I move—

On the second reading of this Bill I welcomed the Bill on behalf of this side of the House, and on that occasion I mentioned a few aspects of the Bill which I considered of importance. I welcomed the Bill except for certain of its provisions which do not, properly speaking, fall within the scope of the Bill and which conflict with sound principles which we regard to be in the interests of commerce in the Union. I am still of the opinion that the provisions of the Bill, as far as customs are concerned, are excellent provisions; and although there are subordinate aspects which I should have liked to have had improved, it was not possible to move them under the circumstances. I want to repeat that the provisions of the Bill, as far as customs are concerned, can be rated amongst the best; that we have never, as far as customs are concerned, had such a complete Bill before us and that we are now in a position to expect that for a long time to come it will not be necessary to consider any amendments to the Act itself. The amendments which will be introduced from time to time will have reference more specifically to tariffs for revenue purposes and for the purposes of protection. I objected to the insertion in the Bill of certain clauses which really have nothing to do with customs tariffs. These provisions occur especially in Chapter IV of the Bill where the Government has incorporated clauses in the Bill in regard to the overseas trade policy. Actually this clause does not belong in the Bill. Parliament cannot in any case commit itself further except as regards treaties, unless Parliament becomes altogether sterile. Still less can Parliament commit any future Parliament in any respect. It is for that reason that I find it rather regrettable that this chapter, Chapter IV, which has reference to the ratification of existing treaties and possibly other treaties in the future, should have been incorporated in the Bill, and it is in fact on that ground that I wish to make a few remarks from this side of the House. It applies particularly to a few aspects which are of far-reaching importance. The Bill lays down principles relating to overseas trade, principles which will have to be observed in cases where treaties are concluded. It includes the restriction of the sovereignty of Parliament inasmuch as it is provided in certain clauses, especially the one dealing with the manner in which treaties with overseas countries, notably nonBritish states, can be concluded, what concessions can be incorporated in such treaties in relation to non-British states. At the same time it embodies a far-reaching principle, viz., the conception of the British Empire as an economic unit. At the same time it incorporates in one clause the principle of discrimination against other governments as regards tariffs. And then there is one clause which I regard as a weakness and which, properly speaking, should not come under Chapter IV. I am referring to clause 87. Whereas the real policy of protection of the state should have been incorporated and determined as such, it merely deals with a few activities in our economic life. I now understand that during the Committee Stage the hon. Minister of Finance asked members not to impede him in regard to negotiations which were being conducted in connection with the Ottawa Agreements, and I understand he also informed us that he and his department were busy formulating clause 87. I wish to give him the assurance that we will respect his wishes and that we will neither do nor say anything which might in any way hamper the negotiations. However, I want to say a few words about the provisions I mentioned a moment ago, where for instance preferences are being incorporated for the purpose of treaty policy as in clause 68 in regard to New Zealand, in clause 72 in regard to the protectorates and the British mandated territories, and in regard to the curtailment of our capacity to conclude trade agreements with non-British countries, as laid down in clause 69, and especially in regard to the new principle incorporated in clause 77 as regards Mozambique, where Mocambique is really being given the greatest preference and where yet Mocambique, which is an adjoining territory, is not being allowed the minimum tariffs which are allowed to the British territories. This principle which is now being incorporated in the Bill has been taken over from previous legislation, but that does not justify the Minister coming to Parliament with a new Bill and reincorporating those principles merely because they had been incorporated in previous legislation. We on this side of the House are, however, objecting more particularly to the continuation of a policy which in the past caused world friction and which can, without doubt, be regarded as a fundamental cause of the bloodiest war we have yet experienced. I am not going too far in saying that the origin of this war, whatever the immediately contributory causes might have been, is to be found in competitive trade and the policy which has been pursued since 1919. Having regard to the safeguarding of humanity and in view of the terrible devastation, destruction and bloodshed which is rife in this war, the time has now arrived that all governments should at least be warned not to incorporate in their legislation from now onwards those same weaknesses and fundamental errors which must inevitably lead to the same results. These provisions to which I am referring are perpetuating certain principles which were contained in the old policy but which more particularly resulted from negotiations which took place since the previous World War. Already in 1917 a trade boycott movement was started. Instead of the world profiting by experience gained from the war which cost thousands and millions of pounds and claimed millions of lives, the boycott is not merely being repeated under the present circumstances but is apparently being prepared on a much vaster scale. According to the discussions which took place during the previous World War— and I am referring particularly to the Imperial Conferences of 1917 and 1918—attempts were made to direct the economic resources of the world into certain channels and these attempts were carried into effect in the course of the following years. The result of that was that the raw materials of the world were directed into certain channels exclusively reserved for certain countries only, and that naturally resulted in the isolation of certain other nations which were thereby practically doomed to a lowering of their standard of living and in part to starvation. That was the fundamental cause of the present World War. The course of history from 1919 to 1939 should not be repeated, and because this Bill contains the same principles and empowers the Government to conclude trade agreements of this nature, I wish at this stage to protest very strongly against it on behalf of my party, and I wish to say that we at any rate have no desire to share the responsibility for such things. History repeats itself. During the Imperial Conferences from 1917 to 1918, in which South Africa also participated, discussions took place and resolutions were adopted which formed the basis for the collapse of the world and instead of forming a basis for peace among the nations as statesmen alleged at the time, they contained the germ which resulted in friction and deterioration of the mutual relations among the nations. At the time of the Imperial Conferences from 1917 to 1919 on which South Africa was also represented and in which the South African representative also took part, resolutions were adopted to isolate the raw materials of the world and to direct them into channels so that they should not be available to the world on a rational basis. And now, having regard to the provisions of this Bill and to what is happening overseas today, no person who is in any way expecting a new world can remain indifferent about it if it is made to appear that mankind has learnt nothing from the past, has learnt nothing from the developments which led to all the sacrifices which man is now making on the altar of Mars. For the information of hon. members who do not know these facts, I want to repeat a few of the resolutions which were adopted at the Imperial Conferences of 1917 and 1918, which was really the literal precursors of what we have hitherto been asked to expect again to be the intention of the resolutions which will probably be taken in the near future. The first Imperial Conference of 1917 adopted the following resolution— it was a resolution adopted after it had come from the War Cabinet, an economic resolution submitted by the War Cabinet. On 26th April, 1917, they resolved—

1. (1) The principle that each part of the Empire, having due regard to the interests of our Allies, shall have facilities to the produce and manufactures of other parts of the Empire;
2. (2) Arrangements by which intending emigrants from the United Kingdom may be induced to settle in countries under the British flag.

Other resolutions which followed on the above were not made universally known. South Africa was involved but they were not made known because they were of such a secret nature. They could not be publicised at the time without leading to further friction and estrangement among the nations. Another resolution along similar lines was adopted by the Imperial Conference of 1918—

Here we have practically the same words as those which are again being used in connection with proposed agreements, and we feel that nothing has been learnt from the history of the past; that once again they want to continue along the same wrong path; that the bankruptcy of the Statesmen which was characteristic of the Peace Conference, is today still continuing to the sorrow of the world and that nothing has been learnt. We on this side of the House want to have nothing to do with a repetition of that state of affairs and want to declare before the world that we believe in a free distribution of raw materials and industrial products on a basis of reciprocity. There is no one— I think not even among hon. members on the other side— who has not viewed with concern the line discussions have been taking that South Africa is being incorporated more and more within the circle of the Empire connection and that there is talk of Empire resources and Empire raw materials as though no such things exist as separate Dominions and that the language in which those discussions are transmitted to us is a negation of the principle of the independence of the Dominions. This debate does not deal with the political aspect of the matter and the time will dawn for us on this side of the House to lodge a serious protest against the political implication revealed by these discussions; but we are now concerned with the economic aspect and where the idea of Empire unity for the directing of our raw materials along one channel by means of trade agreements is again being pursued, we wish to state clearly today that we are opposed to it. No one rejoices in the misfortune of another and least of all has there been any feeling on our side which may be misconstrued as regards the economic position of England. But we wish to have it clearly understood that since we are not responsible for the economic position in which England finds herself today, we do not wish to be employed for the restoration of that position. The economic position of England has today unfortunately received a fatal set-back. We are not responsible for that. England has to a large extent lost her overseas investments. During 1937-’38 it still amounted to £3,500,000,000 and very little of that remains today. According to the remarks of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer a few weeks ago, England is already indebted to her best ally in an amount of approximately £2,000,000,000. England has lost her markets in the West to her ally. Her markets on the Continent may also quite probably be written off for good. As regards the market in the East, time will tell; but as far as I can see, little of that will fall to England. Britain’s mercantile marine has unfortunately to a large extent been lost as a result of the war and her ally is preparing itself to use that lead to the greatest advantage. Under the circumstances we realise that the economic position of England is, for a great people who have set the lead for hundreds of years, depressing and ominous. But we are not responsible for the declaration of war and for the reason we are not responsible for reparation on the side of those who declared the war. From the remarks recently made by Lord Halifax and others it is clear that the Dominions are today being asked to restore the position of England. We can sympathise with the call for help and with a people who have attained a high standard of living, that it should now be hit in that way, but it cannot be expected of us that we should sacrifice ourselves or our resources or our labour for the restoration of England, least of all if it is sought to be effected through economic pressure. The boycott movement is again being repeated at this conference in the field of economics, and we protest against that. The Dominions are being involved in a plan to be available once more to restore the prosperity of Britain. The biggest disappointment of all is that the Atlantic Charter which was announced to the world with so much publicity a few years ago, has practically already been thrown overboard. The Prime Minister of Britain has declared that the definitions of the Charter contain the proviso that the Dominions practically constitute an integral part of the British Empire in respect of commerce. The interpretation of the British Prime Minister and America’s reply is clear, that the high ideal of the Atlantic Charter have been thrown overboard and the world is facing a dreary future when that principle, which has been declared to be the foundation of the ideals of the belligerents has already at this stage lost its effect. We want to have no part in this pernicious policy where international friction, suspicion and jealousy are encouraged. During the last few days disquieting news has come from overseas in regard to the inclusion of the Dominions in a new Imperial rehabilitation scheme. One of those reports was received yesterday. It mentions the “Empire’s Economic Structure” and Reuter has transmitted the following report—

It is of course obvious that they could not at that stage have announced the substance of the discussions. Those are the germs of ruin and corruption with which we are concerned in such declarations with regard to any future world peace. It continues—

South Africa is being enlisted and prejudiced in advance in discussions which are taking place outside its boundaries after the Prime Minister has had ample opportunity of announcing his plans in this House. He goes overseas and informs his colleagues on the Imperial Conference that South Africa will find a scheme to fit into a scheme for the recovery of Britain. The report goes further—

That is a general proposition against which we object. We are being committed in advance to schemes which can only be carried into effect in consequence of trade agreements, and this House and the people of South Africa must stand amazed at these statements coming from overseas, that discussions are taking place outside South Africa and we are not being enlightened. An interesting report is that in connection with the most important raw material of South Africa, a raw material which is one of the most important the world needs and which very closely concerns our economic future. It concerns the position of wool. This report was sent from London under the heading, “Wool’s Post-War Future,” and was already sent on 4th May. This is what stands in the report—

Mention is made here of an extension of the contract, and now we come to the amazing statement on which I hope the Acting Prime Minister will enlighten us—

I do not want to go into detail on the economic aspects of this now, but where we have these reports coming from overseas that the Union Government has approached the British Government in connection with the sale through one channel of the main raw material of South Africa which the world stands in need of, we are entitled to the fullest information. But regardless of the fullest information we want to protest most strongly against it on the ground that without this House and the people having been consulted, negotiations are apparently being conducted to pledge our most important raw material for an indefinite period to be sold through one channel.

What does the Opposition say about that?

I do not know about the Opposition’s interference; I only know that it is going to be a cause of friction. This is one of the things which caused international friction and one of the main reasons why the future of wool is being seriously endangered. When we allow one of the staple products to be kept from a nation which needs it for its industry, then we must expect that that nation will, for the sake of selfpreservation, apply itself and direct its industry and its science to the evolution of a substitute. It is short-sighted and it is to the disadvantage of South Africa, and it might possibly bring about the collapse of the wool industry in South Africa. We would like to hear from the Minister what is happening in connection with this. I want to make this statement on behalf of this side of the House today not merely for consideration by this House but also for consideration by the British statesmen and the world so that, if complications should arise some day, this party cannot be held jointly responsible on the ground of misunderstanding about certain undertakings. I wish to make the following statement in regard to the provisions of Chapter IV of this Customs Bill which will affect our treaty policy in the future—

1. (1) We are opposed to the granting of exclusive preferential rights to any government without reciprocity and equivalent values.
2. (2) We are convinced that the granting of Empire preference is in conflict with the highest demands of international peace, friendship and mutual trade and commerce.
3. (3) In this connection we repudiate the conception that the British Empire is a unit in the sphere of economics and commerce and accordingly all provisions in regard to tariffs which contain that implication.
4. (4) We accept the principle that the Union should, as an independent state, arrange its international trade on the basis of the highest interests of its own people as a first consideration and thereafter in the general interest.
5. (5) We regard it as a curtailment of the liberty of the Union to conclude agreements that minimum rights should be accorded only to states, dominions, protectorates and mandated territories within the British Commonwealth of Nations as contemplated in clauses 67, 69 and 72. As regards our protection we advocate and defend a positive protective policy for the Union’s existing and future industries as an essential economic and social-economic necessity with the proviso that the protection accorded shall not be abused and that those branches of industry which are benefited should comply with reasonable demands of proficiency. In order to achieve that object, an effective and systematic investigation should be made into the working of those industries.

Would you divorce our currency from sterling?

The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) is now putting me a question which is not really touched upon in the provisions of the Bill. I should very much like to deal with that later. I am concerned here only with the effects of the Customs Bill. You would not allow me to reply to that question and neither have I the time for that now. In connection with the Customs Bill which is now before the House I would postulate these propositions on behalf of my party. We advocate them as fundamental to the future role which the Union is to play in world commerce; and as perhaps a small contribution to world peace, we would like to have this principle carried into effect by our State. I do not think any one can remain indifferent as to the course of events. The hon. Minister of Finance is the last person who can remain indifferent to the course of events. If, then, an opportunity is accorded to this House and to him, then this is the proper time to contribute at least something to the removal of grievances and of the friction which was the cause of the last war and of this war. I believe the experience which the world has acquired offers a chance; I believe the nations are yearning for relief and when we are preparing a way in conflict with that yearning and in disregard of it, which must necessarily lead to a repetition of the past, I consider it a crime against humanity not to remove such possible grievances.

With reference to what the hon. member who has just sat down said about the protective tariffs of South Africa, I just want to say that I agree with him in that respect. But at the same time the hon. member desires to enjoy the benefit of free trade over the length and breadth of the world with all nations. I say it is beneficial to South Africa when a member of the Commonwealth of Nations decides to buy one of the important products of South Africa, i.e. wool, by way of an agreement from South Africa. South Africa ought to be the last country to exert herself in an effort to establish trade relations with other buyers of this product when that free market practically carries one back to the unstable state of affairs which we had in South Africa. May I draw my hon. friend’s attention to the fact that what he is pleading for here was the position in South Africa for a long time. We had the right to sell wool to Japan, to Germany, to France, to England and to any other country that wanted to buy. But what was the position?

Favourable prices.

Favourable prices! I thought that there was no factor which caused more insolvency among the woolfarmers in South Africa than that uncertain market which we had in South Africa for a number of years. I thought there was no other factor which was more fatal to South Africa than that uncertain market which we used to have. The hon. member speaks of so-called favourable prices. Let us see what the position was. For one month in the year the wool-farmers received high prices; for eleven months in the year they were subject to the caprices of that unstable overseas buyer, and, in my turn, I declare that when a member of the Commonwealth of Nations comes along as happened during the war, and says that she is prepared to take the whole clip of the Union of South Africa at such and such a price provided that price is economically sound, then I say that we are not acting in the interests of the wool-farmers of South Africa if we try to find other clients.

Will they maintain that price in time of depression?

That is a better question.

That is stability.

For that very reason I say that the Government should try to retain that agreement for a number of years after the war. There I agree with my hon. friends of the Opposition. I agree with them that the time will arrive when you will get a slightly higher price on the open market than under this agreement. But that will only be the position for one month in the year. For eleven months out of the twelve you will find that your wool farmers are subject to the canrices of the buyers overseas. I say that stability at a reasonable price is of more value to your wool farmer than an uncertain wool-price which is high for one month in the year and for eleven months so low that the farmers cannot exist.

Is that the correct way of obtaining stability?

I say it is the correct way of obtaining stability to have such an agreement when you have a client who tells you that he is prepared to take your product at an economically sound price. And when both sides feel that it is an economically sound price, although it is not as high as the price which you would have got in the open market, but definitely not as low as the price we received on some occasions in the past, then it is a sound policy to place the wool farmer in South Africa once and for all on a sound footing where he will know on what he can rely.

Even at the cost of alienating other good clients?

We have never had such other good clients. That is what I am trying to bring to my hon. friend’s notice. Those other good clients are only good clients at certain times of the year—not necessarily with regard to wool—it also applies to other products. But I wish to confine myself largely to wool because I say that the history of wool in South Africa is characterised by very high prices on the one hand, and very low prices on the other. The hon. member knows that as well as I do, because he knows the Free State. He also knows the Cape. He knows how the wool farmer sometimes has to give his wool away almost for nothing. After 1919 when wool sold for 4s. and 5s., the price fell again to almost nothing. We want to try to avoid that position. That is why I say that I cannot identify myself with the pessimistic opinion of my hon. friend who professes that a trade agreement with a member of the Commonwealth will have an adverse affect on South Africa. There may be other products which my friend could have mentioned and where he could perhaps have made out a better case. But I declare that it is economically sound for the wool farmers of South Africa to have an agreement under which a stable price is guaranteed to them I say I hope the wool farmers in South Africa and the Government and my hon. friend will be the last people to look for another client for our wool, while we have the present client who assures us stability and a stable price.

Has there ever been stability in the Allied world?

My answer to my hon. friend is this. I say that we enjoy a hundred times more stability in the Allied world than we had in the so-called open market when Germany and Japan and all other nations could buy our wool. What did they do to us? Hon. members will remember that I protested on one occasion; I said that we had trade representatives in all the important countries of the world, and in spite of the fact that we had those trade representatives, not one of those countries could offer us an agreement on a firm basis. Not one of those countries with which we had so-called trade relations offered us an agreement under which they undertook to buy our wool-clip for a number of years at a sound economic price. I think the soundest situation for your wool farmer is to have such an agreement and such a client. If you can find such a client, then you must not give him to understand that you will seek other clients when an appropriate time arrives. As long as any client is prepared to give us a sound economic price, we must retain that client. It is true what my hon. friend said that South Africa is one of the chief wool-producing countries in the world, but I wish to remind him that there are more important wool-producing countries in the world. If we treat our buyer in this manner, we must not shed tears if our client says tomorrow or the day after that he is going to look for other clients. I say that I would give preference to a trade agreement with Great Britain a hundred times before a trade agreement with the United States of America, for example, who was a good seller as far as South Africa was concerned, but a very poor buyer. We must develop an esprit de corps amongst the members of the Commonwealth. There should be such a spirit of co-operation that they will take our products at a reasonable price and that we on our part will take their products at a reasonable price. I say that is a sound trade policy. I would prefer to trade with the man whom I know rather than with the other man who deals according to his fancies, who dances to his own tune and is always prepared to suppress me as much as he can whenever the opportunity presents itself. I say I prefer this sound policy, and I hope my hon. friend will not put forward a plea that South Africa should, in spite of the sound agreement which it has today, try to get other clients for our wool. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect England to take all our wool and then expect to have an open market. You cannot expect to have jam on both sides of the bread. We must understand that that country also has its own interests to look after. If we look for other clients, that country has the right to say to us: “If you do not want me as a permanent client, I too am going to look around to see whether I cannot find another seller.”

Can you tell me what profit England makes on our wool?

That is not the point. The point I want to make is this. I say that if it is an agreement which fixes the price so high that the wool farmer can exist on it and carry on tolerably, then I want to retain it because I prefer it to the uncertain market which we had in the past. What did we get from trade with other nations? We did two things. We helped to build up the Italian fleet; we subsidised it. We also tried to establish trade relations with Japan. Was it valuable? We received an inferior article in South Africa.

What about the wool agreement with the United States? Did we not get a better price?

I say that the agreement which we have today is much better. That agreement, of what value was it? It was practically only a barter agreement.

But the farmers received fair prices.

But does the hon. member prefer that situation to what we have today?

If there had not been a war on, I would have preferred it.

