I move—

I would just like to revert to a few points in connection with this Bill, points which were cursorily referred to in Committee. Here on this side voices have been heard, some in favour and some against it, in regard to the £50,000 which is being given to Finland. The Minister of Finance informed us that that money was being spent to buy products which are being sent to Finland. My first question is whether the Minister has the assurance that any of them have reached or will reach Finland. In the second place I would like to explain what our feelings are in connection with this matter. If it affects purely the question of Finland and Russia, then there is not the least doubt that our sympathy is entirely with Finland. When we are dealing with a mighty nation, such as Germany or Russia, or any other people who are induced by imperialism to annex a small country and to injure a small people, it goes without saying that in such a case our sympathy is entirely with a country like Finland. There is nothing which revolts me more, and which I hate more, than this world phenomenon of great countries annexing small countries and exploiting them for their own purposes. That thing which is known as imperialism, whether it is German imperialism, Russian imperialism or British imperialism, is a thing which we hate, and that is why we also hate it that British imperialism during the past 150 years has done those things to the small nations of the world. As, therefore, we are dealing purely with the merits of the case, the way a country like Russia is acting towards a small country like Finland, then we want to do everything in our power to oppose the exploiter with his imperialism, and to save the small nation. If I can do anything to assist Finland, as such, in her time of need, then I will gladly do so, even if it was more than £50.000. What is troubling me in connection with this matter is that there is so much hypocrisy about it. This money is not intended so much for the purpose of assisting Finland as that it is a part of the English war policy and of England’s attitude towards Finland, which most certainly is not an attitude which she is inspired to take by the desire to protect a small nation against a stronger one. She is not concerned so much with assisting Finland, but what she is doing in this case is being done to assist her in her quarrels with Germany. My difficulty is, in the first place, that England is giving no practical assistance to assist Finland as such. She did not do so. She, of course, had three available routes there. The first was through the eastern sea. That was dangerous. The other was through Norway and Sweden, which was closed to her because they are neutral countries. The third was on the north via Petsamo., and from that England drew back, because it was dangerous, and she did not want to make that sacrifice. The attitude of England was that she wanted to prolong the struggle between Finland and Russia as long as possible, so that Russia would be handicapped, and consequently would not support Germany in her quarrel with England. The material assistance and the moral assistance, and it was especially moral assistance that was granted, was granted from that point of view: How can we act in assisting Finland to prolong the struggle, and how can we act in order to handicap Russia, so that it will make our case against Germany stronger? It was only just another application of the war policy of the British Government, and not so much a matter of assisting small nations, and our Government are hand in glove with the British Government, so far as this war policy is concerned. What the attitude of England was is well stated in the last issue of The Economist which has reached us, namely, that of the 21st February. In that issue it is frankly stated that the help which is being given to Finland must be regarded from the point of view as to how it would affect the struggle with Germany. The paper says, in the first place—

He goes further and says that it was in their interest for the war in Finland to, be prolonged as long as possible, and then the paper states—

So he goes on to say that the attitude of Britain towards Finland must be regarded purely from the point of view of its war with Germany, and it was not so much a question of helping Finland, but how to drag the war on in order to, hurt Russia so much economically that Germany would be affected in consequence. We have no assurance that this help will really reach Finland, and moreover we feel that this £50.000 is a little bit of the war policy of England, and that we are simply concurring in it because England wants to have a long drawn-out war in the north. She does not mind whether Finland is devastated by a long drawn-out war like that if she can only get her way with Germany, so that British imperialism can dominate on the continent of Europe, as it has done in the past. That is the heart of the trouble. It may, for the moment, be argued that we on this side do not want to have anything to do with the assistance of a small nation when it is attacked by an imperialistic exploiter. I feel resentful in my soul against the imperialism of big nations, whether they are Russian, British or German, who exploit small nations, but I do not sympathise with a policy which is simply out to try to stir up feeling about the protection of small nations, and which is engaged all the time in using those small nations to attain its own imperialistic ends. That is hypocrisy. I want further to say that it is simply ridiculous to charge the Boer nation with not feeling sympathetically towards a small nation which is being attacked by a big nation, a small nation which is the prey of imperialism. Now I want to revert to another matter, for which provision has also been made in these additional estimates. Provision has been made here for more money in the internment camps, one in South West and one in the Transvaal. I do not want to speak about the internment camp in South West Africa, but there are some Union nationals in the Transvaal camp still, who ought not to be there. From my own knowledge, I know of two persons there who are German citizens, but who I know are people of an inoffensive character. So that I cannot understand why they are interned. I want on this occasion to call the attention of the Government to the fact that they should do their duty towards the Union nationals who are in those internment camps. I know one person for whom I would myself sign a guarantee, that he would do nothing which would make internment necessary, who is still being detained there. We find Union nationals like that who have a German name, who were born in this country, or who are naturalised Union nationals, and they are interned in those camps. On a former occasion I put the questions in connection with Union nationals who are interned, and now we see that additional provision is being made here to fence the camps electrically, and so on. I may say that there are cases where it is really a scandal for the people to be interned, and if the Government wants to have peace and rest in the country, then it must not treat the Union nationals in that way. If there is one thing which makes our people feel uneasy and upset, then it is the knowledge that there are people in the camps who are fully qualified as Union nationals, but who are being treated in such a shameful way. I have the case before me of a man who I know taught for years in the district of Wepener, and who has rendered great services to the people. He is at an advanced stage of life. His period of service as a teacher has expired and he is drawing a pension. He is 61 years of age, and he was taken away in this way to the internment camp, in a way which was simply scandalous. His wife, who is the same age, is suffering from poverty. I would like to quote the letter which he wrote to the commissioner who is concerned with these things, namely Sir Theodore Truter. I think it is necessary for the people to know what cases are in the camp. This letter was written on the 30th January, 1940, one-and-a-half months ago, but the man is still there. Just to give an idea of the kind of people that are detained in that camp, I want to quote this letter—

Then he briefly describes his life—

I can testify to the fact that he has done a great deal for the cultural uplift of our people. Then he goes on—

He signs himself Robert Gerhardt. That is one of the cases. The letter according to representations by different people, including English-speaking people who know him well, was written as long ago as the 30th January, and to-day the man is still interned and his wife is still in that position. Here is another case I would like to mention. It is the case of a man whose name I have already given. On the 6th February I put a question to the Minister of Defence which was answered by the Minister of Justice. That also is the case of a Union national, and I was given the assurance that the matter would immediately be considered, and that what was possible in the circumstances, would be done. This afternoon I put the question again, and then it was said that there had already been some enquiries made, and that they would go more fully into them. Six weeks after the promise was made in Parliament, the people are still in the same circumstances. This is a man who has rendered great services to the people. Unfortunately, when he was interned he thought that as a Union national he was entitled to a hearing. He then tried to bring a case against the Minister of Justice because he was interned, and now it looks as if that were a grievance against him. I have here the sworn declaration of the person himself. He is Georg Paul Johannes Trumpelmann, who was a lecturer at the University College, Maritzburg. His sworn statement is dated 21st February. I am mentioning these cases because we are being asked to vote more money for similar cases, and to keep people there longer. This person declares, as follows—

1. (1) That I was arrested on the 21st September, 1939, without any warning whatsoever and interned at Leeuwkop.
2. (2) That I was given no opportunity to settle my affairs. I could make no arrangements for a substitute at the University College, where I was employed as a lecturer. My students who included English, Afrikaans and German-speaking people, were left to themselves just six weeks before their annual final examination. I could not finish off my work, could not even see them again once to advise them. I had to pack up within fifteen or twenty minutes, and I was taken away.
3. (3) That the complaints against me were not notified to me, and that I therefore have not the vaguest idea of the nature of the complaint.
4. (4) That I, as a national-born Union national, have always conducted myself as a loyal citizen of the Union, and that I have never taken part actively in any activities of a political kind.
5. (5) That I have never been guilty of conduct which might be regarded as a danger to the state or as a ground for internment, that this statement is supported by the fact that the lecturers at the Natal University College who have known me for fully five years, and most of whom are English-speaking, have sent a petition for my release to the authorities.
6. (6) That I was always convinced, and still am, that the evidence against me is false, and does not contain any truth in it.
7. (7) That I was always powerless to reply to the complaints against me, inasmuch as I was kept in the dark in regard to the nature of the complaints against me.
8. (8) That on Friday, the 2nd February, 1940, the nature of the complaints against me were for the first time made known to me, to a certain extent, when Col. Sir Theodore Truter had an interview with me at Leeuwkop.
9. (9) That on that occasion Col. Truter asked me whether I wanted to make any statement; that I then gave a full account of my actions in the past, and emphasised that I had always striven to make available to my students and acquaintances the best things that German culture stood for, in order in that way to contribute my share to the cultural life of this country; that owing to the internment I was characterised as an inferior citizen of my country, after having done my duty to the best of my ability; and in conclusion, that I was firmly convinced of the fact that I could remove any misunderstanding if the complaints (if there were any) could just be communicated to me.
10. (10) That on the occasion of that interview, when the nature of the complaints against me were, to some extent, made known to me for the first time, I immediately pointed out to Col. Truter that the complaints were not only false, but even ridiculous.

Then it just gives the kind of complaint that was made against the people who had been interned. The first statement against him was this—

1. (a) That I was seen burning papers on a certain day which were presumed to be secret documents.

His reply was—

Because he burnt a lot of newspapers it aroused suspicion. He was a German, and there must be something behind it! Then it goes on—

1. (b) That a riotous meeting was held on a certain day in the Plow Hotel in Pietermaritzburg, and on that occasion I had taken the lead and had addressed those present.

His answer was—

1. (c) That I am supposed to have made preparations on the outbreak of the war to break up my home, and therefore expected my internment, and exhibited a guilty conscience.

His reply was—

That is the chief one. He «ays those were the complaints which Sir Theodore Truter could remember. People are interned on that kind of talk. His university immediately suspended his salary payments, and his wife and two small children who are dependent on him, are suffering in consequence. He ends by saying—

That is the sworn statement. I have mentioned these two cases because they clearly indicate what our complaint against the Government is. If they detain people against whom they really have a charge, something written as in the notorious case of Mr. X.— I think the Government wishes that they had never mentioned it—if there really are such cases, we have no objection, if there is such a person who is trusted by no one— I understand he was never even trusted by the Germans—then we make no complaint. But here we have Union nationals, this class of man, two persons who have rendered great services to the public, and who have had a great deal to do with the education of our people. Without the existence of well-founded complaints against them, they are imprisoned, and their families suffer. It is nothing but a scandal. So far as I have made enquiries, the real big complaint, which the Government will not state, is that this lecturer, Mr. Trumpelmann, is married to a lady who was also born in Africa, but who unfortunately has a brother who is connected with the broadcasting service in Germany. Trumpelmann is married to a Miss Holm, and now he has to be punished for the acts of his brother-in-law. If I am to be punished for the acts of my brother-in-law who is a member of this Government, then I would long since have been in purgatory. That is the way they treat Union nationals. I am not speaking at the moment about Germans who are enemy subjects, although it is also blameworthy that those people are not better treated. It is thrown at our heads that the Germans do not treat the people, who are interned in Germany, better. I can express no opinion about that. I think the Government know as little about the position in Germany as I do, but reports are always coming from the internment camps that the people are not being well treated. A case came to my notice of a certain interned German who was also for a time set at liberty, and then attempts were made to get a statement from him that they had been well treated in the camps and that everything was in order. He was given the assurance that if he made the statement he would be released permanently. He refused, and the result was that he was not permanently released. We must draw attention to things of that kind.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reply to the first part of the hon. member’s remarks with regard to the donation to Finland. I was very glad to hear, after some of his backbenchers’ remarks last night, that he, at any rate, approves of the gift to Finland. But I think he was very ungenerous, not to say pharasaical, when he suggested that the reasons for all the other people giving donations should be looked upon with very grave suspicion. The hon. member even quoted a leading article from the Economist incorrectly, which gave one an entirely different view from what the editor of that paper meant.

What was incorrect about it?

The leader is heartily in favour of doing anything it can for Finland, and is heartily in favour of England doing everything it can. But the leader points out that it is not going to do Finland any good if Great Britain and France get involved in Finland to the extent that it would risk defeat in Central Europe, because if Germany won the war, the hon. member’s friends, it would be more serious for Finland than if Russia won. That is the sense of the leading article, if the hon. member would read it again.

I read every word of it.

If the hon. member will read it again he will see that is the intention of the writer. The hon. member fears that possibly the products we are sending over will not reach Finland. Well, we are taking all the precautions we can. We are sending the products by a Swedish boat to Gothenburg, and from there by the Swedish railways to Finland. Unless the pirates on the ocean to-day sink the Swedish boat with these products on board they will doubtless get to Finland. We are sending 1,000 tons of sugar, we are sending 5,000 gallons of brandy, which will please hon. members over there, and the balance we are going to send in maize and dried fruit. My department is in consultation with the Department of Agriculture to see what quantities of each of these products we can send so as to spend our £50,000. We are sending these products through free to Gothenburg, C.I.F. Sweden, and from there we hope the Swedish Government will transport them by their railways to Finland. I may say that the railways here have been good enough to say that they will transport these products free to the ports here, and the Swedish Shipping Company is also giving us a favourable rate of freight, so we are getting, so far as I can see, the maximum quantity of products through to Finland which the £50,000 will allow. I cannot imagine how any man in this House can possibly object to our giving £50,000, nay more than £50,000, to Finland. If any crime has been greater than the crime that Russia has committed against Finland in history, I really do not know of it. The least we can do is to try and help the Finns now that they are down and out.

When one had heard the speech of the ex-Minister of Defence in regard to the defence of Cape Town, one felt considerably perturbed. When, however, after being considerably depressed, one heard the vigorous speech by the present Minister of Defence, it was like an invigorating breeze. I had the honour of fighting against more than one of the Boer generals, and the hon. the Minister of Defence, in the late Boer war. But the difference between the hon. the Minister of Defence and other Boer generals was like that of a high speed motor car compared with a donkey cart. When that sort of thing happens here one can well imagine that our parlous condition of defence in Cape Town was quickly overtaken by the Minister of Defence. Some years ago I was interested in the building of the fort at Lion’s Battery. I may tell the House that the conception of the thing originated at the time of the Russo-Japanese war. About that time a Russian admiral was sent to Japan with the remains of the Russian fleet, and the whole world was very much upset by the progress of his squadron. In Cape Town troops were mobilised for two or three days until the squadron passed by, and then we began to take stock of bur defences. It was about that time that we began to think that we wanted more fortifications than we had. However, nothing happened for a long time. After a few years, however, when the Germans began to be obnoxious, about the time of the Agadir performance, or shortly before it, a Commission of Defence consisting of gunners and engineers was sent out to the Far East by the Imperial Government, and at the request of Dr. Jameson the ship that contained those engineers came round to Cape Town, and it was on their advice that the fort at Lion’s Battery was built. I hope that we are not going back on those gentlemen. The site was selected after a great deal of thought by these great experts in gunnery and engineering. We know that if you have a fort on land you can estimate that one gun on land is equal to quite seven guns at sea. Although you may talk about the length of range and so on you have to remember that a battleship has to remain at sea and is an easy object to pick, whereas a fort on land is not so easy to find. Besides, the guns from a fort fire from a fixed platform while the guns from a man-o’-war do not fire from a fixed platform. There is thus a great advantage to the fort guns on land over those on a man-o’-war. In that way I think the Minister of Defence was quite right when he said that the forts in the Cape Peninsula were more than a match for the Graf Spee. I hope, however, that we are going further than that, and that we shall carry our fortifications much further than they are to-day. We must look upon this war to-day as a war of eventualities in which anything might ensue. When we read in the English papers that the Germans are attempting to concentrate a force of 500,000 men in the Caucasus it makes us ask what is going to happen. We are depending very largely for our oil fuel upon the pipe tracks in Tripoli in Syria and at Haifa in Palestine, and if a large force is able to break through the Caucasus and capture these oil wells then the navy’s activities are bound to be considerably curtailed. It may be said that we can get petrol in other parts of the world. We must remember, however, that other ports have wharfage accommodation and petrol pipes only on a limited scale. If all the tankers from Great Britain and France were diverted to those ports there would be very serious congestion of tankers and we should not get the full capacity of those tankers. In those circumstances, I think it is highly necessary for us to think of the time when some other nation, with those already engaged in the war, may take it into their heads to take a hand, and some nation with a large fleet and a large mercantile marine may think that now is the time to strike a blow at a vulnerable point. What more vulnerable point is there than the Cape Peninsula? I hope the Minister will take this matter into his earnest consideration and fortify all our ports along the coast as strongly as he possibly can. All the ports on the coast are open to attack now and it is quite possible that a great deal of ruin might be caused to those places by some cruiser dropping shells in, say, Port Elizabeth, while Port Elizabeth cannot fire back. I hope that my small contribution will be taken into account by the Minister and that something will be done to fortify our coast in such a way as to make it dangerous or even impossible for any foreign force to put a foot in this country and occupy it.

Just a few words with regard to what the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) has said. In the first place, so far as the assistance which is being given to Finland is concerned, I just want to point out that Finland is no longer a belligerent country, on whose behalf we are being asked to vote money. Therefore, there is no question of war policy.

Surely the money has already been spent?

No, the money has not yet been spent, and it has not even been voted yet.

You nevertheless took the decision before peace was concluded.

But the House is only now being asked to vote this money, and the war is now over.

Your decision was taken before the peace.

