When this debate was adjourned I only had a few points left that I wanted to bring forward. I think that all the hon. members on this side of the House are very anxious that industrial development should take place as soon and as comprehensively as possible, but in contra-distinction to the other side of the House we would like the development to, take place on a national basis, and not merely for the purpose of promoting capitalism in the country, or for the expansion to take place in their interests. Those two political views have always existed in the country, and they still exist, and when we look at the so-called electoral college which has to elect the directors of the corporation we see that all the members of the electoral college represent interests which have consisted for centuries out of nothing but capitalist concerns in this country. It seems to me that the clear object of the Minister is to try, even if the other side of the House were no longer governing the country, to make their point of view continue to prevail by means of the electoral college. You will see that the policy of the corporation depends on its directors, and as the Government is able, through the electoral college, to elect the majority of the directors, and because the directors decide on the policy, it would even, if there were a change of Government, still be possible for the directors to carry out the policy of the present Government, even if the new Government held a completely different view. Surely the persons who are appointed will be able to, and will carry out the policy of the other side. The Minister stated that he wanted to keep the matter out of politics, but actually he is not doing so, and ultimately he provides for the policy of his Government continuing for ever. Accordingly, I am dissatisfied with the electoral college as it is provided for here. Let the government of the day accept the responsibility and appoint directors themselves, because without any doubt politics will surely enter into the matter. If another government comes into office which holds a different view, then let them have the opportunity of selecting their own directors to carry out the policy which they stand for. Then there is another point which I would like to touch on. It is clear to me from the speeches which have come from the other side of the House, that they are not keen on properly protecting the industries. When one talks of protection then it is not just the customs duty on a percentage basis. The manufactured article is not worth exactly what it costs to manufacture, but only worth what you can get for it. In other words, if there is protection in a country up to a certain percentage, then cheaper articles can be imported which compete with the manufactured article in the country. Accordingly, if protection is given, it must be ample, so that it prevents importation. Then we should be encouraging industries to develop, and in consequence of that more than one factory of that kind will be established, and then we shall have competition between factories in our own country, and the price of the article will come down in proportion to the need, in consequence of the competition that exists. Otherwise other countries who have been manufacturing all the articles for hundreds of years will be able to sell the articles cheaper in one country than in another country. If we want our industries to become self-dependent we must protect them properly, until such time as they are standing on their own feet, and even longer still. Then I only want to add this, that if industries develop under proper protection we are able to compete with the rest of the world, but when we have feeble industries, who, are weak because they are not properly protected, they will never be able to compete with other countries. I am sorry that my speech was twice interrupted, but I feel that, we must develop our industries on a national basis, and that the raw materials of our own country should be used. We ought to have a proper system of rebates on our railways so that industries will be encouraged outside of our big cities. If it were not for the railway rates which kill the industries in the small villages then in many cases the small villages would be able to establish certain industries better than the towns can, because the cost of living is usually cheaper in the smaller villages.

In the course of my speech I shall deal with several of the points raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren), but may I just point out that to resort to an embargo for protection when one deals with the building up of industries one cannot extend protection in such a manner that it will antagonise other countries. One must bear in mind that what this country does to other countries, other countries can do to this country. A policy of embargo will create international complications.

America is doing it now.

What bigger countries can do does not apply to a small country like this. However, I shall deal with the question raised by the hon. member later. To my mind the establishment of this Industrial Development Corporation will be welcomed generally. If there ever was legislation that South Africa would welcome with open arms it is this. It reflects a long-range view. It is impossible to foresee the extent to which the Union may ultimately benefit. In later years we may look back on the passage of this Bill as a turning point in South African history. The industrialisation of the Union started on a major scale during the Great War, and as indicated by census statistics it has grown steadily from a total value of output of £49,000,000 in 1916-1917 to £175,000,000 in 1936-1937, a three and a half fold increase. Yet this development has not reached saturation point. There is plenty of scope still for further industrialisation. It is generally accepted, so far as employment is concerned, that a modem state cannot fully employ its available population unless a very large proportion is engaged in manufacturing industry. It is partly because of the introduction of science into the field of agriculture and other industries that I can say the pursuits that formerly occupied about 80 per cent. of the gainfully occupied population, now only probably absorb 15 per cent., and the other must now either remain unemployed, or enter new walks of life. Sound industrial development would automatically contribute also towards solving our farming problems. The root cause of most of our agricultural difficulties is that there are too many producers of agricultural produce and not enough consumers. If we can bring about an increase in the number of consumers and bring about equalisation between the production and consumption of the country, we can look forward to a general economic improvement. Thus the establishment of industry will employ more people who will in turn consume more of the farmers’ produce and so bring about an equality between production and consumption, an aspect which I shall deal with later. Now, this new Industrial Development Corporation will sponsor economically sound industrial proposals of all kinds. It will facilitate and guide the establishment of such new undertakings as it considers worthy of support. It will assist existing undertakings with a view to their modernisation and extension, so that industrial development in the Union may be planned along economic and rational lines. The organisation will be in a position to take adequate precautions against supporting new industries of doubtful value, and it will no doubt act in consultation with the Board of Trades and Industries which is in a unique position to furnish valuable information. Unless it can be assured that such new enterprises are likely to survive the prevailing artificial position and that they will be able to weather the normal times when they come again, they will not be entertained. Ever since the rapid expansion of secondary industry in the Union in 1S25, the problem of financing industry has assumed increasing proportions. It is clear that the corporation can tackle this question seriously and on sound banking lines, and it will be well aware of the danger of financing wild-cat schemes or of erecting a series of white elephant concerns. There will be a rush to place projects before it, and many of them will be fantastic schemes. A large staff will probably be employed. We cannot look forward to a wholesale adoption of projects without adequate investigation, and that will take time. Therefore, I am sounding a note of warning to the public that they must not be disappointed if it takes time. Let us take time and do the thing properly. There is another thing. I am inclined to have a feeling that the public may expect this corporation established by the Government to act in the nature of a fairy godmother to those who are in financial trouble in industry and to those who want to establish new industries. Again I say that this is a system that we must avoid right from the beginning. The corporation must confine itself to strict business lines and the public must realise that it is for their benefit that we should only confine ourselves to sound schemes and that we shall require the taxpayers’ money to keep them alive. That will be better for the country in the end. Throughout the world to-day governments are taking an active part in fostering and reconstructing industry through finance, expert advice and development of markets. We are, therefore, merely doing what is now being done practically throughout the whole world. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) mentioned something about protection. I am not opposed to the principle of protection, but I say that there must be some limit. I am definitely opposed to the building up of industries under too great protection. That will impose a burden on the country unnecessarily. There are huge industries which can be built up on sound economic lines without undue protection.

What are they? Can you give me one?

I can tell the hon. member of several, but I do not wish to waste my time now in doing so. In the promotion of any industry two very important factors must be taken into consideration. The first is whether the industry, when in operation, will contribute to or detract from the welfare of the nation, and whether it will be organised and conducted on the most efficient lines. Let me first assure hon. members that if you want to establish industries under undue protection it will constitute a tremendous burden on the state. It must be pointed out that almost any industry could be started in the Union if it were sufficiently protected against competition from outside, but in some cases such protection would be tantamount to an embargo, and then the enterprise may not be a national asset. On the contrary, it may be a clear liability or an expensive luxury even although it may be very efficiently organised or managed. It is true that in certain countries it has been done; they have embarked upon industries of this kind despite their burden upon the consumers, but if you analyse the motives you will find either that they are wanted to preserve in another country their supplies of foreign exchange, or to ensure essential supplies in times of emergency. If hon. members in their desire to build this country on the lines of a republic or something similar, want to develop industries in order to make the country self-contained, they will resort to something which the resources of this country cannot stand. Not only will it be too costly a matter and far beyond what all the possible resources of the Union can stand, but like other countries we must be satisfied with what can be produced economically. Let us build up gradually and take a certain period to do it, however long it may be, before we can call ourselves self-supporting. Let us build up those industries which are economically sound at first. The principal guiding factor in that direction is fundamentally to what extent the raw material necessary for an industry is available in the Union. The other consideration of efficiency in industries, when once it has been decided to start an industry, is that those responsible should see that it is operated in the most efficient manner. The corporation will naturally have available a most highly framed technical staff of thorough experience, and will not entertain any proposal until the proposition has been investigated by the promoters in all its aspects, and full, detailed, expert reports and memoranda are submitted to the corporation. Various economic matters must be taken into consideration, such as the geographical situation of the site, sources of supply of raw material, power, water, coal and the supply of labour, the lay-out of the factory, the quality of the product, the market for the product, and numerous other considerations. For all these things they will have to have a highly technical staff. I sincerely hope that the corporation will link up with the organisation in England known as the Industrial Consultants’ Association. That consists of a body of men with the best brains in the world. They make it their policy to specialise in the various departments of industries in order to give advice and train young men for managerial positions. As I say, they collect around them only the best brains in the world. This will not only help future industries, but it may be helpful in the case of existing ones by way of modernising them and also bring about improved and more economic methods. If this corporation can get connected with such an association as I have mentioned, not only will it be of tremendous value to future industry but, with their large knowledge, they will be able to acquire the latest methods to apply to future and existing industries and they will be a tremendous source of help by way of advice in the conduct of their affairs. Then there is the question of the appointment of directors. I presume there is reason to believe that the corporation will conduct its business on sound commercial and banking principles, like the Electricity Supply Commission and Iscor, divorced from political influence. The success of this corporation will depend on the standing of the men appointed to that board. It will be administered by experts whose standing will ensure responsibility in action, and this will inspire confidence in the projects which it will foster and will enable it to bring them to the stage where they can easily obtain finance from other channels, without requiring further assistance The success and standing of the corporation will, of course, depend on the men chosen to serve upon it. The Government will no doubt appoint men of the very highest integrity and with the most intimate knowledge of both industrial and financial markets. I feel that the Government could just as well take full responsibility in making the appointment of the directors, because if the corporation is a failure, the Government will be blamed in any case. Provided the men selected are men whose reputation is such that they cannot be associated with any failures, this corporation must be a success. We must have men of standing on a big corporation such as this. This corporation is going to be a corporation with tremendous power in their bands. They will be able to make or break industrial development in the country. They will also be able to create confidence overseas, or not. Therefore, these men should be of the highest standing and free of all political influence, and of technical knowledge coupled with sound business experience. Another aspect of the Bill I approve of is the principle in the Bill that the Government is not necessarily out to provide cash for industries. It does not necessarily undertake, in principle, to subscribe funds for all industries. It will mean that the money originally put up for Iscor will be used over and over again to assist, through the Industrial Development Corporation, in stimulating further industrial development. In other words, our key steel industry, having been established, the same money will be used for the promotion of secondary or other industries which can be successfully established in South Africa. The hon. member mentioned a sum of £5.000,000. If he refers to the Bill he will see that that is the amount we start with. Provision is made for a procedure to increase that capital, but that is sufficient to make a start with. This capital will turn over. If it participates in a big venture, as soon as it reaches a stage where the shares of the industry can be sold at a premium, those shares will be realised and thus the same capital will be continually turned over. I am inclined to think that the best policy of this corporation will be not to subscribe to any venture in order to participate on a large scale, but having created confidence in the world generally any project that they will be associated with will create such confidence in the minds of the money investors that they will not only underwrite partly or wholly a proposed industry, but that the public will also subscribe 100 per cent. for those shares, and there will, therefore, be no need for the corporation to invest any money at all. If its affairs are properly conducted, it need not have to subscribe money in any venture, but merely be associated with it, and the public will subscribe the money. There is one point on which hon. members may disagree with me. It may be noted that the corporation is to facilitate branches of industries at present carried on outside the Union. In other words, overseas manufacturers will be encouraged to do their manufacturing here, employing South African labour and materials, where they now send us the finished product. I sincerely trust that no serious objection will be raised to this, as I am sure it will be a tremendous advantage and would bring that future of South African development much nearer than we can do to-day without it. These old established and experienced overseas firms have many advantages. They have the essential requirements to ensure success in starting up new industries, years of experience, the technique, the background of research work, a very costly item, the tried methods of production and most suitable and efficient organisation.

Is there anything to prevent that?

There is nothing to prevent that. I do not say provide the capital, but facilitate the provision of capital for them without necessarily subscribing the capital. I suggest that our young South Africans are new in the industrial world. If we can get men of experience to take part in our industrial development here, our young South Africans will have a chance to learn to know all about these industries, and the time will come when they can take the place of those people from overseas. Let us welcome them here and facilitate matters for them so that young South Africa can learn from them and build up along sound lines without waste of time and money. Along those lines we shall reap the benefit of this far-reaching legislation of to-day much sooner and on far larger scale than otherwise. In this respect let us be broad, and let our outlook be based on a genuine wish to do all we can to find employment for our people in industries which will be established on sound economic lines. In this way our young South Africans will get their chance without any sacrifice of efficiency in industries, and without retarding the progress of industrial development. Well, I feel this is an opportune moment for the introduction of this Bill. I can conceive that after this war there is going to be enormous decentralisation of industries from Great Britain and from all over the world. Scientific methods of warfare as they exist to-day have brought all industries in England — those producing essential war material and others — into such a state of exposure to danger of total destruction, that it will become a matter of necessity to establish them in safer areas such as the Union of South Africa. Therefore, I say that no better time could be chosen than this to introduce this Bill, and the sooner we get the machinery of the corporation into motion and receive this influx of development into South Africa the better it will be for South Africa. I can foresee from this decentralisation of industry from the older countries big developments here. Having practically all the raw material for the production of steel in South Africa, I can foresee industries requiring steel as the main raw material supply springing up very profusely, and there are many others, of course. You will find that there will be a line of industry that will develop in this country. Then there is the question of taxation after the war. The older countries will find themselves subjected to very heavy taxation and they will try to run away from that heavy taxation to countries where it will be lighter, and South Africa will be given full opportunity of their money, particularly in the lines of industrial development. There can be no doubt that taxation in certain overseas countries is going to be very heavy after the war and the natural tendency will be to invest capital in those countries where the taxation will be less severe, and the Union of South Africa will be a suitable field. That is why this is an opportune time to put this Bill on the Statute Book in order that the machinery for the proper functioning of this corporation can be ready as soon as possible. I hope it will not be the intention of the corporation to lavish large sums on any one project, but rather by rendering skilful and considered assistance to encourage the investment of additional funds from other sources and from overseas. These funds will, undoubtedly, be forthcoming if the Industrial Development Corporation indicates its readiness to assist in any project and also, after investigation, approves of it. It will create confidence in the minds of the investing public if you do that, and that is sufficient justification for the establishment of the corporation. Its verdict will carry great weight with the investor, particularly overseas. In this way alone the new corporation will justify itself for it will cause an influx of fresh funds for investment in the Union. Another important function is that it will be looked upon as the hallmark to reassure the investing public. There are considerable sums available here and overseas, which would undoubtedly be invested in South African industries if only the investors could feel assured of sound prospects. If a contemplated industry were of the wild cat type its promoters would either not approach the corporation or would fail to obtain the corporation’s guarantee in the shape of an underwriting deal, or otherwise. Thus the corporation would, in practice, sift good propositions from bad ones. The result will be that unless the corporation approves of a scheme the public will not subscribe towards it. Obviously the corporation will not support any proposition where there is already an industry existing producing the reasonable requirements of the country in that direction. On the contrary, it will be part of the corporation’s work to rationalise industries now overlapping and ruining one another, rather than to facilitate more to come to kill existing ones. This will lead to the country’s industries eventually all being properly rationalised, a state of affairs that everyone will welcome from an economic and every sound point of view. Then there is the question of social legislation. In these days of popular social legislation which enhances the cost of production and where similar legislation does not exist in competitor countries, this has also disturbed the investor of money in his confidence to invest in industries, but the Government, being responsible for the establishment of industries through this corporation, will make the investor realise that this corporation will, from time to time, see that industries will be compensated or protected in some form or another, should necessary social legislation be the cause of increased costs to industries. This will create confidence and money will be forthcoming such as we require.

In the discussion of thisBill the thoughts of the seniors among uswill necessarily go back to the years after 1924, when the Nationalist Hertzog govern-ment made an attempt to promote industrialdevelopment in this country, when we triedto convince the country and the Parliamentof those days that it was our object thatthis country in future should not be depen-dent only on the mining industry and onagriculture, but that there ought to be amore balanced! economy, and that the stateshould for those reasons take certain stepsto promote our secondary industries. I sayour thoughts inevitably go back to thosedays and to the debates about the protectionby tariffs and the other ways of giving assist-ance to our industries. But we should alsonecessarily specially recollect the strugglewhich went on in this Parliament in theyears 1927 and 1928 about the establishmentof an iron and steel key industry in SouthAfrica. The farthest that the NationalistParty government in those days dared to gowas to say: The state is justified, and itis the duty of the state, when we are dealingwith a key industry of that kind on whichso much depends in connection with thefuture of the country, in taking some ofthe money of the taxpayers for state con-tributions to the establishment of such anindustry. Well, I wonder what our friend, the late Mr. Jagger, would have said if hehad had to see that my hon. friend oppositeis to-day responsible for the introduction ofthis Bill. There is a revolutionary principlecontained in this Bill. My hon. friend isengaged here to-day not only in using thetaxpayers’ money on behalf of a special keyindustry which has to be approved of bythis Parliament before the Treasury is askedto contribute, but that he is proposing hereto vote a gigantic amount of millions toenable this corporation to use it for allkinds of industries. That is a revolutionarystep, and also a very big step forward.

Are you glad about it?

