In dealing with this particular clause, representations were made to me by some interested persons that we should include in the objects of the Bill the stabilisation and reduction of the price to the consumer. We did consider this in a minor degree in the Select Committee, and it did not appear at that stage to be necessary, but in view of the fact that at a later stage we are amending Clause 19, with regard to B shares, whereunder a portion of the profit realised by B shares could be utilised for the reduction of the price of fish to the consumer, in view of the fact that that alteration has been made, I personally feel that this question of the reduction of price to the consumer should be met in the objects of the Bill. I have come to the conclusion that if it is not included in the objects of the Bill, the Corporation may, in years to come, possibly forget that it was the intention of the Select Committee on this Bill that one of the objects of the Corporation should be to reduce the price of fish to the consumer. I think that is in the minds of all of us in connection with this Bill; but as I say, if it is not stated definitely in the Bill that that is the idea in our minds, it may be forgotten in future years and I move that such a clause be inserted in the objects. I hope that the Minister can see his way clear to accept that, and I would like to leave it to him, if he will do so, to fit it in I move.

I should like to point out to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) that it is quite impossible at this stage to draft an amendment which would fit in with the Bill. It is impossible for me to introduce a new amendment at this stage, and I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. member’s suggestion.

Would the Minister consider the advisability of drafting such a clause to be incorporated in the report stage?

I am prepared to consider the matter but I cannot give any undertaking.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

This aims at dealing with products wholly or partly derived from seaweed. This is a consequential amendment as a result of the decision of the Select Committee.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

May I just ask the Minister whether he will tell us where the amendment in connection with the exclusion of the trawlers comes in. Is it Clause 28?

Yes.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I explained on the second reading debate that I intended moving an amendment to this clause. I now move that Clause 12 as printed be deleted and its place taken by a new clause as follows—

1. 12. The share capital of the corporation shall consist of—
   1. (a) five hundred thousand shares of one pound each (hereinafter referred as A shares, to be taken up by the Governor-General at par in terms of sub-section (1) of section thirteen; and
   2. (b) such a number of shares of one pound each (hereinafter referred to as B shares), to be offered for subscription or allotted at not less than par in the manner described in sub-sections (4) and (5) of the said section as Parliament may by resolution of both Houses from time to time authorise.

This gives effect to the intention that when the Corporation proposes to indulge in activities requiring the use of B shares, that is to say activities which are not purely concerned with the development of the inshore fishing industry in its narrow sense, before that issue of shares is authorised a resolution of Parliament will be required so that Parliament will know for what policy this share capital is required. I explained on that occasion that it was felt that the Corporation was sufficiently armed with all the powers necessary to develop the inshore industry itself, and that if in time to come it was necessary to enter upon the field at present largely covered by existing interests, it was not unreasonable that Parliament should be informed of the policy which the Corporation would adopt in relation to an established trade. And for that reason I move the new clause.

I find it disappointing that the Minister should move this amendment after the Select Committee has thoroughly considered this matter. The position at present is that B shares cannot be be issued unless Parliament is called together. It represents a limitation of the capital of the corporation, with which I cannot associate myself. I tried to understand why this was being done, and I cannot understand it, unless it is the object to meet certain objections which have been raised outside Parliament. If the provision were inserted that B shares could be issued when the Governor-General thinks fit, I might have been able to understand it, but I cannot understand why we should wait for Parliament in connection with the issue of B shares. No similar provision was inserted in connection with the corporations hitherto established. There is no such provision in connection with B shares. In connection with the iron and steel corporation it is the Governor-General who grants permission, is it not?

It requires an amendment of the law whenever new capital is required.

The position is that the iron and steel corporation started with sufficient capital. They were not restricted from the very beginning. I have no objection to Parliament eventually approving of the amount, provided a certain amount is granted now. You will remember that at the second reading, before this Bill was referred to the Select Committee, one of the objections raised by this side was that the £500,000 capital would not be sufficient and that B shares should be issued for various reasons, and the first reason is this: The public should be given an interest in such a corporation. It should not only be a Government undertaking. If this amendment is accepted, the Government will be the only body which will have an interest in the corporation. The underlying idea of this corporation, which has almost become a principle in South Africa—take Iscor as an example—is that both the State and the public should take an interest in the corporation and should therefore have shares in it. By virtue of the fact that they have shares in it, they take an interest in the corporation, and now the Minister is inserting this provision that the State alone will take its 500,000 A shares and that thereafter one has to come to Parliament for a issue of B shares. But ab initio no B shares are issued, and I therefore want to move the amendment which appears on Page 753 of the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). This amendment reads as follows—

The corporation will then have an opportunity of issuing at least 100,000 shares. That is a beginning, at any rate. It will not have sufficient capital. Thereafter we can come to Parliament, however much one regrets it, to get the rest or a certain number of B shares. But there is a further reason why I am anxious that a beginning should be made with the B shares; not only so that the public will take an interest, but you will notice that the fishermen themselves are given one representative on the directorate by virtue of the block shares. That is a matter to which the Select Committee gave serious consideration, and it is a good thing to give the fishermen a certain amount of interest in the working of the corporation, so that they can take an active part in the direction of the corporation, and they will then be given the right to nominate one director in respect of the block shares. If the B shares are not issued and if we have to wait until the next session of Parliament, the fishermen will not be given an opportunity. I think the Minister should really advance better reasons in support of this amendment. Why cannot an appeal be made to the public at this stage to buy shares in the corporation? The Minister ought to accept my amendment so that we can meet each other half-way. I am not even asking him to meet me half-way, I am going much further than half-way. Let us give the corporation an opportunity of issuing 100,000 shares.

The hon. member cannot move it at this stage. The clause must first be put.

Clause 12 put and negatived.

On new clause to follow Clause 11,

I now move the amendment which appears in the name of the hon. member for Ceres under Clause 4, but I move it in the new Clause 12—

I am not quite clear about the effect that amendment would have on the new clause.

Will you let it stand over until you have had time to consider it?

I could not possibly accept it at this stage. I understood from the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) that he was going to move that clause as an alternative to my new clause. I am prepared to look into it and see what effect it would have, and if we can come to an agreement we can deal with it, but I don’t want the clause to stand over.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. F. C. Erasmus, was withdrawn.

New clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 13, †The MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT : There are two small amendments in the English text. In the one case the word “ordinary” is deleted and the shares just become “B” shares. I am given to understand that the word “ordinary” is not necessary. There is also an amendment to the Afrikaans text. I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I have an amendment here. It is another consequential amendment to include seaweed. I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

I just want to point out that this clause represents a departure from the procedure which was followed in connection with previous corporations—Escom, Iscor and the Industrial Corporation. I mention this because I again want to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that it has become necessary, since we are establishing a fourth corporation, for Parliament to pay attention to the manner in which these corporations function. I therefore welcome the provision, as altered by the Select Committee in this clause, whereby Parliament will continually be in a position to know how the corporation is functioning. To show how necessary it is for Parliament to keep an eye on these corporations, I want to refer to the manner in which Iscor functions. At a given moment Parliament discovers for the first time what has been happening in connection with Iscor for a number of years, something which was never previously presumed, namely, that Iscor has developed into a sort of trust which embraces a large number of companies and which has assumed proportions which, if Parliament had known it earlier, would probably have been stopped. For that reason it is essential that Parliament should be able to keep an eye on the functions of the corporation, and I want to ask the Minister, therefore, to give his serious attention during the recess to the manner in which these corporations are functioning. I want to ask him to introduce legislation which will also cover the other corporations. I know I am raising this point at the last moment, but I think the Minister should give his serious attention to this matter and lay down provisions which will be applicable to the other corporations, in order to prevent a recurrence of what happened in connection with Iscor.

The hon. member knows that this matter has been having my attention, and I think he is also aware that during the recess I propose to go into the whole question of Parliamentary supervision of all these corporations.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 21

I move—

It was felt on further consideration that it was not necessary for the registration officer to be a member of the Advisory Council because he would be there in an advisory capacity to supply any information he had, and it was also felt that to lay down a hard and fast rule that the Director of Fisheries must be the chairman of that council might not always be advisable, because, whereas the Director of Fisheries normally speaking would be the man to put in as chairman, it is possible that you might have a first class Director of Fisheries with every possible qualification for fishery research who might yet not be the best chairman for controlling the activities of that body, and therefore it was felt that it would be advisable to leave the ultimate decision in the hands of the Minister if necessary.

I have a small amendment which I am moving with the approval of the Minister. The object is simple—it is to give the canners a representative on the Council and leave the representatives in respect of other processors in the industry to be appointed under paragraph (d). I move—

May I explain why I am prepared to accept this amendment? As it now stands we may appoint one representative to represent the canners and the processors. There are various kinds of processors—there are people making these vitamin oils for instance. If we leave “ canners and processors ” we can only appoint one man to represent canners and processors and then under (d) the remaining members of the Council shall represent such other interests as the Minister may determine. If we leave “ processors ” in there, I shall not be able to appoint processors under (d), but only such other interests as are not mentioned in (b). If we take out “ processors ” I shall be able to appoint such representatives of the processors as we may wish to do. There are various aspects of fish processing other than canning. We may want to have a representative of this growing vitamin oil industry, but as the clause now stands I would not be able to put one on if we put a canner on. We shall be free under (d) now to put as many processors on as we want to.

This is the first time we hear of this change, and it is not quite clear to me. We spent a great deal of time in the Select Committee on the constitution of the Fisheries Development Advisory Council, and the Select Committee carefully considered who should be appointed to the Council. It was laid down under (c), inter alia, that there would be six members—

There are six members. Now the Minister wants to insert “canners” in (d). Are you excluding them from (c)?

Under (c) we can appoint one man representing the canners and the processors. Well, canners are one thing and processors another—there are various kinds of processors. So either I have to appoint a canner and no one else and then there would be no room for any processors. I could not appoint processors because it says “such other interests as the Minister may determine”.

Other than canners and processors.

So we want to leave out “processors” in order to leave it free.

Could not the position be met by leaving in “processors” and increase the number to seven?

Then in connection with (c) I should like to move—

My amendment simply means this, that in view of the fact that the Minister gave notice that he will later move that the trawlers be excluded as far as the control of fish is concerned, the trawling companies should also be excluded from this advisory council. If they are to be left out as far as control is concerned, what reason is there for giving them representation on the advisory council?

Have you thought of the new section in connection with the levy?

Yes, we shall come to that and have something to say in that connection. It is true that a sort of duty is imposed on them, but the levy is not only being imposed on trawlers. It is imposed on all fishermen, inshore fishermen and everyone else, but when it comes to the control of sales, you want to exclude the trawlers. These gentlemen of the trawling companies do not want to be subject to the control in regard to the sale of fish. In that case, why give them representation on the development council? Oh yes, these gentlemen of the two trawling companies are very willing to have a measure of control, but when control has to be applied in connection with the sale, they start an agitation throughout the country and persuade the Minister to exclude them from control. I cannot see why they should have representation on the Advisory Council. This is an important council which has to advise the Minister, also in connection with the control of fish. The trawling companies will have nothing to do with that, because they do not want to be under control. The hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) has referred to the levy. It is but a small levy and we shall deal with it in a moment.

It is subject to the advice of the Advisory Council.

The control board can give advice in that connection, but the corporation can do so without the advice of the control board. By excluding the trawling companies, this Bill is torpedoed. The whole idea of sale through one channel is thereby torpedoed. Those gentlemen, by means of their agitation and the costly telegrams which they sent to 150 members of Parliament, by means of the agitation which they set in motion throughout the country, have succeeded in persuading the Minister. Why, since they agitated to be excluded from control, do they want to be included in this council and have the right to give advice? They themselves said that they were agreeable—at any rate, I understand they were agreeable to the Government imposing a small levy on them. It is only a small levy. They control millions of pounds of capital. They have at their disposal a network of companies which they control throughout the country—even cheese factories in the Free State. They have a ring of companies, which are interlinked; and with the big profits which are made by a firm like Irvin and Johnson, and the big dividends which they pay out, it is easy for them to pay such a small levy. But what about the poor inshore fishermen? They are prepared to have the levy imposed on them, but then they make the request that they should be excluded from sale through one channel and the Minister has acceded to their request. If ever the force was taken out of any Bill by one stroke of the pen, it was done by these companies in connection with this Bill. I say, therefore, that we cannot agree to the Minister giving representation to these trawling companies on this advisory council since he excluded them from sale through one channel. In connection with the section concerned, we shall later point out that the exclusion of the trawling companies from control and sale through one channel, actually torpedoes this Bill. In connection with this clause, we must take into consideration that the Minister is going to exclude them; and for that reason I say that they should not have representation on this advisory council. They do not want to be controlled, but they want to have representation on the council. I hope that a succeeding Government will include them in the control. But we are now dealing with the fact that they will be excluded by this Government; and I say that we should also exclude them from the advisory council, which body will decide how the inshore fishermen are to be dealt with. Why should they have the right to have a say in the recommendations which are made with reference to the inshore fishermen? The inshore fishermen will be compelled to do what the corporation tells them to do, but these mighty lords who, in the one case, have £1,500,000 capital and in the other case more than £1,250,000 capital, are to be excluded. But when it comes to giving advice as to how the inshore fishermen are to be controlled, they want to have representation on the advisory council. This is a terrible thing, and I did not expect it of the Minister. It was a great shock to me that he yielded to Irvin and Johnson and excluded them from control. But here he is introducing something which is even more serious; he is allowing them to take part in the deliberations of the advisory council and to give advice in regard to the control of the inshore fishermen. I move this amendment so that these mighty lords will also be excluded from the advisory council, since they are being excluded from control.

