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

I second.

Agreed to.

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

I second.

Agreed to.

I second.

Agreed to.

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

1. (a) immediately reducing the unbearable burdens suffered by it;
2. (b) immediately instituting a thorough investigation into the position of every farmer and ascertaining the cause of his trouble with a view to his rehabilitation;
3. (c) establishing and putting into force a proper mortgage redemption scheme;
4. (d) making provision for research and enquiry with a view to safeguarding all the interests of the farming industry, more especially in respect of (i) markets, (ii) stock diseases and remedies therefor, and (iii) the policy to be pursued after the successful rehabilitation of those engaged in the industry; and
5. (e) investigating the position of the poorer section of the farming community, such as tenants, “bywoners” and share-croppers (“deelsaaiers”).

I have on previous occasions brought a similar motion before the House, but I was not then fortunate enough to get much time to speak fully on these subjects. To-day I have been fortunate enough to be able to introduce this important and urgent motion, and I want immediately to appeal to the House that none of us should drag in party politics. This is a very pressing motion. More especially when a country is at war is it very necessary that the farming industry should be looked after well. I therefore ask that we should leave out party politics, and that we should debate this extremely important measure from an economic point of view. I notice the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) is in his place. I am sure of his support. On a previous occasion when he supported a similar motion he had to leave the Chamber. I hope that he will not be driven out this afternoon, but that he will give his support to me. I also expect the support of the Minister of Labour in connection with this matter, just as I expect the support of many other hon. members opposite who represent farmers. The agricultural industry is still one of the greatest assets in the country. We have other industries, we have large factories, we have the gold mining industry, we have coal mines and diamond mines, etc., but agriculture is surely still one of our chief industries, or rather the chief one, in South Africa. More people are in the service of that industry, and find a living in it than in any other industry. It is therefore necessary for us to protect agriculture. It is the experience of other countries that if agriculture retrogresses, if the countryside is depopulated and the people go to the towns and villages, then it is a very difficult thing to get them back on to the land again, and once more to make useful people of them in agricultural matters. When once these people go to the towns and have lived there for years, and acquired certain customs, then they have to be educated afresh before they can go back and be of use in the agricultural in dustry. In South Africa you still find the largest section of the population on the farms, but the people are gradually trekking to the towns, and you find families on the i farms of one or two—most of the children take jobs in the villages, and it is only the old people who remain on the farms, and when they die out then the farm also dies. The farms are losing their inhabitants. It is therefore necessary and of the greatest importance for the farming industry to be made attractive to the population, so that people will remain there. Before I go further, I would like to read a letter which a good and old friend of mine has written, namely, old Major Hunt. He is known all over the country, and the agricultural in dustry is very much indebted to him. He is an old man to-day, but he has done very much for the agricultural industry, and if we had listened to him in the past then agriculture would possibly not have been in the terrible state which it is in to-day. He writes to me—

That is a letter written by someone who has had great experience in the agricultural industry, and a man who is quite au fait with the actual state of affairs in the farming industry. I think that he precisely sets out in the letter what the position is to-day, and what the difficulties of the farming industry are. It is our solemn duty to discuss this great problem on the lines that something must be done immediately. As somebody said to me, the agricultural industry has been receiving various measures of assistance during the past twelve or fifteen years. Every government has tried to save the farming industry, every government has tried to do certain things, but the root of the trouble has not been touched. I want to compare the agricultural industry with a building the foundation of which is under the surface of the ground, a beautiful magnificent building is put on the foundation, one story is put on top of the other, and if there are any cracks they are cemented up, but finally the foundations are unable to stand the weight. The building collapses. That is the case with the agricultural industry in South Africa to-day. The foundation is not economically sound, with the result that agriculture cannot go on on that foundation. I have read a report by the Secretary for Agriculture to whom our thanks are due for his clear statements, but the help which he discusses that ought to be given to the agricultural industry is limited, and we cannot get the necessary assistance if we do not pass additional legislation. We have different schemes, and I know for instance that the Farmers’ Relief Board is doing everything in its power to administer the legislation that does exist to the advantage of the farmers. It does not, however, go far enough, it is not adequate, and while I am dealing with this point I want gratefully to mention the name of the late Mr. Wilmot. He meant a great deal to us. I remember that I never approached him in the past, but that he received me sympathetically, and assisted wherever he could. He is no longer with us, but he did a great deal for the agricultural industry in South Africa. I do not want to blame any government, but what we do want from the Government of the day is that it should tackle the great problems of the industry. The governments in the past have touched a little here and there on these problems, but inasmuch as it is specially necessary for the people to produce at this time, so that the public can be fed because if you have no food, then your war effort will come to an end—and so I feel that we must intervene and do what we can for the farming industry. I now come to my motion, and the first paragraph of the motion is—

We know that the burdens of the people are so great that they feel that they cannot go on. They are becoming discouraged. They say: “Why should we go on working and struggling when we never have the opportunity of paying off our debt?” I hear that every day. Then they make arrangements to find relief elsewhere. The son and the daughter get jobs in the village, only the old people are left on the farm, and when they die the farm dies. Something must be done to improve the prospects, so that the people can feel that they can go on and have some future. Then I come to the second paragraph of my motion—

It is necessary to institute an enquiry to find out what the amount of the bonds, which the farmers have to pay off, is. What is the amount? I have put down a number of points here which, in my opinion, should be investigated in this connection. They are: (1) The amount of the present mortgage debt of the farmers of the Union; (2) the value of the farms which have been mortgaged; (3) the annual income obtained out of exploiting these farms; (4) the amount which has to be paid annually in interest out of this income; (5) the extent to which arrear payments are added to the original bonds and on which capitalised interest is paid; (6) the extent to which payments of interest are in arrear which has not been added to the capital; (7) the amount which is annually paid by the farmers of the Union in capitalised interest; (8) the apparent possibility that farmers will be able to continue paying their present interest debts, even with the interest subsidy got from the Government; (9) the extent to which it will be necessary to reduce the bonds in order to buy them within the range of ordinary business risks; (10) if the interest and redemption payments made by farmers whose farms are mortgaged to the Land Bank are taken as an example, the fact that when farmers have passed bonds in favour of other institutions and have not reduced them, would have been encouraged to do so if ammortisation payments had been made obligatory on the same basis as the payments to the Land Bank, that is to say obligatory with exemptions in times of pressure and great need; (11) any other points of view in regard to this serious problem which may be suggested by the Secretary for Agriculture and senior officers of the department. I have just mentioned these points roughly. They give a lead in regard to the investigation that is necessary. Then we get the data that we need. We see what the man’s debt is, what his income is, the interest which he has to pay, and whether he has a chance of making good, and we can then come to a conclusion as to what ought to be done to save the man economically. I then come to my third proposal—

We know that from time to time schemes have been suggested, such as for instance the one by Dr. Van der Horst. The Minister is a man who goes thoroughly into matters, and he has probably also considered various schemes before this. I do not want to suggest a definite scheme, but I shall be prepared at any time to give evidence before a commission in order to explain a scheme that I favour. I feel that something must be done in connection with the reduction of the heavy burdens.

Tell us briefly what should be done.

The hon. member has always taken an interest in it. He suggested years ago that it was necessary to go the length of proclaiming a moratorium. He suggested a farmer’s bank and other things. I am certain in any case that he will support and assist me to-day. He is going to vote for this motion. But I want briefly to say this: Suppose a man owes £5,000 and his interest is £100 or £150 or £200. Put the interest aside, and say that for a period of five or ten years that amount is going to be deducted from the bonds. To that, however, the stipulation must be added that when the state intervenes in order to save and to help people economically in that way, so that they can no longer pass any further bonds, or at least not beyond a certain amount. It is not a new thing, to give a subsidy in this way. We have the Cape Divisional Councils and we have housing schemes which run into thousands of pounds. In connection with them subsidies are granted. Why cannot the farmer be subsidised as well? It is not at all a new thing. I have just read something about Germany. During the past three years the farmers there have been subsidised to the extent of £100,000,000 a year, and in America they are subsidised to the extent of £80,000,000 a year. Throughout the world they realise that you must look after the farmers. They are struggling everywhere to keep the farmers on the countryside. It is not an easy thing. They are living on lonely farms and have little pleasure. I have met urban dwellers who have said: “Even if you pay me I will not go and live on a farm.” Just think what the farming community have already meant to this country in the past. The greatest men in the world come from the farming community. The strongly built people come from the farming community. We have many leaders to-day who have come from the farming community. You cannot expect a town dweller in the surroundings he lives in, to be as well developed as a farmer on the countryside, but the difficulty to-day is that the economic position on the farms has become so intolerable. To that must be added the fact that the economists to-day are living in the towns and they are examining those problems from the point of view of the towns. I fear that in South Africa the town dwellers are gradually being educated to become opposed to the farming industry. The town dweller no longer sees anything good in the farmers. The town dweller says that the farmer is being favoured. But he forgets what privileges he has in comparison with the farmer. It is easy for him to have his children educated, it is easy for him to obtain all the things which the farmers are deprived of. We must be careful in South Africa that we do not put these two elements up against each other, that we do not antagonise the farmer against the town dweller and vice versa. The town dwellers say that the farmers get everything, that they get good prices for their produce, that they only have to hold up their hands and the Government gives what they ask for. That is a wrong impression which is being created among the urban dwellers. We must prevent it, we must make the town dwellers clearly understand that if agriculture rots, then the nation will rot. I am speaking here of facts. Just ask the Farmers’ Relief Board and the Department of Agriculture. They know that the position is serious to-day, and I want accordingly in all seriousness to say that a redemption scheme in regard to bonds must be introduced, so that the intolerable burdens may be relieved. Then we shall have a contented farming population. Then I come to the next point—

We have already done much research work, and there are verious places like Ondersterpoort and the agricultural schools which are constantly doing research work, but my experience is that they are doing their investigation under fabourable circumstances. Take this year, for example, with its extraordinary rains. I fear that we shall again have much stock disease, and that thousands of animals will die. The different institutions have done their research work under favourable conditions, and have enquired into stock diseases. My argument is that they ought to come more to the farms, and do their work there, when the diseases break out under unfavourable circumstances. They should keep more in touch with the farming population. Today you get many remedies, as, for instance, in respect of wire worm, nodular worm, and others, which are of no use. Possibly they have cures under favourable circumstances where you have green lucerne or things of that kind, but otherwise they are of no use to the farmer, and they are therefore not effective. I accordingly feel that the Department should be in closer touch with the farmers themselves. Officials should be sent out to where the diseases are prevalent. I remember a man who lost many sheep and lambs in consequence of blue tongue. There is a remedy for it, but someone should be sent by the Department to get into touch with the farmer when disease of that kind breaks out. Two years ago I spoke of people who had lost thousands and thousands of sheep without any official from the Department having come near them. The Department should be more in touch with the farmers. I want to warn the Department that in consequence of the extraordinary rains there will be diseases breaking out amongst the animals, and I hope that the Department will take steps to keep in touch with the farmers. Then I come to the last point in my motion—

I visited the Land Bank a few days ago, and I was surprised to learn from them that the poorer class of people pay very well, they fulfil their obligations under difficult circumstances. Those people are in such a position that most of them are no longer able to hire land, because if there is any land to let, then the rich man hires that land under their very noses. I say that in South Africa, with its extensive areas, it is definitely not necessary for any people to be without land. There are thousands of morgen in the country which are unoccupied, and undeveloped. I say that that ground should be used, and there should be a scheme on a big scale to put people on the land, and to keep them there. When a person has once left for the towns, then we do not easily get him back on to the land again. Individuals will go again, but to get the population who grew up in the villages back on to the land will cost any government a great deal of money. It is therefore necessary for proper provision to be made for the lessee, the deelsaaier and the bywoner. I am not going to detain the House long, because I know that many of my friends wish to speak on the motion, and I am keen on both sides of the House having the opportunity of dealing fully with this matter. I just want to end by quoting these few words which someone said, a man who was one of our greatest men in the farming industry, and he said: “Save the land, and in that way you save the individual; save the individual, and in that way you save the nation.” If you bear that in mind, then you will be rendering a good service to our country. Governments come and governments go, parties come and parties go, but agriculture is a necessity, and must remain for ever, and it is the greatest injustice on the part of any government if it does not give full attention to the agricultural question. With these few words I hope the House will discuss this motion in the spirit in which I have put it before the House, and that the House will pass it in this form. I hope that we shall all put party politics aside, and that we shall bring this matter to the notice of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture.