Does the hon. member want to say that he prefers the unstable market which he had to the firm market which he has today? He would not say that. No, let us be careful. We are today paying the price for colluding with those two countries in the sphere of trade. On my part I say that if the Commonwealth of Nations can come to an arrangement to exchange certain products on a firm basis by way of an agreement for a number of years, or on a permanent basis, then it will be a good thing. If we can dispose of our whole clip on a firm basis which is economically sound for the farmers as at present, then it will be very fortunate for our country, and we can perhaps extend it to other products. And when I plead here for a market for South Africa, I want to say that we should do the same with regard to the goods which we buy from such a country. Britain could, for instance, supply us with machinery which we do not manufacture and which we will not be manufacturing for a number of years. If there is one thing which South Africa lacked in respect of its industrial and agricultural development and which retarded development, then it is the enormously high prices which we have to pay for imported machinery and agricultural implements. I am glad we made a start and that South Africa is now manufacturing a certain amount herself, but in spite of that it remains a fact that we will have to continue importing an enormous amount of machinery. Britain supplies machinery of good quality and if we can obtain that machinery at prices which are economically sound, we will be able to develop a healthy reciprocal trade on that basis. Up to now the prices have not been economically sound because the farmers paid very high prices for machinery, considerably more than the original price. Now I want to ask the Minister whether this cannot be remedied; I think it is related to the Bill we are now discussing. I spoke about this on a previous occasion and asked that all machinery coming to South Africa from that country, machinery which is necessary for agriculture, should be free of import duty. That will greatly contribute towards placing agriculture on a more effective basis if the necessary machinery is made available at reasonable prices. In that way we could also assist Britain to deliver her machinery here at a price which can compete with that of other countries. If we are a Commonwealth of Nations and stand together in time of war, a war in which we have achieved a great deal in the eyes of the world, we should encourage the same spirit, the same esprit de corps amongst those countries who stood together, not to put up barbed wire all round us, but to stimulate reciprocal trade. If we could establish such a system in collaboration with Britain and the Dominions, we would be establishing trade relations which would be proof against any form of international competition and disturbing influences. We would go far towards meeting the coming depression which is facing the world. I want to ask hon. members not to meddle with these things. Let us first put our relations with a firm client on a sound basis, then we in turn can expect to receive reasonable treatment. That is my opinion. I hope that the hon. member will not continue with that kind of pessimism, but will indentify himself with the request of his party that we should try to preserve the stability which we have obtained. Let that be the request to the Government instead of colluding with other nations. Let us see whether we cannot get the agreement perpetuated for ten years or twenty years, if possible. Then there will be a future for us. But if by collusion we try to obtain an open market, we expose the farmers once again to the uncertainty which we had in the past and which was the cause of many insolvencies.

I do not propose to go into the question of the sale of wool. It is really a side-issue as regards this Bill which deals with customs duties, and it is something on which the Minister of Economic Development can speak better than I can. Nor do I intend at this stage to go fully into the argument of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). We dealt with these points during the debate on the second reading. The hon. member is especially dissatisfied with the policy as embodied in the Ottawa agreements. That is a policy which I inherited from the previous Government, a Government which, I think, the hon. member supported.

I was then out.

The revision of the Ottawa agreements is under consideration and while the revision is being considered, it is certainly not desirable to tamper with the existing law. I can only say therefore that I have taken cognisance of what the hon. member stated today and that I will bear it in mind in regard to the whole discussion of the matter. Then I just want to repeat what was said by my colleague, the Minister of Economic Development, on another occasion in Another Place, namely, that as far as any negotiations and discussions in regard to our overseas trade are concerned, South Africa is in no way bound other than by formal agreements which are universally known, and that our primary aim is and will be to promote the best interests of South Africa. In addition to that I want to say that it does not mean that we will put up barbed wire around South Africa, nor does it mean that the possibility is ruled out that the interests of South Africa will fit into those of other nations with whom we are at present freely associated.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

We come now to the distribution of fish. What is the position into which, by amending the Bill, the Minister has allowed himself to be led by interested people? These are the main points. Competition will remain. The compulsory sale of catches through one fixed channel will be now limited to in-shore fisheries. Trawler-caught fish will be left out, to serve as the standard of price, and so-called commercial efficiency, against which the State’s new Corporation, must compete. What a reasonable compromise! How eminently fair—on the surface; but we need to look for the underlying truth of the matter. It was expressed very briefly by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg), when he pointed out that the trawler-caught fish represented fully 80 per cent. of the total output; and these fish are taken by 10 per cent. of the fishermen; whereas in-shore fish represent considerably less than 20 per cent., but engaged in that catch are 90 per cent. of the fishermen of the country, fishermen scattered in various villages along hundreds of miles of our coast. As the wireless announcers say, I will repeat that, giving another example in racing parlance, if you will allow me, Sir. What is happening here is that the favourite “Private Enterprise” is starting more than half way down the course with eight stone on its back, but the “also-ran”, the ill-fated overhandicapped “Corporation” is starting from scratch with nine times that weight, carrying 72 stone, the equivalent of four heavy-weight wrestling champions! There is no race under those circumstances; there simply is no race. The Corporation is beaten before it starts. In evidence before the Select Committee it was admitted, it was stated by the leading witness representing a company with assets valued at more than one million pounds, that trawled fish could be landed much more cheaply than was possible with regard to any other kind of fish. On page 226 of the Report on the Fishing Industry Development Bill—it is from the memorandum of Messrs. Irvin and Johnson (South Africa) Ltd., there is this statement—

There has been a lot of talk about the folly, if not the iniquity, of the plan for a one-channel distribution of the fish taken from our seas. Is it a stupid idea, or is it a wise one? To make sure that my remarks are fair and quite conclusive, I want to consult the authorities themselves. It will be a pleasure to me to guide the House to some of the juiciest portions of this handy compendium of fishing knowledge, the report of the Fishing Industry Development Bill. This also is the statement of the representatives of Messrs. Irvin and Johnson. It is printed on page 226—

This is crystal clear, and we cannot possibly misunderstand what is here said, and written in evidence. They don’t like the idea of one-channel distribution; they don’t think it can be arranged; and, thirdly, if it were arranged it would merely put up the price of fish. Now, as against that, I want to quote from page IV, Appendix B, in the same Select Committee Report, where Mr. Johnson, formerly Chairman and Managing Director of the same firm of Irvin and Johnson, gives the history of the progress of the fishing industry from round about 1903.

Mr. Irvin, not Mr. Johnson.

Mr. G. D. Irvin, I stand corrected. Now, Sir, I must ask your indulgence and that of the House, for I have to quote this historical evidence at considerable length. It is interesting in itself, very interesting and informative indeed, and it appears to me to claim that a single control and one-channel distribution has been proved to be necessary, that it has in fact taken place, and that the price of fish to the public was not increased. The story covers several years, but begins with the period prior to 1910—

So, Sir. They do like one control and one-channel distribution; they have found that it can be done, and that it is about the only way it can be done; and they further assert that it does not put up the price of fish to the consumer. There is not much need for argument here. I would only ask the Minister why he need be influenced by such contradictory evidence as that. A great deal of the evidence put before the Committee was along these lines, that any considerable change in the present arrangements was quite unnecessary because free competition would ensure the public against any abuse. There was a time when that was true. When, in various nations, there were great open markets simply clamouring for products, the scheme worked. Free competition was a reasonably effective safeguard against excessive prices, but today most nations are manufacturing and producing for themselves, and there is very little protection for the consumer in “free competition,” which is just an empty phrase. The time of true competition is past, and the day of the monopoly combines and the cartels has come. The great unities which limit output, which arrange the prices of products to their own advantage without reference to the wellbeing of the consumer at all, which do not scruple to set flame to the coffee and the flax and the standing corn, are with us. I am going to quote a very choice extract from the official journal of the Association of Chambers of Commerce of South Africa, Sir. [Time limit extended.] I thank the House for its courtesy, and will in return be very brief, but this is really and truly a choice jewel under the circumstances, and I feel that the House should hear it. Hon. members should not merely hear it. They should learn the words by heart, especially remembering their source.

What month is that?

December, 1942—it is from the editorial article—

This, Sir, is the published view of the Chambers of Commerce, and it is not for me to say that they are wrong. I have just one point to add. I am very strongly in favour of independent and individual businesses, and in my indirect way I have done a good deal to assist quite a number of them; but I am against private monopolies, especially where they operate on the food of the people. Food stands in this unique position, it is essential to all. Its supply cannot be tinkered and toyed with; mine is a case, Sir, of hands off the nation’s food. I asked a question of Mr. G. E. Williamson, who represented the Federated Chamber of Industries, whether he did not think that food stood in an entirely different classification from luxury articles, and whether if a monopoly were justifiable it would not be better that the monopoly authority should be the State, and not some hidden band of profit-makers. I said—

And this was the answer, which went courageously, and I think with honour to the speaker, beyond the question—

Sir, that is what we oppose, the burning and destruction of food must never happen again. The hon. member for Wynberg (Capt. Butters) could not believe that fish were dumped back into the sea, he had no proof of it and he could not believe that it has been done. A week or two before Easter of this year the “Sarie” of Cape Town took a full catch back to Robben Island, and tipped every fin over the side to satisfy some senseless regulation. If the destruction of food cannot be stopped in any other way, then we on these benches can only stand, and do stand most undisguisedly, for going the whole hog and having State fisheries.

What regulations?

I don’t know the particular regulations. All I know is that the boat came into port, she was not allowed to sell, she took back her load of fish, and it was tipped into the sea. She is tied up now at the Inner Basin, No. 5 Quay. Anybody can go and talk to the skipper, and he will remove the doubt all right. Let me say one word more, Sir, and that is in the way of warning. The people of South Africa, and I think especially the army of South Africa, regard this Bill substantially as a first, practical, large-scale instalment of Social Security. They are watching very carefully and critically to see what course the Government is going to take; they are tired of toying and trifling with poverty and want. This is my honest belief: if the Government fails it will fall, like a child’s house built with a pack of cards.

This Bill probably opens the door to tremendous possibilities for the fish producers, the fishermen themselves, as well as the consumers. As the Bill now reads, the possibilities are enormous. But I want to add that there has not been a Bill before this House for a long time which created so much public interest; nor a Bill which was dealt with by a Select Committee in such a thorough manner as this Bill was dealt with; nor has there been a Bill against which such a determined and persistent attack has been made by the powerful private capital interests. All sections which are interested in the fishing industry gave evidence; they had an opportunity, if they did not give evidence direct, to place memoranda before the Committee. This Bill, as it now stands, represents practically the unanimous, considered recommendation of the Select Committee. On the most important points in this Bill the Committee agreed unanimously. The Minister of the department concerned was the chairman of the Committee. The objects of the Bill, as recommended by the Committee, are well known. The objects which are envisaged can be summed up under the following heads: In the first place, to develop the great undeveloped fish supplies along our coasts; the second is to increase the consumption of fish at a lower price to the consumer. The third is to vouchsafe the fishermen a fixed economic price for their fish, and to make provision against the fluctuations which exist today in the fish market. The next is to stabilise the whole fishing industry as far as the catch is concerned, as far as the processing is concerned and as far as the marketing is concerned. The next is to encourage a more settled mode of living amongst the fishermen; and the last is to try to improve the shocking social conditions which were revealed before the Committee, by means of housing as well as by other means. I think those briefly are the objects which the Committee envisages in the Bill. The question at once arose in the Committee how those objects could best be attained, by private undertakings or by a semi-State corporation. The Committee agreed almost unanimously on this point, namely, that up to the present private initiative has made a hopeless failure of the objects which I mentioned, if they had those objects in mind at all. There was no alternative for the Committee but to recommend that this corporation, as a semi-State corporation, as contained in the Bill, be called into being. On the strength of the voluminous evidence which was given before the Committee, a very strong case could be made out for this corporation; in the first place, because it was proved by the evidence that the deepsea fishing industry can be developed on a much greater scale than is the case today. The method in which the two big companies, or rather the one big company, and the smaller company, have up to the present developed the deep-sea fishing industry in South Africa, reminds one of the many cases in South Africa where the development of our mineral riches were retarded because some big company or other succeeded in closing the door. It is not unknown to this House, as far as our mineral riches are concerned, that powerful capital interests have succeeded in retarding development in order that the price should not fall; and after serving on this Select Committee for weeks, I can only come to the conclusion that what happened in many cases as far as mineral riches are concerned, also happened in connection with our fishing industry, namely, that a retarding hand was kept on our deep-sea fishing industry so that the price could be kept on a high level by these companies. The other reason why a strong case could be made out for this corporation, was because it was proved that the two existing companies had neglected their duty towards the consumer. I want to add a few remarks to what was said by the hon. member who has just spoken. It was a very great shock to me to discover that at one stage such a great quantity of fish was thrown back into the sea with a view to controlling the price. It was a shock to me to find that what had so often been alleged, did take place on a large scale, and moreover at a time when the people had to pay high prices for fish and when there was no fish on the market, namely, that large catches were thrown back into the sea. Another reason why we could make out a strong case for a semi-State corporation was that a monopoly existed. Witnesses tried to argue that a monopoly did not exist, until we had taken all the evidence, and then all the witnesses had to admit that what had been alleged was in fact true, that a monopoly did exist as far as two-thirds of the fishing industry was concerned. What was the result of this monopoly? The result was that fish became scarcer and more expensive, and that the price rose while the fishermen themselves did not derive any benefit from the increased price, but on the contrary, got the worst of the deal. In the journal, “Libertas”, of two years ago an article appeared which invoked comment in connection with this monopoly, and with your leave, I should like to quote one passage from this journal. It is stated—

What date is that?

It appeared in the journal, “Libertas”.

You are always calling their editor a communist.

I do not know whether what the hon. member says is correct. All I can say is that this article invoked comment at the time. My real purpose in quoting this article is to get to the passage which is quoted from the Government report, namely, that the control is in the hands of those people to such a great extent. A further reason why a strong case could be made out for a corporation, is that it is necessary that the whole fishing industry should be rationalised by more effective and more modern methods of catch and refrigeration and propaganda. It was thought that we were backward, but I think the Select Committee was astounded to see how backward we really were, in comparison with countries such as the United States of America. We cannot compare the development in the fishing industry of South Africa with the development which took place in the fishing industry in America since the last war, for example. Just look at the primitive ways in which we conveyed and iced our fish. Our refrigeration is still at that stage of development at which the I.C.S. wants it to be. The I.C.S. provides the iced water. It suited them well to prevent any one from manufacturing the American dried ice which is so effective for the preservation of fish. It had the control in its hands. The I.C.S. saw to it that dried ice was not manufactured in South Africa on such a scale that it could be used for the conveyance of fish. In other words, we adhered to the primitive method of iced water while other countries developed to a great extent. Those same people who are today objecting, those same interests which are linked up, made determined efforts during the past few weeks to persuade the Minister to meet them. I think it is sufficient to mention these reasons why the Committee decided that it had a strong case in saying that we should establish this corporation. But the Committee agreed practically unanimously on another point as well, and that is that we must have stability for the development of the fishing industry in South Africa. As we brought about stabilisation in other respects, in connection with other industries in South Africa, so we want to have stability in the fishing industry, unless we are prepared to face the risk of making a hopeless failure of it; and how are we to achieve that stabilisation. By sale through one channel. We sell our mealies through one channel, wheat through one channel, butter through one channel, tobacco through one channel, etc. And it is an accepted fact in South Africa that if we want perfect stabilisation, we have no alternative but to sell the product through one channel. The experience of years has taught us that. And it is in this respect that the Minister sorely disappoints us. I want to compliment him on having stood firm for a very long time. Even on the Select Committee, under the pressure of the influence which was brought to bear on him by this powerful moneyed company, he still stood firm. I even want to go so far as to say that even after the Committee had adjourned he still stood firm, but certain elements were too strong for him. After the thorough work which was done by the Committee with his assistance, he came along yesterday and left the Committee in the lurch. He yielded. He yielded to the agitation of these powerful private commercial interests. Yesterday he gave notice of an amendment.

That is what he said.

He is the Minister. He gave notice of an amendment yesterday which places him in a precarious position, one which knocks the bottom out of the effectiveness of this Bill, a position which, even if he tries, he will not be able to depart from, because the boss will now see to it that he remains in that precarious position. Just imagine introducing a provision that only one-third of the crop of the tobacco industry, for example, should be sold through one channel and that two-thirds should be exempted. But here we have this position. The trawler company produces approximately two-thirds of our fishing industry. What is the Minister doing here? I want to quote his words from one of these reports so that there may be no misunderstanding. He stated—

That was the intention in the first instance.

That was never the intention. The hon. member is wrong.

He said so in the second reading speech.

It may be correct what the hon. member says, but I certainly did not get the impression on the Select Committee for a single moment that the Minister would change his mind and exclude the trawler companies. If the hon. member studies the evidence, he will see that the Minister did not question the witnesses on this point. When we adjourned we were all under the impression that the Minister would insist on this point. I know that the Minister has now stated that it was never the intention that the existing fishing companies would be bound to sell at the price laid down by the corporation. That is news to me, and I think the members of the Select Committee, at any rate, will be very surprised at the attitude of the Minister. It is ridiculous to think that this side of the House would have approved of the report of the Select Committee if there had been the slightest intention to exclude two-thirds of the industry from sale through one channel. All I can tell the Minister is that I am sorry that he lost heart in this manner. He not only left the Select Committee in the lurch, but he also disappointed the hopes which the country had in connection with this matter. In promising this amendment in favour of big capital interests he put the clock of South Africa back for years. He threw this important provision of the Bill before the monied wolves, and it is a catastrophic sign that Irvin and Johnson, and the other companies, but more particularly Irvin and Johnson and the I.C.S., have so much power in South Africa that they can succeed in persuading the Government to do a thing of this kind. What about the inshore fishermen? He has now left them in the lurch. The inshore fishermen expected to obtain stability through this Bill. What will be the position, however, if two-thirds of the catch of trawlers is to be excluded from control?

He has the right to fix the price.

If the Minister yielded so readily in connection with sale through one channel, the hon. member can imagine to what extent the Minister will stand his ground when big capital puts its claims. If the Minister yields in this case, he will also have to yield in other cases, and they will sit on his doorstep every day. We are back where we started. There are certain important and sound recommendations which are still retained in the Bill, and we therefore intend voting for the second reading, but we shall know what to do in the Committee stage. With the cooperation of everyone, we managed to do certain things in the Select Committee, and I am thinking especially of the intention to make an attempt to improve the conditions of the fishermen. For example, it was provided that the fishermen would be able to control block votes. If they have 5,000 shares, they can elect one director who will be regarded as the representative of their interests. Then there is the central advisory Board, on which a few fishermen will be able to serve as representatives of the fishermen. Not only is a central advisory Board being created, but the fishermen will also have representation on it. Those are good points. But what is happening now? The Minister now promises the trawler companies to make an amendment in their favour, and in spite of that they still have the audacity, although they want to be exempted from control, to demand representation on the advisory Board, as far as sale through one channel is concerned. I nope the Minister will still abandon this amendment at the eleventh hour, but in any event we cannot allow these lords to have representation on the advisory Board while they are not under control. There is a third good point in this Bill, and that is that there will be an advisory Board in every proclaimed area, consisting of a representative to be appointed by the Minister and three local representatives. And the last good point which I want to mention, which was inserted by the Select Committee, is that Parliament will have control of the corporation. That should have been done in the case of Escom and Iscor and the Industrial Development Corporation. I repeat what I said on a previous occasion that it will be a good thing to have a Select Committee every session whose special task it will be to go into the activities of these corporations. This will be the fourth corporation to be appointed, and it is impossible for the Select Committee on Public Accounts to go into all these matters. I am glad therefore that the Select Committee on this Bill recommended that Parliament should have more control and that everything in connection with these corporations should be submitted to Parliament. I hope that in the course of time a Select Committee will also be appointed to go into the affairs of the other corporations on behalf of Parliament. There are, therefore, a few sound provisions in this Bill, especially those dealing with the social welfare of the fishermen—provisions in connection with upliftment work, by means of housing and in other directions. We are sorry therefore that the Government is now destroying the most important provisions of this Bill. I regret it very much. It reminds me of an old saying of Pericles who made a statement centuries ago which is still true in connection with this Bill, namely, that the fish in the sea live, and that what applies to the fish in the sea also applies to the people on land; the bigger ones devour the smaller ones. That will be the outcome of the amendment if the Minister insists on it. We hope he will reconsider the matter and abandon this amendment or, failing that, that he will at any rate ask Parliament to give the Select Committee power to meet again, so that he will be able to hear what the Select Committee has to say in regard to this somersault on his part. Let me give him the assurance that this amendment will be contested by us tooth and nail because it affects more particularly the poor man in the fishing industry.

I think the Minister is to be complimented on the way he has met the various sections in the opposition to his Bill. I want to refer today to one or two aspects that have been prominent, and particularly the attacks that have been made on commerce and industry in regard to the opposition they have made to this Bill. On the question of the attack on private enter prise, some very strong comments have been made by various interested parties. I want to point out that it is a very significant fact that in some of the measures that have been taken during the last few years on matters affecting the curtailment of the rights or operations of commerce and industry, they have been instituted by Ministers who have been directly connected with commerce and industry before they were appointed to their present position. It just shows to my mind very clearly that commerce as a whole, far from being antagonistic to having measures of control, welcomes it when this control is operated in a manner that is absolutely fair to all sections concerned.

As long as they are excluded.

No; the point is that during the last few years war measures of control have been instituted in this country which would never have been instituted but for the war conditions, but that does not give any Government the right to continue measures that have had to be introduced during war time once there is a return to peace time conditions. I want in this connection to refer to a speech that was made the other day by the Minister of Labour. When he was introducing a Bill he referred to the way in which trade union rules had been relaxed, and the way in which many other conditions of labour had been relaxed owing to the war having to be carried on successfully.

I hope the hon. member will only use that as an illustration.

