I move—

In the additional estimates which are now before the House in the form of a Bill the Minister of Finance asked us to provide an additional £10,000 for the purpose of increasing the staff of the Auditor-General. The House has been pleased to vote that amount. Since that time the report of the Auditor-General has made its appearance, and I do not know whether the Minister’s attention has already been directed to the serious position which has arisen in the Auditor-General’s Department with regard to staff difficulties. The matter is of such importance that I want to ask the permission of the House to quote briefly what the Auditor-General states in his report. This is what he says—

And then he continues in the same paragraph, and says that he has to report the serious condition of affairs to Parliament—

I think we all realise that the Auditor-General is a very important link in our Parliamentary system. The Auditor-General is the one man this Parliament depends upon to exercise control over the expenditure of public money. It is the Auditor-General’s duty to see to it that every penny that is spent is spent in accordance with the manner in which Parliament has voted it, and if there are any irregularities he has to report them to Parliament. If the Auditor-General is to do his work he has to have the necessary staff at his disposal, and in view of the condition of affairs reported on by the Auditor-General I want to ask the Minister of Finance if he can inform me in this House whether the additional provision which is being made is adequate to meet the requirements of the Auditor-General, so that from now on he will be able to carry out his task in accordance with our wishes and in accordance with his own wishes. If the Minister cannot give us that assurance then I want to ask him: Assuming the Government comes here and states that the necessary personnel is not available; we know that the necessary personnel or manpower is available in this country—it is possible that some of them are somewhere in the army. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he regards the matter as being of such importance that he is prepared to release from military service people who are competent to do the work required by the Auditor-General, wherever they may be. To my mind we must supply the Auditor-General with the staff he requires. It is an essential service and even if we have to get people out of the army it has to be done. I shall be glad to have a reply from the Minister. Then I want to revert to a few matters which were dealt with by the Minister in the course of the debate when he moved the additional estimates. I think there are a few matters which have to be cleared up. In the course of the debate I accused the Minister of not having given a true and faithful picture of our financial position in his explanatory remarks, and I accused the Minister of having misled the public when he spoke in this House about the deficit being wiped out. I accused him of having intimated to the House that at the end of the financial year there would not be a deficit. In trying to defend himself the Minister took refuge in two statements. First of all he quoted to the House what he had said in February last year. I was not concerned with what the Minister said in February last year. I was concerned with what the Minister had told the public in this House of Parliament when he introduced the additional estimates. If the Minister quotes to this House what he said a year ago, then my reply is that that does not affect the position—it is not relevant. He should have quoted what he said when he introduced the additional estimates. He did not dare do that. When I asked him how it was that he created the impression in the South African Press that there was going to be a surplus, he replied that if that was the impression gained from the Press, he was not responsible for it, but that it was the Press which was responsible. So he tries to hide behind the Press. I have taken the trouble to secure the Hansard report of what the Minister said and at the same time of getting the report sent out by SAPA in connection with the words used by the Minister and I should like to quote these to the House. And then let the House tell me whether it was becoming on the part of the Minister to try and offload on the Press the blame for the impression which he created in Parliament and in the country. These were the words which the Minister used:—

That is the Report as corrected by the Minister, and then he goes on to say this—

I did not say that. You are now reading something in it which I did not say.

Then there must be two editions of the Hansard Report. If the Minister denies what Hansard has recorded, then I would like him to tell us exactly what he did say. I have scrutinised all that newspaper reports. There is hardly a Government paper in this country which did not come out the next day with big headlines, “Surplus Expected.” The “Cape Times,” “The Argus,” “The Daily Mail,” and “The Star”—all the Government papers came out the next day with the announcement that the Minister of Finance said that there was not going to be a deficit but that we could expect a surplus. I want to say to the Minister that it is reprehensible, if one has made a mistake, to be afraid of taking the blame for it, and to try and hide behind somebody else. Very reprehensible indeed! I have made mistakes in my life but as a rule I have had the courage of taking the consequences if necessary Here is the Hansard Report and that is the impression which the Minister gave. Now I have asked the Minister when he makes his budget speech at the end of the month to make it clear to the people once and for all at what loss we are annually carrying out the Government’s policy, and to tell the people clearly that the Government has had the courage to undertake certain things, but that as a result of their doing so heavy expenses have been incurred and annual losses. I asked the Minister to follow Canada’s example, and there I am afraid the Minister tried to evade my argument. I stated that Canada clearly declared: “The annual expenditure is 600,000,000 dollars. The war expenditre is a little more than 4,000,000,000 dollars—altogether our ordinary expenditure and war expenditure is 5,000,000,000 dollars. Our revenue is only 3,000,000,000 dollars. That is to say there is a deficit of 2,000,000,000 dollars, or nearly £500,000,000. That is the way in which the Minister of Finance in Canada tells the people of Canada what the war is costing Canada, and all I ask the Minister of Finance is also to tell the people of South Africa exactly, as is done in Canada, what the war policy is costing us. If the Minister of Finance were to do what his colleague in Canada is doing he would have got up here last Monday and he would have said: “Our ordinary expenditure is £53,000,000, our war expenditure £100,000,000. Altogether it is £153,000,000—our revenue is £100,000,000; consequently, without capital expenditure, there is a deficit of £53,000,000 on ordinary expenditure.” We are not taking capital expenditure into account. Is the Minister going to be honest enough when making his budget speech to place the whole position before the public exactly as it is? Is he going to put it clearly and tell the public that there is a deficit of £3;000,000 on ordinary expenditure. Is he going to tell the public that we are closing off the financial year with a deficit of £53,000,000? No, what the Minister has done is this: He did not know what to reply so he fired a shot in the dark, a shot of blank, with which he hit nobody. What was the Minister’s excuse? The excuse was that in Canada they follow a different course in keeping their books; they put all their expenditure on one vote, and then they deduct the revenue, and in that way the Minister of Finance in Canada is compelled to say what the deficit is. But, so our Minister stated, here in South Africa we keep separate accounts. We have our ordinary expenditure and we have capital expenditure, and we cannot depart from the old tradition. I have taken the trouble of going to the library, the Parliamentary Library, to ascertain whether the Minister of Finance has given Parliament the true facts, and what do I find? Here I have the latest year book for Canada for 1942. Here it says clearly that in Canada they separate the expenditure and the capital expenditure in the same way as we do, and in addition to that they have what they call special expenditure. The capital expenditure, the same as capital revenue, is kept separate. But what is our Minister of Finance doing? He takes a part of our expenditure; he makes up his accounts; he says, “Our ordinary expenditure is £53,000,000 and our war expenditure is £50,000,000—not as it really is £100,000,000.” Then he put the £53,000,000 and the £50,000,000 together and he gets £103,000,000 and then he says that we had expected our revenue to be £100,000,00 which would have given us a deficit of £3,000,000. But then he says that fortunately our revenue has gone up, and instead of our having a deficit of £3,000,000 he is glad to be able to say that we are not going to have a deficit, and the whole country is under the illusion that we are meeting this enormous expenditure without showing a loss at the end of the year. This side of the House objects to that. The hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) said that I spoke like a disappointed man. He said that we should be proud of the country’s prosperity. May I just say this to the hon. member, that it is by no means difficult to create a condition of false prosperity in the country by borrowing and wasting millions and millions of public money. There is nothing clever in that. If I only earn £50 per month, but spend £100 in entertaining my friends, then, of course, my friends will be very pleased with me, and that is why the hon. member is very pleased with the Government. We are primarily dissatisfied with this terrible waste of money that is going on in this country, and secondly, we are disappointed because the Government has not got the power to make it clear to the people what the financial consequences are of the policy which it is following. Let the Government frankly and openly tell the public that there is a deficit of £53,000,000. Do not let them hide that fact.

I suppose that is why the public voted for the Government.

Yes, the Government has succeeded temporarily in creating a fools’ paradise in South Africa. We have noticed what has already happened to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg). He imagines that there is a tap somewhere which one has only to turn on for the money to flow out. The hon. member for Krugersdorp made our mouths water by making us believe that there was such a tap. That is the result of the financial policy of the Minister of Finance. People no longer have any conception of financial responsibility. The Government raises expectations in the minds of the people and it knows perfectly well that those exceptions can never be realised. All I want to ask is that the Minister should put an end to this process of misrepresentation of the people which is going on, and to tell the public openly and straightforwardly that he is going to close the financial year with a large deficit and not with a surplus. If he does so the Minister will tell the public the real truth.

I would like to support the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) in his representations to the Minister to see if something can be done with regard to augmenting the staff of the Auditor-General. I think, sir, that this House and the country read with a considerable amount of anxiety the statement made there by the Auditor-General and read to the House by the hon. member for George. To my mind, sir, it is not merely a question of money. The difficulty seems to be to get staff that can do the work. I do not think that is quite so easy as the hon. member for George appears to make out. It must be appreciated that the position today in South Africa is abnormal. We have, for example, an increase in our Defence vote of something like fifty times compared with pre-war, and if that represents fifty times more work, one should engage a commensurate staff. But I also feel this, that the intricacies of the Auditor-General’s work today are tremendously more complicated than they were before the war, and we have the position, sir, that the Auditor-General reports that in some cases he has been unable through lack of staff to carry out the audit. In other cases he has to admit that the audit he has carried out has been done in a somewhat perfunctory manner. Now, sir, that is a very serious state of affairs, and I would suggest that the Minister must really do something outstanding about the situation. Last year the Auditor-General warned us about it. This year he says the position has grown from bad to worse, and in all probability next year the position will have grown still further on the bad side. I would make a suggestion to the Minister of Finance. I remember some time ago the Customs Department experienced considerable difficulty owing to there not being available an adequate trained staff. We had introduced customs legislation necessitating a tremendous increase in the work of the department. In those circumstances a training college was opened to train young customs officers. And I think the position, as disclosed by the Auditor-General, is so serious today that we must try something along those lines to get the necessary trained staff to do the work. In regard to the other remarks of the hon. member for George, I am sorry to say that I really cannot follow them at all.

None so blind as those who will not see.

Precisely. That is the conclusion I have come to in regard to the hon. member for George. Here he takes the Minister’s statement and the Press statement, and he looks at these two, compares them with each other in the very same manner as I suppose he used to do when he was in another sphere, he compares the two reports as he would the essays of two children on the same subject. After doing that he awards marks accordingly—so much for good spelling, so much for.…

Integrity.

Then the hon. member finds that the other fellow says the same thing in half as many words as the Minister, and judging on that test, he fails the Minister of Finance. What I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, is this, what has that to do with the finances of the country? The hon. member for George will try to tell this House and tell the country that the present Minister of Finance is doing something that no other Minister of Finance ever did. That is the whole gravamen of his attack on the Minister. I asked him to give us proof of the statement he makes. The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) interrupted, “Was not that the way he himself presented the budget when he presided over the destinies of South-West Africa? Did he not present his budget in exactly the same way?”

When I had a shortfall I had the courage to tell the people.

Here are the estimates of additional expenditure defrayed from revenue and loan funds, March, 1936. I find these accounts are presented in precisely the same way as those presented by the present Minister of Finance year after year. Here the statement says: original estimates £36,000,000, additional money voted £994,000; total appropriation £37,800,000, less savings not available to meet excess expenditure etc., leaving a revised estimate of £37,150,000. Then repeatedly he gives the expenditure from loan funds. When the Minister talks about a surplus, he talks about a surplus on Revenue Account in exactly the same way as every previous Finance Minister has spoken about a surplus, i.e., on Revenue Account.

Were those loan funds to pay current expenses with?

The point is not that at all, I submit, because from the very beginning the present Minister of Finance laid it down how he was going to finance this war expenditure. I explained this the other day and I do not want to repeat it. He laid down a basis then that many financial people thought he could never carry out. In other words, he was going to tax the people of this country to start off to the tune of £50,000,000, possibly, and they said that could not be done. That is why the hon. member for George is so disappointed, because no matter what taxation was necessary the Minister of Finance had introduced it, and Mr. Speaker, he has got the money; that is why I say the hon. member for George is so disappointed. No, let us have fair criticism of the financial measures that come before this House, but please do not let it happen, as has happened twice in this session, on the part of the hon. member for George, and try to drag red herrings across the path. Something has been done, so he says, that has never been done before. Well, the whole history of the financial structure of the country proves that what he says is not in accordance with the facts of the case.