The Minister asks whetherI am glad about it. I am unfortunately oneof those old-fashioned people who even to-dayare not so much convinced that it is the dutyof the state to venture into every depart-ment of the economic life of the people.But I admit that it probably is, and I thinkthat my hon. friend has introduced this Billat the time that he possibly also admitsthat, namely, that public opinion is far inadvance of my hon. friend and me, andthat is why he is introducing the measure, and accordingly I am not prepared to opposethe general principle of this Bill. When hesays that the object of the Bill is to promotethe establishment of new industries, newundertakings and the development of exist-ing industries and undertakings, I think thatwe can all agree with him in principle inregard to the object that he has in view.A thing like the one we are proposing here may also, of course, bring dangers to thecountry, but I assume that my hon. friend, in introducing the Bill, made it clear to thisHouse that an attempt would be made asfar as possible, to guard against the dangerswhich are latent in such an undertaking. Itherefore say that I want to support thisBill in principle, but I nevertheless want tomake serious objection to certain specificprovisions in the Bill which my hon. friendhas moved here. In the first place, I wantto ask him what his intention is in thismatter; is it the intention to promote alldeserving industries throughout the country, or is an attempt being made here to providecapital for a few big concerns which we allknow about? I would like to know that verymuch. In the second place, I want to putthis question: If the former is the case, namely, that this corporation will assist withthe promotion of all kinds of deserving un-dertakings throughout the country, whetherhe does not think that his object will beseriously crippled by the provision in whichhe says that every application or proposalwhich is dealt with by the corporation, mustbe considered strictly on its economic merits, apart from all other considerations what-ever. There is surely none of us who isgoing to advocate that the taxpayers’ moneyshould be used in uneconomic concerns. ButI seem to remember that the previousGovernment, of which my hon. friend was amember, as well as the Prime Minister ofto-day, felt very strongly, and that we madea very strong attempt to see that our in-dustries should be spread more over thewhole of the country. We appointed a com-mission which travelled through the wholecountry. I have not yet seen the report ofthat commission, but we were all so stronglyunder the impression of the natural im-portance of our industries not being col-lected together in a few big towns, but thatsomething should be done to spread thoseindustries to other central points as well. Inow ask my hon. friend, if purely economicreasons alone are to give the deciding votein future in connection with the establish-ment of industries, what will then becomeof the object which we had in appointingthat commission? Are there not also othervery strong and very big national interestswhich should be kept in view? I hope thatmy hon. friend will give his attention tothis aspect of the matter, and that he willtell us what his intention is and what thepolicy of the corporation will be in regardto the matter. But I said that I had a fewdefinite and serious objections to certainspecific provisions in the Bill. The first isthis. In the year 1927-’28, when we passedthe Iron and Steel Industry Act here, andwhen the taxpayer of the country was askedto make a large amount available for thatindustry, the principle was laid down, andit was a very necessary principle, that thestate was to retain the control. It was thetaxpayers’ money and the state should retainthe control. That was not only from an economic and financial point of view, but there were also other big national interests which demanded it—as I hope to show later on—and for that reason a provision was made in the Bill at the time that whatever the provisions about the share capital of the corporation may be, there should be different precautionary measures in the Bill to make certain that the state would keep the control. That my hon. friend is also trying to do here. He is trying to introduce the same principle into this Bill, which is mainly based on the Iron and Steel Industry Act of 1927, and I mention that here because I hope that we will bear that important principle in mind, and that we shall not deviate from it. Now I come to my first big objection, and that is this, viz., that my hon. friend in connection with the financing of the corporation, proposes in this Bill to find a part of the necessary capital by the sale, the transfer of the B shares of Iscor. In a debate on this matter we cannot lose sight of, we cannot forget how the interests which were at that time represented in the Opposition opposed that undertaking, and who were backing the opposition. At that time my respected colleague who was responsible for the introduction of the Bill, made provision that the general public should be asked to provide the necessary capital. The public had the opportunity, but no, feeling was so strongly against, there was such a boycott of the undertaking, there was so much opposition to the establishment, that we practically did not get a penny, and under the most difficult financial circumstances I was at that time responsible for having to find gigantic millions of money to float the concern. To-day it is a great success, and for quite a number of years past attempts have from time to time been made to get the state to put the shares on to the market. I said that that would not be done as long as I was responsible in the matter. I shall protest against any proposal which is calculated to allow the shares to go out of our hands to-day. If this capital has to be found, then the Minister must put his hand into the Treasury, and make the provision, and he cannot sell the shares of Iscor. That is a great and strong economic asset of the Treasury to-day, but that is not my great consideration. I say that great and strong general national interests in this matter prohibit the shares getting into the hands to-day of other concerns, independent of the state. It is eventually going to affect your control. This iron and steel industry is a great national industry, and there are big and powerful interests abroad which are out to get a strangle-hold on our own steel industry, which is a key industry. We may not do it. I object to the transfer of these Iscor shares on the grounds that I have mentioned. What is the intention here? I am almost sure, especially after having listened to the last speaker, that one of the first things which will be done will be the expansion of our steel industry, of our steel production. We welcome it. It is an industry which has exhibited vitality, and to-day the position is that only a fraction of our own requirements is manufactured by our own industry, and everyone must welcome the fact that a larger part will be manufactured by ourselves in this heavy industry. It is necessary. But if we are going to allow, in view of the expansion which we are facing, the great field that there exists for it, in view of the possibilities of the allied associated industries being established here with capital supplied by the taxpayers, then it may easily happen that that strong position in which our national industry is to-day, will be seriously jeopardised. The danger exists that the big and powerful foreign interests may get a strong stranglehold on the industry which will not be in our interests. But there is another important reason. I assume that the Minister will say that he is keeping control under the Bill. We cannot, however, close our eyes to the fact that if a large part of the capital is no longer held by the state, but gets into the hands of the big concerns, that the pressure will then be so strong that the object of the industry will no longer be to sell products to the country and to the public, as was intended at the time, at economic and yet reasonable prices, but that the factor of profit will be the prevailing factor. We cannot allow that. The interests of our country will be seriously prejudiced by that. We already feel concerned to-day about the policy which is being followed by Iscor when they are actually losing sight of the original object of the industry, using it as a national industry, and to supply certain products which the country needs, and which agriculture and the farmers and other concerns need, at reasonable prices, but that Iscor is already trying to bind itself to the cartel overseas, to overseas interests, by which the price of the products of the steel factory will be fixed not by our own economic interests in the country, the cost of production and other great national interests, but that the factor of profit will strongly intrude. I say that we cannot tolerate that, and that that was not originally the intention. It ought to be the policy that the other factors should be taken into consideration, and that the deciding factor should not be only to sell the products at the highest price without considering other great national interests. Now I come to another strong objection. It has already been mentioned by other speakers, and it is in connection with the method of constituting the so-called electoral college. I believe that the Minister has the very praiseworthy object in view of eliminating politics by this proposal.

You appreciate the reason.

But my hon. friend is creating an illusion if he thinks that he will succeed in eliminating politics in this country by any proposal of that kind. He will not succeed in doing so. I prefer, even if my hon. friend there is responsible for making the choice, and even if I did not have confidence in him, I still prefer to leave the matter in his hands, and not to hand our country over to those interests which, in effect and in practice are going to make the appointments. If the Minister makes appointments which are not in the interests of the country we have the opportunity of calling him to account in this Parliament, and if there is any other government in future which does so, the Minister and his friends will have that opportunity, but this proposal of his is merely an evasion in order to shield behind those concerns. No, we cannot permit it. The Government ought to accept the responsibility, and then it will be possible to call upon them to carry out their obligation to the bank. I am surprised at the Minister having been caught in such a trap. I would not have walked into such a trap, and he knows how we were on cur guard against it in the past. In such cases we were always careful not to give a say to sectional interests, because as soon as you start doing that you have to exclude others who are demanding representation, and may I just ask in this connection, as he is making that proposal, what justification there is to select these concerns, namely, the Chamber of Mines, commerce, the industries, technical people, and in spite of that; omitting the agricultural interests?

I just want to say in order to save the hon. member’s time, that I have already decided not to have the panel.

I again say I am surprised that my hon. friend walked into the trap, but notwithstanding his announcement, I cannot omit to draw the attention of the House to the point that what he proposed in the Bill is only a warning to us of the course which my hon. friend is adopting. This is not the first time that we have had a warning of that kind, and it only shows what we are being faced by. We shall find, from time to time, that under my hon. friend over there, and his friends behind him, agricultural concerns will receive very little consideration. That the Minister should come here with such a proposal of giving a special say to these interests, and to leave out agriculture and farming, is a significant warning. But I do not want to go further into that. The Minister has abandoned it. Now I want to raise something which is possibly not directly mentioned in the Bill, but it is a thing which may take place and be developed under this Bill, and I want to draw the attention of the Minister and the country to it, to wit, that we are in a state of war, and in connection with the defence of our country on a larger scale, a start was already made some time ago, and the state made start with the manufacture of ammunition in our country, the commission of the mint under state control and control for the purpose, and as we are very possibly going to get a quicker and more important development of the war and of the manufactures for defence purposes, not only of ammunition but also of other armaments, I want to warn my hon. friend to see to it that if that expansion is to come, that it should not get into private hands. We know that there are to-day many countries in the world who would be prepared to give anything if they could make a fresh start and get back to where we are to-day, if they could get quit of the great vested interests in the manufacture of armaments, and if they could get it into the hands of the state. We may not, under the assistance which is being given here, and the chances which exist to-day of this development taking place in our country, and of that sort of factory being established here, create the possibility of this matter being taken out of the control of the state. I hope my hon. friend will bear that in mind. Now, I do not want to detain the House. Other points have been raised by my hon. friends which I hope can be dealt with in committee. I just wanted to refer to these few aspects, but I do think that as we are all agreed about the principle of the Bill, and would like to see the Bill go through this session, and inasmuch as no one wants to do anything to prevent that, I think that we should make an attempt, in connection with the specific points of interest to the whole of the country, to have them dealt with under more favourable circumstances than we can do in Committee of the whole House, and that we should refer the Bill after the second reading to a Select Committee. I do not want to delay the Bill, but I think that amendments can be made in connection with the objections which I have mentioned, and that they can be better dealt with in Select Committee. I think that it will not even be necessary to hear evidence, but it will be better if a Select Committee can go into the objections.

In a week?

Yes, I think that is possible. I think my hon. friend will be ready to agree to my suggestion that the Bill should go to a Select Committee after the second reading.

The House has listened with great interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) particularly in view of the great part he has himself played in the promotion of industrial development. I think the House will agree with some of the remarks he made and one realises that if he had been on this side of the House he would probably have been instrumental in promoting a Bill of this nature because it is obviously designed to meet what is undoubtedly a very urgent need and what should prove a very great success. With regard to the criticisms he offered when he referred to the free trade motions of a few years ago—I could not quite appreciate….

I was just pulling your leg.

It is perfectly true that did happen, but even in those days the same principle of having big issuing houses existed overseas in all free trade countries, and that was a big factor in developing and promoting industries. Now, this Bill departs from the principles which the hon. member for Fauresmith referred to. Development in our industries has gone on right from 1915 and 1916, and industries have made great progress since those days. The Minister in his introductory remarks gave certain figures to indicate the progress that has been made in industrial development, but I would point out that included in those industrial figures are certain items which are hardly items of a secondary industry and would certainly not fall within the scope of this Bill. In the last five years the output of the light and power industry has gone up from £4,500,000 to £8,500,000. These are public utility concerns dealing with light and power which would not fall within the scope of this Bill because they are all run by public bodies. There is another item there — building and contracting which in the same period has gone up from £3,500,000 to £15,000,000 which also would not fall within the scope of this Bill. But the item to which the hon. member refers, and in respect of which he expressed a certain amount of concern, was that of engineering development. He felt that there there was a danger of a clash of interests with the possible establishment of a big iron and steel works in competition with Iscor. In the last five years the increase in the metal and engineering works output has been from £11,500,000 to £28,000,000, and of that a very large sum was due to the development of Iscor. But if you take the big competitor of Iscor in this country, the Vereeniging Works, we find that only recently they went overseas to get capital for huge development which is required in those works, and a firm of that standing has no difficulty whatever in getting the capital they require, and I certainly did not understand the Minister to say that there was any intention of financing undertakings of the nature of Iscor, or Vereeniging or anything of that size. One appreciates, of course, that it is absolutely necessary for the greatest care to be taken in regard to what is more or less a state concern, and that you should not have another industry, another state industry, to cause that industry any harm. But I take it under the management proposed under this Bill the Corporation will watch that any industry which is started in this country will develop on a sound basis, and that it will see to it that there is actual room for such development, but it will see to it that no industry which is going to run counter to, and is going to be harmful to that other industry, which is run so efficiently in South Africa will be encouraged. This Bill is an entirely new departure, and its full implications have yet to be realised, but inasmuch as there has never been any provision in this country for the establishment of a Corporation or of industries which require financial support, and furthermore, inasmuch as there has never been an adequate system of investigation as to the soundness of industries to be started, I think this Bill is going to fulfil a very great want indeed, and is going to lay the foundation for a new era in industry in South Africa. The tariff policy which has been in force now for many years certainly promoted the establishment of many industries where they required tariff protection. But there have been manyindustries which possibly could be established here, which could stand on their own legs, but which have not been able to get sufficient financial support because of the lack of what is after all an issuing house. This Corporation will provide for that want and in doing so with the experts that you will have on that Directorate, they will see that no wild cat schemes shall be indulged in, and inasmuch as the Corporation will put its imprimatur on these schemes, and will guarantee their soundness, it will impose an obligation on the Government to see that these schemes are made a success. I do not know how far the hon. member for Fauresmith meant that there should be Government control of these schemes which are to be promoted under this Bill. I do not know whether he meant that the same control should be exercised over the various schemes as is exercised in regard to Iscor.

Heaven forbid!

I am glad to hear him say that. So far as this Bill is concerned it means that the Corporation is not to have the same control as that which it exercises in regard to Iscor. I could not quite understand the hon. member’s criticism in regard to the financial arrangements for the depositing of Iscor’s shares. Even though the B shares are sold it will not interfere with the management of Iscor. Surely if the hon. member criticises the sale of Iscor shares as something detrimental to the State—that is something different—but I understand him to say that by doing so the State might lose control of Iscor. With regard to the sale of these shares I admit, because coming from Pretoria I never opposed the starting of the Iscor Corporation, and I appreciate the hon. member’s views regarding the attitude taken up by the public in not subscribing, but I would point this out, that in regard to a big industrial undertaking, to ask the public to put up 50 per cent. of the capital of a concern which after all had to face very great difficulties, was an important matter. And even when it was established it took a long time to prove its success—asking that of the public was rather a heavy demand on the public purse.

There were other motives too.

Yes, we know that perfectly well. But I do think that if the arrangement is made for a fair price to be obtained and if they could finance this Corporation by using the proceeds of these shares, then I cannot think that that proposal is in any way unsound. I think there is very much to be said for it. In regard to Iscor the State was forced to take up a very large amount—more than they wanted to do—they had to put up a large amount for these iron and steel shares, and it seems an eminently satisfactory way now to use these shares, and I think it will meet with the general approval. The reception which this Bill has met with generally is very encouraging. Whether there is time to send this Bill to Select Committee is very questionable. I think the general desire is that the Bill should go through this session. I agree largely with what the hon. member for Fauresmith said about the Selection Committee, but I do not know whether there are many other matters in this Bill which call for fundamental alterations. I think there are certain other precautions which have to be inserted. This Corporation will have to have full power to watch over any undertakings in which it has to place its money, and if it finds that anything goes wrong, then the Corporation should have the power to step in. I think there are points there which could be improved on, but generally speaking I think the Bill will meet with the approval of the House and of the public.

This House has probably never considered a more vital measure than the one now before the House, and probably in the economic life of this country have arrived at a point where decisions will in the future be of great and paramount importance. I think that we should in an agreed measure, agreed to the extent of the principle, consider the present industrial position of South Africa in relation to the past, to see what the future industrial policy of this country should be. This House has heard facts and statistics showing the tremendous increase that has taken place in the production of industry, but it is necessary to analyse those facts and to read from them what mistakes we made and how in the future, through this measure, we must not make similar mistakes. Our industrial growth is of comparative origin. In the period 1652—1890 only 500 small undertakings were found in the whole of South Africa, but the discovery of gold and diamonds had a considerable influence on our industrial life and the growth thereof. Right through the history of the years that followed these mineral discoveries, you will see that the question of mining gold and diamonds has played a terrific part in the increase of industry. In 1911 there were only 2,473 industrial establishments, and the gross output was only £22,000,000. It is important to note that in that year, when the total value of the production was £22,000,000, 40 per cent. of it was made up of industries producing food, drink and tobacco. The Great War afforded an abnormal stimulus. This country was thrown on its own resources to produce practically everything it could then do for itself. During the war years the production jumped to £40,000,000 in 1918, and with the years of prosperity that followed immediately after the war we find the value of production had gone up from £40,000,000 in 1918, to £98,000,000 in 1921. Then again we had the aftermath of the war. We had bad economic conditions, and between 1921 and 1923 the production decreased from £98,000,000 to £74,000,000. That was largely caused by inefficient concerns that had grown up during the war period and that were not able to withstand the ordinary economic conditions that then obtained. We have the extremely grave position of this war to-day. We do not yet know how long it will last and whether the industries that are established will be able to withstand the economic onslaught that will be made in the years that will follow the war. After that we find that the highly protective Tariff Act of 1925, which was amended in 1930, was successful in giving a stimulus to the industrial progress of the country. But after 1930 we had a depression and we find that production fell considerably. After the suspension of the gold standard, however, in 1933, it again went up from £90,000,000 to £150,000,000 in 1936. Now, Mr. Speaker, South Africa is not to-day, as yet, a country of importance as far as manufacturing is concerned, but we have reached a stage where the future development will, to a very high degree, be dependent upon the industrial policy that will follow. Up to the present time we see that the trend of industrial development has been subject to certain psychological consequences and it has not followed a normal increase. We have had the discovery of the gold and the diamonds. We find that during the war there was an increase. We then had a depression. We then had a stimulus as the result of the protective measure adopted by the former government. We then had a setback in the depression again, and then we had this abnormal increase in production since we went off the gold standard. Mr. Speaker, the speculative element, and the undue optimism which underlies industrial expansion at the present time, are factors of the utmost importance and the intense development which has taken place should in no way be exaggerated, due regard being had to the smallness of our population, the enormous area of the country, the limited domestic markets and the lack of comparatively cheap transport facilities. We see that since 1911 there has been a great diversity in the goods manufactured. We find that the process has been unduly accelerated in certain regards and not so in regard to other things. We find that food, drink and tobacco in 1911 amounted to 40 per cent., in 1934 to 26 per cent. and in 1935 to 30 per cent. of the total industrial production. On the other hand we find that with the metal industries and the industries dependent upon mining and extractive processes there has been an increase in regard to the value of their productions. But this increase has not been evenly distributed over South Africa and it is a point which we will have to consider in the near future of our industrial development. I do not suggest that this thing should go off on a provincial basis, but we must look at it from the point of view of the whole country. We will find that since 1911 there has been an increase of 700 per cent. in our production, and how has it been shared by the different provinces? In 1916 the position was as follows: Of the total nett production the Transvaal had 40½ per cent., the Cape had 34½ per cent., Natal had 21 per cent. and the Orange Free State had 4 per cent. Now, in 1935 the Transvaal had jumped from 40 to 50 per cent., the Cape had gone back from 34½ per cent. to 30 per cent., and Natal had gone back from 21 per cent. to 17 per cent., and the Orange Free State had gone back from 4 per cent. to 2 per cent. That was the position as regards production value. The figures are just as illuminating in regard to the number of people employed. In 1916 the Transvaal had 32 per cent., but in 1935 it was 51 per cent. The Cape had 39 per cent., but they have gone back to 29 per cent. Natal had 24½ per cent. and had gone back to 17 per cent., and the Free State from 4 per cent. to 3 per cent. This development has taken place largely to the benefit of the Transvaal at the expense of the other provinces, but the greatest concentration of development has taken place in the Southern Transvaal and the Witwatersrand. The Witwatersrand to-day has 40 per cent. of the total industrial production value of the whole of the country, which is situated in that one area. It is dependent, and this is a most important point, upon the prosperity of the mines and the success of the iron and steel industry. If I may link up at this stage two important factors in our economic fabric I would say we have the mines, which are of great importance, and we have, subsidiary to the mines, to depend upon those industries which make up 40 per cent. of the total industrial life of this country. There is an essential weakness in our economic system, because if we have a setback on the mines, if gold should go back in price, if the production should be decreased, we will have immediately a tremendous depression in respect of those industries, and those industries are almost half the total industrial output of the whole country. That is the essential weakness, and the weakness that all of us have to avoid.

How are you going to avoid it?