I will. The Minister said that because those regulations had been relaxed then, that did not imply that it would be carried on after the war. Exactly the same thing applies in respect of commerce. Where regulations and control measures have been introduced which possibly have been necessary for the proper conduct of the war, and where commerce has agreed to the relaxation of principles and the institution of these special measures, it must not be taken to mean that commerce as a whole agrees with the measures that have been introduced. That is what has been happening recently. With regard to this Bill, I think it is rather unfortunate that there has been perhaps a considerable amount of opposition to what I do not think the Minister ever intended at all. He has had definitely in mind the uplift of the in-shore fishermen, but I find that measures have been quoted in support of the Bill, quoted by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman), when he read out long extracts from the memorandum of Mr. Irvin. The extracts which the hon. member for Durban (North) quoted were in themselves a justification for control. He quoted the effect of this control which had resulted from the operations of Irvin and Johnson. Now what is the issue? Is it whether that control should be in private hands or in the hands of the State? That is the difference. We submit that the whole prosperity that in a way comes to a certain section of the fishing industry and which has enabled the people of this country to get cheap fish right through South Africa, has been due to the effective operations of this private company. The Minister in talking of the opposition to this measure said those who were so much concerned about private enterprise today had not been so much concerned about private enterprise in the days when so many enterprises were relinquished. I take it he was referring to the difficult days of private enterprise when the industry was first started. Well, Sir, surely that is one of the greatest reflections on the Government of the day, if when the fishing industry was almost going out of existence, when the in-shore fishermen were in such a parlous state, surely Sir, that was the time when the Government of the day should have instituted the measures that are now considered necessary. I would like to point out that if you compare the fishing industry with any other section of industry one asks what has the Government done to help those other sections of primary producers. I would quote for example the maize farmers. If it had not been for the fact that the Government built elevators all over the country and created storage facilities to carry the huge stocks of maize, the maize farmers would have been in a parlous state and I submit that the Government of this country for the last 30 or 40 years cannot escape from the responsibility which flows from their not having supplied facilities to the in-shore fishermen which were supplied to the farmers.

The maize farmers grow their own maize and the fish breed themselves.

Yes, but after all you have to have storage facilities. It is only owing to pressure brought upon the Government by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) and the previous member for Hottentots-Holland (Senator Faure) that the Government has in any way helped to meet the problems that beset the inshore fishermen. Only a year or two ago the members I have referred to brought pressure to bear upon the Government to build the Gordon’s Bay Harbour. I think it is very right that such steps should have been taken, but when it is proposed to go into the whole problem and build harbours and cold storage installations and saddle the whole capital cost on the State under this Bill, then I think that is where the Government has gone wrong. I believe it would have been better if these facilities had been extended in the past as part of a scheme of industrial development. If commerce has been a bit critical of this scheme I think there has been some justification in view of what has been declared to be the settled policy of our party in regard to private enterprise. Reference has been made to the Prime Minister’s speech on this matter. It has been constantly quoted in the journals of Commerce and Industry as showing that we are the party which favours private enterprise. We frankly admit that in the development of private enterprise certain measures of control may be necessary. We already have wage determinations and regulation of hours of work but when you propose to take steps as originally suggested by an hon. member opposite to take over the whole of the fishing industry—I think the hon. member complained that the Minister had altered that—when that is suggested to take away from people an industry that has been built up and developed entirely by private enterprise without any help from the Government then we say that is going too far. They tell us no steps have been taken to help and protect the inshore fishermen. I want to ask the House what would have been the position if commerce as a whole had combined to put the inshore fishermen into one huge monopoly, to create a monopoly. You would then have come to the House and objected to that monopoly. I don’t think for a moment there can be any possible objection to the Government taking any steps by way of increasing facilities in the way of harbours or new trawlers to help to develop the inshore fishing industry, but that can be done without crabbing the operations of the trawlers. It has been complained that fish is now in short supply but I would point out the reason is that half the trawlers have been taken for war purposes.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member has interjected a remark about high prices. Prices may have been too high—I am not saying that they have not been too high—but that is a matter for the Government and the War Supplies Department to deal with and has nothing to do with this problem. The shortage of fish has been due to war measures which have taken away the trawlers which used to catch the fish. The existing trawlers have been working at very great pressure to supply even the partial needs of the country. Until you can get that industry re-established with the full number of trawlers, one is hardly likely to get any increased quantities of fish. It has been asked quite fairly what is going to be the position of inshore fishermen when these increased supplies come in and if prices are going to be lowered in consequence. Under the Bill the Minister has power to come to the House and if he finds the inshore fishermen are not getting a square deal in the prices they get the Minister can come here and get the necessary resolution to deal with the problem.

Why should he not do it now?

Because you have the ordinary fishing industry passing through a state of flux under war conditions and it is going to take the Minister and this Corporation a very long time before they will be able to get the additional harbour and cold storage facilities that will be required to make this industry go. Indeed, I do not know whether it would be possible to get the refrigerator plant which is wanted to start these industries, but what is certain is that it is going to take many months before you can get this industry thoroughly well-established. The hon. member for Durban (North) has referred in sporting parlance to the race that is taking place but I do feel this that it is fast becoming, the practice of most governments that where you get an industry which has established itself and has done all the spade work, there is increasing pressure brought to bear on those governments by certain sections, notably the Socialist section, to take over those industries and abolish private enterprise. I know that the Minister’s whole mental make-up and his training is in favour of private enterprise and I believe that in the measure that the Minister has brought up he has been broadminded enough to meet the objections that have been raised by people who have a very intimate knowledge of the problems of the fishermen and of private enterprise and I think he is to be congratulated on the way he has met those objections and I for one will give him full support.

Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the so-called failure of State control, We have been told, Mr. Speaker, that if private enterprise has failed at all in this particular industry it is because there is a war on. But, Mr. Speaker, the facts are these. If the trawlers are in short supply because the Government is using them for other purposes, the other side is also true that trawlers were in short supply before this war because there was another war being carried on between conflicting private enterprises. So there is more than one kind of war to be considered and it is not wise, Mr. Speaker, for any person who would argue against the principle of control to say that private enterprise is better than State control because the war is preventing private enterprise from doing its job. We all realise that in a war nobody can do his job efficiently. That does not apply to the armed forces who we all hope will do their job efficiently, but no civil business can work efficiently when there is a war on. That should be patent to every one. In order to talk about this thing intelligently we need to quote from the open statement to all Parliamentarians that was given to us from the Federated Chamber of Industries of South Africa. This is one of the assertions that they make in Clause 18—

Now, Sir, that may be a reflection of the majority opinion in the Federated Chambers of Commerce, but to say that because that is so their rejection of the conception is valid is a horse of another colour. It is a fact that the State, or the community, which is a better word, is from time to time butting in on private enterprise and I want to say that in some directions the State or the community has had to butt in so far as to butt private enterprise out. Take the classical example of water. Nobody would dare at this point in history to suggest that private enterprise should once more control the supply of water to the people. Because it has been established without doubt that water was the thing which the State or the community should have control of—and it has control of it. In private enterprise we grant virtue if it admits the right of the people it employs to share in the profits amassed, showing to that extent that it is altruistic—but any industry one can think of is liable—by being able to amass surplus amounts of money out of profits—to invest that money in any other industry, and thereby get a certain amount of control, and that is done as a matter of policy in a number of cases.

Is there anything wrong with that?

Participation and control is practised by private enterprise in other departments of private enterprise in which the first private enterprise originally had no interest at all, and that simply because an industry had been able to amass surplus money in the shape of profits. Why then is it wrong when practised by the community? This Bill had two virtues in its original form—I am not so sure about the new Bill which has not yet come before us. The one virtue was that it was vitally concerned with the condition of the inshore fishermen, and the other one was that it was concerned to see that profit charges were not going to be excessive in the rehabilitated industry. Now that has a great bearing on some of the opposition to this Bill. The V.F.P. gave evidence against the sort of thing envisaged in the original Bill—the reason being that the V.F.P. believes in 15 per cent. as a minimum return on capital. They believe that 15 per cent. is the minimum return that should ever be made by any concern, and they religiously follow that principle, and none of their propositions has ever been exempt from that idea, and that is just the crux of the whole thing. It has been broadcast that no more than 6 per cent. is to be paid on the one type of share, and no more than 4 per cent. on the other, and that is the reason for some of the opposition to this Bill. But surely 4 per cent. and 6 per cent. unencumbered are very fair returns. We can see how much virtue there is in the opposition of the V.F.P. The whole thing seems to be this—that as long as a thing is profitable, as long as people in our community are allowed to exploit some part of the nation’s wealth for a profit which is not limited by any other factor than the efficency of that particular organisation, then all is well. Some people say that that organisation must be allowed free play, but if by any chance the question of profit falls away, because of inefficiency, then the community must come in and the community must do things to remedy the inefficiency of the people who cannot make a profit. The company which opposed the Bill did not say to the State: “You should not be a participant in the industry.” Oh, no; they are perfectly prepared that the State shall do certain things—but the State’s participation shall be this—the State shall fit out a ship or ships, and diving bells, etc., for research, the State shall supply the means for investigation, and after all the investigation has been made they shall tell all concerned what is there, what is in the seas, and how it can be got, and then private enterprise shall go merrily on and make whatever profit it can. Now that is the position, and you cannot have it both ways. The Government cannot take an intelligent interest in discovering what is in the country or in the seas around the country, and at the same time deny itself, in the interests of the people, participation in and control of the distribution of what is found. And we want to make that point. I also want to place on record my appreciation of the fact that while the hon. member opposite (Mr. Pocock) may speak for commerce and industry, he does not represent the whole of commerce and industry. There were at least three schools of thought in commerce and industry. First of all there is the conservative school of thought quite content that things should remain unchanged. Then there is the liberal school of thought, which believes in participation in the profits and benefits for the employer as well as for the employee. And then there is the radical—he may be in the minority, but he is there; he is prepared to agree—and examples of that have been shown in history—that something is wrong with private enterprise and that something being wrong, Governmental authority should take its place, not only in participation but in control. Some of our friends say that Government control leads to bureaucracy, and they say at the same time that bureaucracy is inefficient.

What has all that to do with the Bill?

Now some people, and very wise people at that, have been telling us that big business is inefficient, and I am prepared to believe the assertion. Inefficiency depends on things which are within the control of our particular thought and action. And the first approach to any business is that the people who contribute to the enterprise should feel that they are part of that enterprise—not only that they just get something out of it—that they just get a meagre return. And why is bureaucracy inefficient? Because in the kind of State which the hon. member yonder stands for, the kind of State which advertises for a man’s services on a scale of pay on which he cannot survive in the system within which he lives, he has to go out and look for a better job. And I am prepared to say that private enterprise can and does give these better jobs; but private enterprise, holding sway in the State as it does should not blame the State for inefficiency when they know that the State’s reluctance to pay decent wages is the cause of inefficiency. In order to pay for the Government you have got under our present arrangements to attempt to equalise wealth by taxation. And don’t you grumble! If you have the money you don’t want to pay the tax, and if you haven’t got the money ….

Then you can’t pay.

… then you say it is because the Government is interfering. The whole of this jumble which we have today is the result of people professing to believe that they can play a lone hand—for their own interests, and at the same time expect that everyone else will give them fair play. It cannot be done. In team work you can get fair play, but in this rotten mix-up which we call society, you cannot have fair play, and if the man at the bottom of the scrum gets a heel in his face, and bites that heel— who should complain—the man who gets the heel in his face surely, and not the man who is bitten? And that is the picture of our society.

This Bill makes provision, inter alia, for creating a corporation which shall have the control of the fishing industry, the marketing of fish and the establishment of cooling chambers for the distribution of fish. Now I want to ask the Minister to bear in mind that when cooling chambers are erected he should keep before him the erection of cooling chambers in the interior, so that the distribution to those places can be made easier than is the case today. I am thinking of those remote places that are cattle districts, and I call to mind the announcement of the Minister of Agriculture, when he announced the new meat scheme, that sooner or later cooling chambers would be erected for meat. Now I want to ask the Minister when he takes into consideration the question of the establishment of cooling chambers to erect them in such places as Graaff-Reinet. It is obvious that if cold storage is provided in those places it will facilitate the distribution of fish considerably, and the people in those districts will be able to obtain fish at lower prices. As far as the fishing industry itself is concerned, we are not very interested, except that we would like to have the fish. I would like to say that the Minister should see what he can do to study the interior so far as he can in regard to the establishment of cooling chambers.

On March 6th, 1942, in a speech in Parliament General Smuts said—

I regard the Bill which has been introduced as a step in the direction of planning as far as the fishing industry is concerned. One of the principal opponents of this Bill in giving evidence—I refer to Dr. Bernard Price—suggested that before the Government did anything they should have made an investigation, they should have referred the matter to the Economic and Planning Council; he had to admit that it had been done, because the Chairman, in the evidence, recorded on page 133, put to him the fact that the Chairman of the Planning Council is also Chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation and that the whole question had been submitted to the Industrial Development Corporation by the Department of Commerce and Industries, and that the Corporation had made an investigation in which they stated that, after investigation—

This Bill has been worked out, and after that it was sent to a Select Committee, and the Select Committee with certain alterations returned the Bill to this House. I am not going to engage in a controversy with the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) on State versus private enterprise; but I will say this on the subject in particular of inshore fishermen and cheap fish for the people of this country that private enterprise has failed. That has been the experience, not only in South Africa but elsewhere. Private enterprise—I am not blaming them—has only been concerned with the profit motive, and it fails where an industry does not present them with the facilities for making big profits. They are not concerned with the national interests, but with the question of making profits. Therefore where commodities have to be dealt with, particularly the food supply of the people and private enterprise has failed, in connection with this matter as it has done, there is only one thing for the Government to do, and that is to step in. They can only step in in two directions, either by having a State industry or by having a public utility corporation to deal with the matter. In this case the Government have decided on a public utility corporation with Parliamentary control. They have provided in this Bill for a much greater measure of Parliamentary control than in the past. That is a great step forward. Having done that, I for mv part express the hope that the Minister will not water down the measure in response to the many representations that are being made by private interests. Another factor that has to be considered, and I am sure the Minister and his department have taken that into consideration—is that apart from the question of raising the social status of inshore fishermen and creating facilities for many more to take part in that occupation, it has to be remembered that fish is one of the essential household supplies. In the evidence before the Select Committee, Dr. Von Bonde gave figures which have not been disputed. He pointed out that in South Africa the per capita annual consumption of fish was 4½ lbs. per annum as compared with Norway 70 lbs., Holland 55 lbs., Great Britain 41 lbs., and Australia 30 lbs.

Do those figures relate to the European population only or not?

If those figures apply to the European population only, the position is much worse than would appear. I am not sure whether they do; but I feel that private enterprise has no right to come along and object to the provisions of this Bill because they themselves have failed to do what is necessary both as regards raising the standard of in-shore fishermen and providing the people with this necessary commodity. Private enterprise has invariably shown that while it wants no Government enterprise, it is always ready to come to the Government for financial assistance. That is the case in secondary industry. What is our Tariff Board for which the Minister is responsible but a case of giving financial support for the development of private enterprise in order to compete with production overseas? It is done continually. It was done a few days ago in connection with the mining industry as far as wages for native employees is concerned. Once that is the position private enterprise has no right— especially where they have failed as in this matter—to come to the Minister and to the Government and say: You must not do anything which even in theory ….

Where have they failed?

They have not gone into the matter. It is a business which they have not entered into, because it would not have been a paying business. But I do not want to go too far into that matter. I ask the Minister not to dilute the Bill unduly. I am referring specially to the amendment he mentioned he would introduce, and I am rather concerned about it. Clause 3 of the Bill provides that the objects of the corporation shall be—

1. (a) To establish and manage and to facilitate or assist in the establishment or management of schemes for … the catching of fish, and to facilitate or assist in the financing of such schemes;
2. (b) to carry on the business of buying, selling, processing and marketing fish, fish products and sea weed …

Under Clause 13 (3) the provisions of (a) and (d) are to be dealt with by the “A” shares which have a capital of £500,000, and (b) and (c) are to be dealt with by the “B” shares. That is to say if the provision in regard to the “B” shares is removed from this Bill it will mean the corporation will not be able to go in for the marketing of fish, and it will be to a great extent be at the mercy of private enterprise. I hope the Minister will make it clear that the provisions of (b) and (c) of Clause 3 of the Bill are to be complied with without any hesitation and without the interference of private enterprises that are opposed to it.

It is with a sense of tragedy that we note that the Minister should come forward at this late stage of the Session as the Minister of Economic Development, as the Minister from whom the country was expecting such a lot, with what was originally a very meagre contribution to the economic development of the country and which he now proposes to water down to almost complete nothingness. It is perhaps however fortunate that the issue should be joined between what is apparently now accepted as the almost divine right of private enterprise as against the rights and necessities of the people. It is quite clear to me that the Minister of Economic Development is prepared to follow out this watering down policy every time he has to deal with this matter. If that is so, he might as well pack up his plans for economic development because there can be no economic development in this country or any other country where private enterprise is left free to do what they like. I do not wish to minimise the importance of the fishing industry in South Africa, but in so far as our economic development is concerned it is by no means the greatest of the lines on which we might possibly go, and even in this small instance the hon. Minister is prepared to bow down to the superior power—I do not know whether it is money power or voting power, it certainly is not intellectual power—in a minor matter of this description, then we can say goodbye to any possible economic development in South Africa. The Minister made out one great point in his apology for the projected amendments. It was a clever point, almost the only clever point in his speech, and it was unfortunate that he did not utilise his cleverness towards the Bill in a way that would accomplish something, rather than exercise his ability by putting forward a specious argument. We now understand that these amendments are being made in the interests of parliamentary control. Apparently the Minister has realised that in the past Parliament has not had sufficient control, but it is not so much that Parliament has not had sufficient control over public utility corporations. The trouble has been that Parliament has not had sufficient control over Ministers, and in this instance I believe the Minister, instead of giving us any increased Parliamentary control, is in the process of completely flouting Parliamentary control; because here we have a Bill which I presume was carefully gone into by his department and himself before being introduced to this House. We had the position where the Bill was, sent to the Select Committee, of which the Minister was Chairman, and again it was carefully considered by the Select Committee and sent to this House. That is Parliamentary control; a committee composed of members of this House went into the Bill. They took voluminous evidence. They heard the pros and cons. They even had to listen to the impertinences of the representatives of vested interests. And having done all that, they introduced an amended Bill which we have now before us in this form. But, says the Minister, in the interests of Parliamentary control I am now going to emasculate the Bill.

I don’t say that, you do.

You are cutting off one half of the shares, you are decimating the corporation, you are leaving it a head less body without the legs. If that is not emasculation I don’t know what is. When you have finished with it, possibly with the assistance of the Deputy-Minister of Economic Development, the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell), the Bill will possibly not be worth the paper on which it is written. We have to get down to it in this House; how are we going in for our policy of economic development? I am not speaking to the House as a Socialist. I realise that only certain members on these benches are Socialists, and I am not indulging in propaganda from a Socialist point of view. I am speaking as a realist, and will deal with it in that way, and as a member representing a constituency. If it is absolutely necessary that we should have this so long promised industrial development in this country, I want to put a point or two to the House in so far as I see how this industrial development must be undertaken. I did say in a speech earlier in the session that it seemed to me that in a capitalist State or in South Africa at this juncture, private enterprise should be encouraged by the Government to develop the industries of the country. I said further that where private enterprise appeared to be incapable of developing industries in the interests of the country, they should be assisted by the Government.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m., and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned I was endeavouring to approach the problem of industrial economic development of the Union and I was telling the House first of all that private enterprise should be encouraged to develop industries where possible for the benefit of the people of the Union. I say for the benefit of the people particularly because there are a number of industries which possibly can be developed without very much real benefit to the people of the Union and those industries will have to be very carefully considered. I put the second point that where industries could not be developed by private enterprise alone that possibly private enterprise should be assisted by the Government. There is the further point that in many instances where private enterprise appears to be incapable of developing particular industrial objects the job should be done either through State control or through the medium of public utility companies. Then I was going on to say, when you rather suddenly interrupted me, that allowing for all these things ….

The one o’clock rule interrupted the hon. member.

Yes, Sir, but you were the medium. I want to say that in these circumstances the State or the Government is entitled to impose a considerable amount of control on private enterprise. I trust you won’t find me irrelevant, Sir, because I want to emphasise what I said at the beginning that we have in this Fisheries Bill the first of what I suppose will be a great many long-drawn-out battles, not so much between private enterprise but vested interest and the Government in the development of industry in this country. Victory in the first battle appears to have gone, not so much against the private enterprise but to a particular vested interest. I have here a telegram sent by the Transvaal Chamber of Indsutries—I a am supporter of industry and I have always supported industrial development in this country and my party is primarily responsible for the development of secondary industry in this country. In the days of the Pact Government it was the influence of the Labour Party which brought into being in this country a protection policy in the very teeth of the old South African Party who only represented two industries, the mines and the importers.

Eating out of their hands.