But after the, conclusion of the peace the Government decided to go on with the matter. Therefore, it is not a question of war policy, but a question of compassion and sympathy for the Finnish people. Then the hon. member spoke again about the internment camps. The general question has already been fully debated, and I do not want to go into it again. But he referred to two cases. But he cannot expect, as he did not give me notice that he was going to bring them forward, that I should now go into those specific cases. I only want to say that the procedure which has been laid down can be followed in these cases, in accordance with the reply which was read here to-day in the case of Trumpelmann, the case has made considerable progress. An enquiry has taken place, and the documents are with the Appeal Commissioner, and a decision can be expected shortly. As my hon. friend said that things are not going on well in the camps, I want to refer him to the report which recently appeared of the findings of the Plenipotentiary from the Netherlands, who acted on behalf of the German Government. He was quite satisfied that things were satisfactory there.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

Clauses, Schedule and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I need delay the House for more than a moment in moving this motion, standing in my name. As I explained in my budget speech, we have an additional revenue this year of £1.800,000 owing to increased activity on the part of the railways, and as a corollary to that we have inevitably increased expenditure, and for the most part the whole of the additional estimate of expenditure from revenue fund is due to the increased demands on the railways. There is the question of writing-off the cost of removing the wreck of the “Paris Maru” at Port Elizabeth harbour. That, as you know, had to be undertaken by the railways, and owing to a weakness in the law, we have not been able to recover the amount involved from the people whom we regard as responsible for leaving this wreck in one of our marine fairways. I would like to assure the House that since we failed to recover that amount, the law has been amended, and we hope that a similar circumstance will not arise again. In regard to the estimates of additional expenditure from capital and betterment funds, these total only £7,954, a very small excess indeed, and it may interest the House to know that against this we have savings under various heads of no less than £1,700,000, so that even here we are very well on the right side so far as the actual cash position is concerned. This additional expenditure of £7,954 was occasioned mainly by the value of the land expropriated in connection with the Germiston—Jupiter line being higher than was originally estimated, and owing to certain increased costs of earth works due to the difficult formation of the soil in a cutting near Driehoek. I, therefore, move the motion printed on the Order Paper.

I second.

There are one or two matters that I want to raise on this motion. The first is under Head 27, steamships. This Head shows an additional amount of £93,658. There is an explanatory note which says that this increase is due mainly to the chartering of ships, and it goes on to say the excess expenditure will be covered by increased revenue. Evidently, Mr. Speaker, the chartering of these additional ships will prove profitable to the Administration. In this connection I want to raise a matter that has frequently been raised here in the past, namely, the necessity for instituting a coastal service. I think the institution of a coastal service is now more essential than it has ever been in the past. We have conditions prevailing now which compel the administration to charter additional ships for their own purposes, and I think the time has arrived when we should in some measure be independent of outside sources for the conveyance of our commodities. We must also bear in mind that we have very many potential markets on the east coast of Africa, and that the Italian line has discontinued its east coast service. These potential markets will not be developed unless means of communication are established. I think. Mr. Speaker, it will be in the interests not only of the administration but of the Union generally if either a Government coastal service is established, or private enterprise is encouraged to initiate such a service. In the past the administration has done everything possible to discourage a coastal service. They have done this mainly through their sea competitive rates. I suggest that now instead of hiring these additional ships, the administration should rather augment their fleet by purchasing additional ships, and laying down the nucleus of an adequate Government coastal service. Otherwise the administration should take steps to encourage private enterprise to institute such a coastal service. I hope the Minister will go into this matter very carefully. Under Head 31, airways, an additional amount of £5,634 is required. The explanatory note says that the additional amount is required to provide for the difference between the civil and military emoluments of airways staff on active service. I contend, sir, that the Airways Department cannot be dealt with on precisely the same basis as the other railway departments. The Airways Department, as has been shown in the past, is part and parcel of our defence machinery. We know that directly hostilities broke out the Defence Department in an arbitrary manner, took over a number of the aeroplanes with the result that we now have a very depleted air service. I understand that when the machines were transferred the staff was transferred to the Defence Department together with the machines. I want to ask the Minister whether those members of the airways staff transferred together with the machines to the Defence Department, were transferred under any specific regulation; whether in their conditions of employment there is a proviso that in time of war or national emergency those members of the staff will be transferred to the Defence Department for defence purposes. If there is no such proviso in their conditions of employment, then I want to know from the Minister whether those pilots volunteered for active service, or whether they were given the choice of going to the Defence Department or remaining with the Airways. If this proviso is in their conditions of employment, namely, that in time of national emergency they shall be transferred to the Defence Department, then I contend that the Defence Department should shoulder the whole of the amount involveed in paying their salaries, including any allowances made for flying time. The Defence Department should accept the whole liability. Now, under Head 5, traffic expenses, there are additional amounts required of £59.207, and £15,098 under the heading of labourers. I presume this is for additional casual labour employed in view of the increased traffic. Now I want to bring again to the Minister’s attention the conditions of employment of these casual labourers. In this matter I think I should receive some assistance from hon. members on the Government side, especially from the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside). The casual labourers, when entering the service, receive, married men 7s. 3d. per day and single men 6s. 3d., and they receive annual increments of 3d.

Under what head is the hon. member addressing the House?

Under Head No. 5, Mr. Speaker, labourers £59,207 and £15,098. These labourers after four years receive a maximum of 8s. 6d. per day. They make no contribution to the pension fund.

I am afraid the hon. member cannot discuss the general principle, he can only discuss the increase.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that this increased amount is for the purpose of paying additional labourers, who are employed under certain conditions, and I think I should be able to discuss those conditions.

The hon. member must confine himself to those particular labourers.

These casual labourers are not members of the sick fund, and consequently they receive no sick benefits or sick pay when they are off duty, nor do they receive “injured on duty” pay. When they are injured in the course of their employment they are subject to the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. They receive after twelve months continuous service ten days leave. If at any time they are absent for any reason whatsoever for more than six days, it is considered a break in their service, and they are either dismissed or have to start anew. They also lose any increments they have been granted. I will give an example of how this works in practice. If the labourer has served continuously for a period of twelve months, he receives an increment which amounts to 3d. He is then in receipt of 7s. 6d. per day. After twenty months he is still in receipt of that 7s. 6d. but….

The hon. member is now discussing the general policy in regard to labourers. He cannot do that. He can only discuss the reason for the increases.

Yes, but this additional amount to be voted is actually, as I have said, for the employment of additional labourers.

They are employed under the same conditions as the others. It is a general matter. The hon. member cannot discuss general principles now, he can only discuss the reasons for the increases.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I submit to your ruling, and I shall raise this matter under the Vote on the Estimates. Now under head 5 “Traffic expenses” in regard to checkers, there are additional amounts required of £12,956 and £15.829. There is an explanatory note stating that this additional amount is reouired for overtime, apart from other staff requirements. In regard to overtime I am going to submit that the Administration is in a position to reduce the overtime worked by that particular section of the staff, which will result in a reduction of the additional amount required for payment of that overtime. Before 1932 the checkers at the larger depots were in receipt of what was known as a tonnage bonus, that is, a bonus based on the amount of tonnage handled by every checker during each month.

I am afraid the hon. member is again discussing a matter of general policy.

I am trying to show how by making a change the Administration can reduce this increase. I am going to show that the Administration will be able to reduce the amount of payment of overtime. During 1932, during the depression, this payment of a tonnage bonus was discontinued. Now the Administration requires this additional amount for the payment of additional overtime worked by this particular section of the staff. I want to show that by the re-institution of this checkers’ bonus the Administration will be able to reduce the amount required for the payment of overtime, and consequently this additional amount which we are asked to vote can be reduced. This bonus was instituted for the purpose of providing an incentive to the checking staff to reduce overtime and to handle more tonnage than they would normally do. I want to say at this stage that the checkers are among the lowest paid of the Administration’s employees.

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he cannot discuss matters of policy on these Estimates. He can only discuss the reasons for these increases.

May I not show that by the introduction of a certain method this particular additional expenditure can be reduced?

If the hon. member wants to discuss a change of policy, that should be discussed on another occasion and not on this occasion.

Very well, I shall discuss it on another occasion. Then I come to head 4 “Running expenses.” I want to draw the Minister’s attention to one small matter. There is an additional amount required for fuel (coal and wood) amounting to £91,001. I contend that a not inconsiderable saving can be effected in the expenditure on coal purchased for locomotive purposes if the Administration will keep a more efficient check on the collieries in regard to the quality and size of coal supplied. I have found that frequently locomotive tenders are loaded with coal consisting almost exclusively of large lumps. When working fast passenger trains, the firemen have not the time to break up these lumps and often these lumps are flung out of the engine. Frequently the collieries supply coal consisting largely of dust. It is a known fact that no locomotive can keep up steam when the coal consists of dust, and the result is that the fireman is compelled to throw spadefuls of the coaldust out of the engine. This, of course, results in waste and means increased expenditure on fuel. I want to submit to the Minister that the management should keep a more efficient check on the collieries in regard to the type and quality of coal supplied for locomotive purposes. If a suitable type of round coal is supplied it would inevitably result in a reduction in the expenditure on fuel.

It was rather unfortunate that three Ministers felt impelled to address the House on the last Budget day and thereby eliminated some of us who have paid particular attention to railway matters during the last few years, and that may possibly be the reason why in a discussion on these additional estimates the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) wishes to bring in matters of general policy and I can assure him at the very beginning that whatever efforts he makes in this House for the betterment of the staff of the railways he can always have the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) behind him, whether he is a supporter of the Government or not. I am supporting the Government on the war issue—certainly not on the running of the railway department, which I feel convinced has shown no very obvious improvement since the recent change in Minister. I want first of all to deal with this contribution of £1,000,000 under head 35 to the Rates Equalisation Fund, and I want to say that that is an entirely new contribution which has been placed before us, so that I shall be in a position at least to discuss the general principle of the policy.

Where does the hon. member find this £1,000,000?

Under head 35, “Rates Equalisation Fund.”

The hon. member is now referring to the Supplementary Estimates. We are not considering them at the moment. We are dealing with the Additional Estimates.

Then I shall have to take my opportunity later on when we come to the Supplementary Estimates.

I would just like to refer for a moment to one or two of the points raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). This question of encouraging coastal shipping is one fraught with the greatest difficulty. You will appreciate that any coastal shipping success would be very largely at the expense of the Railways themselves — the more coastal traffic carried by ship the less traffic will be carried by rail. I think that is self-evident, in spite of what my hon. friend behind me (Mr. Mushet) says.

Oh no, it is not.

It is perfectly true that there may be classes of traffic which it may be more economical to carry by ship, but as far as our coastal services are concerned we, in this country, are extraordinarily well supplied. There are regular sailings two or three times per week by the regular liners trading with South Africa, and I do not know whether it will be altogether to the advantage of this country to have differential rates as between these ships trading with this country and our own coastal services. It is quite true that in the past our own coastal traffic has not been treated as well as overseas ships have been, but I think in every case these anomalies have been corrected. They now get stores and coal and all supplies on the same terms as overseas ships. On the question of our fleet generally, that will have to be gone into very carefully. We have at present three steamers and they perform a regular service with the East, and on the whole that service has been well justified. The ships have made money, and they have always been a help in times of need, and they are proving in these times a particularly great help to South African trade. We have actually augmented them by chartering two other ships by reason of the fact that we can do more business with the East in regard to coal and such things. But these ships are getting very old and the time will come when we shall have to face the question whether we are to replace them, increase them, or decrease their numbers. The hon. member can rest assured, knowing where my sympathies lie, that I shall be very sympathetic indeed in regard to maintaining this fleet of ours, and I hope later on, in better times, it may be possible to replace it by steamers by a more modern type, and that possibly at the right time there may be plenty of steamers offering for sale. I do not think there is anything else I can say in regard to the shipping question. Had we more ships at this time they would have stood us in good stead. This question is one which we shall have to go into, and we may have to prepare ourselves for possible emergencies by augmenting this fleet to some extent. But, as I say, these are big questions and they will have to be gone into very carefully. In regard to the question of military pay the airmen and air pilots in the service of the South African Railways go over to the Defence Department, or have gone over to the Defence Department in a purely voluntary capacity, without any compulsion whatever. If a pilot did not want to go, even if he just indicated that he did not want to go, he was not asked. All those who have gone have gone in a voluntary way. To begin with these pilots suffered a serious loss, because in calculating the pay they were to get—under the scheme we have we make up any shortfall there may be in their military pay as compared with their pay in our service. But the air pilots suffered badly because we did not include in our calculation what is known as flying pay. Afterwards when it was seen how it affected these pilots we reconsidered the matter. Of course we could not give them flying pay because they did not fly for us, so they had no flying time, but we agreed to give them a lump sum of £350 in lieu of flying pay. That does not make up what most of these men have been earning in the past, but it was a measure of justice. But there is no regulation compelling these people to fly; it is entirely voluntary, and we treat them as far as we can on the same basis as other employees. Now with regard to the question of coal which was also raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg, the Railways are constantly at the collieries; we are constantly at work impressing on the collieries not only the importance of supplying us with the right size of coal, but also the importance of supplying us with the right quality. The quality as well as the size is important, and as hon. members know we buy on a quality basis. I can speak feelingly on the question of coal, because in my unregenerate days when I was still a business man I did a lot of colliery work and I have in the past supplied the Railways with coal myself, and I know the trouble we were in if we supplied coal that was too small or not of the right quality, and I can assure the hon. member that we are still constantly dealing with this matter. I shall not deal with the question of checkers now because I would be falling foul of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I appreciate the point raised by the hon. member, and I shall deal with it on a later occasion.

Motion put and agreed to; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

The Committee has to consider the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to, be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds during the year ending 31st March, 1940, and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Loan Funds during the year ending 31st March, 1940.

Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds.

Head No. 4.—“Running Expenses — Railways,” £222,716, put and agreed to.

Head No. 5.—“Traffic Expenses — Railways,” £184,297, put and agreed to.

Head No. 13.—“Road Motor Services — Railways,” £54,485, put and agreed to.

Head No. 18, “Miscellaneous Expenditure —Railways,” £6,577 put and agreed to.

On head No. 26, “Miscellaneous Expenditure—Harbours,” £27,161,

A matter here has been raised this afternoon in regard to the question of coastal ships.

The hon. member cannot refer to what took place in the House on the motion for the House to go into Committee.

I want to refer to what is taking place in the harbour, sir. The point I wish to raise is this.

I would remind the hon. member that he can only discuss the reasons for the increases.

I can do it then under head number 27, and I will raise the point under that head.

Head put and agreed to.

On head No. 27, “Working and Maintenance—Steamships,” £93,658,

I want to raise the point I have already referred to. During last session a promise was made by the then Minister of Railways and Harbours with regard to the question of our coastal shipping. We asked then that certain reductions should take place in harbour charges and in certain other charges, and that certain facilities should be given to our export shipping trade. Now we in this House certainly understood from the then Minister that these matters were going to have his attention and that something would be done immediately about it. Further the question of stores arose, and an Act of Parliament had to be passed to give us ships stores in bond. That was decided by this House. The other matter is purely one for the Railway Administration. They were to reduce these harbour charges and an undertaking was given that they would be reduced. Now we understand that the reduction has not taken place, and what is more serious we have the Minister getting up this afternoon and saying that he is not prepared to do so.

What item is the hon. member discussing?

I am discussing the item “Working and Maintenance—Steamships.”

What is the number of the item?

I think item 756 might do it. The point is this that the Minister himself has raised this point.

The Minister raised the question in the House and not in Committee and the hon. member cannot refer to it in this Committee.

Then I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising it.

Is it coastal shipping?

Yes.

You can raise it.

I will refer to it at the earliest opportunity.

I want to refer to the expenditure in regard to this item. If the Minister—the ex-Minister of Railways and Harbours—had carried out the promise which he gave us last year that there would be a reduction in the charges of our coastal shipping, this item would have been absolutely unnecessary. I am objecting to this increase.

Our ships do no coastal work.

Then they ought to do coastal work. There has been this increase in dock charges, the increase which we are asked to vote here, for handling ships in the docks.

Which item is the hon. member referring to?

It is on the previous head.

No, it is under this head. We are here asked to vote an increase.

Which item is the hon. member referring to?

We can get it under “Maintenance and Repairs,” or “Grants and Wages.” I shall have to bring the matter up on a later occasion.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 31, “Miscellaneous Expenditure-Airways,” £5,634, put and agreed to.

Capital and Betterment Works.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works.

Head No. 1, “Construction of Railways,” £7,954, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, without amendment.

Report considered, and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds and on Capital and Betterment Works adopted.

Mr. SPEAKER appointed the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the Chairman of Committees a Committee to bring up the necessary Bill in accordance with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure as adopted by the House.

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS brought up the Report of the Committee just appointed, submitting a Bill in accordance with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds and on Capital and Betterment Works adopted by the House.