I know the hon. member is anxious about it, but I intend to tell him how we propose to avoid it so far as it is humanly possible to avoid it, so long as the hon. member agrees with me that here is the essential weakness in our economic system. These industries on the Witwatersrand are dependent upon gold, they are dependent upon fluctuations in the demand for gold. Serious unemployment occurs in times of depression and, in the long run, this type of industry causes unemployment as the result of rationalisation. As machinery gets better, in this type of industry, you get unemployment because many men are put off. A stable manufacturing industry is only possible by putting development upon a much broader basis. That was, I think, the point that the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) intended to illustrate here this afternoon. We cannot go on in the old way of laissez faire. At the same time the danger is if we are going to encourage the very industries which, in bad times, will again be a source of embarrassment to the whole of the country. One has to analyse the various industries to see what prospect there is for improved methods. Now, Mr. Speaker, let us take the raw material industries, such industries as wattle bark, grinding, wool scouring, cotton ginning, chaff cutting and fell mongering. Since 1922 in these industries there has been no progress at all and they are almost entirely self-supporting. South African materials used in 1927 amounted to 96 per cent., and in 1935 they were represented by 93 per cent. The procedure at present is that we advance the article, the skin or whatever it is, to a condition which makes it available for export, and that is all we do. We make it ready for elaborate manufacturing treatment, and such industries are hardly affected by competition from imports. They are subject to a greater increase in demand in this country, and a further expansion is undoubtedly possible. These are industries which, if encouraged, will be of great value to the farmer, and their position is always more or less constant and is not dependent upon the fortunes of the mines. If you take next the stone, the clay, cement, glass and lime industries. There we have ample scope for development. If we remember that in 1935 glass and glassware to the value of £1,500.000 was imported into this country, there is great scope for us to be self-supporting, notwithstanding that 44.1 per cent. of the material used at present comes from abroad. We have, however, everything we require in the natural resources of this country, and if encouraged, we could become self-supporting. Then take the question of the wood-working industry. The people engaged in that are at a serious disadvantage because they have to compete with the fact that they import most of their raw material. Local raw materials only amount to 27.9 per cent. of the total production, and, therefore, enormous changes are undoubtedly possible there. The timber conditions of our country are not so weak, and as we import timber to the value of £3,500,000, there is obviously room for expansion in that line too. We then come, as I say, to those industries which are dependent on mining, such as metal industries, engineering, machinery and steel. They account for a fifth of the total employment of all industries, and their stability is entirely dependent upon the mines. Now I feel that this corporation is going to increase factory production in that regard, and we must be careful as regards the future, to see that factories dependent upon our agricultural raw materials are not entirely overlooked. If you take the food, drink, condiments and tobacco industries, of which sugar milling and refining, tobacco, bread, biscuits and cake making are parts, we are not entirely self-supporting, and may develop there. In 1935 the Union imported food and drink to the value of £4,400,000. In the United States of America they have reached such a stage of efficiency that they are able to manufacture 700 different products, all of which are not articles of food, solely from pigs, cattle and sheep on the market, and as South Africa produces an enormous variety of agricultural products, there seems here again to be a large scope for industrial development. Take the position of the fruit farmers to-day, they depend almost entirely upon export trade, or upon the canning and preserving industry. Much can be done there, and new markets can be found for fruit. There are various kinds of agricultural produce, the production of which we can encourage by turning them into vegetable oils, and using vegetable oils in industry. That will encourage the growth of ground nuts, cotton, maize and Soya beans, and that will all help the agricultural industry. The fact that agriculture not only accounts for higher employment, but exceeds the production of the mines under normal conditions, is of primary economic importance and a fact that is often overlooked. To conclude, regarding our mining development and the resultant industrial expansion of the last five years in industry, we are seriously in danger of under-estimating the value of agriculture in our economic life. There are two courses open to us, first a considered and well-ordered retreat from agriculture, or secondly, maintaining its stability. In England what occurred was that rural life was absolutely denuded, and bad conditions resulted in the cities, with the result that slums were created, and to-day England is spending millions of money trying to restore the rural fabric of her economic life. To remedy the mistakes of the past, she has difficulty in the towns in providing the millions needed in order to eliminate slums, and has to go to great expense in order to get any sort of stability in her agricultural industry. We have got so far that we have our industries mainly concentrated in the large cities, and we have, as the result of that, the growth of slums and people living in unhappy conditions. But we have not had the same falling off in agriculture. There is only one course open to this country, and that is to realise the value of agriculture as a means of subsistence for the whole nation, the natives included, as a branch of economic activity providing much employment, and being fundamentally a means of serving the interests and the traditional culture of our Afrikaans-speaking population. And, Mr. Speaker, it is a primary source also of raw materials for the development of industries centred in rural areas, such industries as I have taken a little trouble to outline. The decentralisation of industry is for social and economic reasons absolutely imperative in order to develop agriculture on a rational economic basis, and to arrest and prevent migration from the rural areas to urban centres, thus keeping the rural population intact. That must be our object, and we must see that the policy and the constitution of this corporation will be such that that policy is carried into effect. To repeat the mistake that England has made, and not to learn the lesson of her industrial revolution would be fatal. I agree with the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) when he expressed great surprise at the constitution of this corporation, and I was not surprised when the Minister withdrew his proposal to form a panel. The very means by which he intended to construct that panel is a guide to the way that his mind is working, and we can expect to find that people representing those vested interests are likely to be appointed by him to this panel, and they will support that economic policy which we say is a danger to this country. The hon. member for Fauresmith has suggested that the Minister, after the second reading, should agree to send the Bill to a select committee. May I urge the Minister to accede to that request. The Minister realises that we will not obstruct this Bill in any shape or fashion, but there are questions of vital importance which, if discussed in this House, will take many a weary hour, and that is the alternative if a select committee is not appointed. I feel the Minister has sufficient confidence in the assurance given by the hon. member for Fauresmith that if he agrees, we will bring the measure back to this House within a comparatively short time, and he himself will be able to express gratification later at having been able to pilot such an important Bill through the House without a fight across the floor. Mr. Speaker, I must warn the Minister that if he does not agree to the reasonable suggestion of the hon. member for Fauresmith, he must expect a lot of trouble in the formulation of the details of this Bill.

Threats never worry me.

I am going to say what I have to say on this Bill as briefly as I can, because I understand that while it is possible for us to spend days on political matters, it is of the first importance that we should get through measures of this kind with long-term social implications with the greatest expedition. It is quite obvious that the general principle of this measure is accepted by all sections of this House. Any opposition will have to find its expression outside. But the weight of public opinion will, I believe, be in favour of the extension of secondary industries in this country. We have always been haunted by the spectre of our dependence upon a wasting industry like the gold mines, and we have for years concentrated our energies on an attempt to build up secondary industries as an alternative. I agree with that policy; but what I am concerned to say in this connection is that while I support the development of secondary industries, I cannot feel satisfied that the provisions of this Bill are such as to guarantee that in this new phase of secondary industry development, upon which we are embarking, our progress will be along what I should call the right channel. I define the right channel in terms of a definite social objective. I take it that the whole purpose of encouraging secondary industry in this country is, in fact, to provide a satisfactory field of employment for the whole of our population, so that they may attain a decent decent standard of living and look forward to a rising standard, and it is with that objective in view that I have examined the contents of this measure. I have examined the Bill fairly carefully, and I have come to the conclusion that unless there are certain alterations, we have no more hope of achieving that objective than we have had in the past. I would like to remind the House of what has been the course of our industrial development, or rather above have been the social effects of the course of our industrial development. I was interested to hear the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) the other day twitting the Minister with the fact that the Government to which he (the Minister) originally belonged, the South African Party Government, had fallen in 1924 because it had failed to keep the wheels of industry moving with the rapidity that they had achieved during the period of the last war. He pointed out with some glee that there had supervened a depression which had thrown out the old Government, and that the Nationalist Government promptly proceeded to put things right by an extended policy of protection. I think that on the surface these facts are right, but I had a just desire to remind the hon. member for George that when his own Government began to change its character, when the Nationalist Party divided, and gave place to a new government, South Africa, after having gone through a period of quite considerable industrial development, was faced with the problem of 300,000 poor whites, that is that the problem of poverty was almost more pressing and more acute at the end of the period of the Nationalist Party Government than before.

Owing to world conditions.

World conditions were only one factor, for since 1932 we have had, I might almost say, a phenomenal extension of secondary industries in this country, which world conditions have made possible, giving us the advantages which have enabled us to develop as we have done in the last six years, but we are still faced with an enormous poor white problem. Industrialists will no doubt reply that that does not alter the fact that industries did absorb a tremendous numbers of new hands in these periods of expansion. And hon. members who are becoming more familiar with the industrial census will no doubt tell me that the average European wage has shown a rise, and that productions per head of the population has also shown an increase. But none of those facts alter the circumstance that we have to-day a very pressing problem of poverty which has been increasing and not decreasing with our industrial development, and when we talk about secondary industry paying what is a remarkably high average wage per head to European employees. I would remind the industrial side of the House, which will no doubt take refuge in that comforting fact, that the average covers the whole field of European employment, and is heavily weighted by the levels of salaried and skilled workers. If the industrial census would provide us with more detailed figures in regard to wages, and tell us what the rank and file of the white workers were getting as against the skilled workers, those figures would certainly show that the wage level in the industrial centres is becoming lamentably low, and that the lives even of the people who do get employment in industrial spheres are often lives of great struggle against poverty, want and disease. I think it is essential that we should face this position of the rising cost of poverty to the Government and begin to take some definite action to deal with it. Now so far as this Bill is concerned, which should provide one line of attack on this problem, I was going to make my first point of attack on the constitution of the board, which the Minister proposed to set up, but as he has made an announcement that he is going to change this clause, he has to a large extent knocked away the props from my objection. Still this announcement does not do away with my objection altogether. We do not know what he is going to put in the place of that clause, and as the hon. member for Germiston (North) (Mr. Quinlan) suggested, the clause as it stands suggests the line which the Minister will probably take. The people he has set down here in this clause as the sort of people he wants on this board are the sort of people he may still want on this board, and that is the very thing we want to avoid. The fact is this, that a good many of us are prepared to make whatever effort we can to induce the Minister to accept a board which will be definitely different from this one in its composition.

Those names are the panel for selection—they are not the board.

The point is still the same. Obviously the people who are going to select the panel will select the same people as themselves, people who will represent their interests. Naturally, one elects for a panel of this kind one’s own sort. I am not casting any reflections on individuals. I only say that people tend to represent the interests with which they are associated, and my contention is that in a case of this kind to give into the hands of established vested interests the control of a new phase of economic development is to give us just what we have had in the past. What we have had in the past is this. A great deal of money made by a few people, and a lot of misery suffered by others. In the last 20 years we have only had phenomenal industrial development, but we have had a lot of money made by a few people, and that is what we have to avoid for the future. South Africa has become rich—part of it has become rich, while a large part has remained, or has become poor, and I want some guarantee that the board which is going to direct the operations of this corporation is going to have an eye to the social purpose of industries, and not to the making of private profits. I want some guarantee that the money to be spent and the advice to be given is going to be spent and is going to be given in such a way that the profits of industry are going to be limited, and that the best returns of the industries are going to be given to the people of this country, and are not going to find their way into the pockets of a few who have already done well out of South Africa. I hope hon. members on this side of the House (the Opposition) will concentrate on that point rather than on the anxiety that we should not get capital from outside. I suspect that hon. members are more interested in seeing that we are not dominated by foreign capital than in seeing that any capital invested will give a return to the mass of the people instead of to a few. So I hope that when the Minister reconstitutes this board he will see to it that it is not going to be dominated by interests such as the Chamber of Mines. I am prepared to subscribe entirely to what the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) said. It is ridiculous to give the Chamber of Mines any control here, seeing that the interests of the Chamber of Mines do not lie in the direction of increased consuming power on the part of the people. It does not sell its commodity here. What the Chamber of Mines wants is cheap labour, and therefore to give it an interest in industries which should raise the standard of living and make labour scarce is absurd. I could make the same, not exactly the same, but a similar criticism about commerce. So I hope that these interests will not dominate that board. I am perfectly prepared to accept the suggestion that has been made in this debate, that agriculture should be represented on that board, but I do hope that for once the ordinary citizen who is neither an industrial nor a commercial magnate, nor a farmer, will also have representation. I want the consumer and the person who is looking for a future for his family to have some representation. Now I want to come to my second point of attack. The Minister lays down that the conditions for assistance for industries under this board shall be that the industry which it is proposed to establish shall be essentially economic. Every application to be dealt with by the board is to be dealt with on its economic merits. I wonder whether we could have a definition of what economic merits are. Does it mean that it pays good wages or good returns to investors. That differentiation is important. I can imagine an industry paying good returns if it is allowed to sweat its labour to the utmost. The Minister will say that he certainly does not contemplate that, but we should have it laid down that there is an obligation on these industries to pay decent standard wages. And here I quarrel with the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander). I listened with amazement to a man who has been a member of this House for as many years as he has, to a man who has had as close and intimate a knowledge of the poor as I understood he had, telling this House that it is perfectly all right, the Wage Board attends to wage conditions and sees that everything is in order in that direction. Does he not know that the Wage Board is doing its best to deal with all the industries, to overtake all the industries which have been allowed to grow up without any fair wage clause? Does he not know that to-day three men as a Wage Board are struggling to deal with the numerous industries in this country which are paying disgraceful wages, that they cannot get round quickly enough to get the level as it needs to be raised? Now are we going to allow new industries to be established without any guarantee that they will pay decent wages? Are we to wait until the Wage Board covers the field now awaiting its labours before we get reasonable conditions in these new industries? I hope we shall not get into that position. In conclusion, therefore, I must express my hope that in the Committee stage, if the Minister does not agree to send this Bill to a select committee, we shall have some definition of economic merits to give us some guarantee that the social direction of secondary industry will be considered. I hope we shall have some definition of economic merits, that will lay down that no industry can be established with the assistance of this board to be constituted under this Act, unless it begins by accepting at least the best wage conditions now established under an Industrial Council or by the Wage Board, and especially that that definition will include a very definite limitation of the profits that may be made by any of these industries.

Judging by the reception which this Bill has had it seems pretty certain that free trade is not wanted in South Africa, and that everyone is in favour of protection. The Minister seems to have been converted to protection, but there is one point I am not sure about its meaning. The Minister said that he would not be a party to protection with the exception of cases in which dumping took place. I cannot see how any industry in this country can prosper and can be established without protection, without continuing the policy of protection that has been laid down in our economic life. I want to say definitely that none of the industries which we have could have reached that stage of development which they have reached to-day without protection. The development here has been very remarkable. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Quinlan) compared the development in America and other countries with ours, but he forgets that these people have had centuries of experience behind them and that we in this country have achieved in a decade what it has taken other countries centuries to achieve. It is, of course, very necessary to maintain the protection which we have to-day if we wish to maintain that progress. It has always been said by the free traders that the protection of our industries would unbalance our economic life —in other words that our imports would suffer. Many figures have been quoted in this House in connection with our industrial development, and I should like to quote the figures of our imports since we have established our protective policy merely to prove that protection of our own industries must further our trade in general. Our importations in this country prior to the protective era, averaged £66,000,000 per annum. In 1929 we reached a figure of £83,000,000, and in 1937 the figure was £97,000,000. These figures definitely disprove the arguments of free traders that the development of our industries would upset our economic balance. A great deal has been said about the development of our industries since 1924, Only since the National Government came into power have our industries really taken shape and developed, it is said. That is an entirely wrong conception. The foundation of our industries was laid in 1912 during the Smuts-Botha Governments when the Cullman Commission was appointed. As the outcome of that Commission the foundation of our industrial development was definitely laid. In 1924 we put our tariff on a scientific basis by having a revenue producing tariff and a protective tariff. That undoubtedly gave industry a further stimulus. We have had some great industrialists in this country. We are talking as if we are only now making a start of industrial development, but we have made great strides in industrial development in this country without Government aid. I would remind the House that before Iscor was established, an iron and steel industry had already been established in the Transvaal by the firm of Lewis & Marks. Not only did Lewis & Marks establish a steel and iron works in Pretoria and Vereeniging and Newcastle, namely, the Union Steel Corporation, but subsequently it was further developed by Iscor. We had the same firm establishing a cement factory, a glass and bottle factory and a tannery. Albert Holt started a tobacco and cigarette industry. Sir David Harris started a dynamite factory at Somerset West. Mr. Mizrach started a maize products and starch industry at Germiston. D. Isaacs started a furniture industry. Mauerberger started a spinning and weaving cotton industry. Woolf Harris started woollen spinning and weaving industries. Baumann started a biscuit factory. Max Michaelis started the Cape cement factory at Piquetberg. H. Bertish started a clothing and shirt factory and S. Roytowski started a clothing industry. Ginsberg started a match, soap and candle factory and Schlesinger started a chemical products industry. There are many more, but I mention these few names just to show that we have the initiative and enterprise in this country, and all these established industries are a great asset to this country. When people say that £5,000,000 is not sufficient for this particular project, I think they are wrong. There will not be a big call on this Corporation. There is sufficient capital in this country and sufficient initiative to start any promising industry by private enterprise. That is a fact which seems to have been overlooked at the moment. I do think it is wrong to expect big developments as the outcome of this Bill. I am afraid that the expectation that you are going to solve the whole of the unemployment problem by merely passing this Bill will not be realised. Industries in this country have already been established and there is plenty of energy and capital available for any promising industry. The fear has been expressed that this Corporation may be tempted to support third-class industries which are not too promising. We must guard against that. There is plenty of scope in the country and many industries can still be established. There are certain national industries, such as the fertiliser industry and cold storage, timber and shipbuilding and so on, which are not, perhaps, sufficiently tempting for individuals to support. These are industries which should be fostered by the State, and which are of great national importance. I should, however, like to warn the House against the expansion of industries which are not warranted by our fundamental South African market. After all we must remember that our South African market is still limited. Industries must be first supported in order to retain the trade of our home market. Our home market is small so far as secondary industry is concerned, and it is already well supplied. Before the war we had almost reached saturation point in many of our secondary industries. That is why we must not confine those industries merely to South African markets. We must open up new markets. We must, for instance, see that the customs barrier with Rhodesia is removed so that we can extend our markets to the north. I repeat, we must not be confined merely to our South African requirements. Coming to the Bill, I wish shortly to refer to clause 3 and to the remarks of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) who mentioned the necessity of having attached to this organisation a research corporation. I would like to remind the House that they have such an institution maintained by the Board of Trade and Industries who have their technical advisers who are carrying on research work, and there is no necessity for overlapping. I do want now to express my approval of the point made by the hon. member for Fauresmith in connection with the proposed sale of Iscor shares. I think it would be a definite mistake to attempt the sale of those shares. That would mean dissipating our national assets. The Government have acquired those shares and have taken the risk of establishing this industry, and they have a fine asset which is earning 6 per cent. Why sell the shares and take the risk of putting that money into some other concern which may not be so valuable? I think we should increase our revenue if possible from productive State enterprise. In Iscor we have a State enterprise which is productive. If we borrow the money for the purposes of the Corporation we must not forget that it will become a productive asset, and if the National Debt is increased by a further £5,000,000 I do not think it is too much to fear. I repeat that I am definitely opposed to the idea of selling the Iscor shares and it would be very much better if the money required were raised by way of a loan. I want to say, in conclusion, that I welcome this measure. I think it will be another milestone in our industrial development, but I would warn the House that they must not expect that all our troubles will be solved merely by providing this money. There will still be room left in this country for private enterprise, and anything that is taken up by this particular Corporation should be well investigated and considered.

I must congratulate the Government upon introducing one of the most important pieces of legislation that has even been brought before this House. It is going, I may say, to remodel the whole of our future. It was commenced by the old Nationalist government when they brought Iscor into existence. I think it is only fair to that government to congratulate them as well. It was a move in the right direction in regard to industrial development in South Africa. In dealing with this Bill I am sure the Minister will accept constructive criticism. I am sure that the Government wants the very best brains it can get in this big industrial undertaking. I will, therefore, suggest for the Government’s serious consideration that they do not appoint a full-time board, but rather a part-time board. I think the board of directors will be a most important feature in this big industrial development scheme. A part-time board could be paid for special sittings of the board and it will mean that the Government will not be bothered by job-seekers and “jobs for pals.” In this way you will get the best brains in the country, because such men will know that it is their duty to serve. I want to refer to a similar board, namely the Shipping Board. Therefore, I think you should get the best men you can and not make the appointment a whole-time position. The only man on this board who should be full-time should be the chairman. I think the chairman should be a full-time official. There has been some criticism by the Opposition, especialy about the gold mining industry being represented. I should like to point out that if it were not for the gold mines there would be no secondary industries. I think hon. members should take that into consideration when they criticise the gold mines. Only recently it was pointed out what has been done by the Union Gold Mining Corporation of Johannesburg when they established a big South Afrian pulp and paper manufactory at Geduld, on the Witwatersrand. That shows that the gold mining industry are prepared to support any industry that is worth being supported. I hold no brief for the gold mining industry, but it is right to give them their due when they are of such importance to our secondary industries. Under section 5 of the Bill the Government is prepared to assist in developing raw materials in the country, with which I heartily agree. I think that is an excellent idea, as it will save the Minister of Mines special legislation to obtain financial assistance for the development of our base metals. I sincerely hope that the Government and the Minister will consider the development of our base metals. One of the speakers — I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth — asked if we have more industries or increase our present industries, where shall we find markets for the products? In that connection I should like to refer him to the speech made by the Prime Minister at the opening of the Witwatersrand Agricultural Show, when he said—

I really think that this huge market to the north belongs to the Union, and I think this Bill, for developing secondary industries, is one of the finest pieces of work the Government has done. I hope it will have the unanimous support of the House.