I think the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) is taking much too narrow a view of the functions of this advisory council. He is referring now to matters we will have an opportunity of discussing later on in the Bill. But actually they have nothing to do with this clause. The idea of this advisory council is not to control or to circumscribe the activities of the corporation. The idea of the advisory council as we agreed in Select Committee, was that we should set up a body that we hope would in time build itself up into an authoritative body representing the whole of the fishing industry whose function would be to advise the Government. For that reason, if you are going to have an advisory body to sort out their difficulties and to try to lay down a policy for the whole fishing industry, and to advise the Government how best it can be done, you cannot leave out the trawling people.

But you contemplate an amendment to exclude the trawling interests.

I do not agree we are excluding the trawling interests. We have excluded them in a clause where it was never intended they should be dealt with. We can deal with that when we come to it. But we still have all the powers.

Why did we have all this agitation throughout the country?

If the Government in the light of experience, decides that this corporation should have to exercise powers in order to establish the sale through one channel, or to enter existing fields of trade by compulsion or otherwise, the corporation will have to come to Parliament and say what it is going to do. The powers are there, but they are now circumscribed to this extent that if they wanted to enter into a compulsory amalgamation or anything of that sort in respect of existing interests, or to expropriate or buy them up, they must come to Parliament and state what their proposals are. That has nothing to do with this particular council.

Then they will have a separate agitation to try to persuade members of Parliament.

That may be or may not be. What we are setting out to do is to bring about a certain state of affairs. If that develops in the future into the rationalising of the industry it will be by agreement, and that is the main purpose of this National Advisory Council, whether it succeeds or fails no one can say, but we must agree that if we are to have any chance of succeeding you must have these people sitting round the table.

It is one of the functions of the board to advise.

Yes, it is one of the functions of the board to advise, but the powers of the Minister are not impaired by the resolutions of the Advisory Council.

The Government might be influenced very much.

Naturally it will be if the council does its work. But considering the number of people around the council table, it is clear that if one particular interest took up an obstructive or destructive attitude they would not get very far.

They have taken it up.

No, they have not taken up such an attitude. It would stultify the whole idea of the council if we excluded the trawling companies from it.

I should like to make an appeal to the Minister. If I had any doubt in regard to this clause and the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) that doubt has now been dispelled completely. There were members in this House, like the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) who were bitterly opposed to this Bill when it was originally introduced. Today that hon. member is very anxious that this amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) should not be accepted. He openly admitted that he represented big capital. This Bill was very greatly welcomed on the platteland, both by the fishermen and by the consumers. It was clear that the Minister was doing something very good, and I want to make an appeal to him not to weaken or to destroy that good work, even if it means his downfall. I admit that big capital is dangerous. He should not allow the influence of big and rich companies to influence him to make this Bill powerless. The Minister chose his words very well. He stated that the big companies were being partially excluded. He said: “I do not agree that they have been entirely excluded.” They have been included as to one half and excluded as to the other half. If it is the case that they have only been included to a certain extent as far as control is concerned, why should they be fully included as far as the advisory council is concerned? They wanted to be allowed to sell their fish as they pleased. They themselves want to be able to decide how they are going to sell their fish; and we know that they are not philanthropic undertakings. I put the question to them in the Select Committee, and they admitted that they were there to protect their own interests. They are now given the right to decide how they will sell their fish, and they are also given the right to give advice in regard to the method in which the inshore fishermen are to sell their fish. The Government introduced this Bill with the object of placing fisheries on a better footing, because we found that these big companies were making big profits while the public could not get fish. If these people retain the right to sell their fish as they please, and if they are concerned all of a sudden about the other people; if they want the right to give advice in regard to the manner in which the other people are to sell their fish, it stands to reason—and the Minister will have to agree—that if those people do give advice, they will only look at the matter from their own point of view. If they are included in the same way as the other fishermen as far as control is concerned, their advice will also be applicable to themselves, but at the moment it will only be applicable to other people and not to themselves, because they are being excluded from control. I hope the Minister will not—I shall not say— ruin the Bill, but that he will not weaken to such an extent that the whole object of the Bill is defeated. I think he should at least accept the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg.

I hope the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) will not press his amendment, because after all the general interests of the fishing industry are being considered, and they are entitled to representation on this council. I could have made a very much stronger case in favour of excluding them than the hon. member has done, because he seems to overlook that the big trawling companies are not alone the trawling interest, but they are also the processors and they are the canners.

They are the distributors.

Yes, they are the distributors. So, in the wisdom of the Minister, when this council is appointed he will see’ that outside of the big trawling interests they will not have additional representation; in other words, that the canners and producers and so on do not represent the same interests as the trawling companies. So I do not think there is any occasion for concern. I think the trawling interests should be included, more particularly in view of their promised co-operation in making this project a success. Even if you exclude trawlers they are still very well represented on the council.

Do you agree they should be included in everything?

No, I do not think they should be included in everything. I merely point out you could have made out a much stronger case for the exclusion if you wanted to, because they represent practically all the other interests who are represented on the council. But the Minister, in his wisdom, when the council is appointed, will see that those particular trawling interests are not predominant.

Is not prevention better than cure?

I really do not think that helps very much. At this stage the constitution of the council can be altered if it does not work properly.