Not eating out of their hands at all. Many of the United Party interests are large industrial interests which could not have been developed in this country but for the efforts of the Labour Party. I would commend that particularly to the Deputy-Minister for Economic Development. The Labour Party was primarily responsible in the days of the Pact Government for the institution of protection through which only were the existing secondary industries made possible, and the Labour Party, Mr. Speaker, still holds by that policy, we still feel that industries have to be protected. In other words private enterprise even as far as we are concerned has got to be assisted and private enterprise in this country in secondary industries at least could not exist for two months unless it has the necessary amount of assistance from the Government. We are not dealing really with private enterprise at all. There are no sacred rights attached to private enterprise. So much from that being the case private enterprise is only allowed to exist in this country through the benevolence of the Government of the day. Let me make that clear. Some years ago the Government appointed a commission to examine Customs tariffs and evidence was led before that commission by the Chamber of Mines, very important evidence, so important that they went to the extent of having it printed in pamphlet form and in that evidence they advocated complete abolition of protective tariffs in this country, which meant the abolition of all secondary industries, and suggested that we, as a country, should concentrate solely on mining. That stands on record and I am not so sure that that is not today the policy of the Chamber of Mines; I feel sure that it is. The Deputy Minister of Economics nods his head so I suppose he agrees. I suppose it is possible he has information from Mr. John Martin before he sped on his way with General Smuts. That being the case, the sacred rights of private enterprise are not going to maintain secondary industries in this country at all. Private enterprise is dependent on the goodwill of the Government, on the goodwill of political parties or the policies which we are prepared to pursue. Private enterprise as exemplified by the Transvaal Chamber of Industries in connection with this Bill appears to indicate that it has some kind of sacred right not only to demand that private enterprise should be sustained but also some sacred right to instruct members of Parliament. This is the telegram we have received. I want to read it because I was not elected to represent the Transvaal Chamber of Industries and I doubt if any individual here was. I was elected to represent my constituents and I believe the whole of this House was elected to do likewise. When the day comes that we hand the Government of this country over to any chamber of commerce or industry we will have something to say about it but we have in connection with this Bill been consistently browbeaten for a number of weeks. We have been subject to one of the most extraordinary proceedings I have ever known. Because a sufficient amount of press propaganda was not appearing in leading articles these two Chambers took the rather extraordinary step of advertising extensively in every prominent paper in the country pointing out precisely where this Bill was wrong and where Members of Parliament ostensibly were not doing their duty. So we have it here—

I don’t know why they are very perturbed because their arguments are very unsound. They go on to say—

I wonder if they really mean that. I wonder if they really desire me and my colleagues to take up an attitude where we are going to protect the sacred right of private enterprise, because it would mean this that we would say to them: “Well, if you are private enterprise, don’t come and ask for any protection or any assistance, don’t ask us for any price control to protect you; don’t ask for anything,” and they could not run any business in this country if that were the case and this is an impertinent telegram.

It must have cost a lot of money.

They probably got it from the Reddingsdaadbond.

What possible interest can the engineering firms in the Transvaal, the soap manufacturers and furniture factories, the tobacco factories in the Transvaal have in the fishing industry. You don’t fish in the Transvaal, except in the Boksburg lake. This Fishing Industries Bill has been glorified into an attack upon private enterprise when it is nothing of the sort. It is a very tardy and very belated attempt on the part of the Government not only to provide fish for the people of the Union, a very necessary part of their diet, but also to rehabilitate part of our population which is sadly in need of rehabilitation, and which has suffered at the hands of a monopoly for many years. And let us look at the fishing industry itself. It is suggested in this telegram that the institution of this corporation is a direct attack on private interests, but what I want to suggest is that the monopoly which controls the trawling industry in South Africa is not a private enterprise—it is nothing of the kind. That monopoly has eliminated private enterprise in the fishing industry. Every time a small firm grew up, every time there was any competition, these small firms were eliminated, and today the trawling industry is in the hands of one firm whose actual shareholders number something in the neighbourhood of 150; 150 people represent the whole of the fishing industry—the whole of the trawling industry—this great and glorious thing which they call private enterprise. I understand that the case economically for private enterprise is something which gives you free competition, but there is no free competition as far as the trawling industry is concerned. It is in the hands of one particular family who are making huge profits and who stand condemned insofar as they have had the opportunity for many years to develop that industry as it should be developed and who have refused to do their duty in that direction. Some months ago, I believe, a report was submitted to the President of the United States of America by a congressional committee on the same point, and they suggested that one solution of America’s post-war development would be a return to private enterprise. They felt that in the United States the country had gone away from private enterprise in so far as cartels, huge combines had eliminated the small man, and it was the opinion of that Committee that these combines and monopolies were not private enterprise, and the suggestion was to break them up and redistribute the business and allow the small man to come into his own. But here is our own Minister of Economic Development, a very shy bird, who does not often deign to tell us what is going on behind the scenes in his own department—a sort of Santa Claus who has something up his sleeve—here is our Minister of Economic Development, who, in his first effort towards the economic development of the country, produces a Bill in which he is trying to enshrine and perpetuate and develop the very danger which the Congressional Committee, a very responsible committee, after careful examination in America, finds to be unsound. And then we have the Chamber of Commerce which is apparently at cross purposes with the Minister. I remember reading in the official journal of that Chamber—as a matter of fact, I got this story of the Congressional Committee from the official journal of the Chamber of Commerce, and there was in that same issue a number of other articles which supported that; and I have read again a number of articles in their official organ in which they took the same line, asking that private enterprise should be given back to private enterprise, that it should be re-established, and that monopolies be broken down; and yet when it comes to an attempt to establish the fishing industry, the Chamber of Commerce sings a different tune, and the Minister accepts their point of view. I feel that the Minister has a great opportunity to do something good for this country. I understand he was put deliberately into a key position by the Prime Minister to use all his ability to give us something in the post-war future which would really give people a decent standard of living. If this is the only effort he can make, then it is a poor lookout for us, because if this policy has to be consistently carried on from now onwards then there can be no economic development in the Union. It is impossible. Private enterprise has failed to give it, and it admitted that two and two-and-a-half years ago when it appeared that the United Nations might lose the war. In the dark days when it looked as if Nazidom might win the war we got admissions from the upholders of private enterprise that they had failed in their duty before the war; that they were prepared to assume responsibility for the ghastly conditions which existed in every country, and that after the war there would be no more of it. When they were frightened they were prepared to admit their sins—like the devil, when they were sick they would like to be saints—but now that things have changed, now that we know we are going to win the war, they are already seeking to re-establish their claims to this private enterprise which they themselves admitted had failed—which they themselves admitted had proved unsatisfactory before the war. Can the Minister suggest to me that the trawling interests in the Union of South Africa have successfully developed the fishing industry? If they had there would be no necessity for this Bill. The Minister admits himself that the position of the inshore fishermen, a position which is largely contributed to by the monopoly in this country, is a position of which no self-respecting Government can be proud. And so, in the first instance, in the first burst of his enthusiasm in his appointment to this portfolio with the high-sounding name, he decided to do something. That enthusiasm prevailed throughout the sitting of the Select Committee. It was kindled by the evidence led before the Select Committee, but it was an enthusiasm: which faded away and vanished into oblivion when confronted by the bigwigs of commerce. Commerce had something to say. I do not believe that this telegram and this advocacy is the real opinion of either commerce or industry, and there I agree with the hon. member for Gerniston (Mr. Payne). I know how these organisations work. I know that a certain number of members attend committee meetings. I know—I’ve tried it myself. The man who talks loudest often gets his policy accepted. But I don’t think this is the real view of commerce and industry in this country. It cannot be the real view. Otherwise commerce and industry are going back on all the undertakings they have given to the Government and the people of this country. Only the other day the Minister of Demobilisation introduced a scheme for returning volunteers, but all these schemes will come to naught, if we are to accept this heaven-sent right of private enterprise to proceed as it pleases. It is a return to the policy of “laissez-faire” which is today an absolutely impossible and unworkable policy. You cannot have a policy of leaving things as they are. Why should we have a Planning Council if that is the policy of the Minister? Why should we have an Industrial Development Corporation when every time we want to develop anything industrially we are told that we are interfering with the sacred rights of private enterprise? What is the use of all these things? I do not think the Planning Council or the Industrial Corporation were intended to be so much eyewash, or were intended to be a sort of mumbo-jumbo. I am a very naive member of Parliament, and I feel the Government meant something when they appointed these organisations, that they were to be part and parcel of the general plan of development which was really going to develop the potentialities which we have. But apparently I was mistaken. I want to come back and I want to emphasise again that if this policy is accepted by this House in connection with a minor industry such as the fishing industry, what will it mean when we come to industries which are far more important so far as the future of this country is concerned. This is the first danger signal we have seen since the election of the new Parliament, this is the first sign we have had that vested interests are again to be considered of more importance than the people of the country, and I want the House to consider seriously whether in view of the fact that we have a Bill produced by a Select Committee before us, we should be prepared to listen to the Minister speaking with his own voice, but expressing the thoughts of the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries. Now, about the Bill; we can only talk about it as it is printed, and think about it as the Minister visualises it. This morning the Minister denied that he was prepared to emasculate the Bill. The chief part of the Bill is in Clause 3 where there is provision for the issue of two kinds of shares. Let us deal with the shares first. As I understand it the “B” shares were the shares which had to be issued and would have given the Corporation full control over the fishing industry. Their issue would have allowed that Corporation to develop the fishing industry for the benefit of the people of the country. These shares, it appears, are not going to be issued now. I explained—and I think it would not do any harm if I explained again—these shares are not to be issued in the sacred rights of Parliamentary control. It will take the Minister a good many ten-minute speeches in Committee to convince me that these shares are not now going to be issued under parliamentary control, but that the issue is going to be in the direction of extending the control of Irvin and Johnson. That is the whole position. Then we come to this trawling industry. These shares carry with them certain responsibilities. The “A” shares, which it is now proposed to issue had as their object the rehabilitation of the in-shore fishermen. The provision was made there for the assistance of the inshore fisherman and eventually placing him on a basis where he could maintain a reasonably decent standard of living. But from the point of view of general benefit to South Africa the “B” shares were the most important. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) dealt with this but he did so rather cursorily, and I want to deal with it for a moment or two. The “B” shares carry with them two sets of objectives, as laid down in 3 (b) and (c). (b) lays it down that the “B” shares should be used for the purpose of carrying on the business of—

I do not know exactly what the fish farming alludes to.

Oysters.

Red herrings.

I am afraid my taste does not run that way. Then the shares are in (c) applied as follows—

These were very worthy objects, and I believe were the kernel of the Bill. The part which deals with the rehabilitation of the fishermen is, of course, very important, and is something long overdue, and it should not entail a considerable amount of difficulty once the necessary financial assistance has been made available. But the two sections I read out dealt with the future of the fishing industry, they dealt with one small part of the economic development of this country. Now by the elimination of these shares, and by the exclusion of the controlling interests from the provisions and operations of the Bill, all the planning for the future, all the looking forward so far as the fishing industry is concerned, to any further development, has been completely obliterated. The Minister’s excuse is, of course, that it is going to take us two or three years before we can get under way the rehabilitation portion in so far as the inshore fisherman is concerned. If that is so why did he not think of that before? Why did not his department think of that when they drafted the Bill? Why, when the Minister was Chairman of the Select Committee, did not that idea dawn on him? And even if it does take a couple of years to get going with the rehabilitation of the inshore fishermen, will he deny that when the question of these shares eventually comes before the House, we shall have the same battle over again? Does he suggest that in two years’ time he will have so trained the Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Industries that they will be ready to eat out of his hand? I have never seen any of the attributes of the lion tamer attached to the Minister, and I take leave to doubt if the attitude of the Chambers of Commerce and Industries will be any different to what it is now, unless the Deputy-Minister, the hon. member for Houghton, takes a hand in it. It is not likely to change. And if the Minister had come to the House and said frankly that in view of the agitation that had arisen, and in view of the soundness of the arguments that had been brought forward—because he must believe they are sound—by the various Chambers of Commerce and Industry, he was going to withdraw certain portions of the Bill, we on these benches while disagreeing with him would at least have had a much higher opinion of his courage. But when he come before the House and tells us that he is doing this first of all in the interests of Parliamentary control; and secondly that he is doing it because in any case the particular provisions could not be utilised for two or three years, then Mr. Speaker, he is treating us like a lot of children, because we do not believe him. All these worthy objects are going to be eliminated, because the hon. member for Troyeville asked him, and I am going to ask him after we have put up a battle to retain the provisions for the “B” shares—he might save himself trouble by telling us early on— whether he is going to transfer these objects from the “B” shares to the “A” shares, and retain them in the Bill. Not that that will make a lot of difference, because even if we retain the objects in the Bill, we are still face-to-face with the monopoly, and having left the trawling interests out the Minister cannot show us where there is any provision in this particular Bill which will prevent the trawling interests carrying on with their policy of scarcity. The fishing market in South Africa has for many years past been built up on a policy of great scarcity. We know that. It has been based on a policy of keeping fish scarce in order that the fish could be kept at a certain price. In the meantime the Minister’s colleague has been appointing national councils and advisory boards. We hear about starvation—they do call it by other fancy names—and we know that one of the most important dietary articles in South Africa has for years been marketed upon a policy of scarcity. It is no use either the Director of Fisheries or anybody else telling me otherwise. I know that on occasions tons of fish have been thrown back into the sea.

He said that.

He said they were small fish. All of us know that in order to maintain this scarcity, fish has consistently been thrown back into the sea while the people of this country have been suffering from malnutrition.

Will you tell us when that was; it would be interesting to know. They deny it.

It was in the evidence before the Select Committee.

I do not know whether the practice to which I shall refer is being continued in East London, but some years ago a lady there got to know of this fish being thrown into the sea. There is a railway camp at East London which at that time mainly accommodated poorly-paid rail workers. This lady got someone to build her a concrete slab on the quay, and having arranged with Messrs. Irvin and Johnson to be given a certain proportion of this fish, she obtained it and distributed it to these people free. The balance was thrown into the sea. I myself have seen beautiful fish distributed to these people who were on a very low wage rate, distributed free; and regularly this lady received a certain quantity of the fish and the balance was thrown overboard. This has been going on for a considerable time, and we all know that it happens in every port. That is the sort of monopoly which we are today seeking to uphold. Even if in connection with the development of the fishing industry we get these particular objects attached to the “A” shares, the burden will remain on 25 per cent. of the fishing industry. The inshore fishermen comprise only about 25 per cent. of the fishing industry. So the burden of carrying out these projects, very fine sounding projects, will be placed upon 25 per cent. of the industry, and the remaining 75 per cent. will go scot free—with this privilege that they can still base their market on a policy of scarcity and they can, in fact, sabotage the whole Bill. [Time limit.]

I have watched the progress of this Bill with particular interest for two reasons. Firstly, because like a good many of the outside public, I regard it as a possible model for the form that industry will take in the postwar world; and I believe, too, that the idea of limitation of profits that is suggested for this corporation will, in the post-war world, be generally accepted. It will be an example and if it is accepted and incorporated in the Bill, it will mean the beginning of that limitation of the profits of private enterprise, which in my opinion is essential if we are to have a better world after the war. From that point of view then I have watched the Bill with interest. The second reason is that it deals with the food of the people. Now I am not quite of the same view as the hon. member who has just spoken about the prospects of this corporation, although, like him, I am very sorry to see the modifications that the Minister has indicated. I would like, however, to remind the hon. member that in spite of the fact that the trawling interests are excluded by this Bill from contributing to the single channel of distribution, there is still power under Section 28 to fix and regulate the price of fish, and it is with the price of fish I am mainly concerned. I should like to remind the Minister of this: It is an important factor that the experience of this country has been that the moment a commodity is controlled the price of that commodity goes up to the consumer. If that occurs again in this particular instance then I say this corporation will have failed. In other words, it will stand and fall by the price of fish by the fact that there is at worst no increase in the price of fish, and at the best a considerable diminution in the price of fish to the consumer. On this point I should like to remind the Minister of one or two items of evidence that were given before the Select Committee. On page 247 a question was put—

Then again on page 253 the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) worked out the approximate cost of the fish delivered in Johannesburg at being in the neighbourhood of 2d. a lb. That is not the price to the trawling companies. To the trawling companies the fish cost a good deal less than 2d., because the firm to which it delivers its fish at an approximate cost of 2d. in Johannesburg is a subsidiary company and it makes its profit. I must add that the cost as delivered in Johannesburg of 2d. per lb. was denied, although the figures were worked out on a cost sheet provided by the company. When those figures were denied the companies promised that they would give a full statement of actual cost, which full statement as far as I have been able to see from this Select Committee’s report was, in fact, never given. The price in Johannesburg, even if they are right, can be no more than 3d., but even assuming that the cost delivered in Johannesburg is 3d. per lb. nevertheless the retail price of fish in Johannesburg is 7½d. per lb. (though I cannot buy it in general under 8d. or 9d.), that is for ordinary fish, whereas for soles which on the company’s own showing cost no more to catch, the retail price in Johannesburg is 1s. 4d. a pound, and has been so for many years. Let me remind the House that the question was asked—

And the answer was—

So that the price of soles at 1s. 4d. a pound—I am speaking of the retail price in Johannesburg—is very high? You do not think that the difference between the price which the producer gets and what the consumer pays is very big?

I do not consider it is very big.

Well, Sir, if the company can say that the price of a commodity which cost them less than 2d. a pound to catch is not high when it reaches the consumer at 1s. 4d. a pound, then all I can say is that the company concerned has a most extraordinary idea of what is or what is not high. I agree with my hon. friend opposite that the reason why soles are kept at such a price is because apparently on the evidence they don’t want to catch more; they can catch more, but they do not catch them. The reason given is that soles have always been regarded as a luxury. I do not know why they have always been regarded as a luxury when in fact they can be caught here at exactly the same price as ordinary fish. Nevertheless, because this idea prevails that soles are a luxury, the price has been kept up. All over the world soles command a higher price than ordinary fish. That is what the witnesses said. In other words, the company has deliberately followed in this particular instance—I am not making a general accusation—but on their own showing they have in this particular instance followed the policy of restricting supplies so as to maintain the price of soles on the Johannesburg and other markets. And in these circumstances the company has made enormous profits on fish costs. When it comes to soles the difference in price is between less than 2d. which it costs to catch them and 1s. 4d. a pound, and when it comes to other fish it is a difference between the wholesale price of rather less than 3d. and the retail price of 7½d. These profits are enormous, and if the new Corporation is going to keep that up, then, Sir, I have no hesitation in saying to the Minister that the country will be bitterly disappointed with the outcome of his proposals, and the country will have less faith than ever in these measures of control. I would remind the Minister also, that however much the Corporation succeeds in lifting the standard of the inshore fishermen, however much he may succeed in improving their living conditions, this measure will have failed as far as the country is concerned if it puts up the price of fish to the consumer, because, Sir, fish is a very important article of diet, and everything that puts up the price of the food of the people must inevitably increase malnutrition, since unfortunately the incomes of the vast bulk of the people do not rise in proportion to the increase in the price of food. On this proposed Corporation there rests a very great responsibility, and I would urge the Minister to disappoint the expectations of nay hon. friend opposite in this that if he finds when he has established this Corporation that the price of fish to the consumer is increased or even maintained at the present level, he will not hesitate to use the powers he has under Section 28 and control the price of trawler caught fish to bring it into line with the Corporation fish. Further than that, if in the years that elapse between the establishment of this Corporation and the putting of it on a sound and efficient foundation the vested interests that are in control of trawler caught fish do not make a reasonable endeavour to reduce the price of fish to the consumer and bring it into line with the product controlled by the Corporation, then I shall be one of those who will have no hesitation in asking that the Minister should issue his “B” shares which would enable the Corporation to enter into competition with and control the vested interests. It seems to me that if the vested interests are wise they will regard this Bill as the writing on the wall, giving them yet a further opportunity for consideration and further opportunity for giving the country and the consumers a better deal, and I hope, Sir, that they will heed that writing on the wall. There is one point on which I very strongly agree with the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg). He said that he feels that every industry should, as it were, accept responsibility for the social welfare of the people engaged in that industry. To that I agree. Industries should be able to pay its people a living wage and if any section of the people engaged in that industry do not get a living wage then I would be in favour of Parliamentary control of that industry. You will get real social security if each industry will take responsibility for the people engaged in it. Now I am glad, Sir, to see that the Select Committee did take heed of the suggestion I made at the second reading of the original Bill that there should be some better form of Parliamentary control for a Corporation such as this. I feel that the control which in the original Bill was extremely sketchy and a mere copy of the sections of the I.D.C. Act has been considerably strengthened. The provisions dealing with that have now been set out in plain language, which too I recommended, and they give a considerably greater measure of Parliamentary control than there was in the original Bill. To that extent in my view the Bill is enormously improved because there is no doubt that Parliament must watch with a much more jealous eye these Corporations that it sets up. More particulary if they are to be models for commerce and industry in the post-war world. I would urge upon the Minister also when the Corporation is established that he should endeavour to see to it that a standing Select Committee of the House is set up to deal with the reports of this Corporation. He should endeavour to see to it also that reports which are usually just laid upon the Table of the House, the reports of other companies, such as Iscor and the Broadcasting Corporation and the Industrial Development Corporation, should also be referred to the same standing committee for consideration so that the House may have an opportunity of dealing with them. But that is by the way. One final point, in regard to the result on private enterprises of the setting up of Government controlled corporations, in regard to that I would remind the Minister that it is not new, that there are a good many State corporations in competition with ordinary private enterprise in e.g. New Zealand. I instance the government insurance company there. The result of their competition with private enterprise has been, I believe, of the utmost value. As I have heard it put : The competition keeps the government company efficient and the private institutions honest in their profits! In all the circumstances then I am hopeful for this Corporation and its success, and hope the House will pass this second reading unanimously.