The Minister of Lands, who introduced this Bill last night in such a friendly way, although the Bill contains ten or twelve principles, only referred to two of them. I really felt sorry for him, because I noticed that it was a Bill which he had inherited, and I could also see that his heart was really not in the matter, and I feel that if he really understood the principles which are at stake in this Bill, that he definitely would not have introduced it. I feel that his department has left him in the lurch, and therefore I am sorry that it has now fallen to my lot to oppose this Bill, or rather to oppose the second reading of it, because I would like to help him. But I feel that there are principles at stake here which are so serious that it is my duty to explain them to the House. It may possibly be said that the Bill only deals with an Irrigation Board in the district of Rustenburg, and that it does not affect other constituencies, but in this Bill there is such a violation of private and public rights, that I fear that the Bill may be passed without hon. members knowing what is in it. I also thought that it might serve as a precedent in future when similar matters were debated, and that I was therefore compelled to oppose the second reading. This Bill is not such a simple little Bill as the Minister wanted to make out. He wanted to make out that there were certain rights in existence along the Hex River in the district of Rustenburg which were granted by the courts, and which later on made it impossible for the water to be divided up. It therefore became necessary to get rid of the rights, and also that the Bill was necessary to write off the money which the people were owing on the dam. That was, so far as my memory serves me, what the Minister submitted, and I want to say at once that I am entirely in favour of the writing off. I even think that the Government is not going far enough, and I feel that as they are providing for a writing off, they ought rather to write off the whole amount. Accordingly, I am not opposed to the Bill because this writing off is being done, because I want to go further and write off everything, because I feel that the Government will anyhow have to come later on to write off everything. It is quite clear that the taxpayers on the Bospoort scheme are poor people, and the Minister mentioned that some of them owned about 1/600th of a morgen, which is almost insufficient land to bury a man in. There are some who have a few morgen, but they are practically all poor people, and I cannot understand why a man who owns 1/600th of a morgen should have to repay 6d. a morgen every six months. It seems to me to be impossible to propose such a thing. But that was not the actual reason why I object to the Bill; because I feel that a reckless breach of private vested right is taking place here, and I feel that the Bill is unnecessary for the purpose of attaining the object which the Minister represents he wants to attain by this Bill. I feel that this Bill is even conflicting, in parts, and I also feel that in part it is impossible to carry out the provisions of the Bill. I would like to deal with these objections seriatim. I want, in the first place, to point out that this Bill is a breach of private and public water rights, a breach of vested rights which have been built up after long years. As I want to prove that this Bill violates private and public rights in a reckless way, it is necessary for me to make it clear what the rights are, and how they have been established. In a dry country like South Africa, as in other countries that are dry, water is of great value, even of more value than land, and consequently the rights of owners to obtain water is a very priceless thing, so priceless that there is more money spent in the establishment and definition of those rights by our courts and otherwise, than in connection with any other subject in the country. Van Riebeeck had not been three years in the country when the first water furrow was made. It was taken out of the Vars River, which ran through the Gardens here, and in 1655 the first rules were made in connection with the distribution of that water, and there are still erven in Cape Town which have water rights which have not been exercised for many years. Perhaps the furrows passed underneath where we are standing and speaking here. Irrigation, from time to time, extended to the countryside, and in 1666 we had a different arrangement, and so things went on until we finally had judgments by the Landdrosts and Heemrade, and invaluable rights were established throughout the Cape Province. Those rights were built up by principles which were laid down by the supreme court, one by one, and after all those rights had been established, they became valuable. We can quite understand that it was difficult to go to the Roman Dutch law, because in Holland there was no question of getting water on to the land, but of getting the water off the land. Therefore it is necessary to go back to other legal systems, and in course of time, principles were established in order to fix how the water in public streams was to be divided. The old Cape Parliament passed about 26 of such Acts, and ultimately in 1906, passed an Act when the best brains in the Cape Colony took part in the debate. Men like Sir Henry Juta, Schreiner and others took part in it, men who had had a lifetime of experience of our water law, and they settled those vested rights by virtue of that body of legal principles which were in existence. All this was, after the inauguration of the Union, put into the Act of 1912, and there it was consolidated with other principles, prevailing in the rest of the country, and the whole Act was made applicable to the other provinces as well, and here and there amendments were made in view of the systems which were in force in other parts of the country. On that our law was established affecting every man who owns a piece of land adjoining any river. A person of that kind reckons that his rights are based on that, and hon. members will agree with me, inasmuch as this House is the highest court in the country, we must be very careful how we interfere with the vested rights of other people. If we can cancel, by a stroke of the pen, rights which have been built up since 1655, then it is a very serious matter. Accordingly, I have tried to explain how these vested rights actually came into existence. Now I would like to say what these vested rights are, and I then want to prove how they are being violated by this Bill. Normal flow in a public stream belongs to the riparian land through which that river runs. Every part of the land which adjoins that stream is entitled to a reasonable use of the water from that river. That right is not a personal right of ownership. If the water is divided, then a person’s share cannot be led away to other land which is not riparian land. It must remain for the use of riparian land; that is a right which attached to the land. The person has no right of ownership. He is only entitled to a reasonable use of his share of the normal flow, so far as irrigation is concerned, on the riparian land. I do not now want to speak about the primary use or about the tertiary use of water, because to a certain extent that question does not arise here. We know that there are three uses of the normal flow, namely, the primary, the secondary and the tertiary use. Those are rights which no one, not even this House, ought to take away from the land which adjoins the river. That right gives the privilege to every owner of land along such a river, to take any water which comes down the river on to his land. But because this is a vested right, that right ought not to be interfered with, and I am certain that the Minister will not try to take away those rights in this part of the country. I can give him the assurance that he will have the same difficulties there that have occurred in other countries. Those rights are laid down not only by the law of the land, but in many cases there has been a division by the court, as is explained in this Bill. A division has been made, and those rights have been laid down by a court which was appointed by this House. I will show later on how they tried to disobey orders of the court, probably without any reason, but I want to hurry and try to make the position as clear as possible. The vested right to the use of water is in accordance with law, and we ought not to allow those vested rights to be taken away, even if that water is used again on the land, because the land is being robbed of its rights. If it is clear how the riparian owners have obtained those vested rights by a long series of judgments, by Acts of Parliament and other laws, and if it is such a valuable thing, then you can yourselves understand that it is necessary for us to be very careful how we deal with and possibly take away those rights. I would like also to make this clear. As I understand the position of the Minister, and as I see from the preamble to the Bill, it appears that the Hex River in Rustenburg is a public stream with a normal flow, and that there has been a judgment of the court in connection with the distribution of the water, a judgment which was given at the suit of certain Kamffer, Van Niekerk and Van der Merwe. They went to court and asked, as they were entitled to do, for a division of the water, to acquire their water rights to the use of water on the riparian land. Now clause 2 immediately proposes that this Bill should not take any notice of that order of court, in other words, without payment of compensation, and as far as I know, without any other agreement having been entered into, this Bill lays down that those rights of theirs, which have been given them by this judgment of the court, will be taken away. If those people entered into an agreement to surrender their rights, then it was not necessary for the Minister to introduce this Bill to the House, because if the people agreed to surrender their rights, then it was not necessary to introduce the Bill, and all that was required was to have an ordinary agreement registered. Those rights are registered against the title deeds in their favour, and if they abandon them, then it is not necessary to take up the, time of this House, because it is only necessary to get them to have a document signed abandoning their rights. We go further. The same clause says that a dam has been built for those people. The dam was built by the Government, and there is already an Irrigation Board under the proclamation. Remember that the judgment was given in 1921. The rights were laid down then. In 1933 the Irrigation Department built a dam there. When the dam was built, the Government and the land-owners must have known that the vested rights there were as laid down by the court, and if they did not know and built the dam, then they did it before they had made their proper enquiry. After the dam was completed, they found that they could not divide the water, owing to the judgment of the court. They should have known that they could not put un that work and then divide the water. That is not all. This Bill is now going further and saying that into that dam will be brought a part of all the water of the Hex River, to which the riparian owners are entitled, and then it will once more be divided. Well, the normal flow of the river is defined as that part of the water which is running in the river, which you can use on the riparian land with correct irrigation. Thereafter we get a division of the surplus water. Then there are certain primary rights for drinking water, and the public themselves have certain rights to drinking water for man and beast. The riparian owners, therefore, have the public use in addition. Now, what rights are being discussed here? Is the normal flow being referred to, or the flood water, or all the water in the river, and what is their portion? The only way to define that is through the court, if they cannot agree with the other riparian owners. What part of it is that which has to be conserved in the dam? Now we come to clause 5. There they say that not only must the Irrigation Board divide the water which they have diverted into the dam, but all the other water which runs into the river within the irrigation district, must be distributed. By this Bill they are, therefore, wanting to appropriate to themselves water which does not only belong to the board, but to all the owners along the banks of the river. The irrigation district does not extend over the whole length of the river, and there are other people entitled to water. Now I would like to know from the Minister how the Irrigation Board is going to administer the rights. The district starts above the dam, and runs to the lower side of it, and what position is the lowest owner going to be in? They have no furrows. Nevertheless, the Irrigation Board is compelled to distribute all the water. How is it going to do so?

Are you speaking of owners living outside of the jurisdiction of the Irrigation Board?

No, rights are being appropriated here to all the water, and you impose the obligation on the Irrigation Board to divide all the water. It cannot do so. It reads here as follows—

You will understand that is impossible. We are imposing obligations to divide all the water in the district which is in the river, but the Irrigation Board can only divide what is taken out by the furrows. That is why it is impracticable. Let us go further. This water is conserved in the dams, and now it is being put under the control of the Irrigation Board. What becomes of it?—

In other words, certain obligations have been imposed by Act No. 8 of 1912 on the Irrigation Board, and the Act runs throughout the whole country. Certain obligations have been laid on the Irrigation Board to divide the water. The clause says that all the water which is conserved, all the water in the furrows, must be fairly divided. In this Bill it is said that the Irrigation Board can control the water as they think fit; in other words, no obligations are imposed on them. It does indeed state “subject to the provisions of this Act and the Irrigation Act.” But what is the meaning of that? I would like to know why Act No. 8 of 1912 is mentioned here, because all the regulations which have been laid down in the original Act in regard to the division of water, and the obligations of the Irrigation Board, are being violated and betrayed by this Bill. I cannot understand why. Why cannot this irrigation scheme just fall under one Act like all the rest? Why should separate Acts be passed for every irrigation scheme and separate privileges be given to the riparian owners? It seems to me that when you say that the board can exercise control as it thinks fit, bearing in mind the provisions of the Irrigation Act, that that is absolutely in conflict, that there is no sense in it. You say that the provisions of the law must be borne in mind, and then you say that they can deal with the water as they think fit. That is conflicting. You must say that this Bill will apply, or the Irrigation Act, or that they can act as they themselves think fit — one of the three. If you say that this Bill is to apply, and that where it does not deal with the thing, that in that case the Irrigation Act will apply, I can understand it. But why does it say that they can control water as they think fit? That conflicts with the rights which are vested by Act No. 8 of 1912. Therefore I cannot understand that that Act is even mentioned. Then I come to clause 3. In clause 3 there is not only demanded the control and the conservation of the water which runs down the river bed. We know that the boundaries of all the riparian farms usually run up to the middle of the river, so that both farms on both sides of the river have transfer of a part of the bed of the river. Without giving any compensation to the people this Bill wants to vest the right in the Irrigation Board, all the rights to the bed of the Hex River. What right have they to arrogate the control over the rights to the bed of the river, which belong to private persons, to themselves? It is a violation of private rights. What right has any person to do such a thing? What right has anybody to arrogate it to himself without compensation or further negotiation? Why then have we got Act No. 8 of 1912, which makes provision that all works which are constructed by the Irrigation Board shall come under the control of the Irrigation Board? Why is it necessary for that to be said again here? I do not understand it. I do not knew why there should be a departure from the existing Acts. Then we come to clause 3 (2). There you have the greatest violation of private rights which I think has ever yet come before this House. It says there—

I explained a moment ago that there was not a right of ownership in public water of a public stream. There is only the right of the riparian owners to make a reasonable use of water. Now, rights are here being taken away from riparian owners and vested in the Irrigation Board, which owns no land. In Act No. 8 of 1912 provision has been made for the cessation of the existence of any Irrigation Board. What is going ta happen to the water rights when the Irrigation Board no longer exists? These people will merely owe £4,000 and when the debt has been paid off, they will once more return to the old custom of taking water out of the river by means of furrows, and the Irrigation Board will no longer be necessary. It will be causing extra expense, and they will dissolve it. What will happen then? What will become of the rights? How can you vest rights in a person, in a body, which does not own any land? It is clear what the position is in regard to the taking away of the rights. Here you have a large group of poor people. They are living there, and thirsting for water. The Government builds a dam without finding out what the rights are, and then the people have to be provided with water. They say, “You are poor and cannot pay; we are prepared to write off provided you abandon your rights.” That has not only happened here, but also in other places. Any rights which stand in the way of the Irrigation Department, in the carrying out of its will, are simply cancelled. We have only to look at the reports of the previous Director of Irrigation, and we need only have the experience which some of us have had in regard to irrigation, to find that the department has from time to time tried to put legislation through this House, in connection with private rights, which have existed for centuries. They are simply cancelled. The line of argument of the engineers is simply: “I see a nice place for a dam. I shall build the dam. It does not concern me what the title to the land is, nor what the rights are.” The only way in which he can attain his object is by taking away the water rights of those people.

They are not taking away the rights.

If you just read it you will see. Then they get into the position that they are able to do what they want to. It will be said that the rights are being taken away and vested in the Irrigation Board, and that the Irrigation Board, in turn, must divide the water. What then is the need for the Bill? There is surely provision under the existing laws to divide all the water in the dams and furrows. But of course it is easier if the Irrigation. Board has those water rights. If then it does not divide the water properly, you have no claim against it. The Irrigation Board is placed in such a position that rights are simply taken away, and when you come along and want to uphold your rights, you find that you do not possess any. The result is that they can carry on by favours and gifts. The poor people do not understand what the position is. They are not able to protect themselves. They do not know what is going on. I say without any fear of contradiction, that in the settled parts of the country no one would put such a Bill before the country. What is the necessity for it? Act No. 8 of 1912 makes provision for these things, for the fair division of the water which is conserved. Then we come to Clause 5 (3). Here again we are met by an ugly position. We know that the water is divided according to certain arrangements. The arrangements have been made after years and years of experience. Not only the size of the land is taken into consideration, but also the distance that the water has to run, the nature of the ground, the length of the river frontage, the size of the farm— these are all principles which have been laid down after sound and ripe consideration. Now the department comes with an entirely new thing. Now all the water rights have to be surrendered, and they will divide the water on the basis of irrigable land. Is that fair? Why has Act No. 8 of 1912 made all the necessary provision, and why should everything be altered by a stroke of the pen? Why is it necessary to have an entirely different division? If I am at the lower end of the furrow, how am I going to get my pro rata share of the water? Am I to go and take it out of the dam? Or must I wet the furrow when the furrow is dry, while my neighbour higher up than I am, can allow the water to run in by his sluice. What does it say here—

In other words, you find here a completely new division of rights. The Irrigation Board takes all the riparian rights which these people had, and then it divides up the water as it pleases. That is what the department has been trying to arrive at for many years, to divide the water according to the size of the land, and not according to the riparian rights. The rights of those people are being taken away here by the Bill, and I go still further. I say that if all that water has to be divided, if the people are compelled to give up their rights, and they then receive from the Irrigation Board what it wants to give them, then I cannot see that you have any right to say that the people are still owing any money to the department. These provisions in the Bill go too far. Under the common law it has first to be proved that you have committed a crime before you are punished, but under the water law the onus is laid on you. But that is not mentioned here. The Act of 1912 makes provision for everything that is necessary in a case like this, and it is therefore unnecessary to pass this Bill, to give the people a reduction. All that is necessary is to ask for a decision of the board to grant a reduction. If an agreement is necessary, then it is not necessary to bring a Bill like this before Parliament. It is not right to take away here the rights of private people merely to make things easier for the department. I say that Act No. 8 of 1912 gives everything that is necessary for such cases. The Government can give a reduction as they have already done before by virtue of that Act, and I therefore cannot see the necessity for the Bill. It is not necessary to give the reduction. Possibly it facilitates a certain procedure, but here it is even provided that this Irrigation Board, if for instance you go and steal water, or contravene any of the arrangements, that you can be fined up to a maximum of £20, while the Act of 1912 provides a fine of £100 for the same offence. Why is the Act being altered in that manner? We now come to the schedule. This schedule of the Bill has also not been drawn up in accordance with the Act of 1912. No trouble has been taken here to draw up the schedule alphabetically, but it has been done as is most convenient to the department, namely, they call them holdings 1, 2, 3, etc. Then with regard to the claims of the people, should there not be an annexure to the Bill in which they are mentioned? That has always been done in the past, so that we can judge what the position is. I think that hon. members know that the general public have the right at any public river when they come to it, to drink the water and to water the stock. That right is being taken away here, and all rights are being given to the Irrigation Board. And so I could go on all the afternoon giving you examples of how this Bill, which looks so innocent, is taking away the rights of people. After having made these representations, I think that I am entitled to ask the Minister to withdraw this Bill and to leave the position as it is. Let him then introduce a motion to give a writing off. That has been done in other cases, as well as in my district, where certain conditions were fixed which, of course, have to be fulfilled. I think that this Bill will cost the Government dear. If we come and take away the private rights of people in this way, then we can at any time come and take away the private rights of people in regard to irrigation matters. I know that the Minister will say that we have the Act of 1936, but that deals with a different position. [Time limit.]

I would like, as the representative of the district where this scheme is situate, to support the Bill, and I do so because, as the Minister has explained to the House, the scheme has been completed for the last six years, and all that time there has been no control over the distribution of the water, or of the use of the water from the dam. Some hon. members who have had experience with irrigation will realise that it is an impossible position if there is no control over the water. As this Bill has been drafted in order to put the control of the water into the hands of an Irrigation Board, I hope that the House will support it wholeheartedly. I admit that the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) is possibly an authority in water court cases, and he gave a long statement here of the position from a legal point of view. But I must say that he is not at all acquainted with the real state of affairs. He has possibly had to deal with rivers which flow all the year round, but in this case where the people went to court as long ago as 1921, because there was hardly any flow of water any longer, the court gave judgment and laid down that they should get 8 or 9 per cent. of the normal flow. But in 1933 the river completely stopped running, and I therefore ask the hon. member, from whom are the rights taken away if there is nothing to divide? The Government therefore intervened and assisted the people. They built a dam and saved the people. Of that I can assure the House. A dam was built, and all the time there was no control over the water, and the people realised that provision would have to be made for the proper control of the use of the water, and I can inform the House that the farmers asked me to attend a meeting at which 30 to 40 farmers were present, and although the hon. member for Swellendam says that they are poor people who do not appreciate what is intended, I can assure the House that they are independent farmers, and know what they want. I must admit they are poor—although not all of them—but they are independent farmers, and the people, after having consulted the magistrate of the district, and an attorney, came to the decision that it was in their best interests, and accordingly they instructed me to thank the Government very heartily for this proposed arrangement. They are quite satisfied with the arrangement that is suggested, and if the hon. member for Swellendam says that the Government must put everything in writing, which will only delay or wreck the Bill, then I would vote against it, notwithstanding the fact that I represent the people and would possibly lose votes in consequence. Alhough the people are poor, they do not want it to be thought that they are absolutely dependent on the Government. They want to pay something for what is done for them, and they are quite willing to pay this £4.000 back. The hon. member for Swellendom spoke about the rights of the riparian owners lower down the river. The actual position is that only the three farms which are mentioned in the schedule were irrigation farms from the beginning. Lower down there is no irrigable land, and there are no irrigation works. Then he spoke of the riparian owners on both sides of the river, but on the left side of the river the native area is situated, and the natives have never made use of the water for irrigation purposes, but only for watering their stock. The Department of Native Affairs was also consulted, and they made no objection. I want to ask hon. members, with these facts before them, whether they can accept the argument of the hon. member for Swellendom. I want to assure hon. members that if they do so and allow the Bill to be wrecked, then they will be acting against the interests of these people. I therefore hope that the House will allow the Bill to go through.