I find that the hon. members for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) and Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) are misrepresenting the true position. We are not picking a board of directors for the Corporation; we are picking a body which will give the Government the finest advice it can have on the whole of the industry. If the hon. members suggest that the trawling interests which have for so many years been the biggest producers of fish, should not be in a position to give the Government advice, I cannot understand the reason. Does the Government need advice or does it not need advice? The directors of the corporation are not in the hands of the trawling companies; it has not been suggested they should be the directors of the corporation. The Minister said they should be there in an advisory capacity, to advise how the industry should be developed as a whole, and that is why a separate section of the fishing industry is represented.

If I understand the Minister correctly, he says that Irvin & Johnson have nothing to do with the matter. If that were the position we would have no objection, but I cannot understand how the Minister can tell the House that that big company has nothing to do with the matter. They have the greatest share. How is it possible that they have nothing to do with it? But when it comes to the marketing of fish, the company has got something to do with the matter; they control the whole fish market with their big capital. We feel at once that this company, with its big capital, will influence the Minister. We know what this big company did in the past. Another aspect of the matter is this: Are they not being singled out for exceptional treatment? Take the Meat Board, for example. Is there any company which is excluded? Take any board in our country. The law binds all the various undertakings in connection with a matter of this kind. On what grounds does the Minister propose to exclude Irvin & Johnson, this company which has the greatest power in the fishing industry? In my opinion the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) is very fair. It is practical. We feel that we should do our best in connection with this excellent undertaking, especially since there is a great amount of enthusiasm today. We must not give way to this big company. What benefit does the country derive from that big company? Nothing. We want to make a success of the fishing industry. Surely, it is a national undertaking.

Order, order! The hon. member must come back to the amendment.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg. We feel that if the Minister does not accept this amendment he will seriously prejudice our fishing industry.

If I were Irvin & Johnson I would say this morning : “Heads I win, tails you lose.” The Minister has already promised that he is going to meet them. He yielded to the agitation and he is going to exclude them. They will not be excluded from the control of fish; there they would like to be included. I did not hear any of the hon. members on the other side who represent big capital say: “Well, the Government was friendly enough to exclude us, to exclude two-thirds of the fish production, from sale through one channel. We now ask you to exclude us as far as advice is concerned as well.” I did not hear them asking to be excluded as far as advice is concerned.

You did not read the Bill.

You have not read Clause 28.

I understand the hon. members very well. I want to say this to those hon. members who are the representatives of big capital. They should come with me to the coast and talk to the fishermen and tell them what they said here this morning. The inshore fishermen have now established a company at the mouth of Berg River, the Laaiplek Fisheries. What did Irvin & Johnson do with their big capital? Hitherto they have never taken an interest in inshore fishermen. They were deep-sea fishermen. When the Laaiplek Fisheries started at the mouth of Berg River, Irvin & Johnson suddenly came along and bought a piece of land next to them, and also started as inshore fishermen. I want to make this prediction. Today the mighty Irvin & Johnson are only able to bring pressure to bear on the Government as far as deep sea fishing is concerned, but tomorrow or the day after tomorrow they will be in a position to bring pressure to bear on the Government as far as inshore fishing is concerned. As this council is constituted, Irvin & Johnson will still be able to get in at the back door. They control a large number of companies which are concerned with the distribution of fish. They control a large number of companies which are concerned with the canning of fish; they control a number of companies which are concerned with the fish trade; they control a whole series of companies concerned with the fish trade. Leave out the words which I ask to be omitted. They can still come in through the back door. The hon. member on the other side will have no complaint. If they want to give advice, they will still be able to give it. It is right that I should say at this stage who Irvin and Johnson really are. There are two companies. They produce 60 per cent. of the fish in South Africa, but they only employ 10 per cent. of the labour engaged in the industry. They only employ 10 per cent. of the labour concerned with the fishing industry. I refer to the memorandum of the Department of Commerce and Industries in regard to this Bill, as submitted to the Select Committee. There they say—

Here the Department says that they are earning big profits. If ever anything has been said which is true, it is this. These are the gentlemen who, while only employing 10 per cent. of those engaged in the fishing industry, now ask the Government to exclude them from control, but they want to have the right to advise the Government. They want to take part in the deliberations of the advisory council, and to be able to say how the sale of fish should be controlled. The Minister has now practically admitted that this advisory council will be able to give advice in connection with the sale of fish, but with regard to the control of the sale of fish, it will not apply to the big companies; it will only apply to the in-shore fishermen. I said that I wanted to say who Irvin and Johnson are. Before the Select Committee we succeeded, after some difficulty, to find out from Irvin and Johnson how far the tentacles of the octopus had already stretched, and here we have a list of the companies which are already controlled by them. I say “already” deliberately, because they are now starting with the inshore fishermen. They have now parked themselves alongside Laaiplek Ltd. of the Afrikaners at the mouth of the Berg River. On page 262 of the report of the Select Committee the following question is put in No. 1528—

Their net is very wide. The reply was as follows—

There are rings within rings—

Do you realise how wide the net of these gentlemen is?

It looks like a national movement (volksbeweging).

The hon. member should stop talking nonsense—

Do you notice where the tentacles of the octopus are?

What is wrong with that?

No, nothing, except that it is a ring within a ring. The company spreads its tentacles over a wide economic sphere—

That is the one to which I referred. Then the following question is put—

And the reply is—

The next question is—

The reply is—

We asked whether that was the whole lot, and the reply was: “Yes.” The next question was—

The reply to that was—

[Time limit.]

This clause sets up an advisory council and I want to know whom on earth the Minister is to appoint to that Council—mind you an “advisory” council—if he cannot appoint people to it who know more about this business than anybody else. I can really see no object in cutting out this class of people. The Minister should receive advice from people who are conversant with the industry and not from a crowd of nincompoops who know nothing about these things; and if you cut out these people you’ll get a crowd of nincompoops. In regard to Irvin and Johnson, I don’t think they are greater scoundrels than the rest of us. These men are experienced and they should have the opportunity of giving advice.

Experience in exploiting the public.

Nothing of the kind. A number of questions have been asked in this House and in Select Committee about the prices of fish and so on, and the replies certainly do not show that they have exploited the public. And after all if the Minister feels that the advice they give is bad or unacceptable he, like the Scotsman, can say: “Ah’m no takking yer dom’d advice.” (“I’m not taking your advice.”)