I don’t think there is any doubt about the fact that this Bill has been very welcome to the public generally, and I just want to say this, that if it does not fill the Bill in every respect, the public will be very disappointed indeed. Personally, I want to say this, that the public generally will judge the clauses of this Bill by two tests, and the first is this are we going to have’ more fish, and secondly are we going to have cheaper fish? There is no doubt about it that everyone is crying out for fish but it is a fact that it is often difficult to obtain and that the price of latter years has been rising considerably, and we are very perturbed at what has been happening lately in the Peninusula. We find that the price of fish has gone up considerably on account of the control, and now that it is sold by weight. I am not so very much perturbed as some other hon. members at the Minister’s announcement that he is going to introduce some amendments. I think the position is quite safe. With it being in the hands of the Minister and in the hands of Parliament, who will have the control of this Corporation, and if the dangers which are envisaged by hon. members opposite do come about, then Parliament and the Minister will have the last say, and they can always come back to us for rectification.

What is going to happen in the meantime?

We have waited so long for this Bill to come forward—rather let it go slowly and deal carefully with this matter—do not let us take over-hasty steps which might jeopardise the whole position. Now I would particularly like to say a few words about the position of a small fishing village in which I am interested. I am referring to Jeffrey’s Bay.

What about Groot Rivier, and Fish River?

I would particularly like to say a few words about the conditions pertaining to Jeffrey’s Bay—they are very similar to those of other small villages. There we have the coloured people who are fishermen. Unfortunately on account of heavy surf they can only go out occasionally and sometimes when the weather is rough they cannot go out at all. Sometimes their boats are upset. They go out early and a squall comes up, and when they come back through the surf their boats are upset, and unfortunately some fishermen even lose their lives. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient provision in this Bill to provide for their needs. I know a committee can be formed and fishermen can register. But unfortunately there is not sufficient public interest for these men to get enough backing to put the industry on a sound footing there. I should like the Minister to consider incorporating some scheme, whereby the Government will build either a slipway or a breakwater or a small jetty there. That is all that is required there and if that is done this small place will greatly benefit and these people will be able to fish at all times. They will not only be able to make a decent living, but they will also be in a position to supply all the surrounding country with fish. Even as far afield as Port Elizabeth—when they have good catches, the merchants come in and buy fish there, and if we can develop and put matters on a safe footing it would be of benefit to all. Like other hon. members I was thunderstruck about the fish that were dumped back into the sea. I honestly feel that this is something which the Government should take in hand, and if necessary, Government representatives should be put on these trawlers to prevent anything of this kind ever happening again.

But that is denied.

Yes, it may be denied, but this is not the first time we have heard these stories and I do believe there is a modicum of truth in them. With these few remarks I have no hesitation in saying that I hope the second reading will be passed and that the Minister will give consideration to the points I have raised.

The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) and the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) have tried to create the impression that this Bill has been emasculated, that capitalism has won the day, and that the Minister has failed to produce an acceptable measure from the Select Committee. I should like to represent the true position as I see it in regard to the fishing industry. I was a member of that Select Committee and a very interested member— interested in the evidence which we had from some very excellent people. The economic position of the fishing industry is this. On the one side you have mass production—mass production from the trawling concerns, which catch tons of fish in nets at one time. On the other hand you have the hand production from the inshore fishermen, who catch fish on a line and one at a time. An there you have the two divergencies of the economic production of fish. The cost of production by hand is very much greater than by net. Like any other industry and any other development— the textile industry for instance—there has been gradual improvement and gradual development. Now during the last few years, particularly during the war, the inshore fishermen, the men who have to struggle to compete at the same price as the trawling concerns, have been able to improve their position. I want to read some of the evidence given by the heads of the Department showing what the position is. First of all let me refer to Mr. Spooner’s evidence. Mr. Spooner has studied this matter for a number of years, and he says this on page 45 in answer to question 204—

And then, talking about the trawling industry he said—

And then on the same page—

From that you will see the problem with which the Minister was confronted. Here you have the trawling concerns whose price had been controlled. It is only during the war period that the inshore fishermen have had no competitive control. The price of fish for the trawlers was 7½d. per lb. and the inshore fishermen could sell at 1s. 3d. It was shown that there was no control of the fish sold by the inshore fishermen. The only control was on the retail price of fish sold in the shops and because of that the inshore fishermen have been able to make a good living. His living has improved 400 per cent. It has meant £30 and £40 per month to him. That is in the evidence in the report.

It is temporary.

I agree. But the position is this. Private enterprise which has been blackguarded in this House on so many occasions always tries to produce at the cheapest price.

And sell at the dearest.

They try to produce fish at the cheapest price. They went into the trawling business and of course they want to sell as much fish as they can, because on every pound of fish that they sell they make a profit. Surely that is the economic position. On every pound you sell you make a bit of money. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) mentioned soles. If soles cost them 2d. per lb., there is an unlimited market at 1s. 4d. Now would not they try to catch more soles to get that extra profit. Surely that is common sense. But the position in regard to soles is this—that it takes some time to catch 300 lbs. of soles whereas you can catch a few thousand pounds of other types of fish in the same time.

It seems a fishy story.

Now the Minister is trying by means of this fishing corporation, this fishing bank which other countries have, to give improved methods of catching fish for inshore fishermen, trying to help them to reduce their cost of production, trying to help them to improve their methods of catching fish, and in that way we shall probably get more fish from the inshore fishing people and it will enable them to make a decent living. On the other hand there is the question whether there is an unlimited market in this country. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) indicated that we only ate fish to the extent of four pounds of fish per head, but how can you induce a native to eat fish if he regards it as a snake; if he has religious taboos against it. If you are able to do that by a corporation, and the State can force you to do that, well and good. I cannot get away from this economic argument: the bigger the market, the better the profit. The retail price of fish is 7½d. All through the Select Committee stage I tried to find out who was this middleman, this speculator who was making 5d. profit. I find that the one trawling company receives .172d. per lb. profit, and it caught 48,000,000 lbs. of fish. The other concern made under a farthing a lb. on its fish, and it caught 18,000,000 lbs. weight of fish. There was no monopoly. They were making a small fraction; they were not making 5d. I tried to find out how the 5d. was made out. I found that the fish shop had to cut it, take the bones away and deliver it; that cannot be done for nothing. And all the time the fact is misrepresented, that there is a terrific margin in the prices, that there is some scoundrel who is exploiting the consumer to the extent of 5d. a lb. That is not borne out by the evidence. These trawling concerns have been criticised very strongly in this House, and though I know I shall not get any support I should like to compliment the fishing industry for its real effort ….

You will get the support of the companies concerned.

It means nothing to me; it may mean something to the hon. member. But the trawling companies have produced annually something like 70,000,000 lbs. of fish.

They have not produced it, they have caught it.

They have taken the fish out of the water, but that is just a minor point. The real point is that they are producing food for the country. The price of their fish has not gone up. I wonder whether the other producers of the country can say likewise about their products? In addition the Government took over some of the trawling vessels belonging to the trawling companies.

At a price.

Yes, at a price fixed by the Government.

And the Government was quite right to do so. I think I could add that the trawling companies would be glad to buy the ships back at twice the price that was paid for them. Accordingly I feel there has been a misrepresentation of the true facts in the case, and this is bad for Parliament. It is not fair, it is unjust. I want to reply to hon. members on the Labour benches. Their attitude is that they want the best for the most of the people. If that is the Labour Party’s policy I am a Labour man, I am a socialist. I want the mass of the people to share in the wealth of the country. In that I am a Labour man. I am a Labour man if you want social security, and if you tax incomes and if you tax unearned incomes. I want all that, but I do not want to break down private enterprise. I am not interested in vested interests. I am only interested in vested interests to this extent that private ownership brings a sense of responsibility that nothing else does. Who destroyed the wheat in Winnipeg that the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) spoke about? Do you think it was done by private enterprise? No, it was done by the State.

In whose interests?

In the alleged interests of the wheat producers. When private enterprise buys maize at 16s. a bag they cannot afford to let it lie outside and rot and be damaged by rain. To the extent that it gives this sense of responsibility I believe in vested interests. This, in my opinion, is a first-class Bill. I will go through the clauses and the amendments which the hon. member has proposed. These amendments were proposed by me at various stages. I was one who voted for this amendment. Sir, as I have indicated, this Bill establishes a fish bank to give facilities to inshore fishermen, to give them better boats, to give them better nets, and to help them’ in that direction. Not only does it do that, but it will also help to build up co-operative features in this in-shore fishing industry, and it is granted a sum of £5,000,000 at a low rate of interest to do that. With regard to the objects in (b) and (c), which allows the corporation to carry on the business of buying, selling, processing and marketing fish, and to buy the shares of Irvin & Johnson and the shares in any concern, the corporation has not been given a signed cheque for £500,000 to do what it likes. It has been told that before anything like that can be ventured on it must come to the House and place the facts before the House, and it will be for this House to decide to what extent the money will be granted for the purpose if required. If there is one direction where I have seen a woeful waste of public money it is on wild cat schemes which have been covered up under the name of State enterprise ….

Such as?

I can mention them in farming legislation.

That is not industry, it is farming.

It is only a matter of relative argument. But the position is that this corporation will now be able to devote its time to the improvement of the lot and of the methods of production of the in-shore fisherman. Then after that it could come to this House for further operations. The hon. member for Durban (North) mentioned this destruction of wheat. I abhor any destruction of foodstuffs, whether by private concerns or Government concerns. But I have found this practised more by Government corporations and such like than by private enterprise. The hon. member referred to certain evidence given by the chairman of the Chamber of Industries, in which this gentleman, Mr. Williamson stated that he had “enjoyed” a monopoly of making tin cans because he could produce them cheaper and make them better than anyone else. I could not see anything wrong with that argument. Anybody else could have come along at any time and competed with him; and yet the hon. member seemed to infer from that that the Chamber of Industries and its members all wanted one thing—to enjoy monopoly. I would have criticised it very freely if the gentleman had said he enjoyed a statutory monopoly, and that is the safeguard we have in competitive private enterprise. To show you how badly things can be misrepresented the hon. member for Durban (North) mentioned the case of a certain boat, the “Sarie”, and I think he said that it showed up a disgraceful state of affairs in the destruction of food at the present moment. I made enquiries and checked up on that statement, and I found that this was not a regular fishing boat. It is a boat chartered by the Government to carry stores to Robben Island. Fishing is not allowed in the vicinity of Robben Island, but this craft catches quite a lot of sharks and disposes of the liver to the Vitamin Oil people. The public won’t eat shark meat, and the fertiliser people, as can be seen from the evidence, cannot make it into fertiliser because the skin is too hard. I got the impression from the hon. gentleman that here was a flagrant abuse by private enterprise, instead of which I found nothing. I do not want to delay the House much further, but I want to warn the House against one thing, and that is the cartel system, which seems to be creeping into our economic life, and I want particularly to warn the Labour benches of that, because I can see in that system ruination to everything that is trade unionist or Labour. This is the evidence not by the Managing Director of a trawling company, but by somebody independent, Prof. Frankel, and this is what he says—

When the hon. member says, “Let us have State enterprise, let us have a State monopoly,” I say that that is the reply to a State monopoly. A State fisheries department or monopoly does not bring the fish out of the sea, the natural resources have still to be developed by human beings, and if you say that you will give up private enterprise which has proved a failure you must find some other incentive to work than the motive which actuates private enterprise. If you lose that incentive to work you have to put something else in its place, and the only other motive you can put in its place is fear. You know what happened in Russia. I should like to quote to the House what was said to Mr. Wendell Willkie when he interviewed the manager of a big factory there. Wendell Willkie asked, “When you run your factories, what is your incentive?” and the man answered after a while, “Well, if I don’t do my job properly I will be liquidated.” If vou say private enterprise is a failure you must develop along those lines, there can be no half-way measure.

We will have to liquidate the whole Labour Party.

I want to congratulate the Minister on this Bill; the Government has neglected the fishing industry; there is no doubt about that. In 1934 the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) sat on a Board which went into the whole aspect of the industry and made recommendations to the Government of the day. How many of those recommendations were carried out? The Minister has brought the whole thing before Parliament now and I am confident that we shall see the development of this industry on the right lines. I am confident that now we will see fishing harbours for fishing villages, and in that way an attempt made to help the poor fishermen. I should like to point out to the House that the State which the hon. member is so anxious to see doing everything, has been compelled to go to private enterprise for the material that it wanted for Defence. The Government research ship has been given up and the Director of Fisheries has been sitting during the war period as a Petrol Controller. Surely that will show you the limitations of what the State can do.

As my colleagues have already intimated, we are very sorry that this Bill has been watered down so much. The question that has come up here for discussion today is the question of private enterprise as against State enterprise. I should have thought that the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) would have been one of those, seeing that he says that he is inclined towards Labour, who has had quite enough of the bitter fruits that we have plucked from private enterprise. Take the condition of the fishing industry in South Africa. The hon. member has not denied that recently fish have been destroyed. He has not denied that, and so far as I know no one in this House has attempted to deny it. If then we have the position that as a result of private enterprise that food was destroyed …

Where was it destroyed?

It was destroyed through the parties interested in order to obtain higher prices.

Where was that done?

I am telling the hon. member that the fish was destroyed in order that higher prices might be obtained.

You do not know where that was done?

The hon. member knows very well that it is being done. I am convinced that if the hon. member for Orange Grove was still a lad then the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) would have given him a sound thrashing after his address. Does the hon. member doubt that fish were thrown back into the sea; will he deny that that occurred?

I want to learn from you where it occurred.

We know that it has occurred, and does the hon. member want to deny it?

That is prohibited under the law.

I want to know from the hon. member whether he denies that fish is being destroyed in South Africa as the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) has indicated here.

I cannot deny it, but I want to know from you where and when it happened.

Was the hon. member not here when the hon. member for Durban (North) spoke?

But he was wrong; those were sharks and not fish.

The hon. member will not get out of it so easily as that. I had thought that we here have talked so much about the destruction of foodstuffs that the hon. member could no longer have brought it into question. I will also say this, that if it were not the case, this Bill would never have been introduced. But seeing that it happened such a short while ago the Minister ought to have a war measure making it punishable so that people involved may be punished if a thing of that sort happens. Now the hon. member for Hospital says it was sharks. Will he tell me that those people who had experience all these years of fishing, would be so mad as to catch sharks knowing full well that those sharks cannot be used, to bring those sharks into harbour and then to throw them into the sea? Will the hon. member tell the House that story?

I shall tell you the story later.

No, the hon. member must not tell me the story later. He must tell it to me here in the House. He must not think that we are so green that we will believe that these experienced fishermen are going to catch fish which they know cannot be sold, and then later throw them away. I return now to the hon. member for Orange Grove. He alleged here, and it is a fact, that the mass catching of fish is cheaper than the individual catching. That is self-evident. But that is just the point. How is it that those people who are engaged in fishing on a big scale cannot deliver the fish more cheaply to the public? The whole point is that the price of fish has risen so that it is now outrageously high. No Bill would have come before this House if the private companies had paid the people in their service proper rates of wages and put the fish on to the market at a reasonable price. But now the hon. member comes here and says that no one has now any time for private enterprise. But what is the whole motive in connection with private enterprise and State enterprise? The motive of State enterprise will simply be to provide the public with the greatest possible catch at the lowest possible price, while the object of private enterprise is to produce the smallest possible catch at the highest possible price.

Why then does private enteprise not make the price 1s. a lb.?

The hon. member might as well ask why the Railways do not make us pay £100 for a ticket to Johannesburg. There is such a thing as limits and the hon. member knows that. That is no argument. The difference between the two principles is this, that where State enterprise in the fishing industry will have as its object to deliver the greatest possible quantity of fish to the public at the lowest possible price, private enterprise wants to deliver the smallest possible amount of fish at the highest price it can get, and that is the reason why we have this Bill. Moreover, we have the question of the wages that private enterprise pays and the wages that the Government pays.

What the Wheat Board also does.

The hon. member knows that the Wheat Board is still a private enterprise. The hon. member for Orange Grove has talked about the State that it has done this and that, and that the State has done nothing for the fishing industry. That is just because those who are in command of the Government will not permit the State to do anything. From our side we say that there are a tremendous number of things that the State ought to do and which are not appropriate for private initiative, because private initiative is out to exploit the public. The question has been put, what the motive is for the destruction of the fish. The best example that I can give the hon. member is that it pays private enterprise better to sell 15 fish at 1s. than 20 fish for 15s. That is the whole idea. When we heard of the burning of wheat and the destruction of a million pigs in America we knew that the idea of that was to keep up prices. That food was not destroyed for fun. The basic idea was to maintain the price of those products. The whole objective is to obtain the same amount of money with a limited quantity of goods. The hon. member agreed the other day—I am only referring to this incidentally—when I was alluding to the destruction of oranges, that one has to pay so much for one orange to enable ten oranges to be ploughed into the land. Under the present system the position is that we must pay for one fish an amount adequate to permit of two fish being thrown back into the sea.

When was that done?

It is not now a question of when one or two fish are thrown into the sea, but that it is the life and soul of that system. In that Bill the opportunity is still given to private enterprise to have a governing influence on the industry, and I am afraid that we are again going to be met with the idea of private enterprise not getting the greatest possible quantity of fish to deliver to the public. May I also draw the attention of the House to the seriousness of the matter. We must not think that because we have a good quantity of fish along the coast of South Africa, we are entitled to catch fish on a big scale and then to throw them back dead into the sea. That is a process of self-destruction. In a relatively short time we shall find that out if we carry on in this reckless way with our catches. The supposed large shoals of fish that we get off our coasts are not inexhaustible, and on that account in view of the fact that it is such an important item of the people’s food, we must set to work very cautiously. We must not forget that with every fish that we destroy we reduce the future supply, and accordingly it is the more necessary that the fishing industry should be under proper State supervision so that there will not be reckless methods employed in connection with the catching of fish.

What is the policy of the Labour Party?

It is a great pity that the Minister has watered down the Bill a little. Some of our colleagues are full of confidence. They consider he will make a good job of this. Well, we hope that he will fulfil our expectations and perhaps even do better than we expect. But there is just one hint that I should like to pass to the Minister. It will only require a small amendment. I think it would come under Clauses 3 or 4. Seeing that the corporation will actually be the body to keep an eye on the whole fishing industry—the catching, the storing and the marketing— does not the Minister think that he could include a clause, just a sub-section, so that it will also be the function of the corporation to provide residents in the platteland with fish or spawn, both for rivers and dams, so that we shall not be entirely dependent on our fishing industries at the coast, but be enabled to strengthen our fishing industry in the interior. It is, of course, true that various Administrators have done a considerable amount of work in this sphere. While we are now tackling this problem in its various aspects, I consider that we should at the same time incorporate a small amendment there so that it would be part of the corporation’s duty to make available fish and spawn for the inland darms and rivers; and not only that, but to advise the people what types of fish will be the best suited for the various dams and rivers. We find that there are certain types of fish that exterminate the indigenous fish in the rivers. Take the Modder River, for instance, that has the famous yellow fish. Twenty years ago there were thousands and tens of thousands of yellow fish in the Modder River. Today they are so scarce that they have been practically exterminated by the carp. The people living on the river banks declare hat the carp is responsible, because it catches the yellow fish while it is still small. In that respect I think we ought to have an amendment under which the corporation will be able to advise the farmers as to what sort of fish is suitable for their rivers and dams. I do not think that our fishing industry ought to be entirely dependent on sea fishing. Many of our dams and rivers in this country are very well suited for fish. There is one dam at Graaff-Reinet, for instance, where you can see wonderfully big fish. In that connection I want to ask the Minister whether he will be prepared to accept a small amendment. I do not want to press that amendment on the Minister, but I would be very glad if he will be prepared to accept an amendment which would impose that duty on the corporation.

I rise to offer one or two observations in connection with this Bill. I want to reiterate what I have said before in the House that my conviction is that where private enterprise does not function in the interests of the nation as a whole it is beneficial that the Government should step in. And that I what I understand to be the policy of the Government. Otherwise why was the Bill introduced in its original form, and why have we now the Bill before us in its amended form after careful consideration by the Select Committee. It seems to me it would have been well if we had had details of the amendments mentioned and to be proposed by the Minister before us as we discuss the principle of the Bill. I take it that these amendments will not vitiate the main principle of the Bill. The wire which we have all received from the Chamber of Industries deprecates Government encroachment on private enterprise. I would rather suggest the word “co-operation” rather than encroachment. This Bill comes to us after many years of consideration. It is not an emergency innovation. I take it to be an indication of what the Government will do when it is found absolutely necessary in the interests of a section of the community, who have a very precarious means of livelihood. I take this Bill to mean that the Government has recognised its responsibility towards handicapped workers in industry, particularly in cases such as that before us when so many who are engaged in inshore fishing are in isolated areas. It seems to me that the Government has extended the helping hand, and will through this Bill not give out doles but enable the inshore fishermen to derive a decent livelihood from the carrying out of their occupation. I think the Minister should have assured us that the amendments which he proposes to introduce will not in any way weaken the policy of the Government to rehabilitate and firmly to establish the inshore fishermen in their areas around the coast. In this connection the Government in my opinion, is making a further contribution to social security, and it is an experiment in that sense, to which I hope private enterprise will make a handsome contribution. I think under our present economic system we cannot very well look to private enterprise to care for the interests of inshore fishermen in the outlying districts, far away from the headquarters of and not connected with the major sections of the fishing industry. That makes it all the more necessary for the Government in this measure to make up the void and to ensure that it shall be financially practicable, through the sale of fish caught by inshore fishermen in the areas to be proclaimed, to put that section of the fishing industry on a sound footing. I want to say in conclusion that I do hope that as a result of research and other measures proposed to be undertaken under the Bill it will be possible to bring to the lower income groups of the South African people a good supply of fish in times when fish is so plentiful as to be in excess of what is regarded as the ordinary economic demand. In other words what is done in other directions to uplift and give the poorer sections of our community of whatever race a reasonable basis of livelihood should be extended to them in some measure through the introduction of this Bill. I want to repeat that I hope that the Minister will be able to make it clear to us that it would be financially practicable under Clause 3 for the Corporation to carry out all these rehabilitative and social measures which the Bill proposes to implement.

