I move—

1. (a) to take steps for the proper stabilisation of prices, from time to time, of agricultural products, so as to ensure for the farmer a proper living;
2. (b) to take into consideration in fixing prices the increased costs of production such as labour, implements, fertilisers, and other requirements;
3. (c) to revise the entire marketing system and, when necessary in the larger towns, to erect cold storage plants and depots for specified produce;
4. (d) to erect factories for the canning and conserving of surplus produce for the use, to a certain extent, of the undernourished section of the people and to export surplus produce instead of allowing it to rot;
5. (e) to remedy the alarming situation created by the war in connection with farm labour and the losses daily sustained by farmers owing to the shortage of labour;
6. (f) to take immediately the necessary steps to supply farmers with jackalproof fencing and other fencing material at reasonable and economic prices;
7. (g) to consider making the matter of utilising subterranean water, through boring or otherwise, a national issue;
8. (h) to undertake a more effective campaign against agricultural pests;
9. (i) to protect and safeguard the farming industry; and
10. (j) to put a stop to Government farming in competition with the farmer.

I shall try to discuss this motion, which covers a wide field, as briefly as possible, in the time at our disposal. May I be allowed to say to the Minister of Agriculture that unless agriculture is put on a sound basis one cannot have a contented agricultural population, and not only can one not have a contented agricultural population, but the other sections of the population all suffer when agriculture suffers. Now it may perhaps be said, “Yes, but agriculture is not suffering at the moment.” Let me say at once that there are certain people engaged in agriculture who are doing fairly well today, but the great mass of the people, as I shall prove later on, are practically living below the bread line. I believe the agricultural industry is the only industry which has no say over its own price control. In the agricultural industry we find that there are several ways in which prices are being controlled. When we look at the Chambers of Commerce and institutions of that kind we find that they control their own prices. The Minister will perhaps say: “Yes, but the maximum price has been laid down.” Yes, but what is the minimum price? The farming population have never yet had the experience of minimum prices being fixed so far as their products are concerned. I further want to say to the Minister that so far as the Boards are concerned I am in favour of those Boards, but what we want are sound Boards, Boards which have control of the products of agriculture. We do not find the Chamber of Mines appointing a farmer to assist in the control of mining. We do not find the Chamber of Commerce appointing a farmer to regulate the business of commerce. We do not find the Law Society appointing a farmer to regulate their domestic affairs for them. It is only in the agricultural industry that all sorts of people have to be appointed to poke their noses into the affairs of the farmer and to tell the farmer how he is to run his business. I regard that as a very unfair attitude.

Who is responsible for that?

I shall come to the question of who is responsible later on. I believe in Boards, but at the same time I believe that those Boards must have full control. We have two kinds of control in regard to agricultural products; the first kind is control by the Board; the second is control by means of emergency regulations, where there is no emergency; and the third is the policy of just allowing things to go their own way— the idea of supply and demand. I do not think the Minister will deny that that is so, and I also take it that he himself is beginning to realise that conditions cannot be allowed to remain as they are today. I further want to say this to the Minister of Agriculture, that the farming industry is not a lucky industry. It is an industry which has to put up and contend with all the vagaries of nature. If there is a drought or if there is a flood—all these are difficulties with which the farmer has to contend. It is said that the farmers last year had a good year. Well, this year the very opposite may be the case. My experience of farming is that it is the greatest gamble in the world, because if one gets two good years and one reasonably good year in every five one should be satisfied. Now, before I come to the motion itself I want to say a few words about the big industries which we have in this country in order to draw a comparison in regard to the money invested in those industries, as compared with the amount of money invested in agriculture. If one studies the reports of the officials in the Minister’s Department one will find that the farmers have invested in land alone an amount of £300,000,000. In cattle they have invested £137,000,000. In this connection I want to add that when land is valued at. £3 per morgen, buildings, fencing, etc., have not been taken into account, so we are entitled to add another £100,000,000 to the amount indicated by the Department of Agriculture. That then gives us an amount of £537,000,000 as the amount invested in farming. Now, what is the income, the revenue, on this £537,000,000? Again we find that the Department of Agriculture has placed figures at our disposal which show that the income on this amount is £60,000,000 per year. From that must be deducted £16,500,000, being the expenditure which the farmers have had to incur in order to make that sum of money. But the Department of Agriculture tells us very clearly that it has not taken rents into account. Now, rents constitute one of the big items of expenditure. The Department has not taken into account the rents paid by workers and the rents paid on land, nor has it taken into account the people who sow on shares. We can therefore easily add another £4,500,000, so that the nett return must be about £39,000,000. If we take it that there are 700,000 people dependent on agriculture—big and small—children of tender age right up to very old people—and we divide that £39,000,000 among them, it means that the income of each of these totals £55 15s. Now I ask the Minister, when he says that things are going so well in the farming industry, whether he can tell us how people are expected to come out on £55 15s. if that is their total income for the year? One cannot even feed a child properly on that amount of money. That shows that the major portion of the farming population lives below the bread line. In that respect I cannot seriously enough bring it to the notice of the Minister that the Department of Agriculture is not following a sound policy today with a view to developing our farming industry. Now, let us on the other hand take the position of the mines. The amount of money invested in the mines is about £200,000,000. The mining industry has already paid out dividends to an amount of £300,000,000. Of that £300,000,000, £200,000,000 have gone overseas. According to the latest figures these dividends were £19,500,000 for one year. Let us take the amount invested in the mines, the revenue derived from the mines, and compare that with the position in the farming industry. If we do that we notice to what extent the farmer is put in a worse position that the people who are interested in the mining industry. Now let us look at industries. The amount of capital invested in industries is about £113,000,000. The number of white workers employed in those industries is 144,838. I have not the time to go into the figures for the non-Europeans, but the Department of Commerce and Industries has calculated that taking a basis of 5 per cent. interest on capital, and reckoning that on raw materials, salaries and wages, etc., industries in round figures expend £159,000,000 per year and they make a profit of £40,000,000; so that although they have only invested one fifth of what the farming population have invested in their industry, they still have a much bigger return. The farming population therefore is on the lowest scale of industry in South Africa, although the people engaged in the farming industry are the people who have to see that everybody in this country, old and young, can make a living, because they have to keep those people alive. If the farmers were not there we would have a very sad state of affairs in this country because we would have to import everything from abroad. I say that the farming industry very definitely requires the special attention of the Government and of the Department of Agriculture. I want to add that it is most unfortunate that the Opposition every year has to come to the Government with motions of this kind, to try and get something out of the Government by insisting that something be done. Last year we came forward with a motion which told the Government that the price of wheat was such that the farmer would be ruined unless an improvement was introduced. We said that the price of mealies was unsatisfactory, and by keeping at the Government, and continually urging our case, we succeeded in getting a higher price. But are the mealie and wheat prices such today that they constitute living prices so far as the farmers are concerned? I want to say at once that I cannot imagine the Minister of Agriculture being satisfied with the prices which the farmers are getting. Later I shall come back to that question because I am going to prove in that connection that the Government, instead of pursuing a definite policy, is simply pursuing the policy of allowing things to run their course. Now let me come to the motion itself. The introductory part of the motion is quite clear, namely, that the Government has no sound and progressive policy in respect of farming; as a result the farmers are suffering great hardships, and the country is suffering. I want to mention a few instances. In cases where there is any policy at all, that policy is being so disgracefully neglected that it has degenerated into a policy of exploitation rather than a policy of the Department of Agriculture. Take for instance an item such as soil erosion. In the days of the old Nationalist Party Government we accepted the Du Toit Report of 1923, and we took steps to combat soil erosion wherever we could. The Department of Agriculture states that 25 per cent. of the valuable agricultural land of the Union has been washed away and blown away to the sea. In spite of that we have a Government here which in this war is wasting £100,000,000 per year—just shooting the money away into the air—but is unwilling to start a campaign for the preservation of the soil of South Africa. One of the worst things the Minister of Agriculture has ever done has been to listen to the Minister of Finance. He should have put his foot down and said that as soil erosion was having such destructive effect on the country we could not slacken our efforts, but had to put an end to it and fight it in every possible way. Let me say at once that we are losing a lot of time and opportunity so far as this question is concerned. Unprecedented rains have been falling in the Transvaal, and if the Department of Agriculture had done its duty, if the Railways and the National Roads had assisted, if the whole of the people had helped, we could have devised a system for the proper combating of soil erosion. If we could work out a scheme which would mean less mountain fires, and fewer trees being cut down, it would help to combat soil erosion, but the attitude adopted by the Minister at a time like the present is this, that we must simply allow things to take their course. The Minister says: “Let us sit still now; later on we shall be able to tackle these things again.” After the elections were over the Prime Minister stated that the public expected great things of the Government. Are these the great things—to sit still and do nothing? No, that is not what the public wants; the public does not expect the Government to let soil erosion continue as it is doing now. It is not only the farmers who are feeling this, but the people who have made a study of our soil feel exactly as the farming population do on this big problem. Another matter which the Government has neglected, and which the farmers are suffering from, is the curtailment of the work of information officers. We had developed a very good system, but today we only find an information officer here and there. We are told that there is no petrol to be had. There is always some excuse or other when the interest of the farmers are at stake. Then there is another matter which constitutes an even greater scandal. Let me say this, however, that although I am addressing my remarks to the Minister of Agriculture I am discusing matters of national interest and I am not addressing him personally, or attacking him personally. We are intimate personal friends, but I have a duty to perform as a representative of the farmers, and when I speak on behalf of the farming population, even my personal friendship is not going to stop me, but I am going to say what I feel to be in the interest of the South African people. Now I want to mention a matter of scandalous neglect. We have reports from the Minister’s own department and we are told in those reports that many people are not making a success of farming because they have no proper knowledge of farming; they have not been properly trained for farming, but what has the Minister of Agriculture done now? He has allowed the agricultural schools to be closed for two years, and he has allowed farmers’ sons who have not had the type of education and training which they require, to be placed on the land. It is a crying shame. I think the Minister himself feels ashamed of it. I cannot believe that that was done on a recommendation from his department. I know the officials of his department, and I do not believe that they would have recommended this step. Large numbers of officials have been appointed for agricultural schools, but those agricultural schools have now been closed down and those people are today sitting still doing nothing. I notice that the Minister now wants to reopen some of those schools for returned soldiers. I have not the slightest objection to his doing so, but why exclude from those schools the sons of the farmers who have to make their living on the platteland? Have not they the right to go there? It is nothing short of a scandal. Now I come to the next point. Hon. members know that Onderstepoort has developed into a world famous institution. It is one of the institutions which I took great pride in and for which I did everything I possibly could during my time of office, but it appears to me that at the moment there is a feeling of aloofness in regard to Onderstepoort. Let me mention one instance. Our farmers this year have not even been able to get the necessary serum to inoculate their horses. That serum does not come from overseas; the insect supplying the serum is bred in this country. Why are the authorities taking up such a miserable and hopeless attitude, the result of which can only be that it will be impossible to cope with horse sickness? In the second place, take East Coast Fever. We have been dipping in this country for forty years, but today we have more ticks here than we had forty years ago. Is it not high time that we awakened to this danger and investigated the matter with a view to finding a dip which would really destroy the ticks? It seems to me that the serum which we have now only makes the ticks drop off, but they keep on increasing in numbers. Let Onderstepoort use all its efforts in that direction. Then we have the blow fly. Every now and then we see reports in the paper, and a terrific fuss is made about some discovery to combat the blow fly, but that is the last one ever hears about it. And let me say a few words about the regulations in that connection. I am afraid I must tell the Minister that the regulations, especially in regard to East Coast Fever, are today worse than the disease itself. In certain parts of Natal the disease has spread and the farmers cannot get permits. There is the case of one farm which is fenced off, and on that farm there are two dipping tanks. The regulations lay it down that if the cattle have been dipped in the one dip today they are not allowed to be dipped in the other tank the next day. Those dips are on the one man’s farm, but that man is not allowed to dip his cattle in say “A” dip today and in “B” dip tomorrow. Three months ago I wrote to the Secretary for Agriculture, and in my letter I said that I hoped he and the Minister knew nothing about this. The receipt of my letter was acknowledged but it took three months to investigate the matter. A man has two dipping tanks on his farm, but he has to run after the officials to get a permit to be allowed to dip his stock in the one tank today and in the other tomorrow. Surely that sort of thing is a deliberate annoyance to the farmers. Why must the farmers be made to suffer all these hardships by the introduction of regulations of that kind? I notice that there is some reference in the newspapers to the Italian Beetle and other beetles, which are on the increase and which I am sure are going to spread all over the country. It is stated that some houses have been practically demolished by those beetles. I don’t know whether the Minister has already issued a warning to the public telling them that if they put up wooden houses they must take proper precautions and see that the wood is properly treated because if they do not do so the houses are apt to collapse in ten or twelve years’ time. It is no use tackling housing schemes unless some steps are taken to combat the spread of those beetles. Has the Minister taken any steps yet in that connection? Now I want to deal with my motion point by point. I do not propose spending much time on any individual point, because there are other hon. members who want to discuss the various points. First of all we say that we request the Government—

On previous occasions I asked the Minister to lay down minimum prices but he has done nothing. He has told us that there are three types of control, namely, by means of boards, emergency regulations, and supply and demand, but can he leave it at that? Let me say again at once that I am in favour of boards provided they are constituted in such a manner that they are able to control the products 100 per cent. Let us mention a few of those boards in passing. First of all we have the board which deals with the tobacco industry. We got the Bill passed by this House with great difficulty because the opponents to the Bill said that we were interfering with the rights of individuals, but we put our foot down, and I want to ask whether there are any complaints today in spite of the fact that the Minister of Finance is dipping his hands very deeply into the pockets of the tobacco farmers to get taxes out of them. Does one hear the tobacco farmer complain today? The tobacco farmers are satisfied and the consumers are satisfied. I think I cannot refrain on this occasion from expressing my thanks to the people who started this matter, Mr. Opperman who was the first chairman of the Tobacco Society. There are a few other people too—some of them unfortunately are no longer with us. There is Mr. Nic. Combrinck who lost his life in such an unfortunate manner, and also Mr. de Kock, the manager of the Co-operative Society. Those people did a great deal to put the industry on such a basis that there are no complaints today. Then there is another industry where the producers also have proper control, and that is the Co-operative Wine Growers’ Association. Does one ever hear complaints from them? They have effective control. I only want to ask the Minister also to give them control so far as their local South African trade is concerned. If one goes further and gets to the other products, one finds all kinds of difficulties, simply because there is not 100 per cent. control. In this connection I just want to say that it is very strange that one always hears it said that the farmers are riding on the back of the Government. What is the position in England? Our Government is so keen on imitating everything that is done by England, because England is not the back veld, England is the country where they look for wisdom. A question was put to the Minister in England about the amount spent by England last year in subsidies, and the reply was—

We find therefore that so far as potatoes are concerned the British Government paid £28,600,000 in subsidies, while our potatoes here are lying and rotting in the ground. We can see what is being spent in England, and if we compare that with what is done in this country we must come to the conclusion that very little indeed is being done here. There is money for other purposes. There are hundreds of millions of pounds to shoot into the air but there is no money for our own people. I have a letter here which I should like to quote. It is not a letter from a Nationalist because if it were the Minister would again say that I was quoting it in order to attack him. No, this is a letter from one of my opponents in the last election, a man who supported the Minister—this man is the Secretary of the Co-operative Society. This is what he says [Translation]—

That letter is signed by Mr. C. B. Wolls, Secretary, I also have a letter here from a Nationalist, Mr. Hennie van der Merwe. He writes as follows [Translation]—

The Minister will perhaps say, “But the Cooperative Societies have signed a contract.” Yes, but that contract is like the contract signed at Vereeniging on the 31st May, 1902. Certain conditions were laid down which they had to accept. The Mealie Control Board may buy mealies and then simply say that the people are held responsible until they—the Board—take the mealies away. We have had rain on a scale which nobody could have anticipated. Hundreds of thousands of bags of mealies have been ruined. Are the farmers to suffer the loss? In that connection I also want to indict the Minister of Railways. He has to hide some of his money under other votes—he has so much money that he does not know where to put it, but I want to ask him how many grain elevators he has built during the time he has been Minister, that is in the past five years? If there were sufficient grain elevators the mealies could be stored, but there are no elevators today. We shall need those mealies for the lean year which is ahead of us in view of our bad mealie crop. The Minister has been lacking in his duty in not seeing to it that the farmers have elevators in which to store their grain. The rains have come, and there is no storage accommodation for the mealies; no precautionary measures have been taken—and I say that it is the shortsighted policy of the Minister which has got the farmers into trouble and which has got the whole country into trouble. I hope in any case that the Minister, when fixing the price of mealies, is not going to fix it at 16s. but that he will take the cost of production into account, and will raise the price to 20s. Now let me also say a few words about these increased costs of production. The Minister knows that so far as ploughs, bags, implements, etc., are concerned, prices have in some cases gone up by 100 per cent. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration when he fixes the price. The next request in my motion is—

I am glad that the Minister is at last awake so far as the marketing system is concerned, and that in another place he has stated that he is almost desperate because the Cape Town City Council refuses to help him in regard to depots. If any further evidence were required of the necessity of the marketing system coming under the Department of Agriculture and being removed from the town councils, that evidence has now been supplied. The whole of the farming population is in the hands of the town councils and those town councils refuse to do anything to help the farmers. Now this is a matter which does not only affect the farmers, but also the consumers, and I am making an appeal to the Minister and asking him to introduce legislation to bring the marketing of products under the Department of Agriculture.

What about the provincial councils and their control?