With all deference to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren), I do feel that I cannot agree with all the legal knowledge that he has exhibited. To my mind it is entirely unpractical. I also am an irrigator, and I also have a knowledge of irrigation, and feel that if we uphold his point of view then where are we going to land as riparian owners if control is not to be exercised by a central authority over the water in the river? If his construction were to be accepted, then he will at once come into conflict with the irrigation schemes along the Breede River in his own district. There has already been much litigation about water, and I think that judging by the way in which the Water Court and the irrigation boards go to work, it is a policy which, is grounded on ripe experience, by which these matters are settled and decided. The hon. member’s method is unpractical and impracticable. The water should not be competed for by the riparian owners, but settled by an irrigation board or by the department. That gives every satisfaction, and contentment. If, for instance, the board were to take water by pipes, and take it in a different direction away from the bank, then of course it will cause damage to such a community, but if a board of that kind divides the water pro rata amongst the riparian owners, and among them only, then I ask in what respect the board will be causing damage to those riparian owners? We must indeed realise that the river does not belong to one or two but to all the riparian owners. But leaving that aside. I want to express agreement, with this arrangement in connection with the irrigation district of Bospoort. The Minister is a practical farmer, and I feel that he understands the difficulties of the practical farmer. With regard to that irrigation, there are one or two things which seem to me as if they constitute a very difficult and almost impracticable position. There are water shortages and court cases. It is, so it seems to me, a small colony where there is want and also poverty. Three hundred morgen are being irrigated, and there have been subdivisions even down to one morgen. How can a farmer exist on a morgen?

Down to half a morgen.

Very well. How can a farmer exist on half a morgen? Is it not criminal for the Minister, with his responsibilities, to tolerate such a thing for a moment? Must not steps be taken to remedy and to alter the position? The Minister ought to intervene to rectify the conditions, and prevent similar cases occurring in future. I heartily agree with the writing off. That is a step in the right direction. We feel that there are irrigators and irrigation areas which are taxed right up to the hilt. The Minister, as a practical farmer, ought to take steps, and I trust that he will not only confine himself to this one settlement, but that he will become acquainted with things in other parts of the country, and that he will in future take steps to give relief to all settlements which are being oppressed in a similar way, and who are suffering just as badly. Assistance will be welcome in the case of some settlements and irrigation areas. I would not like to see him writing off this little amount and then for it to be used in the future as a bait to tell the world how kind the United Party is. I fear if he does that and merely restricts himself to that small writing off, it will not create a favourable impression.

It is ₤30,000.

Nevertheless….

It is nevertheless a good start.

If I can assume that it is a good start, then I am quite satisfied that the Minister will go further, and that he will extend this good beginning in order to assist other similar schemes. If that is so, then I am quite satisfied, and then I agree with it, and submit.

I am sorry that when I moved this Bill yesterday, I did not tell the House that it is the intention to refer it to a select committee as soon as the second reading has passed. I think that, when I have said that, we might possibly have a little less debate about it. Let me say at once that I appreciate the legal knowledge of my hon. friend, the member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren), which he has exhibited in connection with the water rights. But I want to tell him this, that in the case of every irrigation scheme in the country, legislation is introduced to make the irrigation rights dovetail with the special circumstances of those schemes. The heart of his objection in connection with this Bill is that we are taking their vested rights away from the riparian owners. He said that that was a violation of their rights, and he describes it as a reckless breach of public and private rights. I am afraid that my hon. friend is not acquainted with the circumstances as they have developed since that scheme was started years ago. It is not a scheme which was started by the Irrigation Department or the Government, but 40 years ago the people commenced to make canals along those rivers, and made use of the normal flow for irrigating the riparian land. In course of time more and more people went there, and the canals became longer, until the whole normal flow was subsequently taken away, and there was even a shortage of water. When that shortage came about, the position was that there was no control or supervision in connection with that settlement, and several of the upper riparian owners simply made use of all the water of the normal flow, and the lower riparian owners were full of distress, with the result that they got into the greatest poverty for a long series of years. When there were good rains, then there was enough water, and then they received enough. But when the water was scarce, and that was mostly the case, then several of the upper riparian owners took all the water. In 1908 a dam was built about 25 miles along the river on the upper side of the present dam at Bospoort, namely, at Kommissiedrift. When that dam was built the water decreased still more, so far as the lower riparian owners were concerned, so that there was hardly any left for them. Then Kamfer got an order of court that he could remove a certain quantity of water. The order of court was in relation to three farms in that irrigation area, namely Bospoort. Kaffirkraal and Rooiwal, and the distribution was on a percentage basis, namely, they could respectively take 8 per cent., 9 per cent. and 4 per cent. of the normal flow. The division was therefore on a percentage basis of the normal flow in the river. But there was no means of finding out how much it was, with the result that the order of court became entirely valueless. There was a state of chaos, and the upper riparian owners just continued taking all the water to the detriment of all the lower riparian owners. I say that that order of court and those vested rights which my hon. friend has stressed so much, mean absolutely nothing if there is no water, and there is hardly any water in the river. Conditions have become intolerable, and the people for whom my hon. friend is now pleading that their vested rights should not be taken away from them, came to the Government and told us that they were in great distress: that their land had not been surveyed, and according to the order of court, they were entitled to a certain percentage of the water, but because it could not be measured various upper riparian owners took all the water. The Government intervened, and because the need was very great the Government, on the recommendation of the Irrigation Commission, built the dam at Bospoort. That dam was completed in 1933. The land, however, was not properly surveyed, and it was difficult to divide the water. The department then said that it would have the land properly surveyed. Formerly this used to be done by estimation, because the people did not know how large the holdings were. The Government had a proper survey made, as indicated by the schedule to this Bill, and at the request of the people, in connection with whom my hon. friend now says that their rights are being taken away, an Irrigation Board was established there, as indicated in this Bill. There is only one exception, only one person who did not request that this Bill should be brought before Parliament. As I have said, there has been an Irrigation Board established, so that we can make proper arrangements in connection with the use of the water. The normal flow has practically stopped, and to-day all the vested rights about which my hon. friend has spoken, have been pooled at the request of the owners, and all we are doing here now is to make provision for the proper distribution and administration. With regard to the administration of it, provision is being made for a board which consists of the irrigators themselves. The settlers elect that Irrigation Board, and they therefore themselves provide for the control of the irrigation district. I only want to say to my hon. friend from Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen), who spoke about small holdings of half a morgen on this settlement, that I have already explained that that settlement started about forty years ago; people went to live there, and they made the holdings so small. The Government did not lay out the settlement. Those people made the holdings that size, and to say now that they must leave there, will mean that those people, who have been there for generations, will be uprooted. Now that our arrangements have been made to provide for a proper water supply, they will not suffer so, much from the drought, and they will be able to make a better living in the future than when there was no arrangement at all. I am convinced of the fact that if we were to accent the advice of the hon. member for Swellendam those people would certainly not thank us for doing so, because then we should be forcing them back into the position that they have been in for the past forty years, a state of chaos which they have been suffering from for more than thirty years.

Do the owners approve of this Bill?

I have already explained to the House that they have asked for this arrangement, that they have requested us to deal with their rights under this Bill, that they elect their Irrigation Board themselves, and in the circumstances the owners of Bospoort will not be grateful to the hon. member for Swellendam if we were to accept his advice and we were to put them back into the position they were in during the last thirty or forty years. I think that I have now covered everything in connection with thus matter.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

I just want to ask the Minister why he makes the time so short, to wit, five days. That surely will hardly give the people time to prepare petitions to submit to the select committee. I think that at least ten days should be given.

The persons who are interested have for the last six months been aware of the proposed introduction of this Bill, or rather they knew that it was to be introduced, and I believe that they were all satisfied, possibly with one exception.

Did they see the Bill, or did they merely ask that a Bill should be introduced?

I have already said in my speech that all the people in my district had notice for two months before the opening of Parliament. The Bill was read out to them and discussed with the magistrate and the attorney, and all were in favour of it.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

This Bill is an attempt which we are making in order to put this crawfish export industry on a sound footing. It is a very important industry as far as this part of the country is concerned. In 1936 the exports were £281,000, in 1937 £287,000, in 1938 £208,000 and in the first eleven months of 1939 £204,000. It will be noticed that in the last two years there has been a slight falling off in the value of the exports, and I think one can attribute that to the fact that conditions in Europe were very unsettled. It is to a certain extent a luxury trade, and it is dependent on several factors which apply to all forms of luxury. It is dependent on keeping the market supplied with the quantities the market can consume, and not overloading the market. It is dependent on wise advertising, and all the other methods by which one increases a trade of this kind, and there is very little doubt that the crawfish industry of this country might be increased fifty per cent., might be made fifty per cent. larger than it is, in fact it might be 100 per cent. larger than it is. Now our principal exports are to France, there are considerable exports to Great Britain, but much of the export to Great Britain eventually finds its way to France. One may say that France is by far the largest consumer and Germany also used to import certain quantities. There are probably 8,000 or 10,000 persons in this part of the country dependent on this industry. I am talking of the persons engaged in the industry, and their dependents. France in the last year or two has imposed a quantitive restriction on the bulk that she will receive, and that to a certain extent has curtailed our exports. In addition to that the export has been, rather the quantitive exports have been rather in excess of what the market can consume, with the result that the market has been swamped and the prices have gone down to a point at which it does not pay our canners to ship. In this Bill we take power to control quantities. In addition to the tinned crawfish there is a growing and a large trade in frozen tails. Largely that goes to America, and one difficulty we have had there is that some shipments have been destroyed by the authorities as not being fit for consumption, and we take power also in this Bill to inspect all exports, so that the receivers of this product can be assured that they will get stuff that is in good condition and sound and, of good quality. As I say, the market in America about a year ago was very much endangered by the fact that in one shipment alone 7,000 cases of our frozen tails were rejected. Hon. members will note that the Bill provides for the inspection of all crawfish before export. We shall appoint our own inspectors and all crawfish that is exported will be properly examined. And under clause 4, if 75 per cent. of the exporters in number and value agree to a restriction as to price or to quantity and the Minister thinks that such a price and quantity is reasonable, he can establish that no one can export crawfish except under those conditions. Members will see from that that we propose rationing crawfish and developing the market as and when we can, but not overfeed the market to such an extent that the prices fall away, because it is absolutely useless to us as an industry if we cannot get a reasonable price on the other side. Now, this Bill is welcomed I think I can say by everyone. The exporters welcome it, my department and the director of fisheries think it is most important that we should legislate in this direction, and the Select Committee which sat on it last year were strongly in favour of it, and urged its early adoption, and I myself commend it to the House, and I hope it will receive the favourable approval of members.

I want to g ive a hearty welcome to this Bill in connection with the control of the export of crawfish. It is a sound and practical measure. I want heartily to congratulate the Minister for having provided for this long-felt need. Our crawfish industry is still only in the initial stages, and it still needs a lot of rounding off. This Bill gives the industry a basis for the future. Our crawfish industry is not yet established, and a great deal has still to be done in connection with it. The industry is a great asset to this country, and it has good prospects. We have big crawfish areas, especially along the cold west coast. You can definitely say that it is just as full of crawfish as it is of diamonds. Along the coast there is a great deal of crawfish, and it is in the true sense of the word, a gold mine to South Africa. It offers great possibilities, and we must put its development on a sound basis, and make use of the opportunities which it offers. It provides work, and as the Minister has said, 8,000 to 10,000 souls are dependent on that industry. To a very great extent it is a solution of unemployment, and therefore we cannot be indifferent towards this industry. Every industry which provides a solution of unemployment should be controlled, perfected and guided by us. It is a product which is exported overseas, and that means that we send the product out, and the money comes back. It makes a tremendous difference, whether an undertaking brings money into the country, or whether an undertaking sends money out of it. It is therefore not only of importance in connection with unemployment, but it also provides the country with money. I think that we in South Africa should more particularly apply ourselves to developing on these lines, in order to solve unemployment and to introduce capital into the country. With a view to the exports abroad, there have been some disappointments and mishaps in connection with the export of crawfish. Some shiploads have been disqualified in America. The crawfish had gone bad, and it was injurious and poisonous for use.

I think, therefore, that we should in future take all possible steps to prevent the crawfish going bad, because that, of course, means a tremendous loss. It is a loss of shipping freight, damage and a setback to the company, and it is discouraging to the industry. We only have a market overseas, there is no market in this country. I therefore think that a proper supervision should be kept over it; it is absolutely necessary to control and to protect this valuable industry. I want to welcome the appointment of inspectors and the permit system. That is the only way to control and protect this industry, and to control it and see that it is kept on a sound basis, and that the industry suffers no loss. This Bill only aims at obtaining the best for our community in connection with the export of crawfish, and I am glad to be able to assure the House that the companies also welcome it, and that they are not opposed to this Bill. They realise that this industry must be protected, but that at the same time the Government is also engaged in protecting the companies. I feel that if such an invaluable industry is treated carelessly, that it may then get into discredit overseas. We must save our own honour and prestige, because it affects us as a country and a people, and anything which threatens that, abroad, we must fight. When such facts such as those I have mentioned come to light, it is our duty to improve things and to remedy them. It is absolutely impossible for us to find overseas markets if there is any possibility of our crawfish being found unfit. Who will venture to buy anything from a farmer that is not in good condition? Therefore it is necessary for us to co-operate in this direction, and to put this Bill through. There are tremendous possibilities for developing this crawfish industry and finding bigger markets, and in proportion to our sending a good article, we shall get markets and get a privilege abroad. Then we shall not only keep 10,000 souls alive by this industry, but it is possible that later on we shall be able to maintain 40,000 or 50,000 people. Therefore I want to give this Bill my strongest support.

I understand from the Minister that this is an agreed measure and that the trade and the producers have all been consulted. I think it is absolutely essential to the welfare of our industry that the grading of our exported products should be properly attended to, but there is one thing that rather worries me in the Bill It is this. Whilst we control the export, whilst we do everything to export an article which commends itself and establishes itself in the overseas market, we are faced with competition in the very same article from South-West Africa. Most of these companies which operate in these waters here have branches in South-West Africa. At Luderitzbucht there is a big industry and we have no control over it whatsoever. Whilst you undertake to control the industry from this end, I very much fear that you will not get that co-operation from the packers in South-West Africa, and that might lead to a position which will injure the name of the Union. I would appeal to the Minister before this Bill becomes operative that some arrangement should be made with the Administration in South-West Africa whereby similar legislation is introduced there so that we at least have the control of this industry in South Africa as a whole. I do know that a very large amount of this condemned crawfish overseas originally came from Walvis Bay. I very much fear, unless that co-operation and co-ordination are established with the Administration in South-West Africa, this Bill will not be the success we all desire.

I merely wanted to bring the point forward which the hon. member has raised, but I listened attentively to the speech of the Minister in which he explained the Bill to the House. Although I welcome the Bill very much and I think it is a good thing, I have also personally found out, as the Minister suggested, that while France is our biggest purchaser, there is also a big demand in Great Britain for our crawfish. But you cannot buy it in Great Britain, except at the most expensive places. There it is a luxury. But I want to point out to the Minister that we also have great opportunities for extending the trade in South Africa. When you buy crawfish here it is crawfish which you practically cannot eat. I remember that in former days a section of the population regarded crawfish as their principal food for part of the year. But to-day no one can get hold of good crawfish. I want to ask the Minister also to promote the trade in crawfish in South Africa, because here crawfish has never been a luxury, but it is regarded as a poor man’s food. I understand from the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) that in his constituency people can go down to the sea and take as much crawfish as they want to. I ask you how many of us who are sitting here can obtain crawfish when we want to buy it? I want to go further and say that the Minister should make enquiries as to whether we cannot increase our crawfish trade with England.

I am not going to speak at great length on this Bill as I intend to speak at greater length on the Sea Fisheries Bill when it comes before the House. I take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister in presenting this Bill before the House. It is a Bill which deals with a long-felt need in the industry, and I do hone that whatever has been said in the House will fall upon the sympathetic ears of the Minister. The crawfishing industry to-day has enormous potentialities. Before I go any further, I might say that it seems curious that an up-country member should interest himself in the fishing industry. However, I shall not take up the time of the House in explaining the reason for that. I shall deal with it at greater length when the second Bill is introduced. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the industry to-day is suffering from a certain amount of competition. I admit that it is not great, but this competition may yet assume enormous proportions. It may yet assume proportions which are dangerous to the welfare of the crawfishing industry in South Africa. Here I have a tin which is called “Spring Lobster”, which is prepared in Japan, and is placed on the South African market. This is not lobster at all. It is ordinary crawfish, and there is no reason why South Africans should not buy our own tinned crawfish. I would ask the Minister to see to it that provision is made to have some protective tariff placed upon the imports of this fish and so protect our local crawfishing industries. I do not say that this competition at the moment is very serious, but it might yet assume serious proportions. Now, sir, the Crawfishing Bill before the House is a right start. As a start it will be welcomed by this House, but, of course, it does not go far enough. The crawfishing industry in South Africa to-day requires financial assistance from the Government. That is an aspect, too, which I shall deal with when I am speaking on the Sea Fisheries Bill. However, it may be sufficient if I say that the Minister will not go far wrong if he consults the interests of the various crawfishing industries and treats their representations svmpathetically. If he does that, I am certain that within the next couple of years, taking advantage of the war conditions overseas, the crawfishing industry will be in a healthy financial condition.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this Bill is a step in the right direction, and I wish to give my heartiest support to the Minister. I agree with the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) that our canning factories exporting from the Cape Province need some protection against the exports of South-West Africa. Perhans some sort of quota could be fixed by the Government to prevent any extension of the exports from the South-West. Another point is that mentioned by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), who drew attention to the fact that crawfish can hardly be had on the Cape Town market these days. That is quite true, and my personal opinion is that the crawfish industry in the Cape Peninsula has gradually faded away. The reports are that the boats have to go further and further away to get crawfish. I know that in the Peninsula the Government has proclaimed certain sanctuaries, and I hope the Minister will take certain steps to see that those sanctuaries are extended up the coast to Namaqualand and South-West Africa. To-day there is a fairly large amount of capital invested in this industry, and it is an industry which should be growing and could be kept up for a very long time if the indiscriminate catching of crawfish is controlled. Unless that control is exercised, the industry will suffer harm. I should be glad if the Minister can assure the House that steps will be taken to provide sanctuaries further up the coast, and the West Coast especially.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that this Bill has been received with such satisfaction on practically all sides of the House. There are one or two points that have been raised that I would like to answer, and one was the question of the control of South-West Africa. Well, as to that, the South-West African Government has agreed to apply the whole of this Act to the industry in that territory, and as regards the French exports the quota which is allowed to South-West Africa also controls the export of crawfish to France, which is by far the biggest importer, as various members have pointed out. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) has remarked that it should be very easy to increase the trade in the United Kingdom. I quite agree with him. If the people who deal with this industry were to advertise the commodity in England, I think that trade would be increased very rapidly. The next point is the development of sales of crawfish in South Africa, in our own country. Well, this Bill, of course, does not deal with that, but the Sea Fisheries Bill may indirectly have some effect on it. It is a very curious thing that the people up-country don’t seem to like our crawfish. I was very much perturbed last September when the French Government said they could not take any more of our crawfish, and the factories down here came to me and told me they would have to close down. I tried all kinds of methods of selling crawfish up-country, with very little success; in fact, I went so far as to go to the military and ask them to put crawfish on the list of rations. I also went to the Minister of Railways and said to him: “For goodness’ sake, give them crawfish on the train.” Well, Mr. Speaker, I got into such a position that when any other Minister saw me coming, he went down another passage for fear I was going to talk about crawfish. It is a difficult thing to get crawfish up-country, and I doubt whether you will get tinned crawfish accepted in South Africa.