I want to give the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) the assurance that we do not say whether they should come on to it. The hon. member may have missed the point, and I shall not therefore enlarge on it. We say that everyone should be treated alike. If they want to have representation on the advisory council and give advice with regard to the fishing industry, let them then suffer the consequences of their own advice. Assuming the hon. member is appointed to a committee which has the power to decide my fate; he may say, for example, that I should be hanged. But if he himself were to suffer from the consequences of that advice, he would be very much more careful; he would not sentence me to death. Here we have a most powerful company which has a capital of £1,000,000 and controls two-thirds of the available fish, and they want to give advice in respect of other companies and other fishermen, but they do not want to be controlled themselves. They want to advise the Minister as to what he should do, but they themselves want to be excluded. Let me put a ridiculous case in order to make myself clear. They could, for example, advise that people should sell their fish at one-half or one-third of the price at which they themselves are allowed to sell it. They themselves would not fall under that provision. But I want to go further and point out that the attitude of hon. members in this House differs somewhat from their attitude in the Select Committee. We can see how much influence Irvin and Johnson exercise, and how a different spirit now prevails amongst those hon. members. I think even the Minister has changed his attitude. I refer to page 263 of the evidence question 1537. These are questions which were put to Mr. Abao, who appeared on behalf of Irvin and Johnson. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) asked him—

There was no question of excluding it. The first person who pleaded for deep sea fishing to be excluded, was Irvin and Johnson. The reply was—

In principle they are raising an objection to the Bill, but in view of the fact that they are unable to see their way to wreck a Bill which has already passed its second reading in the House, they are trying to eliminate deep sea fishing. They are, however, opposed to the principle of the Bill, and consequently you must regard them as hostile witnesses. And then they say that they are concerned about the inshore fishermen and that trawler, fishing is to the benefit of inshore fishermen. Just imagine, they are worried over the inshore fishermen! There is no company in the world which, when it is giving evidence, has not an eye on its own business. I think that Mr. Abao, when he was back in his bedroom, must have laughed heartily over the matter which he tried to impose on us. Then we went on with our questions, and I should like to read out a few of them—

That is chiefly done by you and the National Trawling Company?—Yes.

Our attention has been drawn to the fact that deep sea fishing represents more or less 60 per cent. of the fish caught?—That is correct.

We have to appreciate this, that the Bill relates to the sale of fish in order to regulate it and make it easier. We want to facilitate the public obtaining fish. Now the Minister wants to exclude 60 per cent. of the fish that are caught from the provisions prescribing control. I want to give the Minister the assurance that many members of his own party, the overwhelming majority, were in agreement with the Bill as it originally stood, when the following interests were included. Here we have evidence of what can be achieved by one man when pamphlets and books are distributed and telegrams are despatched—all emanating from the one concern that has various branches. They tried to use propaganda, and they have succeeded in that. I want to give the Minister the assurance that the general public, and that the fishing interests, except Irvin and Johnson, will support him if he stands 100 per cent. firm on the original idea and includes the trawling companies. We want to ask him to return to the position as it previously stood, and to include our amendment.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) took great pleasure in reading out a list of the various interests which Irvin and Johnson control. I could not correlate that with the arguments he used to show that that concern has neglected the fishing industry, and has done harm to our fishing industry. He says that they own wholesale concerns, retail concerns, they even have fish and chip shops, cold storages, fertiliser factories and all the rest of it. And yet he now uses this as an argument to tell us that these people have such control that we should be very wary of them.

I was trying to explain what power they have in the country.

With all the control they have they have never put up the price of fish. I wonder if the hon. member can say that about certain other industries with which he is well acquainted. The hon. member also referred to the African Inshore Fishing Corporation and he has objected to their starting because another concern, the Laaiplek Fisheries, had also started at the same place—another concern had started a fishing industry, and he objected to the African Inshore Fishing Corporation also coming in. But there is more in it than he says. I want to read out certain questions that were asked when the Select Committee was taking evidence on this point. We shall start at Question 1686—

Marine Products is the mother company? —Yes.

Who has the controlling interest?—No one particular person; Mr. Jameson, Mr. Van Zyl and one or two other private shareholders.

There is no particular large shareholder in the private company?—There are three principal shareholders.

Are you prepared to disclose who they are?—Is it necessary?

I should like to know. I can obtain the information elsewhere. It is just a matter whether you are prepared to disclose that information?—The principal shareholders are Mr. Jameson, Mr. Van Zyl, Dr. Van Zyl and Federale Volksbeleggings, which is associated with S.A.N.T.A.M. Nobody actually controls the company. No one person holds a majority of the shares.

That is why he is concerned about Irvin and Johnson. That is why he attacks them because through the African Inshore Corporation they are competing with an institution whose interests he has at heart.

That is the octopus.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has not followed our arguments. I have stated that Irvin and Johnson have been engaged for some years past in deep sea fishing with trawlers. They have never taken much interest in inshore fishing.

They have.

In the evidence it transpired that they had been interested in one place in South-West Africa.

Port Elizabeth.

It is not inshore fishing that they were interested in there. From the evidence it appears such was not the case. But they were interested as far as regards inshore fishing in a place in South-West Africa. At Mossel Bay they work with trawlers; so I am informed by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). There they are working with trawlers.

At Port Elizabeth it is inshore fishing.

That was not the impression I formed at the Select Committee. The only impression we gained there, in reply to a question whether they had previously taken an interest in inshore fishing, was that they had previously been engaged in inshore fishing at one spot in South-West Africa. The hon. member will, however, agree with me that Irvin and Johnson’s interest is with deep sea fishing. Why have they suddenly taken an interest in inshore fishing, just when other interests have gone along to the mouth of the Berg River to start operations in regard to inshore fishing? I have now represented that district for ten years in Parliament, and Irvin and Johnson have never yet taken any interest in the mouth of the Berg River. Now they suddenly come there to open up inshore fishing, just to compete with the people who have arrived there to inaugurate inshore fishing.

What is wrong with that?