How much power have the provincial councils got and how much power has already been taken away from the provincial councils by the various governments? Are you not prepared to do this? Have you not the courage to say that it is a national question and that you are therefore going to deprive the provinces of those powers? It is high time you took your courage into your hands and took action. I am making an appeal to the Minister to take action. Now, the next point in my motion concerns the establishment of factories for the canning and preserving of surplus products for the use, to a certain extent, of the undernourished section of the people, and to export surplus produce instead of allowing it to rot. We are actually still importing foodstuffs in tins from other countries. Meanwhile there are thousands of underfed women and children in the country, yet we find that products are being thrown into the sea and buried in the earth. Oranges are buried in this country and thrown away, and fruit is allowed to rot on the trees and fall off, all because there is no proper marketing system, and because the necessary assistance is not provided for the establishment of factories. The State must establish factories. Then we come to the position which has been created by the shortage of farm labour. I noticed that in the speech from the Throne there was a reference to the shortage of labour. What is the reason for that shortage? One of the reasons undoubtedly is that the labour, the coloured workers, have had to join the army, that the native labour on the Railways is being extended, and that other Government departments are employing some of our labourers. And then one finds that natives in the towns who are not working hang about—they are not picked up. It’s no use the Minister referring us to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Native Affairs. It is high time the Minister of Agriculture took action. I know that his position is a difficult one. I myself was Minister of Agriculture for many years, and I feel that I am entitled to say that I am responsible for the establishment of certain milestones. But what has the Minister of Agriculture done in the last five years? Take this question of fencing wire. The Minister knows that for the combating of erosion and for pastorage fencing wire is badly needed. Take water supplies. If there is one thing which should be tackled as a national question it is the conservation of water. We therefore say in our motion—

I do not want to go any further into that question because I have dealt with it on a previous occasion. I hope the Minister and his department, will now take action. We do not want to criticise unnecessarily, but I think it is high time a little life were infused into the department. If, however, there is no life, no activity, in the head of the department, one cannot expect his subordinates to be alive and active. We further say that the farmers should be protected and secured in their industry. In that connection we naturally have in mind a sound marketing system and the establishment of industries with Government assistance so that the requirements of the farmers can be provided. Finally, I ask in my proposal for an end to be put to Government farming in competition with the farmer. I do not want to go into that any further. Other hon. members will deal with these various points, but so far as the last point is concerned a question was asked, I think by the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) and the reply given by the Minister was very unsatisfactory. The farmers who produce seed potatoes are unable to find a market. I shall leave that point. It is urgently necessary for the Department of Agriculture to have a forward, progressive policy. The Minister has his officials in that Department. When I resigned as Minister of Agriculture there was an excellent staff of officials, but if the Minister does not lay down a policy, if the Minister just allows things to develop, then even the best official in the world becomes indolent. He will say: “What am I to do, there is no policy.” He becomes desperate and useless and incompetent to do anything.

Is that what the officials tell you?

No, none of the officials carry any information to me.

Why do you say then that the officials tell you these things?

I don’t say that, but I can see what’s going on. They don’t come to me with tales, but it does seem to me that there is something wrong somewhere, and that the Minister thinks the officials have some reason for acting in that way. Let me just say this to the Minister, that the Nationalist Party feels that a progressive policy must be pursued in regard to agriculture. Agriculture is the cornerstone, the foundation, of the whole structure of our State.

Have you only discovered that now?

What is so strange to me is that the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler), ever since the time he has become such a great admirer of the Empire, can only look at things through an Imperialistic pair of spectacles. He can never look at things through clear South African glasses. The Nationalist Party wants to build up a sound agricultural industry on a national basis. The Nationalist Party wants to combat soil erosion in co-operation with the farmers, it wants to put a stop to soil destruction, and it wants the State to supply all the necessary help by means of fencing material, boring machinery and so on, to enable the farmers to develop their farms and make proper use of them. Furthermore, we are in favour of the adoption of a progressive settlement policy. Now, what has the Minister of Agriculture actually done? He has closed down the agricultural schools. We on the other hand want to train people in the agricultural schools so that it cannot be said that they have no knowledge of farming and that because of their lack of knowledge they have not been able to make a success of farming. Alongside with that we want to provide land on a large scale for farmers who have no land today. Among other ways we want to do so by the expropriation of company land which is being held merely for speculative purposes, and is not beneficially occupied by Europeans. We feel that it is essential for the State to step in and take action in cases of that kind. We also advocate a mortgage redemption scheme. We have advocated that in this House for years. There is a subsidy scheme which dates back to the days of the Nationalist Party but that scheme does not go far enough. We say that the Government should assist on the £ for £ basis towards the reduction of mortgage bonds, so that we may put an end to the conditions which the farmers are suffering from today. We say that the Land Bank should be converted so that it can give long and short term loans. I do not say that it should become a State bank which can go on printing as many notes as it likes; we do not want that, but we want to make it possible for the farmers to get rid of their mortgage bond burdens. Then we want grain elevators, fodder banks, and factories for the processing of food to be built. We want to do away with price combines by means of a satisfactory marketing system. We are in favour of Boards which will be able to exercise proper control, and we want people to serve on these Boards who have a sound knowledge of the product they have to control, just as in the Chamber of Mines and the Chamber of Commerce there are people who know their work. The Minister must take responsibility for that, but he must not look upon the Boards merely as lightning conductors—he must accept the responsibility which he is supposed to accept. Those, more or less, are the things which are contemplated in this motion. The motion is very comprehensive but I do not want to take up any more time. Other members are anxious to say something about this motion as well; I only want to say to the Minister of Agriculture that the time has come for something to be done, and the time has come for the Department of Agriculture to pursue a progressive policy in order to save the farming population. Many people have left their farms and lost all they had simply because they were unable to make a decent living on account of the present malconditions. I therefore move.

I second, and in doing so I have great pleasure is associating myself with the contentions put forward by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). I should like briefly to deal with a few of the points in the motion in which I am particularly interested. First of all I want to say something about the Governments’s general farming policy. Who is there among us who can deny today that the Government’s agricultural policy is one of indifference so far as the interests of the producers are concerned? Who is there among us who can deny today that although the Government, under its emergency regulations, takes steps to protect various industrial concerns so that they may make a profit which enables them to make a decent living, the producer is not being protected in the same way. Maximum prices are laid down and immediately the maximum price is fixed the price of the product drops— it drops far below the level which would enable the farmer to make a living at it. The Government never showed any concern at the fact that when, after the farmers had been getting 40s. per bag for their potatoes and a maximum price of 25s. had been fixed, the potato growers only got 3s. per bag. Did the Government worry about that? What steps were taken by the Government to protect the vegetable farmers? When there was a surplus of vegetables on the markets recently, and vegetables had to be thrown into the sea or had to be destroyed—did the Government take any steps? Were the farmers protected on that occasion? I want to mention the case of a man in the Transvaal and the case I am going to mention is an authentic one. I am willing to give the man’s name and address to the Minister and his Department, and they can ask him to make a return showing what he got for his vegetables. In May and June of last year he despatched a number of bags containing cabbages—each bag contained about 30 to 40 cabbages—depending on the size of the cabbages. Those cabbages were marketed in the bags and the man got 7½d. per bag, but the consumers in Pretoria and Johannesburg had to pay from 4d. to 1s. per cabbage. What step is the Government taking to protect the farmers? The man showed a loss on his cabbages—what he got did not even cover the price of the bags. Let me again quote the same man. During November he sent 18 bags of green beans to the Johannesburg market for which he got 5s. Each bag contained from 30 to 60 lbs. of green beans. Those beans were sold to the consumers at prices from 6d. to 1s. per lb. That man got 31s. for 35 bags of green beans—it did not even cover the price of the bags, let alone the cost of production and the work he had to put in to produce those beans. Can hon. members mention any industry where the Government does not give protection so that the people engaged in it can make a decent living? The Government protects those industries, so much so that some of them are making excess profits, and some individuals have actually got rich. As the Minister of Lands told us, “They make pots and pots of money.” I am mentioning these things to show that the Government’s agricultural policy should be radically changed as there is something radically wrong with it. So far as the marketing system is concerned I do not think this is the time to take steps to have it properly controlled—steps should have been taken long ago in that direction, so that the farmer might get his legitimate share and be able to earn a decent livelihood. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in his speech remarked that we would never succeed in getting our marketing system on a proper basis as long as the markets came under the municipalities, and the Minister thereupon asked what about the rights of the provincial councils? Well, on how many occasions has not the Government deprived the provincial councils of some of their power. In the national interest the Government has time and again taken away some of the powers of the provincial councils. Under the emergency regulations the Government has the power to do anything, but when the farmers are affected the Government does nothing, it is apathetic and unwilling to protect the farmers’ interests. Has the Government ever enquired into the position to find out what is the actual increase in the costs of production so far as the farmer is concerned? Has the Government ever made an enquiry to ascertain the prices which farmers have to pay for their agricultural requirements? Has the Government ever decided, as the outcome of such an investigation, to see to it that steps are taken so that the farmers can make a living? I want to support what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad has said: We shall never succeed in putting the marketing of farming products on a sound basis until such time as the producers have full control of every product they handle. The hon. member instanced two bodies where the farmers had proved their ability to look after their own affairs and to keep them financially sound. In this connection I want to mention the Boeresaamwerk Bpk. and the F.C.U. Now, these two institutions are controlled and managed by farmers, and the directors are farmers. They have made a success of their business, and that is Why we are asking the Minister of Agriculture in all seriousness today to change the board of control so that farmers will have full control over their products, and people who have no interest in those products are taken off the board. Let the farmers act on their own. The second point I want to touch on is the question of boring. I am sorry the Minister of Irrigation is not here. South Africa requires boring machines and more boring machines. I interviewed the Minister yesterday about a telegram from my constituency where the magistrate says that the water position is critical. But the Minister unblushingly said to me: “I have thirty boring machines in good condition, but I have not got the staff.” He told me that some of his boring machines were being used even as far away as Persia. So here we have a case of machinery belonging to the farmers of South Africa being used for boring for water in other countries; yet in our own country there is a demand for water, there are farms which have no water at all, and nothing can be done with them. The private boring machines are disappearing from the scene because no spares are obtainable. The Government have thirty boring machines, yet man and beast alike are dying of thirst. The Government tells us that the people required to man these machines have joined up, and now we can die of thirst and farming is allowed to deteriorate. The Government does not worry its head about it; the Government is busy seeing the war through, so the boring machines can stand still. I want to draw particular attention to another point, viz., the situation in regard to fencing material. And when I speak on this subject I am speaking on behalf of the great majority of the people in the constituency I represent. When war broke out there were certain districts which had not yet been fenced off with jackal proof wire.In my own district there are farmers who had only just started fencing, and in some instances the farms were only half fenced when war broke out. Those farmers are today in one of the most difficult positions a sheep farmer can ever find himself in. Let me tell the House why the position is so difficult. In the past we used to have people who were professional shepherds. It was their profession. They had been taught how to look after sheep under all conditions. Now, those people have completely disappeared, and if we get a shepherd today the man is a shepherd simply because he is not fit for any other work. He is the kind of shepherd who causes one anxiety every morning when it comes to counting one’s sheep because generally speaking one finds there are a few missing. As I have said, the people who have learned to look after sheep as a business have totally disappeared. The people we get now do not look after the sheep; they do not know how to fatten sheep for the market. In my district where a farmer could perhaps fatten 100 sheep for the market if the farm was fenced with jackal proof wire, he could not fatten more than perhaps 20 today, and the result is that the farmers who breed sheep for the market are forced to sell those sheep in poor condition, to individuals who have properly fenced camps. They get a lower price for those sheep because they are compelled to sell them. It does not only mean a loss to the farmers, but also a loss to the State and the consumer, and even more than that, the number of sheep destroyed by vermin is very considerable. Let me mention my own case. During the past year I have on an average been losing ten sheep per month through vermin. That is 120 per year, which at today’s price means a loss of from £120 to £200. That is the damage being caused by vermin. And then what is worst of all, the farmer suffers tremendous damage through the loss in the yield of wool. I wonder whether the Agricultural Department has ever taken any steps to make tests or to find out what the loss in wool amounts to through farms not being fenced off. I know of two farmers who in the past two years made a test, being forced to do so by circumstances. These people live together; their sheep are of the same quality and their wool production was identical. The one farmer thereupon bought an open farm—an unfenced farm. The climatic conditions on both farms were identical. The man with the fenced off farm got an average of 10 lbs. of wool per sheep which he sold at 15d. per lb.—which means 12s. 6d. per sheep. The other farmer with the unfenced farm got 7 lbs. per sheep and that wool was sold at an average of 11½d. In other word, the farmer with the farm that was fenced got 5s. 9½d. per sheep more than the man whose farm was not fenced. On 1,000 sheep it meant a loss of £280. I therefore say that it is in the interest of the State, of the stock farmers, and especially of the North Western Districts—because those are the drought stricken areas—that the Government should take steps to have fencing wire manufactured by means of the machinery at its disposal. The Government should provide the material, or make the material available to the farmers, as war measure No. 1. It is essential that the Government should take up some of these matters and regard them as being of paramount importance as it is in the interest of the economic existence of the farmers that they should do so. One matter which is of paramount importance is the boring for water; another one is the question of fencing, and the supplying of material at reasonable prices, so that the farmer can use it economically. I want to tell the Minister that the position is serious, and with a view to proving to him how serious it is I want to quote from a letter which was written by a man before he knew that this discussion was going to take place. This man says this, among other things [Translation]—

These few words show what the position of the man farming with small stock is, and I want to repeat that if the Government intends assisting the small stock farmer, it must do so at once, and especially in the drought-stricken areas where the farms are only partly fenced off. The people there cannot continue farming unless the Government comes to their assistance.

The speech just made by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) is one of the kind that many of us have listened to in this House for many years—especially when the hon. member was Minister of Agriculture. In those days the speeches made from the Opposition benches were not as mild as the speeches which we hear at the present time, because we have a Minister of Agriculture now whose first consideration is the welfare of the farmers.

Do you mean it?

In all these requests which the hon. member is putting up in his motion, a very wide field is covered—the motion is a very big one, but I feel that the Government and the Minister are doing practically all this motion asks for under the difficulties experienced in a great war. The last speaker who has just sat down went into a long story about the difficulties of getting vermin proof netting and the urgent need for it. Well, that is a matter which the Minister knows all about and we know all about, and we agree with all the hon. member says, but the hon. member has forgotton that we are in the midst of a great war and materials for vermin proof netting cannot be obtained.

Yes, the war is everything.

Where is the Minister to get this wire netting from? The Government before the war did everything possible to encourage vermin proof fencing, and provided money on easy terms for this purpose.

That is not so and you should know it.

I say it is so. The mover of this motion knows that everything he asks for in this motion, he was asked to do when he was Minister of Agriculture. Was he able to satisfy the demand? He should have some consideration for the present Minister, knowing the difficulties there are in granting all these requests, especially under war conditions.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting.

When business was suspended I was trying to make clear to the mover of the motion, that practically all he asks for in this motion, the Government is already doing. I think the most valuable part of his motion is the preamble where he points out that due to the lack of a comprehensive policy many of these demands are necessary. Now, the Government has declared a number of policies which affect the farmers vitally, and I wish this afternoon to deal with the Government’s food control policy which covers a good many of the requests which the hon. member has made in his motion. Now, there is no doubt whatever from the statement made by the new food controller to the Press recently that the Government’s policy in regard to food control is a cheap food policy for the benefit of the consumer. Well, we have no objection to that policy as long as it is not done “at the expense of the farming community.” We are anxious that the consumers should get all the food they require, and at as cheap a price as possible, provided the farmer gets a square deal and living wage as well. Now, the Government has instituted a food control organisation which consists of a Cabinet Committee of three, a Food Controller, a Price Controller, and a Supplies Board for the import of foods and control boards. Fortunately for us the Minister of Agriculture is on that Cabinet Committee and the Food Controller functions under him, and therefore we can hope that the farmers interests will not be overlooked. I just want to quote from the Food Controller’s statement to the Press as to the policy of this Food Control Committee. He says—

I should think he should have added further that the policy of this food committee, the policy of this food organisation, was also to encourage the production of foodstuffs in as great a measure as possible by stabilising prices to the producers of foodstuffs in this country. He goes on to say—

Well, we don’t object to that, but I think that his first concern should also be that the producers of this country are able to secure stabilised prices and orderly marketing of their products. He further goes on to say—

Now, I think that the Minister should give an explanation of that statement. We know that the poorest of our poor in this country have no spending power. They can never purchase foodstuffs at the cost of production and the cost of marketing. Has the Government got a policy of subsidising consumption through our Social Welfare Department, making food available to these people at practically no cost whatever? Because that section of our people certainly cannot pay the price for their foodstuffs which will cover the cost of production to the farmers, and also the cost of marketing these foodstuffs. Our poorest people require essential foodstuffs practically free. Now, this policy of cheap foods has been tried out in other countries, and in some of these countries it has resulted in the ruin of agriculture. I speak especially with regard to Great Britain where they have had the policy of cheap food for the people before the war, and allowed food at dumped prices to be imported to depress home products’ prices. That cheap food policy ruined agriculture in Great Britain and we must be certain it will not have the same effect in this country. Now, I see that they are going to have a supplies board whose business it will be to deal with imports of foodstuffs into this country, where we are not able to supply the needs of the people. I wish to say that this country can produce all the foodstuffs the people of this country require, and I can even go so far as to say that if the consumption increased three or four times, the farmers of this country, given stabilised conditions, can produce all the foodstuffs required in South Africa. Now, as far as that question goes we have some hope in regard to the controller statement, because later on in the statement the food controller goes on to explain what his policy is and says—

If the food controller and his organisation carry out that policy, keeping the producer’s interests and just demands in view, then I think we shall have very little to complain of in this country. He goes on further to say—

That is where the whole trouble lies in this country. The price of foodstuffs in this country is not the price paid to the producer, but it is the price that is demanded by the other interests—the distributor, the speculator and other middlemen, who raise the prices of foodstuffs after they have been produced by the producer—it is that which makes the price of foodstuffs almost impossible. If the food controller could eliminate these costs and do away with the middleman whose services are not required, then I think he would be doing a great service and conferring a great benefit not only on the consumer, but also on the producer. Well, we are going along these lines now. If hon. members have read the Meat Commission’s Report they will see that that is the policy adopted here, and the policy of many of our Control Boards is the same. I would just mention one as an example—the Dairy industry Control Board. The prices fixed by that Board aim at giving the pro Ducor a fair return, and enables the retailer to get his requirements at a reasonable price. There is no speculation—no agents and no auctioneers are required—the food goes from the producer to the manufacturer, and then direct to the consumer. Those prices are all fixed. There can be no speculation. Everybody knows what he is going to get. There will be a fair margin of profit for services rendered, and the consumer knows what he is going to pay; and the whole of that product which the Dairy Control Board controls goes into consumption in this country.