Oh yes.

You think it would. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear it, because it is a trade that I think could be three or four times the volume it is to-day if we only got some people who will push the commodity both overseas and in South Africa. I note what the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) said with regard to this Japanese stuff. Well, about that we will have to see my hon. friend the Minister of Finance if it affects the sale of our local commodity, but it will first be a question of investigation by the Board of Trade to really get the facts. I think I have now dealt with all the points raised, and I move.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

Clauses and title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Third reading on 20th March.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill does not deal with any question of policy, but is simply a Bill clarifying and facilitating the administration of the Act and stopping certain possibilities of malpractice. I think hon. members will best be able to deal with this Bill in Committee, where they can deal with each section separately. For instance, clause 4 simply makes the Act coincide with actual practice. In clause 7 we have added the word “volume.” That is because we now have instruments, like petrol meters, which we did not have in days gone by; therefore we had to add the word “volume” to the text. In clause 8 we are dealing with reassizing. Now, when certain instruments are altered in any way they have to be reassized. We have had a case where a man has been sued for having an incorrect instrument, and he has put up the defence that he had it assized. As a matter of fact, he had it assized originally, but after he had had the instrument altered it was not reassized, and the result was that he got away without being penalised. Then you will notice in clause 10 there is the question of the capacity of certain instruments; for instance, we shall not allow a man to weigh a 2-oz, packet of tea on an instrument made to weigh 1,000 lbs. It is matters of that kind that we are dealing with. Take, for instance, the question of the district assizer attending meetings. Well, we don’t want a man in that position to attend small meetings, but to send his assistant. We don’t wish to be ruled out because of technicalities such as that. I have given certain examples of what I mean, and I think, as I say, for the convenience of the House it would be very much better to take these matters in Committee, when I can give any member information as to why we have dealt with these questions in the way we have. I move the second reading, sir.

The Minister in introducing this Bill says that this coincides with local practice. In the territories the custom is for assizes to come round every two years. No test is ever made; no, policeman ever goes round to examine the scales and to see that the Act is carried out. If a scale has to be taken to the nearest convenient place it has to be loaded on a cart and taken a few hundred miles, and by the time it gets back it is in a worse condition than when it went. The articles sold are not sold by weight as a rule, so this sort of legislation is simply putting these people to unnecessary expense. The whole of this Act, as far as the native areas are concerned, is an absolute farce, and that is the general experience of everyone in that country. I have had instances of traders whose scales have been condemned. The Minister said one should not weigh two ounces of tea on scales which are supposed to weigh articles of 1,000 1bs. A trader has a scale on which he weighs hides and articles of that nature, articles weighing a couple of hundred pounds, and because there is a slight defect that scale is condemned and he is told to get rid of it, and he is put to great expense. I have been closely associated with this particular measure for years, and I have tried to obtain help for these unfortunate people. They take a scale over a few hundred miles to get it assized, and it is taken back; by the time it gets back it is in a worse condition than it was before it was assized. I had an instance the other day where a trader used to sell bread to natives. Under the law he had to, sell a loaf of bread for 7d. and a half a loaf for 3½d. He had been selling half a loaf for 3d. for years, and he was quite satisfied. Now he is told he has to sell for 3½d., and as halfpennies are not used in the native territories he has to cut out the sale of bread. I hope that the Minister in bringing in bills of this nature, will realise the position in towns where it is possible to exercise supervison, and where it is necessary to have measures of this kind, but I hope he will realise that when you come to the far-distant parts, to stations far away from centres, strict measures of this kind are quite unnecessary. In the native territories, among natives specially, articles are not sold by weight. A native comes and asks for 3d. worth of sugar. Sugar may be sold under the law at 3½d. A native does not know anything about half a pound or a pound. What he wants is 3d. worth of sugar. And that applies to everything, and I think the authorities should realise conditions existing in the different parts of the country, and that laws should be made to meet the conditions that exist in those particular areas. I have made my protest about this measure which puts our traders in the far-distant parts to tremendous expense without benefit to the Government, to the consumers or to the traders. This sort of measure only benefits certain scale companies which go round with assizes, and they make tremendous profits out of the rectification of scales. I hope the Minister will realise that conditions prevail in the country which cannot be dealt with and need not be dealt with in the same way as conditions in the town.

Just a few words in support of what the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has said. The position as detailed by the hon. member for Tembuland as obtaining in the Transkei obtains with equal force, possibly even more so in the Ciskeian areas. These traders are as a rule established in remote parts of mountainous districts. They are called upon to load up their scales on scotch carts and travel over indifferent roads to King-williamstown or the nearest centre which it is convenient for the assize officer to visit. The result is as described by the hon. member for Tembuland—by the time they get back they are worse than when they left, and I hope the Minister will realise that.

I shall look into this question. This is the first I have heard of these difficulties and I shall look into it to see if we cannot in some way or another make it more convenient and reasonable to test these scales. But the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) rather suggested that in the native territories people did not want to buy by weight —they preferred to buy by the shillingworth. Well, that is lust what we do not want. We cannot protect those natives until we teach them that 3d. worth of sugar or 3½d. worth is a lb. weight.

What are you doing to teach them?

We have inspectors—not in the native territories I agree, but perhaps my colleague, the Minister of Native Affairs, can help there. But we must teach these people that they are entitled to a certain quantity for a certain price. Otherwise you will get them swindled and that is what is constantly happening. The hon. member mentioned the case of a trader who was accustomed to sell bread at 3d. a loaf. And he said that he was not allowed to sell it at 3d. I take it that it was a first quality loaf. Well, he was allowed to sell for 3d. if he wanted to do so.

No.

Yes, he can. The information takes so long to get through to these territories that I quite agree that the native gets a raw deal, and I shall do everything I can to try and help to put the thing right, but do not let us get to the position that we are going to eliminate all weighing instruments from the territories, because a native likes to have some other method of buying his produce.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported the Bill without amendment.

Third reading on 20th March.

I move—

I do not think it is necessary for me to emphasise the importance of this industry to the country, and also the possibilities of expansion. Our coasts as one hon. member said this afternoon, are simply full of assets, which we do not properly exploit, and this fishing industry is particularly one which so far has not been dealt with satisfactorily. In the Cane alone this industry is worth something like £400,000 per year, In Natal it is not worth so much seemingly, whether they have not developed it so much, or because of climatic conditions—that is a question which I am not prepared to decide. Of course, in addition to the value of the industry as a food for the people we have to remember that there is an enormous number of amateur anglers, and it is a sport which brings a lot of happiness and health to thousands of our population.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, at six o’clock, when we adjourned, I was just going to explain the objects of the Bill. The objects can be summarised, I think, roughly as follows. The first object is to place the control of sea fisheries in the hands of the central government. The next object is to provide for the protection and development of our fisheries. The next object is to improve the marketing arrangements for the catches and further to ensure improved remuneration tor the fisher-folk, and improve the price also for the fishermen. And lastly, the object is to enable us to adhere to the international arrangement on whale fishing. Now to take these various points. The provinces under whom the fisheries come at present are not able to provide fishing harbours and are not able really to provide properly for fishery research, or rather, to put it this way, there would be a great deal of duplication if they did devote any serious expenditure to fishery research. In 1928 the Government appointed a fisheries division, and under that enactment we appointed a Director of Fisheries who has been dealing with sea fisheries ever since. It is very much more sensible to put the whole question of the development of fisheries and the protection of fishing grounds under that director. However, Mr. Speaker, every year hon. members will notice very considerable sums are spent on the development of small fishing harbours. We are developing the harbours all along the coast and they have been of enormous value to the fishing community. I mention that one very important object of this Bill is to enable us to adhere to the International Agreement regarding the protection of whales. I have only just, in the last few days, received a further message from our people in London asking us what progress this Bill is making, because the whaling people both in the United Kingdom and in Scandinavia are very much interested in getting us to join in the International Agreement, more particularly, if we join, they think without any doubt they will get Japan to join. Japan has taken up this position at the moment, that they will not join while the war is on because they would like to see what the results are. In the meantime, however, they will give instructions to all their people in the whaling industry to the effect that they are to carry out the terms of the Convention. Of course, Mr. Speaker, if we pass this Bill our Government will also follow what the other countries are doing regarding the carrying out of this Convention during the period of the war. At the present time, our whaling industry is rather handicapped because we have taken a certain number of their catchers. We have had to take their catchers for mine sweeping. I regret it, but it is one of the necessities of there being a world war on.

Where are you looking for these mines? At the South Pole?

It would be a very serious thing if we did not look for the mines and one happened to be outside our harbour and sank a mailship. I rather fancy that the hon. member would be one of the first to harangue the House on the slackness of the Government. To continue. The price of whale oil has gone up very rapidly. Enormous quantities of whale oil are being consumed and one can only hope for our people that though their catches will be smaller owing to our having commandeered their ships, they will reap the benefit by getting better prices. Now as regards the other points. Regarding the protection of sea fisheries, you will see that we take power to stop the dumping of fish into the sea by people who want, artificially, to raise the price. We have considerable powers in that regard. We also have power to institute closed seasons both for certain varieties of fish and also in certain areas. In addition to that there is an enormous wastage of fish which are thrown back into the sea, and which never recover and die. We have never yet succeeded in getting our farming community to use fishmeal to anything like the extent they use it, more particularly in Germany. In Germany, I believe, under their law, their fishing trawlers are bound to bring back all their catches whether they are edible or not. There are unedible varieties, and they get large quantities of fishmeal which is used not only for feeding animals, but also for fertilisation. It would be a very fine thing for this country if, with our enormous fish supplies, we could induce these trawlers to bring back a great deal larger proportion of their catches.

It is too expensive.

Of course, if we could manufacture this fish fertiliser it would also help our fertiliser position, which at present as mentioned in the House the other day, is a matter of serious concern to those of us who have to control the price to-day. Then we want to improve the marketing arrangements of fish. At the present time the fishing industry is controlled by one or two very large concerns. It is not a healthy position. The companies have to take steps to get remuneratiive prices, but, on the other hand, the fishermen who do the fishing have a very poor living. Those hon. members who know anything about the coast line here, I think will recognise that probably the most miserable living of any part of our community is the living of the ordinary fisherman. The condition of our fishermen is appalling, and we believe that we can improve it very much by enabling them to demand their price for their catches. The suggestion is that we should train these men in methods of co-operation, and eventually if necessary, in the establishment of small refrigerating works, so that when they have a large catch they shall not be in the position of having to sell immediately from the boat, but can hold their fish and feed it to the market as the market can take it. And Mr. Speaker, if we can get fish easily obtainable at a very reasonable price in this country, it will not only help the fishermen, but the consumption of fish will gradually increase, and the price will be a great deal lower. I remember that in my young days you could get a snoek for 6d. Well, that was a fairly good meal for a family, but the prices have gone up, and we must try and get back to the position when fish is an easily obtainable commodity at a very low price. The intention is to charge every fisherman — I am not talking of the amateur angler — but any fisherman who comes in with a boat-load of fish, to charge him 6d., that is to say, he will have to subscribe 6d., but if he joins a co-operative society that 6d. will be waived, and that will be an inducement for the fishermen to co-operate. The difficulties these men are up against are these, that when half-a-dozen men come in and four of them are prepared to demand a fair price for the fish, the buyers who come round are nearly always able to break the ring by buying cheaply from one or other of the two remaining boats. We want to solidify these fishermen as a body, and show them that if they hold out for a fair price, they can get it, and it will make an enormous difference in the living possibilities of these people. Of course, this method may develop until we have a central co-operative society which will consolidate the whole fishing industry. It should be quite possible and easy to arrange for an equitable division of the markets of South Africa, and I hope that this Bill will have that effect. This co-operative society could also go in for drying and salting and curing fish, and thereby become a really large and valuable institution. Now I think I have given the House all the information regarding the purposes of this Bill, and I now move.

Mr. Speaker, before I start to criticise the provisions of this Bill I think it is just as well that I should satisfy the curiosity of the House why I, an up-country member, am interested in the fishing industry. In the first place I am a business man, and I am therefore naturally interested in matters industrial. Secondly, this industry has vast potentialities and urgently requires greater Government assistance. And though some members accuse me of ulterior motives, my interest in the industry is entirely altruistic. Thirdly, any industry which affects the foodstuffs of the masses on the Witwatersrand must naturally interest me. Before I proceed to criticise the general provisions of this Bill I should like to outline the conditions of the fishing industry as they exist to-day. There are members in the House who are not conversant with the conditions in the fishing industry, and a few words in that connection will, I think, be welcome. First, the fishing grounds of the Union comprise an area of 100,000 square miles. Of this vast area only one-quarter has been scientifically surveyed since 1895. Of the 25,000 square miles surveyed only about a third is exploited by the commercial industries of to-day. We, in South Africa, are in the fortunate position of having vast reserves of fishing grounds, so that we can exploit those when our present areas begin to show signs of depletion. There are approximately 1,800 craft in the industry, and they are made up as follows: steam trawlers, 23; motor boats, 600; sail and row boats, 1,200. Now, sir, these craft vary in size from the little dinghy right up to the modern steam trawler of up to 300 tons. The amount of capital invested in the Union’s fishing fleet is in the neighbourhood of £750,000, while the total capital invested in the entire industry is not far short of £3,000,000. I have tried to arrive at a fair estimate of the total number of people engaged in the fishing industry. There are about 8,000 fishermen engaged directly in fishing, and allowing them three to four dependents each, and taking into consideration the number of people who are employed in the by-products of the fish industry, such as curing, canning, smoking, freezing and salting, I think I am not far wrong in saying that the total number of souls employed in the industry is not far short of 50,000, by no means a small proportion of our total population. Cape Town is by far the most important fishing centre and represents about 40 per cent. of the quantity of fish landed, and 20 per cent. of the boats registered in the Union. While the smaller stations along the coast line furnish only between 36 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the total fish landings, they are nevertheless of national importance, because they actually employ more people than are engaged in the deep-sea fishing industry itself. In other words, there are more people engaged in the fishing industry at the smaller stations than at the ports of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, Durban and Mossel Bay put together. That is a very important fact which I wish the House to remember. Keep the fact before you, that the great majority of people employed in the fishing industry are not at your main centres, but scattered along the coast line. These are the people I wish to refer to later on. The industry regarded as a whole may be divided into three groups, which roughly conform to the methods of fish capture. First there is the trawling group, then the line-fishing group, and thirdly the netting group. The trawling industry is the backbone of the Union’s regular fish supplies. Here is another very important fact, and one which I wish to emphasise: although the trawling industry is responsible for 50 per cent. of the total landings of fish it represent less than 10 per cent. of the total number of persons engaged in the fishing industry. This means that 90 per cent. of the fisher-folk make a living outside of the deep-trawling industry. It is obvious therefore that it is not so much the people engaged in the trawling industry who should be assisted by the Government, but the 90 per cent. of the fisher-folk outside of the trawling industry. This Bill in some measure does meet the demands of this section, but I shall have some constructive criticism to offer later on on this point. I do not think it can be doubted that the prosperity of any nation is judged by the number of poor, and if we judge South African prosperity by the conditions existing in the fishing industry, then it presents a sorry picture indeed. Many of these people’s earnings are between £2 and £3 a month, and I think it is the moral duty of members in this House to come to the rescue of these poor people. If we consider the hardships, the poverty and the daily grind of the people who go to the sea in boats, I think every member in this House will give the necessary sympathy to my presentation of the case of these poor fishermen. A Bill was passed this afternoon affecting the crawfishing industry, but the magnitude and importance of that industry was not stressed this afternoon. There are thirteen crawfish canning factories along the Cape coast, employing 1,400 factory hands and 1,200 fishermen. Our total fish production is 67,000,000 lbs., of which the crawfishing industry accounts for approximately one-third. The number of crawfish landed for canning and freezing is roughly not less than 20,000,000 lbs. per annum. It is to-day a well-established industry and, as a matter of general interest, I would like to mention that a little while ago one of our experimental survey boats just outside Durban, on the 200-fathom mark, trawled and netted 10,000 crawfish in one hour. The price of crawfish tails to-day in the United States is about 8 cents per tail, and from that information the value of the hour’s trawl can be worked out, and also the potentialities of our unsurveyed crawfish grounds from an export point of view. Some hon. member to-day mentioned the fact that there was great depletion in our crawfish grounds, but that is not so. We have very rich and potential fishing grounds in reserve, and, if anything, we lack the fleets to work them to full capacity. Now it will readily be seen that if one-third of the quarter of our known fishing grounds is being exploited by the industry to-day, and the total fish landed represents almost £1,000,000 in value, the fishing industry, if worked at full capacity, should show a gross turnover in the neighbourhood of £12,000,000 per annum. We are playing ducks and drakes with this industry. I do hope that members who represent coastal constituencies will do their bit towards convincing the Minister that a lot more must be done beyond the provisions of this Bill if we are going to assist the fishing industry.

You are quite right.

I have some interesting figures on the annual fish production. Although we produce 67,000,000 lbs. per annum, we export 5,000,000 lbs., but we import 16,000,000 lbs. Therefore, by the simple process of deducting the one from the other and adding the import figure we arrive at the home consumption figure of 78,000,000 lbs. of fish per annum. By dividing this by the South African population figure, excluding the natives, who do not eat fish, we arrive at a per capita consumption figure of 8 lbs. per annum. It is interesting to compare this figure with that of countries overseas. In Norway the per capita consumption is 72 lbs. per annum. In Holland it is 55 lbs. per annum, in Great Britain 41 lbs., and in Germany 40 lbs.

Terrible!

