I move—

1. (1) Reference of Estimates to Committee of Supply.—All Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1942—’43 which may be laid upon the Table and recommended by the Governor-General, shall stand referred to the Committee.
2. (2) Conclusion of proceedings.—At the conclusion of the period of hours allotted, any amendments (other than amendments proposed by a Minister) which have been moved but not disposed of, shall drop. The Chairman shall thereupon proceed to put forthwith, without debate, any amendments which have been moved or may be moved by a Minister and such questions, including votes, items or heads, as amended or as printed, as may be necessary to dispose of the Estimates under consideration.
   The Committee shall then proceed to consider any Estimates of Expenditure which have been referred to it but have not been considered, and the Chairman shall forthwith put the votes, items or heads in such Estimates without amendment, unless amendments are moved by a Minister, and without debate.
3. (3) Expedition of Report Stage.—The Committee shall have leave to bring up its report on reports forthwith, instead of on a future day, and such report or reports shall be considered forthwith without amendment or debate.
4. (4) Eleven o’clock rule.—When business is interrupted at the conclusion of the period of hours allotted, the application of Standing Order No. 26 (Eleven o’clock rule) shall be postponed until the proceedings on the business interrupted have been completed.
5. (5) Dilatory motions.—At no time while the House is in Committee shall the Chairman receive a motion that the Chairman report progress or do leave the Chair, or a motion to postpone a vote, item or head unless moved by a Minister and the Question on such motion shall be put forthwith without debate.

The object of this motion on the question of the guillotine is only and exclusively to give effect to the prospect which I put before the House of our being able in the normal course of events to conclude the session towards the middle of April. If effect is to be given to that, I won’t call it undertaking, but to that prospect, then it is necessary for us to arrange our business, and the motion which I am moving here today is introduced with that object in view. I have not the slightest intention of making any reflections on the debate which has been conducted so far in regard to the Estimates. The debate to my mind has been very reasonable, but hon. members will agree with me that there is a tendency sometimes for the debate to become protracted on some point of minor importance, and as a result we lose the opportunity of devoting more time to more important items. It will be better for the House as a whole and for members individually to know that there is a time limit placed on our debates. The time given is the same as that which was given last year, namely, a hundred hours for the whole debate, including all the motions regarding the loan estimates and the revenue account. That will cover the whole of the Estimates. I believe that if there are no protracted debates on minor points we shall be able, just as last year, to have the opportunity of having a fairly full discussion on all matters of importance on the remaining votes of the Estimate. I feel that the motion I have introduced is in the interest of the House, and I think it gives effect to the wish of hon. members on all sides to know how much time will be available for the debate, so that they can arrange their opportunities for the discussion of special points. I repeat that I am not making any reflection on the debate which we have had so far. I have not noticed any signs of obstruction, and I make no charges against any side of the House. My only object is to see that the estimates in Committee are disposed of within a certain time, so that if possible we may be able to finish our business towards the middle of next month, namely, towards the middle of April.

I second.

On behalf of this side of the House I must raise the strongest objection to the motion proposed by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. I want to remaind the Prime Minister that when last week he introduced his motion in regard to morning sittings I asked him not to hurry the House too much but to allow us to discuss and consider matters properly. The Prime Minister said today that he had no complaints to make of the way the debate on the Estimates had been carried on so far. He told us that he was not making any reflections against any side of this House, and notwithstanding the fact that there has been some kind of an arrangement between the Whips that we would dispose of the Estimates in Committee within a hundred hours, the Prime Minister now moves a resolution of this kind as if we were children and as if we can simply be dictated to, if such measures can be applied to us. I think the Prime Minister would have done much better if he had left the matter to the Whips. We would have been reasonable, just as we have been reasonable so far. In spite of the fact that there are many important matters which we had to express our views on, we have only exceeded the time so far by four hours. We want to assure the Prime Minister that we shall be fair and reasonable so far as the discussions are concerned, just as we have been during other sessions in dealing with the Estimates. Now the Prime Minister comes here in the middle of the discussion on the Estimates and says, “Look here, we are now going to apply the guillotine.” He says that he wants to give us a reasonable opportunity to discuss matters, but our experience of the past has shown us that we find only too often that if the guillotine is there it is drastically applied. As I have said, so far we have only exceeded the time by four hours, and there are less important votes before us on which those four hours can be made up. Why should the guillotine now be applied? I don’t know why there is all this hurry, why we should finish the session by the middle of next month. In previous years we have always gone on until May. This year we only started the session towards the middle of January, so I don’t understand why we should now finish by the middle of April.

No, we started early in January.

It seems that the Government wants to avoid criticism; that is why it is in such a hurry and why it is getting so nervous. No, give us a proper opportunity to consider matters, just as other Parliaments in other countries are given plenty of time. In a country like Australia Parliament meets at least once a month to discuss matters in connection with the war. In some other countries Parliament is practically in continuous session, but the Prime Minister of South Africa and his Government are all too anxious to avoid criticism, and that is why they carry on in the way they are now doing, and that is why we are to be hurried to dispose of all our business as rapidly as we can. We are still getting new notices of Bills to be introduced. There is contentious legislation before us, such as the Bill on Base Minerals, and other legislation, which we still have to deal with; why should we now be told that everything must be done in a hurry in order that we may be able to finish by the middle of April? Of course, we all want to get home, but we have been instructed by the people to look after the interests of the country, and if we have to sit longer than the 15th April we on this side of the House don’t want to be rushed to pass everything in a hurry, simply in order to get away by that date. For the sake of co-operation, and for the sake of the good understanding there has been between the Whips, I hope the Prime Minister will not press this motion—I think the Prime Minister has definitely done the wrong thing by introducing this motion. It was not necessary for him to have done so, and I therefore want to appeal to the Prime Minister not to try and force this motion through the House, but rather to withdraw it.

After the admission made by the Prime Minister, it is not necessary for me to say that there is no justification whatever for a motion such as the one now before us to be introduced at this stage in this House, because there has been no question of obstruction. The Prime Minister openly admitted that there has been no obstruction. I have attended many sessions of this House, and I do not think there has been a single one where an accusation could have been made with less reason against the Opposition that it has unnecessarily taken up the time of the House. It should be clear to everybody who has followed the discussions in this House that the Opposition has never given any indication of a wish to delay or hold up the business of the House, and for that very reason it is a pity that the Prime Minister has introduced this motion. What is so strange to me is that the Government, while the House is in the middle of the Committee of Supply, should step in and move this resolution. The question arises why the Government did not do so at the beginning. If it is necessary now it should also have been necessary at the beginning of the Committee of Supply, because the Prime Minister admits that this motion has not been made necessary because of obstruction. The only justification the Government would have had to come forward with such a motion at this stage would have been if the Opposition had taken up an attitude during this debate which looked like obstruction, or if it had taken up too much time, but on the admission of the Prime Minister himself that has not been the case. As the Prime Minister now admits that we have not obstructed the business in any way, and that he has no complaints in regard to the time which has been taken up, I want to know why he should come with a motion like this at this stage? The debate on the Estimates is running its usual course. We are a few hours over our time, but the Prime Minister knows that it would easily have been made up again on the minor votes, so I fail to see why the Prime Minister must now come forward with a measure such as this, which is only going to cause trouble. Then there is another matter which I should like the Prime Minister to consider, and that is to leave out part of this motion. I am referring to paragraph 5 which relates to delaying motions. It means that when the House is in Committee no motion, unless it is proposed by a Minister, can be taken by the Chairman—no motion to report progress or to postpone the discussion on a vote of the Estimates. Occasions arise when the Opposition is justified in moving such a motion. I assume that the time devoted to the discussion of such a motion will be included in the time set down for the Committee on the Estimates. Consequently it will not affect the Government’s time; it does not mean additional time, because I assume it is included in the time which is allowed for the discussion of the Estimates. Sometimes it has happened that a Minister is not able to give the necessary information, and he simply carries on with his vote, and in such circumstances it becomes necessary for members to move that the vote stand over. That does not cause any delay—it is no more than fair to members who want to have that information. In regard to reporting progress, things do happen sometimes justifying the Opposition to move such a motion, and I want to know why the Government now wants to deprive us of that right? It seems strange to me, and it seems to me that there is no justification for it. It is a pity, as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has rightly said, that these matters are not left to mutual arrangement. Such arrangements this session, at any rate, have worked very well. We have been successful in our mutual arrangements, and we are still prepared to make reasonable arrangements. That is why we would prefer to have such mutual arrangements made rather than have a motion such as that which the Government has now proposed, which we shall be compelled to vote against. In regard to the 11 o’clock rule, I have no objection to that. When a vote is nearly finished and a few minutes, or perhaps a quarter of an hour are still required, I see no reason why we should not continue, but to prevent us here from carrying on with the ordinary consideration of the Estimates by placing restrictions on us, and to say, in addition, that we are not allowed to move in Committee that a vote shall stand over, or that progress be reported, but that only a Minister can do so, seems unreasonable to me, and also unnecessary. And I want to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the good relations which exist, to delete that paragraph. It takes us no further, and it will not take up any of the Government’s time, because, if it is proposed to report progress, and ask leave to sit again, the discussion on such a motion is included in the hundred hours. So that may well be left to the Opposition, because it will only shorten its own time if it starts a long debate on a motion of that kind. Therefore the Opposition would not make any unnecessary proposals, but it would only do so if it were necessary. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to amend his motion on this particular point. We are going to vote against this motion, because we consider it quite unnecessary.

I am sorry that we cannot support the motion proposed by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. We want the business of this House to be dealt with in as businesslike and effective a manner as possible. The Prime Minister himself, however, told us that so far the House had not wasted any time, and that the speeches had been very much to the point, and I therefore feel that this motion is proved to be unnecessary by what the Prime Minister himself has said. I feel that the House should have ample time at its disposal for every measure that is introduced, and should be able properly to discuss it, particularly the Committee stage of such a measure. It is very undesirable for us to pass the second reading of a Bill, and to expect us immediately to go into Committee on that Bill. It makes it impossible for us to give proper attention to the consideration of a measure in Committee. Some hon. members serve on Select Committees from 10 o’clock in the morning until nearly 1 o’clock, and after that they have to sit in this House all afternoon, and at night as well. It is humanly impossible for us to keep ourselves informed of all the Bills that are introduced. Many important matters of far-reaching importance are placed before the House requiring careful study by all sides of the House, and I do not think it is reasonable or fair to the House to expect us to swallow everything holus bolus, without having had the opportunity of studying the meaning and the effect of the Bills or resolutions placed before us. I therefore ask the Prime Minister not to press his motion at this stage, and to give the House ample time to deal with every measure on its merits, and to discuss and dispose of it.

I should like to suggest to the Prime Minister that it might be advisable to give us an assurance that it is not his intention to proceed with the Durban Savings Bank Bill.

The hon. member cannot discuss that. He is confined to the motion before the House.

I should like to assure the Prime Minister that we are anxious to get through the business of the House. The discussions on the Estimates are among the few occasions when it is possible for the hon. member to take into review the Departments of the various Ministers and I do not think it is advisable that the discussion of the Estimates should be curtailed unless it is absolutely essential. I therefore suggest that there are certain orders on the Order Paper which it is not necessary for the House to deal with this session—these orders can easily stand over. We would therefore like to have an assurance from the Prime Minister that certain of these orders will be dispensed with—particularly orders standing in the name of private members. We would like the Prime Minister to tell us …

I am afraid that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

I shall be very brief. I merely want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we have been fortunate enough this session to have reached the position of having a certain amount of good co-operation between the various Parties. The Whips negotiate, make arrangements, and we have reached the position of achieving a certain degree of co-operation and understanding. In regard to the motion now before the House I do not know whether the Prime Minister is aware of the fact that before the estimates were under consideration there was a question of a motion of this kind. We were approached by the Whips of the Government Party who asked us whether there would be any objection to the introduction of a motion to limit the debate in Committee of Supply to a hundred hours. I at once informed them that I did not think it was necessary to do so. I pointed out to them that we on our side did not propose obstructing; that we would not avail ourselves of the opportunity unnecessary to prolong the debates, and I told them that as soon as the Government found that there was obstruction, and that there was an unnecessary amount of discussion, it could move such a resolution. The Prime Minister has admitted that we on our side have adhered to that contract. There has been no obstruction and no unnecessary discussion, and that being the case—well, I don’t want to say that this motion is a breach of faith—but as we on our side have stuck to our arrangement it is not fair on the part of the Government to come along with this motion when we are half way through the Estimates in Committee. The important votes, such as Defence, the vote of the Prime Minister’s, and Agriculture, have practically been disposed of. I don’t know therefore what can be the need for this motion. I am only speaking from the point of view that we should not disturb the spirit of co-operation which exists at the present moment. We have carried out our side of the agreement and now we find the Government without any reason coming along with a motion of this kind. I hope that the Prime Minister after this discussion will still see his way to agree to withdraw this motion when I assure him that nobody wants to obstruct.

I agree with the hon. member for Pietersburg. (Mr. Tom Naudé) that the co-operation is good, and nobody is more keen on maintaing that spirit of co-operation in our discussions than I myself, but the hon. member will also agree with me that when we approached him in regard to this question of a hundred hours for the debate he would not give us an assurance that the debate would be limited to a hundred hours, and although there has been no obstruction—I fully admit that—we are already six hours over our time in comparison with the stage which we had reached last session on these same votes.

We can make it up again on the minor votes.

I have no certainty about that, and if we want to finish within the time which I have held out in prospect it is necessary to conclude this debate within a hundred hours. I have given the House the assurance that the Government is anxious to finish towards the middle of April, and in giving that assurance I have in view this time arrangement of one hundred hours for the Estimates in Committee. We are six hours behind already.

But why do you want to finish by the middle of April?

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) takes up the attitude that we are acting unreasonably, that we want to act in a highhanded manner and that we do not want to give sufficient time for the discussion of the Estimates, but I want to say again that the practice which we introduced last session went in the right direction.

But why move it at this stage?

We negotiated about giving a hundred hours and we could not get any assurance.

That was at the beginning.

We wanted to see how it would go. In practice it has turned out that we have already lost more than six hours. That is what experience has shown us and it is only because of that that I feel we should lay down a certain time limit. As it was impossible for the Whips on both sides to come to an agreement on all the votes, a definite arrangement has to be laid down so that we may be able to finish our business within a reasonable time. I repeat again that I am not casting any reflections on either side of the House. In regard to paragraph 5, which was referred to by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart), I want to say that that has always been part of the guillotine motion as introduced from the very start. I am afraid that if we do not include that paragraph, time which was intended for the Estimates may be used for the discussion of such motions.

But surely that would be to our own detriment?

I am speaking of the interests of the House as a whole and not only of the Opposition. If we give a hundred hours for the Estimates, then we want those hundred hours to be spent on the discussion of the Estimates, and the time must not be wasted on other debates.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—64:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, D.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp. W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—31:

Bekker, S.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fagan, H. A.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Loubser, S. M.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

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

The hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) speaking on Friday last put up a plea for the licensing of margarine factories in this country and instanced a very high class of margarine now being made in England, and she said that the licensing of margarine factories would not be a menace at all to the Dairy Industry. Let me tell the hon. member that margarine is already being made in this country For the information of members I have a lb. of margarine here manufactured in Cape Town, but whether it is as palatable as butter is another thing, and I think if the hon. member would put this lb. of margarine within an inch of her dainty nose she probably would not want to buy margarine. Not only is margarine made in this country, but you can buy pasterine or nutrine for cooking purposes which are definitely margarine, and also peanut butter which is also margarine — that can also be purchased here, so when it comes to a question of protecting this particular type of food, these substitutes are already here in abundance. Margarine can be made in this country but it cannot be made to imitate butter—it must be sold as natural margerine. That is the only restriction. In other countries margarine is coloured first to make it resemble butter and then it has either butter, or fresh milk worked into it to give it a butter flavour, and it is sold—it is dressed up in butter clothes and sold as a substitute for butter. Now, that is what we do not allow in this country. Margarine must be sold as margarine and must not be made up to imitate. The argument is advanced that it is necessary to have margarine in case of a butter shortage. I admit that we have this year passed through a shortage of dairy as well as other products, but that was due to the worst drought which I in fifty years experience of this country have known, and it is very unlikely that we shall again be faced with a drought of such magnitude for many years. The position usually is that this country supplies its own needs of butter during the flush season, and that the Board entrusted with the supervision of dairy products accumulates before winter about 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 lbs. of butter in cold storage to provide for probable or possible deficiency in the late winter and early spring months. This year, since the rains have fallen, the season has been extraordinarily favourable. We have approximately 4,000,000 lbs. of butter already in stock against the winter, and by the time winter starts we shall have at least 6,000,000 lbs. of butter available to provide for any shortage. I do not think the hon. member need be nervous of another butter shortage. Further than that we now seem to be entering on an unusually favourable winter, as the rainfall has provided an amount of fodder — green fodder — which is probably greater than we usually have in a normal winter. So you can look at the future months as well provided for. Now we make about 45,000,000 lbs. annually of butter—35,000,000 lbs. weight is consumed locally and 10,000,000 represents the surplus, and now I want to call the hon. member’s attention to this point. She pleads for the poorer people. Out of the 35,000,000 lbs. consumed in this country in 1939—’40, 4,400,000 lbs. of butter was supplied to those who are too poor to pay the normal price for butter, at prices less than export, at less than overseas prices the 1940—’41 figures I have not had. This butter is sold at 8d. per lb. first grade, 7d. per lb. second grade, and 6d. per lb. third grade. That is cheaper than overseas prices realised for our butter. I can tell the hon. member that as far as the poor are concerned we are doing our best to get these products over to them.

Now that price is infinitely cheaper than margarine. The poorer people can buy first grade butter, if they are too poor to buy through the ordinary channels, at 3d. or 4d. a lb. less than margarine. There is an export surplus of about 10,000,000 lbs. and I can assure the House that if more butter is required by the poorer people, to those who are not able to purchase butter at normal prices, whatever quantity they require, will be made available. There is not a shortage of good butter in this country either for the people of normal income to buy at a reasonable price, or for the very poor people to buy at sub-normal prices. That entirely cuts the argument away from under those who advocate a margarine factory to enter into competition with our creameries. I think that disposes of the question whether there is a need for margarine. But there is another point, and it is this. However many licences you give the margarine factories today, the necessary fats and oils are not available. We have a grave shortage of fats in this country today. The fats are not available, and if you started a margarine factory today you could not supply them with the necessary material for the making of that product. Other dairy countries have not allowed the manufacture of margarine as we are allowing in this country. Australia, New Zealand, and many of the States of America have absolutely prohibited the manufacture of margarine in the interests of the dairy industry.

If you will give them a permit to sell margarine they could do so, but you won’t give them a permit.

Here is a pound of margarine manufactured at Cape Town, and the hon. member can go into the shops and buy as much as he wants.

Are you quite sure that it is not soap?

I do not think that hon. member knows the difference between soap and butter. His abysmal ignorance is displayed in this House from time to time by the interjections he makes. Margarine is definitely not as nutritious as butter. It may be as palatable, but in the vitamin content it is definitely inferior to butter, and so long as we can obtain fresh butter and so long as the poorer people can get fresh butter at subnormal prices as they can today, it would provide the answer to the cry for protective foods to replace butter with margarine. Whether the people are Europeans or coloureds or natives, their needs are amply provided for, and if more butter is required for those who cannot purchase it, it will be made available. There is no one who suffers more from malnutrition today than the natives in the reserves, and you will never get them to start buying margarine. You can save yourself the trouble of trying to do so. The remedy for malnutrition is not to be found in giving them margarine. There is only one other point I want to make, and that is the repercussions this is going to have. If the free and unrestricted manufacture of margarine, made up with the flavour to imitate butter, were to be allowed, it is quite conceivable that you might have the gravest repercussions on the dairy industry. [Time limit.]