We have no butter.

Butter is as cheap here today as you can get it in any part of the world. The production of dairy products has gone up enormously since the war, because we have had an enlarged local market, and there was no need to export surplus products below the cost of production. That is a board that should furnish an example to all other boards in this country. The food is controlled from the producer right to the consumer without profit being taken at any of the intervening stages and raising the price above what it should be. Now, Mr. Speaker, what we are troubled about is that you can only control those products which you have got control boards for. There are many other products which this country is producing which are not controlled in any way whatever. The result is that the consumer and the producer are being exploited by other interests, and in consequence when the prices drop below the level at which it is possible for the producer to produce, then production is liable to stop. In fact, in many instances that have been mentioned, farmers have produced crops of foodstuffs, but when they send them to the market and there happens to be even a small surplus of those foodstuffs, the prices drop to a level at which it is not profitable for the farmer to market those products any more. So it happens that many of these products are ploughed into the land; and others are fed to pigs and cattle as the most profitable way of disposing of them.

Do you want another Deciduous Fruit Board?

That is not the point; if that product could have been controlled properly and retail prices fixed, you would not have had that state of affairs. Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to this question that this food control organisation is out to encourage the production of foodstuffs to the largest extent that is possible. There will come a time when there will be surpluses; this country can always produce a surplus if there is a fair market for the product. I should like the Minister to tell us what his policy is in regard to farmers’ products when the stage is reached of surpluses being produced. Are those surpluses going to be allowed to be sent to the market to drive down prices below the level of the cost of production; or has the Minister any scheme whereby those surpluses can be used to the benefit of the consumers of this country? We have a Social Welfare Department in this country, and from what I have already said it will be clear there is a large section of our people who cannot pay for our products at a price representing the equivalent of the cost of production. Has the Government any scheme for subsidising consumption for the benefit of those poor people; and if they have a scheme I hope that the Government will not call it a subsidy to the farmers. What we ask the Government to do, if they are going to subsidise consumption, is that they let it be known that it is not the farmer that is being subsidised, but that any costs he has incurred will be made good to him and that the subsidy will be directly for the benefit of the poor consumer to give him cheap food. That, I suggest, is in itself a form of social security. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the House for long, because I know there are many other speakers. But I just wish to say this, that our system of control boards and our system of cooperation of farmers is faced with an attempt to break down and destroy it by what I may call commercial interests—that is the middlemen, the distributors and others. They have set out to try to create public opinion that the farmers are exploiting the consumers, and that these control boards are out to withold foodstuffs from the public at reasonable prices and force up prices and they hope that by influencing public opinion in this way the Government will eventually abandon these control boards, and also cease to encourage co-operation amongst the farmers. We have every reason to believe that that is the actual state of affairs at present. A new organisation has been constituted, and it has now applied to the Minister of Justice for registration. They describe themselves as the Chamber of Agriculture, Commerce and Industries, although when you look into it you will see there are no industries in it at all. It is purely a combination of agriculture and commerce, that is middlemen and speculators. When you enquire into this organisation and find out what sort of people are involved, you find they are market agents and operators, wholesale butchers, auctioneers and combines to get control of products and people of that type. They are now going to organise, with an unlimited amount of money behind them, to break down our system of control and to break down our system of co-operation amongst the producers. They want a clear field to exploit the producers and the consumers, as they have done in the old days. I hope that the Minister of Justice will not accede to their request for registration, because there is no need for the people concerned to have an organisation of that sort. I am glad to see that the Government, through its food control organisation and its food controller, are now working on sound lines, not only in the interests of the producers but in the interests of the consumers as well. They will bring the interests of these together or as near together as possible, and eliminate all those intermediate profits that raise the price of food. That is the ideal we have had, and that has been the object of farmers from the very beginning. Where the farmer can sell direct to the manufacturer or consumer, the consumer never has any reason for complaining; it is only when we have the activities of the speculator, the auctioneer and the others who manipulate the price of the product in a way that exploits the farmer and the consumer, that the complaints are heard in the country. If we once arrive at that stage through our farmers’ organisations and through our system of control boards, of the general application of the principle of direct sale of the product to the manufacturer or to the consumer, the future of farming in this country will be very bright. I feel myself that the Government is now working along right lines, and that with our help and our support and co-operation, we will get this matter of urgent national importance on a proper footing. I trust, too, that the members on the Opposition side will support us, so that by organisation and co-operation and through the machinery of the control boards, the interests of both the farmers and the consumers will be protected and that they will all get fair play. That, in fact, is all we are trying to achieve, maximum production at fair prices to all interests, producers, manufacturers and consumers, no one else not necessary to them, must be allowed to add to the cost, which restricts production and consumption.

I am, of course, not surprised at the motion of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). On the contrary I would have deplored it if such a motion had not been introduced—a comprehensive motion about agriculture seems of late to be just as unavoidable every session as the estimates. I have no objections, of course. I would deplore it if the great industry which I, as Minister, am trying to serve did not continually enjoy the attention of the House, if hon. members in this House and outside failed to give adequate attention to this great industry. What is more, conditions so far as agriculture is concerned, are continually changing, and it is therefore necessary perhaps, every year to take the whole position into review. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad introduces his motion with the following words—

I heartily agree with the hon. member as to the serious troubles of the agricultural industry. Nobody is more conscious than I am of those troubles which always beset agriculture. But there is nothing new in that; we have always had our difficulties. We had difficulties even when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was Minister of Agriculture, and I am afraid we shall always have agricultural tribulations. Difficulties in agriculture are fundamental in many respects, but where the hon. member speaks of a lack of policy there he gives the House a totally wrong impression of the position. The Department of Agriculture has for years already had a policy, and the hon. member knows it. But the war interfered. The hon. member and myself are at variance about the war, but still the country is in the war. No matter who decided that we were to take part in the war and who said that we should keep out of it, it is no use today, we are in it now.

You said that we must join in the war to save agriculture.

It makes no difference who said that we must take part in the war, or who said that we must not do so. We are in the war, and in the past four and a half years we could not have pursued any agricultural policy without taking these special conditions created by the war into account. All we can do is to carry out an agricultural policy which takes very definite account of the conditions prevailing today. The hon. member and his supporters are all too prone to say: “Yes, if it were not for the war we would not have had those troubles.” They never tell us anything about the benefits which the farmers have derived through the war. Or do hon. members want to tell us that there are no benefits to the farmers as a result of the war? They tell us about certain things, and then they blame the war. I ask the House to be realistic and to study the whole position in its correct perspective. Two or three years ago we had to worry our heads in this country about surpluses, and the hon. member himself did not know what to do with our agricultural surpluses. We did not know what to do to get a decent price for the surpluses which our farmers produced. Today the position is entirely different. Instead of surpluses we have to do all we can to secure our position in regard to our food supplies. That is the position in which we find ourselves now; that is how it has changed in the past three or four years. My contention is that that necessarily had to effect a change in our policy, and I make bold to say that in spite of the fluctuations and the changes the Government has pursued a deliberate and effective policy of which the farmers and the country in general are deriving the benefit today, and have already benefited the past few years. Where I differ from the hon. member is where he wants us now, while the war is on, to lay down a long term agricultural policy. My contention is that a long term policy can only be carried out after the war. But I do not want to be misunderstood. We did not wait until the war was over; we have not been sitting we have carried on and I still have in front of me a long term plan which has been submitted to the Government. The House will remember that last session a motion was introduced here asking the Government to appoint a commission to devise a policy for agriculture after the war, for the re-establishment of agriculture. I was not prepared to accept that motion for the appointment of a commission. I said at the time that in my opinion the body which was most competent to devise a long term agricultural policy was the Department of Agriculture, and that if my officials could not do so they should be able to devise such a policy. I went further and I said that we wanted to frame such a policy and that we would consult the various agricultural organisations and I said that we would submit our policy to the agricultural organisations and obtain their opinion on it. Notwithstanding the serious difficulties about food control and other matters, notwithstanding the fact that we have done more than our normal work, my department has taken active steps in this matter. A departmental committee under the chairmanship of the head of the Department has worked out a policy, and I have it before me here. The report which has been submitted has been placed before the Agricultural Advisory Board, and it has also been submitted to representatives of control boards who had been invited to take part in the discussions. At the meeting which was held they all heartily agreed with the policy and approved with a few minor amendments. They also requested that the report should be published as soon as possible and placed in the hands of the public. The Government has not yet reached any decision on the report. The report as it stands today contains the principles proposed by my department. It is now being translated and will be published as soon as possible, and the Government will come to a decision on it at the appropriate time. Now, I want to deal one by one with the points which the hon. member has raised in his motion. He mentions stabilisation of prices. One of the matters with which we have had most trouble is not touched on in his motion, but he did mention it in his speech—I refer to soil erosion and soil destruction. I somewhat resent the hon. member’s suggestion that the department is doing nothing in that respect.

Why don’t you come forward with a scheme — you are only doing patch work.

I should like the hon. member to go and have a look at the Vlekpoort scheme. I am sure he has never been to see that yet.

Yes; you are doing a little bit here and there. I have been there.

I should like to ask who drew the country’s attention to the dangers of soil erosion. Who made the country “soil erosion conscious”? Nothing has contributed more to that than the film which was shown throughout the country by one of my officials. I say that it is my department which has tried to direct the attention of the public to the dangers of soil erosion. Why then are we now criticised and told that we are doing nothing? This year there is a further sum of about £110,000 on the Estimates for soil erosion, but it is difficult at a time like the present to get enough labour to carry on the work as fast as we should like to see it done. It is no use voting a few hundred thousand pounds if we cannot spend that money, but I want to assure the House that it is my department’s intention to carry on with the work as fast as circumstances permit, and I can also assure the House that we welcome any assistance from the public in the way of advice or in any other shape or form. The hon. member talks about the stabilisation of prices, and he says that steps must be taken for the purpose of properly stabilising the price of agricultural products from time to time, so that the farmer can make a decent living. I fully agree, but that is exactly what we are doing. I do not know how the hon. member can say or can allege that it is not being done. The very object, the main object of the Marketing Act is the stabilisation of prices. That is the main object. And now the hon. member says “I am a hundred per cent. in favour of control boards”. I accept that, but what does the hon. member say is wrong with the control boards? He says that they are wrongly constituted, and he says that only the producers should be in charge of the control boards.

Yes.

May I remind hon.

members that when the Marketing Act was before the House and there was a lot of opposition to the Bill, we agreed here by way of a gentleman’s agreement between the various interests that the control boards were to be constituted more or less in the way they are now constituted. Hon. members talk of the K.W.V. and the Tobacco Control Board, but when they do so they refer to luxury articles which come in a totally different category. Does the hon. member for instance want the Mealie Control Board to consist entirely of producers?

Yes.

Hon. members say “yes” but what will that lead to—it will mean that I shall be compelled to appoint a consumers’ board.

Why not?

That shows how little the hon. member knows about it.

We are not talking about a middlemen’s board but about a consumers’ board.

It is quite difficult enough with things as they are today to fix, say, the price of wheat and the price of mealies. If I first of all have to consult a producers’ board and then a consumers’ board and then probably also a board of traders or merchants, I would never be able to get to the stage where I could recommend to the Cabinet what price should be fixed. Hon. members would make confusion worse confounded, but may I be allowed to say this to the hon. member—that several of the big control boards have come to me and have said that we should put more consumers on the control boards. That is the opinion of the particular board of control which has been most successful in its work. Then there is one other point which the hon. member referred to when dealing with the losses suffered by farmers. He quoted certain letters here. There is nothing in that. Once the farmer has delivered his mealies to the Co-operative Society he gets his money, and if there is any damage afterwards, it is a matter between the Board of Control and the Co-operative Society which is the agent of the Control Board—it is a matter between them as to who will have to bear the loss. The farmer will suffer no loss.

I am glad to hear that: I accept that.

I entirely agree that one cannot guarantee the farmer a decent living unless one makes sure that he gets a reasonable price for his product. I quite agree with that and my Department agrees, but I should like to quote in this connection what the Departmental Committee, in its report, has to say about this matter—

I should like to read another quotation in regard to marketing and control boards. In paragraph 165 the Reconstruction Committee of the Department makes the following statement—

Has the Cabinet adopted that report? Has the Cabinet seen it already?

My colleagues have seen it but the Cabinet has not come to a decision on it yet.

Then why do you quote it here?

The hon. member need not worry about that. I am going to quote what I consider necessary. Now, I want to make this further quotation in this connection—

You have such a good department, why do you have to get people from outside to draft such a report?

I have not the time to reply to all these interruptions. Then the hon. member spoke about compensation for increased costs of production. That is already being done. Take the wheat position. We have appointed a commission which has worked out the costs very carefully and which has laid down what the increased price is to be. That also applies to dairy and mealie products.

What about the mealies which are now rotting through their having got wet?

Even if the hon. member for Wolmaransstad had been the Minister of Agriculture the same thing would have happened. He is the only Minister I know of who contends that he could have arranged weather conditions. I cannot do it. Prices have been raised from time to time in accordance with the rise in the costs of production, but the interests of the consumer have been considered in every case where we have raised the prices. Then the hon. member wants the marketing system to be revised. I am only too conscious of the gaps and anomalies in our marketing system but that is not a matter which has just cropped up. It is not something new. We have had it for the last twenty years.

That is exactly why we want it changed.

I agree with the hon. member that after the war we shall have to give it our attention. I say that the reorganisation of our marketing system should be one of the first questions to have our attention. May I in this connection quote briefly again from the same report. In paragraph 187 the Committee states:

1. (a) Security of income to farmers by fixation of minimum prices; (Minimum price fixation can probably only be achieved in practice in respect of certain products.)
2. (b) Retention and extension of the control board system to include all main farm products of the country;
3. (c) Utilisation of the control boards as an instrument of the State to attain price stability in farming while at the same time ensuring the greatest possible production of food for the needs of the population;
4. (d) Elimination of unwarranted speculation in food and food products and of wasteful methods of distribution and the curtailment of under profit margins to the distributive trade by the fixation of maximum consumers’ prices for food commodities;
5. (e) The ultimate taking over of the food processing industries by public bodies, possibly by the control boards;
6. (f) Greater consumer representation on the control boards;
7. (g) Simplification of the procedure of the Marketing Act for the inauguration of schemes and the formation of control boards;
8. (h) The co-operative effort to be fostered among producers because of its position as an important service-rendering organisation;
9. (i) The control over municipal markets to be vested in the Central Government.
10. (j) Retail markets to be established at various points in the big urban centres and to be conducted by the various municipal authorities concerned.

This report was not drafted after the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) had spoken, but we agree with him on this last point. We have been recommending this for the last two years in places like Cape Town but the only Municipality which has followed our advice is that of Port Elizabeth, and I understand that it has been carried out there with great success.

If it is done there with so much success, why do you not compel the other municipalities also to do it?

I shall be in a position to consider it when I have the power to take marketing out of the hands of the provincial councils.

What about, the Emergency Regulations?

We next come to the question of the establishment of factories which, of course, is a matter coming under my colleague, the Minister of Economic Development. I am more particularly interested in two directions of development —namely the dehydration of vegetables and fruit where we have already made considerable progress, and the preserving of fruit and vegetables. Wherever we can get the necessary material, factories have been established for dehydration of vegetables and fruit. The next question is that of the preserving, the canning, of vegetables and fruit. The hon. member said that these commodities were lying on the ground and rotting, and he asked why we did not preserve or can them. I can tell the hon. member that since the beginning of the war the production has increased by 400 per cent. We have developed the preservation industry to such an extent that, even now, we have to look for markets outside the Union.

And what is going to happen after the war if that market is lost to us?

On the one hand the Opposition ask me to undertake new things, and on the other hand they are afraid of what is going to happen after the war. Then I come to the next point in the hon. member’s motion. He says that we must have more farm labour. Well, like the poor we always have the farm labour trouble with us. Even when the hon. member was Minister he had to contend with that, difficulty. I must admit that the problem was not serious in those days, because we did not have the development then which has taken place since. We cannot get away from the hard fact that as a result of the further development in this country we probably have more work for the Europeans and non-Europeans in this country than we have people to do the work—and it is self evident—we cannot use slave labour—that the labourer is going to go to the place where he gets the best pay. I admit this is an extremely difficult matter, and the Government will assist and do what it can, just as we have already helped since the beginning of the war. Then the hon. member says that we must supply, or make available, more fencing material such as jackal proof wire. I again agree with him—if we have the wire, but we cannot get it. Iscor cannot supply it.

You agree with everything, why do not you accept the motion?

The motion as it stands seems to be very innocent, but it is not as innocent as it appears to be. The hon. member knows what our difficulty is in regard to wire. We have not got the wire in this country.

Cannot Iscor manufacture it?

No, they cannot make barbed wire.

Did they not make the black barbed wire which we got?