Taking these per capita consumption figures as an index, it is obvious, ignoring the export potentialities, that our fishing industry produces only one-sixth of its total potential commercial production. If one-sixth represents approximately £1,000,000 gross, surely it is up to the Government to encourage this industry to a greater gross turnover. I am sure the country must benefit in the long run. Central Revenue will benefit indirectly and directly. This industry should eventually shew a minimum gross turnover of £12,000,000 per annum. I am not exaggerating the figure. That figure I have arrived at after a fair amount of research work. I have spent months and months studying this question, and I am sure that if the Minister will only listen carefully to my remarks, as well as to the remarks of members who served on the Select Committee, and if he gives effect to our suggestions he will do a lot towards assisting the fishing industry. Now, the hon. minister mentioned the question of “dumping at sea.” I do not know whether hon. members know how precisely this practice is adopted by the trawling companies. This “dumping” occurs when boats are out at sea netting certain species of fish. For instance, sole is an expensive luxury, and is only found on certain grounds. A trawler can only bring up a certain amount of sole in its nets, but the other edible fish in their nets, however, is dumped overboard. When a boat trawls for sole only, it may destroy anything from 60 to 100 tons of other kinds of edible fish. This Bill aims at preventing the occurrence of that wastage, but I want to ask the Minister how he is going to prevent the wastage. It is all very well in this Bill to lay down that it shall be an offence to dump fish, but unless we can exercise control over the actual trawling at sea we cannot prevent the offence. If this Bill is to be of any use at all the Minister will have to devote monies for the purchase of a patrol fleet of at least six vessels to be stationed at convenient points along the coast line to supervise trawling at sea, so that the provisions of this Bill shall be carried into effect. Otherwise the Bill is an anomaly.

You mean an anachronism.

Now with regard to waste products. Farmers and business men in the House will appreciate the fact that an enormous amount of fish is wasted bysea birds, and this waste means money.

What sort of a bird is that?

We have the guano islands which are specially excluded from the provisions of this Bill. I maintain that the Guano Islands should come within the special province of the Fisheries Officer. If one considers that sea birds consume their own weight of fish per day, and the average Dyker weighs 4 lbs., and it is estimated that there are 25,000,000 of these birds on the East and West coast of Africa, the annual fish consumption of these birds amounts to 100,000,000 lbs. of fish per annum, and valuing this fish at a penny per lb., which, of course, is well below market value, we find that our 7,000 ton annual guano yield is indeed expensive—it works out at approximately £12,000 per ton. Surely seals and sea birds should come under the province of the Fisheries Officer if only for the reason that he is interested in the conservation of fish. Seals and sea-birds can effect the potential fish productivity of our waters. It is, I think, reasonable that the Guano Islands should come away from the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and come directly under the Fisheries Officer. What I cannot understand about the fishing industry is this, that we have a special Fisheries Officer in the Union, Dr. C. von Bonde, a man who is highly and properly Qualified, a man who has spent years in studying the fishing industry, and yet who is not directly responsible to the Minister. I wish to appeal to the Minister, that if the fishing industry is to make any progress at all these two departments of fisheries and commerce and industries, must be divorced. The Fisheries Officer of the Union should be directly responsible only to the Minister concerned. It is cumbersome negotiating through third parties. The Minister should deal directly with the officer concerned when any matter arises affecting the fishing industry. As a matter of fact I might even urge that the Fisheries Officer should be granted wider powers. I have already mentioned that the Bill ignores the method of putting the provisions of the Bill into effect. We want at least six fisheries patrol vessels. That would cost the Government approximately £12,000. The hon. minister knows that some time ago a Fisheries Commission sat and made certain recommendations to the House which were contained in report No. 180 of the Board of Trades, Commerce and Industries. The salient features of these recommendations were that monopolistic companies should be controlled to a certain extent and that direct assistance should be given to needy fishermen. I have no objection to Messrs. Irvin and Johnstone as a company, but I am against the principle of monopoly, but I am prepared at the same time to pay a tribute to Messrs. Irvin and Johnson and to say that if it were not for their excellent organisation along the Reef we would not have the excellent system of fish distribution we enjoy there. But the fact remains that they have a monopoly, and the only way to help the fishing industry is to combat the influence of the monopolistic concerns by encouraging the individual fishermen, by way of giving the individual, or groups of individual fishermen a direct subsidy. While on the subject of subsidies I want to mention that the Government favoured the farming community with some millions of pounds. I do not see why the fishing industry should play second fiddle to the farming industry, and I do not see why the Government should not encourage the fishing industry along the same lines as the farming industry. Under the Farming Act it is well known that an intending purchaser under the Act has only to put down one-tenth of the purchase price in order to get a farm. I ask that fisher-folk should be granted the same facilities—when buying a fishing boat they should also be able to put down one-tenth and the Government should put up the other nine-tenths, and if that is done the fishing people would be able to pay back the money far earlier than the farmers have done. The provisions of this Bill, as far as the individual fishermen are concerned, read to me like a Criminal Procedure Act. There is nothing to assist the individual fisherman as a fisherman. All that is being done is to place more restrictive legislation on the Statute Book of South Africa. I would very much like to see this Bill referred back to a Select Committee. However, at this late stage, I am not going to delay the Bill by moving that. I am in favour of this Bill as a gesture to the industry, but then a lot more must still be done to give real help to the industry. I hope, however, that the Minister will at some not too distant future date appoint a Select Committee to advise him as to the best ways and means of assisting the fishing industry. Now, sir, there are some conclusions I wish to come to which I wish to bring to the attention of the House. (a) The resources in our South African waters are virtually limitless. I make bold to say that if every fishing harbour in the world were to close down there would be sufficient fish in our South African waters to supply the world. If only our industry had been encouraged years ago we would have been reaping the benefit to-day. Holland, England, Japan, China and even the United States, have approached this country for fish products and fish supplies, and we have not been able to supply. Had the industry been encouraged by the Government in the past, the industry would have been in a fair position at this moment to make money hand over fist. It is not, however, too late to start now. Wars come and go and, I suppose, we shall have wars in the future, and wars automatically stimulate food industries. I suggest that it is not too late even at this period of the war. Let the Government grant financial aid now to the fishing industry, and very much good will very shortly accrue to the industry. (b) We must do all we can to utilise our endemic species of fish in our waters, for canning and drying and turning them into fishpastes and similar articles which at the present time are imported into this counry. The imported articles are not superior to our own articles. It is nonsense for people to say that the imported articles are superior to our own articles. Our fish oils, for instance, contain a higher vitamin content than the imported fish oils. That is a fact that is very little known in South Africa. I do hope that the Minister will do everything he can to encourage such by-products of the industry as fishmeal, gelatine, icing-glass and medicinal and other oils, which should be developed to their maximum capacity. (c) A careful analysis reveals that, so far as the production of fish and by-products are concerned, the Union can be made completely self-supporting, and the goal to be aimed at is to assist the industry so that it will not be necessary to import either fish or its by-products. (d) Lastly, I would impress on the Minister that we cannot expect progress in the fishing indusry unless direct assistance is given by the Government to the industry. By direct assistance I also mean a grant for research work. Without research work we cannot know anything of the fish in our waters. With proper research surveys the quantities of fish and everything that is to be known about fish production and conservation, can be obtained. Secondly, direct aid must be granted to fishermen to purchase their own boats. Thirdly, at some later stage, the Government must consider the installation of cold storage plants at certain points along the coast line. Fourthly, there is the question of statistics. Unless we get statistics of fish activities during the year the industry will never be of any value to the nation as a whole. I do not know why the Minister of Commerce and Industries in the past has not insisted on statistics being taken of the annual fish catches during the year by the various trawling companies. I cannot over-emphasise the point. Lastly the industry must get direct assistance, as is happening in other countries, for instance, Canada last year donated a direct grant of £100,000 to the fishing industry for the purpose of helping fishermen to buy their own gear and boats. The industry also received an amount of £30,000 as a direct grant towards advertising. In Canada, as in other countries, the Government advertises its fishing industry. Cookery demonstrators go out into the country to teach people how to prepare and market fish. They advertise the industry in national newspapers, and naturally this does not form a financial burden on the fishing industry itself. It is a direct grant for the encouragement of the indusry. There is no reason why South Africa should lag behind in this matter. We have here an industry which has vast potentialities, an industry which can open up countless avenues of employment for our South African youth. It is an industry with enormous potentialities. The industry could produce annually a gross turnover of £12,000,000. Surely, with an industry of that magnitude it must be obvious that it could be made into an industry of prime national importance. Might I suggest that the Cabinet might even consider creating an additional portfolio for a Minister of Fisheries. I have been accused of trying to feather my own nest. May I reply to those who criticise, that Pitt was Prime Minister of England at 21, and there is no reason why I should not be Prime Minister of South Africa at 91, let alone Minister of Fisheries at 40!

Representing as I do the greatest number of people employed in the fishing industry I welcome this Bill that we are discussing. I cannot agree with the previous speaker that this Bill does not benefit the inshore fishermen. This Bill is the framework round which that huge industry will develop. Then, knowing something about the industry, I cannot agree with the hon. member’s optimistic figures of the annual value of the industry.

You have not seen the Boksburg Lake.

I can only presume that with the Budget which has been placed before us to talk in millions is the fashion to-day. When the hon. member speaks of the industry producing £12.000,000 a year, it sounds to me somewhat fishy. The hon. member even goes so far as to suggest that we could supply from our shores the world’s demand for fish. However, this is a matter I believe to which the hon. member has given close study, but when he says there are no statistics available. I refer the hon. member to the Year Book of 1939, where the statistics of our fishing industry are given. Statistics are there as regards our production of fish and fish surveys, and in the last few years we have made wonderful progress.

They do not tell us how much they throw overboard.

Let me proceed with what I have to say. I do not wish to see the hon. member thrown overboard. I must say that this Bill is long overdue. It is not only overdue, but the industry has for a long period been neglected. It has been neglected in the past because it is only recently that this maritime industry has come under the jurisdiction of the central government. Up to a few years ago the industry was controlled by the two maritime provinces, Natal and the Cape, who had not the foresight, or the money, really to attend to this potential industry properly. When I tell hon. members that the whole amount during the year 1937-’38 that the two provinces spent was £7,000 a year on the development of this fishing industry, of which Natal spent £6,000 and the Cape, which are the biggest producers, only spent £1,000 a year on this vast industry, hon. members will appreciate that the industry has been neglected. When I say that it has been neglected I want to point this out, that we have been for years and years fostering secondary industries, trying to build up our secondary industries, while such a vast primary industry as the fishing industry has been totally neglected. That is why I am pleased that, at last, this industry is receiving some attention. It is a very important industry because, firstly, it employs a great number of people. According to statistics that I have before me 10,000 men are employed in the inshore fisheries. These men up to now have been earning a very poor livelihood. While the bulk of the industry has been in the hands of the trawling industry, as the hon. member for Boksburg pointed out, which grew rich and fat on the industry, these poor fishermen have been living in abject poverty. That is largely due to the bad marketing conditions that we have offered to these people. The Bill before us now is the outcome of a close study and a close examination by a select committee that sat during last session. The primary object of the Bill is to deal with better marketing. It would be possible under this Bill for all these fishermen to come under a co-operative basis and they would then come under the control of a central agency. That, I believe, is the scheme, that these co-operative fisheries will come under the control of a central agency which will look after them. While the Bill deals with better marketing it also deals with whaling. But the whole of this Bill excludes, as the hon. member mentioned, the control of seals and sea birds. That, I think, is a weakness in the Bill, because sea birds and seals now come under the control of the Agricultural Department, whereas all the rest of our maritime interests come under the control of the Minister of Commerce and Industries. I venture to suggest to the Minister that he should not have this dual administration, because there is no doubt that the sea birds play a great part in our maritime life, and they also play a considerable part in our agriculture, because the guano which is supplied to our farmers is a very valuable fertiliser. Fish to-day forms the staple food of the vast majority of our coloured people here, and if the Minister is sincere and will help— I do not doubt his sincerity in the least—if the Minister will carry this proposal of his through, and establish fertiliser works here in this country, we will be able to use up the enormous waste that is going on to-day. I refer to the dumping of fish that has been spoken of already to-day. There is no doubt an enormous amount of waste going on of fish material, which could be used up for fertiliser and in a variety of other ways. Today the country is short of fertiliser, and there is no better fertilising medium than fish. Then there is the possibility of the manufacture of fish meal, which is a very valuable adjunct to the food of cattle in this country. In fact, according to evidence that we had before the select committee, in Germany and other countries a fish ration is made compulsory. So apart from the marketing of fish, and apart from securing the better distribution of fish, we have here very valuable material which we can utilise. This waste that is undoubtedly going on is nothing new. I have before me a report of a commission which brought out a report in 1925. I don’t want to weary the House by reading their conclusions about the fishing industry, but generally they speak of a shortage in the supply of fish, bad distribution and waste. This was in 1925, and conditions were exactly the same then as they are to-day. If for that reason alone I say that this Bill which is before the House should receive the support of every member. I want to say that this country is very fortunate in having a world authority on maritime biology in Dr. Von Bonde, who has time after time written articles on the potentialities of our fishing ground, which reports have appeared in the Government Press. It is, no doubt, due largely to Dr. Von Bonde, who has called the attention of the Government to the possibilities of this industry, that this Bill is presented. I don’t want to weary the House, but I should like to give a few figures, showing what the actual output is of the fishing industry. According to the latest figures, we find that the fish landed in the Union is worth £750,000 per annum. The crawfish industry represents £250,000, and the value of the fishing industry generally is, therefore, £500,000, of which £300,000 is produced by the trawling company. And that £200,000 is distributed amongst 90 per cent. of the people who are engaged in the industry, whereas the £300,000 is the reward of the 10 per cent. which represents the trawling fleet. The so-called waste material from fish is of the greatest value. There is not only fertiliser, but fish oil which we import into this country very largely. We exported some two years ago a quantity of fish livers. The trawling companies bring in this material, and these fish livers were exported to America, the fish oil extracted, and no doubt a great deal of it was reexported to South Africa. Thus it will be seen that the by-products of this industry are of very great value to this country. In conclusion, I want to point out the value of the whaling industry in this country. The hon. minister has referred to the international whaling agreement, and it would be interesting to know whether it is really in our interests just now to enter into that whaling agreement. Since the agreement has been suggested, the whole of the main industry is on a different footing. Countries which competed formerly, like Germany, Denmark and Sweden, are not so well able to carry on the whaling industry during this war period, and I want to suggest that the whole position needs closer examination. We are in the fortunate position here that we have a whaling company and we have the whaling ships. They have not gone down to the Arctic for some time now, and I don’t know how their whaling operations would be affected under this agreement. I know it is affected as far as whaling in the Indian Ocean is concerned. I know it is of benefit to the Natal whaling industry, but the position wants close examination, because if we are debarred under this agreement, from carrying out our whaling operations in the Indian Ocean, this country may run short of the whale oil on which it largely depends. I mention this because since this international agreement has been drafted, conditions have changed so much that the whole question requires closer study. The whaling companies in Natal should be consulted in this matter in the light of present conditions. I could speak for many hours on all the pros and cons of this subject, but I only want to say that the industry is of the greatest importance, not alone to the fishermen, but to the consumers as well, because there is no doubt that the stranglehold that these trawling companies have on the market enables them to control the price of fish that the in-shore fishermen produce. I know that the in-shore fishermen made an attempt to capture the inland trade and send their fish direct to the Johannesburg market, but that only lasted for about a week, because the cold storage company stopped supplies of ice. That brings me to this point, that if this assistance is to be given to the fishermen, it is not sufficient to help them in the matter of tackle, but it is necessary at various points to erect cold storages where they can control their catches and from whence they can send their fish up-country. Once these facilities are provided for the in-shore fishermen, I am quite sure they will be able to get a better reward for their labours, and the consumers throughout the country will benefit as well.

I think the House is under a very definite debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) for his very interesting and illuminating address here this evening. He shewed such a grasp of his subject, slippery though it is, and he delved so deeply into matters, that it is very difficult for any ordinary member representing a coastal constituency to try and carry this matter any further. Even the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg), with his very vast knowledge of the fishing industry, was, if I may say so, somewhat overshadowed by what one learnt from the hon. member for Boksburg. I am sorry that this is not a subject of interest to members on the Opposition benches.

That is where you are wrong.

Apparently they are not interested in fish. They start so many red herrings of their own that they are not interested in fresh fish.

We have listened to so many fishy stories.

Gezina has been filleted.

