion of the hon. member for Winburg, just expressed, is not a general one. I think it is not more than right and fair to the people to appoint a Select Committee as proposed by the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter), and I cannot see why the committee should produce a similar report to that of the committee of 1914. I think the motion is in the interest of the people, and I make an appeal to the House to accept the motion.

I have only a few words to say in connection with this matter; it is naturally a subject of a very delicate nature. I know that the House knows that I personally—and I think I may say also the Government—wish that the House will vote with the fullest liberty on all sides about this question if a vote should become necessary. In connection with the speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Herwe), I must say that I am sorry that he has allowed himself to be influenced too much in his view by the report of the Select Committee of 1914. That report I also read at the time, but so far as I can understand the meaning and value of it I regard the report as well meant. Yet I am of the opinion that the committee did not go to the root of the matter and that the report is fairly superficial in more than one respect. One of the arguments of the hon. member to which I have referred also appears in that report. I regard that difficulty as one of more or less technical nature. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) says that in the preamble of the law the considerations are given which moved them to draft the South Africa Act, and upon which they resolved upon the union of the four provinces, and the hon. gentleman says that at that time these motives of the National Convention, and because some of the members who assisted to draw up that constitution are no longer alive to-day, it is impossible and unnatural for this Parliament to make any alteration in the motives adduced. My answer is that this is only a point of a technical nature. The National Convention which drew up the constitution did not, so to say, speak for themselves, but the National Convention represented itself as the expression of the people’s will and of the feelings of the people. But we have the fullest right to-day to say that the National Convention did not correctly express the will of the people and the feeling of the people in this respect, and we can do justice to this feeling by making an alteration. I think that that argument ought not to carry much weight in this House. Then the hon. member used another argument, and he said that the fact that the name of the Almighty was not mentioned in the constitution was not necessarily a reflection upon the religious convictions of the nation, and he proceeded to show that the Transvaal and the Free State in their old constitutions did not use the name of the Almighty, and he further referred to certain countries in Europe where the incorporation was previously the case, but where at a later period the name of the Almighty was removed. Now my answer to the arguments of the hon. member is that he would be right in his contention that the absence throws no reflection upon the religious feelings of the people if the matter was never discussed in the National Convention. If the National Convention drew up the constitution and there never was a motion to put in the Name, then there would be no reflection upon the religious feeling of the nation, but the hon. member knows that just the opposite was the case. There was a definite motion to incorporate the name of the Almighty, but the convention voted against it. For this reason I think we have the right to say that the feeling of the people was not correctly reproduced. By the defeat of the said motion a reflection was thrown upon the religious feeling of the nation.

Are you certain that there was a vote on it?

Whether there was a vote or not makes no difference. There was a question of the inclusion of the Name, and the preponderating feeling in the National Convention was not to incorporate it. France has been mentioned. France decided to remove the name of the Almighty from the constitution. Does not this also in that case cast a reflection on the changed religious feeling of the people? With us something similar happened although it did not go so far. Another argument which has been adduced is that if the name of the Almighty is mentioned in the South Africa Act this would throw a certain amount of force upon the citizens of the land when it is required of these citizens that they will not alone obey the constitution, but also swear allegiance to the law in certain circumstances. Holland has a constitution, but I think that no one can be forced to swear loyalty to the constitution in certain circumstances. But no one is asked in any circumstances to swear loyalty to the South Africa Act. As the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) himself says, the South Africa Act is nothing more —with the exception of a few sections—than an ordinary law of the land and this can, like any other law of the land, be altered by a mere Act of Parliament, which has indeed happened many times in the past. Loyalty is not sworn to the South Africa Act. And therefore I do not think that this will exercise any compulsion on anybody if we incorporate the name of the Almighty in the constitution and not those persons who do not agree with our view of religion. I agree with him that too much importance is attached to the incorporation of the words in this particular Act. I agree with him that it is possible for a people to acknowledge the name of the Almighty without it being named in the constitution just as I acknowledge that it is possible for a people to open the meeting of the highest legislative body with prayer and not to acknowledge His name. If this is so then it is better not to use His name. Yet I would like to point out, although the South Africa Act is not a constitution it is still a law which stands in a special position in our law book because by it the four colonies were made into one State, and because this made a new beginning in the history of South Africa. Therefore the people think that it would have been appropriate on that occasion, where a new beginning was made, to acknowledge the name of the Almighty in the history of our country and to acknowledge Him in the future of our people. The people do not see in this a mere formality, but the acknowledgment of the great principle of South Africa that the South African people will be a people who will keep account of the Almighty in its legislation and its national life. We do this in all respects. The question of doctrine is taught in our schools. We give the fullest liberty to persons to absent themselves from this religious service, but the tendency of that teaching proceeds from the point of view that we are a Christian people and this is what the people want to see here in South Africa, viz., that the guidance of God shall be acknowledged. For this reason I think that it is a good thing to allow this matter to go again to a Select Committee, even if then we can go no further, this will at any rate give satisfaction to the people.

Motion put and agreed to.