No, that came from America. We got 2,700 tons from the Defence Department. We cannot get jackal proof wire. I understand that there is a small factory in Cape Town manufacturing wire netting, but they are not able to supply anything like the quantities required. We are also faced with the difficulty in regard to steel. There is a great shortage of steel in the country. I agree that fencing material is an important and almost indispensable commodity, and in this connection I want to quote something from the Reconstruction Report on the subject of soil erosion—

There the hon. member and I agree that it is essential. But we simply have not got the material in this country and we cannot make it. We have placed a large order for barbed wire overseas, and we have every hope that it will arrive here shortly, and that we shall then be in a position to improve the position.

Will it be issued on permits?

If there is enough for everybody it will not be necessary to issue it on permits, but in order to give everyone a chance it will be done in permits. I believe that the way we issued the 2,700 tons of wire to 4,000 farmers was pretty effective. At the moment we have no more, but I am doing my best to get another 1,000 tons. The question of boreholes comes under my colleague. Then the hon. member discussed the question of the combating of agricultural pests.

That is a serious matter.

It has always been a serious matter and we are engaged on measures to combat the evil.

But you are still importing the stuff.

The hon. member will recollect that I sent an aeroplane specially to assist him. That does not support his contention that we are doing nothing. In regard to serums for the inoculation of horses, I can say that the demand over the past few years has quadrupled itself. It is incorrect to say that the farmer cannot get the stuff. It is true that the last few applicants did not get all they wanted, but the great majority of the people were supplied with all the serum they needed. If the hon. member was late in making his application I am sorry. Then the hon. member speaks about the protection of the farmer and about security for the farmer. I have already dealt with that in my speech but. I want to quote from the report to show what the committee thinks will be the position after the war—

We agree with the hon. member on that aspect of the matter. Then he speaks about putting a stop to State farming. I am not in favour of State farming as such, but I make no apologies for the State farming which has been carried on during the war. What my hon. friend has done at Pongola and other places has assisted us greatly in securing the food position at a time when food was very scarce. The farmers who want to get seed potatoes can get them there, and we have had complaints from farmers because they have not been able to get them there. Hundreds of farmers have approached me and have told me that we should import seed potatoes—and we have done so at a loss. Hundreds have said that they were glad there was a place where they could get seed potatoes. I am opposed to State farming as such in normal times. I do not think the Government should compete with the farmers, nor does the Government do so. The amount of competition with the farmers, which did take place during the war, was not worth talking about. Anyhow I do not want to detain the House any longer now that. I have expressed my opinion on these subjects. In general I can support the motion as it stands but where the hon. member puts the blame on the Government and says that the Government has not done its duty, well, there I do not agree, and in those circumstances I am unable to accept the motion.

I find that I must really congratulate the hon. the Minister this afternoon on having become a jolly good Nationalist. He has accepted the whole of the proposal by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). Now, he has definitely shown his colours. I know that many of his friends on the other side will probably be disgusted with him, but we on this side welcome his remarks. There are, however, a few points where I disagree with the him. There is the case of jackal proof wire. Before the war the Premier Gate Company made thousands of yards of netting wire. I am sure they still have their machinery intact, and if they are given the material they will manufacture as much jackal proof wire as the country requires. I hope the hon. the Minister will go into this matter and that the Government will give the necessary material to the Premier Gate Company. There is another point which I wish to stess very strongly, and that is in regard to the question of control boards. The hon. the Minister asked us whether we were prepared to have a producers’ board and a consumers’ board. Yes, we are prepared to have a producers’ and a consumers’ board. There are two sections which are interested in farming produce, that is the producer and the consumer. The middleman is the parasite. We want to avoid high profits and the overtrading we have had in the past. We therefore welcome a farmers’ board and also a consumers’ board. It is quite easy to bring these boards together; if you have three or four representatives of your producers’ board and three or four representatives of your consumers’ board you would get that contact which is necessary and pay the middleman for his services. I believe that the hon. Minister is trying to bring the producer and the consumer closer together. Today we hear a lot of criticism from our commercial friends. Our commercial friends have always shown that they have not got the interests of the farmers at heart; we find that they want to pay cheap wages, and give cheap food. I am surprised to hear some of the criticism from one hon. member. Does he not realise that there are tens of thousands of poor people in the country on whom he must also take mercy? He wants to wipe them out with one stroke of the pen. I find that the Labour members have shown a certain amount of sense as far as the farmers are concerned, and there is no doubt that the farmers have started to show their mettle. It was evident from every speech made by members of the other side that they were out to protect their commercial interests. We on this side are out to protect the farming interests. The time will come when the farmers will stand together, and the Government will be well advised to listen to the farmers because the farmers are strong enough to smash any government in this country. I want to refer now to the question of orderly marketing for stabilising prices on a profit basis. Some of our friends naturally think that the old happy hunting ground of the speculator must continue to exist. There is no sphere in which there has been more speculation than in farm produce. Why? Because we have had no system at all. We have had no orderly marketing in this country, and where you have no orderly marketing you will always have the speculator playing a big role. By means of boards you must see that both sections are protected, both producer and consumer. As far as I am concerned the middleman and the speculator do not count. In the past they have been the cause of the wide gap which has existed between the producer and the consumer, and by their propaganda and money they have always made the consumer believe that it is the farmer who is trying to exploit him. Fortunately, by means of the organisation at our disposal today we have been able to contradict that, and we want to assure the hon. the Minister that if he goes on with his boards in a slightly changed form we will stand by him as far as the boards are concerned. When I speak about the stabilisation of prices I feel that the farmer is justified in taking his profits. If your commercial people can claim at 33 per cent. profit your farmer can also be able to claim a 33 per cent. profit for the work he does. He has no fixed hours of duty. He has to slave the whole day, and he is entitled to a fair profit on his products. I feel that the farmer should be master in his own house and that he should have a hundred per cent. control of his commodities. It is because in the past the farmers have not had a hundred per cent control that we have had all these difficulties. I feel also that when you control you must also be able to store. It is useless to control if you cannot store, especially perishable goods. For instance, if you want to control meat you must have cold storages and unfortunately the cold storage is today in the hands of the middleman and not in the hands of the producer and consumer. In other countries the cold storages belong to the State and the Municipalities. The farmer and the consumer are people affected but in this country we find that the middleman is in control of the cold storage. He can do just as he pleases with the producer and the consumer, and it is high time that the Government realised that the cold storages in this country should be taken over and controlled by the Government. There is one question I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture. The Industrial Corporation has taken certain shares in the Imperial Cold Storage, and I wish to know whether that is a controlling interest or whether it was just given to the middleman to exploit the farmers still further after the war. This is not the time to seek shelter behind walls; the time has arrived for action; this is the time to organise, so that when the war is over we shall have some machinery with which we can protect our future interests. On these lines I think you can bring about orderly marketing, and I think the Minister will agree with this. Then there is another thing that hangs like a millstone round the farmer’s neck, and that is your farm bonds. When I speak about farm bonds, I want to take the figures quoted in the House this morning. The sum of £450,000,000 has been invested in the ground in this country. On that you have bonds to the value of something like £120,000,000 and while you have that millstone round the necks of the farmers you will find that they are poor and that they will not be able to make any progress. We feel therefore that it is essential that the Government should have a long term policy, and introduce a redemption scheme on farm bonds. If these farm bonds are lightened to a 60 per cent. basis you will have a sound basis on which to work. We do not want the Government to spend millions of pounds in paying off these bonds. The farmers are prepared to help themselves. But if there is stabilisation in price and the bonds can be reduced, you will have a sound farming community in this country, and if you do not have a sound farming community you cannot have social security. Food, after all, is the first factor in social security, and if it is not made possible for the farmer to produce food on an economic basis then the whole foundation of social security falls away. As far as clothing is concerned, the farmer is also responsible. Today we hear a great deal about erosion. Some people think that it is due to the carelessness of the farmer that we have erosion. I say that that is not so. We are all responsible for that erosion—the townsman, the railway people, the roads, and everyone concerned, is responsible for erosion in this country. But there is one thing more responsible than anything else, and that is that the farmers have never had—they have never lived on an economic policy. They have always had to produce and sell at cost or below cost. Well, the farmers have had to do the best they could and the result has been overstocking. If that evil were taken away and the farmers got remunerative prices for their products, they would be able to put something back into the soil. What we ask is something on which a sound economic system can be built up. The farmer, by himself, cannot do things—the Government must help. In this connection I want to say a good word about two Ministers. They are the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Lands. In my constituency at Vlekpoort they have done a good bit of work. Yes, the Minister of Lands is a good man if he would not blow off often—if he did not blow so much chaff. Erosion is one of the greatest problems we have to tackle. As the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has said, 25 per cent. of our best soil has already been washed to the sea, and it is high time, if we do not want to see anything wasted away, that we should spend not £5,000,000 on erosion but many more millions. Then there is the question of the conservation of water. In the Karoo water is the great essential. It would be the finest pastoral country in the world, if only it had water, next to the Argentine. Our trouble is that our animals have to trek long distances to get to the water—if there is any water at all. Then I want to say a word about education. We have our agricultural colleges, but what is the status of an agricultural college? It has not even got the status of a high school. When a youngster passes his matric, he can go to the university and take his B.Sc., but a boy’s education at an agricultural college does not constitute a link in his educational system. I hope the Minister will do what is done elsewhere, so that there will be a link between the agricultural college and the universities. If a boy has taken a two year’s course at an agricultural college, it should count as one year towards his B.Sc., and here contact should be made between the university examinations and the agricultural colleges. I am not going to speak very much longer, because many other hon. members want to say something. What we have said has been said on behalf of the farmers. I am glad to see a better spirit among farmers on the other side of the House. We should keep that up; and I do feel that our commercial friends who always want to exploit the farmers, will be kept in their places, because they are not the friends of the farmers at all.

I should also like to say a few words in connection with one of the matters emphasised by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in his motion, viz. (g) “to consider making the matter of utilising subterranean water, through boring or otherwise, a national issue.” Whilst the Minister of Agriculture was speaking, the hon. member made an interjection and said: “We now want something large, we now demand it from you.” I only want to remind the hon. member of the fact that, for a period of fourteen years he was the head of the Department, in peace time, in a time of abundance and surpluses such as this country had never known before, but we never got any of those large things for which he is now clamouring in war time.

We did not blast it into the air.

No, but neither did you give us the great things you are demanding today. Take for instance the question of boring machines. In this time of war they demand our boring machines from us. I may differ from the hon. member as far as the war is concerned, but these are the large things which are now being demanded from us in time of war.

How many boring machines do you have today? You took over from us more than a hundred.

I shall give you the figures, but these are the important things for which the hon. member at that time did not make provision either, but which he now, in time of war, demands from us. In September, 1939, when war broke out, we inherited 120 boring machines and of these 120 boring machines the larger part consisted of antiquated, old-fashioned boring machines, inefficient boring machines, which it was impossible to transport from one place to another. The farmers were afraid to make use of the Government’s boring machines. They complained that if one had to fetch a Government boring machine from a neighbour, one had to send five, six or eight teams of draught animals to transport the boring machine with all its equipment. The war came and our troops marched to Middle and North Africa and even outside Africa; our troops had to trek through thirstlands and we sent boring machines to bore waterholes for them. We sent them approximately 26 out of the 120 machines. Of the balance which remained here, about 60 machines were not in working order. Apart from that, a large section of the personnel for these boring machines joined the army and we do not have the staff to work those boring machines.

You can get sufficient men.

It is very easy to say that. One cannot get them. The hon. member perhaps has somebody on his farm who has done a certain amount of boring and he now asks us why we do not employ that man. This is the kind of recommendation we get: I know a man who has worked with a boring machine; give him a boring machine. We cannot deal with government property in such a haphazard manner. That is quite impossible. If we allow a man to handle a boring machine, he must be a person who has been trained to work it, somebody we can trust and who knows his job. Large numbers of our staff decided to join the army with the result that we have not the personnel to work the remaining number of boring machines. Approximately 26 boring machines have been sent up North and we have still another 20 or 30 boring machines which are not being used and for which we have not the personnel.

Still we have about 60 or 70 boring machines working today. You will realise that we have during the past four years had endless trouble with the antiquated boring machines —one cannot get new ones. They are entirely insufficient. People from all parts of the Union have tackled me and my department; they want more boring machines. I explained from time to time that with the best intentions in the world we cannot cope with all the applications. There is nobody who feels more sympathy for the farmers in their difficulties in this respect than I do, for I myself am a farmer in those dry parts of the country and I know how essential it is that we bore water holes. In spite of the shortage my department has continued to pay 50 per cent. subsidy for private boring machines up to a maximum of £20. A very considerable amount has been paid out under this scheme. This is a subsidy to assist people to tide over difficult times. The hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) who also lives in one of our drought stricken areas where they had no rain, although abundant rains have fallen in other parts of the country, came to see me and told me that the farmers are perishing in misery in those parts. He told me that he himself owns a farm of 8,000 morgen with only one borehole. I know how impossible such a position is. I realise their difficulties and I tried to explain to him what our difficulties are. In spite of that the hon. member still comes here to attack us and to tell us that we sent the boring macines to Persia.

Is that not the truth?

What is the idea behind the question.

Was I wrong?

No, his contention is that we are now sending boring machines to a foreign country and that we are not caring for what happens to our own people here. I reiterate that there is a war on and even if I have to send away the last remaining 26 boring machines which would be still here, I shall send them if they are required, so that the people there may get water. We may differ on that point, but I have never been callous. I have always tried to do my very utmost to meet our people as far as it was in my power to do so, and where we have a shortage we can assist by means of private boring machines. Private boring machines can be obtained. I have today one working for me.

They cannot get the spare parts.

Yes, that is another difficulty which the Government is experiencing. We have great trouble in obtaining parts. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad said that we should make the problem of water a national issue. I fully agree with him. I believe that we have largely anticipated the motion of the hon. member, even in war time. We know that there are certain parts of our country which are suffering particularly from droughts, and my department has already worked out a detailed scheme as part of our post-war programme. We are going to do away with all the old fashioned boring machines which we inherited and in our own workshops we are going to construct boring machines.

Why not do it now?

Those will be new, modern boring machines, self-propelling. Then it will no longer be necessary for the farmer to send six or eight teams of animals to transport a boring machine and its equipment. As soon as peace comes our workshops will commence the work and we shall try to obtain the necessary staff for it, and year after year a certain percentage of the old boring machines will be discarded, and new modern boring machines will take their place. This motion asks us to put the problem on a national basis. I want to point out that this is already our policy. The Government is, however, convinced that there are parts of the country—I just want to mention especially Namaqualand, Kuruman and Vryburg — which suffer from ever-recurrent droughts. These areas are deprived of the privileges enjoyed by other parts of the country where large irrigation works and weirs can be built and in which the Government has already invested millions of pounds. There are parts of the country on which the Government has already spent millions and millions of pounds, but Namaqualand, Vryburg and Kuruman, exceptionally dry parts, where boring is very expensive and one cannot construct irrigation works, have never yet had anything of this sort. I want to say here that if ever I as a practical farmer was convicted of one thing, in those areas, then it that Namaqualand is as good for sheep farming as any other part of the country, provided one can give the people their water, and they can only get it by means of boreholes. If one goes further to Kuruman and Vryburg, I maintain that these are the best cattle areas in the Union, but then they must have water and they also can only get that by means of boreholes. What has our experience been? The hon. member for Calvinia spoke of an 8,000 morgen farm. My experience has been that when one has 7,000 or 8,000 or 10,000 morgen with only one borehole, one can farm only on half of that land. If one has an 8,000 morgen farm there with one borehole, one can scarcely farm on 4,000 morgen of it. The remainder one cannot reach with one’s livestock. More boreholes are needed. If they get them the community of Calvinia will become far more prosperous and progressive, for they will then be able to produce more. I appointed an irrigation commission instructing it, seeing that that part of the country cannot have a share in our irrigation works and since they are entirely dependent on boreholes and whereas the price of boreholes is so high in those areas, because they often have to be sunk to a very great depth, that it should investigate whether it is not possible, if necessary by means of legislation if there is no other possibility, to treat that part of the country on an entirely different footing from the rest of the Union. Let us treat it as a special area which has to be supplied with boring machines to sink boreholes at a price which will be lower than anywhere else in the Union. There are scores of people in those parts who have gone bankrupt as a result of boring and who finally had to give up farming. It is impossible for those people to carry on in the way they are doing now. The instruction to the commission is therefore whether it cannot perhaps recommend that those parts be treated as a separate area and that boring can take place there at a specially reduced price and that the people there can also be assisted with a windmill or an engine.

That speech we have been hearing here for the last four years.

There are some people who neither want to see nor to listen. An hon. member who makes such an interjection under the present circumstances, is a fool.

The Minister is showing his true nature again.

The scheme has been worked out for the postwar period. Today we cannot do it, that is quite impossible. Moreover I have not yet seen the report of the commission. The commission’s instructions are to devise a scheme under which those people can receive special facilities in regard to boreholes at prices which they are able to afford and in the second place to investigate whether windmills or engines with concrete dams should be made available to them. Our aim is to try and grant at least two boreholes for every 4,000 morgen of land.

In the meantime the department makes the people pay for dry boreholes.

That is the policy which I took over.

It happened when you were the Minister.

One cannot expect the Government to sink four or five dry boreholes for those people at a cost of hundreds and hundreds of pounds. We have suffered enormous losses. We give them £70 gratis, we credit them with that. It is not true that they have to pay for everything. The position is that we have asked the commission whether they approve of us proceeding along the lines contemplated. In that case there will be a new future for those parts of the country. I again want to stress that those things cannot be done before the war is over. First of all we are going to see this war through. The heavens may fall, but we are going to see it through. People may hold different views from what our views are, but we are going to do that. We have not yet received the report, but as soon as the report is in we will again consider whether we can proceed along those lines. I therefore say that in that respect we are already at a much more advanced stage than the ideas of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, especially as far as those areas are concerned. I do not want to say that only the Cape and the areas in question should be treated specially as far as boring machines are concerned. At a later date it may be necessary to find out whether we should perhaps treat the northern Transvaal and especially the parts beyond Zoutpansberg in the same manner. Apparently they also experience difficulties there. The people there also have no possibilities for irrigation works and they too must be assisted in regard to boreholes. If we can do so, it will also mean a new future for them.