This; that those people are so extending their powers that they are now also busy with inshore fishing. I have mentioned this as an argument to show that these people are continually increasing their powers. Seeing that in connection with deep sea fishing they have exercised their strength on members of Parliament, and have met with some success in this, I submit that if they start with inshore fishing they will do the same thing in connection with inshore fishing. If Irvin and Johnson had the same powers in connection with inshore fishing as what they had in connection with deep sea fishing, then they would never have advanced as far with the Bill as we have today. Then they would not only have asked for the exclusion of deep sea fishing, but also of inshore fishing, and they would have got that; because they have now claimed the right to exclude two-thirds of the fishing interests. There are no limits to what they ask. Do you know how far they went on the Select Committee? They not only asked that the trawling interests should be excluded, but they even asked that all the companies with which they are connected should be excluded. Fortunately, the Minister stood firm there, and I trust that he will continue to stand firm. The ramifications of that company are very extensive, and although we are now faced with the unfortunate position that we have exempted the trawling companies, I hope that we shall not also exclude all those other companies. I want to add this, that it has appeared strange to me that while this Bill, welcomed as it has been by everyone, has been before Parliament, and has been carefully dealt with by the Select Committee, while no one on the Select Committee was agreeable to yielding to the agitation which commenced in that Select Committee—including the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) ….

No, read my amendment.

Yes, the hon. member had no objection to that. I discussed his case, but eventually without the Minister having yielded in the Select Committee, or having excluded the trawling interests, the hon. member agreed.

I proposed an amendment.

Yes, but when the amendment was rejected the hon. member did nothing further, and he accepted the position.

I am not so childish as to walk out.

We had good reason to do that. The hon. member raised no further objection, and it was a revelation to me that hon. members opposite yielded in the Select Committee in face of the influence that was exercised on them. I maintain that, after the hon. member proposed his amendment, for which he could gain no support—there was only himself and his seconder ….

Yes, that is so.

After we had thrown out the amendment we did not hear anything more about it. The Minister then stood firm. We were all glad about that. But then the real agitation began. Then those people began to send their telegrams and memoranda and to approach hon. members personally. It became so bad that whenever we went to our post office boxes they were usually filled with memoranda from the different subsidiary companies of these interests.

What is Parliament for?

Not to give in to these big interests.

But to amend laws.

Yes, but it is very clear why this Bill was altered. I am sorry that the Minister stated here this morning that it was not the intention to include these companies. Why did the agitation then cease? After he had excluded these companies the agitations were discontinued. Suddenly my post office box was empty, and other members had the same experience. All of a sudden these gentlemen are highly satisfied. But previously they were not satisfied. They are now satisfied because they have been accommodated. The Minister introduced an amendment to meet them and to exempt them from control. That is the point at issue, and I am glad, Mr. Chairman, that in connection with this clause you have permitted us to discuss the broader question. I do not agree that those companies should be excluded in regard to the control of sales. But if they are excluded, if the Government now agrees that two-thirds of the fishing industry are to be excluded, as far as the control of sales and the one channel are concerned, then it is not right that they should sit on this advisory board to give advice as to how one-third of the fishing industry should be treated. Accordingly, I recommend my amendment strongly.

I am sure that no one will accuse me of trying to restrict discussion, but there has been a great deal of talk on this clause, and I had hoped that we should have been able to get on to the next one. A lot of the argument which has been used is not directly germane to this clause. It is a very plain point. The establishment of this advisory council is something apart from the establishment of the Corporation, and the advisory council is being established in order to try and get going a body which will help to build up the fishing industry as a whole and upon which the Corporation representing the inshore fishermen can play its full part, and upon which the Government will be able to co-operate with existing interests. That is the intention of the advisory council. In the meantime the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) proposes that the two large companies catching trawled fish shall be excluded from the right to sit on that council. To do that would stultify the whole council which is to have round table conferences to discuss various interests and various matters of importance to the industry. Moreover the amendment is not of any practical use even if it were accepted, because if he is going to be consistent and carry the argument to its logical conclusion he should also exclude distributors and canners and processors and all those interests in which the trawling concerns have substantial interests, and even then it would still leave the Minister free under (d) to put them on the council. So while I appreciate that the hon. member has moved his amendment in order to state his case, I cannot accept it because it would be wrong in principle to exclude these people.

I merely want to say a few words to make my position on this important clause of the Bill perfectly clear. I expressed myself very clearly on this same question on the motion for the second reading of the Bill and I do not intend this morning going into that same aspect again. I hold no brief for any of the trawler companies or any big capitalist. I made it perfectly clear in the debate on the second reading that if there was one thing I was afraid of in regard to this Bill, and if there was one thing against which we had to guard, it was this, that we should not be exploited by big capital once the Bill came into force. It has been said by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) that the trawling companies which gave evidence naturally did so in their own interests. It is self-evident that all the witnesses who gave evidence did so in their own interests. It is also self-evident that a company which has shown so much private initiative and which has helped so much to develop the fishing industry to the level it is on today—as was clearly stated by the hon. member for Moorreesburg—is going to object to a Bill being introduced which may tend to interfere with those interests. It is only human and one cannot get away from it.

But the inshore fishermen are too weak and they cannot exercise the same pressure.

I am coming to that. I want to deal with that a little later on. I say that those interests would have been untrue to themselves if they had not protested. Anyone would do so; one cannot expect anything else. But now this question arises in my mind. If this Bill is to operate smoothly, if it is to answer its purpose, and if the industry under this legislation is to adopt a form which will be in the best interests of the country in general, will it then be possible entirely to eliminate interests which have developed as a result of private initiative, such as the trawling companies have done, and to confine them to an advisory capacity?

Well, then include them everywhere.

I am asking whether it is possible.

You will still have to decide that question.

I am asking, in the light of the facts as I see them whether it is possible to do so. Can you give satisfaction and get a perfect law, and apply the legislation in the way it should be applied, if you exclude certain interests. What I am afraid of is this, that if you do so, as a result of the exclusion of big capital the whole industry will become undermined in such a manner that you will have no control.

By whom will that be done? Are you going to vote for the amendment which is going to be introduced?

I don’t know anything about the amendment which is going to be introduced.

You know it perfectly well because the whole country is talking about it.

If there is one thing on which the country has expressed itself very clearly in regard to the original Bill it is that it will kill private initiative. People were afraid that the Bill was going to interfere in such a manner that it would eliminate all private enterprise. That was the primary main objection.

That is the story which Irvin and Johnson spread and it is untrue.

That may be, but are we to take it that on a board consisting of eight or more than eight members one representative is going to have such a tremendous influence, especially if he is going to be there in an advisory capacity, that he will dominate the whole board. I cannot accept that. If it is so, it will have to be a very weak board. What I do feel is that you cannot exclude the companies and then expect the Bill to give the necessary satisfaction and to develop along sound lines. Surely the main object of this legislation is to protect the inshore fishermen and to promote their interests. Is it not possible for those fishermen to get better representation than any other interests on the board? I want to put that forward for the Minister’s consideration and I feel that if there is one section which should have double representation on the board it is undoubtedly the inshore fishermen.