Yes, there is no question about that. I welcome this Bill very much, because it has always been felt that as far as the Department of Commerce is concerned, the fishery side has always been regarded as the Cinderella. For years we have endeavoured to help the fishing industry, and we have endeavoured to get the Department of Commerce and Industries to agree to a whole-time fishing survey. As members know, our survey ship, the “Africana”, is for half of the year seconded for other duties, so that we have never had a proper running and continuous survey of our fishing industry. And notwithstanding the times of surpluses no effort has ever been made to get another craft which could be used for other purposes so that the “Africana”, which is particularly suited for the fishing survey, could be retained for a whole yearly survey of the fishing grounds. So our data upon which we work and our knowledge of the fishing industry of this country is still extremely incomplete. The hon. member for Boksburg has told us much and he has given us figures regarding the extent and the magnitude of our fishing grounds, but I think he will agree that our real knowledge of conditions of that sort are still very far from the stage they should be. Not long ago, for instance, when there was a definite shortage of certain classes of fish on the Cape Town market, the “Africana” was in Algoa Bay and discovered a completely new bank, so we had the extraordinary position of Port Elizabeth sending fish to the Cape Town market. That does not often happen, but it did happen on that occasion. That just shows how little our knowledge has been allowed to develop, and that is why I welcome this Bill because I regard it as a first stage towards putting our fishing industry on a properly organised basis, and on a permanently organised basis. I agree with the hon. member for Boksburg that this Bill should only be regarded as a first step towards the development of the fishing industry. There is still a great deal to be done. We have heard wonderful figures, spectacular figures, globular figures, almost in line with the usual fisherman’s stories, of the vast potentialities of this industry, and I think that even if we regard them from the ordinary fisherman’s aspect and reduce them a little they are still sufficiently important and potential to warrant very definitely all the support and all the help that this industry may be deserving from the Government, and I do hope that this Bill will be the first stage towards a great improvement in that direction. But why I intervened in this debate was in order to make quite certain that the position of Natal in this matter should not be lost sight of, and if any members from Natal wonder why I am taking up the cudgels on their behalf, I would explain that it is because it came to me in a rather circuitous way from the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland) via the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend). I do not think there is any need for me to remind the Minister of the position regarding the arrangement come to with the Natal Provincial Administration. The House will remember, at any rate, the Minister will, that when this whole question of fishing control came up and the question arose how this was to be undertaken, the Natal Provincial Administration struck out very strongly and definitely against any interference in their particular rights under their own provincial arrangements. And the then Minister of Commerce, I think at the time it was Senator Fourie, at any rate the hon. member for Gezina when he was Minister of Commerce, he definitely arranged and agreed that the position of Natal by which their rights were protected, should be maintained, and it was on that definite understanding that matters were allowed to advance to such a stage which made the bringing of this Bill before the House possible. In their wisdom the select committee removed the clause, clause 13, which had made the position of Natal in this matter quite clear. For some reason I suppose best known to themselves, they removed that clause, and the position as the Bill stands now is that the position of Natal is no longer as it was and no longer as it was under the agreement which was entered into with the hon. member for Gezina at the time when he was Minister of Commerce. And in the circumstances, as it was an understanding that Natal’s rights should be maintained, and as it was only on those conditions that this Bill was made possible at all, I trust the Minister will realise that in all fairness it is essential that Natal’s position should be safeguarded, and therefore in the committee stage either the hon. member for Zululand or the hon. member for Klip River or I will move an amendment to clause 13 making the position perfectly clear, and I trust that the Minister will agree to accept that amendment which I do suggest in all fairness he should do in order to restore the status quo which was the arrangement arrived at between the then Minister and the Natal authorities.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Hirsch) complains that the Opposition are not taking part in the debate in connection with our fishing industry. It is quite to be understood that he should complain, because as soon as the Opposition do not take part, the debates become very dead and cold in this House. It is really painful to listen to hon. members on the other side. But yet I must very heartily congratulate the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) on his intelligent statement on the fishing industry. I agree with a great deal of what he said. Unfortunately the hon. member betrayed his ignorance when he tried to compare farming and fishing with each other. The two things are so dissimilar that they cannot be brought into connection with each other at all. In one case the boats go out in the morning, and they come back at night laden with fish which they have caught. There is very little expense connected with the catching of fish. It is an industry which shows a profit every day. On the other hand, a farmer in his work has to deal with heavy losses in consequence of drought, locusts, hail and floods. The farmer hardly knows what it is to have a profit. That is why we have so many bankruptcies on the platteland, in the department of farming. The hon. member for Boksburg even asks for subsidies for the fishing industry. Is that not a ridiculous idea? Apart from that, however, I want to say a few words in connection with the destructive power of the seals. The little fish which are destroyed by the birds I do not worry myself about so much. The bird catches his little fish in innocence. I am the last person who would want to exterminate the sea birds. It is, however, quite a different matter when we come to the seal plague. Take, for instance, the Olifants River. There is an island at the mouth of that river which is called Seal Island, and there are no less than about 30,000 seals there. The sea teems with seals. The seals are big animals which consume large quantities of fish in a day. The seal, the jackal of the sea, goes as far as 100 miles out to sea.

They go in large shoals of thousands, and when they come upon a shoal of fish, in a twinkling the whole shoal of fish has been consumed. That is why there are no fish along our west coast. We have a great deal of crawfish there and thousands of seals, but no fish.

What about the snoek?

The snoek come once a year in a lost condition into our waters, and in a week they are gone again. The seals are protected. I am thinking of a report which the magistrate of Vanrhynsdorp, M.r. A. E. Bergh, made in 1925 in connection with the seal pest, and he wrote to me to use my influence in this House so that the tremendous plague of seals could be combatted. The seals have even gone so far as to go up the mouth of the Olifants River and to destroy the fish in the river. I think that it is really necessary to give attention to this destructive plague. We can exterminate these animals just like jackals, which are a pest on the countryside, by giving a reward for every seal that is destroyed. If we do so in places where there are many seals, we shall also know along the west coast what fish are, because the little quantity which is now caught is very small. I think that other parts of the country do not have many seals, I attribute this shortage of fish along the west coast to the seal plague. I want to ask hon. members opposite, who take an interest in fishing, and the Minister, to give their attention to this tremendous plague of seals, and to introduce the necessary legislation for their destruction.

We have heard quite a lot about fish so I think I will give a few chips in between. The fishing industry is undoubtedly in a parlous state and it should be put on a sound footing. There is, however, no organisation at all. If it is put on a proper footing it can be so assisted that the fishermen would get more for their fish and the consumers would buy it for less. Fish has always been the food of the poor folk, and to-day it is very difficult to get. The trawling industry is controlled today. There are only a few trawling companies and they are controlled, but the fishermen are not. As the fish are brought in they are bought up by agents and sold at a profit of anything up to 100 per cent., and the fishermen who have been out all night get practically nothing for their fish. The fishing industry in this country is in its infancy to-day, and 90 per cent. of our towns never see any fish. The big towns such as Johannesburg and others do get fish, but they do not get it in the small towns; all they get there are sardines and salmon. If the industry were organised, I think the fish would reach these towns. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) mentioned that we should organise six patrol boats. That is a moral impossibility.

Six additional boats for police patrol work.

The only way to do it, is to put an official in every trawler, then no irregularity can be done. Provision should also be made, so far as the trawlers are concerned, that everything caught should be brought to the shore. All waste and sharks should be brought in and should be turned into fertiliser. In evidence before the Select Committee we heard that people in Germany and in other places did not throw a single fish into the sea. Everything is brought to the shore and turned into fertiliser. That should be done here. The hon. member for Boksburg also said we should have more fishing boats in order to break the ring of the trawlers. You will never be able to do that. It will only be another trawling company that will be able to break the present trawling companies. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) advocated that we should destroy all the birds. There are only five hon. members sitting opposite and I do not see a single farmer there, so the farming members are not going to protest against this. But I should like to hear the farmers’ opinion if the birds are destroyed. We should have no guano at all. Our guano supply is getting less and less every year. If we destroy the birds then the farmers will have something to say about that. Regarding the seals I advocated very strongly in the Select Committee that seals should be destroyed. We have had technical evidence to show that only a very small quantity of fish is destroyed by the seals. The seals destroy very little fish. One good thing that the Bill is advocating is that all boats should be examined and made seaworthy. I do not know that anyone in this House has seen the fishermen going out in their boats. If they have, they would take their hats off to them. The boats are most unseaworthy, and if this Bill will enable them to go out in safety in their boats it will have a good effect on the industry.

The story is told of an Englishman who in conversation with a Scotch fishmonger enquired why it was that Scotchmen were so brainy. The fishmonger said in reply that it was because Scotchmen ate a lot of fish, so the Englishman decided to try, and arranged for some fish to be sent to him the following day. The fishmonger sent some beautiful fish and charged 7s. 6d. for it. Later in the day they met again and the Englishman said. “That was very fine fish you sent me. I enjoyed it very much, but don’t you think that 7s. 6d. is a bit too much for fish of that size?” The Scotchman replied, “You see it is working already.” It is because that story has a moral that I wish to add my word to that of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Hirsch) to the Minister in order to try and persuade him to stand by the agreement with the Natal Provincial Administration before this Bill saw the light of day, as it is now. We have found that, in many instances, Natal law and Natal Administration generally stand comparison with anything else in the Union of South Africa. As a matter of fact it comes to my mind that many Bills that have been introduced to this House contain special provisions to permit a long-standing Natal Statute still to remain law in Natal, because Natal many years ago had made provisions which were in advance of the time. I recall to mind that under the Slums Act we made a special provision to leave in a clause which Natal had made before the Boer War. So I feel perfectly satisfied, if the Minister implements the promises made by previous Ministers of Commerce and Industries, which promises I feel once made should be implemented, the Minister will find the Natal Provincial Administration is a competent body to administer the fishing industry in the Province of Natal. I do not know anything about this Bill and I am quite satisfied that none of the hon. members who have spoken in favour of the Bill, or even the Minister, know anything about the Bill either. It is my experience from the various control bills that have been introduced into the House since I am a member—and I have been seven years in this House—that we have had Mealie Control Boards, Milk Control Boards, and every industry in the country has been controlled, and when we discuss these Bills in this House they bear no relation whatever to the kind of control which is subsequently adopted by the various boards set up. So I say that neither the Minister nor hon. members, who have been so eloquent and humorous and fishy in their support of this Bill, know anything about the Bill. The Bill itself does not give us the slightest idea how the Minister and his department propose to develop and control the fishing industry.

Mr. SONNENBERG [inaudible],

My hon. friend has eaten a lot of fish in his time, but he will have to eat his words if he thinks that this Bill will help the poor fishermen. It is a Bill which will help Irvin and Johnson. I am amazed at the Opposition who only a week or so ago kept the House all night about the question of governing by regulations. Here we have another Bill which proposes to regulate the poor, innocent fishermen into the sea.

You have apparently taken your seat on the wrong side.

No, I think you are on the wrong side. I have heard no word from the Opposition against these regulations. Hon. members opposite are apparently not interested in the fishing industry. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) made the rather striking interjection: “Fishermen are only coloured men.”

I never said anything like that.

The hon. member made that interjection and he does not think coloured men are worth bothering about.

On a point of explanation, I never said anything like that in the House. The hon. member is dreaming.

The hon. member said definitely that these are only coloured men. That was his actual interjection, and I understood it more by his manner than the actual interjection itself. However, I accept the hon. member’s explanation and I shall hold him to it that he is interested in the future of the coloured men of this country.

I am interested in everyone in South Africa.

My main interest in the Bill is to add my weight as a Natal member, and as a member coming from a sea-coast town, to the Minister to ask him to reverse the decision of the Select Committee and to agree to allow Natal to retain these powers. As to the Bill itself I have very little hope that the Bill will be able to accomplish very much for the fishing industry. I listened to the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) and he seems to have the idea that once we can get fish to Johannesburg the problems of this industry will be solved. But our trouble in Durban is precisely that we send the fish to Johannesburg, and we, in Durban, cannot get any soles because they are sent to Johannesburg. I want to see something in the Bill to allow us to retain our own fish at the coast.

What are we going to do in Johannesburg?

You have enough brains in Johannesburg without fish. One sees a tremendous confusion of thought amongst hon. members. The hon. member for South Peninsula talking like a Socialist amuses me. The hon. member is railing against monopolies, and ice, and telling you stories about Irvin and Johnson as if he was a Socialist, instead of being one of the greatest capitalistic representatives in the House. It amuses me. I have very serious doubts as to whether this Bill will do any good whatever for the poor, unfortunate inshore fishermen. I doubt, if Natal is not excluded, whether the Bill will do any good for the poor Indian fishermen in Natal. I am sure that whatever good may come out of this Bill the monopoly of Irvin and Johnson will get 90 per cent. of it. The trouble with the fishing industry is the trouble of other industries in South Africa. We are suffering, in many instances, from lack of buying, power. In East London there is a lady who was able to persuade Irvin and Johnson to let her have so many tons of fish per week. I have seen it distributed, and I have helped at the distribution of the fish, and, Mr. Speaker, the most amazing thing about that distribution of fish is that it goes almost solely to people who are employed by the state, to people who are employed in the Railway service, under the Administration of the Railways and Harbours; these are the people who are paid such a low wage that they cannot buy the fish and have to get it distributed by this well-meaning lady for nothing, who has been able to persuade Irvin and Johnson to let her have the fish. All the legislation and all the regulations that we have laid down here and made provision for, cannot affect that position that the poor people cannot buy the fish because they have not the money. You can sell fish in this country if the people have the money to buy it. You can sell anything if the people have the money to buy it, and to set out to build up an industry — any industry, I don’t care what it is — without that necessary condition, is impossible. We had the spectacle last year of a Mealie Control Board almost starving half the native population of this country, and will anybody tell me that when we passed the Mealie Control Bill any of us knew that any such thing was going to happen? Of course we didn’t. There was an outcry, and the Mealie Control Board challenged the Government itself, and so we will have it here. Committees will be set up, and actually we are being asked to pass a Bill that we don’t know anything about, and a Bill that does not cut at the root of the trouble. South Africa has a great industrial future, there is a great future for this industry as well as many others, but that future will only be assured when we pay the people a sufficient amount of money to enable them to buy food. That applies specifically in the case of an industry such as this. It amazes me to find that in an intelligent House, such as this is supposed to be, we can hear members casually mention the fact that fish is deliberately and consistently thrown overboard. It is a method of conducting business.

How do you stop it?

How can you stop it when you have got to a state that you accept it in such a casual fashion? Can you point me to anything in this Bill that is going to stop it? The hon. member wants speed boats skimming over the ocean to look after the trawlers, but he does not show us how boats skimming over the ocean are going to make trawlers go out if they don’t want to go out. Supposing they are catching too many fish. Instead of fishing seven nights they would only fish three nights, and all the speed boats you can have skimming over the ocean will not make them go out, neither will my friend’s police, that he has suggested. If they want to reduce production they will do it. What is the chief characteristic of all our control measures? It is precisely the reduction of production. Is there a single one of our control measures introduced to help an industry, which has not attempted to aim at reducing production? In other words, the chief economic idea underlying most of our control measures and underlying attempts to build up these so-called industries, is to reduce production in order to get a better price. The hon. member, the capitalist economist, as I may call him, tells us that under this Bill the fisherman will get a higher price for his fish, and the people will pay less. That is economics according to the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg). I have heard these fairy stories before, and I think he must be a bit of a fisherman to tell us a story like that. I am satisfied that he thought he had a knowledge of fishermen when he expected us to believe it But it cannot be done. If the fishermen are going to get a higher price, how are the people going to buy fish any cheaper, and if the people at the present time have not enough money to buy fish at the cheaper rate, how are they going to buy it at a higher rate? I remain a pessimist in this matter. However, I have no objection to the Bill, it will give the Minister something to do in his spare time, and I don’t suppose in the long run anyone will really suffer. What I would ask him to do is to implement the promise which he made in July. For the first time in my life I am a supporter of the Government, and I would like to think as a supporter of the Government, that we have a Minister who is prepared to live up to at least some of the promises made in all good faith by his predecessor.

My approval of the Bill is modified by the feeling that it does not go far enough. I feel sure had the Minister availed himself of an opportunity of discussing this Bill with the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper), and the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) and even the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), he might have produced a measure that might have gone much further towards meeting the needs of the industry than this Bill does. He might indeed have translated into practice the suggestion of the hon. member for Boksburg in regard to compulsory insurance, or some form of indemnity to protect the fishermen against loss of life at sea. Perhaps it is worth considering whether it would be possible to apply the Workmen’s Compensation Act to this scheme. Another point I want to mention is in regard to the imposition of levies. As far as I read the Bill, it is only proposed to raise levies from those fishermen who are outside some organisation, in other words, the idea is to drive independent fishermen off the sea, or into the arms of existing corporations, which may secure the Minister’s approval. I hope the Minister, when he replies, will elaborate on that. Then, once you have these men within your corporation, or off the sea, where are you going to get the levy from to run the marketing scheme? I understand you intend to run some form of marketins scheme in which the fishermen will participate. These are points not made quite clear. Another point about the levy is this. You impose a levy on the catch landed, irrespective of the amount of fish caught. If I catch one fish you impose a levy, and if I catch ten tons you impose the same levy. Is that the position? I hope the Minister will reply to that point. Then again, may one ask why fish products, fish fertiliser and fish meal are carried at a higher rate over the railways than similar products from other sources, and will the Minister make representation to the proper quarter to get that matter looked into?

I wish briefly to support the Bill, because I do think the intention of it at least is right, in that it is an attempt to bring more fish ashore, and to prevent the dumping of large portions of the catch at sea. Anybody who will bring food ashore into the Cape Province, and particularly bring fish into Cape Town where there are so many coloured people who depend very largely upon that sea product for food, people who are so terribly impoverished, deserves encouragement. “Glib” talking about poverty has recently been deprecated in this House, but whether the matter of their destitution is spoken of here or not, the fact itself remains — and is a disgrace to our civilisation—that hungry persons do exist in tremendous numbers, amounting to hundreds of thousands, and this is an honest attempt, as I see it, to bring cheaper food and more to the doors of people who daily need cheaper food and much more of it. I support the Bill in that respect and in two others. The one is that it will provide a certain amount of extra healthy and manly employment for an increasing number of young South Africans. We have a very excellent training institution in this country which is very seldom mentioned in this House, I mean the training ship General Botha, and we are producing very fine seamen, a very fine type of seamen indeed, youngsters who know their job, and we cannot at the present find ships for them. We could not in peace time find nearly enough ships to place these 40 or 50 men who are trained every year for service before the mast. This industry being encouraged will give to our young men who are trained so marvellously well on the General Botha, openings for employment, and for that reason I support the Bill. The third reason is that there will thus be more ships. They will be increasingly well equipped, and increasingly swift in skimming over the sea, as the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Bumside) put it. At the present time we are waiting day by day. I understand, for a couple of fast steam trawlers to come from Grimsby to Cape Town, to safeguard our interests between here and the Gold Coast, this being a time of war. We could do this with our own ships if we had them. Therefore this industry offers us, if we encourage it, the basis of a defensive Navy, both as to personnel and useful patrol vessels. Insofar as this Bill is an honest attempt to give us more fish, and to give us more employment, and more ships in which to utilise the seamanship of young South Africans. I support it a hundred per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add a word in support of this Bill. But I do so not because I regard the Bill as a comprehensive and watertight measure, but because as an initial step in the regulation of the fishing industry it does set up the framework for proper organisation in the industry. And, Mr. Speaker, the measure and the form of control envisaged in the Bill is such as to be designed, as I see it, to regulate the industry both to the advantage of the fishermen engaged in earning a livelihood out of the industry and of the consumer. I want to cross swords with the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), who compared this Bill and the machinery that is set up under it, with the machinery now in vogue in many branches of our agricultural industry. He referred particularly to our various and numerous control boards, and the limitless control of such aspects of the industry as they were concerned with. I am no less a critic than the hon. member of the powers and the manner in which those powers are used by control boards, over whom there is little or no control, but no such board is set up in this Bill, and parliamentary control of the fishing industry will remain. If the House will give attention to the various regulations which are embodied in the Bill, it will be appreciated that they are regulations designed to deal not with matters of principle, but with such matters as we have come to recognise, ought properly to be controlled by regulation. Far from having objection then to a measure of control being set up. I welcome it because I see in it, firstly, an advantage to the consumer who is at present being exploited, and secondly, to the fishermen who on the whole are unable to earn more than a very poor living out of this occupation. It will enable fishermen to become organised and so take in hand matters which generally affect them. I know that in the Cape there is a Trade Union of Fishermen, but they are so badly disorganised that they have been unable, for instance, to agree among themselves on so cardinal a matter as regulating their income, that is to say, they have been unable to insist upon receiving something in wages instead of their income being dependent wholly upon the extent of their catch, and thus being disabled from falling within the scone of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Bill affects them very vitally, and vet they are unable to remedy that disability because of the state of disorganisation which prevails. I believe that this Bill will place these people on such a footing as will enable them to control matters which affect them so vitally. I support this Bill, but at the same time I hope the Minister will, when the time comes, accept the amendment which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth proposes moving in relation to paragraph 13 and the exemption therefrom of the operation of the Bill in certain respects to Natal. We are reminded that Natal had a promise from the hon. member for Gezina that a Bill of this kind would not in any way interfere with the rights presently enjoyed by Natal. I hone the Minister will carry out the promise of the hon. member for Gezina and thus give the Government the opportunity for the second time of carrying out promises made by that hon. member. Natal is very jealous of the rights enjoyed by her in that connection. Of course, if the exemption of Natal from those particular provisions were calculated to vitiate the whole effect and the value of the Bill, it would not be reasonable to ask that, but since it is not in any way calculated to have that effect, the reservation of the rights which Natal enjoys should be safeguarded, and I hone that when the time comes the Minister will accept the amendment to be moved.