What was the result of the survey?

A large part has already been surveyed, but the work has not yet been completed. They gave us a map indicating where we can sink boreholes. We sent our geological experts there to show us where we could sink boreholes and it was quite a success. It was a matter of fact such a success that the farmers of Gordonia are now clamouring that we should send the expert there to indicate to them where they should sink boreholes. In the past we have sunk many boreholes on the advice of people who did not know sufficiently about it.

May we take it that when the people there apply for it, the official concerned will be sent there?

As far as possible. I want to explain the position. We obtained the collaboration of the Department of Mines, but owing to war conditions, sufficient personnel is not always available for that work. Whenever we have asked them, they have always tried to assist us. I intended also saying something in regard to the competition with farmers by the Government, but the Minister of Agriculture has already dealt with that point.

I should like to refer in particular to the problem of farm labour and I think it will be advisable that I first of all give a description of my constituency. My constituency is situated about 100 miles from the Basutoland border. In former years plenty of farm labour was available, but during the last few years the position has become unbearable. I also want to explain first what type of farming we go in for. We have dairy farming, wheat, mealies and potatoes. I must regret that the Minister of Labour as well as the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry are not in their seats at the moment, for I should have liked to bring to their notice the actual state of affairs. I want to point out that a dairy farmer or a farmer whose activities are partly dairying, is first of all compelled to milk his cows. The farmers in our area milk between 50 and 100 cows. These have to be milked early in the morning. Most of the farmers are short of labour, have only two or three workers on the farm, and consequently the milking in the morning lasts until about 10 o’clock. After the labourers have finished the milking they have to get busy with the harvesting of the wheat crop which is standing on the land waiting to be brought in. I just want to tell the Minister that this year about 200,000 bags of wheat went waste in the district from where I come, due to the lack of farm labour and due to the lack of the necessary machinery. The rains have admittedly contributed to a considerable degree to this loss, but not more than the lack of labour. The farmers could not get their wheat in. I may tell the Minister that wheat which should have been harvested in November is to a large extent even today still standing on the land. It perishes, collapses and the various bushes grow over it. If the Minister should be in doubt about my figures, I should very much like him to investigate what the actual conditions are. So much in regard to wheat. When the farmers are still busy gathering their wheat, the mealies and the potatoes are waiting to be harvested and the farmers can do nothing in that respect with the few workers they have. The result is that the mealielands are full of weeds and that the potatoes cannot be taken from the soil, which means a great loss. In other years scores of farm labourers were to be had near the border who come to cut the wheat. This year they did not appear at all. There must be a reason or reasons for it. What are those reasons? First of all the migration to the towns. There are scores of natives who today are living a loafer’s existence in the locations. We have no legislation to compel them to work. Hence all the stealing that is going on. What is more, the trust lands are another reason why the natives do not want to work. On the trust lands they do not work either with result that there is a serious shortage of farm labour. Another reason is the fact that no hut tax is being levied any more. Our white population in the Free State have to see to it that the natives obtain free hospitalisation and medical service. That costs us about £40,000. Why should the Europeans pay for that? It definitely is an unsound principle, and I want to ask the Minister concerned to see to it that the hut tax is again collected. Furthermore there is the trek to the mines. The young natives go to the mines or join the army and we are saddled with the maimed and the old ones and have to try to muddle through as best we can. To carry on in that manner is becoming more and more impossible for the farmers. In our district land costs from £10 to £20 per morgen and it has to be cultivated intensively, but that is impossible owing to the shortage of labour. I therefore want to stress the point that a change has to come about. The farmers are suffering great losses, but it is not a local matter. The country suffers too. We know that our country does not produce sufficient wheat and many farmers who go in for mixed farming, have now decided to dispose of their cows and to farm only with oxen with the result that there will be a still more acute shortage of dairy products in the near future. What is more, the farmers are also not going to grow wheat any more, for the grain perishes and they are powerless. Many farmers have already decided to concentrate on winter grain, especially oats, to fatten their oxen and cattle. If matters are going to be allowed to drift in that way one can imagine what the outcome will be. That is, however, not the end of it. There is the shortage of labour. I know of a case where a farmer is all by himself on his farm. He has to milk and to plough and do all the other work on the farm himself and that is an impossible thing. The result of this labour shortage is that the farmers are today selling or letting their land. The demand for labour is a very important matter which should receive immediate consideration. As far as this is concerned I want to mention a few causes. There are first of all the positions of European men into which the natives are now penetrating—one finds it in the Railways; one finds it in various industries where the number of Non-European employees increases whilst the European is being ousted. Hence the shortage of labour on the farms. There is another matter which might be mentioned as a solution and that is that it is the duty of the Government to see to it that the loafing of natives and coloureds is put a stop to. As the available labour on the farms is very scarce today, the Government should see to it that the natives from outlying stations do not migrate to the towns or the mines, but that they first of all fill the needs on the farms. If the Government were to take care that positions held by European men would not be filled by Non-Europeans, there would be much more opportunities of obtaining labourers. The locations is another matter that has to be tackled. We should rather like to see the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry go into this matter. Then there is the wage problem. In spite of the higher wages which the Non-Europeans receive in the mines and the towns, they are very much poorer than the labourers on the farms. At the end of a year the native who has been working in a town cannot show anything for it. The native on the farm is much better off. This is not an argument which should be put forward. I want to go further, however, and say that if these things continue to go on as they do now, the results will be very serious. If matters are allowed to develop in this manner, there will ultimately be a struggle for existence between European and Non-European and that will lead to a chaos in this country which nothing will be able to stop. I furthermore want to say something about the stabilisation of our agricultural products and first of all I want to mention wheat. We are all in favour of the stabilisation of wheat, but the Question the farmer always asks is the following. As a farmer once said, he knew the miller had fat pigs but he did not know where the fodder came from. We have six grades of wheat and the farmers want to know how it is possible that since we have those grades, there is only one grade of bread. What happens to that wheat? The farmer never receives the maximum price. After the various grades have been subtracted, his price is very low and the millers make enormous profits and I hope the hon. Minister will be able to obtain a hold on those things. I have personally seen that various grades are being mixed but the bread that comes out on the other side is always first grade, whereas the farmer is not being paid for first grade. The other problem is the stabilisation of mealie prices. I notice that the hon. Minister is very sympathetically inclined and that he also takes into consideration the high cost of production and we hope that this season, when we have had good rains but no farm labour, he will take that into consideration in order to increase the price of mealies to 20s. In the past the policy of the Government has been to export mealies. In this respect I just want to say that I hope that the Minister will never lend his ear to such a policy. We have never yet had an overproduction of mealies in our country. It was a sham overproduction and I want to suggest the following. If there is an overproduction, let the capitalist and sindicate farmer who overproduces be kept out of the market and let the farmer who has to make his living out of it be given a chance to market his mealies. If that procedure were to be followed any overproduction woud immediately be stabilised. It does not help us to export our mealies to America and England. It is against our own interests and I want to suggest that the Minister see to it that not a single mealie-grain will ever be exported again. Our best market is here. I just mention this, and I now want to say something in regard to dairy produce. Last year the farmers insisted on a better price for their dairy produce as it was a very bad year and we were facing a difficult winter season. In spite of several deputations to the Dairy Board they refused to increase the prices. In the past the dairy farmer has always been able to look after himself. The prices he gets during this war compare very unfavourably with those he got during the last war. Whereas the dairy farmer during the World War received as much as 18 pence per gallon of milk, the highest price he has received during this war has been 11 pence. The outcome of it, as we had predicted, was a shortage of butter and cheese. I am convinced that the housewife would rather have paid a few pence more in order to obtain that butter and cheese, and I want to predict that what happened last year may possibly happen again his year. I hope the hon. Minister of Agriculture will raise the price with a few pence so that the dairy farmer will be able to feed his stock with the expensive mealies. The other produce I want to mention here is potatoes. There used to be a time when potatoes on the market were sold at exorbitant prices. That showed us that the product was not properly controlled. The farmer is not in favour of receiving abnormal prices. We want a properly stabilised, price but we want a proper market too. We now come to the meat question. A report has now been published by a commission, and much can be said in favour of it; but we are also much afraid of it. We want stabilisation and we do not want a stabilisation of prices when the product concerned reaches its peak price nor a stabilisation when the price is at its lowest. We want to ask, as far as this stabilisation by weight and grade is concerned, that the Minister should bear in mind that this should not be a Question for the duration of the war only, but that the meat producing farmer should also be properly protected after the war. We furthermore want the Minister to see to it that we obtain proper cold storage facilities and that this is not left in the hands of a few capitalists who can exploit the farmer in the future. I hope the hon. Minister will see to that.…

In view of the fact that the Minister agrees with the points raised in the motion and as it therefore has served its purpose, with the leave of the House I desire to withdraw the motion.

With leave of the House, the motion was withdrawn.

It being 4.10 p.m. Mr. Speaker stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), the House would proceed to the consideration of Government business.

The hon. Minister for Commerce and Industries is entitled to credit for having tackled one of the major problems in regard to industries in South Africa, and that is the fishing problem. If one reads again this old report of 1934 on the fishing industry, and one reads there of the many reports of committees and commissions, it is certainly a melancholy thing to reflect that it is only in 1944 that this very much needed Bill, a Bill that should have been introduced long ago, sees the light of day. I am going to deal with the Bill itself because, as has been stated by the hon. Minister, the problem is really a problem of the inshore fishermen. This Bill goes a good deal further than that and from what the hon. Minister said I think it will be clear that no Bill was necessary to deal with deep sea trawling, which is the back bone of our Union fishing supplies. There was no legislation necessary to deal with trawling which is well organised and well equipped; it is a flourishing concern and we owe to the trawling industry the fact that we are able to get fish, particularly in the interior parts of the country. The problem is that of the inshore fisherman. Again, when speakers say that private enterprise has failed to solve the problem of the inshore fishermen, one must examine that very carefully. Surely the Minister does not contend that it was the duty of the trawling industry, which looked after its own men and made a great success of the trawling business, and which has nothing whatsoever in common with the industry that is under the control of the inshore fishermen, to leave their deep sea trawling alone and attend to the needs of the inshore fishermen. There has been a failure but the failure has been on our part; the failure has been on the part of the various Governments of the country. They should have dealt with the problem of the inshore fishermen. The trawling industry was looking after the interests of its people and supplying fish to the public, but there was no obligation upon the trawling industry to make provision for the inshore fishermen. It is a neglect that goes back to the days even before the Union and has continued ever since. The fishing industry has never been a popular one for some reason or other. People do not seem to be interested in it. Even the gentlemen of the National Convention thought it of so little importance that they handed it over to the provinces, and it was only during the last few years that the Union Parliament has recognised it as a national industry, and even since then the progress which has been made in the direction of looking after the inshore fishermen has been very slow. The hon. Minister and the director of Fisheries pay great tribute to the trawling industry. We owe it to them that we have any sort, of regular supply of fish in the Union. They have cold storage facilities. They have well organised distribution centres. If only some of the inshore fishermen had some of the facilities they had, the inshore fishermen would be better off, and I think the department would be better employed in seeing that the inshore fishermen got the facilities that would enable them to make a better livelihood than they are making now, rather than to mix up the two industries in one Bill. As far as the trawling industry is concerned you have all the legislation necessary for the disgorging of a reasonable portion of their profits. As a matter of fact they contribute very heavily in taxation and other ways to the revenue of the country, as I shall show in a moment or two. These are two different things altogether—deep sea trawling and inshore fishing. I hope the evidence before the Select Committee will bring out the true facts in regard to the trawling industry and in regard to the inshore fishermen because one wants to see a success made of this thing. I have had a good deal of experience of fishermen as I have lived at a seaside place for over 30 years. When the hon. Minister was the member for South Peninsula we worked together on the Kalk Bay Fishermen’s Welfare Fund of which I am still chairman. I had to deal with them in a very practical way. That is the position in regard to the inshore fishermen. But there is no complaint to be made as far as deep sea trawling is concerned, and if the inshore fishermen had the same facilities which they have, which in the nature of things it is impossible for them to have unless they get State assistance, there would be no ground for complaint. One ought to mention here—and I am sure the hon. Minister will bear me out—that the trawling industry has made its contribution to the war effort, because many of its serviceable trawlers have been taken over by the Government. Their trawlers have been requistioned. During the war the Government has decided to pay them less by way of hire and that has to some extent affected their opportunities for carrying out their work at trawling, but even so the business was so efficiently run that they have not had an unsuccessful year. I would like to tell the House what takes place in regard to one of these concerns, in order to give the House an idea of the money which is locked up in this concern and the wages paid. These are the figures for the year ending 31st December, 1942. They show here in their profit and loss account that the nett profit for the year was £103,317 19s. 3d. I would like to interest the House for a moment in the expenditure involved before they arrived at this profit. Salaries, wages and labour for the year amounted to no less than £213,913; ship repairs amounted to £36,567. All this means money brought into circulation in the country. Then we have provisions: £11,513; Coal and Oil Fuel, £11,520; and the amount paid to the South African Railways and Harbours £82,690. Although they had a nett profit of £103,317 19s. 3d. for the year they actually spent in wages and other money brought into circulation £356,203 for the year. That is only the one concern. I have not got the figures for the other concern; and during that year they landed fish to the enormous extent of 41,825,282 lbs. They paid in taxation for the year a total sum of £64,762, over £20,000 more than they paid the previous year. It is quite clear that they are very highly organised. It is a very successful venture and I have no doubt that the industry would be prepared to co-operate with the Government if they were asked to do so. The hon. member for Durban North (The Rev. Miles-Cadman) made some reference to one class of fish, and the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) referred to alleged dumping that has taken place, as a result of radio communication. As to stock fish referred to by the hon. member for Durban North, paragraph 127 of the 1934 report says that it is the mainstay of the export trade. What is supposed to happen as regards dumping is this: The inshore fishermen get a good catch, and communicate with the trawlers; the trawlers would then prepare to dump in the sea a certain quantity in order to keep up the price. It is a very serious statement to make, and I hope it will be thoroughly investigated, because I think everyone will agree that the dumping of large quantities of fish in order to keep up the price would be iniquituous, especially in these times. It is no good making a statement like that unless one has the evidence to support it. This appeared in Friday’s newspaper—

The hon. member must not quote from newspapers referring to debates in this House during the current session.

I merely wanted to read this in order to show that this was emphatically denied publicly by the heads of the two concerns; it was immediately denied. This is a matter which should be investigated. It is not the first time that this allegation of dumping has been made, and I think it should be very critically examined by the Select Committee to find out whether there is any truth in it. If there is no truth in it I hope it will be the last we hear of it in this House. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) made a very constructive speech on the whole. In fact, the atmosphere of the debate has been quite refreshing. This matter has been debated on its merits. Evidently we are not fishing in troubled waters on this occasion. The hon. member said in the course of his speech, reading from the speech of the Director of Fisheries, that there is a very low content as far as the use of fish by people in this country is concerned. He quoted the figures to support that statement. The figure for some other countries is very high, and South Africa’s figures are very low, but there is a snag there; there is a reason for it. The reason why we eat so much less fish per capita in South Africa is that millions of our people refuse to eat fish. The natives do not eat fish at all.

Some refuse to eat it.

They refuse to eat fish at any price; I have experienced that myself in my own household. My natives refuse to eat fish. The only natives who eat fish are the East African and the Mozambique natives. It is one of the problems of the fishing industry. If the natives did eat fish it would mean an enormous expansion of the market. If you leave the natives out you will find that we consume a much higher proportion per capita than the hon. member gave the House to understand. The Mines at one time wanted to introduce a fish ration, and the natives refused to have it. I would like to know the reason. They simply will not have it. It does not matter what the fish is, they refuse to eat it. I have been an amateur fisherman for many years, and the most terrible thing that can happen to you with a rod and line is if you catch a sea snake on your line, and the natives’ prejudice is based on the fact that there are some sea snakes and they won’t have anything to do with it. That the native don’t eat fish is pointed out in the report on the Fishing Industry. Everyone has pointed out that the natives in South Africa will not eat fish. They will not even eat it when they get it free of charge in the household; they refuse to eat fish under any circumstances. According to paragraph 169 of the Fishing Industries Commission report the greater part of the Union’s population consists of non-fish eating people. If the natives could be influenced to change their feeding habits and to make fish one of their items of food the fishing industry is likely to increase, although the fishing industry, it appears, will for a long time to come have to rely on the European section, and to a lesser extent on the coloured population for an extension of its market. In regard to dumping, I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a provision in the Fisheries Act No. 10 of 1940, and to ask him whether the department have considered this question in the light of that provision which enables prosecutions to be made, for it enables the Governor-General to make regulations prohibiting the return of fish to the sea. So if any dumping is taking place it would be in defiance of any regulations under this section. Dumping should be prohibited, and if dumping takes place there should be a prosecution. According to the figures that I have got here, it looks to me as if we can only really rely on 3,000,000 of the present Union population of between 10,00u,000 and more to eat fish, so that is one of our problems—to get everybody to eat more fish and to try to extend the area of the fish-eating population. There is, in fact, a tremendous catch being made and circulated throughout the country, but the consumption in war time has gone up; a large number of people have visited our shores, and I do not know whether much of our fish has gone on convoys. But the fact is that the production of fish has been enormous, although it is true, as my hon. friend reminds me, there are parts of the country where you cannot get it. The Minister said quite fairly that there was no intention to kill private enterprise, and I am glad to hear it. One may ask where we would have been in this matter without private enterprise. Without the trawling industry we would be without fish in this country. There is the same distinction in all countries between the two branches of the fishing trade. You will find from the report that production went up immensely in South Africa when trawling methods were, introduced. Up to that time the production had been small; when trawling, which takes place in deep waters far away from the coast, began, the production went up enormously.