I do not want to hold up the debate, but I rise because it appears to us that it is not yet entirely clear to hon. members on that side of the House what the intention of our amendment is. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet), keeps on asking whether we can exclude such a large group of people. Our standpoint is this. They should not be included when it comes to a question of advice regarding what should be done in respect of other people’s fish, and then excluded when it comes to the distribution of the fish. They want to remain outside in that respect. If the Minister has decided not to move this amendment later, then we shall immediately refrain from further discussion. If the Minister says that Irvin and Johnson will be included, then I shall have nothing further to say. But here you are giving them the right to advise as to what should be done with other people’s fish, while they are not being included in the matter of the distribution of the fish. I want to put this to the hon. member for Caledon. Take the wheatgrowers. Would he be willing that a section of the wheat farmers should be permitted to sell wheat without being subject to control, while other wheatgrowers would be subject to control, and then at the same time allow them to have representation on the advisory board? I maintain here that Irvin and Johnson are hostile to this Bill. They are hostile to every clause in the Bill. Irvin and Johnson, as the hon. member for Caledon has stated, is there to look after their own interests. I should like to read two questions from the report of the Select Committee to prove that what we are stating here is really the case, that Irvin and Johnson are not so deeply concerned about the distribution of fish, that it really does not affect them whether we get fish or not. They are worried over their own interests. In question 1545 they were asked—

The answer is—

The following question is—

The answer is—

They do not think about the fishing industry as a whole; they have no thought for the welfare of the fishermen. I am in agreement with the hon. member for Caledon that it is only human to look after your own interests, but we must not, on that account, allow ourselves to be entrapped. Are they going to be included in everything, or are they going to be excluded from everything?

Even if thereby you undermine the Bill?

The Minister would very readily have obtained a large majority on the board if he had adhered to his previous attitude.

The Minister is proposing another amendment.

We are afraid that the Minister’s amendment will have just that effect which the hon. member for Caledon fears. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. I do not say that this amendment of his will defeat the purpose of the Bill, but it will almost have that effect. Accordingly, I should like to appeal to him to come back to the spirit that prevailed in the Select Committee. There were only one or two members on the Select Committee who were sympathetic towards the outlook of Irvin and Johnson. What is peculiar is this. In the Committee the members of the Labour Party were the greatest opponents of Irvin and Johnson. The members of the Labour Party discussed with the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) and myself the hopelessness of the position, or even the wrecking of the Bill, if Irvin and Johnson got their way; and today while we plead for control in connection with the distribution of fish, the members of the Labour Party are conspicuous by their absence. There is not a single member of the Labour Party in the House. I hope that the Minister will not go so far as to make this a Government measure. Let there be a free vote, leaving it to every member to make his choice. Let every member in the House vote on non-party lines, and according to his own convictions in the best interests of the country in general. If the Minister cannot accept this amendment, I want to make an appeal to him to stand up in the House and to tell the Government supporters that we leave this as an open question for the House to decide. The Minister will be surprised to find how few members, even of those on his side of the House, will vote for him.

I cannot allow the remarks of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) and the interjections of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) in regard to the proprietors of Laaiplek Ltd. to pass. It would be wrong for me to leave the matter without comment. Let me make a comparison between the directors of Laaiplek Ltd. and the directors of Irvin and Johnson. Who are the directors of this big octopus company I have mentioned which has such numerous tentacles and so many branches throughout the country? Mr. Johnson, Mr. Furneaux, Mr. Lobban, Mr. Elmslie and Mr. Abao—those are the five directors. They are the five directors who have all these powers which I read out this morning. And now the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Hospital make those sneering remarks about this Afrikaner company, die Federale Volksbeleggings, Bpk., which is also one of the shareholders in Laaiplek Ltd. The difference between the two is this. Whereas Irvin and Johnson have five directors, the Federale Volksbeleggings, Bpk., have shareholders right throughout the country. The Federale Volksbeleggings, Bpk., is a company in which the whole of the people of South Africa have representative shares in both branches. The shareholders are small shareholders.

Is it not a political movement?

Everything Afrikaans is political to your way of thinking.

That interjection is nonsensical.

I only asked a question.

It is a non-political company the same as all other companies are non-political companies. It is composed of small companies throughout the country so one cannot speak about an octopus here as the hon. member for Hospital did. It is a company in which the public holds small shares. Compare that with Irvin and Johnson with five directors; I say that the hon. member for Hospital would not have made that comparison. If one can protect the Laaiplek fishing concern one should do so because of public interest. Now let me put this to the Minister. I hope he is not going to make this a party matter. I hope he will get up and tell the House that he will leave it an open question. Let hon. members vote as they want to. This is a more serious thing than the Minister realises. We showed up something this morning that was not generally known, namely, that two-thirds of the fish production is being excluded as far as control is concerned.

That is not so.

Even Irvin and Johnson admitted it.

The Minister may give it a turn afterwards by saying that Parliament must first of all be approached.

The Minister can fix the price.

The hon. member for Orange Grove should not speak on this Bill. He is very pleased with it now, but two or three weeks ago he wasn’t so pleased with it. The hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) and the hon. member for Orange Grove are now prepared to give the Bill their blessing, whereas two or three weeks ago they fought it tooth and nail.

What is wrong with that?

Nothing, except that you owe the House an explanation. Has the hon. member suddenly been converted like Paul on the road to Damascus, or did Irvin and Johnson convert him? Did he possibly get a Christmas box? No; today they are satisfied. Irvin and Johnson are satisfied now. Why are they satisfied? Because the Minister has promised to introduce an amendment. The Minister can try later on to explain to the House how his amendment does not meet Irvin and Johnson’s case.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Economic Development, put and agreed to.