In my opinion this undertaking stands on the same plane with the Iscor undertaking, which the Nationalist Party government established at that time. It has rightly been indicated how many opportunities there are for industrial development, and how much the Government can contribute to allow the development to take place. In this Bill apparently an expansion of the Iscor undertaking is aimed at, a concern which at that time experienced so much opposition. This Bill, however, is exposed to one great danger to which I will refer. The undertaking must, from the start, be put on a truly national basis, as was the case with Iscor, and I only want to point out one danger which may possibly result from this Bill. We know that the great European countries are involved in a great struggle to-day. It will shock and injure their industries to their foundations, and when the war is over one day, South Africa may expect that attempts will be made in all countries to run away with money and undertakings, and that individuals even will try to run away in order, if possible, to escape from a possible economic collapse. Then the question is what we are going to do with the £5,000,000, and how we are going to see to it that we will not possibly use it in a way which will not lead to national development, but to the undertaking degenerating into one for the promotion of subsidised immigration from abroad. I think that that is a matter which the Minister should take into serious consideration, and that we ought to make provision in this Bill for things not to get out of hand, and develop in that direction. All sorts of applications will be made, and there will possibly be concerns which will be established here by people abroad, and who will argue that they are in the emergency obliged to import their staff. Under the protection of this Bill, and with the assistance of the capital which is being made available here we will then have that kind of immigration. That is an aspect which we must keep in view, and in connection with which the Minister who has had the courage to introduce this Bill, will have to be careful and to act very warily, so that our national interests in South Africa are properly protected. I do not want to attribute that motive to him, but he does not know whether he will be in office when the war comes to an end, and we will have the position that people will be coming to South Africa under all kinds of pretences. He must take precautionary measures, so that the national undertaking will not ultimately run a danger of degenerating and being employed for the purposes of subsidised immigration, which will possibly act injuriously to the great and broader interests of the Union of South Africa.

I wish to confine myself to the measure before the House. In the first place, it will rightly be regarded in the country as only one of those measures which will have to be taken by the Government to deal with some of the post-war industrial problems which will face this country in the future. Particularly is this Bill acceptable because of the protection that it gives the country from mushroom industries which have a tendency to rise suddenly to the disadvantage of investors and the general public. This Bill will indirectly provide a safeguard for the private investor, and establish a greater feeling of confidence in industrial propositions within the borders of the Union, and furthermore, it will be an insurance against the ill effects of unemployment, which arise from the closing down of mushroom industries. Therefore, sir, I think on the general principles it will not only be acceptable to this House, but to every section of the population. When one considers the general propositions laid down in the Bill, one must present for the consideration of the Minister, certain criticisms which one hopes will be regarded as constructive. In the first place, we have on our statute book legislation establishing a board of trade and industries, and it has continually been before me, at any rate, that this board will run on somewhat parallel fines to the corporation which this Bill proposes to establish. That point has already been mentioned, but I desire to emphasise it. The powers of the board are that each application or proposal shall be dealt with strictly on its economic merits, and I would like to have a definition of what is meant by economic merits. As I understand it, it not only refers to the aspects of profits, but it deals with every phase in the building up and carrying out of industry in this country. From the standpoint of wages, housing, and social conditions, I think one has to ask the Minister whether these factors will be taken into account in arriving at the economic merits to which the clause refers. If the Board of Trade and Industries functions at the same time and along similar lines to that of this corporation, then I feel there will be a danger of duplication of work and expense to the country. One of the functions of the Board of Trade and Industries is to enquire into all matters concerning the economic development of the natural resources of the Union and its industries and trade, and in particular the payment of bounties or other forms of state aid. Now, sir, whether state aid means the granting of loans or providing a portion of the capital, or assistance through the customs or railway rates, it is all a form of state aid; so that in that respect the Bill covers one of the terms of reference to the Board of Trades and Industries. Then the Board of Trades and Industries has to deal with the supply of raw materials, with technical knowledge for the running of the industry, and to consider questions of transport and markets for the products of industry. These form a part of its functions. In the Bill we find that the corporation has to consider its proposal strictly on its economic merits. Would not economic merits include the consideration of railway rates, distance of factories from the place of production of raw materials? Would it not also deal with the question of protection? We know that at the present time the Board of Trade and Industries is considering the establishment of industries in this country, and they must take into account the question of railway rates, and not only that, but the question of customs tariffs, the distance from the place of manufacture to the point of consumption. In this connection we have appointed a Rural Industries Commission which has gone round the country. We have not yet had its report, but we hope the Minister will be able to make some statement in that regard. I think the report of that commission will reveal that the question of the establishment of industries all over the country is a most difficult one. There are many arguments for the spreading of industries throughout the Union instead of concentrating them in one or two centres, but generally speaking one will find that where the manufactured article is to be used, there one will find the factory to manufacture it. One other point is the question of the representation of labour on this panel committee. The Minister has indicated that he proposes to scrap the panel, but I hope in scrapping the panel, whatever alternative is proposed, consideration will be given, in the selection of directors, to the question of the interests of labour, the interests of those who produce the manufactured article, the conditions under which they will be employed, and generally, all matters affecting the social welfare of those engaged in industries dealt with by the corporation. With these few remarks I would express my pleasure at the introduction of this Bill, and I hope it will go through this House except with some such amendments as will commend themselves to the Government as the result of this debate.

I would like to ask the Minister to be so good as to agree to the suggestion which has been made for the appointment of a select committee to go through this Bill again. If the Minister does not do so it will only mean that more time will have to be taken in the committee stage. The Minister will admit that this Bill has been very clumsily drawn, and as it stands here it cannot be accepted. What we feel is that the Bill should make provision for the primary producer, not only the agriculturist, but also the stock breeder. This Bill makes no provision for either the agriculturist or the stock breeder. I therefore feel that the select committee should make provision for those primary producers. We feel that the difficulties in regard to the primary producers in our country are that we have the necessary products, fruit, etc., but that a large part of them are lost. If even in regard to stock breeding we make a comparison with Australia, where you have big abattoirs, then you find that every part of a sheep or beast is turned to some account. But here in our country that is not the case. In Australia you find that the skins, for instance, are treated in a certain way, and then they go to the boot and shoe factories, where they are required. Here with us we find that the skins go to Europe, and then they come back to our boot and shoe factories. As we are particularly in need of industries, it is necessary to support the primary producers. We also find that thousands of tons of our mealies, for instance, go to Sweden and those countries, and they feed their pigs on them, and then they come back to us in the form of ham, bacon, etc. That is an unparalleled thing, and I hope that the Minister will give his attention to it. Take the case of wool. We find that it is sent to Europe, sometimes merely to be washed, and then it is sent back. I heard from someone recently who needed a certain quality of wool. It had only been sent to Europe and washed and he had to pay 15s. a lb. for it when it came back. I hope the Minister will agree to this Bill going to a select committee to put it on a satisfactory basis.

I want to congratulate the Minister on having introduced this Bill, because although it is far from perfect I consider it is a start on the right road to enable the industries of South Africa to expand further than they have been able to do. Not only our present industries, but also future industries. I would say to hon. members who have criticised this Bill that it is not very often that the commercial community, or the industrialists of South Africa, come to this House for any assistance whatever. It is certainly the first time in my experience that the industrialists have come here for any assistance. That being so, and seeing that so much time is taken up every year with farmers’ relief measures, I do say to our farming friends that they are not quite justified in their criticism of this Bill and in their endeavours, if I may say so, to wreck this Bill by wanting it sent to a Select Committee at this late stage of the session.

You must have been asleep; there is no intention to wreck it.

It is the hon. member who must have been asleep. It has been mentioned three, times that this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee.

That does not mean wrecking it. The intention is to improve it.

That may be your idea of improving the Bill.

It is the Minister’s idea too.

I would ask my farmer friends what would happen if we on this side recommended that every Bill affecting the farming industry should be sent to a Select Committee, particularly when we were approaching the end of a session? They know that there is no time for this Bill to go to a Select Committee.

The Minister is going to accept that suggestion.

What guarantee is there that this Bill is going to come from a Select Committee in time to be passed this session? My hon. friends opposite always try to criticise anything that is brought forward to assist the commercial community. We have to sit here day after day and listen to discussions to assist the farming industry. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Quinlan) rightly said that practically all industries were dependent on the mining industry, they were subsidiary industries to the mining industry. That is perfectly true. Not only industries, but the whole of agriculture, the whole of South Africa, is carried upon the backs of the mines.

You are talking nonsense.

You cannot deny it, My hon. friend should recognise that agriculture is not the backbone of South Africa, it never has been and never will be. If he imagines that agriculture can exist in South Africa without the subsidies given to it, derived from the mines, he is quite wrong. Why be so blind or so stupid as not to admit that the whole of the money which has gone to the farming industry has come from the mining industry? Is it not in the interest of agriculturists of this country that we should develop our industries to the greatest possible extent? Is it not a fact that the more we develop our industries the more we shall be able to help agriculture? Agriculture must benefit if industries are brought into being. It has been said that in this Bill no provision is made for safeguarding of labour, but we have to-day in our factory Acts, Industrial Councils and a hundred and one other measures on our Statute Book, provisions protecting the labour forces of this country, and although they may not be perfect I would suggest that our industrial councils work very well. You have industrial councils controlling your industries, and if there are faults in the working of this machinery, those faults can easily be remedied. I hope there will be no objection to labour being represented on one of these boards. It will be all to the good, because I feel it is only a matter of time when all industrial Acts on the Statute Book will be so improved that our industrial councils will be so perfected that we shall get to a very much better position in regard to labour questions. It has also been suggested that some of this money provided under the Bill could be utilised for some of our present industries. The petrol industry has been suggested. Money could be allocated to the further development of that industry. I see nothing in this Bill which will prevent that being done. The objects of the Corporation are to assist industries already established as well as industries not established. The textile industry has also been suggested as deserving of some financial assistance. I see nothing in the Bill to prevent that, and I think it will be the intention of this Corporation to do all they can to assist present industries. It has been said that we should not allow any small industries to come into being through the help of this Corporation. I do not agree with that, and I hope the Minister will not lay that down as the policy of this Corporation—that he will not lay it down that it shall only be the policy to bring into being those huge concerns that will eventually develop into monopolies. That I think would be fatal to South Africa. It ought to be possible to enable our present small industries to develop and extend their activities until they become so efficient and so self-supporting that it may be possible to do away with some of our tariff, or any other protection they already have. I sincerely hope that it will not be the policy of this Corporation only to assist in the establishment of these very large industries, which will exclude the smaller people. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Quinlan) quoted some figures this afternoon and mentioned a number of industries that had gone out of existence during the depression years of 1930—1933. That is quite correct. It is quite true that did happen. That was, unfortunately, inevitable because, as everyone knows, the banks tightened up on their overdrafts and financial assistance and there was no Land Bank to go to for that assistance. They could not go to the Land Bank and get relief or financial assistance from the Land Bank. There were these small industrialists and commercial men who could not make a success of their particular business or industry in which they were interested during the depression. They had to go to the wall as no one was prepared to come to their assistance. There are many of those industries that would be carrying on to-day and would be able to extend if they had been able to get a little bit of financial assistance to enable them to carry through the depression years. There is no doubt about that. I hope that this Corporation will serve the needs of these smaller individuals and smaller concerns. Under the banking system to-day it is very difficult to obtain money from the commercial banks of this country, for business or industrial undertakings. Hon. members will appreciate that machinery will wear out. Up-to-date machinery must be bought and a hundred and one things must arise in any undertaking, which require financial assistance, and it is not always possible to get it from the banks. I hope that the Minister will pay special attention to that aspect of the Corporation’s business, and see if it is not possible to help the small industrialists and small commercial people along, where it is not possible to get such assistance at the present time. I am sure the Minister is anxious to get the second reading of the bill through this afternoon, and I do not want to prolong the proceedings. I hope the bill will be passed this session. I am definitely of the opinion that the Minster should not send this bill to a Select Committee. I understand that he is now prepared to do that. And I ask him if that is so. If that is done I am afraid this bill will not pass this session, and it is highly desirable that the bill should be given effect to at the earliest possible moment. There are a number of industries in South Africa which are awaiting expansion and which will be able to receive financial assistance under this bill and which will be able to expand and not be a drag upon the country. I feel sure that the Board as suggested will consist of individuals who are experts on industrial development in South Africa, and commercial matters generally. They will consist of representative men from the Chamber of Trades and Industries, the Chamber of Mines and the Chamber of Commerce and other people who are absolute experts, and any money that it may be within their power to say must be allocated to certain industries, will not be lost. I am perfectly certain of that. There is no question of any accumulation, as in the case of farming bonds, with £100,000,000 owing. That will not happen when you have these men controlling this financial Corporation. Money is not lost in commerce and industry to that extent. I feel certain that if effect is given to this bill the Corporation will prove to be not only self-supporting but will eventually prove to be of benefit to the State. Everyone will derive great benefit from the application of this bill if it is given time and assistance and given real experts to direct its affairs. I feel certain that we shall not regret having passed this bill. It is practically only once in a life-time that the commercial and industrial community comes to this House for assistance. I am sure that our friends who represent the farming industry will, therefore, do what they can to see that this bill is put into operation at the earliest possible moment.

I did not quite intend to speak on this Bill. I cannot, however, omit to make a few remarks, after what the last speaker has said. I can only come to the conclusion that that hon. member either does not understand Afrikaans, or that he was asleep during the time the debate was proceeding on this Bill. The Opposition said at the start this afternoon that we welcomed this Bill, and that there were only certain objections which we had, and if I correctly followed the position then the Minister showed so much consideration that he agreed and was willing to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after the second reading. And then that hon. member now comes and accuses the Opposition of wanting to go so far as to wreck the Bill. I want most emphatically to say that that is not the case. We welcome the Bill, and we want to get the Bill on to the statute book after the rough places have been smoothed down, and we realise that the best way of doing that is to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after the second reading. Moreover, the same speaker referred in a jeerins way to the agriculture of our country. He said that agriculture had never yet been the backbone of the country, and that it never would be. Is that not possibly the reason whey there is no direct reference to the agricultural section of the population in regard to the representation on the committee which is to appoint the board of directors? No, it only proves to us once more that so far as the farming population is concerned, and agricultural conditions generally, we are not taken into account, I will not say by all the hon. members opposite, but by a large section of those who sit on the opposite side. It is suggested in a grandiose way here that the mines are the only means of existence of our country. May I just say this in reply to that. If it were not for agriculture delivering everything to the mines at the price at which it is being sold to the mines to-day, many of the mines would not be able to exist either. On the other hand, this big industry would not then have paid out half of the dividends which it is paying out to-day. It is a hard fact that these two sections of our industrial life, the agricultural industry and the mines, have to cooperate with each other. We want to recognise that the mines are a great asset to the country, but on the other hand it must also be recognised that agriculture is of great value to the country, and that in connection with future developments, it is also going to be of great value to the mines. Let me, at the same time, also make a few remarks on the Bill. I want, as has already been done, to urge the Government, in all seriousness, not to locate the development of industries only in the big towns. The whole of the north-west is practically deprived of anything of the kind. I know of one attempt which was made by a private individual at Carnarvon to establish a boot and shoe factory. Perhaps it is a little ambitious to call it a factory. There are only about twenty people employed, but the orders come from all over the country because the product can be delivered so cheaply. Housing conditions, the cost of living of the people is so much less, with the result that labour can be obtained so much cheaper. Consequently we ask that the Government should not only think of the big towns, but that in dealing with the promotion of industrial development, it will also think of the smaller towns and villages. Then I also want to express the hope that the Government will not lose sight of those two great products of our country, namely, meat and wool, that they will take them into special consideration, and take special steps to provide for industrial development in connection with those two products. At the very start of the session, we put questions in connection with the importation of tinned meat. The figures of the imports were supplied to us, and they made us feel what an astonishing lack there is of developing of that secondary industry of the preparation and canning of our meat. We are a meat-producing country. Last year we had to export about 90,000 sheep, because our supply was greater than our demand, and nevertheless we find that £2,000,000 worth of meat was imported. That, of course, is an indication to us that something should be done in regard to meat factories in our country, and I hope that the Government will pay serious attention to the matter, especially for the benefit of those parts which are dependent on the meat industry, namely the north-west. It has already been stated what the position is in connection with wool, namely that we feel that there is a great want in our country. The wool is produced here, it is exported, and then it is imported again in the form of clothing. Why a factory cannot be established here I do not know. I hope that this Bill, which will have our blessing when the rough places have been planed down as they will be in select committee, will contribute a great deal to the industrial development of our country, and that will occur when we get the co-operation of all sections of the population, as we already have the co-operation of the agricultural section.

I only want to occupy a few minutes, and I would not even take up that little time if it were not for the hon. member who spoke before the last speaker. I do not know what constituency he represents, but he deliberately went out of his way to charge this side of the House with intentionally trying to wreck this Bill. The hon. member who has just sat down said that that hon. member could not understand what we had said. It must be a fact that he could not understand what we said, or otherwise I must honestly say that he deliberately went out of his way to make propaganda by his statement that we wanted to wreck the Bill. Only a few years ago a commission of enquiry was appointed in connection with our industries. That commission went about the country and I very well remember when it came to our constituency to take evidence, how interested the farmers were in the matter, because they received the impression that we had all now realised that the time for industrial development had arrived. They came strongly under the impression of what the Government were going to do, for instance, by way of establishing a wool manufactury in our country. We have over and over again said that we agree with the principle of this Bill, but I must say that I think that the farmers on the countryside will be a little disappointed and that we also will be disappointed, because so far as I can read between the lines, I do not believe that it is intended under this Bill, that we should, for instance, establish woollen manufacturies. I will not go into the merits of the question whether it is necessary to have such factories in the interior for the making up of our wool there, and how much work those factories will provide, but I just want to say that I abandoned all hope when I saw how the board of directors was originally proposed to be constituted. I was afraid that this Bill would not help us much. A second reason why I think that the Government will not actually establish any factories for the handling of wool, is that it would require a certain amount of public money to support them, and we see that in this Bill only those factories will be considered which can be carried on on an economic basis. We know what the opinion of our old S.A.P. friends is when they talk of an economic basis. Then they are thinking of a purely business transaction apart from all other things. We on this side have always said that we want our manufactories to be built up on a national basis, and that certain factories should also be established when they do not show a direct profit during the earlier years, seeing that they are still a great gain to the country indirectly. I just want to express the hope—and I do not want to be long— that the farmers in the country who have looked forward to this Bill, will not be disappointed, but I fear that so far as the establishment of a factory for working up wool is concerned, there is not much hope under this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome very sincerely the fine spirit in which this Bill has been received by the House. In the first place, I would emphasise that one of the most valuable functions of the board will be to examine all schemes, and to protect the public interest and investors. At last we shall have some jury before whom a scheme will go and the public will then be satisfied that the scheme is fair, just and reasonably hopeful of success. I would also like to emphasise that the functions of the board will not be to initiate or investigate the possibility of establishing industry, but will only be to investigate definite proposals for the establishment of an industry, and that when proposals are submitted the board will consider the various factors making for success, such as power, transportation, sources of raw material, the labour available, the proximity of markets and estimates of the actual cost, and so on, to satisfy themselves whether the scheme has been well thought out and based on firm ground. There has been misapprehension in the House as to the possibilities of developing various industries. Some members have suggested, I think the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) suggested that there is no chance of any. Other members have suggested that this corporation is only going to be used to increase the competition against industries already established. To give hon. members some idea of what the possibilities are, I would remind them that when I moved the second reading of this Bill, I mentioned that the development of industries up to the present, has been of what I would call the lighter industry, and the heavier industries have not been established to anything like a similar extent, although we have the raw materials from which such industries would have a fair chance of success. Take one of our industries alone, the Electricity Supply Commission. Since that commission has been established it has imported £20,000,000 worth of stuff, and the gold mines have imported even more. It seems to us that many industries could be developed arising out of our steel, and our other raw material, copper, asbestos and so on. I mention some of the articles that are imported, and which possibly we should be able to make ourselves, such things as turbines and all the engineering industries such as ship building, and others, dealing with the heavier class of material. As regards the question of the panel, I shall not deal with criticisms of that matter, because as I have told the House I propose redrafting that clause and submitting a new clause, which can be considered on its merits, and I think will meet the House. If the House thinks the Minister will be the best person to appoint the board, I am agreeable to take it on, but I assure the House that I shall be very difficult, and the only people who will be appointed on that board, as far as I am concerned, are people who are efficient and have got brains and know the job. There cannot be any political pull about this thing, it has got to be entirely divorced from politics. As I said in my opening speech, if you are going to make a success of this thing, you must divorce it from politics; if that pernicious thing gets into this, you are going to lose your £5,000,000 without a doubt. I welcome the criticism of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga). We must remember that he was a former Minister of Finance for sixteen years, and, Mr. Speaker, for six years I suffered under him. I must say he astonished me to-day when he suggested that I should put up before these directors, an ideal other than economic success. I really could hardly believe my ears, and I thought that probably a certain number of months on a farm had possibly altered his outlook on life. Mr. Speaker, in this corporation there can be no other test than the economic test, and I go further and say that I cannot visualise any scheme being nationally valuable unless it is economically sound. All these funny things that lose money are a drain on the body politic, and they do not do us nationally any good whatever. I thoroughly agree that we want to develop the national side of our life, but for goodness sake let us develop it on such lines as the hon. member for Fauresmith taught me to consider when he was in charge of the Treasury. The hon. member almost regrets that Iscor is devoting itself to making profits, instead of being a kind of body to give subsidies to agriculture, so that the farmers should get fencing posts below the market value, or fencing wire. I am thoroughly at one with him in the advantages of developing our rural industries, but they must also be economically sound. I can see vast chances of developing industries in many parts of the country. In older countries we find certain industries concentrated in certain areas, and the labour force there has been gradually educated in those areas, and other conditions such as water and power have been available. Certain areas produce certain classes of goods, in the same way that. Yorkshire produces woollen goods, Staffordshire produces pottery, and so on. I do not see why in our country one part of the country should not produce one thing, and another part another, but it is all conditioned on one fact, and that is the industry will pay its way. We are not going to have industries coming to us like the farming interests very often come and ask us to put up money just to get them out of the mud. Industry has got to live on its own strength. I want to emphasise that we should not overlook the advantage to the platteland of the development of industries even in the large towns. Agriculture is very much concerned in the development of big industries, and the consequent increase of economically powerful consumers. Now I should like to refer to the criticism on the mobilisation of B shares. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) also mentioned it. He is a commercial man, and I would suggest to him that it is quite an ordinary proceeding to mobilise one asset to provide capital to develop some other interest. That is quite a normal method, and the mobilisation of these shares has one advantage. If we simply float another £5,000,000 loan, the taxpayer will have to pay the interest on that loan, whereas if we mobilise the B shares, the taxpayer will be saved that.