When the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) spoke on this question this morning, he went into details over the necessity for this Bill, and he mentioned the various factors why it was of such exceptional importance that such a corporation should be instituted. If we take into consideration, as he has suggested, that there are large unexploited sources of fish in this country, awaiting development, and if we accept that hitherto private initiative had not the capacity to develop those sources, or at any rate to develop them to the full, then we cannot do otherwise than perceive the necessity for this legislation. There are nevertheless a few factors that I should like to mention in this connection. Are we going to adopt the standpoint that everything that is novel must be undertaken in South Africa, and that everything that is undertaken on a large scale in South Africa, must be a State enterprise or a semi-state enterprise? Of late I have had a disquieting idea that every big new task has to be a State task. We have already a whole chain of bodies existing in the country, such as Iscor, Escom, the Industrial Development Corporation and others of the sort. Personally I feel somewhat disturbed about the position of our allowing large and powerful corporations such as these to develop, investing State money in those corporation and the State eventually practically losing complete control over these corporations. I am convinced that the Minister cannot do otherwise than agree that we do not know—nor does he know what the actual position is in those large corporations. That uneconomic production is occurring in connection with these corporations admits of no doubt. If we take the case of Iscor and we turn to the latest investigation of Prof. Richards from which it appears that our steel is actually the dearest in the whole world, it shows that there is a screw loose somewhere, and if we have to build up our industries on the products of these corporations, the dearest in the world, the future is disturbing. One of the chief objects of this Bill is to provide the public with fish at a low cost. Have we any guarantee, can the Minister give us the assurance that he will be able to exercise sufficient supervision to ensure that we can see to it that they will render services to our national economy? If not, what chance shall we have for instance in the future of providing fish to the public, and of storing fish, and of supplying the public with fish from storage and of exporting it? What prospects have we got unless our raw materials are provided by the most economic methods? Reference has been made to the backward state of the fishing industry in reference to equipment. Mention has been made of the backward methods that are employed by the fishing industry. If we establish a new corporation with large capital can we expect that the corporation will at any rate adopt up-to-date methods in the initial stages, and that it will use modern equipment. But is there any guarantee that the corporation will always apply the latest technique in the future? Remember the character of industry is highly dynamic; it is never static. The moment it becomes static it loses ground. And therefore it is in a certain degree disquieting that we should have so many State institutions over which we apparently have not sufficient control. Should such an institution reach the stage when its directors feel that its methods are modern enough, that their machinery and equipment for production is sufficiently up-to-date to continue, then it will virtually have reached the stage of having come to a halt and as I have already indicated it will be really going back. It is of the utmost importance that every new undertaking and company, every new industrial enterprise, and also the established industries in South Africa should be placed on an economic basis from their inception, and that they should be maintained on an economic basis. There is a certain number of members, fortunately only a small group, who always’ employ the argument that the time has passed when we should count the cost, and that we should only count the services that are rendered. Even though we should realise the ideal of a socialist state in the economic sphere, as is proposed by certain hon. members, it would still always remain in the interests of the State and of the population as a whole, in the interests of their welfare that production should be carried on on an economic basis. If this industry was socialised and converted fully into a State undertaking it would still be in the interests not only of the State, but of every individual, that production should be so organised that the best results would be gained; and that is a point to which I think the Minister must devote his serious attention. I feel that the Minister should strike out on a new line in connection with these corporations. It is no gain to the State or to the people if we abolish the so-called exploitation by private capital and substitute for it a larger and wider exploitation by State capital. We are striving for improvement, improvement of production and improvement of methods on such a basis that our industries will be able to compete, not only in our country, but particularly abroad. This applies particularly to the fishing industry. Accordingly I want to draw the Minister’s attention seriously to the fact that the time has arrived when we should keep the corporations under strict supervision. At the moment they have apparently all the say and they have developed into monopolies es, and the monopolies must be kept under the close supervision of the State and of this House, so that whatever happens care will be taken that they shall do their best to apply the most modern methods.

I am rather surprised that a member like the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) should have taken exception to the Minister’s amendments to the Bill. This Bill seeks to achieve a certain obective. What is that objective? It is primarily and purely to improve the lot of the inshore fishermen, both economically and socially. The economic objects are set out in paragraph (a) of Clause 3. The social objects are set out in paragraph (d) of the same Clause 3. This problem is one that has been known to this country for many years. The debate has rather carried my mind back to 1940, when we heard at that time of the plight of the inshore fishermen. This Bill sets out that that is the primary objective, to improve the lot of the inshore fishermen, both economically and socially. But the Minister in his conception of the Bill, in his conception that there were further aspects to the issue, has added additional objects, which may be briefly described as of a trading character. They are set out in sub-sections (b) and (c) of Clause 3. As to the plight of these inshore fishermen, I was considerably struck with the remarks the Minister made in his second reading speech when the original Bill was introduced to the House early in the Session. In describing the inshore fishermen he said this—

I think hon. members are agreed on the principle that something should be done by the State to improve the lot of the inshore fishermen. If one studies the evidence laid before the Select Committee it becomes clear that their problem is more than an economic one. It is one in which the State is rightly entitled to take a hand, and in which I submit the State has a duty to take a hand. In the same second reading speech the Minister made this remark—

The evidence before the Select Committee supports that statement.

Why exclude two-thirds of the industry?

I will answer the hon. member in a minute. It is not something that private enterprise unaided can undertake. I do not know Mr. Irvin, but if one reads his evidence one is forced to the conclusion that this is a problem of considerable magnitude from the economic point of view. He tells us that his firm has made attempts to solve the problem, and that others have made attempts, and he says many of his competitors failed because they confined their activities to inshore fishing. I think a case has been made out for the policy that is contemplated in regard to inshore fishermen. In regard to the second stage, objects (b) and (c), there a difference of opinion occurred. Commerce and industry took up the line that those objects crossed their path, and that the corporation would come into direct conflict with private interests, that the corporation would be endowed with such powers as virtually meant that it could hold the Sword of Damocles over the heads of private enterprise. There an issue was joined. I see no reason why it should be suggested by hon. members that commerce and industry should not raise its voice on this matter and make its representations. It has put up a good case before the Select Committee, and in other ways it has raised its voice.

And how!

And quite rightly too. Will the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) tell me what is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is the Minister having been impressed with it.

I will deal with the hon. member just now.

You will have a lot to deal with later on.

I think the Minister made a very good second reading speech, and he explained clearly to the House what the objects were. The objects were not to interfere with the existing organised industry. He paid it a compliment by stating that it was well a organised industry. I think there is no question about that, and to the extent that it is well organised some credit is due to it. The hon. member for Moorreesburg seems to think the original object of this corporation was to take over the fishing industry lock, stock and barrel, and it is for that reason he now objects to the amendment the Minister is proposing to make in respect of the issue of “B” shares, and the provision that they will be issued only subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I submit that is Parliamentary control in its very best form. It is in advance and not in arrear, and if a better form of control can be found I should like to know it. I cannot understand any hon. member objecting to such a principle. The hon. member for Fordsburg has made the suggestion that the Minister has capitulated to vested interests or big finance, or whatever one likes to call it. I submit this is just a commonsense issue.

If so, what are vou talking about?

It is self-evident that these objects, namely, (b) and (c) cannot be given effect to for some time, and if and when it does become necessary there is the provision in the Bill to carry through the objects, and all that is necessary is for the Minister to come to this House and lay his case before the House, and the House can pass the necessary legislation. I see nothing wrong with that. In regard to the second amendment, this is one which was also envisaged in the original speech made by the Minister.

It was more like an after-thought.

There are many things that may be overlooked at the time and subsequently put in, but the hon. member should consider what the Minister did say. He had no idea of bringing in trawling, and things like that into this issue. His great idea was to give effect to a corporation which should help the lot of the inshore fishermen, not so much to interfere with other industries. It is quite clear from the speech he made that that is so. All that he has done is this: He has brought the Bill in respect of Clause 28 more into accord with the statement he made when introducing the Bill.

Tell me why he didn’t do that at the commencement?

I do not know, I can’t explain that; I only know that the matter was mentioned in the second reading speech. The matter is a simple issue, it is bringing the Bill more into line with what the Minister had in his mind regarding the objects of this corporation. I see no capitulation to vested interests there either, it is merely another common sense amendment and I support both. I know the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) would very much like to have this as a complete State monopoly on account of his socialistic outlook, but I am satisfied that the Select Committee did the right thing and the further amendments will have the wholehearted support of the majority of members of the House. I am sorry that certain issues cropped up in connection with the opposition of commerce and industry and I am rather sorry that the Minister made the remark he did that nothing will satisfy commerce and industry. It was probably made in a little heat, but I don’t think the Minister really meant a statement like that.

I did not say that. I said nothing would satisfy the Chamber of Commerce in connection with this Bill.

That is not necessarily a correct statement. I think the Chamber of Commerce can be satisfied. I can see no reason why commerce should not accept this Bill with the amendments.

Why did not the Minister make these amendments in Select Committee?

I do not know, I was not on the Committee. I want to say that I think the Minister in tackling this matter has tackled it in a very sound and sensible manner; he has listened to various sides, he has taken into account the various arguments and he has given, to the best of his ability, effect to these arguments in producing this Bill. On those lines I support the Bill.

There are one or two small points raised by hon. members which I would like to reply to before I deal with the main objections. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) is anxious for an assurance that any amendments that may be made will not weaken the powers of the Bill for the rehabilitation of the fishermen. I can give him that assurance, and I can also tell the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) who raised the question whether the objects in Clause 3 would be amended to provide that under (a) the catching of fish and the selling of fish would be permitted. I can tell him that that will be done in the Committee stage. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) made an impassioned appeal to me to take further burdens on my shoulders and include the fresh-water fishing industry as well in this Bill. Well, Sir, I have every sympathy with the motive that inspired his request, but I am afraid I cannot include it in this Bill. As a matter of fact, the inland fisheries are under the control of the Provincial Council still, and therefore it could not be done in any case. Criticisms in this debate have largely centred round the two amendments which I said I was going to move in the Committee stage. The Socialist Party of course have, as a whole, disapproved very strongly, but then I never expected them to do anything else. They, naturally, from their viewpoint would like to see a State-controlled and a State-owned fishing industry. Well, Sir, this is not a Socialist House of Parliament, not yet anyway, and that was never contemplated, and therefore they co-operated in Select Committee through their member and co-operated very well indeed. They object to any amendment which makes the Bill anything less like an effort at a State-owned fishery than the Bill which was originally before the Select Committee. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus took the same line. He was very much alarmed at the proposal that in Clause 28 we should exempt the trawling interests in the sales through one channel, and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) has also asked whv these amendments are now to be proposed. Well, Sir, I can tell them. The hon. member for Moorreesburg commenced his speech by referring to the reasonable way in which we all behaved on that Select Committee, and I agree with him, Sir; it was a most interesting and pleasant Committee to work on. He also said that the Select Committee was unanimous on a number of points, and amongst those was the necessity for stabilising the fishing industry. I agree with him again there, but, Sir, where I am not in agreement with him is that he does not seem to remember or appreciate that the approach on Select Committee in dealing with the problem was not to establish a State industry. The approach of the Select Committee was to give the corporation all necessary powers to build up the inshore fishing industry, also to give it the power to stand up and pull its weight and make sure that the inshore fishing industry had its full share of the industry as a whole. The hon. member will remember it was even suggested in some of the evidence that the way that would be done would be through the establishment of a centralised company to make itself responsible for the whole distribution of fish throughout the Union. It was not contemplated necessarily that that company should be established simply and solely by the corporation. The evidence rather suggested that it would be done in co-operation with the existing fishing interests, and therefore the approach of the Committee in drafting this Bill was, as I say, to arm the corporation with the necessary powers, but at the same time to make it possible for existing interests in the fishing industry to co-operate with the corporation with the idea of rationalising the whole industry in the years to come. I think the hon. member for Ceres put it very well this morning when he said that as the result of the Committee’s deliberations the lines upon which the question was handled was that vested interests were going to be given an opportunity to co-operate. A great deal is said about vested interests; the hon. member for Fordsburg and his friends seem to assume that there is nothing good to be said for them. Well, I am not here as an advocate for them or to defend them or to criticise them, but I think this can be said that the lack of development of the inshore industry cannot be laid wholly at the doors of the existing private fishing interests. I think the hon. member for Fordsburg will agree with me that the Government and Parliament must accept a considerable share of responsibility for the fact that so little has been done to develop that industry in the past. Is it not reasonable therefore to say that in what we are doing now we expect and do our best to attain the co-operation of the existing industry in the work we are trying to accomplish.

You are leaving them the cream of the business.

I am not leaving them the cream of the business. If that is so then surely this Bill should, as I say, give the Corporation the necessary powers to put it into the position where it can stand up as a full partner and make its weight felt in the fishing industry, but to remove from the Bill anything which might be construed as being a direct threat or attack on the existing interests. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that you have to do one thing or another. You have either to say the State is going to take a hand in this, it is going for the existing interests and we are going to hit them hard or you can say, as we are saying in this Bill, we are setting up this body to develop the inshore fishing industry and we are going to give existing interests every opportunity to co-operate through the Fishery Advisory Council to play their part and accept their responsibility as part of the fishing industry. These are the two lines of approach and taking the second line, as this Bill has done, I am quite prepared to circumscribe the powers of the Corporation so as to reassure the existing fishing interests that no deliberate attack was intended upon them.

Would it not have been fair to submit these amendments to the Select Committee?

That is perfectly true and had they been submitted to me at that time that would have been done.

Why didn’t you as Chairman submit them to the Committee?

Because I had not got them in my mind then. There is nothing secret about it; I have been prepared all along to amend this Bill in a way which, without weakening the powers of the Corporation, would reassure the people whom, according to the policy we have laid down, we want to work with. No direct attack was intended upon those interests. The hon. member has asked me whether these sales through one channel are not weakening all the powers of the Corporation, and my reply to that is “No.” In this Clause 28, and that was where I was prepared to amend it, in sub-paragraph (1), it was intended to deal with the smaller harbours where we were organising the fishermen. If it comes to sales through one channel from which the trawling companies were to be excluded, that would be in Cape Town. And if an undertaking of that nature were contemplated or is contemplated in the future, it will not be done through Clause 28 at all, it will be done under the powers of Section 4, either by acquiring interests in existing companies or taking over as a going concern companies under the powers provided under Clause 4. The actual exempting under Clause 28 of the controlling companies from the provision under which the Corporation will have the right as a corporation to all fish and to insist on all fish being delivered to it at the Corporation’s own price, was never intended to apply to the whole of the trawling fleet at a moment’s notice. I am moving this amendment because I do not consider that it weakens the Bill but it has been represented to me that by removing that fear in that Clause, we shall remove a good deal of the apprehension with which people view this Bill.

A great many people are very strongly opposed to it—you have had the same people opposing this Bill all the time.

At any rate in my interpretation of this Bill that sub-section (1) will not be used in that direction, and in subsection (2) powers for exemption do exist—so the Select Committee clearly contemplated that there would be cases where that particular section would not apply. I do not admit that the amendment weakens the Bill and I have explained to the House why I am prepared to move it.

Was the amendment drafted by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) ?

No, it was not. I do not think there is anything more at this stage that I need say about this Bill—no doubt hon. members will have a good deal more to say at the committee stage. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) uttered some words of warning. What he really said in effect was this, that if this Act was badly administered it would be a failure. I entirely agree. He pointed to the lack of control over existing companies. Well he has seen the provisions for control made in this Bill, and he probably heard me say the other day that there would be further provisions for control in that the corporation would have to apply to Parliament for the issue of these shares, which will give Parliament much wider control. I therefore take it that he agrees with that and I hope he will take steps to persuade the hon. member for Moorreesburg, because it will no doubt shorten our discussions in Committee.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 15th May.

When this Vote came before the Committee a few days ago, a serious attack was made on the Minister and his department by my colleague from the Transkei (Mr. Hemming) in connection with the typhus outbreak we have there. I wish to say that typhus has been endemic in the Transkei for 30 years. At times it goes from bad to worse. When I came here in January there had not been a great outcry. It was not realised that the position was so serious. I knew that typhus existed, but not to the extent that it does today. And to bear that out I have here before me the agenda of the Bunga, which I received a fortnight ago, and there out of 174 motions, brought before the Bunga, which were discussed, there is only one dealing with typhus, and that deals with the training and employment of natives for typhus work. That shows that the natives themselves have not awakened to the menace of this present epidemic. My sympathy goes out to the Health Department in these matters. I know from my own knowledge of the difficulties which the health officers have to contend with when dealing with outbreaks of this kind; deverminising takes place and the Health Officers tell the natives to come to a certain place at a certain time with all their clothes etc. But the native is peculiar; even if the Health Officer comes to his own hut, he will take his best clothes—he doesn’t want them to go through the deverminising process—so he puts them in a hole and hides them. I know of one kraal which has been deverminised three times and they have failed to exterminate the disease. Those are the conditions which the department has to face. I am glad to say that gradually the native is becoming educated to the dangers of the disease and is beginning to co-operate with the authorities. I do not wish to minimise the position in the territories nor in the whole of the Union. I think this disease is endemic everywhere, but it is an extremely difficult task for the department and its officers to deverminise the whole country. I am glad that steps are being taken in the Territories to try and eradicate this disease. I should like to add this. The Health Commission were in the Transkei about 12 months ago and I was present when evidence was laid before them, and even then I don’t think that their attention was drawn to the spread of the disease. I think, had the Health Commission realised that this was the menace it is today, they would have felt it their duty to draw the attention of the authorities to the danger. I would urge however that the department takes into serious consideration the question of having vital statistics in the Territories. It seems such a simple matter. In the stock areas they have vital statistics for the stock. I know I have to send blood smears to Umtata, and if there is disease in my cattle I have to record it. They have a system there by which records are kept of births and deaths of cattle. It seems to me to be very simple to utilise the same officer to do that work, and to pay the headmen a little more—they get very little today. In that way you could keep in that area vital statistics and you would know what the real position is. I am sure that there are many deaths from typhus about which no one knows. A district surgeon told me recently that it was only after three witch doctors had died from typhus that he was able to take steps in a particular area. The witch doctors admitted that this was one of the diseases that they could not cure, and whenever typhus cases occurred they turned them down. The death of these witch doctors will help the department tremendously in eradicating the disease. There is another factor, winter is coming on and the department will realise that this disease is much more virulent in the cold season. Fortunately in the Territories today the cold season corresponds with the mealie season, though we are not going to get much in the way of crops for three or four months. But the tragic position today is that they have no clothing. Blankets are very expensive. A blanket that before the war cost 2s. 6d. today costs 8s. or 9s. The same applies to clothing. Before the war most of the natives bought second-hand clothes, and they were cheap. Today a native cannot buy a pair of trousers under 35s. or 40s., and that is a factor in his situation which I hope the department will take into serious consideration. I would appeal to the Minister to see whether he cannot co-operate with the Defence authorities and secure some of the clothing that, I understand, is cast off and is being sold in the Transvaal and other parts of the country. If he could secure some of that clothing and blankets for distribution amongst the natives immediately—it must be immediately, and we should not wait until the winter is over—it will certainly improve the position. That reminds me of one of the biggest menaces we have to face in connection with typhus. The natives crowd together in a hut, sometimes fifteen or twenty in one hut, just for the sake of getting warm. That is one of the main reasons, one of the chief reasons for the spread of diseases of this type, and I hope that the Minister will do his utmost to obtain and distribute clothing of some kind or other to these people. Anything that can be spared should be diverted to the natives, and they should be enabled to get it cheaply so that they can be clothed during the winter months. That simple step would prove a factor in controlling the disease. I think that the Minister and his department have taken, and are taking, as effective steps as can be taken under the present conditions.

What about malnutrition?

This is one of the tragedies in the Territories. Lack of sufficient food. At one time the supply of mealies was sufficient to provide adequate nourishment, because the natives had plenty of milk, but today on account of overstocking the children are not getting any milk at all. I do not know how the Minister is going to effect an improvement in that respect. Time after time it has been attempted to effect a reduction in the number of the natives’ stock, and the time is coming when the Minister in the interests of public health will have to take steps in that direction. The cattle are often in very poor condition as a result of poverty, and the natives wait until a beast dies before they eat it. The result is that they have for consumption meat which has no fat to it at all, and consequently a good deal of its normal nutritive value is missing. That makes for malnutrition.