And also to the notice of the Minister of Lands.

Yes, the Minister of Lands has already said that one of these days he will be giving land to everybody! Let us lay party politics aside to-day, and all of us stand by the Government in order once and for all to go fully into the difficult conditions of the farmers. The farmers are living in the most difficult circumstances. The cost of living is rising, they have to contend with a scarcity of labour. I do not want to say anything more on the motion, because my hon. friends are ready to deal with all the difficulteis of the farmers. I move my motion in the hope that the Government will immediately take steps to make provision to give proper assistance to the farmers such as they deserve.

It is with the greatest readiness and pleasure that I second this motion introduced by the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the motion in broad outline. Similar motions have been introduced repatedly into this House, and the position of the farmers has been shown quite adequately, and that practically nothing has hitherto been done to help them to get out of that position. We know of different bodies and institutions which have been established, and it is said that the farmers will be assisted by them. The assistance that has been given up to the present has been nothing else than mere palliatives. The farming industry is in a deplorable state to-day. From an economic point of view it is so bad that the hon. member for Aliwal quite rightly said that even young farmers no longer saw any opportunity of making a living on the farms. We are losing the best men because that industry has been entirely neglected. It is always being said on the opposite side of this House: “What do you suggest? What remedies do you propose?” I tell those hon. members that they need only make way on the other side, and let us sit there and then we will do the proper thing for the country.

And when you had the opportunity you could not do it.

The Minister of Finance some time ago, I think it was last year, promised us that he would instruct the Farmers’ Relief Board to institute an enquiry into the poverty-stricken condition of the farming industry. The Minister of Finance recently replied to a question as to whether it had been done, and his answer was, as well as I can remember, that owing to the state of war the Farmers’ Relief Board could not get on with that work. Is it not disgraceful for the farming industry to be neglected, and for what reason? Every month there is £6,000,000 being spent on the war, but this industry which is of vital importance to the people, is pushed into the background. Why is that done? It is in order to put a wandering native king back on his throne. Millions are being wasted on the war, but the farming industry is neglected in a scandalous way. The time has come for the Government to give an account, and I invite the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture to come to Senekal, and if they do not have a motion of no confidence in them passed I will resign my seat. I say this in order to indicate what the farmers feel about the conditions they are living in.

Who created those conditions?

My hon. friends opposite, who are prepared to sacrifice everything for Great Britain. That hon. member has no longer any sympathy with the farmers of the Union of South Africa. The hon. member for Aliwal said that a proper enquiry should be instituted into the heavy burdens which rest on the farms to-day. In the circumstances existing at present I do not see how the farmers can fulfil their obligations. I am speaking more particularly about my own constituency. As I said at the beginning, the Government appointed the Farmers’ Relief Board to stand by and to assist the farmers in certain cases. There are certain people, a portion of whose ground has been cut off and given to others. Those persons no doubt have since that time being going through the most difficult time which has prevailed in that district for a very long time. For at least four years we have had practically nothing but bad harvests, with the result that many of the people have got into arrears. They are in danger of being driven off their farms. They have no control over the conditions in which they have been plunged. My hon. friends opposite may now say that those people are themselves responsible for their position. We are prepared to agree that they did not all quite make proper allowances for circumstances, and in that way got deeper into trouble. But we must not forget that it is the nature of the farmer to go on developing his work and carrying on his farming, and that he cannot do anything else. Circumstances force him to take that course, and when he meets with these circumstances, these unfavourable conditions which are staring him in the face, then he cannot help himself, and he has eventually to go insolvent, and that is why this motion pleads as strongly as is possible for an enquiry being made to put the farmer on a sound economic basis, so that his industry can become a sound one again. Whether we want to admit it or not, it is a fact that the condition of the farmers to-day is deplorable. The farming community are linked up together like the telephonic communication. When the bell rings in one house then it rings in all the other houses on that line as well. If one farmer is ruined he drags quite a few of his fellow-farmers down with him. They are carried away together, and ultimately we are all in that terrible state of poverty. I say that it is essential for an enquiry to be instituted into the state of the farming industry. At the opening of Parliament, for instance, I pleaded with the Minister of Agriculture, and I want to do the same to-day on behalf of my constituency, but I also want to thank him that he came to the aid of my farmers last year with seed, wheat, fertiliser, etc. I ask the Minister again for that assistance, because the position in my constituency has been particularly bad. There are hon. members in this House who can testify to that, and who have interests in that constituency. The Minister told me that he would first of all like to have the report of the magistrate. The magistrate sent that report to the Minister, and the figures and data contained in it supported my request in view of the state of affairs in that constituency. After careful consideration the Minister wrote to me that he was very sorry that he could not assist the farmers of Senekal again to-day. He said that they could not make an exception. We, as the representatives of our constituencies, have the duty resting on us to look after the interests of our electors. I was sent here to guard the interests of those people who sent me here. I made an appeal to the Minister, and I appeal to him again over the floor of the House, and I want to tell him that if the Government does not assist those farmers, then there are numbers of them who will ultimately be driven off the land. The people do not have the facilities of providing for their own needs. The Minister may laugh and he may think that the matter is not very serious, but I can, for example, refer to this case: that of a person who planted 50 bags of wheat last year, and who got assistance from the Government and decided to reap that wheat. He did not want to let it stand, because then he would be accused of being too lazy to reap it. He hired a machine, because that was the only way to get that wheat reaped. It cost him £90 to reap 277 bags. That is what he got out of 50 bags of seed. The seed cost him £62 10s., and that does not include the cost of the fertiliser.

Why did he use a machine?

If he had not done so, then you would have been the first to say that he was too lazy to harvest his crop.

You are misunderstanding my question. Could he not have gone to work in a cheaper way?

He could not get natives to reap it, and no other machine could cut it down owing to the drought. That wheat was entirely below grade, and he got 11s. a bag, so that his income from the harvest was £152. His expenses in harvesting and the seed alone amounted to £152, and what about the fertiliser in addition? When conditions of that kind prevail, how can the farmer possibly fulfil his obligations? It has been worked out minutely that the cost of production of wheat in Senekal is 17s. 11d. per bag. I repeat that during the last four years circumstances in that district have been such that there have practically always been bad harvests. The Minister himself knows what the position of the mealie farmers is. They are in the same position, and for the last few years the mealie farmers could only just cover their costs of production and hardly show a profit. Now I ask you quite seriously—if that state of affairs continues, what will ultimately be the condition of things in South Africa? I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to ask the Minister again to reconsider the matter seriously, and to assist the Senekal farmers again with a supply of seed wheat and fertiliser. They are badly in need of them. If the Minister does not think that conditions are such that they are required, then I invite him to go there and institute an enquiry as to what the actual conditions are. The Minister also wrote to me that owing to the magnificent rains in Senekal the position there was now probably quite different. If it has rained, it has at any rate not rained money. We are thankful for the relief that has come, and it is just in view of that that I am pleading with the Minister for assistance in order in that way to enable the farmers eventually to fulfil their obligations. I say that it is not the least use for us to sit here and spend the best of our time on other questions which are not of great importance, while we do not give the proper place in our attention to the most important matters in the country, the greatest industry we have, namely, the farming industry. I say that up to the present comparatively little has been done for that industry, and it is time that the Government itself should give its attention to the state of the farmers. Something must be done to rehabilitate them, and when they are rehabilitated, then if necessary they can be kept under supervision, if nothing else is possible, in order to see to it that the farmers do not get into trouble again. With these few words I have the greatest pleasure in seconding the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal.

The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) was very unfortunate in his choice of someone to second his motion when he selected the hon. member for Senekal (Maj. Pieterse) to do so. The hon. member for Aliwal made an appeal to us not to introduce party politics in connection with this motion. But the first person to do so was his seconder, the hon. member for Senekal, who came and told us here that the Government was spending £6,000,000 a month on the war, that I was willing to sacrifice everything for England and the like, and then the hon. member expects us not to talk party politics. Are hon. members opposite serious in connection with this motion? I do not believe it. None of us has yet spoken on the motion, only two hon. members opposite have spoken, and they are sowing the political apple of discord among us.

And you are quickly having a bite at it.

There you have one of the great generals speaking! The hon. member for Aliwal described to us what the state of farming was. I will come to his motion in a moment. I now just want to remind the hon. member of the fact that there was a time when the farming population of South Africa were economically sound. Does he agree with me?

Yes, certainly.

And who is to blame for the farmer having become a beggar? When the worst depression which the world has known was prevalent, the old Nationalist Party was in office. They were repeatedly asked by the farmers to take steps to reduce the interest on mortgage bonds.

Why are you now dragging party politics in?

Yes, I know the hon. member’s conscience is troubling him and he feels ashamed. Let us examine these things and find out what the cause was why the farmers are in the position in which they find themselves to-day. At that time an appeal was made to the government of the day, that is the Nationalist Party Government, to try to reduce the interest on bonds, because it was found that the more the price of the produce of the farmer dropped, the higher the interest on mortgages went up. They talk so much about Hoggenheimer on the other side, but there never yet was a time when Hoggenheimer flourished in the way he flourished during the time when the Nationalist Party was in office. They remained on the gold standard, and interest on bonds went up to 10 per cent. and 12 per cent. And when the farmers asked for that interest to be reduced, what was the answer that they received; what did they do? All they did was according to the reply that I got from the Leader of the Nationalist Party in the Cape Province, to say that the farmers had better go insolvent and make a fresh start from the beginning. I repeat this here in his presence. He has admitted that he remembers that speech of his, but he now gives a different turn to it, and says that he said that those farmers who went bankrupt would become poor whites. I repeat what the Leader of the Nationalist Party told me at that time, and, what is more, he did nothing. I rebelled at that time against that wretched economic policy, and that is why I was kicked out of the caucus.

Were you not a supporter of the gold standard?

I was a supporter of the gold standard. I was on the Gold Standard Committee, but my speech in Hansard clearly shows that I stated in this House that I had signed the report on condition that the Government took steps to bring down the interest on mortgages, and assisted the farmers, or otherwise we could not remain on the gold standard. But what did they do? They remained absolutely silent on their benches, and drew big salaries as Ministers. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) was at the beck and call of Mr. Klaasie Havenga, because he wanted to get a job.

You are saying a thing which is not true.

When the late Mr. Piet Maartins was expelled from the caucus, he took umbrage at Gen. Hertzog’s action, but three days before I was put out of the caucus by Gen. Hertzog the hon. member for Winburg already wanted me out of it.

You are talking nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense. The hon. member’s own colleagues know what he proposed and they know that what I am saying here is the truth.

Where did I ever look for a job?

The hon. member’s conscience is pricking him.

I challenge you to prove to me where I looked for a job. One was offered me and I refused it.

That is what those hon. members did in the past, but now they want to hold themselves out as the great champions of the farmers.

You know that a judgeship was offered him and he refused it.

I say that the hon. member three days before Gen. Hertzog put me out, wanted me to be put out.

You said that I was looking for a job and I challenge you to prove it.

I say that you did look for a job. We all know that you were hoping to become a Minister. We know that after the death of the late Mr. Charlie Malan you were out to become Minister of Railways.

And you wanted to become Minister of Agriculture.