In the meantime the B shares produce more revenue than your interest.

They will still belong to us. What I am getting to is this, if we are going to lose our money, our £5,000,000, it doesn’t matter much how we do it, but I am not prepared to agree that we are going to lose anything. If we have the right directors in this concern, we are not going to lose but to make money. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) is worrying as to whether we should not make too much money. That is her trouble.

Too much profit.

I want to point out that provision is already in the Bill that no dividends shall be paid in excess of 8 per cent.

That is for the corporation.

Surely we are not going to get to the socialistic end by which we shall not allow any company to earn what they can — we should be very thankful that they can earn the money. I want to point out that any industry which makes no money is no good to the labouring class. The half derelict concern is the concern which pays its labour badly, and treats it badly. I was very interested in the warning given by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga), that we should not allow Iscor to be strangled by overseas interests. I quite agree that we have to be very careful with that, especially as we know that after the war some of these industries, especially steel industries, will be looking round for something to devour, but I think we have them fairly well set by the fact that we hold the controlling interest in that concern with our A shares, and I think the hon. member knows that in this Bill I follow the arrangement made by the Nationalist Government in regard to Iscor, and I also appreciate, and I am certain my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister, will appreciate even more than the hon. member for Fauresmith and myself, the importance, the vital importance of keeping the manufacture of munitions and instruments of war in the hands of the Government itself. The hon. member was very perturbed that agriculture might be neglected, I think he said that he rather feared that this Government was going to neglect agriculture.

We have every reason to be afraid.

Considering what we have done for agriculture, it is an astonishing statement to make. We have the interests of agriculture, the true interests of agriculture, just as strongly at heart as any hon. members opposite have.

We should like to see a little more of it.

We recognise the value of agriculture, but we do not think that agriculture can be” helped only by being spoon-fed. It has to grow up, and if we can provide it with the markets, particularly with a decent home market, we shall find that agriculture at last will get on to its economic legs. But now I shall mention a few of the matters that have been raised. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) considers that £5,000,000 is not enough. Well, perhaps the hon. member for Fauresmith would like me to mobilise a few more Iscor shares, but at any rate, at the moment I suggest that we should walk before we try to run. We can always come to the House for more money if necessary. Then the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Hirsch) is afraid that we are bolstering up lame ducks. That is the very reason why I want a strong Board of Directors, a board strong enough to stand up against any interest, which will definitely refuse to bolster up anything that is not economically sound. I was very interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood), and I believe that the very existence of this corporation will gradually get round it a technical advisory body. They will gradually surround themselves by technical people who will guide them on all technical matters. The hon. member was also right when he said that the introduction of overseas capital should be encouraged. It is quite clear that we are not envisaging people coming only from the United Kingdom. I am not thinking in that way, but any man who is prepared to come here and invest a quarter of a million here will naturally want someone here to look after that money, and he is not going to invest his money here without being assured of the fact that the money will be well looked after. I say that this Bill will also afford great opportunities to our young people. I am one who is prepared to guarantee that our younger men, the brighter ones, will compete with anything that likes to come from overseas. Do not let us take up the position that our young people are not good enough to take up these jobs. They want the chance, and I am all for giving them these chances. Then I listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). She said that she was not satisfied that this Bill was designed, or that it would go, along the right channel. She said it should have a definite social objective, and an assured decent living should be provided for all workers in every new concern coming into being. But these questions are dealt with in other legislation that we have. Any industry that is supported by this development corporation will be subject to exactly the same conditions, factory conditions, wage conditions, etc., as every other industry in the country, and I am perfectly at one with the hon. member that it is no use having a poorly paid working staff, and I go one further and say that your worker is also your consumer, and unless you pay your worker decently you have not got your consumption power which you require for your industries; and any progressive industrialist recognises that a poorly paid staff is an inefficient staff and is unsatisfactory. The hon. member wants me to select my board of directors as social workers, as far as I can see. Well, as far as my board is concerned it will be chosen for their brains and knowledge, their knowledge of the development of industries, and the financing of industries. Do not let me deceive the House. This is not a social welfare movement. I want to develop industries, and the intent of this Bill is all the way through that industries are to be developed on economic lines, and only men who are capable of providing the knowledge to do that are any good to me. Two or three members have criticised the Chamber of Mines. I want to point out that the Chamber of Mines are the biggest consumers we have, and if we can get the business of the commodities that are now imported by the Chamber of Mines, if we can get them made in this country, we should take off our hats to the Chamber of Mines and not be constantly haggling at them. They are no better and no worse than any other body of men, but I must say this, that when I get a very good customer I do not continually try to criticise him and upset him.

But you do not make him your boss.

The Chamber of Mines is not my boss.

They are going to be your boss if this Bill is passed as it stands.

As I said before, the conditions of labour will be governed by the other legislation which we have.

They should be dealt with in this Bill.

I have not the time to deal with the other small matters which have been raised. Anyhow, I do not think there are any other important matters.

What about the select committee?

I shall propose after the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has become necessary on account of certain difficulties in the administration of the principal Act, especially in Natal. The objects of the Bill may be summarised in a few words. There are no new or contentious provisions in this Bill, nor is it sought to get any additional powers. The amendments that are intended here are merely to provide for certain rights that were always assumed under the original Bill, but which have been called into question now. The principal amendments are, in the first place, to make provision for the right of entry onto a farm, to make sure that the provisions with regard to certain diseases and the regulations that have been required, are carried out. Then power is also sought to make regulations requiring owners to assemble their stock when required, to keep records of their stock, and also to give officers of the Department the right of counting stock on a man’s farm.

Why count the stock?

To make sure that all the stock is brought up, and that diseased stock are not kept behind. Then, in the second place, it is necessary to re-define the term “stock,” and to remove doubts that have arisen as regards certain game animals. As hon. members know, certain game animals either take the disease or carry the disease, and we are not satisfied that the term “stock,” as defined in the principal Act, secures everything that is required. Therefore, it is sought to re-define the term “stock.” Then there are a few minor amendments entirely for administrative purposes which I will explain, if necessary, more fully in the committee stage of the Bill. With these few words, I commend the Bill to the attention of the House.

I think that there is no one in this House who represents a farming constituency who is not anxious to do everything to combat stock disease as much as possible. We, as farmers, feel that if stock diseases are not properly fought, the danger exists that we shall retrogress in our stock farming instead of progressing. But I fear that this Bill, innocent as it looks, is not so non-contentious as the Minister wanted to make out this evening. I am afraid that the measures which have been laid down here will probably, in some cases, hit the farmer more severely than the stock diseases will do. I want briefly to go into a few points. The Minister said that he wanted to have the right for the official to have access to a farmer’s farm. If it was only the official, then we could agree that it is quite right. That is what is happening now. The official or the inspector of the department can go, and he has access to the farm. I do not know of a single farmer who has ever prohibited the officials from coming to the farm to get information, and who has refused to give it to them. But this Bill goes further. In Clause 2 we see that every person can have access to those farms. I think that we have had experience of that kind of thing, especially in view of the political persecution which is going on at present. If we are to permit every person…

Who is properly authorised by the Minister.

But the Minister may authorise a coloured person to go on to my farm. He may give the coloured policeman certain powers to go onto my farm. I have not got the least guarantee that that will not happen, and that a coloured person or native can make certain demands of me, and give me an order to round up my cattle at a particular time, so that they can be counted. The Minister himself knows the bushveld, especially in the northern districts like Zoutpansberg, Pietersburg, Waterberg and those parts, and when the cattle have to be rounded up in those areas then it sometimes takes almost a week. If it happens to be an unreasonable official, or a person, as he is called in the Bill, then he may possibly go and prosecute me, because I have not got all my cattle collected at a certain hour or minute. I think that the Bill in this connection is not so innocent as the Minister of Agriculture wants to make out. We have learned that we must be careful so far as those things are concerned. We pass legislation here and to-morrow or the day after we find that those Acts are intended to oppress the farmer, and to make things difficult for him. A farmer may possibly be ploughing when an order is suddenly given to him that he has to round up his cattle at such or such a time. That is going to give the farmer more bother than anything else. Why cannot it be done by way of an agreement with the farmer, as is the case now, especially in districts where East Coast fever and that kind of thing is prevailing? It has always hitherto worked well. The inspector agrees with the farmer as to the times and the days the stock has got to be rounded up. Extensive powers are being asked for here. We shall once more be governed by regulations, and I think that we are getting a little suspicious of those regulations which have the force of law, and under which we can be prosecuted. Another point is that the farmer is being compelled to keep books. We have had experience of the forms which are required to be filled up by farmers. Take, for instance, the form which the farmer has to fill up when he applies for a levy in regard to mealies. The form is so complicated that I know that an attorney even could not fill it up, and now it is here demanded of the farmer that he should keep books in the way and in the form which is prescribed by the department. The farmer does keep a record so far as his own stock is concerned. And what actually does the department want those statistics about the stock for? Is it the object of the department to prevent stock theft? If so let him tell us so, because then we know what the reason is. Is it in connection with the smuggling of stock? The Minister must tell us it is more particularly intended for the districts on the border, or for the districts which are infected with East Coast fever, and then we can know why these restrictions are being placed on us. If it is explained to us in this way: Look here, in certain cases and in certain circumstances we need certain measures, then we will possibly not be opposed to it. But then the Minister must tell us what the real object of the measure is. Agriculture came under my charge for a number of years, and we always found the farmers willing to assist us, and to carry out the necessary measures, but if you are going to carry out this kind of thing, then I fear that the Minister, instead of having the co-operation of the farmers, will meet with opposition, and instead of facilitating things, I think that the department is going to make them difficult. Every day we hear about democracy and the freedom of the farmer, but the farmer will no longer be master of his own property, the farmer practically now is a tenant farmer; he is told that he must be at a certain place with all his stock rounded up the next morning at 10 o’clock. If they are not there then he is threatened with a prosecution. I am keen on assisting the Minister, but then the provison should only apply in the districts where there is East Coast fever, for instance, or some other infectious disease. Take the constituency which I represent, Wolmaransstad. All the cattle and sheep and horses have to be counted, and the farmer has all the inconvenience in connection with that. If it should be unreasonable official the greatest trouble may be caused. I do not think that we, as farmers, can allow our freedom and our property to be played with by this Bill being applied in that way. I am not orepared to support it. I am prepared to fight stock diseases and to assist the Minister, and I am certain that all hon. members on this side of the House are prepared to do so, but things must not be incorporated into the Bill which would subsequently act detrimentally towards the farmers’ interests, instead of our fighting stock diseases in the best and easiest way. Otherwise the fighting of the disease will presently be worse than the disease itself. That is not what we want.

You prosecuted me with the same thing when you were the Minister.

The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) says that he was persecuted when I was Minister of Agriculture, but under this Bill he wants to make the provision much stronger still. He has now probably abandoned farming, and become a woodcutter, and now he wants to strangle the farmers and oppress them much worse than they have been in the past. I am not prepared to give my consent to this. Moreover, it is proposed to delete the following words—

and to replace them by the words—

In other words, the co-operation is being deleted, and more stringent provisions are being laid down with regard to the matter. I think that the Act has worked well in the past, and I do not know of a single case where people have deliberately taken steps not to obey the commands of the department; on the contrary, the farmers have always tried to assist the Department of Agriculture as much as possible, because they feel that if there should be disease amongst their stock, it is better to fight the disease, but you must fight it in a way under which you cannot ruin the farmer. Take the district where I live and farms in Piet Retief. We have been suffering from East Coast fever there for the last 38 years. We were just hoping now that the district was free from it, and that we were going to have an open market, and I even made representations that the people on the border farms between Piet Retief and Swaziland should also be given an open market now. What happened? After the district was declared free, another infection took place. Where did it come from? The only thing we can blame is that it was smuggled in from Swaziland. Is it not better to fence the border line properly, and to establish guards there than to allow things to go on as they are? The largest section of the people have fenced their farms, but the fences are allowed to fall into disrepair, and it should be seen to that the border fences are kept in proper order. I think it would be much better with a view to the combating of East Coast fever, to fence the border areas in such a way that the disease cannot come in. Most of the farms are fenced, but the boundary remains open, and the disease can be introduced from the other side. I will revert to this matter again under the Minister’s votes on the estimates, but I think it will be better to see to it that the border is properly enclosed. In the clause it is further stated, in line 20—

Accordingly, you are here trying to make something punishable which does not even appear in the regulations. Even if it were not mentioned there, a farmer would be punishable. I think that we cannot agree to accept that. Now I come back to the definition in Clause 1 of the Bill. I do not want to hold up the Bill unnecessarily, but am only referring to certain points. It states there that the definition of “stock” will be replaced by the following definition—

Accordingly, any animal in the animal kingdom is embraced under the word “stock.” But then it goes further and says that the animal kingdom is not sufficient, but that it will also apply to cattle, sheep, goats, horses, mules, donkeys and even pigs, and cats and dogs as well. Do these animals not belong to the animal kingdom? I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that when I speak about the animal kingdom then it includes any animal which, according to the proclamation of the Governor-General, falls under it. Why is it necessary for this extraordinary second part to be added to the definition, that cats and dogs and pigs also are included?

And rats?

Probably they will have to be included also. I hope that the Minister will allow the words “any person” to be deleted in Committee, because we cannot allow any person to come on our farms and give orders in connection with our stock. If a regular official comes from the department I will not make the slightest objection to co-operating with him, but I am not prepared to do that for any person. We have had too much experience of khaki knights and that kind of person, and we do not want to have any more knights on our farms. I also hope that the Minister will allow the deletion of the provision which provides that a register shall be kept. Our farmers have sufficient difficulties. Are they now to keep registers as well, which have to be open for the inspection of the officials? I am not prepared to open a register for inspection by the officials of the Minister. When there is stock disease in my district, then there is an official there who comes round once every fourteen days, or once a week, to count the stock. I do not see why the farmers should be compelled to keep registers and to keep books. There are many of the people who are not young farmers, and who have not had the privileges in the past which the Minister had of going to school. Now they are to be forced to keep books according to, the requirements of the Department of Agriculture. I have already pointed out how difficult it is being made for the farmers in the case of certain forms, so that even attorneys cannot fill them up without making enquiries in the first instance. I therefore make an appeal to the Minister to make certain amendments in Committee. I do not want to oppose the Bill. If there is anyone who would like to see stock diseases eradicated then it is I, but I do not want our farmers to be penalised by having unnecessary burdens cast upon them. I only want to mention, in conclusion, what sometimes takes place. Last year in connection with foot-and-mouth disease I brought a case to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture. A large number of cattle had been shot in the bushveld. They were simply shot on the banks of a sloot, and thrown into the sloot and covered up. The first rains that came exposed the cattle, and the smell there was terrible. If it were not that it was a rainy season, and that these things were washed away, I do not know whether there would not have been an epidemic. I hope that the inspectors and veterinary surgeons will keep an eye in future on these things, so that we shall have no recurrence of things of that kind. I also hope that when stock suffering from foot-and-mouth disease have to be destroyed, that we will act very carefully, and will not just destroy herds of cattle which are miles and miles away from the disease. I hope that the farmers will receive compensation when the cattle are destroyed, because they constitute their only livelihood. With these few words I want to tell the Minister that I support the Bill subject to the amendments that are necessary. I hope that they will be agreed to in the Committee stage, because if the Minister will not do so then the Bill will detain us quite a few days more. I therefore hope the Minister will agree to make the necessary amendments in the Bill.

I am surprised to hear the criticism levelled by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). No one knows better than that hon. member that it is necessary for the Government to introduce a Stock Diseases Amendment Bill, and the measure now before the House is very badly wanted. This applies more particularly to Natal. In Natal we have had East Coast fever for over thirty years, and if you look at your estimates you will see a large amount appearing there in regard to the prevention of stock diseases. There is also provision for rinderpest. Surely every one wants to see the difficulties of farmers reduced and not added to, and that is the aim of this Bill. Take a young farmer who just starts farming; if East Coast fever breaks out it ruins him. We have had East Coast fever for many years. Natives live on farms where they are working, and in order to keep them there a farmer allows them to have a few head of cattle there. Then an outbreak of East Coast fever occurs in a district and a panic sets in among the natives, and they simply move their cattle to another district. It is done mostly at night time. How are you going to check the movement of cattle except by provisions such as are laid down here? The cattle are dipped and a week after they are dipped again, and if there are any cattle missing when the next dip takes place, the farmer has to account for it. The department are very good about this and meet the convenience of farmers. Take the position of a dairy farmer. The department do not impose unnecessary restrictions to interfere with that man’s business. This matter does not affect the Transvaal and the Free State or the Highveld. You do not get East Coast fever at an altitude of 5,000 feet. I appeal to hon. members of this House to help the farmers in this respect, and I say again that it is imperative in Natal to have this amendment of the Act. Everyone in Natal will welcome this Bill.