And the price, too.

I am told that the price compares favourably with that charged in other countries. There has, of course, been an enormous increase in the price during the war—I will say something about that immediately — but apart from abnormal conditions the price has been reasonable. It must be remembered that the cost of fishing tackle and oil, paints, etc., has gone up considerably. As far as inshore fishermen are concerned, the problem is entirely different from the trawlers. They do not go far from shore or produce the same fish as the deep sea trawlers do. I have seen them and gone out in their boats with them, and they sometimes bring in bigger fish, like kabeljauw, geelbeek or steenbras, but they are mainly concerned with the smaller fry, silver fish, hottentot, doppies and small fish of that kind. It is a poor man’s fish they deal in. They have not got the equipment and they cannot go far out enough to get the big fish as the trawlers do, although they do bring in some. I should like to give you an idea of the way the price has gone up. If you go out to Kalk Bay any afternoon, say in the week-end between 12 p.m. and 3 p.m., and watch the boats coming in, you will see what happens. There is a sort of idea that there is somebody waiting for the boats in order to snap up the fish at a small price and then to sell them at a big price. But these people are cautious. The fishing in each boat is organised in this way. You have a boat-owner—sometimes a coloured man— and then you have a crew. So far as the crew is concerned each member has his particular compartment in the boat, and they do individual catching; what a man catches goes into his own compartment. The fish is sold, and they get the money the catch fetches. When the boat lands the whole catch is put up for auction and goes to the highest bidder. The public do not come in, because the highest bidder has to buy the lot, and the humble householder does not want a whole boatload of fish. The other day in one of these catches there was a kabeljauw, a pretty big fellow, a nice fellow, and after the highest bidder had got the catch this kabeljauw was purchased by an individual on the pier. What had he to pay? Over one sovereign.

What did it weigh?

I couldn’t say exactly but I would not estimate the weight at more than from 25 to 40 lbs. dead weight. It did not look to me unusually large, but it was pretty expensive. On the other hand, the fisherman got the benefit of that price. I do not think this man would have had any difficulty in selling the fish again at a profit, although he paid over £1 for it. These are the prices paid today. If you go down to the pier today you will see quite small fish being sold for 2s. each. It is all done in a legitimate way but by public auction, and then by retail. Afterwards carts go round selling the fish and that adds something to the price, and so on. There are alle sorts of reasons given for the increase in price. In the first place there is a great scarcity since the war broke out as far as fish that are taken by the inshore fishermen are concerned. Then there is the extra cut of fishing tackle and accessories. Why this scarcity? Some of them explain that they think it is due to the large number of ships that have been sunk around our shores, resulting in oil being released and spreading over the waters. I also recognise from my experience that the fish is a very sensitive creature, and that if a shoal of fish come near oil or any other evil-smelling thing, they go off. The fishermen think that this scarcity is due to war conditions. The idea that these inshore fishermen are mainly drunkards and people not to be depended upon to look after their wives and children is all nonsense. Go into their homes at Kalk Bay and you will see for yourselves. They are decent respectable people, and the waster is the exception. Go into their homes on Harbour Road and you will find very clean decent homes. In many of them there are pianos, and in others radio sets. Hon. members have never been inside those homes. Some of them own their own homes. I know one of the leading fishermen; he is a European, he was a humble fisherman, but he is himself now a boat-owner — and these boats cost between £1,200 and £1,400. That is what you have to pay to buy a motorboat. Men of this type have told me what I am telling the House. One of them brought forward a housing scheme before the fishermen. Unfortunately some of them did not take it up. It was a private scheme among themselves, and as the result of its application some of them now own their own houses. That was done at a time when the rents were going up, and a number of them now own their own homes as a result of the scheme. It is in that direction that the Government should help. When a man is drowned does the Government help his dependants? No, there is no way by which the Government gives assistance. It is left to private people. There is a fund which was started after a certain number of wrecks had been taking place. There is a fund of which I am chairman. When the wrecks took place at Kalk Bay, before the Government provided some protection, we looked after the widow and provided groceries for them, until they could make a livelihood. Is it right that there should be no government department to deal with human beings like that? At present there is none. Is there anybody to see that the fishermen are insured, that the breadwinner leaves some provision for his dependants. — No, nothing of the kind. Now we have this fund in existence and we get applications from time to time. If a person is drowned we get an application from his dependants, and do the best we can for the benefit of these poor people. That sort of thing should not be left to private people. Private charity is there, and will continue as long as man is man. There has been no failure of private enterprise. There has been a failure on the part of the Government to take notice of this section of our population. The Government have treated them as if they did not exist. Facilities have been provided at Kalk Bay, but they are not enough; more facilities are required. If I am asked what is wrong with these poor fishermen in Kalk Bay I will tell you. Their market is limited, being from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. every day. They have to get the fish every day, and dispose of them, because it is no good keeping them until the next day. They go out to fish and sometimes from 6 o’clock in the morning to 9 they find nothing. Eventually they may come across a huge shoal of fish, but they may only be able to fish for half-an-hour, because they have to get back, or otherwise they will not be in time for the market. And why is there no market? Because no facility is provided by the Government for cold storage. If these inshore fishermen could have cold storage they could hold over the fish, and they are prepared to pay for the service. They said the other day that they came across a huge shoal of fish, but they could not remain to catch them, because they had to be back at the market before 3 o’clock. They said: “If we come after 3 p.m. there would be no market, but if we had a cold storage there, we could have remained with the shoal the whole afternoon, and brought back a huge catch of fish, put them in the depot and sell them at the proper time.” In the same way provision should be made for the curing of fish. It is not Bills you want to help the fishermen, but curing facilities and cold storage. You want means for insuring the breadwinner, who may lose his life at sea. Legislation does not bring those things. Much as I am in favour of a Bill to provide for that organisation, unless the Bill is accompanied by amounts to be put on the estimates to help the fishermen, their last state is likely to be as bad as it is at the present time.

The Bill provides the means.

The assets of one trawling company alone, Messrs. Irvin and Johnson, amount to nearly £1,000,000, but under the Bill the assets of this corporation to deal with the fishermen of the Union is £1,000,000, of which £500,000 is to be used for inshore fishermen. To put down £1,000,000 for this purpose and only £500,000 for inshore fishermen is not a practicable way of dealing with the problem. It is miserably inadequate. It is all very well to have these amenities that the Bill makes provision for, but cold storage and curing sheds are much more important than billiard rooms and other recreations. By all means give them amenities, but don’t neglect the other more important matters. You must give them cold storage equipment and a curing shed, and I do not see any reference to them here in the clause dealing with the objects. I hope that this is just an oversight. Certain harbour facilities have been provided, but are they enough? I say no. Although as far as Kalk Bay is concerned there have been numerous recent additions that make the boats free of danger as far as storm is concerned, there are still things that could be done. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus), rightly said this is a tremendous treasure untapped that we have. Why not have a ministry of fisheries and a separate department of fisheries, well equipped? That is what you want. This is a tremendous problem and will never be solved by the small amount of money that is provided in this Bill. One hon. member referred to the question of seaweed and said it could be a very valuable asset. But what about black rot in sea weed? We are having it all round the coast, and it is affecting not only the seaweed but the fish as well. One of the disturbing features to the industry is the presence of this black rot among the seaweed. The evil can be cured; it can be scientifically dealt with, but it is not. If you want to set up an industry connected with seaweed, you will have to get rid of black rot, which results in wastage and also in diminution of our fishing. I agree that we should have more fish, and that we should have fish at a cheaper price. I do not know, but I feel very sceptical as to whether this Bill is going to bring us cheaper fish. The Bill it is claimed will improve the conditions, and I am very glad you are going to improve the conditions of inshore fishermen, but the result is not going to be cheaper fish, and quite understandably so. The fish is going to be dearer; I do not mean dearer than the present high prices, but dearer than the normal prices, because if you want all these things referred to here, then you will certainly have to charge more for your fish. What I cannot understand is how is it possible, as is suggested in this Bill, to use portion of your profit to give the public cheaper fish? That is a proposition I cannot follow. How are you going to use profits to give the public cheaper fish? That power is given in Section 10 (5) (a), and I see the Housewives League has specially applauded that particular provision and suggested a formation of a price control board to help in this matter, to see that the price is properly reduced. The problem of the inshore fishermen is a tragedy. They go out today and they bring in a small number of snoek, and when they return they find that snoek fetches a high price. They go out tomorrow and they bring back a much larger quantity of snoek, but the price is so small on account of the flood of fish, that they are hardly worth selling. If they had cold storage they would not be at the mercy of the public. Owing to the absence of cold storage accommodation, the purchasers take advantage of the small prices, and reap a golden harvest. There are all sorts of fishermen. I do not know whether the Minister proposes to include amongst the inshore fishermen those who trek. That is a class of fisherman whom it is very interesting to watch. They have spotters on the hill. They see a shoal of fish and send the boat out with the net, and they have people on the shore to drag the net. In a very short time they have a big catch in their net. You find these trekkers at Simonstown, Fish Hoek, Hout Bay and also Witsands. The Minister may be able to tell me whether they come into the Bill at all. They are trekkers.

They get harders.

They get 50,000 to 60,000 harders sometimes and sometimes they get bigger fish, but they do not take them too big lest the net should get torn. [Time limit.]

When we come to consider the objects of the corporation, we find that in Clause 3 (d) the objects of the corporation shall be—

These objects seem to me to be wider than is really necessary. For instance, let me take the case of the power to erect, hotels. There is absolutely nothing to prevent the corporation building a very fine hotel in Pretoria or Johannesburg on the assumption that the consumption of fish there is going to be beneficial to the fishermen. I grant you that that may be a very abstract case, but nevertheless it is possible under this provision, for a corporation to embark upon hotel building and the erection of hotels anywhere in South Africa. Then again I have an idea that some of these objects encroach somewhat upon other government departments. For instance, we have a Housing Bill under which funds are available for the building of houses for certain sections of the population. Then they would be able to enter into competition with the big picture corporations in South Africa. They may also infringe upon social services, upon social welfare. They impinge upon the Department of Public Health and other departments, and it seems to me that the objects of the provision are much too wide. Then when it comes to the powers of the corporation, we have this in Section 4—

Now, Mr. Speaker, I can understand powers being given to attain certain objects, but to override every other law in South Africa seems to me to be a power too wide for inclusion in this form, and I would ask the Minister whether in putting forward a special clause like that he is not asking too much of this House and of the country. Under Clause 17, the Governor may by proclamation in the Gazette—

This, to my mind, Mr. Speaker, simply means another control board, and the selling through one channel, and if it were going to mean a repetition of what has happened with other control led products in South Africa, then God help the country and God help the fishermen. In the Sea Fisheries Act, No. 10 of 1940, we have a clause, No. 30, which reads—

The new Bill, the Fishing Industry Development Bill, takes no cognisance of this at all, and I know there has been certain opposition on the part of certain interested parties in regard to depriving the Natal Provincial Council of its rights in this connection. What I would ask the Minister is this, that before he gets very much further with his Bill, that he will consult the Provincial Council of Natal, and find out whether they are wedded to the clause in the Sea Fisheries Act or not, because I can quite understand if you have a supreme authority such as this corporation, it will come into conflict with the rights which the Natal Provincial Council are endowed with, and I do hope that the Minister will at any rate consult the Provincial Council of Natal before proceeding very much further with the Bill.

I object very strongly indeed on principle to the introduction of a Bill of this nature. It interferes with private enterprise, with commerce and with industry. Such enterprise has been threatening this country for some sonsiderable time in many other directions. From time to time the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Crown have stated that the Government has no intention of interfering with commerce or industry or the vested interests of established business in this country. This Bill gives a direct negative to those statements. Private enterprise over a long period of years has established a large fishing industry in South Africa, which has supplied an average of approximately 50,000,000 lbs. of fish annually to the population of this country. If private enterprise can do that in deep water fishing, I maintain that private enterprise can do the same thing in inshore fishing. Roughly, £2,000,000 is today’s valuation of the deep sea fishing industry, and approximately £1,000,000 represents the valuation of the inshore fisheries. Under this Bill the Government has the power to absorb these companies, interfere with their legitimate operations, and indeed take them over at a valuation. This would mean that the work which has been put in by these companies over a long period of years, will be taken over by an unknown concern managed by someone who has yet to be discovered, with the result that the business itself in my opinion will become uneconomic and unsatisfactory from the national point of view. It has been said in this House that the cost of fish is excessive. I maintain, as one who lives almost entirely on fish, that fish is sold in this country at a very reasonable price, and I would like to pay this tribute to the fishing industry, that since the start of the war the price of fish has not increased to the consumer. I refer to the fish of the trawling industry and not to the fish referred to by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) who dealt with fish caught by line at or near our ports. Fish is sold wholesale at 2¾d. per lb. in Cape Town and at 4½d. elsewhere. It is available to the public at Cape Town at 7d. and in Johannesburg at 7½d. Those are average prices. Compare those prices with the prices of meat and other commodities, and I think hon. members will agree that they are not excessive. It has been said in this House that these large fishing organisations are combines which are making huge profits whereas the facts are that they have paid over a period of 14 years, an average dividend of 6½ per cent. If anyone calls that an excessive profit for an industry of such a nature then I would very much like to know what a reasonable profit is considered to be. The Minister and others have said that commerce and industry have done nothing for the inshore fishermen. I would ask what has the Government done to provide facilities to make inshore fishing a reasonable proposition for any commercial concern to undertake. The harbours in the Union are utterly inadequate. In none of the harbours have necessary facilities been provided — fresh water is not available, there are no jetties from which the boats can land their catches, and the nearest railhead in some cases is almost 100 miles distant from where boats land their fish. If the Government would provide facilities in the way of harbours, and if transport were available I am sure commerce and private enterprise would provide the capital required. In that connection I would suggest that it is part of the Government’s duty before committing the country to a Bill of this nature to make further investigation into the migration of fish, whether fish are available in various part’s and at what seasons they are there, in order to justify the expenditure contemplated. As is known by anyone connected with fishing, fishing is a seasonable proposition and as far as I am aware the Government has no knowledge of the movement of the fish which may be on our coasts. It has been said that the fishermen are indolent, and it would appear under this Bill that the fisherman’s freedom and other people’s freedom is to be taken away. They are to be conscripted and controlled in every respect, and in case of misdemeanour they will be prevented from making a living. That is the direction in which we are tending, the direction of national socialism. It is proposed in this Bill to ask the taxpayers of this country to become shareholders to the extent of £500,000. I am referring to taxpayers’ money. It is proposed to invest £500,000 of the taxpayers’ money in this Corporation, and the taxpayers as shareholders have no limited liability. That is the position. An ordinary prudent man before going into a business concern or investing his money in a public company, sees to it that his liabilities are limited. In this case because it is a Government undertaking the taxpayers’ liabilities are unlimited, and I am sure that the Government will come along from time to time and ask Parliament to vote further sums to keep the company going. I am quite satisfied from the experience which we have had in this country of control boards and other methods of interference, with commerce and private enterprise, that if this Bill is passed the cost of fish to the consumer will go up in price, with the result, of course, that there will be reduced consumption in the country, and the public as usual will be the ones to suffer. It is proposed under this Bill to try and improve the conditions of the people who are engaged in inshore fishing. I maintain that other methods can be adopted by which their lot can be improved. It is not necessary for a Bill of this nature to be introduced in order to provide facilities for these fishermen who after all only constitute a small proportion of the people. I suggest that the Government should provide an aeroplane so as to report to commerce and industry the movements of fish along our coasts. Surely it would be possible for the Government to regulate the price of fish and establish a minimum price. I submit it is high time that we had technical and biological research, and that the Government co-operated to the utmost with the established industries. The country is very much disturbed by the fact which is very obvious, that certain people with considerable power are endeavouring to make this country a state of national socialism, and I for one object very strongly to any further interference by Government with commerce, industry or private enterprise.