Did they previously use loan funds for paying current expenditure?

Yes, many items.

Of a non-capital nature?

Yes. But the point at issue is that the Minister of Finance presents his accounts differently to the House from what any other Minister has done, and the hon. member for George charges the Minister with doing that and having misled the House and having misled the country. The question we must ask is this: Is there today any man in the country who knows anything about public finance who has been misled about the financial position, as a result of any finance statement put up by the Minister of Finance? Does not everyone know that our present expenditure is being roundly defrayed as to half from loan funds and as to half from current revenue? The hon. member for George must, I think, be the only man in the whole of South Africa who appears to doubt the Minister, and who has found something about the accounts that he cannot understand, and that he considers misleading. The only person I have met holding views of chat kind, in the whole of South Africa, is the hon. member for George.

I want to draw the attention of the House to a matter that has already been discussed, but I wish to contribute further towards that discussion. I refer to the Deciduous Fruit Board. This Board is a most incompetent and incapable Board, doing nothing else but wasting taxpayers’ money, the money which we are just about to vote. For example, in the 1943 season hundreds of thousands of boxes of grapes were put into cold storage in the endeavour to create an artificial scarcity. The market, however, was swamped by grapes from local producers. The Board realised too late that they could not get the high prices they anticipated, and the consequence was that thousands of boxes of grapes were wasted. As a matter of fact, the average price the Board obtained for the grapes was 1s. a tray, while the price they had to pay was 4s. And yet according to their books they have no wastage whatever. In 1943 this Deciduous. Fruit Board cost the taxpayer £400,000. It is estimated that they handled during the season about £1,000,000 of fruit consisting chiefly of plums and pears, 4,000 tons of grapes and small quantities of peaches and apples. The distributors’ costs alone are about 40 per cent. But in spite of all this the public did not get the fruit. In 1943 on 4,000 tons of grapes, £56,000, was lost. Four thousand tons of grapes costing £50,000 was thrown away, lost to the community, and this year this Board is handling 30,000 tons of grapes. I leave it to the imagination of hon. members what one can expect. But I go further to show the incompetence of the Board. Some time ago the Co-operative Services of Port Elizabeth wrote to their Johannesburg branch as follows—

Only this morning 3,000 boxes of grapes were rejected on the Cape Town market, although they had travelled only 50 miles, whereas when the growers were allowed to handle their own fruit, they arrived in a perfectly satisfactory condition in Johannesburg. The growers, when left to chose for themselves, railed grapes 1,000 miles to Johannesburg and realised 14s. per basket. Now the fruit which the Board handles is chiefly peaches, pears, apples and grapes. Let me give the House a few figures which will interest them. On plums sold in the Union market in 1943 season there was a loss of £30,000 on a turnover of £63,000. On peaches and nectarines there was a loss of £2,364 on a sales turnover of £19,500. On pears there was a loss of £55,400 on a total sales turnover of £118,500. On apples they show a small profit. But it is when we come to grapes that we get the worst position of all. There was a loss of £121,738 on a sales turnover of £155,000.

And now they want to take over fish as well.

These things are happening while the public are clamouring for grapes and other fruit. What I have given are the actual losses. If we were to add the cold storage costs the position would be far worse. The cold storage charges amounted to £51,500 and the administration expenses plus railage and cartage to £40,430. Now, I maintain that this whole position which I have referred to is due to the deliberate policy of hoarding and resultant waste by the Board. Pears which the Board paid 8s. 6d. per case for, first grade, were sold at 37s. per case, and yet they show these tremendous losses. I ask who benefited? When we come to dried fruit we hear the same story right through. In dried fruit we find that on a total sales account of £66,294 the total production cost amounted to £47,743, the total wages to £28,646. Here again we see a very serious loss. For last year we found a total loss of £347,000. I don’t want to weary the House with many more figures, but I think this whole situation calls for an immediate enquiry, and I want to put it to the Minister of Agriculture that an immediate enquiry should be instituted, and this enquiry should be made not by people who know nothing about these matters, but by business men, men who are not connected with the Agricultural Department, not connected with the Deciduous Fruit. Board or any concern of that kind.

I wish to support the last speaker. When the complaint was lodged by many consumers some weeks ago about the difference between the wholesale prices and the retail prices of fruit, we had a promise in the Press that these prices would immediately be reduced as from last Monday. It was advertised in the Press that grapes would be sold at 5 lbs. for 1s. But what do we find? Today, grapes are still sold at 9d. per lb. Has one to come to the conclusion that the Board is totally unable to control these prices? The public of South Africa are sick and tired of Boards, and particularly of the Deciduous Fruit Board. The consumers of this country are paying unheard of prices for their fruit. We, who are concerned with the health of the nation, advertise the fact that fruit is necessary for the health of the poorer classes, for the working classes. I ask how many families in South Africa can afford to pay the retail prices not controlled by the Deciduous Fruit Board. It is a crying shame. I do not know whether the Government has the machinery to force the Board to fix the retail prices, but as long as this state of affairs continues we shall have this ever increasing discontent and I heartily support the last speaker that some enquiry is due with a view to ending this scandalous state of affairs.

I should like to use this opportunity to support some of the remarks of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) and the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) on the very important subject of deciduous fruit. I think the expenditure of £280,000 in subsidies to the deciduous fruit farmers should be considered very carefully. Various people have asked for boards of enquiry. I do not think they are necessary; I think that within the short space of a week men of business and merchandising experience could put their fingers on the trouble and do something to readjust the whole position— and they could do so not for next season but for this season—now. I think it is necessary that everyone in this House should have some clear idea as to why deciduous fruit prices are so high; that everyone should have some knowledge of what happens between the time the fruit leaves the producer and reaches the consumer. An analysis of the price structure is called for. Let us take as an illustrative example the process of marketing a box of first grade peaches. The first charge is the intake price of 2s. 8d. Now the farmer does not get all that; he gets 1s. 10d. and 10d. may come to him eventually in the form of an “agterskot”—after the season—if the Fruit Board have not lost more than the £280,000 subsidy. Now, to that charge of 2s. 8d. the Board adds a further 7d. or 8d. Later we will examine both these prices to see if they cannot be cut down in order to pass the saving that is made on to the consumer. The next transaction is performed by the wholesaler who purchases this tray at the depot at 3s. 3d. or 3s. 4d. Now, Mr. Speaker, up to that time the price is controlled. Up to that time any saving would be a saving made in the internal organisation of the Deciduous Fruit Board. When it passes out of the hands of the Deciduous Fruit Board the wholesaler takes charge of it and for delivering this fruit to the retailer, normally expects to make a maximum gross profit of between 15 per cent. and 17 per cent. That charge has been fixed more or less by agreement and custom, and although it seems a high percentage for the wholesaler to claim, it is the usual custom for the wholesaler even for many non-perishable articles, to make 15 per cent. gross profit. That percentage of profit may be brought down, but I am in no position to accuse the wholesaler of charging too much on this, one of the most perishable of products. Then, when the fruit gets into the retailer’s hands that is where trouble starts. The retailer is allowed to charge the public what he likes. There is no attempt to fix the selling price as there should be. It has been suggested that a 33⅓ per cent. profit to the retailer should be satisfactory. I know from my own experience that the retailer of perishable products has never been satisfied with a 33⅓ per cent. profit. He will not take it and he has never taken it. Again I cannot say whether 33½ per cent. of profit is fair or unfair, but as this and the wholesaler’s percentage of profit are the only charges which can be limited or cut down or adjusted quickly — and as the matter is urgent — I suggest that he should be forced to take it for this reason. With all the control we have I think the item that calls for control most of all here is our fruit. We have today to consider just where in the chain of charges and costs we can make a saving to pass on to the public. All deciduous fruit is subject to the same proportionate charges and commissions. First can we make a saving on the intake price? Is the farmer getting too much or too little? I think myself that investigation and a close examination is needed of the price which is paid to the farmer for his product. I am not prepared to say that the price is too high or too low. But we must remember that the intake price, Which is eventually passed to the consumer, is based on pre-war nett “export” prices. The farmer is getting export prices for locally sold fruit. There are of course certain adjustments made in reckoning the price — certain reductions on savings in costs due to less drastic thinning and pruning, plus additions for increased costs of labour, fertiliser, spray, packing material, etc. But I think that the essential fault is this, that the intake price is based on the fact that according to Government figures — from the Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Survey, 1937-’38, Report No. 2. — it is laid down that the average nett income on fruit farms in certain areas of the Cape is as follows: In Paarl the nett operator’s income on an average of 30 farms there is £57 per year. In Constantia, according to those figures, 18 fruit farmers get an average nett income from their produce of only £118 per year. In Elgin the average income of a fruit farmer from his fruit is as low as £25. Now I maintain that it does not need a business man, it does not need anyone with an acute financial sense to realise that these figures cannot be substantiated—these figures are false. These figures which are taken into consideration in fixing intake prices are falsely low which argues that intake prices are probably unnecessarily high. The man in the street cannot believe that the average fruit farmer in the prosperous Elgin district gets only £25 per year from his fruit. I wonder how long the consumer will go on paying the prices which he is charged today and which are based on such production figures. Of course, it amounts to this, that the whole price structure is based on a policy of trying to keep in production the most uneconomical type of farmer — the type of farmer who is producing his fruit on bad soil, or producing the wrong type of fruit for his soil or working sub-marginal land. They try to keep him on the land. How long is the consumer going to keep on paying for that? Now, what I am asking for is an enquiry to see whether these prices which I have mentioned are correct. The results of such an enquiry cannot be known till next season and we must accept them in our present emergency. Then the next item I want to say something about is packing. Hon. Members should know that the packing for this tray of peaches costs about 1s. The farmer pays nearly 10d. for it — 2d. is being absorbed by the Board — but even 10d. seems ridiculously high. There are various estimates given, ranging from 2d. upwards, at which this packing could be made. I cannot say what the price for the packing should be but that is a matter which should be gone into and any saving made passed on to the man in the street. Then we get the Deciduous Fruit Board charges and fees. There is Railage of 1d., there is 3d. for cold storage — that has been cut down from 6d. — then there is a 3d. selling charge and a further 1d. for delivery, and all these pennies and three pennies go to make up the price which makes it prohibitive for the poor man in the suburb to buy fruit which he should have and which he needs more than anyone else. I think the price could be brought down to a reasonable level. The main thing which we have to consider today is the price charged by the retailer. The retailer has informed us that he cannot make any profit; he cannot stock fruit and sell it at 33⅓ per cent. profit. I maintain as an immediate measure that we should force him to do so. I may say that I have overcome my natural reluctance as a townsman to speak on this agricultural matter—I have been forced to overcome that reluctance—by the absolute urgency of the question and the realisation that something should be done to bring down prices to the people not next year, but this year, this season, this month, this very week. I think we should say to the retailer: “That is the amount of profit which you are allowed to make, so that the ordinary consumer can afford to buy”. And if the retailer will not do that, well, the Government should enter into competition with him. It could easily be done if the Deciduous Fruit Board erect depots in each suburb in various parts of Cape Town: Woodstock, Mowbray, Rosebank, everywhere. You could have semi-permanent structures for these depots—you could borrow the material from Cavalcade if necessary. These places could be staffed by soldiers who are looking for jobs today and are pining at Polls moor. The produce could be sold on a non-profit basis. Finally I must say this, I think that a lot of ill-considered abuse has been levelled at the Deciduous Fruit Board. I think everyone should appreciate the invidious position in which they were placed. Here we have a body of farmers who in 1939 existed for the sole purpose of seeing how much they could get out of their fruit from the consumer, in England. Their whole training and tradition was to think of the producer not the consumer. We had this body of men with responsibility thrown upon them—responsibility which should never have been thrown upon them—of selling in South Africa the 32,000 tons of perishable fruit which were suddenly diverted on to our markets. I think it was unfair to ask these men to do that, and I think it is unfair to use them as a “stalking horse” and to say that they were to blame for the state of affairs which has arisen. To my mind the Deciduous Fruit Board and the Ministry of Agriculture are the same thing. They have come forward with three different schemes in three years, and I think it should be made clear that each of these schemes had the blessing of the Department of Agriculture and it is only fair to the Deciduous Fruit Board to say that these men, unaccustomed to merchandising and commerce were thrust against their will into a position of entering into commerce and dealing with all kinds of complicated problems—the erection and development, of drying yards, wineries, processing plants, dehydration plants, and so on. They were placed in a position in which they had to give credit to our farmers. The Deciduous Fruit Farmers had always been in the hands of the agents—to this extent, that they were always paid in advance for their produce considerable sums of money, virtually loaned to them, at 0 per cent. interest. The Deciduous Fruit Board—these Export Fruit Farmers—had to undertake this job of finance. They also had to try and run the whole business with lack of capital. Is it any wonder that they were forced to use money for certain purposes although that money had been intended for other purposes? Is it any wonder that they were forced to use for other unauthorised purposes money collected from the fruit farmers and which should have been repaid to the Land Bank? That they had to go to the Commercial Banks for a loan of £100,000? They should never have been given this job; the Board should have been strengthened by the Minister by the inclusion on the Board of men of business and merchandising experience and by consumers’ representatives. They should never have been given the work of carrying out unaided the merchandising of the most perishable products in the world. And now I say that unless something is done they will get into the same mess again. I have suggested that depots should be established—immediately—and the consumer price fixed. I am sure that unless something along these lines is done they are bound to get into the same economic and financial mess again. This year the Deciduous Fruit Board will get about £750,000 to run the business for this season. They have an authorised “voorskot” to pay to the farmers of about £844,000. They have selling expenses of about £300,000 and an agterskot” to face eventually of some £244,000, and administration and running expenses of £30,000. And they have been granted a sum of £750,000 to run the whole business, involving about £1,400,000. I contend that they will be forced to do the same thing as before—to use their money granted for one definite purpose for other purposes. They will be forced also to take blame which they should not take—blame the Department of Agriculture should at least take in equal measure. In conclusion I must say that an impartial committee of enquiry has found two things concerning the Deciduous Fruit Board which should be made public, one that the amount of fruit wasted by the Deciduous Fruit Board was negligible and two, that by their efforts and in spite of mistakes the Deciduous Fruit Board did save the fruit industry from absolute chaos. The fruit farmer has been protected. It is our bounden duty here and now to protect the consumer, the man in the street, especially the poor man.