If I had been Minister of Agriculture, then I hope that the lot of the farmers would have been better than it is to-day. I would not have followed that miserable policy which the hon. members on the opposite side followed. They would not even reduce the interest on mortgage bonds. The position at that time was that the prices of produce went down completely, and the interest rushed up, and they refused to do anything to reduce the interest. After we had quitted the gold standard and after the Coalition Government was formed, Mr. Havenga introduced a Bill to reduce the interest from 10 per cent. and 12 per cent. to 3 per cent. They said that the Nationalist Party did not have the majority, and that it could not get such a Bill through Parliament. The Nationalist Party had a majority, and it could have put that Bill through Parliament with a majority of one vote, but they did absolutely nothing, and they agreed with that policy of their leader that the farmers could just become insolvent and start afresh.

Better leave that old history alone and tell us what the position of the farmer is.

The hon. member for Senekal says that nothing has been done for the farmer. It was the United Party Government which brought the interest down to 3½ per cent.

It was the Hertzog Government, and not the Government which is in office to-day.

This motion is now being introduced to enable those hon. members to go to the countryside and say that they introduced this motion, and then they want to persuade us that it is not party politics. It is entirely party political, and the whole afternoon is being wasted on party political propaganda.

Do you then set us a better example?

We can set a better example, but we cannot do so until we have first of all pointed out the evil. There are thousands of farmers on the land to-day who would not have been there if the interest had not been reduced. We passed the Farmers’ Relief Act under the United Party Government, and that in spite of the Nationalist Party that existed at the time. Will those hon. members tell me that there are not thousands of farmers who have remained on the land in consequence of the action and the concessions of the Farmers’ Relief Board? There are thousands and thousands of bonds which were dealt with under the Farmers’ Relief Act, and approximately £50,000,000 was spent in assisting to save the farmers, but the misfortune in this country is that our friends opposite are in this regard forgetting our history. Those hon. members opposite are exploiting our history for party political purposes, and now again they are exploiting the difficulties of the farmers for the same end. When we were engaged in doing the things referred to, we found that the purified Nationalist Party came and said that what we were doing was all patchwork, and that it amounted to nothing. To-day again we hear them tell us that we must make way here, and when they occupy our places they will show us what they can do. The farmers of South Africa will not allow it, because the farmers of South Africa remember that those hon. members had the opportunity of doing something, and they did nothing except to push the farmers still further into ruin. I say that there is one way in which we can save the farmers, and we as the Parliament must give a lead in that respect. There is one way in which the farmer can be saved. The farmer must save himself, and when he is no longer willing to do so, then he is finished. No one else can then save him. I firmly believe that. It is an old tradition of the Afrikaner people that you must pay your debts, that you must be honest, and that you should not live above your income. That is the tradition which we must keep alive. But what was done by the hon. members opposite, and by the members of the purified Nationalist Party? They announced that if the Nationalist Party got into office, all the debts would be written off.

Do not talk nonsense.

What does this motion mean? It says that the difficulties of every farmer must be investigated, and they must all be put on an economically sound footing, and when they have been rehabilitated, then steps must be taken to prevent them ever getting into debt again. What kind of population was it going to be in that case? I believe that, if I have a son I must assist him to farm, but I must not give him everything for nothing. He must repay the capital with interest, and if he cannot make a success of it then it is time for me to try to do so for him, because in that case he would be lost. The farmer must be able to pay his debts, and while they used formerly to have to pay 7 per cent. and 8 per cent. now in many cases pay 3½ per cent. A motion by the farmers’ group of the United Party was passed that the Minister of Finance should try to bring the interest down, so that the farmers would have an opportunity of paying off their debts, that there should be a redemption subsidy in order to reduce the debt on those bonds which were passed in the days when the prices of produce were so high. The Minister said that he had got a report from the Farmers’ Relief Board, and that he was now considering it. I hope that the Minister will take steps to come to the aid of those people. But when we look at this motion, then I really do not know whether my hon. friends opposite are serious.

We are serious in the matter.

Then I would like to hear from them how it is possible to carry out the motion. In the first place it asks that the intolerable burden resting on the farmers should immediately be made smaller; the farmers difficulties must be ascertained with a view to rehabilitation, and every farmer’s troubles must be enquired into. How long will that take, and what kind of a commission will it require? It will take fifty years to examine every farmer on that basis. The motion reads that the intolerable burden must immediately be reduced, and then it is suggested that every farmer’s condition must be carefully gone ino, and that the cause of his troubles must be ascertained with the object of rehabilitating him. What is the cause of the difficulties of the farmer? In the first place the maintenance of the gold standard at the time, and that the Nationalist Party Government in office during the great depression did not do its duty. In that way the farmers got into difficulties. Accordingly, we ask the Minister of Finance to take steps to grant further concessions to the farmers. Now what do those hon. members want more? They want a mortgage redemption scheme. They want the Government to assist every farmer who wants to buy a farm, to buy the farm.

We are not referring to new debts.

Up to what year do you want to go?

Up to 1935. We want to relieve the land which has been overcapitalised.

And if a man bought a farm in 1937 then he can just go under?

We cannot do otherwise.

The hon. members do not know what they are asking for. If you say that the scheme is to go to 1935, you may just as well say that it should go to 1940. And why then should you not in five years’ time say that it should go to 1945? The whole of this motion is just intended to make party political propaganda. But I sympathise with hon. members opposite. We have fought an election, and they made many promises. The purified Nationalist Party said that if they came into office the mortgages would be brought down by them.

That is not true.

They did not say it in their manifesto, but at meetings, and it was whispered all over the country. They would write off all the mortgage bonds and all the stock which the poor farmers had got, and in respect of which they were still in debt, would be written off. Now I ask them whether the debts which the farmers incurred are to be repaid by the Government or not?

Yes.

But what then is the use of this motion? We have a Farmers’ Relief Board, and when a farmer is in difficulties and cannot pay he can go to the Farmers’ Relief Board, and he can be assisted. Thousands and thousands of pounds have been put to suspense account, and they are not paying interest.

But the yoke remains on their necks.

But that does not kill the farmer, because he pays nothing. I do not see what more the Government can do than what it is doing to-day. There is one thing to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance, and that is the position of the farmers who passed large bonds at the time prices were high, and who are in difficulties to-day. I said the other day, and I say it again to-day, that a large section of the farmers are paying off their bonds to-day. The poor section, the bywoners and deelsaaiers (sharecroppers) who have got stock from the Government are paying to-day. I know from experience that that is so. Those are the people who are holding the traditions of the Voortrekkers high.

Pshaw!

Yes, it is not the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) who is holding the traditions high. All I want to ask of the Minister is that he should make a concession to the people who have the heavy mortgage debt. I want to ask him to bring the interest down from 3½ per cent. to 2½ per cent. on condition that the farmers pay off 2½ per cent. of the bonds. If he pays that off then he gets a redemption subsidy of 2½ per cent. If we carry out a scheme of that kind for five years— hon. members opposite talk so much about a five-year plan—then we shall in five years’ time have written one-quarter off the mortgage bonds, and I want to say that the Minister is as a matter of fact considering that point at the moment. Did you know it? But this motion is only intended for party political propaganda. They, of course, have made promises.

The Minister is considering and the farmers can just drown in the meantime.

The farmers have much more courage to-day, as far as the future is concerned, than they have had for years, and they are paying off bonds. The big thing that we have done for the farmers is to try and get markets. We have found a market for the wool of the farmers, but when the Government does anything for the farmers, what do hon. members opposite do? They hold meetings of protest all over the country, because the Government sold the wool to the Imperial Government. If the Imperial Government had not bought the wool what would the farmers have done with the wool? They say that America and Japan would have bought the wool.

Yes, if we had been sitting over there.

Well, they will never sit here, and the hon. member for Victoria West will not even be in this House. They are holding protest meetings because the wool was sold to the Imperial Government, and they say that there ought to have been an open market. There is an open market today for skins and mohair. Can the mohair farmers sell their mohair? Can the sheep farmers sell their skins? No, they are lying and rotting. I had a consignment of skins sent some time ago to Port Elizabeth by one of my foremen, and to my astonishment I received the sale note and a postal order for 1s. 6d. After the expenses were deducted, I got 1s. 6d.

Because skins are not war material.

Have you ever heard of such a thing? During the last World War, when the market also was an open one, we got up to £1 for our sheepskins, but to-day we cannot sell any skins. The only market that there is for our wool is Great Britain, and they are buying our wool. Hon. members opposite do not take the position of the farmers up seriously. If the Government does anything to meet the farmers, then they exploit it for party political purposes. I am sorry for the farmers if they have to rely on hon. members opposite. The farmers realise to-day that there is only one government that can help them, and that is the Government which sits here. I ask the Minister of Finance to do what the farmers’ group of the United Party have asked for. If he does so, then thousands of farmers will be thankful to him, and then the mortgage burden will be reduced. Those who can pay are paying off their debts. I know what is going on, and the Land Bank and the Relief Board will also say that the farmers are to-day paying off their debts. This motion is not meant seriously. I do not say that the hon. member for Aliwal is not serious in moving it. I think that he is, but the party to which he belongs—one could learn that from the seconder of the motion— does not take it seriously. Accordingly, if the hon. member for Aliwal wants to do anything for the farmers, then he must come and sit on this side of the House and help us.

I would like to move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

1. (d) (i) revaluing live stock purchased by farmers by means of accommodation granted by credit societies in terms of section sixteen of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1926, with a view to facilitating the repayment of debts incurred in that manner, and (ii) writing off such debts in cases where the live stock is no longer in possession of the debtors.

Hon. members will possibly remember that an Agricultural Credits Act was passed in 1926 by this House. The Act provided that loan companies were to be established. Funds were to be provided for them by the Land Bank, and they in their turn would lend money to credit circles. The credit associations were to consist of not less than seven members and not more than fifteen members. The members of the associations could raise loans for the purchase of stock and equipment, and the members would then be jointly and severally liable for the moneys borrowed. In the first place, the object of the scheme was to create a credit system by which the farmers would be enabled to get the necessary money for the purchase of stock and equipment. But it was also, in the second place, the intention in regard to the loan companies, by agreeing to joint and several liability, to guarantee the Land Bank against losses. In addition, it was the intention to create a kind of helpmekaar on the countryside, by which one farmer could assist the other. We felt that on many occasions a man had the necessary funds or had them provided for him by means of loans, but that he did not have the necessary common sense and realisation of what was necessary in order to make a success of his land, and we felt that under the scheme we would be establishing a kind of helpmekaar by means of which members would be able to assist each other by action and by advice. The object was to enable members, for instance, to help each other in connection with purchases, so that members should not enter into a purchase which was detrimental, or buy stock which could not live on the land. 1926 of this House. The Act provided that the scheme had ended in failure. However good the intention was, and however much we welcomed it in the House, it proved a failure. In 1926 we had been very glad to get the scheme on to the statute book.

I was not glad.

The hon. member then sat on the Government side, and he also was satisfied with the scheme.

I was not satisfied.