I would be one of the last to thwart the Minister in exterminating and preventing stock disease in the country, but I would like to express my regret that the Minister, when he introduced this Bill, did not tell us more about the reasons why he introduced the Bill. He takes the step, for instance, of altering the definition of “stock.” I see that while the old definition mentions certain animals, he adds others to them, at least one other, and the Minister ought to give an explanation to the House why he has added that animal, so that it will be considered as stock in future. The hon. member for Walmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has already referred to the fact that to the animals already comprised in the old definition, the cat is now being added. We would like to know why it is being added. I would like to ask why goose is not added rather, because we know that a goose is actually a carrier of galsiekte. I still cannot understand why he is adding cat to his definition. I believe, as a matter of fact, that he has a good reason why he is adding that animal, but in any case we would like to hear it. Then I am glad to see the definition of “cattle.” It was ridiculous to give a definition which was given to it in the past, namely, that it means a bull, a cow, an ox, a heifer or a calf. We ought all to know what it is, because if you give a definition of that kind that it makes us think that you think that we do not know in this country what cattle means. Then I notice that the Minister himself is taking excessive powers by way of proclamation. We have heard a great deal in our country about our having been governed by way of proclamations and regulations, and it looks as if the Minister, especially in Clause 4 paragraph 3, is assuming powers to himself which go a little too far. He is, for instance, assuming the power to issue any regulation that he may consider it necessary to exercise. I think that that goes a little too far. If he were to say that the regulations are being issued with a special object, and he said what special act or crime he wants to deal with, then we can possibly give further consideration to granting him the power, but to ask for a blank cheque in order to get the general power, is I think, going a little too far, and he is asking for too much. Then I want to express my entire agreement with the hon. member for Wolmarnsstad when he objects to any official whom the Minister may appoint, having the right to go on to the farm of a farmer and to exercise certain powers in connection with the administration of this Act. It may at first sight all look very well, but when we see how sometimes even stock inspectors go to our farmers and arbitrarily demand of them to do impossible things, then I hope that if those powers are considered necessary by the Minister, and if the House is prepared to agree to them, that the Minister will then go very carefully to work with the carrying out of such a proclamation that the official who is given the powers shall not commit any abuse of them. I take it that the Minister is looking after the ininterests of the farmers, and that he wants to see that no abuse is committed of these powers which are being given to officials. But I find that no mention is also made of the registration which the farmers are expected to make, and which the officials will have the power of inspecting. Well, I must say that I am a little surprised at the Minister expecting the farmers to do a thing of that kind. If there is one thing that the farmer does not like, then it is writing, and we know that some farmers even find it difficult to write a letter. Now the Minister expects them to keep a register. That in itself alone is a punishment to those people. I would prefer to see the Minister abandoning this provision of the Bill, and I want to ask the Minister how is he going to see that the natives, who for instance cannot write and do not know an A from a B, are going to keep this register? We have just heard from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Deane) that he was very much interested in this Bill passing, but if the Bill passes, then it will not be applied to the people that he thinks it should be applied to, namely, the natives of Natal; the farmers will have to keep a register, and it will not be applied to his natives in Natal. I am therefore sorry that I cannot associate myself with all the provisions of the Bill. This also applies to the provision that farmers are expected under this Bill, to be prepared to be called up at any time of the day by an official who sometimes does not appreciate the responsibility of his office, and the farmers will at any time have to comply with the orders of such an official, and they will have to see to the rounding up of stock at any time of the day, so that they can be counted by the officials. These are nothing else than penalties which are being imposed on the farmers. Another point to which I want to refer the House is that the Minister in his speech made the statement that the provisions of the Bill were merely old customs, which are now just being given legislative effect to. But I want to point out that Clause 3 paragraph (1), says that the Minister moves the deletion of these words—

That means that the farmers will have to do certain things, inter alia dip sheep, or isolate stock and all those things, where up to the present a period of notice was provided, and a time within which it had to be done. But the Minister is now removing the time limit, and the farmers can be called upon to act at any time, possibly by an irresponsible official, to dip or to isolate the sheep. Accordingly, the Minister cannot say that this is an old custom which is now being introduced in the Bill. It is a drastic change which the farmers will have to give effect to. I therefore hope that when we get to the committee stage the Minister will be prepared to remove the difficulties which are going to be laid upon the farmers, and that he will not insist on those drastic provisions of the Bill.

I am very, very surprised at the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis). I always looked upon the hon. member as a very reasonable and very sensible man, until I heard him speak this evening. We expected it from the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), who is misleading the farmers for his own reasons. Here is the ex-Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, who has been administering the Stock Diseases Act in previous years. While he was Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, what he is complaining about now he enforced with the utmost severity in Natal for many years. We welcome this Bill because we know the benefits of it. So far as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is concerned, one would have thought from his remarks that he had never come into touch with stock diseases. I am not surprised at the result achieved by the Department of Agriculture while he was in charge of it. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that we need deal with anything that the hon. member has said this evening. I am quite sure that he was not in earnest or serious when he made those statements. If hon. members opposite only knew the benefits of these regulations which the Minister wishes to introduce, they would appreciate them. We in Natal would be very sorry if these regulations were done away with. We have carried them out for years, and they constitute no hardship whatsoever. In fact, they have conferred tremendous benefit on those of us who are stock farmers. The hon. member for Vryburg wants to know how natives will keep books. My reply is that the dip inspectors are supplied with books by the Government, and each native has a book, and the dip inspector keeps a record of each native’s stock in the book, and every week or fortnight he checks the number of animals at the dip with the numbers in the books, and adds any increases or deducts any deaths. I cannot imagine any farmer who farms seriously who does not keep books. What sort of a farmer would he be if he did not keep a record of his own stock?

I mean the native farmer.

Many of your farmers would be in trouble if they did not keep a record of their stock even without this Bill. The only thing that I was surprised at was that the Minister said that this Bill was introduced in connection with certain difficulties, especially in Natal. I should like to know from the Minister what those difficulties were. These regulations have been carried out in Natal with the co-operation of the farmers. I have been in Natal for 20 years, and I have never known any other regulations. When the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and when he carried out regulations for which there was no law at all, he saw no hardship in it, but he is against all new laws made by the present Government. They are good regulations, and they are to the benefit of the farmers, especially of the stock farmers. To me it is a great pleasure to know that these regulations can be enforced in the rest of the Union, because they have only been enforced in Natal and in certain portions of the Transkei and East Griqualand. Why we in Natal have been looked after especially. I do not know, but in any case it has been for our benefit. I can tell you that. If stock farmers in other parts of the country knew the benefits of dipping and the regulations proposed to be put into force, they would welcome the Bill with open arms. I cannot imagine any farmers opposing the Bill this evening. Hon. members have had a bad lead this evening from the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, and I hone that other hon. members representing the stock farmers will not follow that lead, but will support the Government in the interests of all stock farmers and the stock industry of South Africa.

The last speaker has just said that he bores that other hon. members on this side will support the Government on this Bill. I am sorry that I cannot support the Government. The stock disease regulations are stringent enough, and I do not think that it is necessary to make them any more drastic. When we look at these regulations as they have already been commented upon by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) and the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis), then we see that an official or a person generally who is authorised thereto by the Minister, can go to a farm and order the farmer to go and round up his stock immediately, whether it is a convenient time or not, so that he can inspect and count the stock. I do not know what the position is in Natal, but in the Western Transvaal we already have enough trouble with officials. We have more officials there than we require. Almost every day there is some new official on the farm. There is an official calling for the dog tax, there are other officials in connection with weeds, yet another in connection with the inspection of stock, and the usual stock inspectors. The farmer is burdened with all these officials, but we, as farmers, have no complaint to make against it, because we feel that it is in our interests that these officials should be appointed. As the hon. member for Vryburg, however, rightly said, formerly the stock inspectors gave us notice when they would come, so that we could bring our stock nearer home, and could put them at a spot where the stock inspector could get at them. But under this Bill a stock inspector can at any time come and demand to see the stock. I think that it is unnecessary to apply these stringent regulations, unless such a farm is placed under quarantine for a dangerous stock disease. When a neighbourhood is placed under quarantine, then quarantine regulations can be applied to the farm, and then everyone can quite understand that drastic steps have to be taken. But apart from that, it is not necessary for such drastic steps to be taken, and that the official should be able to come to the farm at any time and call upon the farmer to round up his stock for him to count and inspect them. The farmer to-day is still an independent man on his farm. I am the master on my farm, and I cannot see why, when there are no stock diseases on my farm and my farm is not infected, the officials should have the right to come on to my farm at any time and to demand of me to allow my stock to be inspected. The regulations are already sufficiently strong. Now we come to that register. As the hon. member for Vryburg rightly said, our farmers are not competent to deal with that kind of system, and there is not the least reason for it. Why should a farmer keen a register of everything he has on his farm, including his cats and his dogs, because a cat is also now being included amongst stock. If the cat has kittens, then they will have to be recorded on the register the next day. This kind of thing is ridiculous, and I do not know where the Minister of Agriculture has got the idea of including a cat amongst stock animals. Cats and dogs are domestic animals, and we do not think of them in connection with the stock. We believe that it is quite unnecessary to make these drastic regulations. The farmer is expected to keep a record of his income. He has to have it at the end of the year to make a return for income tax purposes. And why should he now keep a separate register of his stock, etc., on his farm? I think that this Bill is burdening our farmers with regulations which are unnecessarily stringent and which are not necessary. I agree with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad that we are all in favour of drastic action being taken when there is stock disease in the country which has to be eradicated. He, in his time, acted drastically in connection with the extermination of stock disease, and he has the honour to-day of having eradicated scab, but he did not have all those unnecessary regulations that are now being proposed. He did it under the ordinary stock disease regulations. I therefore, think that the regulations in connection with stock diseases are already drastic enough to tight stock diseases with, and regulations of this kind ought only to be applied when there is stock disease in an area, and when that area is placed under quarantine. If that is done, then every right-minded farmer will understand that such regulations must be imposed, but not otherwise.

The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) welcomed the application of this Bill on behalf of the Natal farmers. I give it an equally strong welcome on behalf of the Eastern Province farmers of the Cape. This Bill removes a vital weakness under which the regulations have operated in the past whereby no stock inspector had the right to go on a farm unless he went there on sufferance. If a farmer refused to allow the stock inspector to count his stock, the stock inspector had to walk off the farm. The hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis) referred to the difficulties of the native farmer. My experience of the native farmer is this, that he is far less likely to be in error in the counting of his cattle than the European farmer. In any case the stock are invariably counted by the stock inspector on the occasions when the cattle are dipped. I give the Bill a welcome and I welcome the support given by Natal, which will be equally given by the farmers of the Cape.

We have heard different opinions about this Bill. I want this evening to admit that certain powers are being given in this Bill to officials which are of a very far-reaching nature, and which will certainly have injurious results. We on this side of the House and also agricultural unions have made representations to the Government to try and prevent stock diseases. We are prepared to welcome any measure which the Government tries to use in order to assist the farmers in South Africa to fight stock diseases on a sound basis. But in connection with this Bill I feel that certain powers are being given to officials about which we ought to be careful. As I said in connection with the other measure, it is not the Bill itself which looks dangerous, but it is the people who have to carry out this kind of Bill, of whom we have to be extremely careful, and it is for that reason that we have to study Bills of this kind carefully to see what the consequences are going to be. I want to mention something in this connection. Here we have a definition in regard to what “stock” means. On my farm I have a great bother with those imported rats, with the result that I have a mass of cats, and I would like to see the Minister and his officials coming to dip those cats. They would be badly scratched from their head to their toes. It is simply ridiculous to characterise a cat as stock. We all know what stock are. When we ask for the combating of stock diseases, then we want the Government to do something to assist the farmer to be able to usefully fight this kind of disease which develops through climatic conditions, and of which the farmer does not exactly know the cause. Inasmuch as there are so many agricultural schools, laboratories and I do not know what else, we ask the Government to establish something effective in order to assist the farmer, so that he can know that when his sheep die at a particular time, what the cause is; what is the cause if his cattle, his horses or his mules die in this or the other way, so that we can fight it. That is the object with which we ask the Minister of Agriculture and the Government to do something effective by way of assisting the farmers to prevent stock diseases. But as things stand now, it seems to me that according to this Bill we are going to create the position that persons who are unsympathetic towards the farmers are going to put burdens on us which are not justified. Let one of these people come to me and order me to have all my stock at 12 o’clock that day at my kraal, for the purpose of being counted, then my blood will at once rush to my head and anything may happen on the farm. I know the farmers, and know how the farmers feel. According to these regulations, or the law, there will be a certain official, or a person who may come, and powers may be given to him of a drastic kind. I am afraid of that. The farmers will not stand it. We know the farmers of South Africa. I just want to make this suggestion to the Minister: There are extension officers in our country, and I have already said before what I want to stress now, namely, that the extension officers have to cover too wide an area. We want the people to be responsible for smaller areas, so that they can give their attention to every case that happens in a district, and that they can go to the place at once to see that this or the other thing should be done to prevent the disease. At Senekal we have an extension officer who unfortunately has to cover a tremendously extended area, which includes Ladybrand, Vrede, Frankfort—practically half of the Free State. It is too much for one official. I want to ask whether the Minister cannot provide for the appointment of more extension officers, who have a proper knowledge of these matters and who can work smaller areas. Under these regulations, made under this Bill, every Dick, Tom and Harry will be appointed officials, and they may become a burden to the farmers, and the farmers will not tolerate it. I hope that the Minister will amend the regulations in Committee, and will accept certain proposals in the matter, so that the thing may be made more practicable and more acceptable to the farmers.

The hon. member who has just sat down told the House how he was farming with quite a lot of cats, and that he needed officials to catch them. I think that the hon. member is a bad farmer if he has no control over them. The law makes provision for cats, dogs and pigs, because we are aware of the fact that they are animals that get scab, and as such proper control should also be had over those animals. I think we are rendering the farming community no service if we oppose this Bill which is aimed at improving farming. Many years ago when we started farming with sheep and goats the farmers would not believe that there was such a tick as scab, and when the compulsory Scab Act was introduced there was almost a rebellion in South Africa. Today we are having something similar in this case, and I make an appeal to the House to be tolerant and to support the Minister in the matter. An objection has been made to access being granted to officials or persons who are appointed. That is just the place where the law was inadequate and provision had to be made for it. So far as bookkeeping is concerned, a register has been referred to, and perhaps we are taking the word up a little too seriously. I think that every farmer is obliged for his own sake, to keep proper books, and to count the animals he is farming with, whether they are cattle or cats, as in the case of the hon. member for Senekal (Maj. Pieterse), or sheep or goats. There is just one point in one of the clauses where I would like to move an amendment in the Committee stage. We sometimes find that an official is at loggerheads with a farmer, and I know of such cases where insufficient notice is given for the rounding up of stock, and I would like to see provision made so that in such cases the convenience and the circumstances of a farmer shall be given reasonable consideration.

The question arises in my mind whether this Bill was introduced in order to assist the farmers or to harm them. According to the speeches that have been made it is difficult to judge. But, the first point that I want to deal with is Clause 3 (m), in which provision is made for a register. I would like the Minister to tell me whether I understood him wrongly, but I understood that the Minister had the object of assisting the farmers to combat stock diseases, and similar difficulties which the farmers have to deal with, and under Clause 3 (m) provision is being made that we must properly count our stock. We have very great difficulties because proper registers are not kept of the numbers of stock that owners possess. When stock gets lost and you call in the police, then they want to know when they arrive, where your book is, in order to convince themselves that you are certain that the stock is lost. You then have to show when the stock were lost, when the stock were last counted, when stock were sold, and when stock were bought; you must at least be able to convince the police that stock has really been lost, so that they can go on with the matter. In most cases we find nothing of the kind has happened, and when the police go about the camps of the farmers, they often find a lot of animals that are dead, almost the very number that are lost. I understand the Bill in this way, that it also wants to make provision for that case. Another great difficulty is when there are squatters on a farm. They arrive with a lot of stock, and they say that they belong to them. When a native wants to sell stock, he has to take a statement from the farmer with him to prove that the stock belong to him. In my district a farmer was almost sent to gaol through a case of that kind, because the native was not compelled to say how many stock he had and to keep to the truth. The native said that they were his stock, and he then asked for leave to sell them. Subsequently, it appeared that they were not his stock, but the farmer was prosecuted and nearly landed in gaol, because there was not a law to compel the squatter on your farm to keep to the truth, and to count his stock. Another difficulty is that the natives bring stock from all directions, and infect your farm in a terrible way, and there is no control, because the native is not obliged to keep books or to say how many head of stock he has. That is apparently an unimportant thing! Here that obligation to keep books is being painted very black, but every farmer ought to record the stock that he has and to know what the position is. I do not see such a very great objection to that, but it may be that I have understood it wrongly, and if so I shall be glad if the Minister will correct me. Under Clause 3 (o) (p (q), provision is being made to tackle a particularly important matter, and that is infectious diseases amongst stock. There are four different diseases that I want to mention, namely, tuberculosis, martitus, vaginitis, and infectious miscarriage. Those are diseases which most farmers do not even know that they have them on their farms. They are diseases which even are infectious in the case of human beings and they cause terrible harm. I am convinced that 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the farmers do not even know that such diseases exist. Under Clause 3, if I am not wrong, provision is being made to fight those diseases. According to the report of Mr. Kilpatrick, director of the Newtown Livestock Department, tuberculosis comes from the damn coastal regions, and it is introduced into the Transvaal and the Free State, and infects the whole country, and nothing is being done in the matter. There is no control over it. I think that this Bill will make provision to prevent that position continuing. The report says that a great problem has arisen in connection with it. When the disease is discovered the animals are destroyed, and the farmers get a certain amount of compensation, but not enough. When we come to martitus, great losses are caused to the farmers, and they often do not understand what the cause of their trouble is. Martitus is a disease which is the cause of no calf being born on a farm year after year. Only recently I saw a case of that kind. We got a veterinary surgeon from Onderstepoort to find out what the disease amongst the cows was, and then it was ascertained—I do not want to mention the names of the class of cattle, because it may injure certain breeders—but then it was found out that a number of cows, which the farmer had bought, had their entire udders infected, and for the last three or four years he had had no calf on his farm. Most of the farmers do not know the disease, and as the law stands to-day, nothing is being done about it. But now I understand that the Bill aims at action being taken to prevent that also. Then we come to vaginitis, which is a very dangerous disease, which causes great losses to the farmers, and is very infectious. There is hardly a farmer who knows this disease, and it causes great loss. In conclusion, I mentioned infectious abortion, which prevails in almost 90 per cent. of the cattle in the Union. It is a disease which may even give Malta fever to human beings. We were always under the impression that you could only get Malta fever from goats’ milk, but now it has been discovered that the cattle who have the disease can also pass that dangerous disease on to human beings. The disease also affects the kidneys of cattle, and if a human being eats an infected kidney, which you cannot discover by a superficial examination to have anything wrong with it, you can get Malta fever. As I read the Bill, provision is also being made to fight that disease, which there is no provision for to-day. I notice that the American Friesland Association held a big conference in America, and they think C.A. is a greater danger than tuberculosis. I see from the report that those people deal with 15,000 cattle, and they constituted 260 herds. They find it so dangerous, that disease, that they can no longer remain inactive. Now I notice that in this Bill provision is made to tackle those things. We are buying expensive cattle to-day, and they may possibly be suffering from that disease. A farmer or a speculator can buy such cattle and go unpunished, and the animal that is diseased possibly gets among a herd that is clean, and a farmer can in that way suffer tremendous loss. We cannot go on in this way, we must put our house in order. We often hear it said in our country that we are exclusively a stock country, but we cannot continue with these devastating diseases amongst our stock, although most of the farmers do not even know about them. The C.A. disease is regarded by many veterinary surgeons as being much more dangerous than foot-and-mouth disease. This disease is so dangerously infectious that if one animal has the disease and passes through the dip, then it infects the whole herd, and how many farmers know that? All the veld becomes infected, and what is more, even human beings can be infected. I, as a stock farmer, see that this Bill makes provision for these things, and that they are being tackled. I therefore think that it is a Bill which we cannot so lightly oppose. The question is whether the Bill will do good or harm to the farmers. I notice in connection with that C.A. disease that they already have an effective injection remedy, when the animal has reached a certain age. Why cannot we go into that? We must eradicate these stock diseases which are costing our farmers thousands of pounds, and as I read the Bill it makes provision for that eradication. If I read it wrongly, then I shall be glad to be told so by the Minister, but as I understand it, the Bill is only intended to assist the farmers. I cannot describe to you the terrible effect of the disease, and here we find that something is being done to prevent it for the first time.

I do not object to the provisions of this Bill, I think they are necessary, but I just want to make a few remarks with regard to the administration of the Act. In Natal it has always been the custom under the regulations that the sheep and stock are dipped, and then they are counted by the dip inspector who is there. When the day is fixed for dipping, then the dip inspector is present. Our farmers do not care about it, but we feel that there are cases where the law is unreasonably carried out when another check inspector comes. It happens that when a few days before the dipping inspector was present and was satisfied that the stock was there, you get a notice a few days later that the check inspector wants to count the stock. I think that is unreasonable, when the farmer has counted the stock under the supervision of a dipping inspector, that the stock should have to be rounded up again a few days later, not for dipping, but because the check inspector wants to count the stock. There are cases where that has happened, and that is the kind of administration which the farmers complain about. The farmers would not object to the check inspector accompanying the dipping inspector on the day of the dipping, to see that all the cattle were there, but that just after a farmer has dipped, he should get an order from the check inspector a few days later to round up his stock again for counting purposes, then I think that it is very unfair. I am pointing this out because there is a flaw in the administration. I hope that the department will bear this in mind, because I had a case where the check inspector came shortly after I had dipped. I said: This is unfair, why do you not come when I am dipping? He replied that he had to go to many farms, and he cannot always be present when a farmer is dipping.

Cannot the dipping inspector do the work?