Can’t they afford to buy meat?

It is not a question of affording it. The point is that the natives will not kill stock. They wait till an animal dies before they eat it. That is the whole point. It is not a question of not having money. We have here at the coast about 80,000 natives, and there are probably 150,000 in the Transvaal and elsewhere in the Union earning money. I maintain that not 10 per cent. of this money finds its way into the native Territories; it is squandered. The natives will not pay for nutritious food; they prefer to buy cattle, sheep and stock generally. That is the tragedy; all the money that should be going to help to nourish the children is not spent in that manner. That is a matter of education, and I suppose gradually as things change and the native becomes more enlightened he will realise that the money spent on good food is probably better than the money spent on bad cattle.

On a previous occasion, when my time had expired, I was engaged in dealing with the position that exists at the leper institution at Bochem, and I should like to say a few more words in connection with that, because I feel convinced that people who have made great sacrifices have not been properly treated—I refer to the Franz family. On the Vote in the Estimates provision is made for a nursing sister. She is Miss Schultz, also a member of the Franz family, a sister of the late Mrs. Franz to whom the whole of the Northern Transvaal is so greatly indebted. Just imagine there is one sister; she is matron, nursing sister and everything. To give you an indication of what she is doing I should like to refer to the report of the Department itself. From that it appears that the number of persons that were treated there for venereal diseases alone, quite apart from visitations, is 457 Europeans and 5,135 natives. Just imagine it, a single nurse has to do all this work. It appears to be almost impossible. She has to work day and night, and she has moreover to attend to private individuals who also go there, and for all this she receives the terrible salary of £12 10s. per month. That is disgraceful; it is a scandal. We are immensely indebted to this family who have done so much, but there advantage is being taken of people’s benevolence because they are prepared to make sacrifices in a good cause. I have already mentioned that the superintendent there is the lowest paid. He receives £400, while others get from £600 to £1,200.

What are the figures?

The total is 5,600 outpatients, apart from the ward patients. All the natives from the entire district come there for treatment, for injections and so forth. I refer to the report for the year ended 30th June, 1943. Some 457 Europeans and 5,135 natives were treated.

Those are the figures for Boksburg. You are reading the wrong figures. For Bochem the figure is 556.

I think I am right. In any case whatever the figure may be there is only one sister. Can you imagine an institution for lepers where one person must do everything? She must work day and night. There is no thought of leave or anything of that sort. Consequently I consider that provision should be made for an increase in the staff. Previously we had Dr. Franz there, a son of a former missionary, who founded the institution. The son went overseas to study and out of love for the work returned to that place. But what do we find? He was offered a salary of £350. They designate him “Visting medical official,” but he has to live there. Then he receives a further £250 as the official district surgeon, but that is in respect of outside work. Bochem is an impossible place for a family to live comfortably. No wonder that he left the place in despair. That is a great pity for he was prepared to make sacrifices in the cause, but no doctor would remain there for the salary that was offered him by the Department. The position today is such that an aged doctor who retired long ago, and to whom we are very indebted, went there, and he is in the hospital and this old man is doing as much as he can to be helpful. But he is far past the age when doctors retire, and is only acting as a favour. I want to repeat that the Franz family have not been treated fairly. And while we are talking about venereal diseases I want to ask the Minister what is being done to combat the serious menace that exists there, especially amongst the natives. Actually in regard to the natives nothing is being done. It is being allowed to continue and to spread and nothing whatever is being done about it. The last time I spoke I referred to the serious incidence of malaria in the Northern Transvaal. Since then I have received further letters in connection with it, and I am positive that the Minister has no conception of the seriousness of the position amongst the population there. People are lying ill with fever on farms all over the place, and amongst the natives the position is even worse. Reports have also appeared in the newspapers. A few days ago the following appeared—[Re-translation]—

That is the description given and I can give the House the assurance that it is not exaggerated. The position is really very serious. I understand that quinine is now available in a certain measure, but we should see that it does not arrive there too late but that it is always available. If it was not procurable at that time some substitute should have been made available. More information should also be spread among the natives that quinine is available to them. Not only the natives but Europeans should be able to obtain it free of cost and the fact should be made widely known. Good work has been done over a long period. Spraying material was available and dams and rivers were sprayed, but perhaps owing to war conditions there is no longer much being done and the efforts have slackened off with the result that the position has become graver. Sprays have now arrived but it is too late. The mosquito has com pleted its deadly work. That is why I urge that provision should be made in good time so that the spraying equipment is at hand before the beginning of the malaria season, and before any serious outbreak has had time to occur. In this way hundreds of deaths could be avoided. There is no registration of deaths so far as natives are concerned, but I can give the House the assurance that not merely dozens but hundreds have died of malaria, but no record is kept of the mortality. Then just a word about the remuneration given to nurses. Many complaints are heard from various centres that they have not got enough nurses, and that is chiefly to be ascribed to the fact that the nurses are not adequately paid especially in the early part of their career. They should be given better pay. I understand that a scheme will now be brought into operation whereunder the regular salaries and the remuneration of nurses will be improved, but it is necessary that that should also be made applicable to private institutions, so that these institutions will have to pay salaries on the same scale as in public institutions. [Time limit.]

Since the earlier occasion on which this vote was under discussion, information has begun to come in in some volume in regard to an epidemic of malaria in the Transvaal, and I am hoping that the Minister will take the occasion to make a statement in regard to it. The information is that malaria is rife in certain areas in the Transvaal, and the usual complaints associated with an epidemic of this kind are being made, namely, that there is a lack of the necessary medicine and of essential assistance for those who are affected. The story—and we should like to have a statement from the Department in that regard—is that numerous deaths have already occurred from malaria. I hope very much that the Minister will be in a position to reassure us both as to the character of the epidemic and the measures taken to deal with it. Now I want to say a word or two in regard to the typhus epidemic in the Transkei and the Ciskei. I am concerned at the moment less with what is being done to contend with the epidemic than with the occurrence of the epidemic. I have a feeling, Sir, that there is a tendency on the part of the House to excuse the existence of this kind of epidemic—for there is no doubt that there is an epidemic, whatever its proportions may be—I say there appears to be a tendency to excuse this epidemic by the argument that typhus has been endemic in these areas for the last 30 years or more. Now I am certain that the Department is doing its best to deal with this epidemic, but I am concerned about the possibility of the disease continuing to flare up at intervals in the future as it has done in the past, and I should like some sort of guarantee that the measures being taken now are in fact going to eradicate typhus and not merely to damp it down temporarily. As has already been said, typhus is a social disease due to social conditions. It is a disease due to poverty, overcrowding and filth. Now, in that connection, I need not tell the hon. Minister that I disagree entirely with the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) in most of what he has said. There is one point on which I agree entirely with the hon. member for Tembuland, and I hasten to say that and to underline it. That is in regard to the provision of clothing for the people óf the affected areas. I hope the Minister and his Department will take this proposal seriously and do what they can to follow up the hon. member’s proposal that the Defence Department be urged to make surplus stocks of clothing available to these people. It is very important that attempts should be made to provide the people with some protection against the winter months. But on the subject of poverty and malnutrition I entirely disagree with the hon. member. I know he persists in his view that the people of the territory are not poor, but I should like the Minister to refer to his Department the report of the Mine Wage Commission, particularly those sections setting out the economic conditions of the Transkei and get the opinion of his officers as to the hopes of building up any reasonable standard of health for people living on that level. The hon. member for Tembuland takes up the attitude that the malnutrition and starvation in that area and similar areas is just a matter of the bad habits of the people themselves, that the people just don’t eat the food available apparently out of sheer cussedness, that they will not kill their cattle for food, and so forth. Well, Sir, let members who are inclined to believe that read this report. It will show them how many cattle the people have to kill and eat. I am not challenging the fact that these areas are overstocked, but the provision of stock per head of the population is the real problem—and the condition of those stock is another problem. They are too thin to be any use for milk, which thus like fat and meat, has steadily disappeared from the diet of the people as the recent issue of the “Medical Journal” shows. And not even the basic food, maize, is now available in necessary quantities. It is assumed that the people of these reserves of the Transkei and the Ciskei produced enough maize to meet their needs. This is far from being the case. According to this report, based on the best authority in this regard in recent years the Transkei has produced an average of all grain of 1.6 bags per head of the population while the basic requirement is 2.7 bags per year per head. In the Ciskei, the average production has been 8.1 bags per family of five per year against the basic requirement of 13.75 bags. That will help to point the argument that the retail price of maize is a factor of the first importance in the public health of this country. It is useless to tell us that the Government has decided to fix the price of maize at the level which it had attained last year. That was already a starvation price for the majority of the people; and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the corollary to the hon. minister’s statement to the House that the figures for typhus in 1941 were the lowest on record for the last 30 years in this country and therefore there was no reason to expect an epidemic, is the fact that there has been a rapid upward rise in the cost of food in this country in the last three years, has made this epidemic practically inevitable. There is a distinct relationship between the price of maize and the standard of health and I would like some sort of guarantee from the Minister in his capacity as Minister of Social Welfare that this rise in the price of food is going to be a primary concern of his department. Now I also want to suggest to him that it is time his department turned its attention to the question of water supplies in native areas. I make this proposal without intending to cast any reflection on his department’s failure in the past to tackle this. I know we are just in process of building up our public health services and that much of what has so far been left undone has been unavoidable. But now I suggest that the department begin to concentrate on this matter of the provision of water supplies for domestic use in native areas. Typhus is a disease of filth as well as of starvation but the people must be given the means to keep themselves clean. [Time limit.]

I should like to bring un a point in connection with Vote 30 (e), namely the necessity for housing which I should like to emphasise here this afternoon. There is something ironical in the fact that at this time when housing is on everyone’s lips we should find it necessary to emphasise housing here. From time to time we have had announcements from the Minister in connection with housing. He has stated that an urgent necessity exists for the construction of thousands of houses, and every time he has made that statement he has emphasised thé need for housing. But the point I want to make this afternoon is that declarations of that sort in themselves land us nowhere in connection with this important matter. Accordingly I wish to express the hope that the Minister will be in a position at this stage to be able to tell us when exactly we may expect an actual start to be made on this great problem. As far as regards Johannesburg the City Council is prepared to commence immediately With at least 25,000 houses. Provision has been made ; the land has been purchased, and the plans have been drafted; and the only thing that the local authority is now waiting for is word from the Minister and the Government. In the same area there is room for lodging and housing of people who have been taken from the slums, from poor and unattractive quarters; there is space for 250,000 homes. In regard to Johannesburg we can build 250,000 houses, and then we shall contribute something to the solution of the housing problem. At a recent meeting of the Union executive committee of the local authorities the Minister made an important pronouncement. He said inter alia—

Those two statements surprise me. I see no relationship between national housing and sub-economic housing. National housing can be economic and sub-economic. There is absolutely no connection between the two things. The question is what is the difference between sub-economic housing and economic housing. Sub-economic housing is housing where you pay interest on the capital, but not sufficient to enable the capital to be repaid at the same time, but if it is occupied for a long enough period then capital plus interest is paid; and economic housing is where you commence immediately with the paying of the interest and the amortisation of the capital. My contention is that in South Africa the time for subeconomic housing has passed. In the postwar period the people will no longer pay rent. What they will want is security, and my contention is that the Minister should give consideration to that aspect of the matter, and if possible to do away with sub-economic housing, and an attempt must be made to put everyone in a position to buy his own house. It is peculiar, and I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us on this point, because I feel rather concerned that he should have taken an important official from the Johannesburg City Council to assist him in connection with housing; I refer to the City, Engineer of Johannesburg. That official has emphasised in the strongest way the desirability, or rather the necessity for economic housing. Now here is my question. If that person, the Minister’s principal adviser, says that in connection with housing, why does the Minister come now and lay special stress on sub-economic housing. I quote from that report—

The most important principle in that matter is eventual ownership. The man must eventually be the owner of his house. I do not want to go so far as to say that the building societies are playing a role in this matter. But in Johannesburg the building societies have said to the people: “The class of man who is helped by the State or by the local authorities to purchase his house is not a client for building societies; the State must help these people.” That aspect of housing, that security, what my English friends call “security of tenure,” cannot be sufficiently emphasised by us, and I am consequently surprised that it was stated here that the question of owner’s title must first be discussed. I want to say that before the Minister proceeds to lay the foundation stone of any housing scheme in South Africa he must declare that the corner-stone of housing schemes in South Africa shall be eventual ownership of the house by the occupant. During this session we have discussed two important matters. We have talked about social security. We have talked about the reemployment of returned soldiers after the war; but my contention is that this third point, namely housing, will be the foundation of the success, or otherwise, of thosé two important plans that we have set in motion here. The soldier who returns from the North will want a house, and the soldier who returns, will also see to it that that house is eventually his property. I think that one of the most deadly things in the capitalist State is house rent. When we are evolving a State organisation we must not allow that pestilential influence that has already contributed so greatly to bring about poverty in the world to fill a role in this State scheme. Before I sit down I want once again to make the strongest appeal to the Minister to place emphasis on that question of title to ownership, and to accord the man who is going to build a house the opportunity for that house eventually becoming his own house.

I should like to bring the circumstances of sufferers from tuberculosis to the attention of the Minister. We realise that the Minister and his department are doing what they can to combat tuberculosis as much as possible. I understand that it has been decided to erect at Mossel Bay a hospital with a hundred beds. In Umtata another hospital with 100 beds will be built.

That is for natives.

It doesn’t matter whether it is for natives or Europeans. I am in favour of tuberculosis being combated wherever it is, because the native sufferers infect the Europeans. You must fight it even amongst the natives and the coloured people because those are the people that communicate it to us. In Cape Town for example 250 beds are going to be made available, and 100 beds at Worcester. I want to bring to the notice of the Minister a difficulty that exists in the central area. There you get many cases of consumption, and you cannot always find an appropriate place to send these people to. The beds at Nelspoort are all occupied, and it takes months and months before a patient can be removed there. Now I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to make at least 100 beds available in Graaff-Reinet to serve the Midlands. If that was done then districts like Murraysburg, Willowmore, Jansenville, Pearston and other centres that today cannot be helped will be afforded relief. We realise, and I think that the Minister’s department realises that something must be done to combat that disease. The English proverb says: “Prevention is better than cure.” In the majority of cases where we have succeeded in getting patients into Nelspoort I am glad to say that they have benefited. They have all improved or recovered. I want to ask the Minister whether the requisite number of beds cannot be made available for the Midlands, so that tuberculotics may be treated there. Then there is another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister, and that is the serious increase in venereal disease. Today the position is that the people are under no obligation to notify or to allow themselves to be treated. As the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) said just now, when these people are suffering from venereal disease it is left to them whether they should notify it for treatment. I am referring now to natives and coloured people. They look after our children; they are taken into our homes. They might infect our children. One has no authority to take those people to the doctor for examination unless this is done with their consent. We should be glad if the Minister would see whether anything can be done in this connection. We feel that actually one should be able to compel any person to submit to a medical examination in order to ascertain whether he is suffering from venereal disease. If this is not done I fear that the disease will later spread amongst the European children. I hope that the Minister realises the importance of that matter, and that he will do something to assist matters in that direction. Whenever such a servant, whatever his colour, suffers from that disease he should be compelled by law to allow himself to be examined by a doctor, and if necessary then to receive suitable treatment. In that way we would be able to eradicate the disease, but otherwise we shall never stamp it out. Then I want to say a few words about the conditions under which district surgeons are appointed. I can well under stand that today the district surgeons cannot be all on a full-time basis. But still there are several districts where full-time appointments might well be made. I should be glad if the Minister and his Department would note what I am saying in this connection. These are matters that have been brought under our notice. One finds a person who cannot afford to consult a doctor. He goes to the magistrate and receives from him a certificate that he is a pauper, and then he is entitled to free treatment from the district surgeon. Cases have been brought to our notice where persons call on the district surgeon for treatment. They come to him at nine o’clock in the morning; the doctor goes in and out; and perhaps they sit there until noon before he looks at them. I do not say that all doctors do that. But it is stated that if a man can give the doctor 2s. 6d. or 5s. he is treated without delay. One gets cases where the patient does not get the requisite treatment from the doctor because he cannot afford to pay him. He is a poor person and has to be treated. I feel that if you can appoint full-time medical surgeons in certain districts it could be their work to look at these poor people, and they would then get the best treatment. I am one of those people who is not worried about the rich man because he can pay. The middle-class man can also afford to pay, but I am worried about the poor man who cannot pay, and whose health is consequently undermined as he does not receive the necessary treatment. I do not say that that happens in every case, but such cases have been brought under my notice and I deem it a scandal if a man is stigmatised as a pauper—he has a letter from the magistrate, and the district surgeon virtually lets him sit there the whole day before attending to him. Later the fellow comes to you and begs for 2s. 6d. or 5s. so that he may pay that to the doctor because then he will be treated. I hope that the Minister will give that matter his consideration. If he cannot appoint full-time district surgeons in all districts I want to make an appeal to him to do so at least in certain districts.

I shall very briefly attemnt to make an appeal on behalf of the platteland. In the first place I want to make an appeal for the appointment of district surgeons. The areas they have to cover are today altogether too large. They cannot cope with all the work. In my area the district is so large that no district surgeon could possibly cover it, because we know that it frequently happens that the district surgeon’s time is fully occupied from early in the morning to late at night. He must go calling in the district, and his time is fully taken up. I know that they have to get up at four o’clock in the morning and at eight o’clock in the evening they are still going round the district. I do not want to ask for more money for them. I do not believe that money can compensate the district surgeons for the sacrifices that they are making. Consequently I want to ask the Minister to reduce the size of their areas so that the district surgeon will be able to cover the whole of his area properly. In other words, give us more district surgeons on the platteland. The second appeal I wish to make is for free medical treatment. There is a good deal of talk just now about the rich man—that we should let him be. But the man for whom I want to plead is the poor man who is trying hard to put away a bit, and who has no sooner succeeded in that than the doctor appears on the scene. He is no longer regarded as a pauper, and he is not entitled to free treatment. He is reminded that he has a little farm or a plot of ground. That type of man sometimes finds himself in an embarrassing position. True he does possess something but he cannot really afford to pay the doctor’s bills. Then I want to say a few words on behalf of the poor man who is entitled to free treatment. First of all he has to go to the police station. There he has to swear an affidavit. Then he has to take that to a justice of the peace and obtain a certificate to the effect that he is a pauper. I should like to urge on the Minister that the time has now arrived when we should have free medical services throughout the country, and let the man who does not want to avail himself of that stand to one side. The man who is wealthy will look after himself; but on the platteland you find villages where there are still private practitioners and the district surgeon experiences keen competition from them. The private doctors look round for the patients who can afford to pay and the district surgeon has to treat the poorer people and the paupers. That accounts for a sort of inferiority complex being developed even amongst the children in schools. A child may be told that he has to get medical attention from the district surgeon, whereas the other child lets it be known that his parents can afford to pay for a doctor, because they are wealthy or moderately well off. I could go on for hours on the health position on the platteland but I don’t want to detain the House. Mv third appeal is for district nursing. In my district we have lost two nurses. Why? Because the subsidy is too small. They are dependent on charitable organisations, and those organisations will not assist. The result is that the poor mothers suffer. Accordingly I would urge on the Minister and the Department to grant an increased subsidy to district nurses on the platteland. There are many other points that I should like to touch upon, but we have already traversed the subject widely, and I would only add that I endorse the remarks made by previous speakers.

I should like briefly to bring a very serious matter to the notice of the Minister, a matter of which he is already cognisant. It is in connection with the district surgeoncy at Koffiefontein. This touches on a subject which may also have occasioned great difficulty at other centres. At Koffiefontein the position is very trying. The hon. Minister will recall that about two years ago or more I impressed upon him for a long time a certain matter, and that I went to see him one morning about it. The representations that I made to him emanated from all the public bodies in Koffiefontein. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) was as it happened with me on that occasion, and the Minister regarded the matter as so serious that he immediately called in the head of his Department and said that he should take immediate provision in that matter. What is the position? In Koffiefontein there were previously two doctors, at one time even three, but on the outbreak of war as chance would have it there was only one. The local doctor, Dr. Marais, had gone on active service, and after that the position was left as it was. An aged doctor, he is already 83 years of age, did all that was possible to provide medical services at Koffiefontein temporarily, but the position simply became impossible. The Minister admitted that at the time. It cannot be expected that a man of that advanced age can go visiting patients in the night. I am very disappointed that the matter has always been shelved, and that proper medical services have not yet been made available for Koffiefontein. The doctor at Jacobsdal who has his hands full in his own district has now to undertake part of the work at Koffiefontein. The European inhabitants of the town number 1.260 while in the district there are 1,405 Europeans, a total of 2,700, and the natives and coloured people in the town and in the district total 2 300. For all those people there are no medical services; they are only able to obtain a district surgeon occasionally from a neighbouring village. It boils down to this that the people have for all practical purposes no medical services. It once happened at Koffiefontein that a member of Parliament who was staying there took seriously ill. During the night they had to telephone to Fauresmith and other places to try to get some assistance. Those who suffer most from the stress of circumstances are the poor people at Koffiefontein They cannot get hold of a conveyance to drive to a neighbouring town to get medical aid. The expense connected with that is too great for them. Now, I want the Minister to make an announcement here of what he proposes to do in the matter. It is a serious business. Here are thousands of Europeans and thousands of natives virtually without a doctor, and the poor people are suffering especially. Instances have occurred where people have fallen ill and simply died owing to the absence of medical attention. Where a doctor joins the forces the Department of Public Health should do all in its power to have his place filled temporarily. That is the duty of the Minister. I am referring to this matter today because in the course of the last few days renewed representations have been made to the Minister and a petition has been forwarded to him in the name of the municipality of Koffiefontein, the Chamber of Commerce, the Farmers’ Association, the chairman of the National War Fund, the English Church, the English Women’s Association, the Presbyterian Church, the Dutch Reformed Church, the Oranje Women’s Association, the Women’s Missionary Society, Tabieta, a charitable organisation that does a great deal of good work, the high school— the principal and his staff, people who know what is going on—the Women’s Agricultural Union, all the public bodies at Koffiefontein irrespective of their political complexion. It is a serious state of affairs. Two years ago the Minister had already realised this, but all this time nothing has been done. What is the Minister going to do now? People are dying because they cannot get medical attention. The position cannot be allowed to remain as it is. Specific provision of some sort must be made.