I don’t want to follow the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) in his contentions about margarine. We have sufficient cows to supply the butter requirements of the country. I am pleased that as a result of the heavy blows dealt by the Nationalist Party the Government has at last realised that the farmers should get profitable prices for their products, and that members on the Government side of the House are also beginning to realise that now. I only hope that it will not stop at words, but that they will definitely get payable prices. Now I want to bring a few other points to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture, and I hope that he will not again, as he did on Friday, lose his papers containing his notes. The Minister said that it was not done deliberately, and I naturally accept what he says. Our farmers have been asked to produce, and I have already pointed out that the farmers can do nothing if they have no labour. Now I want to ask in this connection, in view of the fact that the various departments have large numbers of tractors, whether the Government cannot rent those tractors to the farmers. We do not want them for nothing. We are prepared to pay the expense of bringing them to a district; we are prepared to pay for the use of the tractors and the oil. It will help us a lot to get our crops into the ground sooner, and it will also assist our people to sow a great deal more than they would otherwise be able to sow. In view of the threatened famine in the country the Government should devise some such scheme. For the moment I want to revert to the Wool Agreement. The hon. member has told us that it is a fine and excellent agreement. The Minister says that the wool which goes to America is sent there to be stored. Well, it is very difficult for us to believe that 600,000 bales of wool are sent to America to lie there until after the war. I believe that circumstances have changed to such an extent, and will continue to change within the next few months, that all that wool will immediately be processed and a great deal more too. What I do not understand, however, is that our price has to be lower than it was during the last war, because we have the selfsame buyers, namely, England, Canada, and America. We should be getting a very much better price than we are getting today. I hope the Minister will still try to get us a higher price. Now, I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the East Coast fever position in the Border Districts. Near Piet Retief there are three border farms which are not yet fenced. The Minister may perhaps say that there is no wire. Of course, they are living in water-tight compartments. But I believe the Minister will find that on the Pongolo Settlement there are still six or seven hundred bales of wire and a lot of poles, all of which can be used. The stuff has been lying there for years. Why cannot it be used to stop all this trouble with East Coast fever? We have this bottle neck position there, and if the wire is put up it will remove that difficulty. The other point which I have already tried to bring to the Minister’s notice is that when mealies are sold in small quantities, the price should not be higher than when large quantities are bought, because it is to the detriment of the poor man and the small purchaser. The sellers are now refusing to sell larger quantities than 20 bags, because they get a higher price if they sell their mealies in small quantities. The Minister should make the price the same, whether a man buys one bag or a hundred bags. I have already expressed the desirability of the Minister fixing a price for mealies. If he can fix the price for wheat a year in advance, he should also be able to fix the price for mealies. I want it to be more than 12s. 6d., and I have suggested that it should be at least £1 per bag. The Minister will then get more out of the people. If he does not fix a reasonable price, we shall have to use our mealies where the mealies are not so badly wanted, but we should fix the price as I have suggested, because we cannot run our farming as a charitable business. We must get a profitable price. That is why I suggest a £1. In regard to vegetables, I don’t want to ask for prices to be fixed, because I realise the Minister’s difficulty. It is difficult to fix a price for fresh vegetables, and, unless the Minister establishes factories to preserve beans, peas and carrots, it will be very difficult to fix a price for vegetables. There are certain commodities, however, such as potatoes, in respect of which a price can be fixed. The Minister has told us that he is going to fix a price, not a maximum price and not a minimum price, but a price for first, second and third grades. At certain times of the year the production will probably be too large, but I think the Minister in that regard will have to consider laying down a quota in regard to how potatoes should be planted, so that we will not get this state of affairs, that no more mealies and no more wheat will be planted, but only potatoes. In that way quite an impossible position might be created, and I think the Minister should give this matter his serious attention. I want to ask him not to do what the Minister of Commerce and Industries has done. When we got a reasonable price for potatoes, he simply fixed a maximum price of 25s. per bag, with the result that potatoes dropped to as low as 3s. per bag. Let him fix a reasonable price, for instance, 25s., for first grade, 20s. for second grade, and 17s. 6d. for third grade. If he does that he will be really helping us. I also want to ask him to interfere as little as possible in regard to products where there is a satisfactory supply and demand, such as meat, for instance. We hear every day about an agitation to fix the price of meat, and I want to ask the Minister to leave it alone. That is the only product for which the farmer is getting a reasonable price today, and if the Minister interferes there he will only get trouble, and the prices will probably come down again, so that the farmers will not get their legitimate share. Now, I want to say a few words about the position of our oil supply. When we, who have tractors, apply for oil, the reply usually is that they cannot send any oil because there are no cans. I myself sent a dozen empty cans a fortnight ago. They acknowledged receipt, but they stated that they could only send me five cans of oil, because they had no more cans. I sent them the twelve cans, and surely I could have expected to get a reasonable quantity of oil. If we don’t get reasonable quantities we cannot produce. If we have tractors and no oil, we cannot produce. I think the Minister should tell the oil companies that they must meet the farmers as much as they possibly can.

I want to put up a plea on behalf of our stock inspectors. Many of them are doing their work today under extremely difficult conditions. The cost of petrol and tyres and so on is very high today, and they cannot do their work and make a decent living in those wideflung areas which they have to control today. I consider that it is the Government’s duty to come to their assistance so that they can do their work in a way which will give satisfaction to everybody. Now I want to say a few words about the speech of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker). He talks a lot about the wool agreement, and even the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has now spoken about the wool agreement. I can still forgive the hon. member for Cradock if he attacks the wool agreement, but the hon. member for Wolmaransstad would do better to keep quiet about it. If we had had a similar agreement when he was still Minister of Agriculture, when we were still on the gold standard, none of us would have had any cause for complaint. The hon. member for Cradock criticised the Minister over the wool agreement, and he tells the House and people outside that the wool agreement is of no use to us and that it is a bad agreement. Apparently the hon. member does not know what happened at the Congress of Wool Growers at Bloemfontein.

I know it better than you do.

Forty members voted in favour of the wool agreement and nine voted against it, and if the hon. member for Cradock continues his propaganda and there is another Congress he will find that forty-eight will vote for it and only one against it.

You are making a very bad guess.

The hon. member is always guessing. I take facts as I find them. The hon. member for Cradock should know by now that forty of the members attending the Congress voted in favour of the agreement.

Some of them do not produce a single bale of wool.

The fact remains that they were there as representatives of the wool growers.

No, you are wrong again.

The hon. member’ for Cradcok asked why we did not maintain an open market as long as it was possible to do so, but what would have happened if we could not have maintained an open market? We would then have been obliged to go hat in hand to the British Government and we would have had to accept anything they cared to give us.

But the British love us so much.

That is what the hon. member for Cradock suggests. He complains that we are not getting the price on which we made our calculations, namely, 10.75d. Let me tell him what happened to my own wool. A year before I got an average of 11¾d. for my wool, and for this year’s clip I got 11-1/3d. I don’t know whether the hon. member for Cradock got that; if he did not get it he must be farming with the wrong type of sheep and there must be something wrong with his farming.

They cannot be much worse than yours.

And if he did get that, why does he complain? The prices obtained by people in my neighbourhood were even higher than 11-1/3d. on an average. I admit that a man producing inferior wool will not get that.

What was the average price for the country?

I contend that good clips did not get less than 11d. and 12d., but there may be inferior wool which brings down the average price for the country. A good clip, however, fetches more, and the hon. member for Cradock knows it.

Yes, I know very much better what is going on than you do.

If the hon. member knows so much better, he should get a better price. The hon. member for Cradock further comes and says that the Government should give a better article to our troops—that is to say, better blankets, and he said that blankets were manufactured and sold at tremendous profits. He gave the House to understand that blankets only cost about 3s. 2d. The hon. member for Cradock knows that that is not so. He knows that a price has been fixed, and he knows that that article costs more than twice 3s. 2d. He also knows that a reasonable profit is allowed to the manufacturers, and that a certain quantity of wool has to be used for the manufacture of the blankets. The hon. member also knows, as well as any other member, that the Government Textile Commission found out that fraud had been committed in regard to the manufacture of blankets.

Then why complain of what I have said?

I shall tell hon. members what happened. They found that in the manufacture of the blankets the blankets were not delivered in terms of the contract entered into, and as a result steps were taken, with the result that the Government did not lose a penny. Further, as a result of what they found out, the Textile Commission today has blankets made which contain 50 per cent. of merino wool and 50 per cent. Karakul wool, but the hon. member for Cradock says: “Why does not the Government accept the recommendations of the Wool Council?” Well, it is the Textile Commission which has told the Wool Council what it has found out, and now the hon. member for Cradock comes here and he wants the House to understand that it is the Wool Council which has brought the matter to the notice of the Textile Commission. I also want to ask what right a member of the Wool Council has to come here, and outside the House, blazon forth information of a confidential nature?

What was there confidential about it?

I should like to know whether the hon. member has the right to make public that information which was given by the Textile Commission? The hon. member knows that it should not be done.

Why not?

Of course, not. The Army Textile Commission will now probably refuse to supply any information to the Wool Council, and then the Wool Council will get what it deserves. The hon. member for Cradock should not blazon forth this information. I cannot associate myself with it, and I am sorry that the hon. member for Cradock, who should know better, should do a thing like that. I am afraid that when he gets up here he does not want to know better, and he does not look beyond the borderlines of Elandskuil.

With reference to this vote, I should like to tell the Minister that the agricultural community gradually is gaining the impression that the Government is forgetting that the agricultural industry still is the largest consumer and employer in the country. The agricultural industry has reason to complain that it has been very much neglected during the past year by the Minister of Agriculture. I should just like to refer to the Ministers’ agreement with regard to the hides of the farmers. I think the Minister of Agriculture really has neglected the interests of the farmers in that respect by fixing the prices of hides at such a low level. The farming community has been labouring for years under uneconomical prices for hides. Now a time has come when they could obtain a better price, and the Government, mind you, goes along and fixes the prices at a ridiculous level, especially when we consider that there is a widespread demand for hides. I think the Minister of Agriculture has treated the farming community in a manner they have not deserved, and the farming community has the right to protest most strongly. I should like to say a few words now on the small subsidy the Government is granting with regard to fertiliser. The £1 per ton announced by the Minister in his Budget speech, is not sufficient. The price of fertiliser has risen so tremendously, that even with the subsidy of £1 per ton, it will still be impossible for the small farmers to buy the fertiliser they require to produce a greater extent in accordance with the expectations of the Government. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister at the Rosebank Show recently appealed to the farmers to produce more, and fertiliser presently is absolutely indispensable to a large section of the farmers, particularly the maize producers. For this reason I think the Minister should consider giving not only a subsidy, but also an advance in each case to enable farmers to buy fertiliser. You should bear in mind that the season just passed has been a very bad one, and this year we have to expect a shortage of mealies, and also that there will be mealies of a poor quality on the market. Several hon. members have already urged that the Minister and his department should fix the price of meales for this year in good time, and I should like to support those appeals. It is definitely necessary if a large section of our farmers are not to go to the dogs. The agricultural industry is in a critical state, and the taxation proposals of the Government impose such a burden on the farmers that they will not be able to keep their heads above water. During the past seven or eight years, we were rehabilitating the farming community, and we were making good progress, but the taxes imposed now during the past few months, neutralises the good policy of rehabilitation we had been pursuing, and we shall still have to suffer the bad consequences of that. I believe the Minister and the Cabinet, of which he is a member, do not sufficiently realise the economical position of our farmers. I refer to the taxes that have been imposed, and still to be imposed. Do the Minister and the Cabinet not realise that when a farmer sells his stock, it is not profit he is making, but simply capital he has invested and which is now being returned to him? Does the Minister not realise the unfairness of the position, that when a farmer sends 300 or 400 or 500 sheep to the market, it is not profit he is driving to the market, but capital? Does the Government therefore not realise that so far as the farmers are concerned, it is imposing a tax not on profits, but on capital? The Government is taxing the capital of the farmer, and thereby undermining the capital resources of the farmers. I am sorry the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is not in his seat, because I am sure he will realise the position, if the Minister of Agriculture does not realise it. I even pity the Hon. the Prime Minister because his Cabinet today consists largely of men who do not realise how destructive for the farming community the taxes are that are being imposed on them from day to day. If the Minister of Finance were to tax the capital of traders, if he were to impose taxation which would simply amount to capital confiscation, what would be the reaction of the traders? That is what the Government actually is doing in respect of the farmers. You are concerned with capital confiscation. I hope the Minister and his Department and the Government will attend to that, and will realise that they are ruining the farming community, and are rendering undone the rehabilitation that has been effected during the past years. Then I should also like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to bear in mind the fact that the past year has been an abnormally bad season for a great part of the country. There are areas which will soon simply be needy because there is no grain and no pasture, and the Minister definitely should exert himself in co-operation with the settlements of the Department of Irrigation, to produce lucerne so that those resources may be mobilised in order that, when the evil day arrives, our country will not be further harmed. With reference to the financial provision being made for the laboratory of Onderstepoort, I should like to say that I think we owe that institution all credit and thanks. It is an unmixed blessing for this country that we have Onderstepoort in connection with the fighting of stock diseases. But the Department of Agriculture should realise that some of the vaccines they are making available, are definitely too expensive. It is too expensive for many of the smaller farmers. I mention for instance the vaccine for horses. Now that the supply of petrol has been curtailed during this time of war, and the use of machinery being restricted to a greater extent, there are many people who are again using horses and mules, and they dare not and may not invest capital in those unless they safeguard the animals against horse sickness. The only remedy for that is the vaccine from Onderstepoort, and 5s. per dose in too expensive. The Department should take that into consideration. There is another item I should like to mention, namely, the vaccine for Texas fever and gall-sickness. There are many farmers who are unable to invest £15 and more to pay 9d. per dose. I understand it has been reduced by 3d., but it still is too expensive. I am unable to express an opinion on the costs of production. But it behoves even the Government to fix a standard price of 3d. for vaccine for all kinds of diseases without exception. It will be meeting the farmers, and the country will derive benefit from it. Of course not in the case of sheep, because that already is on a cheaper basis. With these few words I hope that as regards the taxes on agriculture, the Minister will give his earnest attention to it, and that he will also do so with regard to the difficulties of the mealie industry.

I want to congratulate the Minister on his appointment as food controller, and at the same time I want to just mention that it is a very big job and one that will put him and his officials to a very severe test. I hope that they will be able to live up to it. That appointment, Mr. Chairman, requires the wholehearted cooperation of producer, manufacturer and distributor, it requires experienced businessmen who will appoint officers to work with the Government Controller. There is already a great deal of criticism that the men at the head of the Minister’s department are perhaps not quite the right persons to handle this position, and I hope therefore that it is the intention of the Minister to appoint an advisory committee to help him. There is just this fear that the officials who are handling this will not be able to co-operate with these men as effectively as it is desired. Let me tell the Minister that the job is a big one and let me further tell him that food control will be absolutely useless unless it is accompanied by rationing. If we are going to have effective food control, then rationing is absolutely necessary. That has been the experience in other countries, and you will find the same thing here in this country. Take for instance this latest attempt at rationing tea, which has just been pumlished, just look at the regulations which have been framed there. The very thing that we are trying to avoid in this country is hoarding, and we are also trying to avoid inflation. But here you bring in a regulation that every purchaser of a pound of tea has got to buy 10s. worth of other goods. Have you heard of anything more absurd? Let me tell the House that there is no such great scarcity of tea in this country, the stocks are plenty. But what do you do? You are going first of all to handicap the poor people who cannot afford to buy the other goods, and you are going to tempt all the other people to hoard. If you go round to the stores today you will find that there are queues of people who can afford to buy are buying 10s. worth of goods and hoarding the stuff in order to get an extra pound of tea, depriving the poor people who may want it. Why is it necessary to compel these people to buy other goods. Everyone today, including the primary producer, is anxious to conserve resources, so that they will go round, yet here you are putting a premium on hoarding. This is just one of the things that I am afraid may happen when the food controller takes charge of the position, because these regulations are issued so hurriedly without consulting the people who know, and I do hope in future that in that respect the Minister will not act hastily, but will take the people who are in trade, and who are anxious to help and do everything possible to make the thing workable, into his confidence. Let me refer to the objects of the present Control Board. There are various divisions, including production, marketing, price fixation, supplies to convoys, and propaganda. But the most important need as it appears to me is the purchasing commission, to buy the goods for supply to the convoys and other consumers, so that the public shall not be exploited. This commission will buy what is needed of the potato or any crop, and that purchasing committee should be the most important committee and should consist of men of experience who know something about trade. Then another committee which is needed is a rationing committee, and here I want to repeat that you will find your food control will be another failure unless you combine rationing with it.

How are you going to have control without rationing if there is a shortage?

To my mind control is impossible without rationing, therefore the first committee that ought to be set up is a rationing committee. I think in the smaller centres rationing is not so important. But in the larger centres such as Cape Town and Johannesburg you must have a proper and strict system of rationing. In the smaller towns where the dealers and distributors know their customers, they impose a sort of voluntary rationing which is effective. We have here in Cape Town in most commodities a sort of voluntary rationing, but that I am sorry to say has not been a success because support from the public has been lacking. People who are well-to-do have gone round hoarding at the expense of the poorer people. I think the establishment of food control is quite useless unless you combine it with rationing, and you cannot have a better illustration of that than what has happened here in connection with tea rationing. There are queues of people going round trying to buy tea. And there is another difficulty that I would like to point out in this connection, and that is that there are a number of people who don’t drink tea at all, they drink coffee, cocoa and other beverages, and if you ration tea you must ration the other commodities as well, otherwise you are bound to have people who normally don’t use tea going round and buying tea to sell it on a black market. My appeal to the controller is: Don’t start with this food control until you have everything properly discussed and arranged with the interested parties.

I am not rising to criticise the Minister of Agriculture’s general administration as such. I leave him to his own supporting newspapers. It seems that the Minister’s administration is hopeless judging from his own supporting papers, as we read in the “Natal Mercury” and the “Natal Witness” last week. They accuse him of his administration being hopeless. Those organs of his even go so far as to state that the Minister’s administration is becoming so hopeless that he ought to resign. I am not going to labour the point. I leave him to them. I should just like to say here that I regret to say that I cannot associate myself with the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) in his congratulation of the Minister on his appointment as Controller of Foodstuffs. If we had to judge from his administration of the Department of Agriculture, I think that in his hands things will go still further wrong. We are afraid that this Minister in the past has adopted an attitude which has prejudiced our production. The hon. member for South Peniusla has enumerated the functions of the Board that has been appointed, and he stated that the most important function is that of purchasing. I suggest that the most important is that of production. Production is much more important than any of the functions of control, and I submit here, without hesitation, that as regards production, the Minister has in the past neglected to a large extent to see that there is a proper production. When we talk of production, we do not forget that part of the Minister’s duties is seeing that there will not be losses which could be prevented, and in this connection I think of an important section of our producers. We have talked here about a possible shortage of meat. If there is a meat shortage in the country, then no one other than the Minister himself has contributed to a larger extent to the cause of it. He could have prevented it in a large measure if he had met the farmers, but he did not do so. We think of the serious drought that has prevailed throughout the country. There have been numerous losses which could have been prevented, and would not have occurred had the Minister of Agriculture taken steps in time to help the farmers. I believe those losses in respect of cattle, alleged to have been caused by the drought, has to a large extent been exaggerated. But it is a fact that there has been serious losses as a consequence of the drought. Some time ago I asked the Minister whether representations had been made to him to help the farmers to feed their stock in this drought. He admitted that representations had reached him as long ago as October of last year already, but the Minister has done nothing to help the farmers in this regard. It seems to me he is waiting to see whether it will not rain, so that the farmer’s position could be improved without him having to do anything. That delay occurred, and losses were incurred, and I only wish to hope that the Minister will see that this does not happen again in future. What strikes me as being so deplorable is that when we ask the Minister to help the farmers with fodder, he says there is a shortage of mealies. But mealies is not the only feed in the country. There are other kinds of cattlefeed that could be used. If the Minister were to encourage and assist that fine scheme, the Vaalhartz, in future, he will see that more stock feed will be produced on that fine scheme than he could imagine. If the Minister does that, he shall only be carrying out what I have already said to the Prime Minister, namely, that we should concentrate upon the production of fodder at Vaalhartz. There has always been a feeling on the part of our friends of the Western Province that Vaalhartz is going to prejudice them some day, because fruit is going to be produced there. That scheme need not produce any fruit, and the Government will see and help that Vaalhartz will serve to produce fodder for those parts, as, for instance, Bechuanaland, where large numbers of cattle are bred, but where sometimes there is not sufficient pasturage throughout the year. Such a scheme could be used to help those farmers in times of the year when they have not sufficient fodder for their stock. Another point of interest I should like to raise in regard to the work of the Controller of Foodstuffs, is that he should not only permit young cattle to be imported, as, for instance, from South-West Africa and the Bechuanaland Protectorate, but that the Government should resolutely advise the people to do so as long as it can be ascertained that there is a serious shortage of beef. We find that in certain areas of the country, during certain times of the year, there is much more pasturage than the cattle need, the cattle we already have in the country. There are farmers who are prepared to do that kind of work to acquire young cattle and let them grow up on that pasturage for the production of meat. For that reason I want the Minister not only to allow the importation of these young cattle, but that he should actually encourage it. We see in yesterday’s paper—I think it was in the “Cape Times”—that it is stated that Rhodesia is out to obtain large numbers of cattle from the Bechuanaland Protectorate. Those cattle ought not to go to Rhodesia, but it should come here. If we permit those cattle to come here, we could let them grow up and feed them and see to it that there is not a serious shortage in our country. Not enough cattle is being bred here at present. Then I should like to refer to another important matter. The Minister has heard a lot about it from me already. That is the position of the farmers on the border between the Union and the Protectorate. I am not going into the merits of the case again, but there is one thing the Minister is now doing, and I should like to remind him that by doing so, he is doing the farmers an injustice. I would be neglecting my duty if I did not do so. I have asked the Minister a question to which he replied on the 6th March. I asked him whether he would lay upon the Table the agreement entered into —the agreement of a give and take wire fence between the Protectorate and the Union Government so that we could scrutinise it. I asked him whether the agreement entered into with the Protectorate was of a permanent nature. I asked him further what the position was going to be of the rights of private owners on the border. The reply given to that was that there was no formal agreement in existence, and that the agreement was entered into by way of notes exchanged between him and the Administration of the Protectorate. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman I was very glad when the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) raised the point that he did raise in this debate this afternoon. I must say that when I saw the regulations governing the purchase of tea I was completely horrified both as a housekeeper who pays her way as she goes and as a representative of the poorest people in this country. Sir the more I see of the attempts to regulate the distribution of our foodstuffs in this country the stronger becomes my impression that these regulations are framed by people who have no idea at all of how the poor live. It seems to me that there is an enormous gap between all our Standing Committees that are dealing with the food of the people and the bulk of the people who are affected by their regulations, particularly the poorer groups. I trust that the Hon. the Prime Minister will soon do something to bridge this gap, and I sincerely hope the hon. Minister of Agriculture will see that the Committees of which he has charge will show more appreciation of the needs of all the people than has so far characterised our Control Board’s actions. I am very much tempted to support very strongly the recommendation of the hon. member for South Peninsula, that we should have a rationing system, because that seems to me the only way we shall begin to learn what some of our people need, and the only way some of our people will ever get some of the food that they need. That brings me to the point that I really wish to raise with the Minister. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) last week raised the question of the distribution of fruit. This question of fruit is like the other question of fish; it is one to which we ought to pay a good deal of attention, because it is one of the few fields of food production in this country where we have at least a possibility of supplying the needs of the community. What I am hoping for is that some time before the passing of this vote, the Minister will make some statement as to the long term policy of his department in regard to the distribution of fruit. I am impelled to ask him to do that by the experience we have had of the distribution of fruit, where it is regulated by a Control Board. There has been a great deal of dissatisfaction this season with the distribution of those fruits which are under the control of the Deciduous Fruit Board. I am alarmed at the amount of fruit that has had to be buried on farms because the board has refused to allow it to be put on the market. I am told the policy is to build up a certain standard of fruit for this market, apparently with any regard to the consuming capacity of the country, and the ability of the community to pay. What I want to know is whether it is to be the policy of the Minister and his department to induce us to appreciate Covent Garden fruit at Covent Garden prices, or to see that as much fruit as possible is put on our market and at prices which the people can afford to pay? There are a great many people in this country who will never be able to pay for Covent Garden standard, and a great many more who do not appreciate that standard. There are also a great many people who would be glad to get cheap fruit on our market, and who will never be able to pay for anything else. We want an understanding as to the policy which is being pursued. We ought also to have some understanding about the policy of the Citrus Board. I was horrified to hear that last year numbers of people had been forced to bury their citrus on their farms, and had not been able to distribute it to people who had been buying from them. I have no inside information; I am merely repeating to the Minister facts that have been put before me, and I shall be glad to have any explanation of those facts, and to know whether they represent a definite policy on the part of the Government? It seems to me that what we want from a Fruit Control Board is that it will explore every possible avenue for getting on to the market all the fruit that is worth eating in this country at a price that people can afford to pay. It is no argument to say that we are supplying the canning factories. Fresh fruit has a value of its own, and ought to be supplied to the people. We can deal with our canning factories thereafter. I hope the Minister will give us an explanation of these things, because I feel there are many people who are anxious to know what is going to happen.