We, as farmer members, were very grateful for the scheme, but unfortunately we had to admit in 1934 that it had ended in failure. There was a serious depression, there was great mortality amongst the stock, and the Government felt that the undertaking was a failure, and then the Government removed the burden of the joint liability which rested on members and a revaluation was made bearing in mind all the stock of members of the credit associations which had died. Amounts were then written off in connection with the stock which died. We are now eight years older, and we are still in the same position. Since that time more of the stock have died, and the condition of farming has not improved at all. We are to-day just as badly off in connection with it as we were eight years ago. What I am now asking for is another revaluation. The Minister will see that I am not asking for a total writing-off. I am only asking for a writing-off such as was made in 1934 of stock which has died, or of stock which have been added. The position was that under the credit association system, if any stock died then stock of hon. members had to be added and branded to make up the numbers of the credit association in respect of which a guarantee existed. I now ask in my amendment that if stock has died or in cases where it has been necessary to brand additional stock, that writing-off shall take place. I, in addition, also ask that when farmers are still in possession of the stock, easier terms of repayment will be granted to them. The Minister will possibly ask what I mean by that. I just want to tell him that the amount which is still in arrear in this matter, the arrear interest, is £45,000, and if the Minister can only just go the length of provisionally suspending or writing off the interest, then it will assist the people very much. I do not say that the Minister has not assisted us. We are very thankful for the help that has been given. The people have obtained extensions from time to time, and have not been pressed. I do not know of a single case where people have been pressed who owed money to the Land Bank under the credit system. But the sword is hanging over their heads. They are left with the debt, and the interest burden is increasing and already amount to £45,000. In the circumstances, we feel that the Government should reduce the interest burden, or should allow a writing-off so far as that is concerned. I know that the Minister will say that the farmers have had the benefit of the stock, and he will possibly ask why I ask for the concession in this case only for farmers who receive assistance under the scheme. My answer is that we are responsible for the position which exists to-day. This House passed the Act and is responsible for the condition in which the farmers are. At the time that the credit associations were established, we encouraged our people to join them. In the report which was made by the commission which was appointed in 1934, it says, on page 177—

People who were in a better position were encouraged to become members of the credit associations in order to assist the weaker members to get the necessary loans. I therefore say that this House cannot evade its responsibility in the matter. We are responsible. If the Minister asks me why I do not plead on behalf of the other person, who are indebted to the Land Bank and why I do not ask for a writing-off in their case, then I will reply to him that the reason is that the present position in which we are is the result of legislation which was passed by this House. We encouraged the people to establish the credit associations and to borrow money, and you cannot say anything else but that many of the people walked into the trap, with the result that they are in an unfortunate position to-day. Accordingly, we cannot plead innocence. As the people are in that state, it is to a considerable extent due to the action of this House, and in the circumstances we ask for a concession to be made to the people. It was an experiment. We felt that as we were providing this money for the people they were getting a good chance. The prospects at that time were defintely excellent, but the circumstances which subsequently arose were the cause of the scheme ending in failure. I therefore ask the Minister, in the circumstances, to come to the aid of these people and not evade his responsibility. We must, in addition, also remember that there is a depression at our doors. After every war a depression comes, and this war will also bring about its depression, and as that sword is hanging over the heads of the people, it is desirable, while the financial state of the country is not as yet too bad, for us to assist these people. Then they, when the depression comes, will be able to carry on. According to the return which has been given us, the amount which is still due is £266,000. The arrear interest amounts to £45,000. The number of debtors is 4,232. I do not want to say any more on this subject, but hope that the Minister will come to our aid. As the people are still in debt to-day, and as the stock is dead, we ask for a concession, and the Minister has a certain amount of responsibility towards these people.

I would like to second the amendment of the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits). He put the matter very clearly. What is the position of those people? They are people who are having a bad time, who have suffered and who were unable to make a living. Then the Government of the day went and instituted the credit scheme in order to assist the people. Now we find that some of the people who had to be sureties for others got into trouble. In many cases one man had to be surety for the rest, sometimes for six or seven members. The others had no security to offer. Subsequently the Government found out that the scheme was unpractical, and the associations were then dissolved. Thereafter a committee was appointed in every district with the magistrate as chairman. Those committees had to go and find out how many of the stock are still alive, and where e.g. they found that the purchase price was £100, and that the stock which was given as security for the £100 was worth only £75, there £25 was written off. Where the purchase price was £100—that was the policy of the committees—and where there was only stock left to a value of £50, the other £50 was written off. The object was to see that the farmers should have value for the debt they had incurred. The work was completed and it stopped at that. Not very long afterwards we had the same position over again. After the work had been done, a portion of the stock had died, and in some cases all the stock. Accordingly, the farmers were in the same position again after the committees had done their work. That is why we ask that a fresh valuation should be made. You also find a similar position in connection with the farmers who bought under the Farmers’ Relief Act. There also the basis was laid down, when a person had six draft animals he could buy an additional ten. The presumption was that a farmer with a team of sixteen could do his work. The amount was then fixed at £80. Where a farmer for instance had eight oxen which were worth £40, he got a further £40 to bring him up to the basis of £80. After that was done, the farmers got into the same difficulties as the other lot. Now we ask the Minister of Agriculture to review the whole of that policy, and to allow a revaluation to be made. There are cases where people were given assistance up to an amount of £80, and they had not a single ox left. The people have to pay. They do not know what to do, and have lost courage and cannot pay. It is indeed true that there is a Farmers’ Relief Board, and that the people can from time to time lay their case before the board. But no fixed policy has been laid down under which the farmers can be dealt with, as in the case of the credit associations. We therefore ask the Minister also to lay down a fixed policy for the Farmers’ Relief Board with regard to the cases which are exactly the same as those of the credit associations. Just as we plead for the people of the credit associations, we also plead for assistance being given to farmers who were helped in other ways. Then many farmers will be assisted, and the Minister will save hundreds and thousands of farmers who are now being ruined. It is impossible for the people to continue any longer, and we ask the Government to assist these people to be able to make a living. The people cannot at the moment make a living. What is the use of a man possessing six oxen and he has to pay the full amount? He becomes discouraged. He says: “I have to pay for something which I do not possess.” Subsequently he lands in the position that he is quite ruined, and he goes to the village, where he will be a greater burden on the State. He will have to go and live in the village, where he cannot make a living, and his position grows worse and worse. If you assist him now, then you are meeting him in a twofold way. You are helping him in that way to get rid of a part of his debt, the debt which is discouraging him. You are saving him because you let him remain on the farm, where he still has a little left of the means by which he can make his living. Therefore, I plead for a revaluation, and we shall be very glad if the Minister can consider it. He will in that way show a great service to agriculture, and we will be thankful to him for it.

I hope the mover of this resolution will not take it amiss if I say that everything contained in this motion, and all he has said about it, has for a number of consecutive years been said in this House and been proposed here. We had the same motion before us last year in almost identical terms. It has gradually become what our English-speaking friends call a “hardy annual.” The hon. member will not blame me, therefore, if I do not take his motion as seriously as I did, for instance, last year, and if I content myself with merely putting him a little right here and there. In this motion we first of all have a contention, and then we have a request based on that contention. That contention is that the farming industry is in a precarious and uneconomic position, and the consequent request is that the Government should immediately grant relief to the industry. I feel that that contention is wrong. I think the hon. member is dragging the real state of affairs out of its correct perspective. He is giving an exaggerated description of the true position. Consequently, the starting point of the motion is wrong, and hon. members know that if the premises on which a contention is based are wrong, or if the starting point of an argument is wrong, the contention may go astray, and the whole argument fails, and that is what may easily happen here. I say that the hon. member’s premises are wrong. I deliberately say that no impartial person who is familiar with the condition of farming in South Africa will say that it is in a precarious position. I make that statement, and I know what I am talking about. I say deliberately that the position of farming to-day is better than it was seven or eight years ago. In 1932 the index figure for agricultural prices was 51 as against an index figure of 76 for wholesale prices of all goods. In 1932, therefore, the figures were 51 and 76. In October, 1940, those two figures respectively were 89 and 97. Hon. members will therefore note the astounding difference which has come about in eight years in the price of agricultural products. I go further. I say that in the case of some products the price level is already equal to the price level of predepression days.

What about the increased cost of production?

I shall come to that just now. The hon. member is surely not going to tell me that the cost of production two years ago had already gone up so high—he should go steady with that story of increased costs of production. I do not believe that the prices of stock, especially of slaughter stock, have for the past twenty years been as high as they are to-day. I have been farming for many years, and I do not think that we have known such high prices as we are getting to-day in the past twenty years.

That is not so. How about the years 1926, 1927 and 1928, when we got £2 for a wether?

The price of slaughter oxen was not as high as it is to-day. We have never before known compounds to be 30s. and more.

But wethers are 50 per cent. lower.

That was the position a couple of years ago when things were difficult in regard to wool. I want to say again that I have made it a habit during the last few months to talk to people who do a lot of travelling about—for instance, I talk to people who travel through the country to buy cattle and stock, or who move about for other purposes, and I ask them what things are like in connection with farming. I want to tell the House this, that their reports almost invariably are to the effect that the farmers have for years not been as well off as they are to-day.

Those people apparently only get into touch with the rich farmers.

How does the hon. member know that they only speak to the rich farmers? They are in touch with poor as well as rich, because they buy cattle from everyone. I say without hesitation that we are receiving less complaints to-day from the individual farmer and from farmers’ organisations than we have done for many years in our agricultural history.

The farmers realise it is no use going to the Government with their complaints.

It must have been since that the hon. member has been on the Opposition benches. Naturally, if they come along with the kind of complaints with which the hon. member has come to me with —when he wants me to forgive people and overlook their offence of having smuggled cattle into the country, then I can well understand that it is no use their coming to the Government.

That man belongs to your party.

In spite of what the hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Verster) is saying, a farmer is not going to refrain from ventilating his complaints if he thinks he has a good case. No, the result of my observations is that the farmers generally speaking are satisfied, and that a spirit of quiet satisfaction prevails in the country. The only place where we never hear of any improvements in farming conditions is in this House among members of the Opposition. That is the only place where one always hears that there is no improvement. Clear proof of the improvement in the position of the farmer is to be found in what my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, has already mentioned in this House, namely, that the farmers are paying off their mortgage bonds. We have the evidence that the Land Bank last year asked for £1,350,000 for its requirements for loans to farmers, and although it was granted £850,000, it found that it only required £200,000 for advances to farmers notwithstanding the fact that the Central Board of the Land Bank made the conditions easier and that applicants could go up to £1,000 more than before. But in spite of this the Land Bank could not use more than £200,000 of its available money in addition to which large repayments were made. I notice that the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) is not putting any more questions about how much the farmers have paid off.

What I do feel inclined to ask you is why the Land Bank tells me that it has no money when I come along with an application from a farmer.

The security must have been very bad in that case.

No, it was good; 3,000 morgen for £500.

No, one cannot get away from the fact that the farmer is no longer in a precarious position, and that, on the contrary, the position of the farmer has improved. I therefore say that the hon. member’s premises are wrong. In making his request to the Government we further find that in his motion he ignores the assistance which the Government has already granted, and is still granting. He says nothing about that. His seconder deliberately stated—I wrote down his words —that practically nothing has been done yet for the farmer. If that is so, the hon. member makes no mention of the assistance which the farmers have already been getting in the past seven or eight years—I say that these statements are deliberately and consciously creating the impression that the Government is not giving any assistance.

But surely everybody knows what we have already received.

I only want to ask the hon. member whether he remembers the direct financial assistance the farmers have received and which, up to the beginning of 1939, already amounted to £20,000,000, as the then Minister of Finance explained in a White Paper which he laid on the table of the House. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of the fact that in the two years since that time the total amount has gone up by an average of £3,000,000 per year, so that the farmer in the course of the last eight years has received direct financial assistance to an amount of about £26,000,000. Is the hon. member aware of the fact that £2,700,000 has been spent in the last ten years on locust destruction. Is not that giving help to the farmers?

That is a National matter.

But it is direct assistance to farmers. The locust does not worry the shopkeeper, but he destroys the farmers’ products. Even though it is a National matter it still does not mean that it is not an instance of help to the farmers. The hon. member for Victoria West who has so much to say here probably does not know either, or perhaps he does not want to know, of the loans by the Land Bank which are given on a Government guarantee to certain Control Boards? He does not know of the quarter of a million pounds lent to the Mealie Control Board and of the quarter of a million pounds lent to the Dairy Control Board. He does not know either of the £750,000 and of the amount of more than £1,000,000 advanced to the deciduous Fruit Board and the Citrus Board respectively.

That exactly goes to show the precarious position in which the farmer finds himself.