I think the House is indebted to the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) for having put forward a position of affairs which many of us had suspected and which the country generally will be thankful to know. He has shown the position to be what many people had suspected, not only in regard to the Deciduous Fruit Board but many boards. The scheme put forward by the Government is quite sound. The idea of control is absolutely essential, but where our control boards break down is in the distribution and in the transport.…

Will the hon. member confine himself more to the Deciduous Fruit Board.

I want to speak about several other subjects as well.

The hon. member must on the second reading of the Additional Appropriation Bill confine himself to the matters dealt with in the Estimates of Additional Expenditure.

I am using the analogy that the same argument can apply to other Boards. Here we have the position where the hon. member for Woodstock has shown clearly that there is great wastage, but the most serious part of it is that people have to pay through the nose even for bad fruit. The hon. member has said that he thinks that if the retailer cannot distribute at a profit of 33⅓ per cent. he should be compelled to do so. Normally I would agree that a 33⅓ per cent gross profit should be sufficient for the average retailer. Out of that he has of course to pay his overhead charges and many other things, and perhaps his nett profit might be in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent. I don’t know that it might not even be less. The retailer’s position is not always the position to be blamed most of all, but I would suggest to the hon. member and to the Government that they should make use of our Municipal Markets. We should encourage the Municipal Markets in Cape Town, Johannesburg and other places, not only to sell in wholesale quantities but we should encourage them to go in for a system of retail sales, and we should also encourage them to have suburban markets. That would be of great assistance. The municipalities have the machinery and the municipal system of government would lend itself to that. There I think we could substantially help first in securing, as far as the farmer is concerned, that his goods will be forwarded in a manner creditable to the producer, and in a manner satisfactory to the consumer. I wish particularly to refer now to the Auditor-General’s Report in which he has made the very serious statement that he is not in a position to tell this House and the country what the true position of our finances is. It is a very serious position indeed, and it does not seem to me a matter which cannot be idly passed over by this House. He has shown that unless he has more staff and unless he has greater facilities given to him, he cannot tell this House and the country the true position. Now I think that even if he had that assistance, even if he were able as a result of that additional help, to give us some indication of the true position, even then he would require to go much further. The Auditor-General in years gone past has been in a position to show where wastages took place, where money was spent which could well have been saved. I have for some time been very much concerned with certain wastages in the Defence Department, in the Accounting Department of Defence. I think this House would be surprised if it knew that the mentality of the auditing department of the Defence Department cannot rise above that. Their books have to be squared under any circumstances. It has been brought to my notice several times recently, where men in the army were due to take their discharge, when it was discovered that they were overdrawn in their pay; they had drawn more than they were entitled to. One would ordinarily say: “Well, you have to refund the amount that is owing to the Department.” But the Department did nothing of the sort. What the Department did was this. If the man had overdrawn say to the tune of £3 and his daily rate of pay was 8s„ they just kept him on strength; they fed him and they housed him until he had worked off, by service, the amount of money owing to the Defence Department. Does that not exhibit the most astounding mentality? Then we have the other cases that have also been brought to my notice in recent months, where men are released without pay. I have in mind one such case in particular that came to my notice just before I came down to Parliament. This man told me that his release was in order, and that he would be out of the army in a week’s time. I asked him what type of work he was going to in civil life, and it was certainly more suitable for him than the work he was doing in the army. He said: “I think I will be out in a week.” It was, however, seven weeks before that man came out, and every now and again he told me that he was getting periodical leave. “I am,” he said, “just kicking up my heels in the camp; there is nothing for me to do, but I am waiting for the final signature, the signature of the officer who signs the release.” For seven weeks this man was anxious to get out, and because of the state of affairs prevailing in the dispersal camp he was detained, and money was wasted in paying his military salary. To what extent such cases are typical of what is happening throughout the country it is very difficult to say, but if this is the manner in which army accountants work, it is a very serious state of affairs indeed. And when the Auditor-General tells us that he cannot keep pace even with the ordinary normal work connected with our finances, how much more serious is the position when we have extraordinary expenditure and when we are faced with the abnormal position in which the country is today? I am putting it up to the Government and to the Minister that these are matters of very serious importance. Whether we consider that this case may be an isolated one—in my opinion it is not isolated—we know, of course, that in all military administration waste is unavoidable; we know waste is there and that waste will continue until we win the war. In one sense the war itself is waste; we appreciate that, we are ready to be kindly disposed towards an organisation like our army, which has been built up, thanks to the energy of dur Prime Minister, from nothing to an organisation of 150,000 men in the course of a few years. We are disposed to be lenient towards an organisation like this and to the various departments that have been placed in control. We know that many of the responsible officers were pushed into these positions because the necessary trained men were not available to fill them, but now after several years these officers are still functioning—men who have not been able to carry out the responsible work entrusted to them—and they should be removed as quickly as possible. I feel that in talking along these lines I should not let myself be misunderstood. This is in no way an attack on the army itself, but it is a definite demand that we shall have greater efficiency, that we shall eliminate wastage, and that we shall, so far as personnel is concerned, take up the standpoint that we are going to ensure that our money is well spent and not wasted. There is a further matter that I wish to deal with, and that is the question that still persists in regard to old age pensions, namely the means test. Old age pensions under the Social Security motion that was moved the other day—and I do not propose to discuss that because I know that I will be out of order—

The hon. member is out of order in discussing old age pensions. There is no provision in the Estimates on that subject.

I thought you would tell me that, but I do suggest that a first instalment might be given under the heading of this vote.

The hon. member is not in order.

Thanks, Mr. Speaker, I am in duty bound to accept your ruling, as I do without question. I would put it then in this way: When the Government is considering matters arising out of this vote, that wherever the means test crops up, they take steps to have it eliminated.

I want briefly to associate myself with other hon. members in what they have said in regard to the marketing of our deciduous fruit. For many years, more years than I care to remember—I have tried in my humble way to persuade the Government to set up some sort of local market organisation for our fruit. When the outbreak of war was imminent, it became obvious to everybody that our exporters would land in trouble unless active steps were taken in regard to the local marketing of fruit. But nothing was done. Then when export became impossible we had first of all the setting up of our Citrus Board. This Board, by giving attention to marketing and distribution, arranged for the disposal of the fruit to be spread out over a lengthy period, with the result that they succeeded in marketing their products successfully. The Deciduous Fruit Board endeavoured to follow that example, but by making a most unfortunate mistake they only brought chaos into the industry, and thorough dissatisfaction to the public. Surely it must be obvious that you cannot handle highly perishable fruit like grapes, peaches and plums in the same manner as you do citrus fruits. They are products that require immediate distribution, and when they are fresh and in cold storage they only deteriorate. When we export, fruit, grapes, for instance, our farmers go to no end of trouble to ensure that the product is of the highest possible grade. In respect of the local market, however, they pack inferior berries with other berries, and then they expect them to arrive in a good sound eatable condition to the general public. That is asking too much. In the second place, we in South Africa have probably greater spending power than we have ever had before. Surely the law of supply and demand should have influenced the Board in their course in regard to the marketing of highly perishable fruit. I do agree with other members of this House who feel that the time is ripe now, not at the end of the season, for the Government to investigate the position and fruit marketing in such a manner that the public will have a fair deal and the growers will have a fair price for their products.

Criticism has been levelled against the retailers from the point of view that an undue margin of profit is being made. I agree, Mr. Speaker, that from the general point of view the board has failed in so far as it has been unable to bring all types of fruit to all sections of the community at prices within their reach. But, sir, in this particular case it would not be enough merely to lay down a retail price with a view to cutting down the margin of profit; because in effect the result of that policy would be to stop all retailers taking fruit, for this one very simple fact, that owing to the system of distributing fruit, the keeping of it in cold storage, and packing it for maturity, the retailer finds himself in the unhappy position of having to write off from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. loss as a result of the fruit going bad. So firstly one would suggest that, while in principle it is right that fruit should reach the consumer at a reasonable price, the Deciduous Fruit Board should see that the retailers get the fruit in such a condition that it would last at any rate for a period that would enable the retailer to have the opportunity of disposing of that fruit. However, the real purport of my rising this time, Mr. Speaker, is to attack the Minister himself. The Minister, in reply to representations made in this House a few days ago, indicated that he himself was far from satisfied with the board, and that in fact he was sick and tired of the complaints that were coming in. I agree with the Minister. But I find it very difficult to reconcile these statements of his with his attitude that he is going to reorganise this board after the fruit season, I take it, at some period towards the end of the year. I find it very difficult to reconcile that attitude of the Minister with the dissatisfaction he has expressed, because if he shares the generally accepted views of this House that the Deciduous Fruit Board requires to be reorganised, I would have thought that the Minister would have reorganised the board now and not waited until the end of the season.

I have listened attentively to the views expressed here this afternoon by several hon. members. What I should like to know from the Minister of Agriculture is whether the House knew clearly what his functions are. It seems to me that the Deciduous Fruit Board did not even know what its functions are. Judging by the complaints which have been expressed here the Minister appointed the Board and gave it a motor car with a punctured wheel, and now that the Minister expected them to repair a puncture we find that the other three wheels are also punctured. Now, what primarily were the functions of the Deciduous Fruit Board? Were their functions further to shut down and to curtail the channels of distribution? Were their functions to increase the prices of fruit to the public? Were their functions to make it more difficult for the farmers to dispose of their products? I should have thought that the Deciduous Fruit Board should first of all have known exactly what fruit they would have to deal with, what the price should be, and so on. Is it so difficult to fix a price if they have a knowledge of farming and if they know what their functions are? And furthermore, if they are to meet the purpose for which they have been established, they must be able to frame a reasonable estimate of what it costs to take the fruit from the producer and convey it to the retail dealer. If they do not know that they can never meet the purpose for which they are established.

The trouble is that the Deciduous Fruit Board is not here to defend itself.