When the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture replied to the debate on Thursday, he stated inter alia that as regards the mealie industry, he thought it would be necessary that the price should be higher this year than last year. When I heard that, I immediately became perturbed, because when we think of last year’s price, we find it was only 8s. 6d. or 9s. per bag. Now the Minister says the prices should be better than those of last year. I think the mealie farmers have the right to be disturbed about that statement of the Minister. Unfortunately the Minister is so secretive about the matter. We meet here in Parliament to discuss national matters, and to look after the interests of the different sections of the people. But the Minister acts in a mysterious manner. I am afraid the whole attitude of the Minister inclines one to uneasiness. As long as Parliament is sitting, he envelops himself in secrecy, but once we disperse, I am afraid we shall learn from the papers on a certain day that the Mealie Control Board—that is the Minister in the last resort—has decided that the price of mealies will be so much and so much. Probably the Minister argues that if he waits until then, there would be no appeals here in the Assembly for better and more reasonable prices. Last year the mealie crop amounted to more or less 22,000,000 bags, and this year it will not be more than 14,000,000 or 15,000,000 bags. We producers consume about 10,000,000 bags. Therefore only about 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 bags will be marketed this year, as against 12,000,000 last year. And then the Minister comes along and says: “The price should be better than last year.” I should just like to give the Minister the assurance that if he is unable to give the farmers a very reasonable and living price, and we have to go from here without having had the opportunity and the right of discussing and arguing the matter out fully, protests will be made outside from one end of the country to the other. We have had the experience in the past, that the Minister is afraid that he might be giving the farmers a penny too much. He gives them as little as possible, and if protest is made, he says: “We shall give the farmer another 6d. or 1s.” What is the result? That the consumers then think the Government is once again pampering and supporting the farmers. For instance, take what happened with regard to the wheat industry. There we also protested and said that the price of £1 6s. 9d. was too low. So the Government came along and said they thought the wheat farmers should get 1s. more. What was the result? The consumers said the farmers were again getting 1s. per bag more for their wheat. Actually that 1s. came out of the wheat farmers’ own funds. The principle is quite wrong. The Minister now says he is unable to say what the price of mealies is going to be this year. But he has explained that the wheat farmers will get £1 10s. 6d. The wheat has not yet been sowed even, but there the Minister is able to fix a price. We are nearly able to estimate the mealie crop, but here the Minister is unable to say what the price is going to be. It is very unfair, and I ask the Minister to make a statement before we disperse—let him do so today if he can. There is worry in the country. We may have a shortage of mealies, a serious shortage. Now I should like to suggest something, which will automatically render unnecessary the rationing of mealies which is being contemplated, and that is that the Minister should fix a fairly high and reasonable price. Then mealies will not be used for every trivial thing, and then those who do not really need mealies, will not buy. In this way the mealies will be used rs economically as possible and no rationing will be necessary. Then there is something else about which the Minister is mysterious. In the past we had reached a policy according to which 1s. 6d. more would be given to the small farmer than to the large farmer. I do not think the Minister should deviate from that principle, and I should be glad to learn from the Minister what he intends doing in this connection. As regards potatoes, I think the Minister was a little too hasty in fixing the price, and I must say that I think the Minister and his Department are quite on the wrong road there. We notice that from December or January there has almost been an over-production of potatoes. Every morning you find thousands of bags of potatoes left on the market. Why should there be a fixed maximum price with regard to a commodity of which there is an over-production? My experience has been that there is no commodity of which you can more easily have over-production than potatoes. Large convoys arrived which took large quantities of potatoes, and the prices were quite high, and we shall, if things go on like this, soon have a very large overproduction of potatoes. The price of potatoes meanwhile has fallen considerably, after the Government fixed the maximum price, and the producer is not protected. Let the best class of potatoes obtain 30s. That is a class of potatoes which is bought by people who can afford to pay, but do not control a commodity in this manner. The Government interfered too soon. There is one more point I should like to refer to, and that is the destruction being caused by the commando worm. It is a good act of the Government to make seed available, but I am afraid the administration in connection with that is again going to be very slow. Last week I had an interview with the Department and they told me that the magistrates will be notified of all the particulars. On Friday I telegraphed to the people in my constituency that they should consult the magistrate and obtain all particulars there. On Saturday they wired me that the Magistrate there knew nothing about it as yet. If you want to tackle the matter in a practical manner, consult the representatives in Parliament. Come to me as a member and say to me: “Look, we intend doing this, what do you think, how much seed will be required in your district?” Then we will give our co-operation and support. I shall immediately make the seed available at the depots it can establish, and make available a quantity of wheat and rye and oats at the co-operative depot in Klerksdop and elsewhere, so that applications may be dealt with without delay. If a man comes to apply in the morning, he should be able to get the stuff in the afternoon. Particularly in the parts where you have no winter rains, you have to sow very soon when a slight rain has fallen. If we want to sow for pasture, rye or wheat, it should be put into the ground very quickly. I am afraid the administration is going to be too cumbersome and we shall lose weeks through that. If there is too much seed at the depots, it could under existing circumstances easily be disposed of again. It is very important that you should get your seed in early when you are able to prepare your field properly. Our area will not be benefited by it if we should sow our seed for pasturage only in May, or even late in April. Be practical. Cut out the red tape. Then we shall be able to produce. Then I also feel there is something wrong with the subsidy of £1 in connection with fertilizer. If I understand the matter rightly, it is only granted to those who buy their fertilizer for cash.

No.

I understood so. Can you get the subsidy of £1 even if you buy from a company on credit?

The company has to wait until it receives payment. If the man can show his receipt, he receives the subsidy.

I wish to add my plea to the Minister on behalf of our assistant stock inspectors. The Minister will know of the responsible work that these men have to do and the difficulty there is in getting suitable men. We are dependent on them for keeping in check East Coast fever in Natal, but the pay which these men receive—£17 to £20 per month—is really out of all proportion—it would not be an excessive rate of pay if they had anything else to meet out of it but out of that pay they have to supply their own transport, and that reduces what they are able to use for their families and themselves to a very small amount. I know that at the present time the areas which these men have to cover are doubled in comparison with what they had to do previous to the war; they not only have to keep a horse but the majority have to keep a motor car. I know that many in my area have to do as much as 400 miles per month by car, and out of their meagre pay they have to pay for petrol and expenses so that their families and they themselves have to suffer severely. I have had letters from some of the wives who write without the knowledge of their husbands, because the husbands are afraid to complain as they may be penalised. I have the case of a woman who has six or seven children, and she says she is unable to send her children to school because she has no boots for them, and their clothes are in such a bad condition that the children are ashamed to go to school and mix with other children. It is a scandalous state of affairs and it is high time the Minister enquired into the whole position of these stock inspectors. They should at least get an allowance for their transport. It is quite unfair to expect them to pay for their own transport out of the small salary they get, and that is one of the reasons why good men will not take these positions. I know that many of these stock inspectors have not remained for more than a month—they found that they could not live on the wage which the Government allowed them for this important work. I hope the Minister will enquire into this matter and also, if possible, make the position of these men easier because it is not only the men but their wives and children who are suffering, and if one remembers that members of this House have all expressed the view that unskilled labourers should be paid at least 10s. per day—that is for unskilled work— here you have skilled men, competent men, doing very responsible work, getting a wage which is hardly more than that which hon. members want unskilled labourers to get, and out of that wage they have to pay for their own transport. I hope the Minister will try and do something, because unless something is done we as farmers are going to suffer through not having the right type of stock inspector to control these dangerous diseases which we have to face. Now the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) was not able to finish his representations in regard to margarine and the danger this may be to the dairy industry. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) has been urging that the farmers of this country should produce more protective foods, in the way of milk, butter, cheese and dairy products of that kind. She implores us to do more in the way of producing these foods, and now she comes forward with a plea asking the Minister to licence margarine factories which are going to be a distinct danger to the dairy industry. On the other hand she wants us to produce more and on the other hand she asks for an industry which may result in many of those who are producing those products going out of business. You cannot have it both ways, and I feel sure that the Minister who knows the position will not consider, will not agree to any request for further margarine factories in this country. The Dairy Industry Control Board has set its face against margarine being used in substitution for butter, and if, as the hon. member for Jeppe has requested— and I believe there are other town representatives in the House as well who would like to see this industry encouraged and expanded at the expense of the dairying industry—if these requests are complied with they are going to do themselves and their people harm by decreasing the quantity of those protective foods which they want so much. That applies to a large extent to the production of milk. If margarine is going to be produced in large quantities you will not have the number of dairy cows bred in this country, you will not have men producing milk near the large cities and also your production of butter and cheese will go down without doubt. Margarine can take the place of butter. You have to choose between margarine factories or an enlarged dairying industry.

I should like to support sincerely the appeal of the hon. member for Western Cape (Mrs. Ballinger) in connection with the distribution of fresh fruit. We have on previous occasions already drawn the attention of the House to the irregularities prevailing in connection with the distribution of fruit. It is simply scandalous—I cannot use any other word. The hon. member has referred to oranges that have been buried. I may tell you that in my area tons of it have been buried under the trees, and the people in the cities have been able to obtain oranges only at exorbitant prices. I do not know what the Government intends doing in that connection, or does the Government propose to leave the matter to the New Order, when it comes into power, to rectify the irregularities? We shall do so. I am glad the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock), is in his seat. He made an appeal a few days ago for the restriction of the price of food, and he referred to the convoys calling on here, and which are being treated shabbily. Because the convoys have been harshly treated, the hon. member has woken up. We are grateful that he has at last risen to say that a stop should be put to irregularities. If the war has done something, then at least it has opened the eyes of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), and a number of other hon. members. Those irregularities have not just recently arisen, but have been in existence for years. For years the middleman has been exploiting his position, the agents and the companies have been exploiting the consumer and the producer. The farmers cannot secure prices for their produce, for their labour. I am grateful that the hon. member now has become an advocate of putting a stop to the irregularities. The farmers have never yet received their rightful share, and have always been exploited. If you go to the Cape Town Market, you find that the entire market is in the hands of Malays and hawkers. They buy the stuff from the farmers at low prices, and sell it at exorbitant prices. I hope the Minister will put a stop to that position. If there is one section of the people that requires protection, it is the farming community. Appeals have been made for the determination of a price for mealies, and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has stated that it should be £1 per bag, while other hon. members are satisfied with 15s. I would say that if the Government fixes the price at 15s., the poorer classes of the population will have to be protected, and a subsidy will have to be paid, so that the poor man could obtain food cheaply. I am in favour of the farmer receiving a reasonable price, but the poor man cannot afford to pay £1 or more for mealie meal. There are many poor people in our country who do not eat cheese and jam and bread like the criminals of Tokai, but they have to eat mealie meal. I am sorry the hon. member for Western Cape is not here, because I should like to give her the assurance that in Potgietersrust and in those parts there are many poor people who eat mealie meal and a little unsweetened coffee. That is all they get. If the Government helps the farmers, it should also pay a subsidy to protect the poor man. In reply to a question asked by me, the Minister replied that my area is not dependent on the use of tractors. The trouble is that we have had a terrible drought, and after this almost unprecedented drought, the commando worm turned up and devoured what remained. The difficulty the farmers have to cope with is that they have to pay their debts to the oil companies. Or let me say it is one of their difficulties. I do not know where the Minister got the information that in our district we are not dependent on tractors. You hardly find a single farmer there who does not possess a tractor. They are only able to have a crop by farming on modern lines. They have to sow quickly once a slight rain has fallen. Now they have to obtain oil. I know the Government is obliging and extends credit as regards debts to the Land Bank and in terms of the Farmers’ Relief Act, but the trouble is that the oil companies want payment. The Minister of Finance will say he has no jurisdiction in the matter, but the Government could address a request to the oil companies not to be in too much of a hurry, and not to take steps against the farmers in the circumstances. I should like to read a letter from the Agricultural Societies at Potgietersrust, as follows—

That is all. They ask the Government to request the oil companies kindly not to take steps, but give the people a reasonable chance to recover. I do not want to describe the seriousness of the position. It is grave and gloomy. The people have virtually not had crops, because the rains came late and the commando worm has devoured almost everything. I hope the hon. the Minister will request the oil companies to grant extension of credit.

I should like to bring a few things to the notice of the Minister, but I first want to say that I am sorry, but I cannot agree with what the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis) said, namely, that the Government should allow the territories bordering on the Union to import cattle into our country. I want to repeat that we cannot allow the other territories to send more than their quota of cattle to our country. I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the present position relating to the meat trade. The hon. member for Potgietersrust (Rev. S. W. Naudé) spoke here of exploitation and of hawkers. I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture has been appointed as Food Controller, and I hope that he will carry out his duties as well as is possible in the circumstances, but I cannot agree that the Minister should now act as hawker. I understand that the Minister has now appointed buyers of beef at the various markets. Perhaps the Minister was driven to it by the large companies, but I am disappointed at the step taken by the Minister. I think that it is wrong. I do not believe that he will attain success in this way. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister asked that the farmers should produce as much as they can, but we cannot produce 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. more. It is impossible. Now buyers have been appointed by the Government to purchase oxen in the Cape Town market and at other places, also in the Johannesburg market. I think in all seriousness that this is an unwise step. Why did the Minister not consult the Meat Control Board? I cannot understand it. Now a military board or something of that nature has been appointed, and the Government is now assuming the role of meat buyer. I understand that the head of the Marketing Board is one of the buyers, and I cannot understand how the Government can use these officials to buy meat. I know that the Minister means well, but I am convinced that he is committing a blunder. And why does he not use the Meat Control Board? I know that scandals took place, especially in connection with supplies to convoys. I understand that payment was made for 100 per cent. and that only 75 per cent. was supplied; I know that ships left here and that they did not get meat, and in Durban they could get meat. Of course, these are the same people, whether you buy in Durban or in Cape Town. You go from the frying-pan into the fire. I think that the Government ought to exercise control over the wholesale butchers. There is some talk that the Government wants to fix the price of meat. I do not know how the Minister proposes to do that, but let the wholesale butchers slaughter the cattle pro rata which the Government requires. The Imperial controls everything in Cape Town today, for example. They do what they please. I think that they have 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of the meat trade of Cape Town in their hands. I suggest that the Government should take the various grades of meat, first, second and third grade, on a pro rata basis from the wholesale butchers, and that they should deliver the meat at the same price as they pay for the unslaughtered oxen, and then they can keep the hide and offal. I think the butchery companies will do that. Steps must then be taken to see to it that the farmers do not receive too little for their cattle. Our farmers must no longer be exploited. But I appreciate the difficulty. If the Government buys, say, 100 oxen and there are 20 which the ships do not take, what will the Government then do with the meat? The Minister has two people in his department, namely, Mr. Wentzel and Mr. McLachlan, who ought to see to it that the farmers do not receive too little. Mr. Wentzel is a person who was on the cold storages for many years; he is a person who is on the Dairy Board today. I want to tell the Minister that we are not simply cutting off the ordinary channel which we have. The Mealie Board is in quite a different position. Mealies have a grade, while meat has no grade. If you buy 100 oxen, the best man in the Government service cannot tell me what grade that meat will be. It will only be guess work. I say again that every wholesale butcher ought to get a share of that contract. Let everyone get his pro rata share; give them the share which they should have. I also want to bring to the notice of the Minister the fact that the permit system is greatly abused. A farmer asks for a permit for 10 or 20 oxen, for example; it comes on the market, and then one finds that it is stuff which the butchers cannot use at all. Steps must be taken to see that when a farmer asks for a permit for 10 or 20 oxen he is in a position to deliver the stuff. Reference was made here to the fixation of the price of hides. I am not opposed to the price being fixed, but why must a price be fixed on such a low basis so that we can provide the soldiers with shoes at a Cheap price? And then there is another question which I also want to touch upon. As a result of the drought there will be considerably fewer calves this year. I want to tell the Minister that I am of opinion that he should not allow young cows to be slaughtered. The same applies with regard to sheep. There is a great shortage of mutton today. The main reason for that is, of course, the drought in the first instance, but … [Time limit.]

It is not my intention to delay the House very long. I feel, nevertheless, that there are a few matters which I should very much like to bring to the notice of the Minister before his vote is disposed of. In the first place, it has come to my notice that there is some talk of giving the Wheat Control Board control over the oats and barley industry. I want to ask the Minister seriously to be good enough not to do that. As a result of the policy which is followed by the Board of Control, we have the position in this country today that the wheat industry has gradually fallen to the present level, where it has not stood for a long time. I want to ask the Minister to give his serious attention to this matter. For many years we met with failure in the sphere of oats. Last year we had a particularly good oat crop, and as a result of it the farmers may possibly go in for oats to a considerable extent during the forthcoming year, but if the industry is placed under the Control Board it will not happen. As things are today there is so much prejudice against the Board of Control that it will not happen. The farmers will go in for the production of oats on a very small scale. It is true that the price of oats has risen considerably during the past few years, and the farmers did better than they have ever done before. But it is mainly due to the drought in the interior that the price of oats increased. Let me draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that at the congress which was held at Stellenbosch last year, a resolution was passed in which the Minister was requested not to place oats and barley under the Board of Control. If it is placed under the control of this Board the Minister will hit that industry as hard as the wheat industry was hit by the Board of Control. The farmers will simply not produce oats and barley. I also regard it as my duty to thank the Minister heartily for the extra £1 which the farmers are allowed on artificial manure. It will be a considerable help to those sorely afflicted areas. But I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the majority of farmers have already ordered their artificial manure. There was some talk that they would not get more than three-quarters of what they require. In fact, they were advised by the factories that if they did not take as much as they could get they would not be able to get their full supplies later during the season. If people who buy artificial manure after the 1st April receive this £1 and the other people who have already got their artificial manure are not going to get it, the Minister will not achieve his purpose. If it becomes known that the farmers will not get this £1, they will simply give three bags of artificial manure where they would otherwise have given four bags. I should like the hon. Minister to take into consideration that it will be in the best interests of the industry seriously to bear in mind these few matters which I have mentioned, and to act in accordance with these suggestions.

I would like to associate myself with a few previous speakers in regard to the price of mealies. We trust that since the Minister has fixed the price of wheat ten months in advance, he will tell us what price will be fixed in respect of mealies. Earlier speakers discussed the price of mealies, and I want to say in all honesty, that I do not see how the mealie farmer can make ends meet on less than 15s. per bag this year. Labour costs have risen considerably, farming implements are so much more expensive, and everything is more expensive as a result of the war, and for that reason I think the farmer is fully entitled to ask for 15s. per bag, and if the Minister does not meet the mealie farmer in this connection, I am afraid that there will be bitter dissatisfaction in the country. Earlier speakers asked that the Minister should see to it that the supplementary payment is not taken away, especially in the case of small farmers. If the price is fixed at 15s., then the small farmer will need the 1s. 6d. per bag all the more. I want to plead with the Minister to meet the Mealie Board in this respect, even though it be with £500,000, so as to enable them again to give that supplementary payment to the small mealie farmers. When we came here in January, when Parliament was opened, the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) and I approached the Secretary for Agriculture, and we discussed this question of a seed wheat scheme with him. The Minister might later say that I do nothing else but plead for seed wheat for the farmers. But conditions are such that we feel called upon to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister. We are glad that the Minister took heed of this, and that such a scheme was introduced. I pointed out the necessity of introducing such a scheme as soon as possible. As the Minister probably knows, the best time to sow is from the 15th March to the 20th April. Unfortunately I again had to go to the Secretary for Agriculture with a letter today. It seems to me that there are still magistrates today who do not know precisely how the scheme works. The one magistrate wants to drive back a farmer from a wheat area to a cattle area. I hope the hon. Minister will see to it that the magistrates are properly informed with regard to this scheme. The farmers suffered very heavily. I asked the Secretary for Agriculture whether it was not possible to assist these people in getting seed for fodder. I showed a letter to the Secretary, in which it is stated that the commando worm destroyed everything on a farm of 2,700 morgen; and, since the farmer has no grass on his farm, I am glad that the Minister immediately heeded my representations not only in respect of my constituency, but in respect of all the areas afflicted by the worms. Now, I want to ask that the matter be tackled immediately, because it will be of no use at all if farmers have to sow fodder for their stock later than the 15th April. And now I want to ask the Minister to regard this matter as serious and urgent. If the Minister does not do that I am afraid that the time for fodder seed will also pass. I seriously hope that the Minister will give his attention to this matter.

I should like to bring a few matters to the notice of the Minister in connection with markets. The Minister will notice from the report of the commission that approximately 195 people gave evidence before the commission. What I want to ask the Minister is to see to it that the law is so amended as to give the Municipalities the powers proposed in this report. I just want to bring to the notice of the Minister my personal experience in order to show him what goes on in the markets, and how mistakes are made to the prejudice of the buyers and to the advantage of the speculators. On the 4th September, I had four pigs driven on to the scale at Pretoria. According to the scale, these four pigs weighed 470 lbs. Then I went to the scale myself, and I called another person to get on to the scale with me. We found that we weighed nothing. Then I sent for Mr. Kotze, who was responsible for the scale. He fiddled with the scale, and thereafter we again drove the four pigs on to the scale. Then the four pigs weighed 740 lbs., a difference of 270 lbs. That difference in weight makes a difference of £6 in the price of the four pigs, and if the 15 pigs had been weighed on this scale it would have meant a loss of £24. I then saw to it that the scale was changed. But supposing I had not been there? Then all the buyers that morning would have suffered a great loss. I mention this case merely to show the Minister that we are not talking without good reason. I hope this will persuade the Minister to comply with my request. I have pleaded for this thing for years. I have already referred to it as a scandalous position, and I still call it a scandal. Then there is also another matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, and ask him whether he will not raise the matter with his colleagues? In my district the Loskop Canal is almost completed. The money is on the Budget, but it would seem, according to information which I have received, that the canal will not be completed. The lands are ready, and everything is in order, and the farmers would like to sow wheat this year, but it seems that the canal will not be completed this year. I shall be glad if the Minister will discuss this matter with his colleague, the Minister of Irrigation.