Mr. Speaker, I have several matters I want to speak about, but my time is limited and I must say what I have to say quickly, I want first to refer to the hon. member who has just sat down over there. The whole answer to his complaint is the old cry that the Minister of Public Health has not enough funds at his disposal. Of course, he cannot have all the district surgeons that are needed. There are only 326 working and he needs more like 900 to do the work efficiently. Personally, I think 2,000 are needed to cope with the situation properly. We in the towns have to admit that the Platteland is getting a very raw deal in this matter, and that is due partly to the shortage of medical men and partly to the miserable reward which is offered for the work. It is not the fault of the Minister or the Health Department which has not the means to deal adequately with the situation. Here, I would like to say a word to the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). Typhus is not essentially a disease of poverty. It is a product of filth and dirt. You cannot say that a person with a belly full of food will not get typhus. If these people will allow lice on their heads and will not keep themselves clean, the sooner we treat them as we do cattle and dip them the better. If that report says typhus is a poverty disease it is not based on scientific knowledge. It is not a poverty disease, although it may be encouraged by poverty. It is the result of filth, dirt and laziness. We had it in Russia and other places in the last war when there was an abundance of food. Now, as to this malaria epidemic, the Minister of Health can no more get rid of this malaria by purely medical means than he can prevent typhus by giving the natives an extra bag of mealies. It is the surrounding circumstances that must be investigated and cleared up.

You want a few cases of Sunlight Soap.

I want to say a word or two under the heading “B”. No one has touched upon it yet, but it is very important. It is essential that we should in the pathological laboratory in the urban areas have a 24 hour service. Do you know what happens very frequently? A doctor gets the swab from the patient’s throat and he must have an answer at once from the laboratory. Suppose that happens on the Thursday before Good Friday; there is a delay which may have very serious results. In the Cape Town department of pathology the staff is very willing to help, but it is not incumbent on them to work out of hours, and I think it is the duty of the Minister to amplify the staff in order that the public may have a 24 hour service. Delays such as occur now are no good in a country like South Africa, where we hope we are making great strides in medical and scientific research. Of course, here again we are back to the old trouble—money—the lack of which is a great factor in most of our troubles. The Department of Bacteriology and Pathology have sometimes actually to go to the labour market for assistants who have no training whatever: The reason for that is there is no inducement for any with scientific degrees to become assistants in the laboratory. Further, I want to say a few words on venereal disease which is an all-important matter in this country. First of all, I think that the laws appertaining to venereal disease are in urgent need of revision. To quote one case in point. If a doctor tells a patient suffering from venereal disease that he must not marry he is carrying out the law, but the law does not say to the patient, “You must not marry.” Just imagine such inconsistency in this year of our Lord 1944. I have no doubt the Minister will consider that and other difficulties of a similar nature and endeavour to amend them in the near future. I believe we are spending directly and indirectly £125,000 a year on venereal disease throughout the country. It takes from nine months to a year to get anybody properly cured, and owing to the fact that there are not sufficient people to deal with this scourge the practice is adopted of injecting patients to render them non-infective. It is not the fault of the Department, but is due to the fact that the head of the Department simply has not enough people to deal with this scourge which is undermining the health of a most important class in the country’s economy. More than 50 per cent. of the non-Europeans are infected. What is wanted is a re-orientation of all our areas in the Union and an adequate number of people to cope with the position, and not just people to give injections. We want this thing stamped out, and the Department must have sufficiently skilled men to combat this disease. Here again we come to the underlying factor, the provision of adequate funds. I would not have any compunction In asking the Minister of Health to change the £125,000 we are now spending into £1,125 000—no matter whether he gets it by a health tax or by any other means. I have no doubt the National Health Commission will make some important suggestions on this subject, but in the meantime the position is serious. I am not blaming the Department, I am filled with admiration for the wonderful work it is doing— work which is circumscribed by want of money.

I am very glad that the hon. the Minister has intimated that he is going to establish a tuberculosis hospital for the south-western districts. Mossel Bay has been mentioned, but I want to tell him that I doubt whether it is wise to establish a hospital at a certain place merely because there happens to be some military buildings available there. I do not want to say that the hospital should not be erected at Mossel Bay. All I mean to say is that the best locality must be selected for it, and that a place must not be chosen just because there happens to he a set of military buldings there. Tuberculosis is so serious in those parts that the Church was forced to interest itself in the matter. Eighteen months ago a conference was held at Riversdale and alarming figures were given. The Church had sent people to the municipalities to collect the statistics. I was present at that conference. It frightened me to learn of the rapid spread of the disease. The Minister and his Department know that the number of tuberculotics has grown in one year from 14,580 to 17,136. That is taking the years 1942 and 1943. But the figures are higher certain parts of the country than for others. After the Church associations had taken up the matter that conference sent a deputation to the then Minister, and a promise was given that a hospital for these cases would be established. Now the Minister again tells us that that is the plan. Am I to understand from that that a start is to be made on it this year?

No definite promise was given to the deputation.

I know about the deputation. I was present. My question to the Minister is whether they will make a start this year on the erection of the hospital. The matter is so serious and urgent that something must be done. For many years I was a member of the town council of Robertson. I know how difficult it was to get tuberculosis patients off to a hospital. The hospitals are always full, and the people have to wait till the disease is too far advanced and until they have infected the whole household. The result has been that subsequently no further efforts were made to send the sufferers away. I have a letter here from the district surgeon of Swellendam. He is a man of standing, and I presume that the Department will accept his word. He writes telling me just what his own experience has been, and it is this that both he and his colleagues in the district have found that tuberculosis is spreading to a disturbing extent in those parts. He says that the doctors are powerless. They are not in a position to be able to do anything for the people, because there are no facilities for the isolation and treatment of the patients. No accommodation can be found for them with the result that they infect the whole family in the great majority of cases. In my own constituency there is one home where the man and his wife and four or five children have died of consumption. One of the children contracted the disease and because it could not be isolated the whole household were infected and perished. The house stands there today and cannot be sold, because the people say that the house was the cause of the disease. Seeing that the Minister has now stated that he is going to erect a hospital I am anxious that it should be placed at the best spot. I do not say that the hospital should be built at Riversdale, but if Riversdale is a better place than Mossel Bay then I feel convinced that the town council would make a free gift of the land required for a hospital. At the conference the feeling was that Ladismith would offer the best site for the hospital. I have always understood that such a hospital should be established in dry climate. The disease gained a foothold there on account of consumptives having come from overseas and settled at places like Oudtshoorn. They infected the coloured people, and as there is no chance of isolating the sufferers the disease has continued to extend its ravages until whole families have been wiped out. I only want to impress upon the Minister that he should select the best place for the hospital, and that the presence of a military camp should not turn the scale. We want to see our folk healthy, and we know that in the case of consumption the isolation of the sufferers is absolutely essential. I understand that the municipality of Ladismith is prepared to make a gfit of the ground. That indicates that the people in the neighbourhood are beginning to realise that tuberculosis constitutes a serious menace to society, and that some steps have to be taken. I should like to make this request to the Minister, that he should get moving as quickly as possible, and that he should select the most appropriate locality. I do not appeal on behalf of any place in particular. The Minister must make provision as soon as possible, because while we are neglecting the matter hundreds of people are being infected. I ask the Minister in all seriousness to give instructions to his Department to select a site, and then to proceed immediately with the erection of a hospital. Then there is another very important request that I want to make to the Minister. References have been made here to district surgeons. I have approached the Department, and they have simply replied that they cannot get the doctors. But there are old doctors who have retired, and I feel that they ought to help in this period of stress. Take a community such as that at Barrydale. The nearest doctor is at a place 36 miles off. Barrydale has no doctor because the community is not large enough, and there is no railway. The result is that it is not the sort of place that will be chosen by a young doctor. The place is too small and he would not have the facilities there that he would have at other places. I want to ask the Government to appoint a district surgeon at Barrydale. I want to mention one case to the Minister. During the elections a child broke its arm. That occurred forty miles from the nearest village. The people were poor but they had to hire a car to take the child to Montagu, fifty miles distant. There was not even a telephone. If a well-to-do person wanted a doctor it would cost him £12 10s. for every visit. The people are dying there; they cannot afford to pay for treatment. The Minister ought to appoint a district surgeon there as he has done at Knysna. Give him £700 a year. If you cannot obtain a young man get hold of an old doctor. If the people are not assisted the Minister must not be surprised if sickness spreads amongst the citizens.

The arguments put forward by hon. members this afternoon from all sides of the House all go to emphasise the correctness of the Government’s decision two years ago to appoint a National Health Commission. I entirely agree with many of the pleas that were put to me this afternoon. I agree that there is a necessity for greater measures, more far-reaching measures, to combat tuberculosis, and that we should attack venereal disease on a wider scale than we are doing now; that there is a shortage of district surgeons, and that the platteland is not at present getting a proper health deal. These matters are common cause. I think it has been a feautre of this debate that there has been unanimity on these matters on all sides. This debate has been carried on in an admirable non-party spirit, and goes to indicate the awakening of the public conscience in regard to public health matters. We did not hear these things a few years ago in the House, but the fact that members are taking so great an interest in these health matters shows that the public is taking an interest in them; and, if the public takes an interest, then public opinion is advancing, and public opinion will help in bringing about reform. The Public Health Department is confined to the limits of the Public Health Act at present, and the experience of today shows that the health needs of South Africa cannot be met within the limits of the Public Health Act. That is why we have appointed the National Health Commission. Hon. members, I am sure, will not expect me now, on the eve of receiving the report of that most important Commission, which has been carrying out an arduous task with admirable care and consideration, to come forward with formulae for dealing with these various ills. I cannot be expected at this moment, by waving an imaginary wand, to transform the existing conditions into something better. We have appointed a qualified commission to go into these matters and we know, from the report which we have already received from the Social and Economic Planning Council, that if we are to have something national in the way of health services it is going to cost the country a great deal more money than is expended on health at present. We shall have to pay, but the public will be prepared to pay.

We shall have to pay—it is more important than money.

The public will have to pay if they want these services, but it is an aspect of the matter which must not be lost sight of when we are discussing these questions. We know that in New Zealand there is a compulsory contribution towards a national health system; if We are to adopt the same system in South Africa, as undoubtedly we shall have to in some form or another, then many people who are not making any contribution towards national funds will have to do so in order to enable this scheme to be carried out. And I hope my hon. friends opposite Who have this afternoon assisted in this debate with thier constructive suggestions will, when the time comes to raise these funds, support the Government; I hope they will support the Minister of Finance when he has to raise the money in order to finance these proposals, and I hope that they will not suggest that the money should be made available from some source other than the persons who will be benefited by the health scheme. If we want a health scheme we must be prepared to pay for it. And everyone will have to pay for it. The money must not be expected to come by a magic stroke from certain limited sources, and the people who will get the benefit must not be expected not to pay at all. May I now deal with one or two of the matters in regard to which I have been asked to give information. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) and the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) have referred to the question of malaria in the Northern Transvaal. The hon. member for Cape Eastern suggested that while the Department might be taking adequate steps now to deal with malaria, it might have anticipated the outbreak and taken steps at an earlier date— it might have taken steps last year. Of course one cannot always be expected to anticipate that one will have abnormal rains at a particular time of the year or in any year, and it is due to the fact that we have had these abnormal rains in the Transvaal that we have hád this outbreak of malaria; but in actual fact the Department did take steps in January last year—in January, 1943—to secure a large number of malaria spray pumps. We did not know then that we were going to have heavy floods this year, but we felt it would be advisable to take adequate steps to obtain sufficient spray pumps. So an order was placed through the High Commissioner in London for 11,000 malaria spray pumps. They did not arrive last year, but, fortunately, the first thousand arrived in January of this year, and in the middle of April the remaining 10,000 arrived, at the very time when they were needed. They arrived at Tzaneen at the same time that supplies began to arrive at the rate of 500 per week from local sources. We had also placed an order for 10,000 malaria spray pumps with local manufacturers, so we were able to make available for distribution among farmers, natives and others, 11,000 spray pumps, plus an additional 500 per week. I am also informed that adequate supplies of quinine are available, as also adequate supplies of pyagra. A few days ago when we heard further reports as to the alleged gravity of the position, the Department considered the advisability of approaching the Defence Department to ask them once again to come to our assistance. That Department had come to our assistance in the Transkei through the provision of transport and medical officers for our typhus campaign. I had enquiries made whether it would not be necessary to approach the Defence Department again. I am now informed that the latest information is that the Senior Malaria Officer in the Northern Transvaal, stationed at Tzaneen, says that the malaria position was bad from the first week in April to the first week in May, but that the incidence of the disease is now subsiding with the advent of the cold weather, and that additional medical men and transport are not required. Actually we have appointed additional staff, mainly in the native areas, to assist in the distribution of quinine and anti-malaria measures. We have given authority for the appointment of a number of native assistants to the malaria officer. The effect of this report is that while there was this short sharp outbreak of malaria in the Northern Transvaal, that outbreak is now subsiding and the position may be regarded as satisfactory.

But is it kept under control?

The opinion of the Department is that we have it under control. That is the advice of the malaria experts.

A little relaxation will cause it to spread again.

A number of hon. members has asked for additional district surgeons. I attempted to point out to the House, the last time this Vote was under discussion, that it was not merely a question of salaries, but it was a question of obtaining doctors to fill posts that might be vacant. There are at present 26 posts for district surgeons vacant. The hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) rather suggested that it was entirely a question of money; that is not so.

You want more doctors.

We need more doctors and we shall, of course, have more doctors when our men come back from the North and elsewhere. But despite that we shall have to train more doctors if we are to give adequate health services in this country. It may be of interest to the House to know that the Public Health Department has paid out to part time district surgeons annual amounts of £2,000, £2,500 and even £3,000. Now the hon. member for Pietersburg has complained that we have not given adequate facilities to our district surgeons and that it might be the salary factor which affects the position. But let me tell the hon. member that we have in the not too distant past paid as much as £3,000 in one year to the district surgeon for Pietersburg. That is compiled from his basic salary, his travelling allowance, his allowance for operations and other matters. In other words, many of our district surgeons are receiving more money than Cabinet Ministers at present for doing part time work and being able to carry on their own practices.

They are doing good work—skilled work.

“Caparisons are odorous”, as Mrs. Malaprop once sa d, so I will not pursue that! The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has referred to Koffiefontein. It is true that he and the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) saw me about this a long time ago. I have asked the Department to fill that vacancy, and, in despair, I have told the hon. member that if he can find me a doctor I shall appoint him if he is suitable—as a temporary appointment. That is the position. The hon. member has presented a petition to me, which has certain difficulties attached to it because of the person whom it has sought to appoint. I do not want now to deal with the matter, but he knows the difficulties about the person he has put forward. But we are in this desperate position that we cannot get doctors to apply. Many of the young men who are qualifying now are not prepared to go to outlying districts to get experience; they prefer to remain in the larger towns where they can accumulate a large practice. We are not getting the proper response. So all we can do is to make the best of our difficulties for the time being. We shall, when the war ends, readvertise all these posts, and an opportunity will be given to the men in the forces to apply and I have no doubt that the position will be considerably eased then. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Tighy) has referred to the question of housing. He says that the country doesn’t want statements, it wants houses. I agree with him. But let me tell him this. That at present the Housing Board has given authority for the construction of 17,000 houses; that authority has been in existence for quite a long time and these houses are not being built.

Where?

The Housing Board has given authority to local authorities for the construction of 17.000 houses. The authority is available. But these houses have not been built. Why? Because of the difficulties that have arisen; because of the increased cost of building and because the local authorities are alleging that the financial burden on them is too great. I hope my hon. friend does not think the Government is standing still. We have sought outside assistance, and we have obtained the assistance of the City Engineer of Johannesburg, Dr. Hamlin. Through the consideration of the Johannesburg Municipality Dr. Hamlin’s services have been made available to us, and he, in consultation with the Building Controller and with others, is trying to hammer out ways and means to meet the difficulties of the local authorities. One thing is quite clear. We shall need new machinery for housing, and I shall be introducing a Bill before the end of the session to establish that machinery. There are certain financial implications which are still under discussion. I am meeting the Special Action Committee of the United Municipal Executive tomorrow in order to discuss the proposals, but quite apart from the financial aspect we have to create new machinery. We are going to establish the National Housing Commission, which is intended to give a drive and stimulus to the housing scheme. It is to be a national policy to co-ordinate housing throughout the country as a whole. I do not want to take the matter further this afternoon, because I shall have an opportunity of dealing more fully with the Government’s housing policy in the future when I introduce the second reading of that Bill. But I would like to give my hon. friend the assurance that the Government has not been sleeping in regard to this matter. You cannot remedy this state of affairs just by a stroke of the pen or by waving a magic wand. You have to approach the matter scientifically before you can embark on a large scale campaign. We have reached the stage where the plans are almost complete, and I shall have an opportunity of giving the House full details on the second reading. On the last occasion this vote was under discussion I had not the opportunity of answering the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Raubenheimer). He raised the question of climatic allowances, and alleged that in the Nelspruit-Barberton area certain Government officials are not receiving an allowance. I am going into that matter, and the Department of Public Health will look into it to see whether the complaint is justified. In regard to the appeal addressed to me by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) and the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), that the Department should provide clothing for natives in the Transkei, we should like to do that. Judging by some of the requests that have been made this afternoon it rather looks as if the Public Health Department is looked on as a fairy godmother who can do all these things with the greatest of ease. But I think I understand what the hon. members have in mind, and I agree that the Public Health Department should do its best to bring to the notice of the relevant Government bodies any suggestions which would make for effecting an improvement in the health conditions in the Transkei. I shall go into that to see whether it is possible for the Department of Defence to pass on any surplus clothing that they have on hand. I do not know whether it is practicable, but I shall certainly go into it to see whether anything can be done along the lines suggested.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he has devoted his attention to the recommendations of the commission of enquiry into the Pongola settlement. Why I am asking that question is a brief and succinct recommendation has been made in connection with malaria, one that merits the attention of all Government Departments. Has it by any chance received the attention of the Minister? I should like to make a short quotation from it—[Re-translation]—

But control is a complete failure unless everyone on the settlements and in malaria areas subject themselves voluntarily to the malaria regulations that are prescribed from time to time. Reference is made to the famous report made by Professor Swellengrebel, and it is stated that it was only after the publication of that report that South Africa set about the combating of malaria in an effective manner. In the report it is stated— [ Re-translation]—

Then the Commission goes on to say—

Officials of the Public Health Department are deserving of all praise for what they have achieved, but their work is interrupted from time to time on account of other departments and certain individual farmers ignoring the recommendations that have been made in connection with the combating of malaria. The result is that owing to the laxity and indifference of individuals and other departments the good work of the Department of Public Health is rendered valueless. The Commission further found, and this is what I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister—[Re-translation]—

Today the position is that other departments are interrupting the good work that is being done by the Public Health Department because they do not conform to the regulations. I should like the Minister to study the recommendations carefully. It is a brief exposition but it is one of great importance. It is refreshing to read that malaria really can be effectively controlled if the requisite steps are taken and if there is co-operation with other departments, from the Department of Lands and from the Railway Administration. That department appears to be lax in the carrying out of instructions. The system recommended here is that which is now in vogue in Natal, where the people institute voluntary boards for the combating of malaria. It takes a little time before the public co-operate, but once they have realised the value of the system the co-operation is forthcoming and it is then an effective method of control. Progressive methods must be adopted in the fight against malaria, and I want to ask the Minister to take up this matter in earnest. It is a serious disease, but it can be controlled if effective steps are taken. But what is more, we must be on the alert against its spread. At Kakamas near Upington the disease was eradicated, and the area was totally immune from malaria. But as a result of the floods the mosquito has bred in the pools and malaria has taken a fresh hold there. It will perhaps take years for it again to be eradicated, because the people there are not so accustomed to fighting malaria as they are in the Transvaal and Eastern Natal, and I hope that the Minister will take immediate steps in that connection in order to prevent the spread of the disease in that area.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HOUSE RESUMED :

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 12th May.