Yes, it makes me think of the English rhyme—

You have your dipping inspector, he is an official, and he is there to make an inspection. He has to fill up the dipping book, and send a report to the veterinary surgeon of the district. That is done, but the department is not satisfied then. After the dipping inspector another inspector has to come to check him. I ask why then is there not a further control official to check the check inspector? Are they then so dissatisfied with the dipping inspectors? If that is so, then appoint a man in whom the department has confidence, so that he can send his report to the veterinary surgeon, and they will be satisfied. I am only pointing out how unfair it is that a few days after a farmer has dipped he should again have to collect his stock to have them counted by a check inspector. No farmer will object if the check inspector comes along while he is dipping, because he knows that it is necessary for his job, but when he comes a few days later then it is very unreasonable and unfair. I make no objection to the counting of the stock, because I think it is a good thing to control the stock diseases, but I do object to the way in which the checking inspector is carrying out his duty. I think if the department will meet the farmers in that respect, and the Minister provides that the dipping inspector and the check inspector will go together on the day when the farmer dips, then there will be no objection, so far as the farmers in my constituency are concerned.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) on what he stated just now. I am pleased that there are some members opposite who appreciate the fact that we on this side of the House are not simply out to create trouble, but that we have very good reason to feel uneasy about this Bill. When the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), had the temerity to criticise the Bill several hon. members opposite expressed their surprise. Even the hon. member for Newcastle called out to him that he (Gen. Kemp) had prosecuted him. I think that the country owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad for the fact that he has eradicated scab, even though he had to prosecute the hon. member for Newcastle. Now the other side of the House is telling us that we are out to oppose this Bill. That is not so, but we consider it our duty on this side of the House to safeguard the farmers against unsympathetic officials, and to protect them against officials being given powers of such a nature that they can play shuttlecock and battledore with the farmer on his own farm. The position is quite impossible, and if the Minister were to take cognisance of the position he would realise the necessity not of scaring the farmers, but of getting the farmers to co-operate with the officials in the interest of the country. I do not think any farmer is so foolish as not to realise that stock diseases have to be eradicated; but if an official comes along who does not realise his responsibility, and he is unreasonable towards the farmers, the result is that farmers get up against the department. This sort of thing becomes known, and if such an official is to be given those great powers which are proposed in this Bill he will have to act reasonably towards the farmers. But let us look at the powers which it is proposed in this ill-considered Bill to give to the officials. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Deane) spoke about conditions in Natal and told us that they had had to deal with East Coast fever there for many years. He attributed the position there to the fact that although they had been fighting the disease for years, as soon as it breaks out anywhere the natives take their stock and shift it to some safer area. What is being provided in this Bill is that if a native does so the farmer will be fined. That is the power which the little officials are given under this Bill. Is it reasonable to hold the farmer responsible for the irresponsible act of a native living on his farm? As I read this Bill it means that one of those little officials can go to a farm and order the farmer without previous notice to collect his stock in order to have it counted. He goes to a farmer, and he says, “Get your stock together,” and then the farmer, in accordance with this Bill, has to collect his stock to have it inspected. I wonder whether the Minister realises what it means to place all this power in the hands of an irresponsible official? Let us see what this means in practice. I am glad that the hon. member for Bredasdorp, the Minister without Portfolio, is in his seat. I believe that he also has his lands ploughed. If his ploughing animals are a few miles away from his house and the official comes along and tells him to collect his stock at once, he has to stop his ploughing, all the work has to stand still, and all his cattle have to be brought to the house so that this little gentleman, the official, may be allowed to count them. I wander whether he will agree to that.

It has never yet happened.

No, but in the past no khaki knights were appointed as stock inspectors, and under the old law the officials were not given all these powers. In the past a certain amount of time was allowed for the cattle to be collected. That is done away with now, and a provision is to be put in to the effect that the farmers have to collect their cattle whenever they are ordered to do so. This shows us what this Bill is going to mean in practice. Now I want to tell hon. members and the Minister what the difficulties are which we in the northern parts of the Transvaal, in the Bushveld parts, will have to contend with. When the inspector instructs the farmer to do so, he has to collect his stock at a certain time. Now let me tell the House what my experience of these parts is. I used to be near Blouberg and I used to find that in times of drought the stock went away for weeks on end in search of grazing, and afterwards the animals returned to the watering places. Now this little inspector fellow comes to the farmer’s place and tells the farmer that he wants to see his cattle, and if the farmer does not carry out his instructions he gets into trouble. I should like to mention another experience which I had in the Bushveld. I got stuck there with my car, and I went to a neighbouring farmer to get him to help me with a couple of oxen. He was prepared to help me and he told me that he had outspanned only a couple of hours earlier. We searched for hours and all we saw were the spoor of the oxen from the place they had trekked away from. We searched for hours and we were unable to find the oxen. Say the official comes along and instructs the farmer to get his cattle together, and assuming the farmer is unable to collect his animals, he will be guilty of an offence in not carrying out the official’s instructions, and this official can have him prosecuted for negligence, or because he has refused to get his cattle together, and the farmer is liable to be fined £10, £100, and on the third conviction he may be fined £200. The Minister sits there and laughs. He comes here with proposals which he does not understand himself. I ask him to read his own Bill and he will see that it is clearly laid down here that on the first offence the farmer may be fined £50, for the second offence £100, and for the third £200. And now he sits here and laughs. That is the sort of attention which we get from him when the interests of the farmers are being discussed. The Minister is playing with this matter, because he has not the slightest idea of the difficulties with which the farmers have to contend, but that is how the Bill will work in practice. We are not talking here of reasonable officials. No reasonable official will do things like that; nor is it the intention of the heads of the department. But we must realise that the Minister will go along and give jobs to pals, and we should not lightly pass over these matters, I further want to say that there is no necessity to apply these compulsory measures to the farmers. The only way, and the best way to deal with cattle diseases is as follows: each farmer is prepared to eradicate cattle diseases in South Africa, and the only and surest way to bring this about is to obtain co-operation between the officials and the owners. But we shall certainly not bring about such co-operation by applying this kind of compulsory legislation to the farmers. When the farmer has tired himself out getting his stock together this little official will come out and count the animals, and it may happen that an ox has got stuck in the mud, or a sheep may have got lost, and then the cattle inspector will want an explanation as to why there is a difference in the number of animals the farmer has to-day and the number he had last week. That is what appears in this Bill. The official may tell him that he counted his sheep yesterday, or the week before. In the meanwhile two or three may have been stolen with the result that on the second count there is a smaller number, and the farmer has to satisfy himself then as to where those sheep are. In practice it makes no difference whether there are two or three left or one hundred. So far as the object of this Bill is concerned it makes no difference. Now I say that if this sort of thing is to be applied without the cooperation of the farmer, I can foresee great difficulties, and I predict difficulties. The hon. member for Pietermartizburg (City) (Mr. Deane), told us that the natives were in the habit of trekking away with their stock over night. They remove their stock in the night, but the animals which they remove are their own property. They may remove one animal, or they may remove two or more. Now the same condition applies here, because the Bill clearly lays down that the difference has to be explained. I now ask the Minister how he can expect to get the co-operation of the farmers in South Africa if he introduces legislation of this kind, and gives such extreme powers to unsympathetic officials? And the first and main essential, if one wants to deal with cattle diseases, is to have the co-operation of the farmers.

I am very pleased to notice that the Minister has introduced a Bill to cope with cattle diseases. All farmers know the difficulties that we are faced with as a result of cattle diseases. I, as a farmer, or as a man who is trying to remain a farmer, welcome this Bill. My difficulty is not that I am unable to mention the numbers of my cattle or stock. If I arrive on my farm in the evening my foreman is able to tell me the numbers of the animals in each of my camps. That is the way in which I farm, and that is why I have been able to make a success of farming. I see no danger in it. Under the old law the stock inspector in the Free State had the right to tell a man to get his cattle and stock together, and if he was not prepared to accept the numbers given by the farmer he had to do the counting himself. The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Bosman), said that a mistake had been made in his area and that the individual concérned had nearly landed in gaol. Well, that did not happen under this Bill but under the old law. I do not believe for one moment that it is the Minister’s intention to treat the farmers unsympathetically, but I believe that he wants to try and cope with cattle diseases, smuggling and stock theft. I know of instances where sheep are driven against the fence during the night, after which they are taken away in lorry loads, possibly to another farm. If the inspector is given the right to go and count the stock on a farm, and if there is any suspicion of smuggling going on, or of stock theft taking place, he will be able to find out why a man’s stock has suddenly increased in number. It is more with that object that this Bill is being introduced. The hon. member for Senekal (Maj. Pieterse) spoke here about his cats. I also have cats, and every morning when they are given their milk it is quite easy to count them. In regard to the old laws which we have in this country I know that when we had compulsory dipping of sheep every man had to make a declaration that all his sheep had been dipped, and if it was found out that he had not brought them all to be dipped he was liable to punishment. In one area I myself had to supervise the dipping, and I know what the position was. In what respect is this Bill going beyond that position? I have read the Bill and I cannot see that it is doing anything which may cause trouble. Any practical and careful farmer, especially in my constituency, will welcome a measure of this kind. We are very anxious to see stock diseases, smuggling and stock thefts stopped. In the Cape Province stock thefts also occur, and it is very difficult to exercise control if we have not the right to count the stock and the cattle, but while we are discussing this question of stock diseases I want to plead with the Minister. In my constituency farmers have very valuable stock and cattle and the nearest veterinary surgeon is in Bethlehem or Kroonstad. I want to plead for additional veterinary surgeons being appointed, one for each district if possible. I myself have lost valuable stock owing to the fact that I have been unable to obtain the services of the veterinary surgeon in time. He lives in Bethlehem, but by the time my telegram, or telephone message gets to him he has left to go to a farm. As a farmer I welcome this Bill. I admit that the Bill is a strict one, but if a farmer has sacrificed everything for his stock and cattle he does not want his animals to be stolen or removed. We know that the natives often move stock and cattle during the night—and those animals are not always their own. It is very difficult to trace such cattle, but if we can count them we may be able to find out where they have been taken to. I do not believe the Minister will appoint people who are animated by a desire to prosecute people or who are out to get farmers into trouble, to do this work. He will appoint people who will give due notice to everyone, and who will be sympathetically disposed towards the farmer. I welcome the Bill and I am quite convinced that my constituency will also welcome it.

I am somewhat surprised that the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) apparently misunderstands the Bill. I thought that he was one of the old school and understood high Dutch, because this legislation was originally in Nederlands. He says that he has read the Bill but I doubt it, because he says that the object of the measure is to put a stop to stock thefts, and the smuggling of cattle. There is nothing in the Bill about that—it only refers to diseases. I am sorry that the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) went out of his way to attack the previous Minister of Agriculture, and to attack him personally, and say that he had made a failure of agriculture, because we know that in regard to the eradication of scab, for instance, the country owes a great debt to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). I can also say that during the time he was Minister of Agriculture we practically saw no locusts anywhere near the Karoo. So far as I myself am concerned I welcome this Bill where it has the object of coping with cattle diseases. Nobody in this House would object to it if he felt that the real object of this measure was to deal with cattle and stock diseases. And for that reason I am not opposed to the Bill, but we want to remove the objectionable clauses before the Bill gets on to the Statute Book, Let me say at once that the Bill is very drastic, and as we have already had legislation passed this session which is going to handicap the farmer I am afraid of this sort of measure. The only inducement which a farmer had in the past was that he was still king of his own domain, but if we go on like this, with this kind of legislation, the farmers will no longer be masters of their own farm. The first general objection which I have to this Bill is that it is half a Bill and I feel that some of the matters dealt with should have been more carefully considered, and should be further gone into before the Bill goes on to the Statute Book. One of the causes of cattle diseases is ticks as we all know. This Bill does not provide for the eradication of ticks. Speakers at congresses and agricultural unions which I have attended have always strongly urged the eradication of ticks which do not only cause cattle diseases, but are also responsible for fifty or sixty per cent. of the cases of blow-fly which we have to-day. Only this evening before coming to this House I turned up the Farmers’ Weekly which contamed a leading article explaining the dangers of cattle diseases being spread at agricultural shows. I say that there should be some provision in the Bill to cope with this position. Do not let us forget that the best cattle in the country are congregated at an agricultural show, and we know that at the agricultural show at Bloemfontein recently a serious cattle disease broke out, and there was a danger of all the cattle and stock being infected. I feel that this Bill should contain some provision to prevent this happening. I do not know whether the Minister of Agriculture has consulted the agricultural unions; I would like—and I am speaking in general here—Ministers to consult such bodies in the country to a greater extent than has been the case so far, because those unions are our mouthpieces and have to act on our behalf, and they should say what they want. This Bill was published only a short while ago and we have not had the opportunity of referring it to the agricultural unions, or of consulting them. Would it not be possible to publish such Bills, especially Bills affecting the farmers, a year before they are dealt with in the House? Bodies like agricultural unions could then be consulted and could be asked their opinions. This kind of legislation is supposed to be in the interest of the farmers and such unions would be in position to point out the weak parts or the unacceptable parts in a measure of that kind. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) told us that he welcomed the Bill as it aimed particularly at conditions in Natal. I admit that east coast fever is found especially in Natal, but as no exception is made in the Bill, it is applicable to the Union as a whole. We have had experience of a very serious nature, for instance in regard to the eradication of prickly pear. We have been told that we have a law specially intended for those parts where prickly pear has become a pest, but we found out that officials visited particularly those farms where prickly pear was being used as a food and that they ordered it to be eradicated there. Yet it would appear that they hardly ever go to those areas where prickly pear has become a pest. If prickly pear which is used as a food has to be eradicated, we are very much afraid that this Bill may have similar results. It may be intended for Natal, but is it not also going to be applied to the North-West? I feel that the intentions of this Bill are very good, but I am afraid of the results if an unsympathetic official is given these drastic powers. Let us remember what happened at Barkly West a few years ago in connection with a sick horse which had glanders. Whether there was a misunderstanding, or whether the official or the farmer acted unwisely I am not going to say, but the result was that the man concerned was shot dead, and the official afterwards committed suicide. So two people died as a result possibly of the fact that the official concerned was an unsympathetic man. An unsympathetic official having the powers provided for in this Bill may cause a lot of trouble. I should like the Minister to realise that we look upon our agricultural schools with their experts as a great boon and if we have diseases on our farms—and this has often happened in my area—we have Grootfontein near us — the farmer takes part of the sick animal and conveys it by motor to Grootfontein, or he even takes a calf in his motor car and carries that to Grootfontein in order to find out what disease the animal suffered from. If we make the Bill too drastic it will only have the effect of upsetting the farmers. If the provisions are too drastic, and disease occurs in stock, the farmers may keep quiet about it in the hope that it will not spread. We in the North-West have of recent years been pleading repeatedly for the appointment of an expert in regard to cattle diseases. We have a large area there of hundreds and hundreds of square miles, but there is no official available. Officials are again being appointed now, but not the kind that we want. I also want to point out that every part of the country has its own peculiar difficulty. In the North-West we particularly have horse sickness. In the past I have often pleaded for the appointment of an expert in the North-West, but nothing has been done so far. I do not want to revert to this cat story. It has been stated that cats get scab. Of that I have no experience, but I do know that springbok get scab. Why does the Minister not include springbok under the provisions of the Bill?

They are specially covered by the definition.

Well, if that is so, the Bill is a good one in that respect. So far as the Bill itself is concerned, I wish to refer to something which has already been referred to by other speakers, and it is in connection with the fixing of a number of cattle or stock. The hon. member for Frankfort talks about the matter so very lightly, and says that a farmer should keep the numbers of his cattle in his books. Every area, however, has its own peculiar circumstances, and if the hon. member can boast of being such a successful farmer because he has always kept a careful check on the number of his cattle, I want to point out that there are cases where it is impossible to do so. There is a member in this House who told me that it is impossible for him to shear all his sheep at the same time as it took a month or even months to get all the sheep together out of the mountains. There are people, specially in the mountainous area, who cannot possibly get all their sheep together in a day, or even in a week. It would mean that the official would have to come and stay there for eight days or possibly a fortnight until all the sheep were to be collected out of the mountains. It is no use passing a law which cannot be carried out. If it cannot be carried out it is far better to leave it alone. It is practically impossible in some cases for the farmers to get all their sheep brought together in one day, or even in a week. There is not one farmer in this House to-day who can tell me that practically every week he does not have one of his sheep stolen. I am now talking of a man farming on a fairly large scale. Sometimes we do not even miss it-nor do we care very much, because losing sheep has almost become the order of the day, but what does hurt us is when lorry loads of sheep are stolen and when one loses eighty or a hundred sheep in one night. My book shows that I have twelve hundred sheep. Say I have to gather them all and there are only 1,160, so that forty are lost. How am I going to satisfy the official that that number may not possibly have been lost during the night. How am I going to prove that I have not hidden them away because there was something wrong with them? Which fairly large farmer is going to say that if he gathers his sheep to-day and there are two or three missing he will saddle his horse and ride all over the veld to try and find those couple of sheep? It is a hopeless and useless proposition and the sheep are not worth the time it would take to trace them. And whether there is one sheep missing, or twenty or thirty, so far as the register is concerned it amounts to the same thing, and an unreasonable official can cause a lot of trouble. To me it would appear that this is nothing but what the Englishman calls red tape, because as I have shewn it is quite impossible to have the numbers absolutely correct at a given moment. There is one other important point and that is that an official may come along and give instructions that I must immediately gather my stock and cattle together. There are times when a farmer is unable to do so. We have such periods as lambing times, and if I have four or five hundred lambs I would suffer great losses if I were compelled to gather all my sheep. We have stock which has got accustomed to grow up in iackal-proof camps, and one cannot go and move those animals suddenly. No matter how much the hon. member for Frankfort boasts of his farming achievements, there are nevertheless many prominent farmers who put a thousand or two thousand lambs in camps, and they do not let them leave those camps before they have been weaned.

Do you expect the officials will require such impossible things to be done?

No, but in the past we have had very stupid officials and we want to warn them against that sort of thing. I want to ask the Minister if possible to delete clause 3 in committee, and if he is not prepared to do so, I want to ask that reasonable time shall be given so as to facilitate the position of the farmer, and I want all reasonable circumstances to be taken into consideration, because as the Bill reads now it may cause very serious difficulties to the farmer. I want to say again that I do not oppose this Bill simply because I am on the Opposition benches. I welcome the Bill as an attempt to do something useful for the farmer, but these points I have mentioned, which appear very drastic, should be toned down or, if the Minister is unable to tone them down, I hope he will give an assurance that the amendment which we are going to move will be accepted.

Before the Minister answers I want to put a couple of definite questions to him in the hope that he will reply to us just as definitely. First of all I should like to say that I really feel that the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) and the hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Bosman) are quite in error as to the object of this Bill. We see clearly from the title and from everything that this is a Cattle Diseases Bill, and that this measure had nothing to do with stock thefts. And for the very reason that the Bill concerns cattle diseases I want to point out, and I think the Minister will admit it, that the Bill gives tremendous powers to officials to interfere on the farm, with the rights of the individual. Those powers should not be lightly granted. I do not believe that the Minister has ever considered applying these provisions to a district where there are no infectious diseases. The object is not deliberately to render things difficult for farmers. The Minister’s intention is to help the farmers, especially with a view to eradicating infectious diseases. That being so, why should not the Minister agree to amend the clause which we are all afraid of, in the spirit indicated? This could easily be done if in committee we were to insert after the word “stock” the words “in areas infected with infectious diseases or seriously threatened by infectious diseases.” If we were to add those words nobody would have any objection and we would be able to approve of this Bill. And the same words should be inserted elsewhere as well, because that I believe is what the Minister has in mind, so far as I understood him. If that is the intention then why should we not put it right? If the Minister is prepared to give us the assurance that that is really his intention, which we can all accept, then there can be no difficulty. Naturally, there is the Question of the application of the Act. The hon. member for Frankfort and other members have spoken about the unsympathetic application. That is an altogether different matter. We have nothing to do with the administration at the moment, we are dealing with the Bill. We want to express the intention of the Act by means of this Bill. I hope the Minister when he replies will take the opportunity of saying clearly and unequivocally, “It is my intention, especially in regard to clause 3, to apply it only to areas which are infected by infectious diseases or which are threatened seriously with infectious diseases.”