I hesitate somewhat to enter on this debate, but the knowledge which I obtained on a visit which I paid to one of the estuaries to Natal is forcing me to give one point of view and bring to the notice of the Minister certain facts which may perhaps be unknown to him. I am the more induced to do so because of a wire which I have here from the Indian Fishermen’s Association which states that they view with concern the proposed exclusion of Natal from the Fisheries Bill. “Indian fishermen never satisfied with Fisheries Ordinance Board which composed mostly of anglers.” This brings to mind something which happened about a year ago when I and a party were on the Xozi Bay Estuary. There I saw that the natives were in a very bad way, and I spoke to the missionaries about it and they told me that one of the reasons was that these natives had been accustomed to have almost as their staple diet fish, caught in the fish traps in the river. The missionaries were perturbed because they told me that these traps had been broken down by ordinance of the Natal Provincial Council, and they were afraid that the reasons fordoing so were not of the highest order. I had evidence before my eyes that an industry which had probably been there for many generations, and had been the staole industry of the natives living along that estuary, had been destroyed for them by the Province of Natal, and they were turning to a type of agriculture which seemed entirely unsuited to their way of living. That point led me to wonder whether the administration of all the fishing areas along these coasts was being carried out in the interest of the majority of the people living there, or whether there was some other reason. I want to suggest to the Minister that in the interest of these natives who had been living there for generations, it seemed that it would be best that the control of these matters should be a Union matter, and not a provincial matter, the reason given, I believe, was that these fish traps were silting up the mouth of the estuary. I cannot say whether that was a valid reason, but on the face of it it did not seem so, as for many years these traps had been there and as far as one could see there was no silting up. From that point of view I rather hope that the Minister will not give way to these representations from Natal, because it seemed to me that if there is going to be Union control of fishing it will not be right to exclude some part of the country, and make the operation of this Bill only effective over part of the coast of this country, and not over the whole. It was on that point only that I wanted to intervene, but, there is another interesting point which I should like the Minister to investigate. I have been told by an officer who has had close connection with Dassen Island and other islands where guano comes from, that the destruction of penguins and other sea birds was going on at a great rate because fishermen were using them as bait for crawfish. If that is so it is quite a serious matter. One has no means of testing the truth of such a statement, but I would like to know that the attention of the Minister’s department has been drawn to it. Of recent years we have known that there has been a shortage of penguin eggs. That may be due to other reasons, but I think it would be wise for the department to investigate the truth of that statement and I take this opportunity to mention it in the hope that the Minister will have it enquired into.

We have had a plethora of information regarding the fishing industry which I have thoroughly appreciated, and I particularly appreciated the enthusiasm of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper), but I think that he has misunderstood the Bill. He seems to think that we could do a great deal more for the fishermen. Well, the Bill gives us all the power we want to protect the fishermen and to develop their industry. I must say that I do not see how in this initial stage we can do very much more. Then he suggests that we should in some way or another give the fishermen financial assistance. Well, I am one of these people who would rather see a man help himself than always run to the Government for financial assistance, and I also say this to the farmers. The hon. member does not seem to realise that we have a Vote on the Estimates “Fisheries” where we put down £14,000 per year for the fishermen, and we want to use this money for the purpose of helping the development of the industry—just as we want to help any other industry by doing research work which will help the man in that industry to develop his own end of the business, and I think that for a start we are doing very well indeed. I think the hon. member must give us, and the Director of Fisheries, a chance to see what can be done with this Bill before he criticises it so severely. He asks what power we have to prevent the dumping of fish. We have power under the clause dealing with regulations to make regulations preventing the dumping of fish. He says that we must have six police boats to look after it. Cannot he leave it to our department to find out what are the best methods to deal with infringements of these regulations? I do not think it is practicable to have six boats wandering about the sea to control the dumping of fish into the sea.

It is done in other parts of the world.

Surely there must be some simpler method of controlling this difficulty. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) brought up the questions of the seals and guano islands. The Agricultural Department is very strong on maintaining the control of the guano islands. If you maintain that control, it is necessary for them to protect the penguins, and if you do that it is necessary that the seals shall also come under the same department so that another department shall not come and disturb the birds. The cost of carrying out the regulations will be dealt with on the ordinary estimates, and I would suggest to the hon. member for Boksburg that we might just as well learn to walk before we start running. I quite agree that the potentialities of this industry are immense, but the very fact of their being immense should surely mean, if it is an economically sound proposition, that this industry can stand on its own feet and should not be helped by Government subsidy. I agree that the question of fertiliser factories might be dealt with by the Development Corporation which I am proposing, but I must say at once that the corporation will not touch anything that is unsound—any fishy proposition will be turned down. As regards the question of the Whaling Agreement, I know that some of our factories think that they should be allowed to fish north of 48 degrees south latitude. Well, the only thing I can say to them is that first of all we do not propose signing this agreement without further thorough investigation and without taking into consideration the whole of the conditions applicable during the war. The other point I make is that if we do not adhere to the agreement the other nations will not do so, and I would ask: Do our factories really believe that all the other nations will leave the seas north of latitude 40 degrees south for our few factories to exploit? Of course they will not. They will come in and take as much as they can. The whole question of fishing north of latitude 40 degrees south is that scientists tell us that the whales come up north to breed. The whaling company in Natal say they do not come north to breed. I accept the decision of the scientists, and I think we should adhere to the convention. Now the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Hirsch) has brought up the question of the Natal exemption. The position regarding that is this so far as I understand it. Senator Fourie first made the Agreement with Natal. That promise was inherited by the previous Minister, the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow). Now I come into the picture. The hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz) seems to think that it is my business to turn both of those promises down. I cannot altogether accept that position. I feel that once it is, to a certain extent, inherited, that is the undertakings of one’s predecessors, you must accept the undertaking unless you can give strong reasons to the contrary. I have spoken to the hon. member for Gezina and he agrees that the promise was made. I have not seen the hon. Senator, but I do not think that there is any doubt from my conversations with those concerned that the promise was made that Natal should be left out.

It is Natal’s wish to be left out.

Yes, the hon. member may tell me that they wish to be left out of the Bill, but this House does not do what Natal tells them. This House makes its own decisions and although I am asking the House to do what Natal wishes, I should like the hon. member thoroughly to understand that we do it because we decide to do it and not because Natal wishes it.

I thought you represented the people?

Yes, we do represent the people, but we represent the people of South Africa. The hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. Baines) is rather perturbed about the question of this levy. That is really only a registration fee, and if the hon. member looks at the Bill he will see the Minister has the power to exempt anybody even from that levy. The wording of the clause is not that 6d. shall be levied on every occasion, but an amount not exceeding 6d. So the Minister can make any small fee and he can exempt the landing altogether. With regard to the question of the destruction of penguins used as bait for crawfish, I will go into that matter and make enquiries about it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

On Clause 13,

I want to suggest that clause 13 be deleted. I do not want to speak to this amendment in view of the undertaking that the Minister has given to this House.

In order to implement the promises of the two previous Ministers I accept that.

May I ask the Minister what are the reasons behind the exemption of Natal in this matter in regard to the estuaries? The Minister is surely excluding them from what is after all a principle. A matter which should be a Union matter is to be excluded, and if that is so the Minister must have good reasons why a promise was given, and I should very much like to hear what the reasons were.

The position of that is this. Under the South Africa Act the two provinces have the control of their own waters, and when we wanted to take the whole under Central Government a meeting was held with the Natal Executive, and the Natal Executive, while giving up some of their rights, requested that part of the agreement should be that they should claim the rights as shown in this clause. That was agreed to. It was also agreed to in the Consultative Committee of the various Provinces.

What was the recommendation of the select committee?

The select committee cut it out. The select committee did not appreciate the position, and further than that the select committee, as far as I know, did not appreciate the point that two Ministers had promised this as a definite agreement, and if we went back on that promise we should go back on the Bill. You cannot accept something from somebody else on a definite promise that it shall not exceed a certain amount, and then eventually take the whole amount.

The Ministers made the promises in anticipation of this Act.

Yes, if you look at the original Act introduced to the House, you will see that this clause was in. In the original Act, which the Minister at the time passed and sent to the select committee, this clause 13 (1) was in.

Surely the select committee would have gone into every aspect of the matter?

They did not have this before them.

With reference to this matter, I cannot see how we are to exempt Natal from certain parts of this Bill. We are a Union, and we are passing laws for Union fisheries, but Natal has to remain outside! During the discussion in the select committee evidence was led with regard to this matter, and it appeared that everybody was not in favour of Natal being excluded, and if I remember rightly, I think it was the hon. member who has now moved the amendment who in his evidence was not in favour of Natal being excluded.

But then he was still in the Dominion Party.

There were certain fishing clubs which were in favour of it, while other fishing clubs were opposed to it. Therefore all the people in Natal were not in favour of their being excluded. Accordingly I do not see why the Minister should go back on that. The Minister said that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) and Senator Fourie had promised it, but I do not think that they went into the matt A deputation came, who said that they were the representatives of some fishing clubs, and they asked for Natal to be excluded. I am sure that they never wen; into the matter. But they said: Yes, you can be excluded. I feel strongly on this point, that when we are passing Acts for the Union of South Africa all the provinces should come under them, so that we may have unification in all respects, and not one law for one province and another for another province. I am sorry to say that there is a tendency in Natal to always remain apart, and I hope that the House will not accent the recommendation of the Minister. There is no reason for it, and we need not do it because a previous Minister of Railways gave some promise or other without going into the matter. From the telegram which the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz) read, it appears that all the people in Natal are not in favour of Natal being excluded.

In fairness to the select committee, I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that evidence was taken in select committee on this very point, that an undertaking was given to Natal. In spite of that undertaking the select committee decided, by a majority, to eliminate that clause 13. In spite of the knowledge of this agreement the select committee decided to delete the clause by a majority. The committee felt, and rightly so, that the interests of the people in Natal would be as well looked after by a Union department as by the department they had set up themselves. This, it was felt, would do away with dual control, and would moreover save some £6,000 or £7,000 which the control which they had set up cost them. The select committee was well aware of the arrangement.

You yourself voted for the retention of the clause.

Yes, I seconded its inclusion, but it was defeated.

I do not know much about fish, but I do know that the object of this Bill is to allow right and justice to be done. I also know, in addition, that at the inauguration of the Union, certain things were incorporated into our constitution which the Free State does not want to give up. So also there may be things which Natal does not want to give up. In addition, we have heard here that Natal spends £6,000 on its fishing, while the Cape Province only spent £1,000, and so Natal has deserved certain consideration. It is true that the select committee investigated the matter, but I do feel inclined to support the amendment of the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) because the Free State, at the inauguration of the Union, also stated certain rights as conditions which they did not want to surrender.

That was under the Act of Union.

And is it not under the Act of Union in the case of Natal?

No.

Then there is still the consideration that Natal has done more than the Cape Province, and I shall be glad if the Minister will show consideration to Natal.

I am pleased to hear that the Minister has agreed to delete this clause 13. He seemed a little annoyed when I said it was the wish of Natal that it should be excluded from the provision of this Bill. We live in a democratic age, I hope South Africa is still a democratic country, and when you have the Provincial Council in Natal and all the members of Parliament unanimous that it is not in the interests of Natal that she should be brought into the scope of this Bill, I think it is only right Parliament should pay some attention. I see no reason why the Minister should get hot under the collar and say, “We are legislating for South Africa, and Natal must have what this House agrees to give her.” I don’t think that is a right attitude to take up. As a matter of fact, Natal has suffered quite considerably by measures passed through this House that she has not been in favour of. I would like this House to understand that Natal is a very important province, she has rights and is determined to maintain those rights, and when it is so amply demonstrated that Natal does not want to be brought under the provisions of any Act, it is up to the Minister to pay attention to those representations. I don’t want to delay this Bill; I understand it is wanted by certain parts of South Africa. I have my own opinion in regard to it, and I hope it is going to be a better Bill than many others that have been passed with the same intention. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) was correct in his assertion that these boards which have been brought into being through various Bills passed in this House, have not proved to be what it was originally intended they should be. As a matter of fact, the action of some of these boards have been subjected to severe criticism.

Order. I think the hon. member should confine himself to clause 13.

I just rose, Mr. Chairman, to make that representation. I hope the Minister and future Ministers will take notice of what we Natal men have to say on these matters. He has agreed to delete the section dealing with Natal, and that is all we are concerned about.

I did not intend to take part in this debate, but I represent a constituency in which the Minister has asked individuals or a committee to express its views on this Bill. I do not know what the answer was to the Minister, but I am certain that the constituency was under the impression that this Bill would apply to the whole of the country, and I suppose his reply would have been different if he had known that certain parts would possibly be excluded. The Minister, on another occasion, said that he regarded matters from a South African standpoint, and that he did not take notice of Natal. A short time later the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) moved this amendment, and the Minister accepted it. Those hon. members realise that they are keeping the Government in office, and that is why they can dictate to the Minister. If the Minister wants to maintain a strong position, then he should do what he said in the first instance, and regard this matter from the South African standpoint, and not from the point of view of Natal. I would like the Minister to tell me what the recommendations were by those committees whom he asked for their opinions.

I am not keen on going into the merits of this matter, but I am very anxious to have clarity. I understand that the reason given by the Minister was that he felt bound by the promise of his predecessor. Is it a rule of the Cabinet that any Minister can make a promise and bind a future Minister? If it is not so, then it is no reason why Natal should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. The mover of the amendment gave no reasons for doing so, but he simply said that two previous Ministers had made the promise. We in the interior, are not acquainted with this matter, but a Select Committee fully discussed the matter, and we cannot understand why we should now depart from the recommendations of that committee and exclude Natal. Hon. members have praised this Bill, because as they said, this matter previously came under the provincial councils, and now it comes under the control of this Government. We understood that this Government would get control over fishing in all the provinces, but now Natal has been excluded. It seems to me that the promise of a previous Minister cannot be adduced as a reason unless there are other reasons which justify it. We are dealing with the interests of the country as a whole, and if it is in the interests of the country as a whole that Natal should be excluded, then we can approve of it. But if that is not so, then the Minister must not accept an amendment which permits of that exclusion. If this Bill is necessary for the whole of the Union, then there is no reason why a part should be excluded,

I want to clear up the difficulty of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren). The position is that under the South Africa Act these fisheries come under the Province, and the Minister of Commerce (Senator Fourie), negotiated with these two provinces to give up their rights under the South Africa Act and allow the fisheries to come under the Central Government. The arrangement was accepted by the Cape in its entirety, but it was not agreed to by Natal in its entiretv. Natal agreed that the more distant fisheries should come under the Central Government, but they asked for exemption in the case really of two Estuaries, and the Minister of that time in order to meet them agreed to do so, and this was further confirmed by the next Minister, the hon. member for Gezina. It was under this condition that the original Bill was introduced, and if the hon. member looks at the original Bill as it was introduced he will see that this clause was in.

That was on a previous occasion.

My feeling is that there is great objection on the part of Natal to this clause being deleted, and there is a grave objection on my part, because these promises were made by my predecessors, and I believe in promises made by Ministers being kept.

You cannot bind the next Government.

The Government brought in that Bill and there was a promise in regard to the Bill. I agree that you can break any promises you like. Our friend Hitler is constantly breaking them, and there is no doubt that Parliament is supreme. Parliament can turn down any promises that any Minister makes, but it will lead to a parlous state of affairs if a Minister cannot discuss with the Executive Committee of a Province certain arrangements and implement those arrangements afterwards. You cannot make Natal give up one portion of this Bill without giving up her claim to protection, and without her asking that the promise made to her shall be kept. It would be a case of “heads I win, tails you lose.” My feeling is that two Ministers having promised this, we should carry out our undertaking.

I think that since the Minister made his reply, there is more reason than before for us to oppose. The Bill was introduced for the welfare of the Union as a whole. He is anxious that the fisheries should be improved, and that the prices may be better, and be better controlled. In view of that, even the 6d. is introduced to compel people to come in. Now the Minister is making an exception. Is he then not stultifying the reason why the Bill has been introduced? The committee which was appointed surely made a full enquiry, but now the Minister comes and says that he cannot break the word of the previous Minister, or the promise of the previous Minister, to Natal. But the Cane has agreed, but did they know when they agreed that Natal was going to be excepted?

Yes, the Cape was satisfied.

And the committee which the Minister has referred to, did they know about the exception? I think not. Accordingly I think that if the Minister introduces legislation, it should be made applicable to the whole of the Union, or otherwise he must let the Bill drop

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. Shearer) proposes to substitute a new clause (which he has read) for the clause under consideration. The proposed new clause is actually an addition to the existing clause and, strictly, should be moved as an amendment and not as a new clause, but it involves a number of drafting alterations and under the circumstances I propose, for the convenience of the Committee, to put the Question: That the original clause stand part of the Bill. If that question is negatived, the hon. member will be at liberty to move the proposed new clause he has read.

Clause 13 put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—15:

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Brits, G. P.

Conroy, E. A.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Quinlan, S. C.

Schoeman, B. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and S. E. Warren.

Noes—37:

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Faure, P. A. B.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Johnson, H. A.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Pocock, P. V.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Clause accordingly negatived.

It being Two minutes to Eleven o’clock p.m., the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (4), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 20th March.