No, that is not so; these things show that the farmer has produced so much that those advances can be made with a fair degree of confidence, because they are loans and he has to repay them. I do not know whether it is necessary to refer to all the indirect assistance which is given to the farmers. If the hon. member opposite does not regard locust destruction as direct assistance to farmers, it won’t really help me to point out to him the indirect assistance that is rendered to farmers. In regard to another request contained in the motion, I want to ask the mover whether he does not know of the research work which is being done in respect of all the points mentioned here by him. Is it necessary for me to remind the House of the combating of stock diseases in consequence of the work done at Onderstepoort?

I said that those conditions prevail in spite of the work that is being done at Onderstepoort.

Yes, I know that the hon. member at one time used to speak about Onderstepoort. I do not know whether he still does so.

They are improving all the same.

The hon. member apparently does not know what Onderstepoort is doing. I doubt whether he has ever been there.

Yes, I have been there.

It appears as if the hon. member does not know anything about the preventives and cures for horse sickness, gallamsiekte, lamb sickness, gall sickness, nagana, blue tongue in sheep and anthrax, and so on, which have been developed there. He talks of wire worm and noduleworm, and I can only say that if the hon. member has not found any benefit from the cures at Onderstepoort, it is his fault, and not the fault of those cures. The reports I get from the farmers are to the effect that those cures have helped them to save thousands of their sheep. I do not want to detain the House long. I am inclined to agree with what the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) has said, that this motion is another effort to make propaganda, and to make propaganda for party political purposes.

You are not fair now.

I think I am fully entitled to say that; so far as I can see, the hon. member and his supporters have not rendered the farmers a service by introducing this kind of motion.

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry who has just spoken retired a short while ago after the Minister of Finance had informed us how well things were with the farmers.

He stated that, none the less, things were not so good.

That is a distortion.

Now he comes here again to-day, and he makes a laudatory speech about the good condition in which the farming community finds itself. In spite of that, the Minister knows that a deputation waited on him yesterday which had been sent to meet him by the dried fruit farmers. The raisin growers told him that it was impossible for them to come out on the price which he and his Board had laid down. I would ask the Minister to go to Gordonia and ask the sultana growers how they are getting on.

I suppose I am to be threatened again with a vote of no confidence?

Yes, you will get a vote of no confidence. The Minister of Agriculture has no conception whatever of the condition of the farmer, of the agriculturist, in the Western Province, and he has even less conception of the difficulties with which the wine farmers and the fruit farmers in our country have to contend. All the means of assistance which he has so far tried have been of very little or no avail. Let him and the Secretary for Agriculture, who prays that there is not going to be a large crop of anything in this country, go and have a look at the real position. If they hear that the mealie farmers are going to do well, they are in trouble, because they do not know what they are going to do with the surplus. They pray that the soil of the country is not going to produce any large crops, because if it does they will be faced with export problems. The Minister promised that if we went to war there would be shipping space available, and our products would not lie here and rot.

That is untrue.

Will the Minister deny that he stated on the 4th September, when he tried to persuade the House to take part in the war, that if we did not go to war our stuff would lie here and rot?

That is another question.

Let him go to the Western Province, let him go to the angora farmers in Aberdeen and Steytlerville, and they will settle with him, because they know what the position is in regard to their products. And then the Minister comes here and says that things are going so well with the farmer. I want to come to another question. We are told repeatedly in this House that the precarious condition in which the farmers find themselves is due to the gold standard. We are told repeatedly that as a result of the gold standard the Government was compelled to give subsidies. The Minister of Lands is one of those who in the course of a previous debate stated that that was so, and he has been telling people throughout the country that we had never before had a subsidy, and that it was the gold standard which had been responsible for the granting of subsidies. He repeatedly stated that subsidies were a result of the gold standard. Let the Minister go into the position of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries which went off gold, and he will find that in each of those countries the agricultural industry is being subsidised. If I may be allowed to give the Minister of Agriculture a word of advice, I would suggest to him that he should read a book which was recently published on the question of the democracy of the Scandinavian States.

But you people are opposed to democracy.

The Minister will find there that it is clearly shown that the Scandinavian countries which were the first to go off gold were compelled then, and are still compelled, to subsidise the agricultural industry. The hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) again stated that the Leader of the Opposition had said something which he never said. He stated that the Leader of the Opposition had said that the farmers might just as well go bankrupt and start afresh — he made that statement although the Leader of the Opposition has denied it, but that hon. member is now shifting his ground. He now says that the farmers are able to help themselves. I ask every hon. member who listened to him whether it is not a fact that the hon. member spoke about the over-capitalisation of farms which had been bought during boom years, but the people who got into trouble as a result should, according to the hon. member, follow their own devices in getting out of their trouble. He does not concern himself with them. He says that the farmer has to help himself just as all other people in the country have to help themselves. No, the farmer is not a parasite in this country; he lives on the soil of the country. He has to feed the people and he above all is entitled to assistance. I did not get up, however, specially for the purpose of speaking on this subject.

It is just as well, because you are talking about something now which you know nothing about.

Yes, we can expect such remarks from the Minister of Lands. I can tell him that I am a farmer’s son, just as he is, and everything I have I have got out of farming, but it is because the Minister adopts that attitude that he cannot show his face on the platteland of the Cape. I want to move the further amendment appearing in my name reading as follows—

1. (f) acquiring a sufficient number of drilling machines for water boring in order to provide for the large number of applications which cannot be granted and to develop the carrying capacity of the land to the fullest extent.

Unfortunately this amendment will mean that the soil of the country will be still further developed, something of which the Minister of Lands is so very much afraid, as it means a larger production. None the less, I move it as there are large parts of our country which are dependent on the subterranean water supplies. The farmers have to rely solely on those subterranean sources for their water supplies, and I can say that the greater part of the Northern Cape is dependent on those subterranean water sources. Consequently, we would expect the Government of the country to create every possible facility to make those subterranean waters available to the people. In the northwest there are farms which are 12,000 morgen in extent, and where there is perhaps only one borehole in an outlying corner of the farm, with the result that the farmers are unable to get the full benefit of the grazing on these farms. Application is continually being made for more boreholes. In the past when the Government of the day allotted the farms they saw to it that there was a borehole on each farm. But as a result of the development which is taking place it has been considered necessary to have more than one borehole. And many of those boreholes have given in and the farmers concerned are to-day almost desperate. There are large numbers of farmers in my constituency along the Malopo and the Kuruman Rivers who were allotted farms on which there are boreholes, which are giving in. I should like the Minister to consider for a moment what the position is in regard to the number of Government drilling machines which are available and the large number of applications coming in. If we study the report of the Director of Irrigation for the period 1st April, 1937, to 31st March, 1938, we find the following: That the number of outstanding applications on the 1st April, 1937, was 1,343. During that period 1,700 applications were received. A total of 958 boreholes were drilled and at the end of the year, on the 31st March, 1938, 1,927 applications were still outstanding. If we take the report of the Director of Irrigation for the next year we find a still worse condition of affairs. We find that the number of outstanding applications on the 1st April, 1938, was 1,927 as I have already said. During that period 1,331 applications were received, and on the 31st March, 1939, 2,448 applications were outstanding. I put a question to the Minister asking him to supply me with the latest figures, and he gave me the figures up to the 21st February, 1941. He told me that the number of applications for boreholes in 1940-’41 was 668. That shows a remarkable drop. The number granted was 509 and the number of applications given effect to was 439. At the moment—that is on the 21st February, 1941, there were still 1,890 applications outstanding. Now, what is the position in regard to the number of boring machines which we have? In 1937-’38 we had 109 drills; in 1939 we had 113 drills. My question to the Minister was how many drills there were and the Minister’s reply was that there were 115, of which four were drilling elsewhere and 81 in the Union of South Africa. Consequently, 85 are at work of which four are elsewhere—I do not know why but we presume that they are at the front in the North of Africa. That means that 30 drilling machines are standing idle and that there are applications outstanding for 1,890 boreholes. Now I should like to know from the Minister what is the reason for those drilling machines standing idle? There are so many outstanding applications and thirty drilling machines are idle. The position is so serious in those parts that I feel the Minister should consider it and see whether he cannot obtain at least 40 or 50 additional drilling machines. The farmers are becoming dispirited as a result of the neglect and the delay in dealing with their applications for boreholes. It may possibly be as a result of the war, that the number of applications has dropped from 1,372 in 1938 to 815 in 1939 and 668 in 1940. But in spite of the fact that there has been such a drop in the number of applications there are still 1,890 outstanding applications which have to be given effect to. The Minister knows what the position is, especially in the North-West, and I am asking him whether he does not think that the day has come when he should be prepared to provide at least three or four drilling machines for a district? Financially the State will not lose anything. I will show the Minister how wonderful it is to notice how the farmers who are having drilling done are meeting their commitments towards the State. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) in a speech last year raised this same point, and according to his speech, as published in Hansard, he said that the Minister of Lands during the by-election at Kuruman stated that he would give instructions for more drilling machines to be constructed. The only thing which has taken place is that seven drilling machines have been put in order but no others have been built yet. The Minister can tell the House whether that is correct or not. Then I come to another matter which the farmers who require bores feel very strongly on, and that is the transport costs of the machines. Now I want to ask the Minister how the farmers can pay the expense in connection with the transport of those drilling machines? In the sandy parts the costs are very high. They have to have large spans of cattle for the transportation of the drilling machines. Then there is nother policy which is being followed I notice according to Hansard tha the Minister of Irrigation stated that he did not agree with the policy and that he would take it into review—I am referring to the policy in connection with the deposit of £75. I hope the Minister will inform the House how far he has progressed with this matter. The farmers, especially those along the Kuruman River and the Malopo River complain that if a man is an independen farmer and he comes along and deposits £75 he immediately gets his drilling machine while another farmer who perhaps is unable to deposit the £75, although his name if higher on the list, is unable to get a drilling machine. He has to wait. I should like the Minister to review this matter. Then I also want to point out how slow the Department of Irrigation is in regard to the increase of the number of drilling machines. I have the 1940 Year Book here I find that in 1934-’35 there were 95 drilling machines, in 1935-’36 the number was 101, in 1936-’37 it was 102, in 1937-’38 also 102, in 1938-’39 it went up to 105, and in reply to a question of mine the Minister stated that at the moment there were 115, and that 11 of those drilling machines were prospecting drills. At the moment there are 1,894 applications waiting and 81 drilling machines are available to dispose of those applications. The State at the moment has 30 drills which are not doing any work. I therefore have much pleasure in moving the amendment standing in my name. I want to tell the Minister that it is a vital question to the people in the North-West. We are continually getting letters from people begging to be provided with drills, and asking where those drills are. I want to mention one case of a farmer who was allotted a farm on the Kuruman River where there was ample water in 1926-’27, but that farmer is not getting 200 gallons of water per day on his farm at present. He asks what he has to do, whether he has to leave the farm and go away. The Minister may possibly say that a geological survey is being made at the moment, and that the places where they are going to bore will be noted. I think the Minister can leave it to the farmers to say where they want to have water. In my constituency I can mention three farms where such a survey has been made, and they started digging there after the spots had been indicated, but they failed to get any water. Later, in 1938-’39, some of the farmers who had grazing licences started digging or boring for water themselves, and they have ample water to-day. Give the farmers the opportunity themselves to indicate where the water is and the Minister will probably meet with the greatest success. The whole system of indication by the department is too slow, and in the meantime the farmers are busy leaving those parts.