I am aware that it was the intention to dispose of my vote this afternoon, and for that reason I want to reply as shortly as possible to the various questions which hon. members have put to me. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) spoke of labour in connection with production, and also of tractors. With regard to labour, I know that the farmers are experiencing a shortage of labour. With regard to natives, it is of course largely the duty of my colleague, the Minister of Native Affairs, to assist the farmers in getting native labour, but I realise that if I want total production I shall have to assist and perhaps plead with him, and make plans so that the labour forces which we have can go as far as possible. With regard to tractors, we have already made enquiries, and it is my intention to borrow or to take over as many as possible of the tractors which are to be found in the country, in order to enable us to assist if possible with tractors. The question of prices which the farmer has to pay will not, I think, be insurmountable. The hon. member also spoke of closing the border district at Swaziland. I know what the position is, but the hon. member knows as well as I do that wire is almost unobtainable. The hon. member points to me with his finger. But I have already ascertained from a colleague of mine that he requires the wire of which the hon. member talks. We can see what we can do when the war is over. In that respect I cannot meet the hon. member, unfortunately. He also told me that the farmers would not produce if we did not provide them with labour, but I hope that the hon. member will contribute his share. I know that he has many labourers, and I expect that he will be able to contribute a fair share of the products which we require. I am sorry that I cannot tell the House today what the price of mealies will be. We cannot estimate what our mealie yield will be, but I realise that the price of mealies will have to be higher. I realise that that will have to be done if we want to safeguard our mealie production. We always asked the farmers to send their mealies to the market, but our first duty is to provide food for the people, and our second duty is to provide food for the animals. I realise that the better the price is, the more goods farmers will send to the market. Our estimates are very vague, however, and I think that I shall perhaps be in a position to tell hon. members, before the end of the session, at what price mealies will be fixed. I shall do so as soon as I come to a decision. I hope, therefore, that hon. members will leave the question at that for the moment. I appreciate the attitude of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in regard to the question of vegetables. The only thing we can do in that respect is to buy when vegetables are plentiful. We have no place, or rather we have very little place, to put the goods in cold storages, but we are now engaged in a plan to can vegetables, and this plan promises every success. As the hon. member apparently knows, our canning factories are working as hard as they can, to can vegetables. Tin is very scarce, and that, of course, creates difficulties. The hon. member tells me, and I accept it, that I should not interfere unduly, unless it is necessary, with normal circumstances. But just a moment later he says that it will be necessary to fix a quota in regard to the quantity of potatoes to be planted. The hon. member therefore realises that it will be necessary for the Government to intervene. I personally believe that the less the Government or anyone else intervenes in business or farming, the better it is in general. He asks me whether I will assist, insofar as the companies are concerned, to send the cans direct. That is a matter for the hon. the Minister of Commerce and Industries. I am prepared to send a circular to the companies and to ask them to give the farmers a certain amount of preference in refilling their cans. Then the hon. member also spoke of mixed meal. I have already stated here that the Mealie Board made a mistake, and I immediately rectified the matter. We immediately amended the proclamation, and I trust that we can leave it at that. With regard to the commando worm, I understand that the worms which there are now, do not show the “V” in such a pronounced way on their heads.

We have it here; we can show it to you. It has the “V” on its head.

I can assure the House that the department of the day is actively engaged in advising the farmers what they should do. We are still making experiments. The hon. member knows that when he was still Minister of Lands, we made serious efforts to combat the plague. The one powder which we used is not available at all today, but the department advised the farmers what to do. I am glad to be able to say that my information is that they are of opinion that the plague is over, and that the farmers need not fear for their winter crops. I cannot say much more about the price of potatoes. The hon. member said just now that there is already an abundance of potatoes on the market today. If that is the case, where a maximum price was fixed, how much more will it not be the case if a minimum price is fixed? They realise now how dangerous it is to fix a minimum price.

Do not fix a maximum price, then. Why is a maximum price fixed, and then the Government is afraid to fix a minimum price?

It may happen that we take away the maximum price, but I can only say this, that I think that by buying when there is plenty, and by storing it as long as you can, in order to supply the ships, we will probably keep the price as stable as it can possibly be kept; but we know that during the last 20 years we could not keep the price stable. With regard to the remark of the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) concerning the price of hides, I want to remind him that during the first eighteen months of the war we were left with the hides on our hands. We could not export our hides.

Why not?

Because there was no shipping space.

But you said that they would lie and rot if we did not take part in the war.

If we had remained neutral, we would not have got a price at all. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Fullard) said that the British Government heard how cheap hides were here, and then it ordered 1,000,000 pairs of shoes from us. It is just the opposite. We received the order, and then we had to fix the price of hides, so that we could be in a position to continue carrying out such contracts.

The farmers will not thank you for it.

The hon. member for Hoopstad also spoke of vaccine. I can tell him that not a penny profit is made on vaccine. It is sold at cost price or below cost price. I also want to remind him of the fact that a few years ago vaccine for horses cost from £2 to £3, and we are now selling it at 5s. In any case, I shall talk to my department about the matter, and we can again go into it; especially with regard to horses, we will probably require more horses in the future with which to do our work. I do not believe, however, that the farmers can have much to complain about with regard to the price of vaccine. It is cheap, and it is sold at cost price, and even below cost price. I want to say this to the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis) that I cannot plead guilty with my hand on my heart. Wherever we have been in a position to do so, we have always helped people up to the present in droughtstricken areas. Districts have been declared drought-stricken districts. In the second place, in the past mealies were given, because that is the only fodder, which, up to the present, could be used successfully by the farmers in those circumstances. This year there was a shortage of mealies however. We received representations from Vryburg, and I informed those people, and also the hon. member, that there was a shortage of mealies, so that we really could not provide them with cheap mealies in order to feed cattle.

What about lucerne?

We made enquiries about that, but I think that the farmers, generally speaking, will agree with me that it is barely an economic proposition to convey lucerne for hundreds of miles in order to keep cattle alive. I do not think that it is, and I think that the farmers will agree with me. In any case, lucerne was not available on a large scale.

†The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) spoke about food control. I am sorry the hon. member is not here now, but I only want to say that I am not inclined to agree with him that rationing is almost the only way of dealing with the position. Fortunately our country is largely self-sufficient. That is the difference between us and other countries, between us and England, for instance; and I hope that we shall be able to carry out a measure of control in this country without going in for a very definite rationing scheme. I should like hon. members to remember, however, that we have got here not only one class of people, as they have in other countries, where rationing is carried out. We have to deal here with Europeans, coloureds and natives. It is a far greater question and a far more difficult question here, but if rationing becomes necessary we shall carry it out. Let me take butter as an example. Last year butter was getting scarce, and we did introduce a mild rationing of butter, with quite a large saving, by merely rationing through the different distributors. Now the hon. member has also spoken of tea, and so has the hon. member for Cape, Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). Again I am sorry to say I am not guilty. Here is the man you should speak to, the Minister of Commerce and Industries.

Do you think he should be shot?

I am not going to assist in a Cabinet crisis, but possibly it will be necessary for him to hand over to me. I don’t know but at this stage we have not yet taken control of tea, and I don’t want to say anything about this rationing of tea. The hon. member for Cape (Eastern) also asked me to make a statement on long term food control policy. I am sorry I cannot oblige just yet. I have just taken on the job, and we are busy as hard as we can to find out where we are.

I did not say that.

If I misunderstood her, and her question was about the policy of the distribution of fruit, I want to tell her that we have a Committee going into this matter at present, and I am expecting their report every day.

What about instructions?

I do want to tell the hon. member that I agree that we should get as much fruit for the people as possible —that it should not be luxury fruit at luxury prices, but ordinary, good fruit at ordinary prices. I agree there, and I have told the Fruit Board that if they insist on a policy of going in for export fruit only, or if they still want to try and run their business on that basis, they will find that they will not get the support from the Government which they have had till now. That is one of the points in the terms of reference of the Committee which is investigating the matter. I can only tell the hon. member that this report of the Committee, which I regard as a capable body, will have our earnest attention. I can also tell her that I am just as dissatisfied as she is with certain conditions, but, as far as the Citrus Board is concerned, I do want to say that they brought their fruit to the people in a fairly satisfactory manner last season.

It was not very economic.

It may be, but it was the first season they did it, and they gave a large quantity of fruit for distribution through the Department of Social Welfare direct to the poorer classes.

†*The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Jan Wilkens) raised the question of the price of mealies—I have already dealt with that. I only want to tell him that I shall again go into the question of supplying seed. He is quite right, that if the seed is not supplied soon it will be too late. The instruction in regard to the £25 was posted to the magistrate on Saturday, but we shall try to see to it that the farmers are assisted as soon as possible. If they don’t get their seed before the 15th April in those parts of the Western Transvaal which the hon. member spoke about, it will be of no use to them. The hon. member opposite said that I should make representations to the companies in regard to the carrying out of the contracts. I want to tell him that the whole question of beans is receiving attention at the moment. I do not know whether it will be possible under existing circumstances to interfere.

†I don’t want to mix myself up in the fight between the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) and the two hon. members, who were at one time, or are still very much interested in the Dairy Board, but I do want to say that, having heard them, I am still doing what I promised the hon. member for Jeppe, and that is to assist in establishing a margarine factory here. This factory has, in the first instance, a scheme to export its margarine, but I would like to have this factory here. It is a factory that will produce an edible substance, and an edible substance of considerable value. Their request to me is to allow the registration of such a factory, so that they may supply convoys, and may be able to export.

Why only export?

That is what they are asking me to do. I propose, if they can come up to scratch, to assume the right at any time to take as much margarine for internal consumption as necessary. It is definitely an edible article which is not the case with the product of the margarine factory which exists here in Cape Town today. In so far I want to support the hon. member for Jeppe.

†*In regard to the remarks by the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. Fullard) that we are now becoming hawkers (smouse) I want to tell him that we have to do things today which we don’t usually do. I listened attentively to what he said and there is a good deal in his remarks. We shall keep a careful eye on this matter and we shall follow the best course to have sufficient meat here and also to see to it that the producers get proper prices. He says that we should not allow young cows and ewes to be slaughtered. That is already having our attention. The hon. member wanted to start discussing the question of Karakul lambs. He need not do so, because that question, too, is already having our attention. Now I want to come back to what the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. LeRoux) said. He said that there was no mention anywhere in the Wool Afreement of our being paid by the British Government in our own currency. I said that there was provision made, and he denied it. If he looks at the notes at the top of the schedule of the list of types he will see that it is stated there—

There is no question of that. I may say that it was an important question with the British Government but they agreed to it. Then the hon. member raised another point, that in terms of the contract it is possible for the wool to be scoured or processed in England, and for the British Government thereupon to sell it abroad, and that our farmers will not share in the profits on that wool if that is done. I raised that point with the British Government, and they said that it was not intended to do so. They do not do it, but if it is done and if scoured wool is exported then the matter can be raised again. I further discussed the matter with the Controller of the British Wool Commission and this is what he has written to me in that connection—

And when the war is over?

Then the agreement is practically also over. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) spoke of the extra 2s. 6d. which the farmers in the Eastern Transvaal get for their seed potatoes. They have an Association there which sees to it that they have a standard article, which continually inspects their potatoes; and for that reason it is necessary to get a higher price for them than for the ordinary seed potatoes by the Department in other ways. We cannot make inspections three or four times every year, it is impossible. The hon. member also said that when we fix prices we should remember that mealies cannot be imported for less than 27s. 6d. per bag. He is talking very high up in the air there. I don’t think he need worry his head about that for the moment. I have already said that we hope to fix prices shortly so that the farmers may know what the position is. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth District (Mr. Hayward) spoke about horse sickness. We have already gone into the question of injecting horses with vaccine, which we have, to see what can be done with them. What he said about cacto blastus has been taken notice of and I shall deal with the matter.

†The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) spoke about subsidising the farmers, and he said it was about time we stopped the subsidy.

I said on condition.

I would remind him that only last year an amount of £1,000,000 was paid in order to subsidise the consumer. I have already told the Committee that many people have not carried out the spirit of the price regulations and many merchants have abused the regulations in order to make extra profits. We are finished with all that, because under this new proclamation, whereby the Maize Board takes control of all the maize, I have every hope that there will be a more uniform price throughout the Union. There will necessarily stil be the question of wholesale and retail prices, and you will have to allow the retailers something for distribution, but apart from that the price should be a fairly reasonable one. The hon. member complained that last year the maize farmers received a subsidy of £500,000.

I think it was the year before.

Neither last year nor the year before was it necessary to pay that.

I believe I have now dealt with all points as believe I have now dealt with all points as briefly as possible. If I should have forgotten an hon. member, he can remind me again.

The Minister will admit that it is essential for the welfare and for the good health of the people and the country to have a sound agricultural industry, and that being a generally admitted fact, it is the duty of this Government as well as of future Governments to take effective steps to place the agricultural industry once and for all on a sound and lasting basis, if not in its entirety, at any rate as far as that object can be achieved. The Minister will admit, and farmers’ representatives will admit, that there is no section of our population which has had to put up with so much humiliation and which has had so many charges and reproaches cast at it as the farming community. We hear it said from time to time that the farming community is always on the Government’s doorstep. The people of the towns often raise a cry and say that they are responsible for the paying of subsidies to farmers, but if these things are said they only go to show that the agricultural industry and the farming community are not on a sound and healthy basis. The fact remains, and it is further proved by this, that the Minister has to apply a number of relief schemes to help the farming community, and that the Government has had to do so repeatedly in the past. All this goes to prove that in spite of the fact that hon. members in this House have declared the farming community to be in a flourishing position, it is very definitely nothing of the kind. First of all let me point to the very unhealthy state of affairs which prevails in regard to the £100,000,000 farm mortgage bonds, the Government’s various relief schemes to help the farmers, and other matters which prove to us how bad the conditions are which prevail and make it necessary for the farmers to be assisted. We have that admission. These relief schemes and these increases of prices are temporary. The root of the evil lies in the over-capitalisation of the farms in the first instance. The second difficulty is that there is no stability and never has been. That is why the farming industry has gone backwards and that is why the farming community has gone backwards. I want to give the Minister and the Government this advice, tackle the problem at its roots. Reduce this mortgage bond burden, the economic pressure which is making the farming community suffer. That is the first thing that should be done. A redemption scheme with Government aid is the first thing that should be undertaken and the second thing is this …

They have not got time for that now because they are making war.

Yes, they are making war, but if the farmers cannot carry on their industry then they cannot carry on their war. We have already been told by the Government that the farmers must be encouraged to produce. If the farmers are to be encouraged to produce then they must first of all be assured of a decent market for their products. If they have no such guarantee then this attempt on the Government’s part to encourage the farmers is no use. This uncertainty and insecurity have existed for years. We must have the markets we require. Secondly, prices have to be fixed at a certain level. Let the Minister fix a minimum price, and if the consumer also has to be protected let him also fix a maximum price, but we must have stability, because with the present state of uncertainty the farmers cannot go ahead, and they will never get rid of their economic difficulties. The farmers are now to be encouraged to produce in spite of the prevailing uncertainty, in spite of the uncertainty in regard to crops, in spite of all the setbacks and all the plagues they have to contend with, and now the Government comes along, but it does not give us any security, it does not assure us to what the position is going to be if we don’t get good crops. The farmers have to take the risk in the purchasing of expensive seed; they have to put up with the high costs of production; they have to buy expensive machinery and fertiliser, and then they can produce. But the farmer is not being told what prices he is going to get on the market. That question is dealt with here and there, but the uncertainty and insecurity remain. Only when that is done will the Government be able to solve the farmers’ troubles—if it can establish stability in regard to prices. If that is done then not only will the position of the farm owner be improved, but the position of the tenant and of the man sowing on shares, of all those people who have to eke out a living under very difficult conditions, will be greatly improved. The solution of all the farmers’ difficulties are embraced in these two matters which I have mentioned. In those two matters are also embraced the removal of all the worry and trouble which the Government is having today and which previous governments have had, and which future governments will also have. If that is done, all this care and worry, so far as the Government is concerned, will be removed. There is a revival today, but that revival is only temporary and it is unstable. This revival is due to the war, and unless steps are taken now to create something permanent, we may expect to fall back into all our troubles of the past. I can tell the Minister that during the time of war he is meeting with difficulties to keep the position of the farmer sound and healthy, but his difficulties are going to become infinitely greater if he does not take immediate steps to avail himself of the present time to create a permanent solution of the farmers’ difficulties. When the war is over, and a time of deflation and depression comes, then I warn the Government that unless it does something it will have a very unsound farming community to contend with. And then we shall again see a condition of affairs where the farmers will have to undergo further humiliations such as they have already undergone, the humiliation of bankruptcy and all the rest of it. It is not to the credit of the Minister, who is an Afrikaans speaking farmer, to behold the way in which the farming community has to struggle along in days like the present. The farmer does not deserve it. The Government should do everything in its power, while it has the opportunity, to help the farmer, and seeing that the Government during this time of war is taking drastic measures, it should also take drastic measures in regard to the farming community to place the industry on a sound basis with a view to the future. This is the time for the Government to take steps so that in future there may be stability in every respect so far as the farming industry is concerned. I want to ask the Minister whether his department could not have used its locust officers to combat the evil of the Commando Worm when I personally brought the whole position to their notice. Surely that organisation of locust officers was available, and the combating of locusts is the same type of work; I want to ask the Minister whether he could not have used that organisation to cope with that plague which has caused such tremendous ravages.

We tried it but it did not work.

The Minister now tells us that it did not work. Is it not possible for the Government, if that plan did not work—the worms have worked hard and have done a lot of damage—to get some other means, some other vaccine to cope with this trouble? The Commando Worm has destroyed everything wherever it has been, and the Minister has again had to come to the assistance of the farmer to supply him with seed, and so on. Those farmers who suffer damage through the ravages of the Commando Worm have gone backwards, so there is another trouble to be dealt with. The Minister must use that organisation, and if locust poison is no use to destroy the Commando Worm then he should try something else., The farmers cannot do all these things themselves; their position is so weak that if they are touched they will fall over. They cannot do what they are told to do in all those radio talks and in the pamphlets which are distributed to them. They cannot afford to incur the expense. As the department has those officials at its disposal it should use them in the emergency conditions which exist. The department should even have used its tractors to plough the necessary furrows to be used for the purpose of trapping the worms. [Time limit.]

I must say that I was surprised to hear the Minister speaking with two voices. He told the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) that he cannot quite complete the boundary line in Swaziland, because he has not got the necessary wire. In spite of that, the Minister is forcing the farmers in Bechuanaland against their will to close up the boundary line. He has ample wire for that.

That wire had already been bought.

I want to warn the Minister that he is forcing the people there to put up their fences with wire which he is supplying, and the boundary line has not even been fixed yet. There is no certainty even as to where the boundary line between the Bechuanaland Protectorate and the Union runs. The Minister is threatening people. I hope he will take note of what I am saying, but I don’t know whether he knows what is going on in connection with the boundary line. I have a sworn statement here from a farmer who is concerned in this matter, in which he clearly states that he has been approached by two officials, one from the Union Administration and one from the Protectorate. He has been told that if he does not fence that boundary line in accordance with the give and take line on the boundary—which has not even determined yet—his cattle will be impounded if they cross the border, and he will be prosecuted. That is all we can deduce from it. In the circumstances I have drawn the Minister’s attention often enough to this matter, and I have pointed out to him that it is unnecessary to have this undefined boundary line fenced. If the Minister is not prepared to take action in the interests of our own farmers, but if he is prepared to act on behalf of the Administration of the Protectorate, then I want to ask him to take some notice of the legal position. He is a lawyer. Why does he want to force this boundary line on the farmers against their will? He says that the boundary line is going to be a permanent one, and he says that it is going to be of such a character that it will affect private rights in connection with the give and take fence. Why does he force this boundary line on to people when it affects their rights, and why does he do so by using threats? I have a sworn statement here that these people have been threatened and forced to do all this. Why is the Minister doing it? As the representative of the farmers there, I consider it my duty to protest strongly against the interference with private rights. It may happen at some future time—it actually has happened—that the real boundary line may go deeper into the Protectorate than has been fixed by the so-called give and take border. If these farmers suffer damages at some future time the Minister must not say that I, as the representative of the farmers there, have not warned the Government. If the Government of the day has to fix the boundary line, then they must not tell me that I have not protested against the interference with the private rights of farmers which is now taking place. I shall leave it at that. I leave it to the sense of justice of the Minister himself, and I warn him of the future consequences, and, on behalf of my constituents I say that we are not responsible for the consequences that will result.

We could not hear the hon. Minister here when he replied to the hon. member for Margarine, I mean the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon), but I understand him to say that he was prepared to allow the manufacture of margarine for export purposes and for the supply of convoys. I know for a fact that in Durban they attempted to procure margarine for shipping during the last 18 months, and have been unable to obtain it because the licence to manufacturers was withdrawn. The whole point is that the manufacture of margarine was in competition with butter, and this did not suit the farmers. I think the biggest mistake the Prime Minister made was in appointing the Minister of Agriculture as Food Controller. He would have been better advised to have left that in the hands of the Minister of Commerce and Industries, I think it would have been in better hands there. I suppose that now manufacturers of margarine will have difficulty in obtaining supplies of tin plate and raw materials. All that could have been overcome by now if there had been no interference with the manufacture. Margarine is necessary because there will be a shortage of butter again. I feel convinced that we shall experience another shortage, as we did last season, and there will be no margarine to fall back upon. Margarine can be manufactured for something like 6d. a lb., which I am sure will be appreciated by the natives and coloured sections of our population, and also by the Indians.