I think the Minister is quite able to defend them. He knows what he has appointed them for. If he does not know it then I quite agree that it will be difficult for him to defend them. If the Board has to answer the purpose for which it was established then it should know the prices of the various kinds of fruit over which it has to exercise control. Where is their difficulty? I feel their difficulties are not insurmountable. First of all they have to take into account the interests of the producers; they must be able to calculate the expenditure from the producer to the consumer. If they are not able to do that the Minister did not have the right to appoint them. If the Board is unable to determine that if a farmer has to get 2d. for his grapes, the consumer will have to pay 5d. or 6d. as a reasonable price, then the Minister was not entitled to appoint this Board, and not one of the members of that Board had the right to sit on it. One only gets back to the old condition of affairs. The tendency is either to depress the price which the farmer gets to such an extent that the farmer cannot live, or otherwise to raise the price to the consumer to such an extent that the consumer is unable to buy those commodities, and then the channels of distribution are closed. My personal experience is that the price of deciduous fruit is so high today, that it is really only looking for trouble. Costs are driven up to such an extent—that is the costs to be added to the actual costs of the products— that the channels of distribution are being closed instead of being opened. Now I want to ask the Minister, if he defends the Board, whether that Board knows how much the farmer should get, how much can reasonably be added to what the farmer gets until the fruit reaches the consumer. Does the Board know how much the consumer should be called upon to pay for those particular kinds of fruit which the Board controls. If the Board does not know that then I want to appeal to the Minister to get rid of the Board, and I appeal to the members of the Board to hand in their resignations. But if they know those three things, if they understand their function, then I ask what obstacles are in their way? We have heard a lot of talk here and I think every hon. member should put the position as clearly as he is able to, because it would appear that there is still a good deal of misunderstanding in regard to this matter. Of course, it is very pleasant for hon. members to talk on this subject; one can make people’s hair stand on end when talking on this subject, but unfortunately there are thousand of people who have to pay the piper. There are thousands of farmers whose fruit is rotting and there are thousands of people who are unable to get any fruit at all. But what about the Board? In what way do they pay for their blunders?

This debate has strayed rather far from the financial aspects on which it started and has been taken up mainly by a discussion of the deciduous fruit position. I shall, of course, have to take it back to financial matters. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and other members too have referred to what the Auditor-General says in his report about staff difficulties—they have raised that point in connection with the provision made in the Bill for the increase of the auditing staff. In reply to the hon. member for George I can only say that the Auditor-General personally brought his difficulties to my notice and as a result I made representations to the Minister of Defence, and much has been done to discharge people from the Army and return them to the Auditor-General’s staff. It is largely as a result of these representations that we now have to ask for this additional amount of money. I do not want to say that the position has been adequately remedied. The Auditor-General still has to contend with considerable difficulties, but we should not forget that audit is not the department alone which is suffering from a lack of trained staff, but other Government departments are also suffering from a shortage of trained staff for their accounting work. I very definitely propose discussing the matter again with the Auditor-General. I am prepared to do all I possibly can to assist in finding the necessary staff.

†The hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) who started from the same point as the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), wandered rather far afield in discussing wastage in the Department of Defence. I am not going to follow him, because I doubt whether it would be appropriate for me to deal with these points on this particular debate. I would only repeat what I have said, that the provision in this Bill for increased expenditure under the head “Audit” is the result of steps which have already been taken to make more complete and effective the staff provision in the Auditor-General’s Department, and that I shall do what I can to improve the position still further.

†*Now I want to refer to the main point which the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) raised once again. May I begin by saying that however strange it may appear in the light of my hon. friend’s speech, so far as the real point at issue is concerned, he and I are quite in agreement. The real point, as I see it, is that in order to arrive at a correct determination of our financial position we should take both the loan and the revenue account, and not regard a credit balance on one account the Revenue Account, as indicating an actual surplus. I quite agree with that point of view and I have repeatedly expressed myself in that spirit. I merely want to quote again to the House what I said last year. I have before me my Budget speech of a few years ago and I concluded my speech as follows—

I put it clearly. The joint estimates show the deficit of £43,500,000. In that same Budget speech I also said, after having referred to the final position in regard to Revenue Account—

The hon. member for George thereupon exclaimed: “Listen to that!” Two years ago he listened so carefully that now, two years later, he comes along with the same point as though it were a new point. Two years ago I said this, and last year in my Budget speech I again said this—

There, again, there is no question of a surplus. Further on in my Budget speech last year, when at the end I again summed up the position, I said—

I put that clearly. And now the hon. member says that I must tell the public once and for all clearly what the position is and what our policy is costing us. I said it very clearly two consecutive years.

But you did not say so on Monday.

The hon. member speaks about misleading the public and he speaks about lack of courage. We are not afraid of telling the public what the war is costing us, and the public are prepared to find the money. In regard to the actual point, however, of showing the country the true financial position, however there is no difference between the hon. member and myself. I only want to make this reservation, that when one takes the two accounts together, as I have always done so far, and if one wants to submit the real balance sheet one also has to take into account the fact that considerable assets accrue to the State out of Loan Funds. The hon. member knows what I have in mind. Money is not only found out of Loan Funds for the purpose of running the war, but money is also provided from those funds for Railways and Harbours, for irrigation, for telephones, settlement, national roads, etc. Consequently, when we make up our balance sheet it is not correct to say for instance that the amount of £57,500,000 on last year’s joint estimates must be regarded as a loss. As against that one would have to put the assets accrued from those Loan Funds. So far as the real point is concerned, however, on that there is no actual difference between us. In passing, I want to revert to an interruption by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). He asked whether in the past we also put on the Loan Estimates money to cover ordinary expenditure. In other words, the hon. member wanted to intimate that in this regard we are following a new principle. I dealt with that point last year, but the hon. member apparently has forgotten what I said. I referred to the fact that the practice which we are now following is exactly the same as that which was followed in the past, and in the past Items have continually appeared on the Loan Estimates for the purpose of covering current expenditure. I referred, to give an instance to the Loan Estimates for 1932-’33. On those Estimates there were such items as repair work in connection with Irrigation Works, unemployment expenditure (grants, not loans), relief of distress among natives, repairs to Defence buildings—these were not items of capital expenditure at all.

The then Minister of Finance did not say that he had no deficit.

The then Minister of Finance always spoke of surpluses when he referred to the Revenue Account, and he never mentioned, as I did in the past two years, that we had to borrow money on Loan Account. There is that difference between the then Minister and myself. In other words, I put the position more clearly and a good deal more fully, but the real difference between the hon. member and myself arises from the fact that he has accused me of dishonesty. If he had said that I had made a mistake, it would have been different, but he accuses me of dishonesty, and he said that I had come to this House with a cooked and manipulated Balance Sheet. What reasons has the hon. member for saying that? That certain papers had said that I had stated that the year would be closed with a surplus. From that the hon. member deduced that I wanted to create the impression that we were going to close the year with a surplus. That is pretty unstable ground to go on. On account of a certain impression having been created, the hon. member says that I wanted to create that, and that is why he accuses me of dishonesty. Now, that argument does not hold ground. It is true that certain papers did say that there was going to be a surplus at the end of the year, but other papers put the position quite differently. I am just as little responsible for the point of view of the one paper as of the other. I did not talk of a surplus. My hon. friend has quoted what I said. I said, “The adoption of these estimates, the estimates now before us, will not result in our closing this year with a deficit.” But immediately after that I said, “More money still has to be found for defence.” How can it be deduced from that that I wanted to say that there would be a surplus? I only said that these estimates now before the House will not cause a deficit. But after that I said that other estimates were to come up, and more money would have to be found. It is perfectly clear that I did not want to create the impression that we were going to close the year with a surplus. On this occasion we are not dealing with a balance sheet. The balance sheet is submitted in the Budget speech. What have we got to do on this occasion? On this occasion the House is asked to vote certain additional sums of money. The House has the fullest right to ask me when I come here with a request for another £2,500,000: “How are you going to find that £2,500,000? Are you going to impose more taxes, or will you have to carry that money forward to next year?” And all I have to tell the House, as I did, is that although I am asking for this £2,500,000 the voting of this £2,500,000 will not involve a deficit. I think therefore that my hon. friend was a bit premature. The real submission of the balance sheet comes on the Budget. When the Budget is submitted to the House I shall submit the position just as correctly as I have done in the last two years. I have never yet tried to hide from this House or from the country how much this war is costing us; we all know that it is costing us a lot of money and at the recent elections the country proved itself prepared to find that money. I leave it at that. If my hon. friend on a previous occasion had pointed out that a wrong impression was created by my speech, that several papers had said that there was going to be a surplus at the end of the year, I would have immediately got up and said that my hon. friend was correct. But when my hon. friend came here and impugned my honesty, when he spoke of a cooked, manipulated balance sheet, I had to react, I hope, as a result of the discussion, one thing at least will be clear. If my hon. friend comes here with reasonable criticism I shall always welcome it and deal with it in a reasonable manner, but if he comes here with exaggerated allegations, if he impugns my honesty, he must not be upset if I reply to him in a suitable manner.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

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

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

The title of this Bill, I think, speaks for itself and if one can judge by the impatience which has been expressed both in this House and outside during the last year or two, I think there is reason to hope that both the House and the country will find themselves in sympathy with the object of the Bill. Indeed, Parliament has already in recent years shown its interest in the fishing industry, partly by the money which it has voted for the development of fishing harbours and also by the Sea Fisheries Act of 1940. That Act was designed principally to control and preserve the fishing grounds and also to provide regulation of the means of catching fish, but there was also in the Act a section providing for, or dealing with the marketing of fish; but shortly after the Bill was passed the war position deteriorated, and my Department which was depleted by the numbers who had joined the army, and was also to an ever increasing extent saddled with the administration of war measures found itself quite unable to cope with the additional duty of organising the inshore fisheries in addition to which when the matter came to be looked into there were a number of difficulties which cropped up which had not been foreseen, and the result was that the marketing provisions of the Fisheries Act have not yet been implemented. They were very limited provisions, but nothing has been done about them. The 1940 Act was based on investigations which were carried out between 1932 and 1936, notably on the Board of Trade Report of 1934. But since 1940 there have been a number of further investigations. The Fisheries Bill was sent to a Select Committee. The Social Welfare Department have carried out investigations; the Industrial Development Corporation has gone into various aspects of the Fishing Industry, and there was also a departmental committee which sat with my hon. friend, the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) and studied various other schemes which had been formulated to deal with the development of the Fishing Industry, and as a result of these enquiries it became apparent that the limited scheme, the very limited scheme under the Sea Fisheries Act, was not sufficient to achieve the purpose which was then in Parliament’s mind, and it is in the light of the findings of these various bodies of enquiry which support the view that the State should take a hand in the development of the industry, and at the same time in the social uplift of the fishermen that I am now asking Parliament for the comprehensive powers embodied in this Bill. I am satisfied that these powers are necessary and I am quite prepared to go ahead. At the same time I appreciate that there are in this Bill certain proposals which may be described as novel, and if the House feels that it should examine these proposals in committee, before agreeing to the principles contained in the Bill, I shall not object. I think that in the future we shall be called upon to do many things which may be described as novel. I think experiments, bold experiments, will have to be tried, and I think that Parliament should be given a full opportunity to consider and examine these proposals before they accept them —that is unless they are satisfied by their second reading debate. Every enquiry that has been made into the fishing industry has focussed attention on the unsatisfactory state of affairs, particularly in regard to the inshore fishing. As far as the inshore fishing industry is concerned, every report shows that the state of affairs in that industry can only be described as chaotic and highly wasteful and uneconomic. And since this Bill proposes State intervention I should state briefly for hon. members the case which makes me believe that that intervention is necessary. Broadly speaking, the catching of fish falls into two categories—the deep sea trawling, and line fishing, and a certain amount of netting. The trawling is done by large companies, well financed and well equipped, and since deep sea fishing is largely controlled by one concern, they are well organised to look after themselves which they have done and do do. But the inshore fishing is in a very different category. It is carried on by a large number of independent fishermen amounting, it is estimated, to something like 90 per cent. of the total number of people engaged in the industry, and these inshore fisherman are mainly without financial means. They are quite out of touch with modern development, their boats are often ill found, and inadequate, which means that they are limited far more than they should be by the weather in regard to their going out to fish, and they are virtually unorganised. They are a series of scattered communities and in many ways they are exposed to exploitation by those who provide them with their equipment, and by those on whom they have to depend for the disposal of their catches. Anyone who has studied the Board of Trade’s Report which made an exhaustive enquiry round the various coastal fishing places will realise what I mean. The position is therefore that whereas now in wartime the inshore fisherman are probably doing better than they have ever done in peace time, for the most part they earn a meagre livelihood, a poor livelihood, they live a risky and ill-paid life and as a consequence of that as a community they have fallen in the social scale and have tended to become intemperate, with certain notable exceptions, indolent, and thoroughly inefficient. One may say that the inshore fishing population of the country constitutes a child problem in the South African family. And they are a very considerable widespread community comprising as I say some 90 per cent. of the total of the men engaged in the fishing industry. No accurate statistics are available, which in itself is a reflection on the general state of the industry, but it is estimated that there are some 10,000 of these fishermen along our coast, and if you include their wives and families it is no exaggeration to say that some 40,000 or 50,000 souls are dependent for their existence on inshore fishing.