In view of the fact that the losses which the Union suffers every year as a result of cattle and stock diseases are tremendous, any attempt made to reduce the incidence of those cattle and stock diseases will be welcomed by all sides of the House. Consequently we want to give our hearty support to the main abject of this Bill in that respect, and I want to associate myself with the sentiments expressed this evening by both sides of the House. Very far-reaching powers are, however, asked for under this Bill, and we do not dispute the fact that such powers may be necessary in certain conditions. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) pointed cut that in the carrying out of the regulations land owners are possibly being unduly burdened owing to double inspections taking place. Although my constituency is largely free from East Coast fever there unfortunately is a part of our district which is also stricken by this terrible pest. Land owners in the stricken area feel that unnecessary inspections are taking place and that some of the inspectors are possibly not sufficiently sympathetic in their attitude towards the owners of the farms. I do not want to take sides, but it is my duty to place these facts before the House and to ask the Minister to go into, the matter so as to ensure that there shall be the closest possible co-operation between the officials of his department and the owners of the land. If such co-operation exists his department will have no difficulty in carrying out its duties, and on the other hand the Minister will be able to, depend on the co-operation of cattle and stock owners. As we are now engaged on the amendment of the Act dealing with cattle and stock diseases we want to ask the Minister also to amend the principal Act in certain other respects. I want to mention an incident in connection with the combating of East Coast fever. Certain farms in our district have been placed under quarantine on account of East Coast fever. A certain stock owner whose land is situate a few miles away from the quarantined area and whose animals were perfectly healthy suffered severe losses owing to the fact that those animals had to be destroyed on instructions from the hon. the Minister. It appears that healthy cattle and stock strayed from his farm and were afterwards found on quarantine farms. The enquiry made by the department absolved the owner of all neglect, and it would appear that the cattle were removed by people with malicious intentions, as they had to pass through several gates in order to get to the quarantine farms. The owner of the cattle could therefore not be blamed in any way, but the Minister’s hands were tied, and the cattle were shot on instructions from the Minister. The owner thereupon made application for compensation but unfortunately the Minister was unable to grant compensation as this is specially prohibited by the Act. This prohibition of the payment of compensation is general, and leaves no discretion in the hands of the Minister. I feel that in a case of this kind this provision bears unnecessarily severely on the owner of cattle, and we want to request the Minister so to amend the law that in extraordinary circumstances he will be able to use his discretion and be entitled to pay compensation if he thinks fit to do, so. If that is done I feel sure cattle and stock owners will feel more satisfied, and I feel that this can be achieved without great expense to the state. The owners of land in East Coast fever areas further feel that the state should assist in bearing the cost of combating this disease. The individual is suffering for the general good, and as the state undertakes the costs of combating other pests the owners of those farms ask that in their case, too, the state should assist in connection with the combating of East Coast fever. We trust the Minister will give this aspect his favourable and sympathetic consideration.

Although this is a short Bill and a good deal has already been said about it, it is of such a character that I feel that I cannot allow it to pass without my raising my voice against certain points which other members have already objected to. I want to point out that I am in agreement with the department on this matter. A few years ago some of our farming associations made representations in respect of certain legislation, to which the department replied that they were sorry that there were so many Acts dealing with farming matters that they did not see their way to recommend the introduction of further legislation. They did not discuss the question of the necessity of such legislation being introduced. We shall deal with this particular Bill later, but I feel that the whole country realises to-day that even attorneys are unable to-day to keep themselves informed of all the Acts appearing on our Statute Book, especially if we take into account all the laws in connection with farmers. Yet I wish to express my thanks to the department, and I wish to assure them that the farmers are always prepared to assist the department as far as possible with a view to eradicating stock diseases. We find, however, not only through the actions of officials, but sometimes also as a result of what the farmers themselves do, that the officials are not always as tactful as they might be, with the result that they do not always get on with the farmers. Now the Minister comes along with this Bill in which greater demands than ever are made on the farmers. I want to point out to the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.- Gen. Botha) that it is not a matter of our objecting to the claim that the farmers should state the number of their cattle. It has already been pointed out that some farmers are able to recollect the precise numbers of their stock and cattle, and I think that most farmers in South Africa are able to say at once how many head of cattle they own. But that is not what the Bill asks. This Bill before the House demands a register to be kept and provides that the manner in which that register shall be kept shall be laid down. It is not only the numbers of the head of cattle which have to be recorded, but a register has to be kept in a manner to be prescribed by the Minister. The Minister represents farmers and he should be conversant with conditions on the platteland, and I want to ask him now whether he is able to prescribe the type of register which he would require every farmer to keep in a properly defined manner? Assuming the farmer does not keep such a register, what is going to happen then? We as legislators must make our Bills and our Acts as reasonable as possible so that the application of such measures shall not cause so many difficulties that it will be impossible for the farmers to comply with the law. I want to add this. A great deal has been said about the existing law, and we must admit that the existing law is very far-reaching, and places in the hands of the authorities many powers, powers which hitherto have met with great success, powers which have caused many difficulties, powers which we have been prepared to give to the Government, powers which have had the effect of our being able to eradicate scab, powers which have had good effects in regard to foot-and-mouth disease, but powers, too, which often have pressed very hard on the farming population. We have had this case mentioned by the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson). I also know of a court case against a man who was found not guilty, but in the meanwhile all his oxen were sold on the quarantine market in Johannesburg and he never received one penny of the proceeds from these oxen. The powers which the Government has under the existing law are very wide already, and now additional powers are being asked for; but if the Minister is asking for more powers we want to know definitely from him in what way he is going to demand that this register shall be kept, and in what way is he going to propose to make it possible for the farmer to carry out the regulations in every respect? The Minister is too sensible to lay down something by law which he himself will have to admit cannot be carried out. So far as the register is concerned he will find out that he will have to summon a large number of farmers. I am afraid that if a previous Minister of Agriculture is unable to show his face on a number of farms on account of the compulsory dipping provisions, the present Minister with this register and the compulsion which he wants to impose on the farmers to gather their cattle and their stock at certain times if an official orders them to do so, will bring about a state of affairs on the platteland which will have the effect that he will be unable to show his face in quite a number of areas. We want to ask the Minister to be reasonable. We know him to be a reasonable man and we make a special appeal to him in connection with clause 3. In that clause he is adding to the powers under the old Act. As the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Oost) has said, if the Minister considers that in certain circumstances he definitely requires these powers, he can ask for them when those circumstances arise. But why should every farmer and every native, every owner of stock, have the burden imposed upon him of having to keep a register of his cattle and stock; why should this burden be placed on them? Most farmers can tell one off hand how many cattle they have on their farms. They may possibly note the figures in a pocket diary. But here the Minister demands that a register shall be kept. We should like the Minister to explain the position to us before we can give our consent to a Bill of this kind.

Unlike my hon. friend who has just sat down, and most of the other hon. members who have taken part in this debate, I cannot claim the advantage, doubtless the profitable advantage, of being a practical stock farmer. The nearest approach I can claim to any participation in stock farming would be a moderate knowledge of the commoner problems and shortcomings of the two latest additions to the category of stock, namely, dogs and cats, which are ordinarily to be found also in the average urban household. I have, however, the honour to represent a constituency in which there are a great number of stock farmers and I do wish, briefly, to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) when he said the great majority of farmers throughout his area and in Natal are in support of this Bill. I understand that the Natal Agricultural Union has also given its wholehearted support to this measure. Indeed, sir, I find it difficult to understand the vehemence of the criticism levelled against what appears to me to be a very useful little measure. As I understand the Bill, it seeks to do nothing more than to give legal validity, or rather to remove any doubts as to the validity of existing regulations. As I understand it, the powers which are set out in section 3 have, in fact, been exercised for some time and are being exercised. But the purpose of this Bill is to remove any doubts which a recent Natal decision, and possibly other decisions, may have created as to the legality of these measures.

It is also clear, Mr. Speaker, that these regulations, which have been in existence for some time, are regarded by the Department as necessary for the purpose of combating stock diseases. It seems to me, provided that the points made by several speakers, including the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and my hon. friend who has just sat down—provided the administration of the Bill is sympathetic, then it seems to me that the objections to the Bill almost entirely fall away. My friend the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) while prepared to concede that the Bill might suit Natal, and that the exercise of the powers might be found to work well in Natal, seem to imply that they would not work in other parts of the Union. I fail to see the force of that objection. If the measure is sympathetically administered, and if the regulations which are being administered are regulations which have been found to be useful and which are approved of by the vast majority of farmers, certainly in the areas which I represent, it seems to me that there is no valid reason why these regulations should not work acceptably throughout the Union. The Bill which seeks only to legitimise the existing position, it seems to me is a good Bill. Hon. members on both sides of the House have emphasised their eagerness not to impede anything which the department regards as necessary for the purpose effectually of being able to combat outbreaks of stock disease. I understand that the department do regard, and have for some time regarded, these particular regulations as necessary, and if, therefore, the hon. minister responds to the appeals which have been made to him from various parts of the House to ensure that there shall be the maximum amount of sympathetic administration of the measure, it seems to me that there can be no valid objection to the Bill. The instance given by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), for instance, concerned the visits of check inspectors. He drew attention to what may be the infrequent discomfort and rare inconvenience occasioned by the visit of check inspectors. I am not certain as to the frequency of these visits, but I understand that they are comparatively rare—once or twice a year. Mr. Speaker, it appears to me even if one accidental inspection a year might be an inconvenience that the measure of that inconvenience can be largely lessened if the check inspector concerned takes the reasonable precaution of synchronising his surprise visit with the regular dipping times when the particular farmer dipped his cattle. I hope that the House will accept the Bill without a division, and as being one which is not harmful, not dangerous, but one which seeks only to legitimise regulations found by experience to be necessary and which in practice need not be unduly oppressive or too great an inconvenience to those whom they are designed to serve.

I only want to emphasise what has already been said by several hon. members on this side of the House, namely, that we are not opposed to the eradication of cattle diseases and that we are not opposed to the Bill for that reason. It is more a question of our feeling that this Bill is of such a drastic nature that it would be unfair on our part if we failed to raise our voice against it, and if we failed to protect the farmers against the far-reaching powers which are asked for here. I am surprised at the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland) having spoken about the Bill in the way he did. I understand he is a barrister and I feel that he cannot have read the original Bill, so that it was impossible for him to compare it with the measure now before the House. He contends that it is merely an extension of the existing Act and that the Minister is not assuming many powers additional to those which he already possesses under the existing law. Let me say at once that if he had read the Bill he would have seen that not only have a great many amendments been effected, but that under this Bill many of the powers are being extended and other powers are being assumed which do not appear in the original Act at all. What also struck me in this Bill is what we already have in connection with other Acts, namely, that the Minister does not come to this House and tell us what powers he wants to have, and what he wants to do, but he asks this House to give him the power to issue regulations by way of proclamations. I wish to protest against that procedure, and against the way in which this House is being treated. I feel that in the past too much has been done in the way of passing legislation by means of regulation. And I want to say this, that I associate myself with the hon. member who has already said that so many regulations have been issued that even the attorneys feel it is impossible for them to know what is intended by all these various regulations, and how they affect each other. I want to ask the Minister to meet the position of the farmers in this respect, and to take all the regulations which have been proclaimed from time to time and declared ultra vires by the court, and for which other regulations have been issued, and to publish them in book form together with all the regulations existing at the moment. That will be of great assistance to the farmers who will then know what to do. At the moment the farmer does not know which regulations are in force and which are not. One has to refer from the one to the other before knowing what the law actually is at the moment, and if an attorney finds the position difficult how much more so will the farmer find it difficult to carry out the law. Let the regulations be issued in pamphlet form, and let the farmers pay for it if necessary. I do not want to deal with matters which have already been dealt with, but the regulations would be very severe and I hope the Minister will see to it that those regulations, when they are published, especially where they affect the sheep farmers in the North-West, will be fair and reasonable, and that they will be so worded that they can be easily understood. The Minister may not think so, but not all his officials are equally reasonable; sometimes they are unreasonable, and come to a farmer’s place and demand that he shall gather all his sheep at once without any notice having been given. We have sheep farmers in the North-West who have 10,000 morgen of land; their sheep graze over the whole of this land and it is impossible for those farmers to collect all their sheep in one or two days, and for that reason they should be given reasonable notice. I know of an instance where a farmer stood ready to go to a neighbouring town to conduct some business, when the official came along and demanded of him that he should gather his sheep so that the necessary inspection might be made. This sort of thing causes considerable inconvenience and sometimes it is impossible to carry it out. Now the Minister takes unto himself the power to compel any farmer to collect his sheep at the request of an official, and if he fails to do so he is liable to be heavily fined. Under the original Act the fine is a very heavy one. For a first offence a fine of £50 may be imposed; for a second offence £100 and for a third offence £200 or imprisonment, as the magistrate may deem fit. Hon. members laughed when the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Bezuidenhout) referred to the heavy fines which might be imposed, but I want to point to the original Act which clearly lays this down. The Minister will now say that the magistrate will be reasonable, but the magistrate imposes the fine in accordance with what the law says. If the maximum is £200 for a third offence, the fine which the magistrate will impose will be between £150 to £200. A poor farmer, particularly a sheep farmer in the North-West, may commit a technical offence under the Act and he may be fined to such an extent that it will completely upset and cripple him in his farming. We had the case of a prominent farmer in Victoria West who said that he would rather go to gaol as he would be unable, in the fourteen days that he would be in gaol, to earn the amount of the fine. The alternative in his case was 14 days imprisonment, and he preferred to go to gaol. The Minister should he more reasonable in his legislation so far as that matter is concerned. Officials are not always as tactful as they should be, which may cause further difficulties to the farmers. I want to say a few words in connection with compensation. The Minister will see that in the original Bill differentiation is provided for in respect of compensation to sheep farmers and other farmers of the country, and if hon. members will look at the schedule it will be noticed that in the second schedule special tariffs are laid down in regard to payments to be made to the farmers who lose cows and other animals in consequence of certain conditions. I feel that it is a matter of justice that sheep farmers should also know what compensation they are going to get in the event of their losing sheep. An official may demand that a farmer shall dip his sheep on a rainy day, which has often happened, and this may result in a farmer suffering considerable losses, particularly in the North-West. Sometimes the sheep may be very thin, but in spite of this the official considers that the farmer is obliged to have the sheep dipped in accordance with the regulations, with the result that the farmer suffers heavy losses without his being paid any compensation. I know of instances where farmers, through having had to dip their sheep on a rainy day lost from 300 to 400 sheep, after which they were unable to get any compensation. The law states that the compensation shall be determined by the Government by way of regulations. Why this differentiation? Sheep farmers and cattle farmers should be treated alike, and it should be laid down in the Act what the compensation shall be, so that a guide may be given to the department in regard to the compensation in certain conditions. One finds that sheep farmers are not paid compensation in the same way as others, or rather they do not know what compensation they are entitled to. The Government may draft regulations, and if the department drafts regulations one must realise that those regulations are made with the object of the department protecting itself, but by doing so they detrimentally affect the sheep farmers. I hope the Minister will go into this matter so that the provision in regard to compensation may be altered. Every farmer, whether he is a sheep or a cattle farmer, should know what the basis of compensation is. I therefore say emphatically that I hope the regulations under the Act will be proclaimed in good time before the approval of the Governor-General is asked for, so that the sheep farmers in particular will be given the opportunity of drawing attention to possible cases of injustice. That is only right. I want to repeat that I am not opposed to this Bill, but I do say that the provisions of this measure are too drastic; I do say that farmers will be interfered with, and will not be given the opportunity of considering the regulations beforehand. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be reasonable in drafting these regulations, so that farmers shall not be brought to court for any little minor offence. It is further laid down that every farmer shall keep a register, and the department has the right to prescribe the manner in which such a register is to be kept. Would that be fair? The farmer will not know how the register is to be kept, and an additional burden will be placed on him. A farmer may be found guilty under the regulations and fined £50 or £100, and that sort of thing is not right to the farmer. For those reasons I hope that the Minister will be prepared in Committee to meet our views.

It would perhaps be better and more convenient if I were to reply at once to the question put to me by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), and I hope that my reply may have the effect of reassuring most of those hon. members who, have criticised this Bill. This Bill deals with infectious diseases among cattle and stock, and does not give the department the right to go to a district where there are no cattle or stock diseases or where there is no danger of infection. The original Act was passed in 1911 and has been in operation for 28 years, and everything we are asking for to-day has been done from time to time under the original Act, and I have never yet heard of the department or its officials going to districts where no cattle or stock diseases prevailed. They cannot go there unless it has first been proved that there are infectious diseases among the cattle or stock, or that there is a danger of infection.

Why then have you got inspectors in districts which are free of scab and where there are no other infectious diseases?

Nobody will ask a farmer to keep a register or to gather his sheep if there is no scab in the district.

But he has to keep a register under the provisions of the Act.

No, unless there is a disease prevalent in the district, or unless there is a danger of a disease breaking out. In any case that is how the Act has been carried out except in so far as the register is concerned. There is nothing else in the Bill except that the farmers are expected to keep a register of their cattle and stock, which I shall explain just now. I must say that I am astonished at the criticism levelled at this Bill by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), my predecessor as Minister of Agriculture. I am sorry he is not here, because I should have liked to have told him to his face what I think of his criticism. You see, Mr. Speaker, if a former Minister of Agriculture can come and tell me that the person one authorises to go to a farmer’s place may be a native, then I ask myself whether there is any need for me to take further notice of his remarks. It is really going too far, and I ask whether any hon. member should make comments of that kind. His criticism also applies to certain words in regard to the definition of “person” in the Bill; but the very same words proposed in this Bill appear in the Act of 1937, and if the hon. member were here I would ask him whether he himself, acting on behalf of the then Minister of Agriculture, did not put that Act through the Senate. Every word he objects to, appears in that Act. I may perhaps get the opportunity of putting this question to the hon. member during the committee stage; there is nothing new in this Bill—it is simply giving legal effect to practices which have been in existence and those practices are embodied in the Bill, because the department in carrying out these practices found that according to a judgment of the court it did not possess certain powers which it had always thought it had. For instance, according to the judgment of the court the department did not legally have the right to go to a man’s farm to see whether he had dipped. All this Bill is doing now is to legalise the powers which we have so far always carried out. Hon. members asked me why I wanted to put this in the form of law; I only want to say that we have had instances where the owners of cattle or stock have absolutely refused to have their animals counted. Those were not cases of check-inspectors, but of ordinary officials of the department; I have in mind a case where the department said that they were prepared to meet the convenience of the farmer, and that he need not dip once a week but once every fourteen days; but even there the man refused. This happened in the Ermelo district where farmers refused to have their stock counted and the result has been that the whole area has had to suffer because certain people refused to have their animals counted. This has led to the district having to be kept closed. The other farmers in the district, who were willing, were prevented from trekking with their cattle and stock. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad said that there would be a very much better chance of success if a fence were erected between the Transvaal and Swaziland. He raised this suggestion with the department, and the department replied that it was the intention to look into the question whether the existing fence would be of any use if we had the whole fence put in order. If we find it to be of any use, I would be prepared to approach the Imperial Government with a suggestion to put up a further fence to which each of us would pay half of the cost. The hon. member for Victoria West said that he had too many officials in his district. But there are other districts which are anxious to have officials, and I shall bear this in mind if I get any applications. I also want to say that the advisory council of the South African Agricultural Union has repeatedly asked for those amendments which are now being made in this Bill, and the Natal Agricultural Society specially asked for the amendment in connection with the counting of stock and cattle which is now being proposed.

Have they seen the Bill?

They probably did see it afterwards, but it was drafted in compliance with their request. The hon. member for Senekal (Maj. Pieterse) spoke about cats. And other members, such as the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis), discussed the same question. The reason for cats being included under the provisions of this Bill, is that cats may transmit the same diseases as dogs, and there is a danger of cats, for instance, transmitting rabies. I do not see why the hon. member should specially object to cats. I do not want this Bill to be held over and the other points raised can be dealt with in committee. In committee I shall be able to reply to all the questions that have been put to me, and I hope hon. members will allow me to take the second reading now. I just want to say this to the hon. member for Vryburg. He objected to clause 3 paragraph (1) and I want to say that those words are deleted here because in clause 16 similar powers are given. It is in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court that we are making this amendment. I should like the second reading to be taken this evening, and I shall reply to the points raised by the hon. member for Prieska and others in committee.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 3rd April.