And the poor Europeans.

Yes, and the poor Europeans as well. The Minister probably knows that in European countries the consumption of margarine is 80 per cent. and butter 20 per cent. I believe the nutritive value of margarine is 90 per cent of that of butter. There is therefore no justification whatever for interfering with the manufacture of margarine when so many thousands of people in South Africa are unable to obtain butter. Now it has been stated in this House that it is the distributors who are making profit of our cattle. The Minister knows that there have been innumerable investigations into this question, and he is aware that it is not the distributors who are making the money out of the cattle industry, and I think he should inform the House of the facts. He ought to do that in fairness to the disctributors, who are alleged to be profiteering.

Of course they are.

And why does not the Minister give us the figures?

Everybody knows it.

The Minister knows perfectly well it is not so, the investigations that have taken place in the industry have proved that, and it is up to the Minister to put the House right in that connection. I stated the other day, and I repeat, that the people who are making money out of the industry are the farmers, a few auctioneers and a few speculative farmers, out of supplies to convoys. If we take the figures supplied by the Division if Economics and Markets, it will be seen that on Cape Town market last week the ruling prices were primes 56s. 9d. per 100 lbs., mediums 56s. 6d., compounds 45s 6d. and 40s. 6d. These figures speak for themselves, and show whether the farmers are making any money out of the industry. The farmer is justified in getting what he can for his cattle, but the Minister should put the country right when these accusations are made that the distributors are making huge profits out of the industry. I suggest to the Minister that the correct way to deal with this position is to do away with Government graders at the municipal abattoirs, and agree to a representative of the farmers and a representative of the distributors, two farmers if you like, and they could grade all the cattle in these abattoirs and see that the farmer is satisfied with his prices. They could fix the prices ruling say for a month; you would be able to do away with your graders, the farmers would get a reasonable price, and you would be able, to a certain extent, to control the price to the consumer. I believe that is a sound scheme for bringing about stabilisation in regard to prices, and enable the farmer to get reasonable prices for his stock. No one in this House or outside wants the farmer not to receive a reasonable price for his products.

I think the Minister of Agriculture, like many others, can say “Heaven spare me from my friends,” especially if he listens to what the hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire), has to say. The hon. member contended that the farmers are in a flourishing position, and he spoke of cattle which were sold in Cape Town at 50s. per 100 lbs., that is to say, prime beasts. If the hon. member could make a little calculation he would find that that is a little more than 6½d. per lb. for prime beef, and I am convinced that the consumers in this country would be only too pleased if they could buy good beef at that price. No, it is clear that the middleman makes large profits on the products of the farmer, but I want to leave that point. I want to say a few words to the Minister in regard to the wool scheme. I know that it is stated that the wool scheme has been talked to death by this side of the House, but an unfair agreement remains an unfair agreement, and that is why we are going to continue our agitation. We know now that South Africa has not got a guaranteed price. We only have the type basis and we are dependent on the valuation made by the British Wool Commission. It is perfectly clear that no one can ever value a large clip in such a manner that at the end of the year it will result in returning a certain definite figure. It is a practical impossibility. Nobody can do it. We have no hope of getting near 10¾d. and we know, too, that we are not getting it. We are, as I have said, dependent on the valuation by the British Wool Commission; and now I want to put a question to the Minister, and I do so in all seriousness. I learn that the members of the British Wool Commission themselves are large wool buyers, and that one of the members of the British Wool Commission is a large shareholder in a broker’s firm in Cape Town, and that another member, or members, of the Wool Commission have shares in the wool washing works at Paarl. I want to know from the Minister whether that is so; if it is true, then I feel it is unfair to the wool farmers. We are dealing here with a hard truth, namely, that we are handed over to the mercy of the British Wool Commission which has to value our wool. If the members of that Commission have big personal interests in the low price of our wool, because they themselves are wool buyers and shareholders, then I say that is a scandal of the worst kind. We cannot allow our wool farmers to be exploited in that way. In spite of all that has been said from the Government side, we know now that we have no guarantee, and I feel that the Minister has given great offence to the wool farmers in that regard. Our wool is sold on the same type basis as in Australia, but Australia at the end of the season is compensated for the difference between the type basis and the guaranteed price which is laid down in the agreement made with Austraila. We don’t want compensation. We sell on the type basis which is calculated to produce 10¾d. in respect of the Australian wool, but while Australia has a guarantee that at the end of the season the difference will be made up, we only get the type basis. In that way we do not even get 10¾d. The hon. member for Klipriver (Mr. Friend) told the House that he had got more than 10¾d. for his wool. That, of course, has nothing to do with the matter. We are talking of the average price. I want to know from the Minister whether there is anything in the statement that members of the Wool Commission are personaly interested in this matter? It is a well-known fact that agricultural production costs have gone up tremendously during the war. Prices have been fixed for certain agricultural products and the increase in production costs has been taken into account, but it is only the wool farmer who was stuck with the original price laid down in the wool agreement at the beginning of the war. I want to point out to the Minister that the production costs of the wool farmers have also gone up tremendously. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in large areas of the Union hundreds of morgen are annually ploughed and are put under seed for winter food for sheep. In the parts of the country where I live we plough up to 200, 300 and 400 morgen in a year, solely for the feeding our sheep. Have not our production costs also gone up tremendously? I feel that it is time that we should agitate for a better price for the wool farmer. In terms of paragraph 5 of the wool agreement we are tied, we are slavishly tied, to what happens in Australia. We cannot agitate for a higher price; we have to wait until Australia gets a higher guaranteed price. Only then can we expect a higher price; then we may get some of the crumbs. We may get a little more, and then the price for the types may be raised a little. I feel that the time has come when the Minister, who has to look after the farmers’ interests, should see to it that as the production costs of the wool farmers have also gone up, the sheep farmers must also be considered, and they should get a better price for their wool. There is another point on which I want to say a few words. The Minister knows that we on this side of the House are not opposed to Control Boards. We are opposed to the composition of Control Boards as it is at present. We know the difficulties that existed last year in regard to the fixing of the price of wheat. We also know that one member of the Wheat Control Board, namely, the hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) has resigned. He sat there as the representative of the Cooperative Societies. The day after he had resigned another man was appointed to the Wheat Control Board, and he is a man who for years was a non-operator and a member on the Wheat Control Board as a representative of the non-operators. I want to emphasise that I have nothing against him as an individual, but the principle is wrong. That man has now for a short while been a member of a Co-operative Society for the first time. He is not even a director of a Co-operative Society. He only got a few votes when there was an election for directors of that Co-operative Society a short while ago. He is now being appointed to the Control Board as a representative of the Co-operative Societies, without the Co-operative Societies having been consulted. We cannot refrain from protesting against this. It is a neglect of the interests of Co-operative Societies. We know the important part which Co-operative Societies are playing. We know that more than ever before the future, and the interests of the farmers, depend on co-operation, but if Co-operative Societies are treated with contempt in this way by appointments of representatives to the Control Board, then the Minister is doing very serious damage to the co-operative movement. I should like to know from the Minister what is the reason for it. Why have the Co-operative Societies been ignored in this way? I can assure the Minister that we feel very seriously about this, and I cannot find words strong enough to express our indignation that the Co-operative Societies have been ignored in the way they have been. It is not a question of the individual who has been appointed, but it is a matter of principle. There are many objections to the composition of Control Boards, and here the Minister comes and deprives the Co-operative Societies of the right to recommend the man they want as their representative on the Control Board.

When my time expired, I was saying that we are getting in less sheep from South-West because the farmers there have changed to karakul sheep. Then, if I understood him correctly, the Minister said that I was unfair in my criticism in connection with the buying of oxen by the Government. I dropped the Minister a few hints in a moderate way, and the Minister asked whether I was pleading on behalf of the consumers. I tried to record my opinion in an honest way, and to warn the Minister. Within a short time the Minister will return to this House saying that the Government cannot purchase sheep and cattle. He himself will realise that it is wrong. The Minister asked whether I do not want the farmers to get better prices. I wish to prophesy that, with the Government now acting as buyer, the market will not be as high as it was last year. I only desire that the Minister, as Controller, should see to it that the farmers do not get too little, and that the consumers do not pay too much, and what I did suggest in connection with this matter, I suggested in all modesty. There is something else which I want to suggest in all modesty. I think the Minister should, as Food Controller, have a survey, a census, made of the cattle which the farmers will be able to market for slaughter purposes in the course of the next six months, just as he has a census of mealies. It is calculated beforehand how much mealies the mealie farmer will be able to produce, how much mealies the farmers have on the farms, and how much there is in the silos. I think it will help the Minister a lot if he tries, in connection with cattle as well, to ascertain how much cattle can be marketed in the next six months. You may not be able to ascertain it in advance for 12 months, because a drought or much rain may come, and on that depends how many cattle will be available. The hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) tried to create this impression, namely, that farmers are making a big profit. When cattle fetched 70s. or just over 7d. per lb. on the Durban market, the Durban newspapers announced the next day that the consumers were paying 1s. 9d. per lb. Now, the Durban people would like to know who pockets the difference between 7d. and 1s. 9d. We know that it is the wholesale meat trade, especially the wholesale butchers, that is making the profit, and I therefore ask the Minister to see to it that this does not happen. The Minister replied in connection with the point about tractors which we raised here. I wish to say that the Minister helped the farmers a lot by making tractors available, but the division, the distribution, was not quite right. One farmer got five tractors, and another none. I want to ask the Minister to help small farmers with teams of young oxen. I do not know how much money will be required for it, but unless the small farmers are helped in this way, many of them will not be able to produce. As regards the alleged profits which the farmers are making, I want to point out that the return of Dr. Viljoen— that is to say, of the Department of Agriculture—created an entirely wrong impression last year. He calculated that the farmers’ income had amounted to £43,000,000. By that the townspeople were incited against the farmers, and they then represented it as if the farmers had made a profit of £43,000,000. Naturally that is quite wrong. Just let us examine how the farmers’ profits increased in comparison with that of the mines and the traders. From 1924 till last year, the income of the farming community increased by £5,000,000, whereas that of the mines increased from £40,000,000 to £81,000,000, that of trade and industries from £28,000,000 to £70,000,000. I once again want to urge the Minister to lay down a price for mealies. He says he cannot do so. But he laid down a price for wheat, and we should know what the price will be for the mealies that is now going to be reaped. There is a shortage of mealies, and therefore no difficulty in connection with export mealies.

The Minister should also intimate what the minimum for the next harvest will be. I do not say that the farmers will not produce, but they will certainly not produce as much as possible if they cannot depend on a fair price. Our farmers expect at least 15s., and then £500,000 must be made available as subsidy to the consumers. In the case of wheat, £600,000 was voted for the consumers.

We do not wish to blame the Minister for the drought prevailing in the country, but I think that what we can blame him for is the fact that sheep now have to die, and for this reason, that there has not been a single agricultural congress held in the North during recent years, at which it has not been urged strongly that fodder depots should be established, and the Government has not yet seen its way clear to do so. I should like to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that the sooner the Minister gives his attention to that the better it will be. At the moment there is a frightful drought prevailing in my constituency—in Victoria West, Williston and Carnarvon the drought is unbearable. Cannot the hon. the Minister help us? I would suggest the following remedies: I have already seen the Minister of Native Affairs. There is today a native trust farm which is unoccupied on which the grass is growing luxuriantly, and where it is possible to help the farmer. The Minister of Lands has land available. Help can be given along those lines, and then I should like to ask whether the Minister will see to it that mealies is supplied to those people, because if they lose their stock they lose their all. In the second place I am sorry that our time is so short, and there are such important things to be dealt with. But I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the question of soil erosion. We have lost considerably by the increase of soil erosion in recent years, and I can give the Minister the assurance that grave mistakes have been made. I would ask the Minister whether the Soil Erosion Board—I suppose there is such a Board, but the Board never meets—cannot be convened to see whether any improvements could be made. If the Minister were as acquainted with the matter as we practical farmers, he would realise that enormous sums of money is wasted. The soil erosion scheme should not be an avenue of providing employment; it should be undertaken for the purpose of arresting soil erosion. That is No. 1, and there are many other things that I cannot go into now, but I should like to ask the Minister to call the Board together in order to see whether improvement cannot be made. Then I should like also to bring the problem of the blue bottle to the notice of the Minister. In this connection I should like to know how far the case against Smith has proceeded, and whether the costs will have to come out of the funds of the woolgrowers’ association only, and whether the Government will pay a share of the costs to fight the case, because it seems as if it is going to be a big case. Then I should like to ask how far the department has progressed in remedying the problem. I can give the hon. the Minister the assurance that many farmers in our district despair of farming with merinos. The problem is much graver than the Cabinet realises, because the only Minister who is a practical farmer has told me that if a man loses a sheep through the blue bottles, he is too bad to be called a farmer. That shows that the Cabinet knows nothing at all about the blue bottle problem. Then I should just like to refer for a moment to a matter which has already been raised, that is, the wool question. The hon. member for Klipriver (Mr. Friend) made certain statements here this afternoon. He almost suggested that we only wished to make political capital out of it. If the hon. member for Klipriver had to go through the costly experience we have gone through in the past in regard to the price of wool, from which we are dependent, he would not say that. I have gone out of my way to obtain a statement of my own clips which have been sold in recent years. In January, 1940, my B.M. wool was sold on that open market at an average price of 14.8d. Then in September, 1940, after the scheme became operative, I obtained only 10.8d., and part of that was A.M. wool, which was not in the clip. Eight or nine months subsequent to that I obtained 10.1d., and for the last clip I received 11.1d. Quite a lot of A.M. and A.F. wool was among that. But the Minister can take it as a fact that the average price is 3d. to 4d. per pound less. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. I shall hand that statement over to him and then he can see the details for himself and determine what the position is. The argument of the hon. member for Klipriver that the wool will not improve is quite unfounded. You have to raise the type basis price only in this respect. But we do not obtain the type basis price. Therefore we cannot proceed with the thing if the increase in our costs is so much. What profit is not being made out of the wool? I have here a statement by the correspondent from Bradford I should like to read to the Minister. It reads as follows—

[Inaudible.]

I shall be glad if the hon. member opposite, who knows nothing about wool, will permit us to discuss the position. I wish to appeal to hon. members opposite to let me proceed; I have only ten minutes at my disposal. If the hon. member is so uncivil, do let him remain quiet in the interests of the farmers. When our wool is being sold at a profit of 60 per cent. I ask why should we be satisfied with 30 per cent.? Why can’t the farmer get a reasonable profit? Hon. members opposite said this afternoon, where would we have found an open market? I should like to ask the hon. Minister whether it is not a fact that South Africa last year had to pay £4,000,000 to Japan—her credit balance at the time. If we had to pay that to Japan, why could we not have sold wool to her? Thus far America has already taken 600,000 bales of wool, and we have not yet come to the end of the season. If it is a fact that America has already taken so much, and you had 200,000 bales left over, there was not the slightest danger that we would not know what to do with our wool. If there was the slightest danger that that would have been the position, the Government could still have helped, because we absolutely need the wool here in South Africa. The question of the establishment of their own wool factory by the farmers will be raised at the ensuing congress to be held at East London. The farmers themselves want to lend a hand with the establishment of our own wool factories. [Time limit.]

I did not intend participating at this stage in the debate.

Why don’t you sit down then?

But after the misrepresentation on the part of my hon. friend, the member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) I cannot refrain from refuting his statement. He said that he received 14.8d. for his A.M. lines. That market is guaranteed; the guarantee was that the British Government would take whatever could not be sold in open market. At that time we had the entire world as our market; we had France and even Japan also. At one time they wanted to buy wool on credit. To come here with that story, is creating an impression that is devoid of all truth. I did not wish to go into this matter, but now that I am on my legs, I cannot refrain from referring to the breach of faith that has been committed here by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) when a few days ago he availed himself of confidential information furnished to the Wool Board.

Are all the scandals confidential?

I say it is a scandalous abuse of confidential information.

But it is true?

All the scandals are true.

Those hon. members will have an opportunity to speak on the matter.

It is unfortunate; we have no opportunity.

Now you are off the point; come up again.

You have never been on the point yet. If there is one thing we are proud of, then it is our own sense of what is decent, and I say emphatically that the hon. member has rendered neither himself nor the wool farmers a service by following that course. The Commission appointed to purchase our war supplies and supply it for our war effort, have done wonderful work. The hon. member comes here today and be breaks down what has been done, and he tries to arouse suspicion in the country which is undesirable and unworthy. But I am sorry to say it is just typical of the attitude of that hon. member. In the past, when the hon. member was a member of the United Party and the Farmers’ Group, he went to the Minister while we were discussing confidential matters, and of his own accord gave interviews and information to the papers. I feel so strongly on this point, that I had to raise this matter, and I do hope the hon. member will be so thoroughly ashamed that he will not rise again.

I particularly want to deal with one point in regard to this question of the clean yield. The Minister has told us that he is satisfied with the report. I told him that the farmers were beginning to suspect the position. Let me give him a report of a certain wool farmer. He could not get his wool into a certain lot on the coast. The wool had all been shorn together and the bales had been pressed from one bundle. It was back wool. In the first place the wool was valued at 7d. The body pieces were valued at 7¼d. That same wool a week afterwards—that is the other part which arrived on the market later—was valued at 8d. for body pieces, and the back wool was valued at 3¾d., although it had been valued 7d. before, a difference of 2¼d. for the same wool. That was the same wool—the only difference was that it arrived later on the market. Now I would like the Minister to tell us why that difference should be made, if the valuations are so genuine? That wool was pressed in the same bales and all the wool arrived at the station together, but, unfortunately, owing to railway difficulties, the whole lot did not arrive on the market at the same time. Here we find this great distinction in valuations. The Minister says he is satisfied with the valuation. I want to assure him that the farmers suspect the position, and in future the farmers will take their clips, which you prevented them from doing in the past, and have proper tests made at Onderstepoort. I want to make a request to the hon. the Minister in this regard. We are not satisfied with the valuations. I want to ask the Minister whether be will give the wool farmers an assurance that they will get true valuations in future. There is one further remark I want to make and that is in regard to America. The Minister said that we were not at all sure of our trade with America. I just want to give him the wool report of the Wool Council, in a few words. It is the report for November, 1939—

And now the Minister tells us that we were not at all sure that America would take our wool! That was what the Minister’s whole argument was based on. We are now stuck with this contract which the Minister has entered into; we are stuck with this complicated scheme of the fixing of prices. We now expect the Minister, as he is responsible for this complicated scheme, to see to it that the farmers get full value for their wool.

There is a certain degree of uncertainty among the farmers in regard to the subsidy they have been promised by the Minister of Finance. We want to know whether this subsidy on our fertilisers is going to be in force as from a certain date and whether it is going to apply to all fertilisers used by the farmers during the coming season? We are very anxious to have a little certainty on this point. I am going to say a few things about the operation of the Fruit Control Board and I want to make it clear first of all that I and the farmers I represent are definite supporters of this Control Board. At the same time we want to say that we have not the slightest objection to individual members of this Control Board, but I want to tell the Minister that there is a genuine feeling in my constituency at least, and possibly in other constituencies as well, in regard to the working of the Fruit Board. We have this objection, inter alia, that we are not quite satisfied with the composition of the Fruit Board. The first Board was appointed by the Minister under the Emergency Regulations. We accepted that. The further nomination of members of the Fruit Board was done by the Fruit Exchange; I myself am a member of the Fruit Exchange, and what I am saying here I am saying against myself in a certain sense. The farmers generally prefer that the members of the Fruit Board who have to be elected by the farmers should be elected directly by certain areas and not by the Fruit Exchange. The principal reason for this is that the Fruit Board today does not handle export fruit only, but also handles the local marketing, and also deals with the canning factories and the jam factories, and that the Fruit Exchange only has members who represent export and the farmers who deal with the local market are not represented on the Fruit Exchange; consequently, they have not the opportunity of having any say in the appointment of members on the Fruit Board. That is the general feeling, and I hope the Minister will consider the question of making that change. I say again that we have no objection to any individual member of the Fruit Board, but there is something wrong. I have a letter here from Bloemfontein from a man who has a very thorough knowledge of grapes, and this is what the letter says—

There was an arrangement about 40 lbs. of grapes being packed in a case and those grapes were then sold for social welfare purposes for 3s.—

These grapes arrived on the Monday—

And the man who writes this letter really knows all about grapes. Now there is another question I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, and it is this: that some time ago a truck full of grapes was sent to the inspection offices at the docks, and for some reason or another those grapes which left Paarl on the Friday evening only arrived here on Sunday evening; the inspection only took place on the Monday, with the result that all those grapes were condemned. I unfortunately was one of the victims. I immediately got my grapes back and had them put in the press, but my neighbour insisted that it could not be right; the grapes only arrived there on Sunday and that could not be. The Fruit Board thereupon told him: “Send in a claim.” He did so, and consequently he did not get his grapes back, but the point is this: that the stuff of all the other growers who did not take the trouble, was overlooked, and the Fruit Board did not take the trouble to notify the other growers that they could put in a claim and get compensation. There was a mistake somewhere over which the growers had no control. The farmers feel that they have no protection from the Fruit Board when things like that happen. Now, there is another point. In regard to this matter, I have a reply here from the department. Shortly after the establishment of the Fruit Board certain consignments were sent overseas, to Scandinavia, among other countries. Part of those consignments went bad and were thrown overboard, but, what is worse, part of the consignments intended for Scandinavia was sold in England under some arrangement, but none of the people who sent fruit to Scandinavia, whether it was sold in London or thrown overboard, or sold in Scandinavia, did not get any money for their fruit. In one case the stuff went bad, and in the other case the man who had bought the fruit did not have any money, and the farmers suffered. Where there is a Fruit Board the farmers should at least be able to feel that if A is recommended as an agent they should be protected. We have evidence to prove that a certain firm was recommended by the Fruit Board, and if that man cannot pay, then surely the Fruit Board should be responsible, and it should not simply say that the farmers must lose their money. I have the documentary evidence here, and I can show it to the Minister tomorrow if he wants me to do so. That man has been doing the work for years, but in 1939—’40 he could not pay, and the farmers, whose fruit he handled, had to suffer. We are grateful to the department for paying out an equalising price of round about 9d. per box. The farmers who suffered losses got their 9d., but not the original amount. In other words, for that part of the consignment they only got 9d., and we want to tell the Minister that there is something wrong somewhere, and that the farmers are not getting the proper amount of protection. Now, there is another matter, the stuff sent by that boat was insured, and the amount paid in insurance is pretty high. Something went wrong with the machinery of the boat between Southampton and Norway, with the result that 14,000 cases went bad. [Time limit.]