At the very least.

Yes, I am speaking conservatively. Now, that is a responsibility which the Government can no longer ignore. It is a social as well as an economic problem, and I think it will be agreed that to organise this community, to equip them as they should be equipped, to rehabilitate them, and maintain something like an equitable distribution of the income that directly or indirectly can be derived from our fishing grounds, is not something which private enterprise unaided can be expected to undertake. In the second place the fishing areas on the Union’s coast are a national asset. They are an asset which the country is anxious to see developed and exploited, not purely or solely for commercial profit but so that the wealth to be extracted, derived from the sea in its many forms, should contribute as fully as possible to the general welfare of the country. Thirdly, if full development is to take place of our fishing areas a great deal of investigation and research will have to be made, and large sums of money, most of which will have to be found by the Government, will have to be spent on the provision of research equipment, survey vessels and so on, and in the further provision of fishing harbours; and lastly, in addition to the crying need for greatly increasing the extent to which fish in this country is regarded as a normal ration and not as a luxury, the potential national importance of fish is very great indeed; the manufacture of fishmeal, as a protein animal food, the manufacture of fertilisers, from offal, to increase the supply of expensive fertilisers which we have to import today, the production of concentrated vitamin oils for health purposes—those are all directions in which we may expect the fishing industry to make important contributions to the vital problem of assuring our people of an adequate supply of cheap food, and so we have to deal with an industry which in some ways is unique. We have to deal with an industry in which 90 per cent. of those engaged in it present an acute social and economic problem, an industry which will require a great deal of public money to be spent on it, if its potentialities are to be exploited, and an industry in which the raw material, the fish, is a national asset, and not one to which any private interest has any claim to ownership, or to preference; and it is an industry in which not only my department but other departments—the Agricultural Department, Public Health, Social Welfare, and the Nutrition Authorities as well, are deeply interested, and they are interested to the extent that even if not one penny of profit were to be made in catching fish and preparing it in its many forms for use, it would still be in the national interest to develop it to the utmost. For all these reasons I submit that there is a clear case for the State taking an active interest in the affairs of the industry. And it is for these reasons that I have thought it necessary to submit to Parliament a Bill seeking the admittedly wide powers included in the Bill before the House. Up to the present the fishing industry has been in the hands of a number of private firms or individuals or concerns. Some large and some small, but all purely for the profit to be made out of it—quite legitimately, and I am not making any criticism of it—I am simply stating it as a fact, and it is understandable that there should be certain apprehension at the prospect of Government intervention in the industry in which they are engaged. The idea that economic activity is wholly and solely the preserve of private enterprise dies very hard, and the belief is still held in some quarters that State and private enterprise must necessarily be in conflict with each other. I do not take that view. I believe that private enterprise, private initiative, is not only most valuable, is not only a most potent factor in South Africa’s progress, but I also believe that private enterprise and private initiative are part of the inherent right of every free man and part of the freedom for which we are fighting this war, and I believe, too, that human nature being what it is, the profit motive, the material or monetary reward, will remain the chief incentive for private enterprise. But bearing in mind the greatly extended responsibilities for the general welfare which Governments are called upon to and do take, and bearing in mind that the general welfare must ultimately depend upon the national income being raised to the highest possible level through full employment and full development of the country’s resources, to my mind it is quite certain that the purely private profit motive is not enough, and that the State to a greater or lesser degree must be actively interested in the economic development and activities of the country, and as I see it therefore our task is to preserve private enterprise and to encourage private initiative working for its own reasonable profit and reconcile it with the wider responsibilities which the State bears for the country. And I believe that can be done— I believe much can be done by intelligent co-operation between State and private enterprise, and that wisely and properly handled the activities of the one can be the complement of the other, and I want to assure those who have capital invested in the fishing industry and who have done much to develop it, that it is not the intention of this measure to destroy or to injure any of their assets. On the contrary, it is an attempt, to provide a framework in which the State, while undertaking the responsibilities which it believes devolve upon it, can co-operate fruitfully with private interests for the development of a great national industry. I come now to the provisions of the Bill itself about which I would like to say a word. Besides conferring upon the Governor-General certain powers of control over the catches of the fishing industry, provision is made in the first place for the establishment of a corporation on public utility lines for the purpose of assisting fishermen in various directions and of participating in the marketing and processing of fish, and secondly, for the preparation and maintenance of a register of fishermen and fishing boats. To deal with the last point first. The objects of a register are to establish a measure of control over the occupation of fisherman. If the inshore fishermen are going to be protected and helped they must be subject to certain control and discipline. They must be prepared to do a fair and regular day’s work, and they will have to learn in many cases to lead temperate and regular lives. Hitherto there has been no control of fishermen, no qualifications for the trade, they are not even required to take out licences. There are many fishermen who may be described as casual fishermen, men who take a seat in a boat if they feel like it, or if it happens to be a fine day, and if they don’t feel like it they don’t go out. And that shiftless element in the fishing population is a considerable factor in the whole of the community problem of the inshore fishermen. This register will endeavour to confine those appearing on it to those who regularly and honestly derive a livelihood from fishing, and having registered them it will be our business to see that they are properly equipped and are given every facility for increasing their means of livelihood, and it is obvious, if conditions are to be made more attractive in inshore fishing, we must be able to control an influx of new entrants in the early stages as otherwise our efforts to help the existing fishermen might be undermined. The object of this Bill is not to limit the number of fishermen, but to regularise the conditions under which the largest number of fishermen can be employed, but we have to be able to regulate the number of people we can help. The most important provision of the Bill deals with the establishment of a public corporation. The principal objects of the corporation are the organisation, financing and equipment of inshore fisheries, the management of their business affairs, and the extention of business and other amenities. Hon. members will see described in many details the wide range of things that may be done for the welfare of fishermen. The corporation will in effect become the guardian of the inshore fishermen, but while this is the main object we have to go further than that. Hon. members will notice that the Bill does not presume that the corporation will catch fish. It is not the intention of the corporation to catch fish, but it may well be that in the course of organising in the interest of the inshore fishermen, the corporation may find itself the buyer or the owner of most or all of the inshore fish that are caught. Clearly, if the corporation is to undertake that responsibility, it must also be given powers to dispose of the fish, and therefore power is taken in this Bill for the corporation to be interested in the processing and marketing, as distinct from the producing side. I have said, Sir, and I repeat, that there is no intention of eliminating private enterprise; but it is contemplated that the corporation will take an interest in the marketing and distribution of fish. The objects of the Bill can therefore be divided into two distinct parts, those dealing with the organisation and the producing side of the industry, by which I mean principally inshore fishing; and secondly, those parts enabling the corporation to take an active interest in the processing and marketing of fish and fish products. The financial provisions are also in two parts. The capital consists of 1,000,000 shares of £1 each, and these are divided into two classes—A shares and B shares. The proceeds of the A shares can be used solely for financing fishermen and providing them with assistance and amenities. The B shares may be used for marketing and processing undertakings. A shares carry the controlling interest in the corporation, and are available only to the Government. The dividends on the A shares are limited to 4 per cent. but during the first five years the dividend is limited to 1 per cent., because it was felt this concession was necessary, to give the corporation an opportunity of becoming established in the social and economic work it is going to undertake before being called upon to provide a return on this part of its capital. The B shares carry a maximum dividend of 6 per cent., and in certain circumstances will be available to the public. It is expected that under this provision certain of the undertakings are at present engaged in the corporation and will have a say in its management. The Bill further provides for the keeping of separate accounts in respect of activities relating to the financing of fishermen, and the financing of schemes for the corporation’s equipment on the one hand, and marketing and processing on the other. This separation of accounts will be necessary because the Bill stipulates that any unappropriated earnings on the A shares may not be used for the payment of dividends on B shares, whereas unappropriated dividends on B shares may be used for the payment of dividends on the A shares. The management of the corporation has to be in the hands of five directors. Three of them including the chairman and managing director, will be appointed by the Governor-General, and the others by holders of B shares. Therefore the directors and staff of this corporation will, in a large measure, be charged with the task of reorganising the fishing industry and of maintaining an equitable distribution of the earnings derived from the country’s fishing grounds. It is no easy task and no simple problem. The fishermen develop, under the conditions I have described, characteristics which make them a very difficult problem, and I do not think that far reaching and spectacular changes in the fishing industry are to be looked for in the earlier years of this corporation, as it is clear that improvements in the various directions must of necessity be slow. On the other hand, an immense amount remains to be done in developing this industry, and in turning to full account the great asset in the seas around our coasts; and I hope and believe that this measure, and the corporation for which it provides, will play a major part in that development, and in the building up of the industry and of a respectable industrious and healthy fishing community around the coast of the Union.