I second the amendment. I do not intend to quarrel with the Minister of Lands because I need his help as Minister of Irrigation. I hope that he will stop the conversation that he is now carryiing on in order to listen a little, because I want to draw his attention to certain things. The Minister made a remark a moment ago to the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), when he rose, in rather bad taste, and asked the hon. member what he knew about farming. I would like to remind the Minister in a very friendly way of the fact that the hon. member for Gordonia is the representative of a large number of active farmers, who have all the available knowledge about farming. He is their chosen representative, not the Minister. The hon. member for Gordonia also has, as I understand, a farm of his own. But in any case the Minister must no forget that the hon. member for Gordonia speaks on behalf of a large number of people whom he represents, and those people have great needs. I realise that the Minister also knows it, but he should not take up such an attitude towards hon. members here. Let me in addition say in a friendly way to the Minister that the hon. member for Gordonia represents people in this House, thousands of voters, but the Minister of Lands does not represent any voters here. He is just allowed a voice here. Now before I come to the amendment of the hon. member for Gordonia I just want to say, in addition, that I am glad to see that in any case two Ministers who are concerned in the matter which is now before the House, are present, namely, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Lands. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place at the moment because I would like to say to the Minister of Agriculture that while we have heard over and over again of the flourishing conditions the farmers are living in, which is supposed to be proved by the fact that they are repaying mortgage bonds, I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture just to remember that the repayments are not taking place so much because they are in a good position in consequence of the good policy of the Government. The repayments are due to something else. It must not be forgotten that the Government, during the past few years, have been engaged in buying up large quantities of land through the Native Trust, and the farmers who have sold their farms to the Native Trust, and who had been owing money to the Land Bank in respect of the farms that were mortgaged, paid the money back in many cases. Therefore, it is not in consequence of the Government’s policy that the farmers have paid up, but as a result of the circumstance that the farmers had sold their land to the Native Trust, and in that way the payments to the Land Bank had of course to be made. It is a matter of bookkeeping, and nothing else. You take the money of Jan and you give it to Piet, you take the money of the Department of Native Affairs and you give it to the Land Bank.

The Native Trust is not buying any land now.

But the things we are hearing about now took place last year.

This year.

It is in consequence of the transactions by the Native Trust that the people are in a position to pay off their bonds. We know that the farmers are not so very flourishing as to be in a position to repay their bonds. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Gordonia, I would like to have the attention of both the Ministers for a moment, the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Finance. I know that the Minister of Lands would very much like to assist in giving the farmers water drills, but he is in the hands of the Minister of Finance. I am also aware of the fact that in the past it was the policy of the Department of Irrigation to try and assist as far as it could, but it was in the hands of the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance does not give them a full opportunity. The Minister of Lands has to follow the lead of the Minister of Finance, because he has to get the funds from the Treasury. So far as I am concerned, I have, all the time I have been in this House, been pleading in connection with this matter. It has become a “hardy annual” with me to come and plead on behalf of the farmers up in the north for more drills. Unfortunately, and I say it with all respect for the Irrigation Department, it seems to me as if the Director of Irrigation also has a hold over the Minister of Lands, to a great extent. It seems to me the Minister is controlled by him, and the hobby of the Director of Irrigation seems just to be one thing—and to a great extent I give him credit for it—that he only thinks of big irrigation schemes. They are his ideal. With regard to boreholes and drills, those are things which are beneath his notice. We now once and for all have the position that the Director of Irrigation is keen on tackling large water schemes. They redound to his honour. He is in a great measure responsible for the Vaal Hartz irrigation scheme, which is certainly one of the best irrigation schemes which has ever been tackled in the country, and we give him credit for it. But he must not forget that the Vaal Hartz scheme and other schemes in the country cannot serve the whole country. There are areas to which the water of the big irrigation schemes will not flow, areas where water has to be got out of the ground by boreholes—and those are the best parts of the country for cattle farming. The water in the Vaal Hartz scheme cannot assist the farmers in those areas, and in that respect I want again to ask the Minister to do more. The Department of Irrigation can do a great work there. By drilling boreholes, the Department can obtain just as good results, if not better results, for the farmers than by the big irrigation schemes. Then I also want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that he is actually losing good opportunities of buying land for settlement. There are still large blocks of land in certain parts of the country, especially in the northern areas, where the water drills are most needed, and those areas ought to be bought up. The chances are going by. The companies who own the land are engaged in selling the land in holdings to private persons, which have no water on them. The ground would not now be bought by private owners if the Government had bought the land, and you have the position to-day that there is no water on the property, and I want to warn the Minister that he will be left to nurse the baby in the future which the companies will lay at his door, owing to his negligence in not buying up the land. The settlers will in the long run not be able to win through without water. The people buy blindly, and are going to try to farm there. As long as there are good rainy seasons they can carry on, but droughts will come again in future years, and then the people will be shouting for drills. I know what the Minister’s answer will be. He will say that the Act does not permit him to supply drills to people who have not got land registered in their own name. That, however, will not satisfy those people, and it will not remedy the unsound position in which numbers of those people are placed owing to their having acquired this land on which there is no water, from companies. I want to plead with the Minister to press the Minister of Finance more for the necessary funds to obtain drills for water in those areas. The late Minister of Finance often took up the attitude, and I hope that the present Minister will not take up the same attitude, that if they have a large number of drills manufactured, and the drills complete the work that there is to do, then they would subsequently be stranded with a large number of drills which they would not know what to do with. Let me tell the Minister that the benefits which will be obtained by manufacturing the drills will be so great that even if subsequently they no longer have any work for them, they will still pay handsomely. But I do not believe at all that the drills will come to a standstill. A land settlement policy will have to be followed by any government for many more years yet. It may at the moment practically be at a standstill in consequence of the war, but the governments of the future will have to continue putting people on the land, and the drills will never be unemployed. But even if the drills are no longer needed, so far as the Government is concerned, then the demand by private owners will always be so great that the drills will still always be able to render good service for private owners. The Minister of Lands, as the hon. member for Gordonia has already remarked, made election promises last year, in the by-election up our way at Kuruman. It was not a light promise. I know the Minister meant what he said. But the people are still waiting for the fulfilment of that promise. The Minister will remember that he promised to supply at least about seven drills to those areas.

During election time?

Yes, but I think he was honest about it, and he made the promise on behalf of the Government and also on behalf of the Minister of Finance. Accordingly, I want to ask the Minister of Finance at least to give assistance, so that his colleague can fulfil the promise which he made. I know the Minister of Lands will be thankful that I am saying these few words to the Minister of Finance, in order to enable him to carry out the promises. A drill costs about £1,500 to build, and the Government can have them built in our country. It will be a profitable investment for the Government to acquire them. We would like to have people who can help themselves. The people up there in the north need the drills, they are men who are trying to help themselves, but as individuals they cannot afford to have the drills made. As they are helping themselves, it is the duty of the Government to supply the drills.

I should just like to say that the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) who moved this amendment has certainly not rendered his constituents a service by making bitter reproaches against this side of the House which were totally unfounded. Some of the charges he made are devoid of all thruth. In regard to the number of drills, the hon. member asks that we should increase the number by between 40 or 50. The hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis) also put up a strong plea in favour of our supplying drills, especially in the North-Western parts, in Gordonia, Vryburg, Kuruman and those areas. The hon. member for Vryburg says that I made an election promise at the time of the by-election at Kuruman. Let me say at once that I made no election promise, and the hon. member knows it. When he talks of seven drills which I am alleged to have promised to those areas he is not correct. Let me just say what I told the people there and I want to repeat it in reply to the hon. member for Gordonia. I said that I as a farmer, as a result of my experience, knew that that part of the country was the best cattle country we have in the Union. I said that 25 years ago those parts were not worth living in. Large numbers of farmers went there, some of them fairly well off, but within three or four years they had to give up, after their stock had died of lamb sickness. Fortunately, as a result of the inventions by Dr. Tyler in regard to the bone meal mixture we have succeeded in overcoming that difficulty, and those parts are in a totally different position to-day, but the second requirement for those parts is water, and I said, as a man who has an interest in those parts, that I knew if one could supply water in those parts one would increase the production tremendously. I said that so far as I was concerned, as a man who had great interests there and who knew those parts well, I would try to do all I could to give each farm two boreholes instead of one. The hon. member for Gordonia says that he represents the electors of Gordonia, and that I do not represent anyone. I represent all the constituencies of the Cape Province and he represents only one constituency. I know that if one has a farm of 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 morgen, and one has only one borehole it is not sufficient. It is good enough if one has plenty of rain and the veld is in a good condition, but if a drought comes, one can only graze on half the farm and the other half lies idle; there is good grazing and plenty of food, but none the less the stock dies off on account of lack of water. I said that I would try and carry out a policy of supplying every farmer with an additional borehole on his farm. I stand by that, and I am prepared to do so. That is not just a loose promise which I made without anything behind it.

Are you going to give each farm two boreholes?

I am going to try and give effect to it as soon as the time arrives for doing so.

When is that going to be?

I went further and I said that I admitted that where drills had been sent to those parts, Gordonia, Vryburg and Kuruman, there had been many failures in connection with boreholes because the drilling had not been done in the right spots. I consequently said that I would first of all have a geological survey made in those parts so that if the drilling machines were sent there would be a map which would indicate where water could probably be found. I have given effect to that promise. I had to go to the Department of Mines to get the services of a Geologist to make the survey, and the map has now been completed. I can show hon. members maps on which those spots are indicated.

But the people have not had the benefit of it. It has been stopped.

Let the hon. member wait until I finish speaking. The survey has been made and in those parts of Gordonia, Kenhardt, etc., it has been completed. The map is in my office. That is proof of my bona fides and my honest intentions of wanting to provide more water for those areas. As soon as the time is ripe and there is an opportunity to enable us to provide more drills, I can assure hon. members that it will not be necessary for them to come and ask me to supply more water. I shall do everything in my power to assist in that regard. The hon. member for Gordonia made a statement here to the effect that the people who deposited £75 were supplied with drilling machines, and that those who could not do so had to wait.

I said that I brought the matter to your notice last year. You said that you would go into it then.

The position is that it is not a question of whether a man can deposit £75 or not. Every man gets his turn in accordance with the list of applications in our possession. Those who apply first are served first. We follow the list. I discussed this question only yesterday with one of the hon. members oppsosite. He came to see me and he told me that there was a man who very urgently required a drilling machine, but he had not made application. He wanted to pay cash. I told him then that it was impossible to consider such a case unless the man whose name appeared first on the list was prepared to forfeit his turn and agree to our sending the drilling machine to another place. Consequently, the hon. member’s contention is quite wrong. We go according to the list of applications. In regard to the Director of Irrigation, no, I am not in his hands. I want to say here that the Director of Irrigation fully realises how necessary it is to supply water, just as much as I and other hon. members realise it. Whenever I have asked for more boreholes he has done all in his power to help those parts. Let me just say in regard to the number of drilling machines which are working to-day that there are about ten drilling machines which are not working. A large number of people who used to work with those machines have joined up and we are short staffed, with the result that about ten drills are not working to-day. For economic reasons too a certain number of drills are not working to-day. This is wartime and we want to keep expenses down. We want to keep them as low as possible in order to see the war through, but I want to point out that it is not only Government drilling machines which do the work. There are about 550 private drilling contractors who are paid a subsidy of no less than 50 per cent. to a maximum of £20. Every applicant who has asked for a private drilling machine under the regulations has so far been assisted. Not a single case has been turned down. In that connection a subsidy of 50 per cent. is paid to a maximum of £20. The policy of private contractors and the granting of subsidies came into force in 1937. During the year 1937 to the present we have paid subsidies in connection with 9,700 boreholes which have proved successful. The expense to the State in this connection through the paying of subsidies is £135,000. It is a large sum of money. The average cost of those 9,700 boreholes works out at an average of over £14 per hole. My hon. friend is quite correct when he says that it costs about £1,500 per year to run a drilling machine. It costs about £1,700 now. We can make those machines in our own workshops, and we shall do so when the time arrives. The boreholes which we have sunk cost us about 12s. 6d. per foot. In 1940 the boreholes cost on an average £113 per hole. The expenses connected with the man who operates the drilling machine and the operation costs of a drilling machine altogether amount to about £1,300 a year. The farmers under the system of Government drills pays 40 per cent. of the cost and the Government subsidises the drills to an extent of 60 per cent. In the North-western parts of the Cape it is very difficult to get successful boreholes, and the cost last year was as much as £215 per borehole. In Namaqualand there have been cases where a successful borehole has cost as much as £800.