I want to discuss the question of the Fresh Fruit Board with the Minister. He knows that the K.W.V. is engaged on determining the maximum production a man shall be allowed to have and sell from his vineyard. The Minister knows all the circumstances in connection with this matter; we are dealing with it now. The K.W.V. estimates the largest quantity to be produced according to the capacity of the existing vineyards, and we cannot stop planting. If the people continue to plant they can dry or sell their grapes, but they cannot make wine. The trouble in regard to the carrying out of the Act is that the Fresh Fruit Board also fixes’ a quota under which they pay a subsidy. That quota is fixed on the basis of the export for 1937, 1938, and 1939. Now the trouble arises that the farmer who gets subsidy for export can put in new vines now, and they get a quota on those new vines, whereas the K.W.V. fixes the quota on the existing vines. I want to ask the Minister to assist the wine farmers in this connection by making a statement in this House that the Government will not allow the K.W.V.’s quota system to be used for further expansion of vineyards by the Fruit Board. I understand that the quota is fixed from time to time and also the subsidy to be paid. I therefore want the Minister to make a statement that this matter will not be interfered with. I believe that that is his opinion, judging from what I have been told by the department, but I should like to have some statement. I do not want to criticise the Fruit Board, because I know that their task is a very difficult one. They are dealing with a commodity which has to be sold, and which very quickly goes bad, and they can easily get into trouble. Bad weather increases their difficulties. But it seems that there is something wrong in regard to their attitude. The complaint is that the fruit is good, and when it reaches the market it has become useless and rotten. Hundreds of tons of grapes have been thrown into the sea. Somebody told me yesterday that they had sent 20 tons of pears from Elgin to Jones at Paarl, and when the pears got there they were bad. They started going off at Elgin, so much so that the Railways told the factory that they could not use the stuff. There must be something wrong. There was another instance of a farm at Paarl who had plums which were somewhat small for the market. He rang up the office and asked them what he was to do with them. They told him that he was to pick them and bury them. I have realised for a long time that the people will not stand for foodstuffs being destroyed when there are poor people in the country who get very little or nothing in the way of fruit. If there is such a thing, the Fruit Board should see to it that it is sold cheaply or given away for nothing, because the public are not going to stand for fruit being destroyed in this way. The Fruit Board does not realise that the people who have been dealing with fruit for years have built up a business connection. It seems to me that they want to cut out the agents and the middlemen, and want to go to the factories at once, and that is why we have had 10 lb. boxes of grapes sold here in Cape Town for 1s., while the box and the packing cost the farmer 9d. A coolie takes it from the market to the Parade, where he sells it for 5s. The poor cannot get the fruit. The man who sells to the public makes an abnormal profit and the farmer makes nothing at all. He gets a subsidy and other things, but it is the taxpayer’s money and the taxpayer is not going to stand for this sort of thing, particularly if they know that the stuff is being destroyed. If it is given to the poor, it is regarded as a social service, but if the fruit is destroyed it is going to cause trouble. I again say that I don’t want to criticise, because I realise that theirs is a difficult task. Now I also want to say a few words about the Dried Fruit Board. The Dried Fruit Board has been in operation for three years; they were given powers to exercise control, and every year they admit having made mistakes. They go to the farmers and they say: “Help us to make a success of it for the next year.” It seems that they have again made a mess of the whole business. The farmers who produce sulphurated sultanas considered the Board unnecessary for the exercising of control under their arrangement. They produce those sultanas for the local market and they have been placed outside the control of the Dried Fruit Board. The other day a deputation from those people called on me at Robertson, and they told me that they had to pay £3 per ton to the Control Board. The Control Board does not sell their stuff; they sell it themselves. They fall outside the control and yet they have to pay a contribution for this kind of sultanas. Sulphurated sultanas are a different thing and fetch a much higher price because they easily deteriorate. There is a limited market, and the farmers know that they cannot make much out of it. It does not seem fair to me that those people should be called upon to contribute £3 per ton to the cost of administration as they are not controlled and they have no benefit from the work of the Dried Fruit Board. If they make too many of this kind of sultana the Control Board does not buy them, and the result is that they have no protection. In the circumstances I feel that it is not fair that they should have to contribute. If they have any benefit from the Board let them pay for it, but I personally cannot see any benefit in it. I have been asked by people in my constituency to ask the Minister to meet the farmers in regard to the subsidy on fertiliser. I understand that the subsidy is paid as from the 1st April. I want to tell the Minister that on account of the people in those areas being anxious to get as much fertiliser as possible they bought early. They had a good year and they expect another good year. They have expanded and it is a credit to them that they want to contribute to the country’s food supplies. They were told that they would not be able to get as much fertiliser as last year, that they would only get 70 per cent., so they bought fertiliser and they were compelled to buy before the time, and it is no more than fair that the subsidy should be made retrospective, so that the people who have already bought their fertiliser will also be able to get it. They produce the same commodity as the other people who will get the subsidy. On account of the poor price of wheat those farmers have been going backwards in the bad years. They are in this position today, that they have to buy their fertiliser on credit. They pay when they deliver the wheat. They cannot pay cash. I want to ask the Minister, in spite of these facts, to let the subsidy be paid to them. It need not be given to them, but it can be paid to the merchant so that it can be deducted from their debt. They cannot pay before the crop has been delivered, and circumstances may arise which may make it difficult for them to get it. That is why I feel I am entitled to ask the Minister to give this subsidy, provided the money does not go to the farmer but to the merchant to be deducted from the amount owing for the fertiliser. [Time limit.]

When I was interrupted by the time limit I was endeavouring to prove that certain sections of the farming community were doing quite comfortably well with the present prices they were receiving. The speaker who followed me was not prepared to accept that position, and I therefore now propose to quote the prices of sheep sold in Cape Town during the last week. I quote from the Division of Economics and Markets, figures that justify the remarks that I have made that the farmers are getting more for their products at the present time than they have for many years. These are the sheep prices per lb.: Merinos 9¾d., mediums 8¾d., Cape Persians, prime, 9¾d. These are prices farmers are actually receiving less commission paid to the auctioneer. In addition to that they are getting better prices for their wool than they have for many years. Arguments have been put forward that they might be getting better prices, but that is not the position. I maintain that in wartime farmers should be prepared to accept the same responsibility as other people, and they ought to be satisfied with the good prices they are getting. I agree with the Prime Minister that no one should be allowed to benefit as the result of war, no one should be allowed to enrich himself because the country is at war, but the farmers say “Give us a guaranteed price, ensure us that we are allowed to make double profits, or handsome profits, and we are prepared to see that South Africa has all the food that is necessary.” I say again that is a wrong attitude to adopt. I have advocated, and members of my party have advocated for many years that the Government should institute a thorough enquiry into all activities of agriculture to see if it is not possible to put the industry on a sound basis. The time is fast approaching ‘when the Government should seriously consider placing agriculture in the position of a public utility corporation. It has been done in a number of other instances, and if the country has to be faced year after year with demands from the farming community, then I say something should be done to relieve the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister is now doing half-a-dozen men’s work; indeed, the Minister of Agriculture today has to be almost super-human. It is too much of a job for any man to be faced with. Something should be done which will prevent the farming community year after year coming to this House and making these demands upon the Government. The Minister has now been made food controller, a position which I don’t think should have been loaded on him, because he has far too much to do already. I do hope that he will follow out the suggestion made by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) and get experts around him who will be able to advise him in his very difficult job. The Minister is surrounded by control boards of every description, and I would ask hon. members who are concerned about the cattle industry to make a few enquiries about what has happened to the £760,000 that the poor farmers have contributed to the Meat Control Board by way of a levy of 2s. a head on their cattle. So far, since the Board has come into being, they have contributed £760,000, and if the farming community is still prepared to allow this levy to be imposed upon it, when we are not exporting anything in the way of meat, they should enquire what is done with the money. Why are they continuing to pay this 2s. per head, which is a tremendous amount in the aggregate, each year? These are matters which should be concerning the farmers, particularly the cattle farmers. We are all agreed that the farmer should have a reasonable return for his money, and a reasonable profit, and if they would only take into their confidence the people who understand the marketing of their commodities, they would find that the distributor is not the black sheep that they are always crying out about. The Minister should enlighten the House on this point, and show the House that the distributors of South Africa, so far as farm products are concerned, are not the exploiters of the farming community that they are made out to be. The Minister should do that. There has been quite a lot said today about fruit that is being allowed to rot on the farms. Here again there is something wrong. If the farmers think that by means of boards of control they are going to be any better off I make bold to say they will not be any better off. We have ample proof from members on the Government side that fruit is rotting on the farms, and when it is sent to various markets, after being kept in cold storage, it has had to be absolutely given away. If the farmers think that the mere fact of sending their fruit to market is going to get them better prices they are going to have a sad awakening. A highly specialised business in marketing fruit has been built up by the distributing trade, and you cannot cut that out and merely consign your fruit to the market. We have had hon. members on both sides of the House complaining of goods being sent to market and not receiving enough to pay the rail fare. I know as far as the Durban market is concerned this matter of cutting out the distributor will not answer. [Time limit.]

I want to ask the Minister a question in regard to the amount on the Estimates for the experimental farm in the Malmesbury district, namely, Langgewens, on page 106. I want to point out to the Minister that as all farming requisites, such as fertilisers and so on, have become more expensive, it is very notable that the amount on the Estimates for this experimental farm is getting less and less. For instance, we find that in the year 1939—’40 there was an amount of £3,040 on the Estimates. In 1940—’41 an amount of £2,990, and in 1940—’41 an amount of £2,640. This year there is a small increase, and it has gone up to £2,724. It is not clear to me why the position should be like that. The amount in connection with the experimental farm has come steadily down during the last few years. I would have thought there was every possible reason for increasing the amount. We further find that for equipment, repairs, fuel, light and miscellaneous expenditure, the expenditure was as follows: In 1939—’40 it was £1,000; in 1940—’41 it went down to £940; and in 1941—’42 it further went down to £850. I fail to understand why it is that these amounts to provide for these particular items should have gone down. The expenditure for fertiliser and seed in 1939—’40 was £500. The next year the amount was the same. But in 1941—’42 it went down to £450. This year again it is increased by £100. I cannot understand why this vote on the Estimates is being curtailed, and I should like the Minister to give us some explanation.

I just want to say this to the hon. member, that I have not got the Estimates for the years 1939 and 1940 before me, but there is no reduction in the work that is being done there. If I had had notice of this question I would have been in the position to give him more information. I can only tell him that the work is not being reduced, and that this is all those people have asked for: This is all the head of the division and the people at Malmesbury have asked for. So far as I know, we have given them what they have asked for. The hon. member will realise that I am not able immediately to give all details on every particular item.

Then I want to draw the Minister’s attention to this, that according to the estimated revenue for the year 1939—’40, the amount was placed at £1,760. The next year it was less. Last year it was £1,350, and for this year it has been put at £1,250. I only want to show that even the revenue of this experimental farm has come down during the last few years. The Minister will pardon me if I come to the conclusion that the reason is that growing wheat generally is not a paying proposition, and in order not to make the Josses any bigger, they have to curtail their production. These are facts which I am stating here. I don’t look for profits on an experimental farm, and my remarks here must not be constituted as an attack on Langgewens. I want to repeat what I said before, that this experimental station is rendering excellent services to the wheat farmers in the neighbourhood. But that is not the point. It seems to me that it pays better to sow less and to use less fertiliser. The less wheat you sow the less you lose. Here we have evidence of the fact which the farmers have been contending for all these years in regard to the wheat industry, namely that the prices which we get for our wheat do not pay us. The Minister and his advisers have been shutting their ears to our representations for years. But the experimental station at Langgewens has proved the fact that the wheat farmers are correct in their contention. I trust that the Minister will go into the matter, and that he will perhaps give me a written explanation of the position. I do not blame him for not being able to reply to me immediately, but I do expect to get an explanation.

I should like to put a question to the Minister in regard to subhead (g). There we are asked to vote money for certain sawmills which the Department of Forestry has put up in various parts of the country. Those sawmills are factories. Last year we passed a Factories Act.

Sawmills are dealt with on the Loan Estimates.

An amount of £12,000 is asked for here, and £7,125 of that is for sawing and drying of timber.

That is for the research institute in Pretoria.

I want to put a question in regard to policy to the Minister and I think he can give us a reply to that. There are certain sawmills and they are factories in terms of the Act which we passed last year. That Act provides in Clause 56 that it also applies to the Crown except in regard to the activities of the Railway Administration. That is to say the Crown is bound in respect of any factory which is established by any Department of State except the Railway Administration. Clause 54 of the Act, however, provides for certain exemptions. Now, the Act which we passed last year also applies to sawmills of the Department of Forestry, and I want to ask whether the Minister has obtained exemption from the Minister of Labour. If he has obtained exemption in regard to the sawmills then I want to know in which Government Gazette it was published that exemption was granted in respect of sawmills. I should like to have a clear answer from the Minister.

I want to reply to the hon. member’s question on the subject of sawmills when we are dealing with the Loan Vote on which it can be dealt with. I want to tell the hon. member that I am engaged in giving serious attention to this matter, and I am not able at this moment to say what the position is. If he will raise it again on the appropriate vote I shall be prepared to give him an answer.

We are now discussing the policy of the Department and I am dealing here with the Minister of Forestry. He has certain sawmills which fall under his Department. The Act which we passed last year relates to sawmills. Now I want to know what the Minister’s policy is and I can only raise that question now.

The hon. Minister’s salary has already been voted.

This is the first time I am concerned with the Minister of Forestry. I could not raise this question when the Minister’s salary was voted in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture. Before this vote is passed I want to know what the policy of the Minister of Forestry is. I hope hon. members will realise the importance of this particular issue. The Department of Forestry has certain sawmills which are factories in terms of the law which we passed last year. Now I want to ask the Minister whether the Factories Act is being carried out in respect of the sawmills, yes or no. The law says that it also applies to factories established by Departments of State, and unless the Minister has obtained exemption the law has to be carried out. If the law is not being carried out in respect of sawmills I want to know whether the Minister has obtained exemption under Clause 54. Clause 54 says this—

All I now want to know is whether the Minister has obtained exemption.

Even after the explanation by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) I still doubt whether this matter should be discussed on the vote. Secondly, I doubt whether it comes under my vote or under the Minister of Labour, but I am prepared to tell the hon. member what the position is. I am dealing with the matter at the moment, the documents are on my table. I have had a discussion with the Minister of Labour to obtain exemption in the same way as I am asking for exemption in connection with the tobacco industry, the wool industry and the dairy industry. We have not yet obtained exemption. We are fighting for exemption. Personally I think we should get it, but the hon. member will pardon me if I do not at this stage go into all the arguments why we should get exemption. There are various reasons why to my mind exemptions should be given for sawmills. I don’t want to go into those questions now, however. We are trying to obtain exemption and if we get it it will be published in terms of the law. I cannot tell the hon. member any more at this stage.

It sounds very strange to me. Last year we passed the Factories Act That Act came into operation the moment it was proclaimed. The Act was proclaimed on the 1st September last year. Since the 1st September of last year the Minister has had to give effect to the provisions of the law unless he had obtained exemption before hand. Now the Minister comes here and says that he has actually contravened the law of the land. Can you advise me, Mr. Chairman, what I am to do about a case where the Minister contravenes the law of the land? The Minister has not yet obtained exemption and yet he has not yet applied the law. I must honestly say that it is an unheard of position so far as I am concerned for the Minister to come here and admit that he is acting in conflict with the provisions of the laws of the country.

Ask the Minister of Labour why he has not prosecuted.

I shall ask him, but I hope at least that the Minister of Forestry would try to carry out the law.

I wish to say a few words about the wattle industry. In doing so, I feel that I need not go into great detail, as the Minister himself is a wattle grower, and he knows the importance of this industry, and he also knows the value of it, and the problems we are up against.

We want some information from the Minister.

I am afraid I cannot speak while there is a conversation going on among members on the other side.

We cannot hear you.

Nobody can hear me while all this conversation is going on, but I wish to speak to the Minister and not to members on the other side.

You should address the Chair.

For some years now the wattle industry has been pressing the Minister for the institution of a Research Institute for the wattle industry. When we first approached the subject the Minister told us that if the industry was prepared to make a contribution the request might be favourably considered. The feeling of the wattle farmers is that the wattle industry is not only a very important industry, but it is one of the few agricultural industries that has never had any assistance from the Government.

The Government does not assist …

We have many research institutions for practically every section of the agricultural industry. We have the Wool Research Station at Onderstepoort; then there is a Central Tobacco Research Station, there is a Poultry Research Station, a Low Temperature Research Station for fruit export, and numerous other Research Stations, both with regard to veld preservation and the improvement of pastures. The wattle industry has carried out many experiments, co-operative experiments; they have also had a research station of their own, but it has not been over-satisfactory. What we are asking now is that the Government, through the Minister, should assist us because we are in a position today to make certain contributions towards that Research Institute. The wattle growers of the Union have offered to contribute £7,000 in cash, and they have also offered £3,000 annually towards maintenance for the first three years, and a percentage to be mutually agreed upon towards the annual income of the Union for the next five years. Besides this, they have offered a site for the Institute and an adequate amount of land, and they have already prepared plans for suitable buildings. I think that the wattle growers, having gone so far to carry out the wishes of the Minister, have a claim to be met in this matter, because this industry has very many problems, and its future depends on a proper research scheme with regard to the solution of these problems. Unless we get that we may find this industry in very great difficulties. At present research is being carried out at the Rhodes University with regard to the tanning of skins and hides. The wattle growers of the Union contribute £1,000 per year towards that research, and towards the experiments that are being made there. I feel that we are not asking anything unreasonable—we are only asking to be treated in the same way as other sections of the agricultural industry are. I take it that we are quite as important as many other sections of the agricultural industry who have been assisted, and if they have qualified for assistance in the way of research, we certainly have just as good claims, if not better, than some that have been assisted. I do not intend going into the merits of the industry, and what it means to the country, because the Minister is fully aware of all that, but I say that when farmers come forward and are willing to help themselves and to make their contribution and pay a very large sum of money towards helping themselves, then it is the duty of the Government to contribute perhaps even more than the farmers themselves are willing to do. I feel that we have a good and a very strong case, and that if the Minister will discuss it with the wattle growers and get the Forestry Division to go into the merits and great necessity of the case, we may perhaps have some hope of getting this Rerearch Institute in Natal. I hope the Minister will take this matter seriously, because it is a matter which has been raised for some years now. And while it might have been said that the Government during war time has not got the money to start an institute of this kind, if the Minister will tell us what he requires from the wattle industry in the way of contribution, perhaps the industry will contribute so much that the Government’s part of it will not be anything they could not grant. Of course, I know that the Minister may say that technical men are not available at the present time, and that many of his departmental men are away at the front; but it will take some years to get this Research Institute into proper working order, in the way of buildings, and preparing the land, and we wish to get it ready and equipped for the time when these men will become available—perhaps in a year or two. So I hope that the wattle growers’ plea for sympathy and assistance will not be put on one side on account of the war, because, after all, when the war is over, we must look to our industries to get this country on a proper footing again. The wattle industry employs and gives a living to a great many white men and also natives, and in this industry there may be openings for many of our returned soldiers to make a good living, but if our many problems are not faced in the proper way in good time, it will not be an inducement for these men to make their future careers in this area. I wish to say also that wattle can only be grown in comparatively small areas in this country, comparative with the size of the whole Union, and I would also like to say that wattle cultivation has been able to be carried on on a proper basis in this country where it has been a failure in other countries, due to high cost of production. So we are properly suited to cultivate the wattle industry in this country, where even in its native country, Australia, they are not able to do so. It is one of the most promising industries that agriculture can undertake and develop to its full, because it is able to compete in the world’s markets where many of our other agricultural industries are not able to do so, and we have a world market for wattle products.

I shall be very brief. But I notice on page 116 dealing with forestry workers that there is a reduction of £2,000. Hon. members will recollect that two years ago I felt very much concerned about the position of forest workers who did not get the wage they should have got. The Minister told us at the time what the conditions were under which those people were living, and that they were earning 5s. 4d. per day. I notice that there are still 226 of them, and I want to know whether the reduction in the amount is due to a reduction of their wages, or a reduction in the number of persons. If the number of persons has been reduced I want to know whether those who are left are getting a cost of living allowance. If so, how much is it? Is the maximum still 6s. 4d.? What position are these people in? Are they still in the same conditions as two years ago? I said at that time that I had visited the forestry workers and I reminded the Minister of the way the Egyptians had treated the Jews, and I said that the Government were treating the forestry workers like slaves, exactly as the Egyptians had treated the Jews. Those people used to get 14 days’ holiday without pay, and they could not even afford to feed and clothe themselves properly. The forestry workers were turned into slaves. I lodged a strong protest at the time and I want to know whether the Minister has effected any improvements in the conditions of these people. We were told on that occasion that there was no money, but we are spending millions of pounds on the war, though for our own flesh and blood there is not even enough money to give them decent living wages. I am glad the Minister of Finance is here. He knows his Bible better than I do. He often goes into the pulpit. When he goes on to the pulpit next week I want him to tell his congregation how the Egyptians treated the Jews, and he should also tell his listeners then that that is the way we are treating our own people. Those people have to work eight hours and more in the forests, and if they cannot get a bus or a lorry they have to walk eight or ten miles to get to their work—that is to say, they have to walk two hours to get to their work and two hours to get back. They get no pay for that. In other words, they work twelve hours, and when they start they get 5s. 4d. per day. It is barbarous and nothing else. I would not treat my natives in the Western Transvaal like that. But that is how you treat your own people. I also notice that there is a reduction of £1,500 under head H on page 120, and I do not understand the position. It seems to me that that, too, is a reduction to the detriment of the forestry workers. Why this reduction?