I think I may congratulate the Minister on the clear manner in which he has explained the provisions of this Bill. It must be a proud day to him to have the privilege of introducing a Bill of this kind in this House, a Bill which proposes to create order out of chaos in one of South Africa’s greatest national assets. The Minister must be proud of doing something now which has never been done before. To a large number of persons in this House and outside the House who take an interest in this matter, this Bill constitutes the realisation of a dream. Session after session over the last ten years we have brought this matter to the notice of the House. It has been done from both sides of the House, but I am afraid that most of what was said fell on deaf ears. Or if that is not so, then steps have been taken which, as the Minister has admitted, did not greatly affect the position. Those of us who take an interest in this matter have for all these years been trying to concentrate the attention of the House on this question. We have tried to point out to the country that we are concerned here with a sleeping industry which possibly in years to come might develop, I won’t say to the greatest, but certainly into the second greatest industry in this country, next to agriculture. This industry is one which for many years has been seriously neglected. As I said on previous occasions it is the Cinderella of our industries. Next to agriculture it can become the greatest industry of South Africa, it can become South Africa’s greatest gold mine. When the gold mines will be worked out; when the diamond mines will have been worked out and are nothing but big holes in the ground, we shall still have this inexhaustible gold mine along our coasts, a gold mine which so far as I know has never been exhausted in any country in the world. This gold mine of ours has so far been unknown, unconsidered and undeveloped. Ever since I have been in this House efforts have been made but we have only touched the fringe of this whole subject, but now the Minister has come along with this Bill which to my mind is a measure which can be welcomed by all members of this House. This is the first time the Government has shown its willingness to put its hand fairly deeply into its pocket for this undeveloped great industry of South Africa. The Select Committee of 1939, which gave a great deal of attention to this matter—and of which I had the privilege of being the Chairman— laid the foundation for the step which was taken here today. That Select Committee devoted a good deal of time to this subject and called witnesses who gave us valuable information with a view to the step which was taken here today. We have made considerable progress during the past ten years. The proof of that progress is to be found in the step which was taken here today. We have made even greater progress if we cast our minds back over the history of this industry. Jan van Riebeeck stopped the colonists from wasting their time in the catching of fish. Since those days of 300 years ago we have made great progress and today a dream is being realised and we find that the State is making an attempt to do something that should have been done long ago. It has been rightly stated that so far the development of this industry has been left to private enterprise and initiative. From Port Nolloth right, along the coast to Kosi Bay we have great fishing waters and wonderful opportunities for the development of the second largest industry in South Africa. For this industry with its immense potentialities we have a few police patrol boats to protect the fishermen and the fishing industry and to prevent the destruction and exploitation of the fishing grounds. The history of this industry is one that can hardly be believed. If we bear in mind that, we have allowed things to happen in our country and round about our coasts in regard to the exploitation of the products of the sea, and that we have allowed the industry to be exploited in a manner no other country in the world has allowed it, we can only come to the conclusion that the industry has been most shockingly neglected. I do not wish to be too critical in regard to the past, but none-the-less I feel I must say something, because there may still be some people who have not yet had the blinkers removed from their eyes so far as this industry is concerned. What has happened? Great wealth along our coasts, great catches of fish have been destroyed. This has been done by large companies which have been allowed to do things which no other country in the world, possessing such an asset, would have tolerated. The large companies have furnished the vessels which catch their fish far away from the coast with radio sets, and all the while those vessels are making their catches, they are kept informed of the position of the fish-market. If the inshore fishermen make a good catch, the information is conveyed by wireless to these ships and so much fish is thrown back into the sea as is necessary to maintain the price on the market at the standard at which the company wants it to be. It is unbelievable that the company should have been allowed to do these things in order to maintain the price of fish. These are unbelievable things which will probably never be admitted and which after the adoption of this Bill will in all likelihood never see the light of day. We can only express the hope that those radio sets will disappear and that it will be made impossible for large firms to give instruction to their ships to throw back into the sea certain quantities of fish in order to keep up the prices. The Minister rightly stated—he had good reason for stating— that this Bill must be passed in order to create order out of chaos. Other countries have taken different steps in the past. We can take a country like Newfoundland and also a country like Canada. For the past fifty years those countries have protected their coasts against exploitation, and abuse. They have done more, they have so regulated their fishing industry that thousands and thousands of families have been able to make their livelihood out of it, with the result that the country too has derived financial benefit from it. For some reason which no one seems able to understand, we in South Africa, however, have pretended to be deaf and blind in regard to what has been going on along our coasts. The two principal sections of the population in South Africa, the Afrikaans-speaking section and the English-speaking section, are of seafaring stock. Both those nations are fish-eating nations, but we here in South Africa have turned our backs on the sea and we have forgotten to eat fish. What is the situation today? A country like South Africa with its extensive population eats very little fish. Let me say here in passing that the experts tell us that fish has as much nutrition value as meat. Only it is healthier because it is easier to digest. In South Africa we eat 5 lbs. of fish per head per year, whereas in a country like Norway they do not eat 5 lbs. per head per year but 70 lbs. A country which has gold mines has only temporary riches. A country which has rich fishing grounds along its coasts, as we have here, has an inexhaustible gold mine. The experts have told us that there are a few matters in connection with our fishing industry which can be definitely determined. The first is that our potential supplies of fish from Port Nolloth to Kosi Bay are about the richest in the world, and that next to agriculture there is the possibility of developing this industry so that it can become the second greatest industry in South Africa and it can be so developed as to become a lasting and inexhaustible industry. The next fact they have determined is that the area which is suitable for exploitation and development along our coasts covers about 150,000 square miles—an area larger than the Transvaal and the Free State together. I merely want to say in passing that this is further evidence of the way we have neglected the position in the past, particularly if we bear in mind the fact that we have developed only 16 fishing harbours for these fishing grounds of ours, and that those fishing harbours have only been developed in a most primitive way and the work there has only been done in bits and pieces. Our progress in regard to this industry has been at a pace which may be likened to the pace of the tortoise—and that during a period when time and distance have been reduced almost to nought. Before proceeding any further I should like to pay a word of praise to the officials of this particular department. It would be invidious to mention names, but I want to pay them this tribute, that they have never ceased investigating this whole subject, they have never ceased bringing it to the notice of the public. I want to mention only one name, the name of the late Mr. A. P. J. Fourie, a former Minister in charge of this department. Like the present Minister he felt very strongly on this subject, and in discussing this big industry now, I want to mention his name as that of the man who, together with the present Minister, will be honoured for, and take credit for the Bill now before the House. I do not unduly want to take up the time of the House but I should like to add this. In addition to the nutritional value of fish, the by-products coming out of the sea have an almost greater value. The Minister has mentioned some of these by-products. If we develop on a large scale in this country the products which at the moment are being imported into this country, we shall be able to develop many other industries and supply the country with a great many valuable parts. We are importing fertilisers today. The country needs them; the figures I have in regard to the importations of fertilisers are pre-war figures. In those days we imported 200,000 tons in one year. These fertilisers can be secured from the sea around about our coasts. They will assure an income to a great proportion of our population and we shall be in a position to supply those fertilisers at a reasonable price to our farming community which today has to pay a high price for the imported article. There are such things as fishmeal —a commodity which is used for poultry and cattle food, which we have to import today. There is medical cod liver oil. We are busy developing its production, but we are only on the fringe of development there. There is fishlime which we are importing today and which we are able to manufacture here. There are films. There are celluloids from which varnish can be manufactured. There are weaving materials and other by-products which can be procured from the sea and which are imported today. Take a substance like gelatine which is used for the manufacture of jelly. And take iodine and all the rest of it—all these are articles for which a big market can be found in South Africa. I have only mentioned a few of the most important products. I hope that when the Bill is discussed in detail that will be the opportunity of laying down that these by-products which I have mentioned are also to be developed by this corporation. Now, let me say a word about the principle of the Bill. As to the principle that the State should provide money for the corporation for the development of the industry— nobody will raise any objections to that. At least no one on this side of the House. We all agree that it is the duty of the State to take the initiative in order to develop such a big industry. But there are a few questions which can be asked, and the first is this: What is the extent of the control which the State is to get? The second question is: In what way is the State to provide the funds, and the third question is: What is to be the capital amount which the State will provide? For the moment I shall leave the first two questions. As to the extent of control which the State is to have I only want to say this, that I am disappointed with the Bill in this respect, namely, that for the development of this big industry we are starting with only £1,000,000, or with £500,000, which is the amount to be given by the State. Those are the A shares. I want to tell the Minister that that amount is inadequate. In the case of the Iron and Steel Industry we started off with £3,500,000. Under the Act for the development of industries for which a Corporation was established we started with £6,000,000, and that being so it is not right to come here with a trival £500,000 to start off this concern. No, I feel that of latter years public opinion in South Africa has been induced to be liberally disposed towards this enterprise and the State will not suffer any loss if it sets about matters in a more liberal spirit. The Minister will find no objections raised if he provides a larger amount. In order that we may be able to discuss this and other points fully and frankly without being restricted in any way I want to move an amendment. That amendment is a follows. I move—

I am moving this because I was glad to hear from the Minister that if it was the wish of the House he was prepared to grant us this opportunity, so that the matter could be fully discussed in Select Committee. There are a few other questions which may have to be asked, and which could be fruitfully discussed by the Select Committee. The first question is the extent to which the voting power of the B shares should be restricted. I don’t want to go into details on this point, I only want to draw attention to one danger. The Minister told the House that the bodies or concerns which have a financial interest in industry will be recognised. I have not much objection to that, the only thing I do not want to see is this, that now with the large amount of capital that is available in this country, people from all parts who have no interest in the matter, but who are only inspired by the profit motive will come forward and invest their money in this enterprise for the sake of the 6 per cent. they will get. The Minister will see the danger there. I think one might beneficially discuss the question of the extent to which the voting power can be limited. Another important matter affects the fishermen themselves. We have about 50,000 fishermen in this country, and they have been exploited to such an extent of latter years that they are suspicious of any measure of this kind. And it will require the co-operation of all of us to convince them that this is a good measure and that it is to their benefit. For that reason I should like to make the suggestion that the Corporation should go out of its way to make the fishermen friendly disposed and no better method can be devised in making them friends of the Corporation than to give them an interest in the Corporation. For that reason I want to suggest that we should make it easy for them to secure some of the B shares; they should be given the opportunity of taking an interest, on a small scale, in the shares. I would go so far as to say that the first registration fee should give them a share in the Corporation. They they will become the friends of the Corporation. I want to repeat that at the moment they are suspiciously inclined towards this Bill. I am only touching on points where to my mind improvements can be brought about in this Bill. We in South Africa should realise that it is impossible for us to make a success of the development of this industry in the way we have done in other industries unless we allow the producer to have an interest in the industry. Assuming for a moment that we should want to establish a wool factory in this country. We would not be able to make a success of it unless we were to give the wool farmers an active share in such a Corporation. In that way we would induce them to take an interest. I could mention other instances. Where the fishermen of this country are concerned, we are going to have trouble about this Bill and about this Corporation, unless we manage in some way or another to make friends of them and make them part and parcel of this Corporation. I therefore in all earnestness want to ask the Minister to give this his serious consideration when the question is further discussed. Then we have the provisions regarding new fishermen coming in. I hope the Minister is not going to create a dead end in regard to this matter. I hope he is not going to close up the bottle neck so far as new fishermen are concerned. We must give them the opportunity of becoming fishermen and joining the industry. If this matter is tackled by this Corporation in the right manner it will develop on such a scale that many of the people who are unemployed today will find openings in this industry, and the Minister must not put any obstacles in their way. I should like to see the registration of existing fishermen altered, so that newcomers will also find it possible to be taken up from time to time in the industry. Then there is another important matter. I notice that South West Africa has been left out of the Bill. I do not know why that is being done. South West Africa has some of the best fishing grounds along our coast. Many of the fishermen once every year go as far as Walvis Bay to catch fish there which they take to the markets. I hope that the exclusion of South West Africa is an oversight, and that it is not the intention to leave that part out. Now here is another important matter I want to refer to. It would appear to me that legislation of this kind is all too much inclined to leave everything in the hands of bureaucracy. I have no objection to the officials, but of latter years we have been depriving Parliament of so many of its rights that it almost amounts to a scandal. In every measure before the House we have some important principle laid down, and then afterwards it is provided that the Governor-General may make regulations. In the olden days, before I was a Member of Parliament, we had regulations contained in almost every Law in the form of a schedule. In many of the Bills there were two, three or four schedules contained in the regulations. Parliament used to discuss those regulations, and in doing so accepted responsibility for those regulations. Of late that has no longer been done, and we simply give the Governor-General the power to make regulations. Here we are again making the mistake in this Bill of adopting a broad principle and giving the Governor-General the right to make regulations. And then Parliament never sees those regulations again. Parliament is deprived of its powers and I want to protest against that. I am anxious to see the regulations and to be jointly responsible for seeing to it that those regulations are in good order because I do feel that it is the regulations which will very greatly affect the fishermen. I feel that my request is no more than fair and just. I want to conclude by saying that this Bill is the third beacon in the development of industry. The third important beacon in our industrial development is the one on which we are now engaged. The first beacon was established in 1922 when Parliament established the Board of Control in regard to the Electricity Supply industry, with a view to co-ordinating and controlling the production and supply of electricity. Under the measure passed then an Electricity Supply Commission was appointed, an Institution which has already become a household word in South Africa. It is a body regarded as a persona in law which has to carry on its business in the same way as a private business concern, with this difference, that it has to carry on its activities as far as possible on a basis of making neither profit nor loss. Another peculiarity in connection with that industry is that the State has not provided the money there through the sale of shares, but by lending money to the Electricity Supply Commission. And what has been the result? For only seven years the Commission used the money it had borrowed and it then found it was so flourishing that it was able to repay all the money it had borrowed from the State, and it secured other money by the issue of locally registered stock; in that way it procured an amount of £16,000,000 at a rate of interest varying between 3½ per cent. and 4¼ per cent. For the first seven years, therefore, funds were placed at the disposal of the Commission and after that short period of time the Commission had achieved such a high reputation in the opinion of the public that the public was prepared to let the Commission have £16,000,000, and the original money was paid back to the Government so that the Government, if it wanted to do so, could invest it in other industries. That was an important beacon. The next beacon was erected in 1928 when the Iron and Steel Industry—for which honour is due to the late Mr. Willie Beyers and other people who were prominent in those days—was established. That is the example which the Bill now before us is following to a certain extent. In those days an amount of about £3,500,000 was provided by the State. The State took shares to that extent in the Corporation. This beacon of 1928 differed from the one that was erected in 1922 in this respect, that where in the former case the State lent the original capital—and got it back afterwards with interest—in the case of the Iron and Steel Corporation, it took shares and got dividends. I prefer the Iscor precedent, and that is the one which is being followed in this Bill. Just to give one reason. In the case of Iscor, where the State took the initiative and gave the money, it also maintained its interest in the enterprise; furthermore, the producers were given an opportunity of taking an interest in the matter. In regard to the Electricity Supply Commission the Government has always appointed the Directors, but in the other case the public were also given the opportunity of taking an interest in the matter. For those two reasons I prefer to see the Iscor example followed. Now, apart from the measures passed in 1940 in connection with the establishment of the Industrial Corporation we have reached the third beacon, the third industry in South Africa to be tackled and established by the State. The first was the Electricity Supply Commission, the second the Iron and Steel Industry, and the third one now is the fishing industry. I think this third one should have come first, but anyhow we are pleased to have reached this third stage. To the fishermen in South Africa and the public generally this day promises great things for the future. The fishing industry up to now has always been treated as a Cinderella. It will now be able to develop properly. It will be able to develop and become South Africa’s second greatest industry, and I hope that that will be the effect of it.