Was water found in such cases?

Yes, those are successful boreholes. I just want to say that this war is not going to last for ever, and we hope that when the war is over to continue with that policy which used to be in force, and I particularly have in mind those parts where development is required and which are crying out for more water, and where one hole on a farm is inadequate. We are not only going to try to give such farms an additional borehole, but we are going to try to further increase the number of boreholes. At the moment we have 73 drills in operation.

You said before that it was 80.

There are 73 at work now. I have explained the position: I have said that it is not merely a question of our laying off the drilling machines on account of our not having the people to operate, but we also had to do so on account of economic reasons. I hope, however, that the time will come when we shall be able to make provision for the great need which exists. It is not only my interests which are concerned, but so far as I am concerned it is also a matter of sentiment. I am made of the dust of those areas, and I want to do everything in my power to develop those areas. The value of land in a district like Vryburg is not just doubled if it has sufficient water, but it is quadrupled.

What is the reason for the number of drilling machines having been further reduced?

I have explained the position, and I need not repeat it again. The hon. member for Gordonia has referred to another point, and that is the question of the purchase of land. So far my department has spent a large amount every year on the purchase of land, and if my hon. friend can tell me where there is any land available we shall consider it. Naturally, it must not be land which we can do nothing with. We have quite sufficient white elephants, but if it is land which is worth while buying, my hon. friend should report it to the Land Board and they will give the matter their attention.

There are a few aspects of the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom), and also of the amendment of the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits), which affect my department, and it is for that reason that I am taking part in this debate. The hon. member for Aliwal at the beginning of his remarks said that he was anxious to keep this debate outside party politics, and although it may perhaps be said, as my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, said, that he should have given more attention to what the Government has already done for the farmers, I am prepared to agree that he did try to introduce this debate on that basis, and I want to express my appreciation of the spirit shown by him in his speech. I therefore want to speak in the same spirit. If I had to criticise his speech my criticism would amount to this, that he really did not give me all the information which I could have expected of him. I am particularly concerned with paragraphs (b) and (c) of his motion. In paragraph (b) he asks for an immediate and thorough investigation into the position of every farmer so as to ascertain the cause of his trouble with a view to his rehabilitation. But it is with that very object that the Farmers’ Relief Board has been established. The Farmers’ Relief Act of 1935 offers every farmer who is in trouble at the moment the opportunity of having his financial position investigated with the object of rehabilitating him.

But we want him to be permanently rehabilitated. We do not want just temporary assistance to be granted.

The object, of course, is to rehabilitate him permanently. The Farmers’ Relief Act is subject to certain restrictions in regard to granting financial assistance by the Government in connection with debts incurred since 1935, but even in regard to farmers who are suffering from burdens caused by those debts, provision is made so that the procedure of that law can be used with a view to their rehabilitation. I therefore want to hear a little more from the hon. member as to what he really wants to be changed in the Farmers’ Relief Act. That Act was passed by this House with the very object which the hon. member mentioned in paragraph (b). Then the hon. member asks that we should take steps. When he comes to us with that request, he must tell this House in what respect the law is lacking. In paragraph (c) the hon. member talks about establishing and putting into force a proper mortgage redemption scheme. I should like to know from my hon. friend what he actually has in mind with a proper mortgage redemption scheme. What would be the extent of such a scheme? What kind of mortgage bonds would it have to apply to? Would it, for instance, apply to future mortgage bonds?

More or less the Van der Horst scheme.

The hon. member did not say that. Before we can deal with this matter we should have to have more information. I am looking for possible ways of bringing about relief in connection with the difficulties of over-capitalisation, but it is not much use coming along with generalities such as my hon. friend has come along with. I should like to have some suggestions. Let me be quite frank with this House. So far as a general mortgage bond redemption scheme is concerned, there are in particular two great difficulties I am up against. If my hon. friends can help me to solve those difficulties, I shall be very pleased. The first difficulty is this: what is going to be the effect of such a scheme on the future credit of the farmer? The hon. member for Aliwal said that if the State intervened and if the State assisted the farmer in reducing his capital obligations, the farmer would not be allowed to enter into any further mortgage bonds

He has to be prevented to a certain extent.

Now the hon. member says to a certain extent. Would my hon. friend go so far as to say that if the State has once put the farmer on his feet, where it wants to put him, that farmer will not be allowed to enter into any fresh mortgage bonds? If the hon. member wants to be consistent he must adopt that doctrine. That may perhaps be ideal, but in the long run it would be quite impracticable. We are faced with this difficulty—that we are either to be prepared to accept the doctrine that we must not only bring existing mortgage bonds into this redemption scheme, but also future redemption bonds, or otherwise we have to say that we shall help the farmers with the redemption of their bonds on condition that the farmers will relinquish all credit facilities for the future. The farmer would certainly not be satisfied to do that. That is my first difficulty, and I should like to have more light on that point. My second difficulty in regard to a general mortgage bond redemption scheme is this. The real evil which we are faced with is the evil of over-capitalisation, but as soon as one starts with a subsidy for the redemption of capital commitments it must naturally have the effect of causing the value of land to go up. If the farmer gets a subsidy for the redemption of his capital liabilities, the value of the land will go up more than would otherwise have been the case. The effect of the Government's action would consequently be to raise the capital value of the land. The time comes when the farmer wants to sell his farm. Every year, so it is calculated, from 2½ per cent. to 5 per cent. of the farms in the Union are sold. Over a period of about thirty years there is a total change of ownership of all the farms in the Union. We do not yet know whether the new buyer will be able to take over a bond which will retain the right of subsidy, but whether he takes it over or not the fact remains that the value of the land has gone up as a result of the subsidy for bond redemption. Eventually we therefore get to the position that after thirty years we shall be in exactly the same position as we are in to-day. We shall have spent all this money in order to bring down over-capitalisation, but after thirty years we shall have exactly the same over-capitalisation as we have to-day, which is regarded as a great evil. I should like hon. members who plead for a bond redemption scheme to give their attention to this aspect of the matter. If they are able to help me, I shall greatly appreciate it. This is one of the great objections which I am up against to-day, and it is difficult to get past it. The hon. member for Senekal (Maj. Pieterse) referred to the assurance which I gave the House nearly a year ago. I said then that I would have this question looked into by the Farmers’ Relief Board. The hon. member also said that I had said afterwards that the Government was unable to do anything further in this matter, as the war was on. I never made such a statement. The matter was raised here once, and I stated that I was dealing with it, and certain proposals were made which I am still considering, and I also said that I would make a statement on a later occasion.

Are we going to get that this session?

I shall make it now. May I first of all make quite clear what I actually undertook to do? All I undertook to do was to have this question of over-capitalisation of farms enquired into by the Farmers’ Relief Board. I said that certain suggestions had been made to me—to which reference was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) and other members—and that I had given the Farmers’ Relief Board instructions to give their attention to this matter in consequence of the representations which had been made. I put the matter in a very general way. I only undertook that the Farmers’ Relief Board would enquire into the general question of a possible reduction of the capital burden on farms. I now want to inform the House of the result of that investigation. I have a memorandum before me from the Farmers’ Relief Board which is signed, among others, by Mr. Wilmott, whose death we all deeply deplore. It was drafted when he was still chairman of the Farmers’ Relief Board. In that memorandum certain special questions are dealt with, arising from the instructions given by me to the Relief Board. I shall communicate the proposals contained in this memorandum to the House as briefly as possible. The memorandum is drafted in English, and I shall give the quotations in English. The first question which the Farmers’ Relief Board put to itself was—

The answer which the Relief Board gives is as follows—

They then went further and they considered this question:

The answer to that was this—

1. (a) the continuing of the provisions of the Farm Mortgage Interest Act in respect of those bonds to which it now applies;
2. (b) the continuing of the provisions of the Farmers’ Assistance Act of 1935 in so far as it relates:
   1. (1) to monetary assistance in respect of debts incurred before 1st June, 1935, where the circumstances justify it, and
   2. (2) to the convening of meetings of creditors of farmers who get into difficulties and the privilege of passing through the process of insolvency without the necessity for rehabilitation, and
3. (c) the application of the suspension provisions of the Finance Act of 1936, with the amendment thereto proposed for this session.

We brought about that amendment during the last session. They therefore said that in their opinion there was at that stage no further need for further assistance being rendered to the farmers, but they added this—

The Farmers’ Relief Board then went on to make certain suggestions in the event of it appearing that it was necessary for certain special help to be rendered to farmers. Their suggestions amounted to this—

1. (a) that the interest subsidy be raised to 3% subject to the condition that if thereby the interest payable by any debtor be reduced below 2% the subsidy be decreased accordingly (e.g. Land Bank debtor would get a 2½% subsidy only as their rate is 4½%).
2. (b) That the subsidy be paid only up to £5 000 of the bond any amount above that to be unsubsidised.
3. (c) That the subsidy be paid in respect of bonds where the cause of debt arose before 1st June, 1935.

They add—

But they then made this important statement—

In other words, they were prepared to suggest an increase in the subsidy on farm mortgage interest, but together with that all schemes existing to-day in regard to a subsidy on agricultural products, or of any other assistance given to the farmer to raise the price level of his products, would have to be cut out. The House will realise the importance of that condition. I thereupon asked the Farmers’ Relief Board to go further into certain aspects of the matter. I also said that the suggestion they had made and the abolition of all schemes of assistance to raise the price of primary products must be looked upon as a counsel of perfection — something which in practice cannot be achieved. I also said that it appeared to me that their scheme tackled the matter from the wrong end. They dealt with the question of interest while I thought that the more important aspect of the question was the capital debt. The Farmers’ Relief Board thereupon supplied me with a further memorandum, and this is what they said. For the sake of brevity I shall read it out—

This recommendation with its attached condition therefore fell away as far as the Relief Board was concerned. The Relief Board thereupon went further into my request that they should if possible make some suggestion in regard to the question of capital debt redemption, and they made this tentative proposal—

Is that report unanimous?

It is signed by all the members. They therefore suggested, as a tentative proposition, a subsidised insurance scheme in connection with the mortgage bonds. They suggested that in connection with the provisions of the Land Bank Act but they indicated that it could possibly also be made applicable to other bonds. I then referred the proposal in the first place to the Central Board of the Land Bank. The Land Bank Board replied and expressed the opinion that this scheme could not be put into practical effect. They pointed out that these premium payments would take the place of redemption payments. In other words, the scheme could not be applied to Land Bank loans under the provision of the Land Bank Act as it is at present. They came to the conclusion that this scheme could not be put into practical effect. This is what the Land Bank Board said—

The Land Bank Board then points to the fact which has already been mentioned in this House, in connection with the reduction of Land Bank loans, and it goes on to say—

That, therefore, is the outcome of the undertaking which I gave this House last year. I undertook to have this matter gone into by the Farmers’ Relief Board. The House is now aware of what has happened since. I have given full effect to the undertaking I gave.

And now the farmers can expect nothing.