May I say to begin with that unlike the hon. member for Wynberg (Capt. Butters) I feel very impressed with this Bill, and with the Minister’s exposition of it, and its terms. I do realise that what is proposed in it is a considerable advance by the State into a field of private trade and that many people do fear that this Bill constitutes an encroachment on private enterprise from which there will be no turning back, but unlike the hon. member for Wynberg, I do not consider the welfare of 40,000 or 50,000 people a small matter. It seems to me that when it has been shown, as the Minister has shown, that 40,000 to 50,000 people in the fishing industry are living under deplorable conditions of poverty, and malnutrition, and under bad, in fact shocking, housing conditions, then if private enterprise has not after all these years succeeded in giving its employees reasonable living conditions, it is high time the State took a hand. Nevertheless, I am very glad that the Minister has decided to send this Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading, and for a reason, which to this House should be a vey important reason. I have looked through the Bill in vain for some means of Parliamentary control over this Corporation which we are setting up. There is a tendency, I agree with the hon. member for Wynberg here, for legislation by corporation. There is a tendency for Parliament to set up big corporations or boards to control various industries. That tendency so far has worked on the whole for the good of this country. I can instance such corporations as Iscor or Escom. But what I am concerned with is that once we have set up these corporations or boards, there is a tendency also for them to escape completely from Parliamentary control. So I have looked through this Bill in an attempt to find out what measure of control we are to have over this new corporation, and all I can find is Section 11 of the Bill. That Section 11—quite unintelligible by itself — says that the provisions of sub-Section (4) up to and including Section 7 and Section 6 up to Section 11, etc., etc., of the Industrial Development Amendment Act shall mutatis mutandis apply in connection with this Corporation. Now, I have been at some pains to turn up the sections of the Industrial Development Act which deal with this matter, and I find that the amount of Parliamentary control set up by that Act was simply this, that the Industrial Development Corporation was to report to the Minister and that a report of its activities was to be placed on the Table of this House. In effect, then, what the Minister has done here has been to take over in Section 11 of the Bill holus bolus the sections from the Industrial Development Act with regard to Parliamentary control, and let me say once more that what that means is that a report of the Industrial Corporation’s activities shall be laid on the Table of the House. Now, for my part, I do not consider that that is adequate Parliamentary control. As this House is well aware we have many reports laid on the Table of the House. But after five years of Parliamentary experience I have yet to hear a debate on any of these reports. And indeed—I may be wrong but I think not—there is very little Parliamentary machinery for debating these reports or even for Parliament to consider them, except perhaps by way of taking a direct motion or possibly by raising the question of the Report on the motion to go into Committee of Supply. But apart from that I see very little opportunity for Parliament to debate and consider such reports, and therefore it does seem that all Parliamentary control of these Corporations has been reduced almost to a minimum. Now, for my part, I am not satisfied with that arrangement, and I do hope that the Select Committee, when it comes to consider this Bill, will consider the point which I am raising, and will see if it cannot devise a somewhat more adequate system of control of this Corporation as a model for others. Thinking over the matter it seems to me that perhaps the best way would be by putting these Corporations under a special division of the Auditor-General’s Department and the Auditor-General might then be prepared to issue reports such as those he issues on the South African Railways and Harbours. The South African Railways and Harbours is a Government undertaking—the first and the largest of them all, and that Government undertaking by Act of Union is reported on by the Auditor-General, and that report goes before a standing Select Committee of this House which considers it very carefully, and then reports back to this House, which can debate the report. That I consider adequate Parliamentary control. There is an opportunity of considering a Report in Select Committee, and there is an opportunity of debating it when the Report comes to the House. But none of these precautions apply to any of the other Corporations which we have set up. It does not apply to the Industrial Development Corporation, for instance, and I know there are some recent developments there which have seriously disturbed members. And yet in this Bill as drafted there is no provision, or very little provision, for Parliament to consider control on the new Corporation Report. So I would suggest again that the Select Committee in reporting on this Bill might consider and possibly put forward the idea that there should be a special division of the Auditor-General’s Department which will report on these Corporations, so that a Standing Committee of the House may be set up to report on them, and then report back to the House. That would be real and adequate Parliamentary control Let me repeat, I have been in the House for five years now, but I have never yet heard a report from the National Roards Board, e.g., discussed, nor yet that of any other important body such as for instance, the National Broadcasting Corporation, and, Sir, they should be. Finally and most important, I do feel that if the Minister and the Select Committee which is to consider this Bill will take that point into consideration public opinion outside and members inside the House would be better satisfied with the Bill, and the public as well as members of Parliament, I think, would be better satisfied in regard to the new Corporation which it is suggested we set up. So much for my main point. I have another, a minor one, but still an important one. When I came to read through this Bill and was seeking for this matter of how Parliament was to control the Corporation, I came across Section 11. Well, I object very much to this method of drafting, of what I may term drafting and legislation by reference. It seems to me that every Bill should be drafted in plain terms so that members can see at once the points they are looking for. I do not, think it should be necessary for a member looking for a specific point to have to look at one or two other Statutes so as to understand what the Bill is all about. It is true it may be necessary to repeat certain sections of another Act. That, after all, is a simple matter. If sections are to be taken over holus bolus from another Act then those sections should be included in the Bill before the House, and it should not be incumbent on members to have to search other Bills before they can understand the terms of the Bill before them. And if that is a difficulty for us who have access to the books how much more difficult must it be for members of the public whose concern is with the fishing industry if they want to look up a section and find that they cannot understand it without reference to other Statutes. It seems to me a bad tendency in drafting, and I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to it and to deprecate strongly this method of legislating by reference.

I should like to refer to one or two aspects of this Bill which have not been discussed in this debate. I want to say at the outset that I am one of several members who believe that it is only by means of a nationally planned economy with a social security objective, that we can wisely plan our post-war society. In the first place this Bill is in fact a very useful object lesson in social security and I want to congratulate the Minister on his vision. The Bill aims at security of employment at economic wage levels. Secondly, the Bill provides social protection by way of housing, health and family insurance coverage, and in that way will develop the economic efficiency of the workers. Now, the extension of that policy to all workers, and to all industries in the Union, would indeed be the social security which we are aiming at, and I make bold to suggest that such a plan should be outlined by the Government without delay in an economic Master Plan for the Union. And it is the relation of this Bill to that master plan which is of special interest. We expect such a plan from the Government; that is, a comprehensive programme of development and security covering every section of our national economy. We hope that during this Session such a plan will emerge. Up to the present, however, we have been proceeding with economic reconstruction by piecemeal methods. For instance, this Bill now before the House, is to come under the Minister of Economic Development. We shall have to give consideration in a few days to a Bill dealing with the Board of Trade and Industries which will also come under the same Minister. Then the Customs Bill will come under the Minister of Finance, and the Soldiers’ Employment Bill will come under the Labour Minister. In this way we seem to be vesting arbitrary powers in watertight departments; and if these various sectional controls are not going to be adequately co-ordinated, we shall have no master plan and no rational reconstruction. There is no doubt in my mind that in 1940 when this House set up the Industrial Development Corporation, such a method of planning was in the mind of the House, and it made the Industrial Development Corporation the industrial rationalising authority for the Union to operate on business principles; and this is important, to avoid the necessity of assisting industries from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. On that basis that Corporation was chartered by this House practically as an Industrial Bank for the Union to undertake schemes for the expansion, the better organisation, and the greater efficiency of existing industries in order to achieve the end that our economic development would be planned and expedited. It seems to me that there has been no good reason yet advanced why under this Bill we should set up another corporation drawing funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund — no good reason, while the existing machinery exists, to undertake all the measures which are proposed in this Bill. By sectional planning we are not moving towards a planned economy; instead we are in danger of establishing a system of ministerial control through separate departments. That policy will mean overlapping, waste and inefficiency, and will accentuate the resentment already evident in the country that the Government has already gone rather far into the field of private enterprise. Control is undoubtedly necessary, and will have to be exercised for some time after the war; but as in this House private enterprise is predominantly represented, and as it is obviously resolved to base its post-war plans on individual ownership and initiative, it does not seem to be real politics or real economics to legislate restrictively in this way. Let us give the system a chance to do its best. We are rather tending to confuse the issue. This Bill will set up a State industry. Last week we passed the Land Bank Bill which was a hundred per cent. socialism; and it will be hard for us to resist the demand to convert the Reserve Bank to the same basis. I am one of these who think it may be a good thing to do that. In regard to industries, however, having set up the Industrial Development Corporation within our present economic framework, I feel that we must look to that Corporation to lay out our economic programme in the industrial field, and so maintain a consistent policy and one control. At present this Corporation under its chartered powers controls two wool washeries; it is doing experimental work in the wool processing industry; it is investigating the cotton textile industry; it has underwritten the initial capital of certain co-operative societies up to nearly £150,000; and there seems no reason why we should not ask the Corporation to undertake the re-organisation and rehabilitation of the fishing industry as part of the functions for which it was constituted. Hon. members will further recollect that on the advice of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission the Prime Minister set up a Social and Economic Planning Council. I would like to remind the House of one of the recommendations of that Commission. It was that an Economic and Planning Council with a judge of the Supreme Court as chairman, and six other members with wide knowledge of our social and economic structure be set up, the Council to be a permanent and impartial body with powers to formulate national policies on social and economic matters. There is no doubt that this body was meant by Parliament to be the Brains Trust of South Africa, to harmonise our economic development on the basis that South Africa could be an independent, organic, economic unity in itself. Now, that will never be done by hit-and-miss methods of reconstruction on the sectional lines we are now contemplating. What has happened to that Social and Economic Planning Council? It is only a part-time body, without dynamic, and, without responsibility, dying, as an effective planning instrument. I hope that if the Government really has a Master Plan in mind it will make this Council a statutory body with dignity and responsibility as conceived by the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission. Otherwise, without co-ordination, without harmony between private enterprise and State departments, and between the departments themselves, we shall certainly drift into an unplanned peace and make our economy derelict as we did in 1920. I hope that Parliament will demand a master plan from the Government and not be content with departmental bills and select committees. Our people expect Parliament to make democracy work, to make it shape up to the crisis of today, to the revolutionary changes developing in our land. My plea, therefore, Mr. Speaker, is for a more co-ordinated and planned national economy with the objective of Social Security, and based on the assumption that, wisely using our vast natural resources in men and materials, we shall, as a result of the war, build up an integrated, independent, and socially secure national State. I trust that the Minister will take these matters into consideration when the Bill appears before the Select Committee.

Several hon. members have stated their reasons why this Bill should be accepted. I should like to give my reasons, apart from other reasons, why this Bill should be accented and they are on the grounds of public health. It is a recognised fact that the diet of the average South African is deficient in proteins and minerals. I have read in the press a controversy over the question of getting proteins from animal husbandry. Mr. Speaker, I am informed by experts that these proteins can be increased considerably in supply by the investment of much less capital than would be required to produce such proteins from animal husbandry, because of that one fact alone I believe that this Bill, if properly handled, will be an asset to South Africa, and it is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I feel that in regard to Clause 4 (g) the Select Committee might first perhaps consider a little extension of the provisions of that clause. Because, if you are going to develop research work in this country in a manner that we should do, here is an excellent opportunity to develop that research work. I need only refer to a few classic reasons why there should be research work in connection with the fishing industry. This is a very important provision, in fact one of the main provisions of this Bill. Firstly, the research work if undertaken in a proper way and applied to the industry as a whole, will benefit it by bringing a greater catch per unit to the fishermen. That fact can be easily understandable in the light of the circumstance that the research department would see firstly that more modern methods of catching fish are introduced; and secondly, by the study of the biology of fish, which means that their habits, including migration and schooling habits, and also the life cycle in general — that alone would mean that fish would be caught at a period in their life when they would not only be more plentiful, but when they would be most valuable from a nutritional point of view. The second important aspect of research work is in regard to fishery technology; and this, in effect means the utilisation of the fish to the fullest extent, particularly in regard to by-products. May I just mention one or two small examples to the House to indicate to what extent the by-products of fish can be used in this country. Firstly, we take the heads and trimmings of fish. They can be used in the direction of manufacturing fish meal and fertiliser—for animal feeding and agriculture. Secondly, these heads and trimmings can also be used in the direction of manufacturing fish oil for industrial purposes in factories for paints and treating of leather. Also, the liver and intestines of fish may be used in the preparation of vitamin oil, and in that respect I have been informed that as a result of the data that has been obtained at the university in Cape Town they have sufficient evidence to put forward for the establishment of an industry in order to obtain this vitamin oil for nutritional purposes. By establishing that industry, it is quite conceivable that the national income of this country can be increased by £170,000 a year. Thirdly, I mention this last point in regard to these waste products, that even the stomachs can be used as bating in the treatment of leather. I have given a few examples of how the waste products in this industry can be utilised, and I think the Government, by nationalising the industry can give the maximum effect in the use of waste byproducts. For that reason I believe that while this Bill implies the expansion of fishing operations, I feel that unless they are operated scientifically and planned scientifically, we will find in the long run that this industry will become a liability to the State. I think it is accepted, too, that the principle for the future development of industry in this country must be based on scientific and technical research and it is for that reason that I am perhaps a little disappointed that in the provision laid down in Clause 4G of the Draft Bill, that importance in regard to this technical research has not been stressed. And I would urge seriously that the Select Committee will give due consideration to that clause and perhaps will seriously consider the necessity for a fisheries research council. I say that advisedly, because in Canada it is one of the most important features of the fishing industry there. But I also suggest that such a council should be appointed, because I believe that the main advantage of such a council would be that it would allow the Fisheries Board to draw upon resources of industry and outside organisations in order to supplement the activities of the Division of Fisheries. Furthermore the board, by having such a fishery research council, would ensure a co-ordination of effort which would be spread over a large number of fields. For this reason I trust that the Select Committee, in the consideration of this draft Bill, will consider the question of technical research and development along those lines which can be made of benefit to the industry. May I just say in conclusion, that whatever reasons may be advanced for and against nationalisation of this industry, I consider that on public health grounds alone, that in the development of by-products this industry will be a tremendous asset to this country.

In introducing the Bill, the Minister made it, I think, abundantly clear that the main intention of the Bill was social, that its purpose was to endeavour to rehabilitate a section of the community who have been seriously neglected in the past and whose conditions are extremely unsatisfactory. In the reception of the Bill practically every point of view has been expressed in this House in regard to it, except that of those people whose interests are primarily at stake. It is because of this omission that I propose to take up a few minutes of the time of the House now, to put before the House what I know of the attitude of the people who are affected. In so far as the people who are primarily affected are vocal, they have, I believe, decided that they favour this Bill, that they feel that an effort at organisation of their activities will enable them to achieve a better standard of living than they have enjoyed in the past, that such an effort is, in fact, long overdue. And my impression is that they do prefer that that organisation shall be done by the Government rather than by private company. In the circumstances they are prepared to offer their support to the Bill; but they have certain queries in their minds about it. There are various aspects of the Bill about which they are doubtful. They are doubtful, for instance, about the powers of control and registration it proposes to put in the hands of a registration officer. They feel that these powers are too wide to be exercised by one person, even with the appeal that is provided to the Minister against the deregistration or the refusal of registration to any person. Their anxieties in that regard are naturally heightened by the terms of the Bill, which lay down that one of the circumstances which the registration officer shall take into account in making his decision as to whether people should be registered as fishermen or not, shall be the ability of the industry to absorb more fishermen and provide them with a “reasonable standard of living”. Those words which have recurred in the past in the history of social legislation in South Africa, have an ominous ring in the ears of the sort of people who largely constitute the personnel of this section of the fishing industry, in view of the extent to which our industries in the past have been used to “protect” a standard of living to which these people have never been able to approximate. In the circumstances, they request that there should be some modification of the powers of the registration officer, probably in the direction of the establishment of a board upon which the fishermen themselves will be represented, to which they will be competent to elect their own representatives. That is a very fair request, I believe. Further, I believe that they will want, and I think they have the right to ask, that in the process of reorganisation of the industry they shall not only be encouraged but assisted to form something in the nature of a workers’ organisation. That, of course, would have to be the foundation of any scheme which would enable them to be represented on the board. But in any case, I think that the obvious basis of effective rehabilitation of the fishermen must be the organisation of the workers themselves; and in that event they will have, I think, the right to demand that the corporation shall not, as is the case with other Government departments, be put outside the scope of our ordinary industrial machinery. It is imperative, I think, that if the confidence of those whom this Bill is designed to help is to be retained and fully established, the organisation that is visualised by the Minister shall take into consideration this type of organisation of the fishermen. I trust that these are matters that the Select Committee will not only be empowered but will be encouraged to consider.

I am very grateful for the reception which the House, on the whole, has given to this Bill and for the constructive suggestions which have come from all sides of the House in regard to it. I think the only member who declared himself to be root and branch opposed to the whole Bill was the hon. member for Wynberg (Capt. Butters), who is, I think, one of the people to whom I referred the other day when I said that the idea that State enterprise and private enterprise were necessarily always in conflict, died very hard; and that being so, I do not think there is very much I can do to convert him. The suggestions that have been made, the remarks that have been offered, have for the most part been designed to suggest methods whereby the Bill could be improved, before putting it into effect. The hon. member for Castle (Mr. Alexander) devoted most of his time to a spirited defence of the deep sea trawling interests. As far as I am concerned, no defence is necessary. In my introduction of this Bill I endeavoured to refrain from any sort of attack upon people already engaged in this industry, and indeed were any defence necessary I think I could probably put up a more effective one than the hon. member for Castle did this afternoon. And when he goes so far as to say that I am threatening to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, or whatever it is, I think he is going a little too far; because I did make it very clear in introducing the Bill that so far from trying to injure legitimate private enterprise, I was hoping and aiming at devising a method whereby the State and private enterprise could work together for the common welfare. The hon. member for Castle also showed in one or two of his remarks that he had not studied the Bill very carefully. His rather contemptuous reference to the establishment of clubs for fishermen, which he appears to my great surprise to regard as almost unnecessary, whereas there is no provision for such things as cold storage, simply indicates that he has formed an opinion without reading the Bill at all. Because if he reads the Bill he will find amongst the powers of the corporation are the very powers he talks of, the provision of cold storage and jetties and other matters in connection with the fishing industry. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) raised a point which is important, but not particularly applicable to this Bill, not solely applicable at any rate; and therefore I doubt whether it will be possible for the Select Committee or the body that considers this Bill, to consider that point as a general principle. She suggests that in the Government-financed concerns Parliament is not retaining sufficient control, or that the methods of obtaining information in regard to their activities is not adequate. I think there is something in her argument. There is nobody who thinks more than I do that Parliament should be very jealous of its rights and responsibilities, and I think there is something to be said for the argument that there should be some system devised whereby Parliament should be able to take a closer interest in what these large corporations are doing, which are financed by the Government. But the position here is that up to date Parliament has been satisfied to be provided with the balance sheets and the chairman’s speech. The annual reports of these companies are laid on the Table of the House, wherever available, for all members to study and consider.

Copies are not available.