I second. After the excellent speech by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) I merely want to second his motion very briefly more or less formally. I want to associate myself with what he said when he paid a tribute to the Minister for the introduction of this Bill. It is not my intention at this stage to make a speech on the Bill, because I understand that the Minister is prepared to send it to a Select Committee. There is just one point which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice and I hope he will accept it in the spirit in which it is intended. In the past, large enterprises by private individuals have sometimes resulted in the fact that the people who invested money in those enterprises, or who took shares, were not the people who had a direct interest in the industry, and I want to ask the Minister to give his attention to this aspect so that when the Bill goes to a Select Committee care will be taken to see to it that people who have a direct interest in the fishing industry will be given the opportunity of securing the B shares. There are people who are suspicious of this Bill, and as the hon. member for Moorreesburg has said, one cannot blame the fishermen, because it has happened so often in the past that as a result of a Bill of this kind the people who really do the work do not get the benefit they are entitled to. But I do welcome this Bill. I know of instances in the past where inshore fishermen have not been allowed to sell fish to private individuals. Not far from here there is a place where it regularly happens. They have to deliver their fish to a specific person and if they sell to private individuals they are not allowed to go to sea again. One has to go and beg a particular individual who has never been in a, boat in his life to be allowed to get some fish, and one has to pay that man what he asks. The fishermen are under his thumb. For that reason those people should be kept out, otherwise things will go wrong again. Meanwhile, on behalf of my constituency I want to thank the Minister for having introduced this Bill.

I wish to congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this Bill, and I particularly wish to congratulate him on the very excellent way in which he explained it to the House. This Bill is very much overdue, and it is a Bill which has been anticipated for a long time. Ever since the fisheries were taken over by the Union Government from the Provincial Councils this House has been busy in devising ways and means by which this industry could be properly controlled. It was always felt that this was one of our most important primary industries, and that it had been neglected. We were busy looking after secondary industries, but this primary industry of fishing has been neglected to a very large extent. It must be realised, of course, that though fisheries have been carried on here for quite a considerable time, private enterprise has failed to a very large extent to do justice to that vast industry and the smaller people interested in the industry had no chance whatever to foster or develop the industry in competition with the monopolistic industry that sprang up here. So much so did this monopoly which was created retard the progress of this industry that fish was only available to that high economic class in this country. Even coloured people whose diet should be fish have not been able to obtain it. The Bill now before the House is concerned with that situation, and much thought has been given to this whole question, and it is well that it should come before the House now when there is an urgent need for our protein foodstuffs, and it will also help to solve our nutrition problems. Apart from solving the food difficulties which we have in this country today, it is expected that the expansion of this industry will give employment to thousands and thousands of people, and remunerative employment at that. Hand in hand with that remunerative employment, our national production and our national income will be increased. Because one has to remember that it is not merely with the catching of fish that this development will come along. As the mover of the amendment explained it will mean turning into profitable account what formerly constituted waste. Now, that we have realised for a long time. We have long realised that, all this improvement which this Bill desires to bring about cannot be achieved without Government sponsorship, sponsorship towards the inshore fishermen, helping them in equipment, helping them to achieve better social conditions. Not alone will this increase in our fish supply be very desirable from the point of view of human consumption, but even animals will benefit by it. More fish-meal will be produced, the dairy and meat industry can be assisted, and fertilisers can be developed. The hon. member referred even to seaweed. Research will tend to bring about a position under which seaweed will be a very valuable asset. In France and other countries seaweed is used as a fertiliser. In France I am told they feed horses on it, and they thrive much better on it than on ordinary fodder, and in the East seaweed constitutes the principal diet of many people. In Japan, in China, in Hawaii, the principal diet of the people is seaweed, and no fewer than 500 factories are established in Japan to turn out seaweed in an edible form. Then in regard to medicine various things can be derived from seaweed. So the by-products which we are going to get, apart from edible fish, will be most valuable. Now, the situation in regard to fish in this country really is nothing new. It is not a matter which has just been discovered—it has been long since felt that it is essential that some sort of control should be exercised. In 1925 we had the meat, fish and other foodstuffs enquiry of the Board of Trade. It is as well that we should know what the finding of that enquiry was. I am referring to this to show how for years this House and the country have been trying to get this industry established but that up to now very little has been done. Now, that Commission reported in 1925 and there was a minority report by Prof. Freemantle. Let me quote briefly from the report. This is what it said—

If anything, the position of the fishing industry is as bad today as it was twenty-five years ago and that is why I say it is high time that we took the matter in hand. As the Minister explained the Bill must be read in two parts. The first part deals with the social and economic uplift of the inshore fishermen. It has been explained to us how these inshore fishermen have been drifting aimlessly for years and years. They have been discouraged. There has been no help for them and all progress and initiative have been killed in them by the neglect of the authorities in the past. Educationally and culturally we know that they are very backward but I am quite sure that if they got the assistance which it is is now proposed to give them they could be turned into a very useful asset. Records show that the earning powers of these fishermen are on a par with those of the lowest paid class of labourer. Now, the A shares are referred to in this Bill—it is intended that they shall deal with the social uplift aspect, and anyone who knows the position of the coloured fishermen in this country—and not alone the coloured fishermen but of the many European fishermen who require help—will realise the necessity for some steps being taken. So I take it that the House will not quarrel with that part of the Bill. Now, let me refer to the objections raised by the mover of the amendment. His main objection is that this matter requires further consideration. He says that it seems that the powers to be vested in this corporation may interfere with private enterprise. That is so, and I say that where private enterprise fails in regard to a national industry the State not only has a perfect right, but it has a duty to step in and interfere.

I said the amount was too small. I want it increased to £5 million.

I am glad to hear that. Personally I do not like the idea of Government trading, and I think it should be avoided where possible. I think Government interference in business should be avoided as far as possible. But I have given this matter a great deal of thought and study. As the Minister explained, for the last three years, I have been a member of a Departmental Committee which went into this matter of fisheries, and I cannot see any way out of the situation but the establishment of Government control. It would be hopeless to establish that control over the inshore fishermen only, and leave the others out. No, that control has to be complete, it has to cover the whole industry because one cannot differentiate and yet have effective control. I do not think that the powers which have been introduced into this Bill constitute something new in this country. Take Iscor. I remember when Iscor was discussed in this House, we had exactly the same objections from vested interests. They were actually vested interests. There was the foundry at Vereeniging and another one in Natal, and exactly the same thing happened there. Vested interests put up a great fight, but surely everyone realises today that without Iscor being under Government control we would not have been able to advance that industry as we have been able to do with Government support. Iscor has been fortunate, of course, in having good management, and the success of this fisheries corporation will depend entirely on the management. I hope we may be able to find another Dr. Van der Bill for the Fishing Industry. I am not suggesting that Dr. Van der Bijl should take charge of this, but I think we shall be able to find another man like him to manage it. And look at the position twenty years ago when the K.W.V. was established. We had exactly the same shout from private enterprise. There was a conflict between the wine growers and the wine merchants and heaven and earth were moved by the wine merchants to prevent the passing of that Charter which the wine growers got in this country. Eventually when the wine merchants saw that the Government was in earnest they came to an agreement. I think it was the intervention of the Prime Minister which brought about this satisfactory settlement in the clash which had occurred between the wine merchants and the producers. So there, again, there is nothing novel. The last speaker said something about the beacons that were established. I do not agree with him, that the Electricity Supply Bill constituted the first beacon. I think the establishment of the Reserve Bank was the first beacon towards the establishment of our economy in this country.

I spoke about particular industries.

I was in the House at the time when the Reserve Bank was established in this country. You had exactly the same cry of vested rights. The commercial banks—the Standard Bank and the Bank of Africa of those days—said that their last day had come, and they objected because there was an interference with vested rights. But what happened? The bank was established and the commercial banks have progressed far better than ever before. It may be said that in altering this monopoly in the fishing industry we are exchanging it for another monopoly. But if that comes about you will be dealing with a benevolent monopoly, and the whole population of this country will have the benefit of it. I do not think that if we adopt the Bill all these powers taken there will be put into effect. They never will. We have powers under other Acts which are not taken full advantage of, and I do not think it can be the intention of the Government to interfere too much with the present situation. We are there to encourage the industry. We want to help even the trawling people because they, too, will benefit by a regulated market. And there will be no interference with vested rights. This corporation will not deal in fish to any extent. They will not go in for the processing of fish. That will all be left to private enterprise, and I say that under the protection of this Bill private enterprise will flourish. Other countries in the world must have had the same difficulties as we have. I find that countries such as the United States of America, Canada and Norway, have passed the same kind of legislation. In 1937 in the House of Representatives in America, a Bill was passed to—

I had an opportunity of studying that legislation in America, and it is very much on the lines of what we propose to introduce here. In other words, the Fisheries Credit Corporation in America controls the fishing industry. Take a country like Norway. In Norway, by decree of the House of Parliament a Bill was passed in 1920, establishing a State Fisheries Bank which took over control of the Fisheries in the same way as we propose to do here. In Alaska a separate State Credit Corporation controls the industry. In Canada the fishing industry came under Government control in 1922, and here is a report of its progress since it came under Government control. This is what the “Fishing Magazine” said—

That is what we are trying to do here. I mentioned that similar legislation had been introduced in Norway. Let us see what the effect of Government control has been in Norway, where presumably prior to the taking over by the Government, similar conditions prevailed as we find in South Africa today. Norway with a population of 2,921,000 lands fish in normal times a little in excess of that landed by Great Britain. In 1938 Norway landed 1,050,000 tons of fish, valued at £16,500,000. New Foundland, which also has State controlled fisheries, with a population of 300,000 in 1939 exported fish and fish products valued at £1,700,000. In comparison with that, South Africa with a population of nearly 12,000,000 Europeans and others, returns the quantity and value of fish caught for commercial purposes in 1940 as 48,000 tons, valued at £595,340. This figure includes crayfish. What Norway has done with a population of one-quarter of our population, surely we can do here. Let us see what our Government has done for fisheries. The Government outlay on sea fishing for 30 years, from 1910 to 1940, has been negligible in comparison with what it has done for farming. I am quite sure that if this Bill had been called the Sea Farming Bill instead of the Fisheries Bill, we would have received far more consideration. In thirty years our Government has spent an amount of £242,164 on fishing harbour improvements. That is all the Government has spent on the fishing industry. Compare that with the money that has been spent on farming activities.

The difference is this; the farmer reaps what he sows and you reap what you have not sown.

The following sums have been expended in connection with the farming industry: Land and Agricultural Bank advances amount to £16,241,634; advances to farmers, £12,851,572; special relief to farmers, £11,907,811, making a total of £42½ million. That is the amount which has been spent in assisting the farmers in this country, as against approximately £242,000 which has been spent on the fishing industry, and I venture to suggest that if an amount equal to one-tenth of what we have spent on the farming industry had been spent on the fishing industry, we would have had a stable fishing industry in this country.

But there is no comparison at all.