I represent quite a large section of the wattle industry in Natal, and I want to support the plea of the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) and ask the Minister to consider, or rather to persuade the Minister of Finance to provide sufficient funds to meet the request of the wattle industry. It is not a case of asking for something for nothing. They are prepared to put up half the money, at any rate to start this Research Institute, and I think if the Government will accede to the request very fine results will ensue both to the industry and to agriculture in Natal in general. I want to refer for a moment to the conditions affecting the settlers at the Weza Forestry Settlement. It is a settlement situated in the Ingeli Mountains of Natal, some seventeen miles from rail head, which is about 160 miles from Durban. Naturally the cost of provisions at such a station is very high. Now, what may appear to us to be very small items, to these people appear to be very large, and I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister one or two of them. For instance, there are contract rates of pay granted to men who do not receive a wage of so much per day but who are paid on results. And these men find that when they are given very thin timber to deal with they cannot get out so many cubic feet of prepared timber as they can from thick trees. The Director of Forests promised that he would go into this matter, and realising the difficulties of the whole position I left it to him to try to evolve something to meet the difficulties encountered by these men on contract. I hope the Minister will not shelve this matter, but will, to what extent he is able, consider an increase in the contract rate per cubic foot. A cost of living allowance is certainly paid to the daily paid men, but it is paid on the basis laid down by the Public Service Commission for Government employees as a whole. The rate of pay in these settlements is not very large, and the cost of living allowance based on the scale laid down is not very much on the low wages these daily paid men receive. There is also the question whether the contract men should not be paid a cost of living allowance, but I think that would be met by a slight increase in the price paid per cubic foot for prepared timber. With regard to the daily paid men, I do think that when wages are small and cost of living paid on the basis of low wages, some consideration might be given to these men, especially as the cost of necessaries is higher there because of the distance from distributing centres. Another question which looms very largely with these people is one which the director promised he would consider. Certain men volunteered for service anywhere in Africa, but they were regarded as key men, and the last time I had any communications with them they had not been issued with “on service” badges. I hope in the meantime the matter has been remedied, and these men have got their due. There is also the case of a man who was engaged temporarily as a machinist. He was kept in that capacity longer than is usual with a temporary hand, because such men generally, after a period of about six months, get an advance of pay and a higher status. I hope the matter has been gone into, and the Minister will be able to assure me that this man has had consideration. Much has been said lately about these people being forgotten, and I wish to correct the impression that is going round the country that we who represent these people are forgetting them. We do not forget them, and especially I do not forget them. These small questions loom largely in the minds of these people, and it is on their behalf I ask for consideration.

There are two points in regard to which I should like to have further information from the hon. Minister, namely, in connection with Votes “Q” and “U” on page 115. I am not an expert in connection with the coast line, but provision is made here for a small amount of £250 for drift sand reclamation along the coast. It seems to me that the problem is a fairly big one in areas where the sand is fast silting.

Is that under Vote “Q”?

Yes. I would like to ask the Minister with regard to the reclaimed areas, at what average costs per morgen the land is reclaimed, and whether the land that is reclaimed justifies the cost. Then with regard to Vote “U”. Provision is made here for an amount of £75, which is described as a contribution to a fund for propaganda against forest and veld fires in the Cape Peninsula. I do not know what the experience is, but it seems to me, at any rate, that veld fires are increasing year after year. If we take the Western Province, for example, then it seems to me that the fires exceed those of the previous year in each case. If we think of the big fires which occurred in the Paarl mountains recently, it seems to me that this small sum of £75 which is being voted, is simply being thrown into the water. I think the hon. Minister will agree that the destruction caused by veld fires is tremendous, and that the damage is in many cases irreparable. One cannot restore in a period of years what the fire consumed within an hour. It sometimes takes 25 years or longer again to restore the area which was burnt down. I want to ask the Minister whether the time has not now arrived rather to spend a big sum of money instead of only making propaganda; whether the time has not arrived to adopt the principle of placing guards everywhere, as the Government does at the French Hoek forestry settlement, for example. I want to ask whether the time has not arrived to protect all those areas which are subject to veld fires, and where large plantations burn down: whether it would not be advantageous to the country to appoint guards there in order to see whether the fires cannot be reduced. The salary which will be paid to those guards will not be wasted. The money circulates in the country. When there is a tremendous veld fire which causes hundreds of thousands of pounds damage, it cannot be restored. I want to hear whether the hon. Minister is not of opinion that something should be done which will be more effective in reducing veld fires.

It is with pleasure that I associate myself with the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) in what he said with regard to the wattle industry. The hon. member has set up a very strong case, and there is very little that I can add, but I would like to mention that the wattle industry has in the past fifty years grown from a turnover of £11 per annum to one of over £2,000,000. That will give us an indication of the importance of this industry, especially when we know that the turnover in future will be considerably greater. But the wattle growers today face a competition such as they have never faced before. New areas are being placed under wattle in competition with our own products, and not being very far away in other parts of Africa and along the East Coast, where great tracts are being placed under wattle, and it is quite clear that we shall be face to face with very serious competition in the future. We know that the Government, owing to the war situation, has to contend with very great difficulties, and they may feel that such matters as the wattle industry should be subordinated to the necessity for carrying on the war effort and should stand over, but I would point out that delay may prove fatal. After the war this industry is going to enter into very much more serious competition than is the case today, when most of the markets and the producingcentres are closed. I therefore feel that if we establish a wattle Research Institute now and get it going at the earliest possible moment, it will be something in the nature of a national asset. A certain amount of research work is being done by private enterprise, but no matter how commendable such private enterprise may be, it does not carry with it the hall mark of international repute. If we want a certificate for our product, it is absolutely necessary to get a Government certificate. Overseas markets and overseas buyers are not satisfied with a certificate given by private enterprise; what they want is the official stamp of the Government. The Government has at present in its employ experts who are working on wattle culture, but they are working under great difficulties; they have no proper accommodation, they have no wattle experimental station, and I think the time is opportune that a start should be made in the very many subsidiary industries which belong to wattle culture, such as the production of paper pulp, rayon, etc. Wattle lends itself to the manufacture of several by-products, and the industry supplies a real want as far as the gold industry is concerned, and generally speaking, it is a national industry. Why this research is so necessary is the fact that once an area of land has been placed under wattle, it cannot be used for anything but afforestation Therefore, if a pest gets in and wipes, out a plantation, you cannot put in crops, because the cost of establishing other crops on such land is quite prohibitive. It is of paramount importance, therefore, to preserve our wattle culture, because once land is utilised for tree growing, it becomes practically a permanent investment and something which cannot lightly be interfered with. I feel, under all the circumstances of the case, we can justly ask the Government not to delay this matter.

I just want to bring a few other matters to the notice of the Minister of Forestry. The first is a matter which was also referred to by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens), namely, the question of war allowances. I know, of course, that forest workers receive a war allowance. But I want to ask the Minister that the war allowance should not be taken away from them in cases where these people are unavoidably prevented from working. I have here a letter from the head of the La Motte settlement. I received a letter from one of the workers and I then wrote to him. What is the position? Do these people are unavoidably prevented from how is it deducted? His reply was that it was in respect of rainy days, or when they were ill. Then the war allowance is not granted. Even he is of opinion that when these people are unavoidably prevented from working, they should nevertheless receive the allowance. The other matter which was also touched upon by the hon. member for Ventersdorp is this. It seems to me only fair that those people should get a short holiday with payment. I think that that is the least which they can be granted. The third matter, which I have also referred to in the past, is this, that the forest workers forfeit their payments into the fund which is built up for them if they leave the plantations of their own accord. It is very well known to us that the majority of those plantations are situated in areas where the rainfall is very heavy; in other words, the plantations are situated in areas which for the greater part are very unhealthy. The circumstances under which those people work, although they have been improved, are still very unhealthy; and if they then obtain better employment, where they can get away from those unhealthy circumstances, then it seems reasonable to me that they should have the privilege of getting back from the fund what they paid in. I believe the objection is raised that these people—or at any rate some of them— if they know that they will get back what they paid into the fund, would leave the service only in order to get their contributions, and then again make application after a short while, to be employed as forest workers. There may be some who will do that, but the majority of them will not do it. But even that can be prevented by not making those payments immediately, but at a certain age, for example, so that the funds collected with the aid of the department, will be received by the employee at a certain age.

The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) asked me to take this matter seriously. I have taken it seriously for the last year or two, as the hon. member knows, and I think my department has shown all the sympathy in this matter. When a deputation met me only a few weeks ago, I explained to them that it was just impossible to get the building material for one thing, or the men to do the building either. We cannot build this Research Institute during the war, and it is no good talking about it any more, because I am not going to ask the Minister to give me the money. I have told these people before that as soon as normal conditions return I am willing to do what can be done. I am very glad indeed that the people concerned have done their share, and a very large share of what I asked them. We have got many important works that have been on the estimates for years, but we simply cannot carry them out under present conditions, because we have not the men nor the material to do the work. I would like hon. members to remember, though, that we are at present spending £7,000 per annum on research for the wattle industry. It is not that the Government does not realise the importance of the industry, nor that the Government is not sympathetic towards it, but I cannot make any further promises during the war. There is simply no question of building this institute.

†*The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) put a question to me in connection with the big reduction in the number of officials. The reply is simply that many people are on active service, and that they are receiving military pay, and that the Forestry Department only pays out the difference in those cases where their military pay is less than their salaries. I think he also put a question to me in connection with the reduction in the forestry school vote. The intention is that during the next financial year fewer students will be taken, because there will be less posts for them in the future.

Why will there be fewer posts?

You cannot go on appointing people when the positions are filled. At some time or other you come to a point where you train more foresters than you have posts for, and from time to time we must see to it that we reduce the number of students to a certain extent, as the posts decrease. The hon. member asked me why there was a reduction in connection with the subsidy which is paid to farmers in respect of driftsand. I do not want to say that the farmers no longer take any interest, but there are fewer farmers who do the work. I can only tell him that the value of the ground which is reclaimed is more than what is spent thereon. In one part of the world the value of the land is more; in other parts it is less. But the Department of Forestry assures me that the value of the land which is reclaimed is more than the sum paid for it.

What are the costs per morgen?

I cannot say what the costs are per morgen. In one place it is more than it is in another place. It so happens that I do not know the amount that the land is worth per morgen. Then the hon. member spoke about the £75 for propaganda against forest and veld fires in the Cape Peninsula. He will notice that it is a £ for £ contribution on the part of the Government. Well, although I am immediately prepared to agree with him that it is not sufficient to spend, I do not want to agree with him that it is not worth while making propaganda, especially in the Cape Peninsula, where there are many fires during one year, there are possibly less the following year as a result of the propaganda. I think that the propaganda teaches many people, who might otherwise have caused fires, to be careful. I do not want to accept for a moment, that the money was wasted. I want to tell the hon. member that the money which the Department of Forestry spends in preventing fires is £6,400. The extent of the land of the Department of Forestry is 1,600,000 morgen, of which only approximately one-half is used as a catchment area and protection of the land. The duty of the foresters is, inter alia, to guard those territories, and in respect of that alone the department pays a sum of £6,400; but, apart from that, the Municipality of Cape Town pays a fairly big sum in respect of guards. I do not know whether the Provincial Council contributes towards it. The Department of Forestry has various guards in the Cape Peninsula, too. What the hon. member therefore demands is already being done.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) has spoken about the settlement at Weza. I want to tell him that these daily paid men get the cost of living allowance and I would not like to promise him that that will be increased. Many of the settlers prefer piece-work, and they are making more at piece-work, I am informed, than those who work by day, and get the cost of living allowance.

†*The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo) asked me why war allowances were not granted to foresters on days when they cannot work. I am afraid that that is the lot of the daily paid person in the country, not only in the civil service but everywhere. If a person is a daily paid worker he does not receive payment in respect of days he does not work, and in the same way I do not know how I could approach the Treasury and say that the forest worker does not receive any salary in respect of that day, but that he should nevertheless receive a war allowance. I am afraid that it would be against the regulations of the civil service. The same applies with reference to holidays. It is a rule throughout the service that a daily paid worker does not get paid leave. We would have to take into review the whole civil service system before we could alter that, and I again want to go into the question where he forfeits his contributions when he resigns, and perhaps I shall write to the hon. member in regard to it if the position is satisfactory. I shall write to him whether an alteration should be made.

Cannot the forest workers be paid monthly?

They are paid daily.

I inted to move the amendment standing in my name as printed on page 294. As hon. members will have noticed what I am doing is to move two new Clauses 6 and 7 ahead of the present Clause 6. The new Clause 8 as printed on page 295 will be the same as the old Clause 6 with some amendments. Clauses 6 and 7 as printed on pages 294 and 295 are therefore new clauses. The Bill as it stands is subject to criticism from certain points of view. The main point is this that under the Bill the applicant for insurance must have his application accepted, there can be no refusal of an application on the ground that the motor car is not roadworthy. I am sure hon. members will agree with me to drive that particular car. In the second place there can be no refusal of an application because the person who is going to drive that particular motor vehicle is a person who is likely to endanger the safety of the public. So, sir, it is proposed in these new clauses to provide that a company which has to deal with applications for insurance can require as a condition that the person applying shall undertake that a particular person who on reasonable grounds is held to be a dangerous driver shall not be allowed to drive that particular car. In the second place it is laid down that the company to whom the application is made can refuse to accept an application because the vehicle is not roadworthy or can require the roadworthiness of the vehicle to be put to a test. If a company is given those powers, there must be means of checking up on the exercising of these powers. So if Clause 6 is accepted I shall propose a further Clause 7 to give the right to the applicant who is dissatisfied with the company’s decision to apply to the magistrate to have the case reconsidered. I shall therefore move that the present Clause 6 be negatived and a new Clause 7 inserted.

I move—

I do so because we did not receive timely warning that this Bill would come on the Order Paper. We can tell the Minister that it was thought the whole afternoon that we would still continue this evening with the Posts and Telegraphs vote. During the evening I heard a rumour that a change would be brought about. We did not, however, receive any intimation from our Whips, and the first intimation which our Whips received about it was when I sent a message to them. Not one of the Whips received intimation that a change had been made. I heard the rumour here, and thereafter I made enquiries. The Whips of the Government did not come and talk to us, and we members sat here and waited and prepared ourselves to speak on the Postal Department Vote. If the Government expects us to carry on in the evening with other business, then it ought to notify us before 6 o’clock so that the members who take an interest in the other work can be present. If it goes on in this way, then it is really impossible to do the business. I do not know what went wrong, but we cannot go on with this work because we did not receive notice timously. We simply cannot carry on with it at this stage, and for that reason I moved as I did.

I am sorry that there has been a misunderstanding. The position is this. Early this afternoon I asked the Chief Whip on this side to notify the Whips on the other side that we would take this order on the Order Paper, after disposing of the Agricultural Vote. Early in the evening, the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) asked me whether we were carrying on with the Postal Vote. I told him we were not, and that we were going to switch over to this Bill. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) then also came and asked me.

That was after the hon. member for Mossel Bay had told me about it.

Then the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) discussed the matter with me. If he had insisted that I should withdraw my proposal in view of the misunderstanding, then we could have done so, and continued with the original business. But now it places me in a very difficult position, to withdraw it. We cannot now return again to the Budget. I understood at the time that there would be no objection against the proposal to proceed to this Bill, and I therefore hope that my hon. friend will not insist on his motion.

In this connection I just want to say that there was apparently a misunderstanding. The Minister of Finance was under the impression that we knew of it, and in view of that he told the Minister of Posts that he could allow his officials to leave. That was before 6 o’clock, and if we had known of it, there would have been time to warn our people. About 20 minutes ago I spoke to the Minister of Finance, and then we were faced by the fact that the officials of the Minister of Posts had left, and that we could not carry on with that vote. Although we were not satisfied with it, I then undertook that we could carry on until the next order. I therefore hope that the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) who did not know of what I had done in connection with the matter, will not insist on his motion.

I must confess that I am a little confused on the procedure which is now being adopted.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) to report progress. I shall put that motion.

On the clause as it stands I have an amendment.

Should you not put these amendments to my new Clause 8?

I want to work it in with the new clause as drafted. If I have to draft my amendments to the new clause they will not dovetail in in the same order. So long as I am given the opportunity of drafting my amendments again I don’t mind, but it will be impossible for me to do so at once.

I am rather anxious about the changes which the Minister is proposing to introduce in this Bill. They are quite wide reaching in spite of the limited character of the two points which he has mentioned to the House. They involve, as a matter of fact, the extension of the powers on the part of the insurance companies to refuse to accept applications for insurance. As the Bill stood the companies had to accept proposals for insurance and they could deal with the question of the justice or otherwise of granting insurance thereafter. Now the companies are placed in the position that they can refuse to insure cars on the extremely vague condition of having reasonable grounds, that the applicant while driving any motor vehicle has actually been a danger to the public or may be a danger to the public. I shall be very glad to know how the Minister would interpret these words “reasonable grounds.” We have particular reason for being anxious about the granting of this sort of power. We know the sort of thing which is said about drivers belonging to the group which we represent. There is a general assumption that native drivers are a danger to the public. Would that assumption be regarded as a reasonable ground for refusing registration?

Of course not.

There is nothing in this clause to guarantee that a company could not act on that basis, and if a company thinks that it has reasonable grounds for refusing an application the person whose application is refused must resort to court to establish his claim which may involve him in expenses he cannot meet. That is my reason for anxiety and I should like to know what the Minister’s answer is to that?

I can understand that the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) voices her anxiety, but I cannot for the life of me see how the ground which she has given could be regarded as a reasonable ground. There is, of course, the appeal to the courts, and surely if refusals were made on that ground they would be upset immediately. I do not think that position could be maintained. I think my hon. friend will realise on consideration, that there are no grounds for anxiety.

I must say that to a certain extent I share the anxiety of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). Are we now going to do away with all the licensing authorities and are we going to make the insurance companies the arbitrators whether people should have licences or not? Let me put this point — before a person gets a licence he must have a certificate of competence, and if a person has a vehicle it must be roadworthy.

But it does not remain roadworthy.

And once you have these requisites you can get your registration. If this amended clause is accepted it means, or it may mean, that an insurance company can put a man to tremendous trouble. A company may have “reasonable grounds” which may or may not be upheld by the court, and they may prevent a man from getting a licence.

Why should they want to do that?

That is all very well, but if you substitute the insurance companies for our licensing authorities you may be creating a very dangerous position. If we want to maintain our present licensing structure then I think the new clause goes too far.

Is this not in conflict with Section 3?

I have already made that clear, I have explained that on the report stage a further amendment will be moved if this amendment is accepted, to make the provisions of subsection (3) subject to the provisions of Clause 6.

My difficulty is this, you cannot separate Clause 6 from Clause 8. Clause 8 remains. Now, if an order is made under Clause 6 then for a period of three years a person is debarred from the use of a licence. The licence is cancelled and what I want to point out is this: that where a magistrate at present has the right on a criminal charge being preferred against a man to suspend that man’s licence, it means that that licence remains in force—it is only suspended—but it is revived automatically after a certain time without the man being put to expense. But now you are placed in this position. The licence is cancelled, and the present procedure which has existed all these years is to be scrapped. Now I have made it my business to study the position for January and February in Cape Town in regard to suspension of licences. There have been eight suspensions for a period not exceeding one year. But the major portion of the suspensions were for six months. Only in one case has there been a cancellation of a licence. In other words, the magistrates are exercising their powers in the manner they considered right. If a person’s licence is suspended for six months or a year, at the end of that period he can get his licence back without any expense. Don’t let us forget that not every driver can afford to go to court to have his licence reinstated. It would be interesting to know how many of these people whose licence has been suspended for six months have ever come before court again. I should say it is not more than one case in a hundred. The individual has learnt his lesson. Now, if under Clause 6 a person is deprived of the right to get an insurance registration that automatically covers with it a prohibition to drive, and if an order is made under that clause, then, as Clause 8 reads, a person against whom a magistrate has made an order under Section 6 may, after a period of three years from the date of such order, do certain things in order to get his licence back again.

You should move your amendment on Clause 8.

Yes, but my point is this, if I want to be able to do it under Clause 8, in the meantime I have given the magistrate the right to cancel the licence, because that is the practical effect of it. I am open to correction, but that is how I gather the clause to be intended.

I think this clause is quite sound. Let me give the House an account of an experience of my own. It is an account of a case where a driver took his master’s car out of the garage. He represented that he wanted the car for his master, whereas he wanted it for himself to go on a joyride. He went to a party, he got dead drunk, and he drove the car — a brand new car — along the road and got smashed up. Nobody saw it happen and he was found the next morning in the car. Nobody had seen him driving so the only charge that could be brought against him was that of taking his master’s car out without permission. Now, that sort of thing is not endorsed on the licence, and yet a greater danger to the public than that man could not be found. Unless you have a clause like this in the Bill a man like that could not be dealt with, because that particular kind of offence is not endorsable on the licence. No one had seen the man drive in a drunken condition, but it was obvious what had happened. Now, it is not enough to say that you deal with a man when he is convicted, you have to consider the safety of the public. Once a man has shewn himself to be a person who cannot be trusted, whether the charge was that he took out his master’s car or what ever it was — the fact was that that man could not be trusted on the road. My hon. friend seems to think that a suspension of the licence cures these people. I don’t think so. Why should an insurance company which has reason to know that a particular driver is dangerous be compelled to insure him and let him continue to go on the road and continue to be a danger to the public?

The car is insured.

Yes, but the car wants a driver. The driver is the danger to the public. I think this clause is perfectly sound. We want to try and save the public, and where you have information that a man is a danger to the public you should not insure the car until the name of the driver is furnished and it is shewn that the driver is not a danger.