They are all published in the press, and copies can easily be obtained if required. As for opportunities for debate, opportunities do occur throughout the session, but the plain fact is, I think, that hon. members as a whole have not taken the trouble to go into the question and consider it. But in any case the fact remains that Parliament, so far, has been satisfied to make that provision. As soon as Parliament thinks it is no longer satisfied with this provision, and wants to make an alteration in the system, this proposed corporation will naturally fall in with all the others. As far as concerns the complaint of the hon. member for Jeppes that Section 11 was unintelligible, I entirely agree, but I would point out that in matters of this kind I am at the mercy of legal advisers, and I am sure she will realise what a very unhappy position that is for anybody to be in. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) raised the question of a fisheries research council being incorporated in the Bill. I would like to say I had discussions recently on that subject, and I have agreed in principle that a fisheries advisory council should be established for the purpose of advising on research work and co-ordinating on research work; and I do not think it will be necessary to incorporate any such provision in this Bill itself. As I say, there were a number of other suggestions and ideas put forward, but I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) with one proviso, that this sending the Bill to a Select Committee at this stage does not jeopardise it being put on the Statute Book this session. I am quite sure I shall have the co-operation of the hon. member to that effect, and if he is prepared to accept the proviso of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg), to report by the middle of March, I am prepared to accept the amendment together with the proviso; and in that case all these various points and all the various cases that have been stated in the House today, can be studied by the Select Committee and discussed and decided upon, and I do not think it is necessary for me to go into them in detail now.

What about Natal and the Provincial Council?

It will be perfectly competent for the Natal Provincial Council to express its views before the Select Committee, and I shall see that the Natal Provincial Council is offered an opportunity and advised to do so. For the reasons stated, I am prepared to accept the amendments I have referred to.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.:

I move—

This is a very necessary Bill. It is short. The Government has decided to constitute three new ministries; first of all a Ministry of Transport to comprise transport, in all its aspects, by road, sea and air; and also to include the functions of the National Road Board. It will include all transport, all railways, shipping and civil aviation. Then there is a Ministry of Welfare and Demobilisation; that ministry will include the Departments of Social Welfare and Public Health. It will also be concerned with the rehabilitation and the demobilisation of soldiers; it will have to do with housing and nutrition and the special care of the coloured people. Then there is the Ministry of Economic Development, which will take the place of the Department of Commerce and Industries and will also have certain important functions with the Cabinet Reconstruction Committee. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly obvious that there will be a transfer of activities and duties. And these activities, these duties and functions, have been imposed by statute which will mean they will be statutory duties and functions and they will be transferred from one Minister to another. For instance, the Minister of Transport will now be dealing with the functions of the Roads Act. Similarly, in respect of public health which was dealt with by the Minister of the Interior, the Mental Act will now be dealt with by the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation. Further, a number of ministries under certain designations will cease to exist. There will be no Minister of Railways; there will be no Minister of Commerce and Industries. There is much else that I need not mention here now. It is necessary for this Act to be passed to avoid technical objections, and perhaps valid objections, and to put the matter on a sound legal basis. Under the Act, in certain provisions, a Minister may act through an Acting-Minister; but in other Acts, for instance in one of the Railway Acts, it merely refers to the Minister of Railways, and similarly there are other provisions where the point will at once arise—can any legal function or any statutory duty be performed by that Minister under this new designation? I admit there are some cases in which he could, but there are many cases in which he cannot. Then you have the transfer of the departments too. In the Public Health Act, for instance, the Minister is defined as the Minister of Public Health. You have the same applying to the Nutrition Council. You have all these difficulties arising. Now this Act proposes to facilitate the transfer of statutory duties from one Minister to another. We know that the terms of the South Africa Act contemplate that being done; and what we are doing here is to put it, as I say, on a sound legal basis, and to really have an undisputed means of doing it. So that in future the transfer of statutory duties can be done by the Governor-General unless it is provided for in the Act of Parliament or Parliament directs specifically to the contrary. I do not think it is necessary for me to say much more. I think I have covered the whole ground and shown the necessity for a Bill of this kind.

Of course, we realise the necessity for the introduction of a Bill such as this to legalise the action of Ministers in certain circumstances and therefore we have no objection against this measure, which merely is a legal clause legalising certain matters. There is only one small point I want to put to the Minister in regard to the question of general instructions. It says here that a Minister may act on behalf of another Minister nominated. Does not that entail the danger that there may be two Ministers having legal power in respect, of one and the same subject, and that possibly there may arise a conflict between the two Ministers. I do not say that we are anxious to prevent that. We would welcome it if it happened under this Government. But there is a possibility that a general instruction may be given by the Governor-General and that at a later stage the question may arise who of the two Ministers was entitled to act in the matter. That may give rise to difficulties. I do not know whether the Minister has gone into the matter. Such a conflict is feasible and there may be uncertainty as to who was actually authorised to act.

The hon. the Minister has referred to various portfolios which through this Bill will be authorised. He mentioned inter alia Demobilisation and Economic Development. Arising out of that, I want to know whether we will be entitled to discuss these portfolios. If I am entitled to do so, there is a matter I want to raise, and the first remark I want to know in regard to demobilisation is that once this Bill has been passed we shall hear less of demobilisation and will learn of more active steps being taken. For some time already this portfolio has been created. For some time, and up to now, we have not yet heard or read in the newspapers of things which are going to happen, but not a single man has been placed in a job because this portfolio has been established, and I want to avail myself of this opportunity of saying that it is one of our biggest disappointments for a long time.

It seems to me that the hon. member is now going beyond the provisions of the Bill.

As this portfolio will now be given legal status, I was of the opinion that I would be allowed to discuss policy. To my mind, before this House agrees to legalise the portfolio, I am entitled to say something in regard to that portfolio, and I want to say that the country at this stage is of the opinion that it is something existing in name only. It is very disquieting. Almost 500 men have already been discharged from the army, and this portfolio has mainly been created to place these men in jobs, and apart from what we have heard and read in the newspapers, we have not learnt of a single man having been placed in employment.

I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss those matters. The Bill has nothing to do with the administration of the departments concerned.

If you do not allow me to discuss policy, I submit to your ruling, but I was under the impression that before consenting to this portfolio obtaining legal status, I would be entitled to say something concerning the policy of that department. Naturally I do not want to query your ruling, but I was under the impression that I would be allowed to say a few words.

Surely one does not criticise one’s own Government in that way.

The hon. member should confine himself to the policy embodied in the Bill itself. He must not discuss the whole question of demobilisation now.

Then for all practical purposes I am forced to agree to it that this portfolio is given legal status, whilst I am not entitled to discuss matters related thereto.

In regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) in my opinion that will be avoided from an administrative point of view. If the matter has been entrusted to one Minister, the Minister will not act, and when powers are transferred it can be done in such a way that the other Minister, for the time being, will not be empowered to act. However, I do not think it desirable to insert such a clause in the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This is a short Bill, consequent upon the creation of the Ministry of Transport. As hon. members know the Ministry of Transport is built upon the old Ministry of Railways and Harbours. The Ministry of Railways and Harbours had attached to it several activities, even before this new Ministry was created. It controlled the finances of the Road Motor Transportation Board. It paid the expenses of the Perishable Products Control Board, and one or two other boards of that kind. In addition, as a result of the creation of the new Ministry, the National Roads Board and the Directorate of Civil Aviation and also of the Government Garages, are brought under the control of the Ministry of Transport. Now, in the case of the Transportation Boards and the Perishable Products Control Board under the old Act it was provided that all payments and expenses would be defrayed out of the Railways and Harbours Fund. In the case of the Transportation Board that was always a rather undesirable practice, because as this House will appreciate it was necessary for the General Manager of Railways, should he want to run a motor service, to be a suppliant before the Transportation Board in order to get a certificate enabling him to run any particular services. Therefore, he was appealing to a Board which he himself financed. It was considered advisable under the new arrangement that the finances of the Transportation Boards should be removed altogether from the Railway finances and placed under the Treasury. And so the new Ministry of Transport is divided into two clear sections. The one section consists of the Railways and Harbours—and the Railways and Harbours only. That is to say the Railways and Harbours will continue to function as before, with all the activities which they have always controlled. They will control the Railways and Harbours and the South African Airways—they will continue to do all the work which they have done heretofore. But there is another department, the Department of Transport itself, which will now take over the control and finance of the National Road Board, the Road Transportation Boards, the Directorate of Civil Aviation —as distinct from the South African Airways —the South African Shipping Board, the Perishable Products Control Board, and the National Road Transportation Council. These are now divorced from the Railways and Harbours and put under a permanent secretary within the Ministry of Transport under the separate permanent control of such a secretary, the Minister being the co-ordinating factor between the two branches. For this reason this Bill is necessary because we have to amend the Acts which control the payments and the expenses of these other Boards. In other words, all the activities of these Boards which I have named will now come under the control of the Treasury so far as finance is concerned, as distinct from the South African Railways and Harbours. I don’t know that I need say much more except this, that it will be necessary this year in the Part. Appropriation Bill, which my colleauge, the Minister of Finance is introducing, I think tomorrow, for the carrying on from the 1st April of these particular Boards. Under the legislation controlling, the Part Appropriation Bill it is not possible to include in that Bill any item for which there is either no statutory authority, or which has not been included in the Budget of the previous year. So that it will be necessary for the House to pass this Bill before the Part Appropriation Bill is passed so that provision may be made from the 1st April for the activities of the Board which I have mentioned. The transfer is to take place from the 1st April, that date being chosen because it is a convenient, date at the beginning of the, financial year, and up to now the finances have been continued as in previous years in respect of each Board. I hope I have succeeded in making quite clear the objects of this Bill, and I therefore move the second reading.

I do not want to detain the House long. I only want to tell the hon. Minister in a few words that this side of the House is not objecting to this Bill. The Board of Control in respect of perishable products had to regulate shipping for the export of perishable fruit, and in those circumstances the Government of the day held that it should fall under the Department of Railways. I do not think it is necessary to say anything more. The principal board effected is the Shipping Board. Shipping has now reached the point that there is every prospect of development, and I think it is very important that it should not be covered by the Railways and Harbours Fund. The war has brought about one good thing and that is that people have awakened to the realisation that we should have our own shipping. But we should realise that this is only a beginning and I do not believe that private companies will easily come to the fore to establish a shipping company or to build ships. It will have to be done by the State and in the beginning there is always the risk of losses being suffered, and for that reason I think it is advisable that where we have now reached this point this account should be taken away from the Department of Railways and Harbours and it should be placed under the Consolidated Revenue.

Let me in the first place thank the hon. member who has just spoken for the support he gives to this measure. I hope it establishes a precedent for any further activities the Minister of Transport may have in the House—but I won’t count too much on that. I should like, however, genuinely to thank the hon. member for the support he has given to the measure. I should like to explain that the South African Shipping Board really has nothing to do with the creation of shipping lines or shipbuilding or anything of that sort. The South African Shipping Board is a Board which advises on the rates of freight which are to be charged by shipping companies trading with South Africa. I think the division between the activities of this new Ministry of Transport can best be described by saying that in addition to controlling transport in every shape and form the Government also owns transport. That is to say, the Government owns the means of transporting—it owns railway trains, motor buses, it owns ships. All the actual carrying out of transportation will remain with the Railways and Harbours, all the control of those activities whose funds will in future be provided by the Treasury, i.e. Governmental control, will go over to the other Department. But the South African Shipping Board does not control shipping, it only advises on freight rates charged by outside shipping lines. So far as ships and shipping are concerned I am of opinion that they should still remain an activity of the South African Railways and Harbours, who have the department and the machinery to deal with them, and I think it would be a mistake to remove that function from the control of the General Manager of Railways.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

Clause and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Third reading on 9th February.

I move—

This is also another very small and uncontentious measure. The purpose of this Bill in Clause 1 is to amend Section 3 of the Railways and Harbours Regulation, Control and Management Act of 1916, and I think the purpose of the clause will be apparent from the reading of it. As the House knows, the Railways very often own land under what is known as expropriatory tilte—that is to say they own land which they have expropriated. They own a line of Railways running through a farm which has been expropriated by the Railways but against which no title has been registered. Now, it has been the practice in the past when a railway line changes its direction or is abandoned, to hand back the land which they had to the farmer. In other words, they surrender their expropriatory title and the land goes back to the original owner or owner at the time. Recently, however, cases have occurred where the Registrar of Deeds has refused to recognise this method of abandonment. In other words, the Registrar of Deeds says that this expropriatory title is in fact title, and therefore you cannot abandon it unless you take out proper title and then hand that title back to the original owner.

Yes, they want the money.

In other words, you have the rather ridiculous position that the Railways have a piece of land running through a farm against which there is no title registered, but they have to go to the trouble and expense of taking out diagrams and all the other things necessary in connection with transfers, and they have to put the farmers to that expense in order that they may hand back the title to the farmer, and it is proposed here that when land is held by expropriatory title the old practice should be legalised, and it should be possible for the Railways to abandon land to the farmer by simply handing it back by agreement with him without putting him to all the expense and trouble of having to take out title again. In other words, the Railways are asked now to take title in order to hand the land back to the farmer who is the legal owner. Now, Clause 1 proposes to deal with that position. In Clause 2 we are taking the opportunity of correcting a position which through an oversight was not put right under a previous Act. As the House knows, the Railways may at any time, without the consent of the owner, under certain conditions, enter upon land adjoining railway lines. That entrance without the previous permission of the owner occurs in the case of washaways, where the Railways may go and help themselves to stone or rock or earth required to make immediate repairs—it also occurs in the case of an obstruction. If a tree falls across a railway line the Railways can enter the property of a farmer and remove the tree, and in those circumstances it is provided that when the matter is gone into the farmer will be compensated for any damage the Railways may have done, or they will pay him for any soil or stones they may have taken. Under Act No. 22 of 1916 it was originally provided that where the Railways paid compensation to farmers for any purpose it was necessary to take such a case to arbitration irrespective of whether the amount of compensation exceeded £750 or not. At that time the matter was debated in this House—it was in 1939 that the amending Act was passed—and this House decided that where the compensation was either more or less than £750, it was not justified in taking that to arbitration; if there was any dispute as between the Railways and the farmer and the amount was under £750, the claim went to the magistrate’s court and the magistrate’s court, with a much simpler procedure and much less cost, decided what the compensation would be. If a claim exceeded £750, it went to the Supreme Court. We amended a part of the Act in 1939, but we forgot this particular clause, and while we agreed to pay compensation through the court in respect of other compensation paid to farmers, we omitted to make provision for going to the court when it was a case of the Railway making entry on to the property of a farmer for the purpose of repairing a breakdown on the line. The object of this Bill is merely to save the farmer the expense of an arbitration court when the compensation arises under this clause in the Bill, in respect of this one clause, and it is simply bringing the Bill into line with the other sections of the Act.

We have no objection whatever to the first clause of this Bill. As I understand the Minister’s explanation, it will only be to the benefit of farmers whose land will be appropriated by the department. Therefore, we do not object to that. But if I interpret the second clause correctly, it amounts to this that the Act as it stood, should there be a washaway, officials of the Department of Railways are entitled to go on to the property of an adjacent farmer and are allowed to take away anything they require. That was the Act in the past. Subsequently the Department pay compensation, but should the farmer not be satisfied, he can appeal to arbitration. Clause 4 is going to be deleted now. That clause was to the effect that should an amicable settlement not be reached the amount of compensation will be determined by arbitration. As I understand the Bill, the clause is deleted and in lieu thereof the Minister lays down that where an owner is not satisfied with the compensation he can go to the ordinary magistrate’s court in cases where the amount is less than £700, or he can go to the Supreme Court in cases where the amount exceeds £700. That, to my mind, is an alteration of a drastic nature. If you read the clauses of Act 27, the original Act, you will find that the first clause lays down that where a washaway takes place the Administration is authorised to go on to the adjacent farm, to claim ground there and in that way repair the railway line, and, secondly, if the railway line is in danger, if in the opinion of the official the railway line is in danger, if time allows he can first notify the farmer, but if there is no time he can go on to the farmer’s property, claim his soil in order to prevent a washaway. As it stands here, they can take any part of a tree or bush or fence or wall, or any other obstruction. Take the case where there is a dam on the other side of the railway line (because they specifically mention a wall), then the man can go and puncture the wall of the dam to prevent damage to the railway line, without, notifying the farmer. Under Clause 3 the Administration is prepared to pay but, should the farmer be dissatisfied, in the past he had the opportunity of calling a third party to decide the matter by arbitration. Now, however, that is being done away with. My point is that a farmer does not easily go to court, and as there always was an opportunity for arbitration, it was always possible to bring in a party with knowledge of farming and who could assess the damage suffered by the farmer. It is not always easy for a magistrate to assess the damage suffered by a farmer. As I understand it, the Minister by this Bill is doing away with arbitration. If that is so, we cannot support this second clause and would rather leave the Act as it stands.

As the Minister will have noticed, we on this side of the House are quite prepared to assist him wherever possible, but he has quite rightly said that the two amendments in this Bill have nothing to do with each other. Though we have some slight objections to the first amendment, we are prepared to let it go through without much ado. But before doing so we would like to know from the Minister whether the Department does not have all its property registered. After all, we have a Deeds Office and we pride ourselves in South Africa—we have a well-equipped office and that our office records are as up to date as those of any other country in the world. Where the Railways disappropriate land and take the land for their own use, is that land not registered in the Deeds Office? If they do not do that their own records will be in a mess later on. It is essential that their property should be duly registered in the Deeds Office, and when the time comes ultimately to return such property to the owners—possibly when they build a new line—and the owner agrees, it is only fair and reasonable that they should pass transfer back to the owner again. I think we should seriously submit to the Minister that the Railway Administration must see to it that their land is properly transferred in their name. That is the first point. The second clause is of a very contentious nature. We know that properties become smaller and more expensive and more valuable, but times have changed and circumstances change also. We are now asked to pass a Bill giving the Railway Administration the right without the consent of the owner to go on to his property, and even if he is opposed, and even if it is valuable land, even though it may have been fenced in at great expense, the Railway Administration will have the right to take possession in case of floods. After taking possession, the Railways retain the right to grant such compensation to the owner as is reasonable in the opinion of the Administration. The official may not be a farmer, may not be a local man, possibly he is not au fait with local conditions and local values. The officials of the Administration determine the amount of compensation to be offered to the owner.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 9th February.