Let me go a little further. The world’s catch in sea fisheries in 1938 is given as 13½ million tons, of which Japan landed 3,530,000 tons. South Africa with a vast seaboard landed 48,000 tons. Our fisheries up to now have been confined principally to the southern part of the Cape Province. There are other parts that are seaboard which are absolutely undeveloped, but we are told of vast shoals of sardines off the Pondoland coast, and they come right down to Simonstown. Those resources have been absolutely undeveloped up to the present. In conclusion I want to say this that Government control of this matter has definitely been worrying me, but as I have said I cannot see any prospect of doing justice to that great industry without Government control. Without that control there will be no relief to the thousands of people employed in that industry. To few countries in the world is given this valuable commercial asset as raw material, a harvest from the sea as profitable as any taken on land with no labour entailed in ploughing and planting. I now move an amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus)—

I wish to second the amendment introduced by he hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) because I feel that whilst it is desirable to send this Bill to a Select Committee to be hauled over and to see whether or not we are granting powers which might possibly be detrimental to some section of our community, I also feel that it is urgently necessary that this Bill, even if amended, should be introduced this Session. I feel as the hon. member for South Peninsula has said that the time is very much overdue for us to be doing something to establish a fishing industry upon a sound footing, and I was very pleased this afternoon to have the assurance of the hon. Minister that there was no intention of eliminating private enterprise but rather, not only to control it, but to guide it upon correct and proper lines. And, Sir, I think no one who knows anything at all of the fishing industry and of the employees in that industry will deny that something should have been done long ago, and that we must not permit any undue delay in the consideration of this Bill being submitted to the House in time to pass it this Session. I have been interested in the position of the employees in the fishing industry for many years. Those men are not getting anything like a rate of remuneration which is commensurate with the hazards and dangers of their occupation. As the hon. member for South Peninsula has said, they are amongst the lowest paid of our lowest paid workers in the Union of South Africa, and that position is all wrong. But, Sir, not only are they amongst the lowest paid of our workers, but they undertake great dangers in the course of their occupation. Almost every season we have accidents through storm which result in the loss of life of these people. There is no measure of assurance or protection for their families, and their dependants are thrown upon the charity of the people of the town in which they happen to reside, and it provides a strain upon the financial resources of many towns in making provision for the dependants of these people who should be provided for by the industry in which they are employed, and it is because of the failure of the industry itself, not only failure in making provision for the welfare of its employees but also failure fully to exploit the resources that are available and that should be made use of for the benefit of all the people of our country. There is no getting away from the fact that the people of this country are not getting the amount of fish they ought to be getting, and that is due to the fact that the industry is not being exploited to its fullest extent; and one welcomes the fact that this proposed Bill is going to make provision to develop the fishing industry to the fullest extent. But, Sir, I do want to suggest to the hon. Minister that he must be very careful in the composition of his board of directors. I hope that he will take advantage of the commercial and industrial brains that are available in this country and which should be utilised for a board of this description. It is quite all right to have a certain number of public servants upon the board, but I contend that much of the disfavour with which boards are looked upon in this country is due to the fact that full use is not being made of the business experience that could be drawn from the ranks of commercialists or industrialists, and I do hope that the Minister who is looking after the interests of this Bill will see to it that we get an adequate number of experienced business men on that board, otherwise it may tend to bring about over capitalisation of this new industry and not fully serve the interests it is intended to serve, because if this new corporation as a result of the large capital sum it will have at its disposal is going to increase unduly the price of fish to the consumer, if it does that, the fat will be in the fire.

It will have the contrary effect.

Well, the fish will get burnt; but I do think that if we handle this thing correctly and if we only take advantage of the experience which is available, this industry can be made a huge success, which is going to be of benefit not only to the employees in the industry, but of benefit to the whole community of the Union of South Africa.

We on these benches feel that it is a pity that a Bill so important as this, affecting the lives of at least 50,000 to 60,000 people, should, so to speak, be thrust upon us full-fledged in the course of an actual working session. We feel that this Bill should have been drafted at the end of last April, that it should then have been submitted to a commission, and a commission at that composed mainly of members of this House, who quite openly and fully would have received evidence from small firms as well as great, and weighed it and sifted it, and now presented to us a Bill that did not require to be sent to a Select Committee at all. This waste of time, we submit, has cost this nation much during the past nine months. We are hearing a good deal today about fishermen, and their weaknesses, and their needs. But during the past year it has been hard to interest authority in their condition. Throughout that time there has been a great number of unused fishing boats lying on the beach, and hundreds of fishermen have found nothing whatsoever to do. Many of these have been those seamen who have given us magnificent service up in the North. Those services are no longer required, and they have been sent home, to a home that is no sort of home at all, as I will demonstrate in a moment or two. Another thing that has happened in the interval, and will happen again if there is any further delay in this legislation, is that those fishermen who were employed during the past twelve months were abominably badly paid; the supply of fish was short, and the general public had to pay outrageous prices for such fish as there was. If “such fish” is interpreted in a disparaging way, I have no objection, because most of it was of a very poor quality indeed. I want the House to realise how bad things are in this industry. I do not think the House does, or it would not tolerate any question as to whether we were going to pass this Bill this session or not. It would definitely see that it was done. In Cape Town on Monday, the 30t.h August, at high noon, a deal was done for 80 grey sharks at an average weight of 30 pounds. The fishermen who had risked their lives, as we have been told by hon. members in this House— the fishermen who had risked their lives to capture this booty were paid 6d. for each shark. Under the present management the sharks were cut up into fillets and sold by 5 p.m. the same day at 4½d. per pound; that is, for every sixpenny shark for which a man had risked his life, 7s. 6d. was extorted from the public, and for the £2 that was invested by the present management the public paid no less than £30. Exactly the same thing happens with every kind of fish. The fishermen get 16s. for a hundred crayfish. I do not know where the Minister is getting his advice from. I am a little bit fearful, as a matter of fact, as to where he is getting his advice from, but if he has been rightly advised, he will know that the cost of running the boat will not be more than another four shillings per hundred crayfish. When the crayfish are brought ashore, they are sold to the public of South Africa at 6d. for the smaller ones, 1s. if they are slightly bigger, or 1s. 6d. if they are of a large size. So for every 16s. the fishermen gets the present management takes a minimum of £2 10s. up to £7 10s. This is no time to meander and loiter. The position is a complete scandal. The controlled price for fish in stores is 7d. per pound. [Interruption.] Yes, it was so yesterday, and tomorrow it will probably be the same. You can get only stock fish for that sum. The fishermen who go out to sea and catch real fish like kingklip, “seventy-four,” or snoek get at most a penny per pound. Sir, the thing is absolutely wrong. Unless this Bill is shaped to control not only the inshore fishermen, but also the great steam trawlers which the Minister tells us, are perfectly well able to look after themselves, it will be a fiasco; I hope this Corporation which is proposed will make history, and will administer justice to the humblest fishermen as well as to the big companies. I have suggested to the House once before that this matter of what can be done with and for a good fishing crew should be tested. I suggested to the hon. Minister months ago that the Government should get a boat and a good skipper and a crew that was not “drunk all the time.” I think if most of us lived in places like Langebaan, Saldanha Bay, Paternoster, or Velddrift, where there is nothing but sand and sordid shacks and bitter poverty, except a bar and some beer, we also would be intoxicated for a good part of our time. If we got a decent boat and a decent skipper and a decent crew, and put them out to sea, to prove how much they can make,, and pay those fishermen not a penny per pound but the unheard of price of 3d. per pound, we would be able to sell the catches to the public at 6d. per pound. I am talking about the best line-fish, not stock fish. I put it to the Minister that you can pay your fisherman 3d. per lb., and you can sell your best fish to the public at 6d., and you can still pay for your boat out of the profits in twelve months of fishing. We do not mind this Bill going to a Select Committee if it is going to be made into a really good Bill. But it must be improved, not weakened; and there must be no delay. Also it must work. Something like £242,000 has already been spent on harbour improvements, and it has not made 242,000 pennies difference to the poor fishermen for whom this money was in theory voted and expended. They must benefit now. This time we want no hasty and half-baked scheme. Last Session we passed on an average four bills per week in this House, and it is not much wonder in my judgment that the nation is grumbling about ill-digested legislation. I think we should put on this Select Committee men who know what they are talking about. There are some men in this House who do

[Inaudible].

I quite understand that this will be news to some hon. members over there, but it is not strange to those sitting on this side of the House. So long as the job is done and done quickly, we shall be content. There is, however, a very curious sort of propaganda going on today. I am going to give you first, not the voice of experience, but the voice of the theorists and the atmosphere of the lecture room, and after that I will give you the voice of experience and perhaps something of the tang of the sea. First I will give you the views of. Dr. Price, who is a member of the Economic and Social Planning Council, according to a report in the “Cape Times” of yesterday, he stated that—

I hope it will.

If for “occasionally” we substitute “very frequently,” we shall come back to reality and the realm of sound commonsense. The “quite proper” extensions of the size of individual undertakings has squeezed out the small concern, and the independent fisherman, and unduly high profits to the powerful combine are no longer the exception, but are fast becoming the general rule. We know very well that here in South Africa over 60 per cent. has been paid in dividends per annum to shareholders, not in the dim past but during 1943. We know perfectly well that for the investment of a miserable £200 one can sit back and get £120 a year—more than the wages of some of our saleswomen in this town as the recent strike showed. The question before us is really—never mind the professor—whether we would prefer to have a State monopoly or a private monopoly. There was a time when you could buy cheap fish in Durban or Cape Town. There was a time—I was reminded of it this morning—when at Plymouth, a good long way from here, you could buy ten pilchards for a penny; and the men who sold them made a decent living and had enough to eat, which is not always true of fishermen today. But these humble men are gone, and in their place has come the monopolist, the man who is concerned with the mass of fish and how much he can get for the mass of fish, and who is not concerned with the mass of the people and their welfare. That fact must be borne in mind. If there must be someone to boss up everybody, let it be the State and not a little hidden group somewhere in the background, who will abuse men and break men for the sake of money. It still happens. I would rather trust these downtrodden people we have heard about to the State, than to their present masters, and I have good reason therefor. I said the House did not understand the conditions that prevail. Well, here is the sound of the sea, here is the voice of experience. I am not giving the name of the Durban man who has written to me, but I am prepared to show this letter to anybody who cares to see it—

This is the sort of thing that small fishermen had to endure, and this is the sort of thing there will be to endure again unless the preponderance of directors on that Fisheries Corporation are themselves prepared to care for the welfare of the small man instead of the big interests. The letter goes on to say—

I am very sorry to have detained the House for so long, because I know that other members wish to express their views. But we of the South African Labour Party have a great desire that the power of Parliament shall be increased, with regard to industry as well as in other proper ways. Here we purpose setting up a great national organisation, and let me say I suggested to an hon. member very well informed on this subject, that it would be a good thing and that it would increase the prestige of this House and bring hon. members into touch with the industry to be fostered, if members of the House were made directors of the proposed Corporation. I was told by the hon. member that he had already agreed that the arrangements should be quite otherwise, and that no member of Parliament should be appointed. I want to suggest to the House that my way, for once, is better, and that members of this House should so serve. It is not a question of payment at all. I am glad to know that there are many members who would perform this work for no remuneration whatever. It is a case of keeping the power in this House, and withholding power over the lives of men and women from less responsible, indeed uncontrolable people from outside. The lower ranks of those associated with fishing have suffered enough already, and they would be better under our care. Sir, you will fully realise why my Party, in supporting the Bill, is considerably worried about the future constitution of this Corporation. We are definitely afraid that large and wealthy companies may in one way or another secure the upper hand. We urge very strongly indeed that the Government shall keep in its own hands absolute financial and administrative control. Possibly we are over-anxious on this point, but I am not certain that we are. People come to me, and say: “Big business is not too bad; things are all right as they are.” Then I have gone round to Saldanha, Langebaan, Paternoster, and other horrible haunts of destitution, and I have seen for myself that things are not all right for the fisher-folk, under existing circumstances, but cruelly and sickeningly wrong. Money, much money, has been made out of the degradation of these poor people, and I am satisfied that things will not come right until we do something quite new, until we do something very much better than anything we have done hitherto. We have it in our own power. We can, if we will, convert famine into plenty, and exchange misery and want for happiness and prosperity. It is not a task we should hand over to others to accomplish. It is a job we of this Parliament should do for ourselves, and can do if three-fifths of the directors of the Corporation are members of this House. I hope hon. members will keep in mind the desirability not only of our making the regulations governing this undertaking, but of administering the undertaking—the necessity of keeping the majority control in our own hands.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 4th February.