In regard to the fears of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that the interests of the people she represents will not be safeguarded, it may interest the House to hear that when evidence was given before the Transvaal Provincial Select Committee which sat on this question of third party risk insurance, evidence was given by the police as to the safety or otherwise from the point of view of driving of natives, and the evidence given by the police according to convictions and facts they had at their disposal was that the native driver was a safer — not a better driver but a safer driver — than the European male. So from that point of view the hon. member can be reassured that in view of that testimony of the police no insurance company would hold that a native driver was not a safe driver. In regard to the point made by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Friedlander) I have an amendment on the Order Paper to this Clause 6, which sets out that if a licence has been cancelled then after a period of two years has lapsed, the applicant may apply again for a licence. If that amendment is accepted by the Minister it will mean that once a man has been found guilty he shall not be permanently debarred but that there will be a period of suspension during which he may repent on his sins and then apply again. So that will meet the point of the hon. member for Wynberg. So there will be an opportunity for a person’s licence to be re-instated.

I do not think the amendment of the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) will quite meet the position, certainly not as drafted. As the amendment stands insurance must be given after two years.

On the same terms.

Not as she has put it. Take the case where the licence has been refused, where the man has some eye defect. It may get worse in the two years. I should like to discuss that point further with my hon. friend. We may be able to arrive at some other amendment for the report stage.

I now move—

1. 6.
   1. (1) When the owner of a motor vehicle has applied to a registered company for the insurance of that motor vehicle under this Act, or when a motor dealer has applied to a registered company for the insurance under this Act of all motor vehicles of which the dealer is the owner in connection with his business as a motor dealer, and in either case the company has reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant, while driving any motor vehicle, or any person, while driving any motor vehicle belonging to the applicant, has unduly endangered the safety of the public, or that the applicant or any member of his household or any person in his employ is likely to endanger unduly the safety of the public if he drives a motor vehicle, the registered company concerned may refuse to insure the motor vehicle in question, or any motor vehicle to which the applicant owns in connection with his business as a motor dealer, as the case may be, unless the applicant gives the company an undertaking in writing, that he will not, during the period for which the insurance is to be effected, drive any motor vehicle to which the desired insurance is to relate, (if the applicant himself is alleged to have endangered or to be likely to endanger the safety of the public, as aforesaid) or permit any other named person who is alleged to have endangered the safety of the public or to be likely to endanger the safety of the public as aforesaid, to drive any motor vehicle to which the desired insurance is to relate.
   2. (2) If such an applicant as is mentioned in sub-Section (1) who has given such an undertaking as aforesaid, drives a motor vehicle or permits any person to drive a motor vehicle in breach of his undertaking, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
   3. (3) When the owner of a particular motor vehicle has applied to a registered company for the insurance under this Act of that motor vehicle, the company may refuse to insure that vehicle if the company has reasonable grounds to believe that the motor vehicle is not roadworthy, or, if the company doubts its roadworthiness, the company may demand that the applicant submit the motor vehicle for examination and test to a person indicated by the company at any place upon which the parties may agree, or failing such agreement, any place indicated by the company in the town or village in which the applicant resides, or if he resides outside a town or village, at any place indicated by the company in the principal town of the district in which the applicant resides.
   4. (4) If the applicant has failed to comply with the company’s demand, the company may refuse to insure the motor vehicle in question (irrespective of whether it is or is not roadworthy) until the applicant has complied with that demand.

Will not the Minister allow us the opportunity between now and the report stage to frame amendments if we are working along the same lines— and that is that there will not be a cancellation but a suspension of the licence, or a right to drive, or a right of insurance, and that it will, after a period fixed by the magistrate, be revived? May I ask the Minister to consider this? It will save a lot of discussion. What I have in mind is this: the magistrate who tries a case must have more information on questions of fact than any other person. He is the best judge of the man’s capacity and criminal habits. No other person can have better facts before him. May I ask the Minister to allow that magistrate to determine what is to happen to that man’s driving licence, and to decide that it should be suspended and not cancelled?

I think that point applies not to my new Clause 6 but to Clause 8. At any rate I shall give my hon. friend plenty of time to frame any amendments he wishes before the Report stage. But I don’t think the hon. member’s amendment applies to this Clause 6, but to the old Clause 6.

I now move my new Clause 7 which lays down the procedure to be followed when action is taken under new Clause 6. I move—

1. 7.
   1. (1) When a registered company has refused an application for insurance under this Act, (otherwise than under sub-Section (4) of Section 6) the applicant may apply in writing to the magistrate of the district in which the applicant resides (if he applied for the insurance of a particular motor vehicle) or in which the applicant carries on business as a motor dealer (if he applied for the insurance of all motor vehicles which he owns in connection with that business) for an order to compel the company concerned to effect the insurance in question.
   2. (2) The application shall be supported by an affidavit or affidavits in which the facts upon which the application is based, are set forth.
   3. (3) If the magistrate is of the opinion that the application is prima facie well founded, he shall forthwith cause to be delivered or to be sent by registered post to the registered company concerned (which is hereinafter in this section called the respondent) a copy of the application and of every affidavit submitted in support thereof, and a notice calling upon the respondent to show cause, at a time stated in the notice, which shall be not earlier than seven days after the date upon which the respondent received the notice, and at a place mentioned in the notice, why he shall not be ordered to effect the insurance in question. The magistrate shall, immediately after the delivery or despatch of the notice to the respondent, cause a copy of the notice to be delivered or to be sent by registered post to the applicant or to a person whom he has indicated as his representative.
   4. (4) At the time and place mentioned in the notice the magistrate shall enquire into the allegations of the applicant, and at the enquiry (at which either party to the proceedings shall be entitled to representation by his attorney or counsel) the magistrate shall hear such relevant evidence and arguments as either party may submit and he shall record all such evidence and he may from time to time adjourn the enquiry.
   5. (5) The law relating to the summoning, swearing, examination and cross-examination of witnesses shall mutatis mutandis apply in connection with any person whose testimony either party to the aforesaid enquiry desires to submit to the magistrate, and the law relating to contempt of a magistrate’s court shall apply, as if the enquiry were a civil trial in a magistrate’s court, and for the purposes of the law relating to perjury such an enquiry shall be deemed to be proceedings in a court of law.
   6. (6) If at the conclusion of the enquiry the magistrate is not satisfied that the respondent was justified under Section 6 in refusing the applicant’s application for insurance, he shall order the respondent within a period defined in the order, to effect the insurance in question on payment, by the applicant, of the premium payable for such insurance and if the respondent fails to comply with that order he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
   7. (7) If at the conclusion of the enquiry the magistrate is satisfied that the respondent was justified under Section 6 in refusing the applicant’s application for insurance, he shall refuse the application.
   8. (8) The magistrate may order either party to the proceedings to pay any costs incurred by the other party in connection with the enquiry and those costs shall be taxable as if they were costs incurred in connection with civil proceedings in a magistrate’s court.

I now want to move the Amendment 7 standing in my name. As the new Clause 7 stands it reads “that a magistrate may order either party to the proceedings to pay any costs incurred by the other party in connection with the enquiry.” My view is this, that seeing that the insurance company under the new Clause 6 has the right to refuse a man’s insurance, so that if a man desires to drive a motor car he has no option, once he has been refused, but to apply to the court, some special consideration should be given. The insurance company having exercised its rights under Section 6, any man who desires to drive a car has to go to court. It seems to be unreasonable to me, particularly in view of the number of poor people; I have in mind the group whom the hon. member for Cape Eastern represents—if we are compelling them to go to court, then it is unreasonable to compel them to pay costs. They have no option. We are compelling them to go to court and I am therefore suggesting that the magistrate in making an order under sub-Section (6), if he finds that the insurance company has been unreasonable in withholding its consent, shall order the respondent to pay costs, but even if he refuses the appeal, he shall nevertheless make no order as to costs in the latter event. The idea being that the person who is compelled to go to court shall not in any circumstances have to pay the costs of that proceeding. The whole purpose of my amendment is to ensure that if the insurance company has wrongly refused an applicant the company must pay; if the company has rightly refused the Magistrate shall make no order as to costs. In no event shall the applicant who has been obliged to go to court pay costs. I move—

If the hon. Minister could see his way to accept that amendment or something of the same kind my main objection to the new Clause 6, which I still feel very strongly would be largely met. I am not so much concerned with what are reasonable grounds in connection with which I have given the extreme case, perhaps but I am concerned very much about the financial responsibility of having to establish a claim to insurance. If this condition is accepted I think it would resolve that difficulty.

I do not see why hon. members should be afraid to trust to the discretion of the magistrate in regard to this question of costs. Surely it is possible that the applicant may have been vexatious, he may have concealed facts in his application and may have compelled the company to take action. He may be to blame and in such a case the magistrate should have power to order costs against the applicant. I think the hon. member’s amendment makes the thing much too one sided in depriving the magistrate of that discretion and laying it down that the magistrate can only award costs in one way. I cannot help thinking that the magistrate would act reasonably in matters of this kind and only in cases where the applicant was to blame would costs be given against him.

The reason why I framed the amendment in this way was because in the original Bill the company was compelled to accept all comers. Now they have the right to accept or reject and the position is now that we are compelling all those who are refused to go to court. If a man’s livelihood depends on this he has no option but to go to court but if he has no money how dare he risk having an order made against him. It does seem to me to be unreasonable that when we have compulsory third party insurance we should make it impossible for this class to get the protection of the courts.

The ordinary rule of legal procedure is that the unsuccessful party in any action or motion pays the costs but you don’t pass a law to say that the successful party must pay the costs. There are cases in which the presiding judge or magistrate thinks the unsuccessful litigant should not have to pay the costs because the successful party has done something in connection with the action which in the opinion of the court has deprived him of his right to have costs and therefore the Minister is perfectly right in providing that the magistrate may order either party to pay the costs. The Minister leaves it entirely to the magistrate. The hon. member for Jeppe says you compel the man to go to court but you don’t compel him. He is deprived of his right to insurance for reasons which are considered good and he goes to court because he wants to show that the refusal was wrong but he does not have to go to court, he can accept the judgment of the insurance company. Again, it cannot be a very poor man who can afford to run a motor car. As was said in Potash and Perlmutter a car is not an asset but a liability. I cannot understand how a poor man can run a motor car with the original cost of the car, petrol, licence and so on. It cannot be a very poor man who can afford to run a car. The legal principle is that the unsuccessful party pays the costs but if a poor man is concerned he can appear in court in forma pauperis. The Minister leaves it to the magistrate and he will exercise his discretion in a judicial manner. The amendment therefore seems to me to introduce a new principle into our law whereas the Minister simply applies the ordinary principle.

If we put in my amendment on page 331, after the penultimate line, the words “he shall make no order as to costs” I think that might meet the objection of the Minister. I would like to remind the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) that when he talks of new principles, this new compulsory insurance is quite a new principle, and should be administered as lightly as possible.

I cannot accept that now, the hon. member might put it down for the report stage.

Very well, then, I will put my amendment down at the report stage.

With leave of the Committee, the amendments proposed by Mrs. Bertha Solomon were withdrawn.

I move—

That the following be a new Clause to follow Clause 5:

1. 8.
   1. (1) When a registered company has issued to any person a declaration of insurance in terms of Section 3 or 5 the said company may apply to the magistrate of the district in which the motor vehicle to which the said declaration applies, is registered under any law relating to the registration of motor vehicles, or if the declaration was issued to a motor dealer, to the magistrate of the district in which the motor dealer carries on business, for the cancellation of the licence to drive a motor vehicle which was issued under any law relating to the licensing of drivers of motor vehicles, to the owner of the aforesaid motor vehicle, or to the said motor dealer, as the case may be, or to any other person who has from time to time driven the said motor vehicle while it belonged to the said owner, or to any person who has from time to time driven any motor vehicle belonging to the said motor dealer, as the case may be, on the ground that the person for the cancellation of whose licence application is made (who is in this section called the respondent), has unduly endangered the safety of the public while driving a motor vehicle or is likely to endanger unduly the safety of the public if he drives a motor vehicle.
   2. (2) If the applicant submits with bis application two copies thereof and an affidavit or affidavits (with two copies of each such affidavit) which, in the opinion of the magistrate, establish prima facie the allegations upon which the application is based, the magistrate shall summon the respondent by notice in writing to appear before him (with his licence to drive a motor vehicle if he holds such a licence) at a time (which shall not be earlier than seven days after the date upon which the respondent received the notice) and a place stated in the notice, to show cause why his licence to drive a motor vehicle shall not be cancelled.
   3. (3) The magistrate shall attach to the notice a copy of the application and of each affidavit and shall cause the notice to be delivered to the respondent at the applicant’s expense, by the messenger of the magistrate’s court. The magistrate shall also as soon as may be cause a copy of the notice and of each affidavit to be delivered, by the said messenger at the applicant’s expense, to the person to whom the applicant issued the declaration of insurance mentioned in sub-Section (1), and he shall, further, as soon as may be cause a copy of the notice to be delivered or sent by registered post to the applicant or to a person indicated by the applicant as his representative.
   4. (4) At the time and place mentioned in the notice the magistrate shall enquire into the applicant’s allegations and the provisions of subSections (4) and (5) of Section 7 shall apply in connection with an enquiry held by a magistrate under this section.
   5. (5) If at the conclusion of the enquiry the magistrate is satisfied that the respondent has, while driving a motor vehicle, unduly endangered the safety of the public or that he is likely to endanger unduly the safety of the public if he drives a motor vehicle and that it is necessary in the interests of the public that the respondent be debarred from driving a motor vehicle, he shall make an order declaring the respondent unfit to drive a motor vehicle and declaring null and void every licence to drive a motor vehicle which was issued to the respondent and he shall impound every such licence which the respondent produced at the enquiry, and if he holds any such licence which he has not so produced, the magistrate shall direct the respondent to produce that licence to him and the magistrate shall thereupon impound it.
   6. (6) When a magistrate has declared a licence to be null and void he shall notify the authority which issued the licence of that fact.
   7. (7) If no licence to drive a motor vehicle was issued to the respondent, the magistrate may nevertheless deal with the respondent mutatis mutandis in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section and make an order declaring the respondent to be unfit to drive a motor vehicle.
   8. (8) When a respondent has been declared, in terms of this section, to be unfit to drive a motor vehicle, any licence which he held and which has become null and void in terms of sub-Section (5) I shall, for the purpose of any provisions of a law relating to the licensing of owners or drivers of motor vehicles be deemed to have been cancelled under that law, and while the order declaring him unfit is in force, he shall be deemed to be disqualified under that law from obtaining or holding any licence to drive a motor vehicle: Provided that a licence which has been declared null and void under this section shall not be re-instated or revived under any such law and the said disqualification from obtaining or holding a licence of a person who has been declared unfit as aforesaid shall not be removed or set aside under any such law.
   9. 9 (1) When a magistrate has made an with a direction given to him by the magistrate under sub-Section (5), he shall be guilty of contempt of court.

I hope old Clause 7 will be negatived so that I may move a new clause as printed on page 297, which is intended to meet the point I promised I would meet in regard to the right of appeal.

Clause 7, standing over, put and negatived.

On new clause to follow Clause 6,

I move—

That the following be a new clause to follow Clause 6:

1. 9.
   1. (1) When a magistrate has made an order under Section 7 or under Section 8, the respondent mentioned in the section in question or when a magistrate has refused an application under either of the said sections, the applicant mentioned in the section in question may appeal against the order or refusal, as the case may be, to the competent Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, mutatis mutandis in the same manner as if the enquiry in question had been a civil suit between the parties concerned, in the magistrate’s court of the district in which the enquiry in question was held, and the said Division shall have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and in doing so it shall have the powers which it has in hearing an appeal against a decision of the said magistrate’s court in a civil suit.
   2. (2) An appeal under sub-Section (1) shall not suspend any order of a magistrate against which the appeal is brought, and if the court of appeal has set aside an order under sub-Section (6) of Section 7, a declaration of insurance mentioned in Section 3, which was issued by the appellant in terms of that order, shall remain in force for a period of three days as from the end of the day on which the said order was set aside, (unless it expired by effluxion of time within the said period) and at the end of the said period the said declaration of insurance shall lapse, unless it has been confirmed during the said period by the former appellant.
   3. (3) The former respondent in the said appeal shall, within the said period of three days, return to the former appellant the said declaration of insurance and the token of insurance mentioned in Section 4 which was issued to him as a result of the said order (unless the former appellant has confirmed the declaration of insurance, as aforesaid) and if he fails to comply with the requirement of this sub-Section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds.

I have certain amendments on the Order Paper on page 297, which I wish now to move—

1. (10) When a magistrate has refused an application under this section, the applicant, or when the magistrate has granted such an application, any other party to the enquiry may appeal against the refusal or grant, as the case may be, to the competent Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, mutatis mutandis in the same manner as if the enquiry has been a civil suit between the parties concerned in the magistrate’s court of the district in which the enquiry was held, and the said Division shall have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and in doing so it shall have the powers which it has in hearing an appeal from a decision of the said magistrate’s court in a civil suit.

An amendment has already been moved to Clause 12 by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip). That amendment was under discussion when we reported progress on this clause, and asked that it stand over. As the result of the discussion which took place, I have framed an amendment, and I hope therefore that Clause 12, as originally presented, will be negatived so that I may move my amendment as printed on page 309.

The first step, therefore, is to negative the old clause, and then perhaps the hon. member for Brakpan will agree to withdraw his amendment.

I move—

That the following be a new clause to follow Clause 11:

1. 12. When a registered company has paid any compensation under Section 9 or 10, it may, without having obtained a formal cession of the right of action, recover from any person (including the owner of the insured motor vehicle in question) whose negligence or other unlawful act caused the loss or damage in question, so much of the amount paid by way of compensation as the third party mentioned in Section 9 could, but for the provisions of Section 11, have recovered from the person whose negligence or other unlawful act caused the loss or damage, if the registered company had not paid any such compensation: Provided that the registered company shall not have any such right of recourse against the said owner or against any person who, at the time of the occurrence which gave rise to the payment of the said compensation, was driving the insured motor vehicle with the consent of its owner unless—
   1. (a) the owner or his representative made a false statement in his application for the declaration of insurance under which the compensation was paid; or
   2. (b) the person driving the said motor vehicle at the time of the said occurrence was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of a drug, or was driving the said motor vehicle contrary to an undertaking given under sub-Section (1) of Section 6, or without holding a licence mentioned in sub-Section (1) of Section 6, or was using the said motor vehicle for a purpose or in a manner other than the purpose or manner of use for which it was intended according to the application mentioned in paragraph (a) and in the latter case the owner of the said motor vehicle would have been obliged to pay a higher premium for the insurance of the said motor vehicle had he stated in the said application that he intended using the said motor vehicle for the purpose for which or in the manner in which it was used as aforesaid; or
   3. (c) the owner or driver of the said motor vehicle has failed to comply with any requirement of subSection (1) of Section 20 with reference to the said occurrence, or has furnished the said registered company with false information relating to that occurrence, which he knew to be false.

As the clause now reads, I understand that if I injure anyone with my motor vehicle which is insured, then the person who is injured can submit his claim and receive compensation, but if I were negligent, the insurance company would be entitled to institute a claim against me.

Only in definite circumstances, as set out in (a), (b) and (c).

If I were negligent.

No, not on account of negligence, but if there is a false declaration, etc.

I have no objection to that, because, in fact, I insure against my own negligence, but the company has no claim against me then. If the Minister says, however, that the company has no claim against me, then I have no objection to it.

Just let me explain what the position is. The company has no general right of redress. It was proposed but was withdrawn. My amendment only gives the right of redress to a company in the circumstances set out in (a), (b) and (c), namely, in the first place if a false declaration was made, or if the person who drove the motor vehicle was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotics, or if the owner or driver of the motor failed to comply with sub-Section (1) of Section 20, or if he gave false information concerning the occurrence. There is a right of redress on the part of the companies in these cases only.

I must confess I cannot understand why this right of recourse is given. A reference to the evidence given before the Select Committee on Page 43 of the report will show that Mr. Schofield, who is a gentleman who speaks with authority, says—

The whole purpose of insurance is to indemnify without any right of being held liable whatever the circumstances may be, and that, I think I am correct in saying, is the insurance that the companies provide. This proposal means that I must take out one policy and in order to cover myself against this right of recourse, I have to take out a second policy. If I read this evidence correctly, the companies do noMask for that. Compulsory insurance was originally introduced in order to insure the person injured against the driver who has nothing to pay damages with, whatever the cause of the accident. We are now going further and saying that there shall be a right of recourse on the part of the company against the insured, which I say is not even asked for by the company. Accidents happen in a moment, and the driver does not consider whether he is going to be held liable for £3 or £3,000 in the event of certain things happening. I will not believe that any person deliberately kills or injures another, but I do believe that the purpose of insurance is to indemnify the motorist, whatever the cause of an accident.

I move amendments to new Clause 12 standing in my name on page 331 on the Order Paper—

I think the Minister should accept the addition of the word “habitually,” and as to the other amendment it simply brings subSection (a) into line with Clause 3. I think the company should not have recourse unless the owner has been convicted of havingmade a false statement.

I don’t think I can accept the second amendment, by which the hon. member wants to insert the word “habitually.” I think it is going to be extremely difficult to prove habitual use. Take the case of an owner who insures his car as an ordinary car, and then proceeds to use it for the conveyance of passengers for hire, for which he would have been compelled to pay a higher premimum. Surely it would be most unreasonable to require proof that that is an habitual practice. It would be most difficult to get such proof, and I think the hon. member will agree with me that her amendment is going rather too far. I also do not like her first amendment, because it means that you first have to convict a man and make a criminal of him. I might meet the hon. member’s point by altering paragraph (a) to read “the owner or his representative made a false statement in respect of any material particular in his application, which he knows to be false.” That would bring it into line with the clause to which the hon. member referred.

I am prepared to abandon my first amendment, but as regards the use of the word “habitually”, I want to put to the Minister the case of a farmer who licences his car, and then one day finds that his lorry is broken down and he uses his car as a lorry. Is his insurance to be vitiated for that? I will withdraw my second amendment.

With leave of the Committee, the amendments proposed by Mrs. Bertha Solomon, were withdrawn.

I move, as amendment

When is a person under the influence of liquor? If a person has taken a glass of beer, is he then under the influence of liquor? Surely it must be laid down that he is under the influence to such an extent that it interferes with his control of the motor vehicle.

That can be left to the court.

No, no discretion is left to the court. We are dealing here with an Act. You might have taken a glass of beer or a ginger beer … The position is that is is a dangerous provision. Surely it must affect the control of the car. You cannot simply say that there will be redress against you if you are under the influence of liquor.