So far what I have read here is the last word we have had on this matter. So far as I am personally concerned I do not look upon it as the last word. I am still engaged on going into the question. I feel that undoubtedly there is a great deal of weight in what is said by the Land Bank Board. I feel that there is a great deal to be said for the argument that this is not the right time to tackle this matter. But I am still looking into the question, and I particularly feel that there is one aspect of the matter which is of special importance and that also is an aspect mentioned by the hon. member for Kimberley District. That is to say, the position of the man who has over capitalised his farm as the result of the purchase of a farm on the high price level of 1929-’30, a price level which subsequently dropped. That is one section. I went into the possibility of excluding that section in connection with a scheme of this kind, but there were all kinds of difficulties and objections. In addition to that there is another matter which was touched upon by the Land Bank Board, namely the question of the existing price level. My predecessor, in his capacity as Minister of Finance, always bluntly opposed any proposals of that kind on the ground that he held the view that the only solution was an increase in the price level of agricultural products. I have never yet gone as far as that. But we do not know at this stage what is going to happen to the price level of agricultural products. There has been an increase. What is going to happen during the war and after the war is difficult to prophesy, and I feel that there is a great deal in the contentions of the Land Bank Board, that in view of that uncertainty this is not the right time to put into force a permanent scheme for mortgage bond redemption. I just want to say a few words about the amendment of the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits). He touched on the question of credit society debts. Well, that is a long story, and I do not want to go into the whole matter as to what has happened in that regard. I just want to clear up two points. First of all I want to say that the policy followed by the previous Government, and the policy followed by us, is a policy which was laid down after a thorough investigation by a Commission which reported in 1934. My predecessor always refused bluntly even to consider any amendment of that policy. The second point I wish to refer to is that while a plea is now being put up for the writing off and reduction of debts, we should not lose sight of the fact that a great many of those people have definitely met their obligations. An amount of no less than £854,000 of those debts has been repaid. Don’t let us put the people who have been unable to, or unwilling to, meet their obligations, in a favoured position over the people who have met their obligations. I am not in favour of that, but I am quite prepared to have this matter gone into once again. I want to settle it once and for all. I am prepared to appoint a Departmental Committee as soon as possible to go into the principle of the whole question, and to see whether it is possible and desirable to make an exception in this case, and to write off the debts of the one specific section, although there is a large section which has met its obligations. I am prepared to have the matter looked into again, and the hon. member for Brits will then be able to appear before such a Committee to give evidence, but when the Committee has decided, its decision must be regarded as final, and if the Committee recommends that it cannot make an exception as we are now asked to do, that recommendation must also be final.

I am very sorry that I did not get an earlier opportunity to take part in this debate—that I did not have the opportunity of speaking after the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry had spoken. Replying to an interjection I made the Minister told me that I had approached him in connection with a man who was alleged to have smuggled cattle into the country. The Minister tried to create the impression that I had approached him in regard to some illegal matter. I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to put the facts very briefly before the House. In my constituency there is a certain person named D. J. Swart, a man who is 72 years of age, and who has invested his money in cattle. His son-in-law went to buy cattle for him at a sale and it appeared afterwards that some of those cattle had ben smuggled into the country. The police thereupon attached the cattle in Swart’s possession. There was a court case and judgment was given in Swart’s favour, but in spite of that the cattle were not returned to him. I thereupon went to see the Minister, and I pointed out to him that this was an old man nearing the end of his life, and that he had suffered damage through no fault of his own. The Minister thereupon said that as the money had already been paid into the Treasury he could not do anything. I am sorry the Minister should have seen fit to make those remarks and I hope he will be more careful in future. I am not going to allow the Minister, or anyone else to insult me. It was most striking to notice that on the Government side the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) got up to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom), and that he should say that the motion was not seriously intended, that the hon. member for Aliwal had only introduced it as a joke. I hoped that when the Minister concerned got up he would tell the hon. member that those remarks were unbecoming but the Minister also said that he could not take the hon. member who had made the proposal seriously. Although hon. members on this side of the House have stated that the farmers are in a precarious position, the Minister tells us that cattle buyers have told him that farmers are in a good position. I am sorry for the Minister if he has to get his information only from cattle buyers.

You are again distorting my words.

Those are the words which the Minister used. If the Minister goes through the country and sees the conditions of the farmers he must come to the conclusion that they are not doing so well I can only say that we on this side of the House who come in contact with the farmers admire the farmers because of their courage. If they are unable to meet their commitments for one year as a result of adverse conditions, they try to meet their obligations the next year. And when we come to plead here on behalf of the farmers who are in a difficult position we hope that the Government, and especially the Minister of Agriculture, will pay more attention to this matter. In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Brits) I want to point out that large numbers of the farmers who have been granted cattle under that scheme have lost more than 50 percent of their cattle. But to-day they are expected to pay. The position is an impossible one. I am glad therefore that the Minister of Finance has given us an assurance that he will go into the question, and that he will see whether he can meet the position of those farmers. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the staff of the Farmers Relief Board for the sympathetic attitude when we, as representatives of the farmers, approach them. Every one of us is received in a courteous manner when we visit the offices which are concerned with the collection of outstanding money, and our requests are sympathetically considered, and if the people owing the money need further time our applications are invariably met. I am pleased to be able to say this. But as far as this matter is concerned I hope the Minister of Finance will see his way clear to come to the aid of those particular farmers.

I listened to what the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) said here this afternoon, and I have come to this conclusion, that he is not acquainted with what this Government and previous Governments have done for the farmers of this country. I have also come to the conclusion that his heart runs away with his head, and that he was doing a little bit of gallery play here this afternoon. The hon. member speaks of immediate relief for the farmer on a permanent basis. He says the farmer carries unbearable burdens. These are high sounding words and extravagant phrases. I wonder what Mr. Havenga would have said if he had heen here this afternoon. I want to say a great deal more on this debate and I know there are a number of hon. members who want to speak, and I therefore move—

I second.

I wish to protest against the debate on this important subject being discontinued. The Ministers who have taken part in the debate have made certain statements and we want to have the opportunity of pointing out that they have made statements in certain respects which are based on ignorance, ignorance of the difficulties with which farmers have to contend. Are these statements going to the country without our having the opportunity of correcting them? I do not think it is fair on the part of the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys) who, of course, is one of the Whips, and who has to carry out the wishes of the Government, to want to adjourn the debate at this stage. It is only twenty minutes to six, and I hope the Government will not insist on the adjournment of the debate. The hon. member for Kimberley said that there were several other points he wished to deal with, and I hope he will continue with his speech. Unfortunately he is not a man who has the interests of the farmers at heart, nor does he represent the interests of the farmers, and he consequently has no conception of the conditions in which the farmers find themselves. I hope none the less that the motion for the adjournment will not be agreed to. Notice has already been given that private members’ days are shortly to be taken away and we shall therefore not have another opportunity of dealing with these matters. I want to make a few important suggestions to the Minister, and I hope we will continue the debate.

I should like to ask the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys) whether he as a Whip honestly thinks that we shall have another chance of continuing the debate.

I think so.

He is a Whip of his party and I should like to know whether he honestly thinks that we shall be given another day to discuss this question. Let me put a question to the Minister of Finance. We do not get a reply. In other words, the hon. member is unable to make his words good. It is saddening to me that a debate on such an important matter has to be terminated in this way. There is plenty of time. We do not adjourn automatically at 6 o’clock, and we can carry on with the debate. This motion is just one way of killing the whole of this debate, and that after the display which we have had from the Government side. When the Minister of Agriculture was speaking there were six members in the House on the Government side. That shows the interest they take in the farmers’ difficulties, and now they want to kill the debate before its time. That is the way in which they want to look after the interests of the farmers. The Minister said that this motion had already become a hardy annual. If that is so it goes to prove the need which exists in the country. Nobody would come here year after year with a motion of this kind unless there was a real need for it. It is all very well if we are to be given another day for the discussion of this matter, but if we cannot get such an assurance then I hope the hon. member will withdraw his motion for the adjournment of the debate.

I consider that this motion for the adjournment of the debate is very unreasonable. The Minister has accused me of not having properly explained the various points of my motion. I am pleased that the Minister of Finance has not, like the Minister of Agriculture, stated that he does not take this matter seriously. I did not intend taking up much of the time of the House, and that is why I did not go into all details at length. It has been said that I am not in earnest with this motion of mine …

The hon. member cannot discuss that now, we are now discussing a motion for the adjournment of the debate.

I only want to say that, to my mind it is very unfair to make certain comments on a motion and then not give one an opportunity to reply.

I wish to associate myself with the appeal made by the hon. member for Marico (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) on the other side of the House, asking them not to adjourn this debate. We are not going to get another day to discuss this matter, and we have ample time now to go on with this important debate. Hon. members who represent farming interests will admit that we have had a fruitful debate. One of the Ministers even admitted that there is a case which will have to be further enquired into. Why then curtail this debate? At the beginning of the session, in August and September, we did not have any private members’ days, and those private members’ days are very shortly to be further curtailed, so that we are not going to have our full quota of private members’ days. I therefore feel it is unreasonable to close down the debate now.

I also want to protest against the closing down of the debate. It is now being made perfectly clear that the other side of the House really has no time for the interests of the farmers. The other side is disclosing a state of mind which clearly shows that they have no feeling for the platteland. They have time for one thing only, and that is to see the war through. Is that fair towards this side and to the platteland? The farmers already have to bear a very heavy burden and they are being strangled by existing conditions, and consequently it is not fair to make a proposal which practically amount to this, that the guillotine is being applied. I protest, it is a slap in our face, and we feel hurt. It is a disillusionment which will not be easily forgotten.

The Minister made a statement here on the question of over capitalisation which was most disappointing. The whole of the farming population has been looking forward to a statement and the Minister has now made one and we are not given the opportunity of discussing the matter. For that reason I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister of Finance. Let us continue the debate even if we have to sit right through the night. The interests of the farmers demand that certain matters should be brought to the notice of the Government. When we had this same motion before the House in 1938 I sat on the Government side, and I had the courage to walk over to the Opposition and to vote against the adjournment of the debate. I make an appeal to hon. members opposite and I ask them: “Leave politics out, remember the condition in which the farmers find themselves, and vote against the adjournment.” If necessary, let us sit the whole evening. The interests of the farmers demand that we should discuss this important motion further.

It is not long ago that a Bill proposed by a private member was being discussed by this House and quite a number of members on the other side were prepared to sit the whole night through in order to pass that Bill. To-day we have a motion which is of great importance to the farmers before us, and we who represent platteland constituencies here, and who represent the interests of the farmers, are now to have our wings cut, and are not to be given an opportunity of discussing the interests of our constituents. We get very little chance to bring these matters to the notice of the Government, even during the Budget debate, because even then we cannot all be given an opportunity to speak. Let us sit on, say till 10 o’clock. It is only half past five now and the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys) has already moved the adjournment of the debate. I want to appeal to him and ask him to withdraw his motion.

I am deeply disappointed at the proposal for the adjournment of the debate, and I want to make an appeal to hon. members opposite, especially to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), who is present in his seat. I well remember that when a motion dealing with the interests of the farmers was before this House on a previous occasion the hon. member for Krugersdorp on this side of the House got up and spoke in passionate language and declared that the debate had to continue. Now he sits over there and he laughs, with his 34s. per day. I want to ask the hon. member why he was prepared eighteen months ago to sit right through the night in order to bring the interests of the farmers to the notice of the Government, while he is not prepared to do so now. On that occasion he was even driven out from the House—so concerned was he with the condition of the farmers of South Africa. I make an appeal to the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys) to withdraw his motion. I also want to ask the Minister what is the reason why they want to adjourn now? Can they give any reason why we should not discuss the interests of the farmer any further? We had an important statement from the Minister of Finance which bitterly disappointed all of us. Why should we now be prevented from discussing this matter any further? The hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler), of course, is also bitterly disappointed at the statement by the Minister of Finance in regard to the redemption scheme. He now sits on the other side and is prepared to vote for the adjournment.

When the Nationalist Party was in power it did not do anything.

I am sorry I am not able to reply to the hon. member now, because I would be out of order if I did so, but let me tell the hon. member that no matter whether he sits on the other side to-day, whether he is a Dominionite, or whatever he may be, the farmers have rejected him once and for ever, and they will not take any further notice of him. At Burghersdorp they did not even want him in the Co-operative Society any longer. I want to urge the other side to go on with the discussion.

The House divided:

Ayes—50:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowie, J. A.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Henderson. R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge. M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Shearer, V L.

Smuts. J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon. V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van d. Bvl. P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—46:

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Fagan, H. A.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Quinlan, S. C.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. a. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, J. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Motion for the adjournment of the debate accordingly agreed to; to be resumed on 26th February.