Question put: That the words “companies engaged in trawling,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—60 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S,

Bosman, J. C.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J,

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Noes—32 :

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. F. C. Erasmus negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Bell put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 24,

I should like to move the amendment to Clause 24 of the Bill standing in my name, printed on page 820 of the Votes and Proceedings—

The amendment takes the form of a new proviso at the end of sub-section (2). It may seem a little involved, but its meaning is very clear and its intent is simple. The proviso deals with the automatic registration, on their return from active service, of fishermen who joined up in our land or sea forces and who might on their return, wish to be registered as fishermen. I am certain it was never the intention of the Act to exclude those fishermen from registration, any more than it is the intention of those fishing companies whose employees are away, not to re-employ them on their return from service, and indeed in this respect they are protected by the terms of the Soldiers and War Workers Employment Bill. But without this proviso these men might have been excluded from registration on technical grounds in that they joined up and consequently did not exercise their calling during the period of their war service. So they cannot be said to have been “bona fide fishermen immediately prior to the date of proclamation.” Nor can they be considered as having been “prevented from doing so by causes beyond their control,” because after all ours is a volunteer army and they volunteered for service. Anyway, the amendment will make assurance doubly sure and guarantee automatically the registration of ex-volunteers after the war. I ask the Minister to accept this very necessary amendment.

I accept that.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 26,

There is a matter I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. Owing to certain influences that have been exercised on the inshore fishermen of late, several of the fishermen, especially coloured fishermen, have discovered what the Roman Dutch Law is in connection with boats, namely, that you can take another man’s boat and go out fishing in it, then return it to the place where you got it, and in those circumstances you cannot be criminally prosecuted—only a civil action can be taken. Now I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister that that is a position that will give rise to many difficulties. I have been informed that this is occurring on a fairly large scale. During the night they take the boats out from the fishing harbours and catch fish, and then bring the boats back, but under the existing law no criminal prosecution can be taken against them. Only a civil action can be instituted for compensation. The hon. Minister will also know that the courts have only made an exception where motor cars are concerned. If you take out a motor car and return it a crime has been committed, but the boats have not yet been made an exception by the courts to the general rule. As regards an action for compensation, the Minister will know that generally speaking the coloured fishermen possess practically nothing; and if an action is instituted the complainant comes off second best and he has to pay costs as well. I only want to avail myself of the opportunity to draw the Minister’s attention to that. Can he not make a provision in the Bill making such cases liable to criminal prosecution.

Is that not possible today under the laws of the land?

No.

The question has been brought to my notice, and I am going into it to see what can be done about it.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 28 put,

I move—

Agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :

I should like to avail myself of the half hour rule. I move—

I am doing that to enable me to discuss three matters under this Vote. The first is that I wish to criticise the Minister in connection with his conduct in this House and outside ; secondly, to criticise him in regard to his attitude towards the settlers; and thirdly, to criticise him in reference to his attitude to the church in the matter of Kakamas. The Opposition is just as necessary in this House as the Government party that are supporting the Government.

Then it should be a good Opposition.

And the Ministers who are acting here in the name of the Government are bound to treat the Opposition with the same respect and esteem as is expected from them when they have to deal with members on the other side of the House. But now we are faced with this unfortunate position, that when the Minister of Lands stands up in connection with a Bill that has been introduced by him, he treats this side of the House with the greatest contempt and in as offensive a manner as possible. There are other Ministers who introduce Bills. We criticise such Bills where we believe they are wrong, and those Ministers reply to our criticisms; but their demeanour towards us is always so polite that we do not feel that we are being belittled or that we are being treated with disdain. But it is to be regretted that we have this position that when the Minister of Lands stands not five minutes elapses after he commences to speak, before he becomes annoyed and goes to extremes and treats the Opposition in this House with the greatest scorn. I refer to the Bills that the Minister has introduced during this Session. I refer in the first place, to the second reading of the Bill amending the Land Settlement Act. We fought that measure with all our strength because we regarded it as a wrong measure, and although the Minister differed from us in this matter, we nevertheless expected from him that he would show courtesy though differing from us, but in place of that we were attacked in the most venomous way. I refer to the Bill in connection with irrigation. On this side of the House we referred to certain defects in that Bill; we criticised those defects, but in no case was any strong criticism passed on the Minister, nor was any criticism of a personal nature directed at him. But the Minister was not on his feet for five minutes before he attacked this side of the House in a most poisonous manner, and began with personalities. The result was that personal attacks were also made from this side. We expect that Ministers, whatever departments they may represent here, will treat the Opposition with the same courtesy as we extend to them and would like to extend to them. I also want to refer to the Minister’s reply to the motion of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) in connection with Kakamas. Greater venom and more bitterness was assuredly never revealed in this House as on that day. During the hour and fifty minutes that the Minister spoke there were not more than twelve people present on his side of the House. His own members were ashamed of the embittered and virulent attitude of the Minister on that occasion. Accordingly I am availing myself of this opportunity today to put the position very clearly. Let me say at once that the Minister is one of the ablest members in the Cabinet.

Hear, hear.

I say that he is one of the ablest members in the Cabinet, although that is not saying very much. I also want to go further and say that when we meet the Minister outside he is always courteous and friendly. Why then should the Minister when he is in this House, deal with us with such spleen and venom? I also state that the Minister’s behaviour outside on public platforms is unworthy of a Minister. You expect that when a Minister is acting whether it is during an election or not, he will comply with a certain standard of decorum.

Then you should also act with decorum.

Yes, I wish I could tell the House of the treatment we have received from the Minister at public meetings. I shall only mention one meeting where the Minister of Lands referred to the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan). He then said: “He (Dr. Malan) fled from Calvinia to Piketberg and from Sea Point to Helshoogte, and that will certainly be the nearest he will ever get to heaven.” Does the Minister really expect that the public can show any respect for him if he employs such language? We say that the conduct of the Minister here in this House and outside obliges us to reveal these things this morning in connection with the Minister’s vote. I hope that when the Minister has answered and when we have spoken, we shall have a better understanding between ourselves and the Minister. I have a second reason for moving my motion; that is the attitude of the Minister towards the settlers. We have heard from all sides of the House that we should realise how the settlers feel under this Minister of Lands, in view of his attitude towards the Opposition who are able to meet him in this House on an equal footing. Never has a Minister of Lands been more feared by the people who are dependent on him than the present Minister of Lands. It is stated that he has his Gestapo at every place; they have to see to it that they hear what the people are saying about the Minister and the Government. When we come to the problem of Kakamas, we shall see that the Minister stated that the people there have no political liberty. Their charge is that the people at Kakamas have no political freedom. I say for my part that the people on the settlements have no political freedom today. They are afraid to attend meetings of the Opposition party, because they might be victimised. We say that when you are a Minister of Lands, or when you hold any portfolio, then the least we expect of the Minister is that he should behave in such a way that they can and will have respect for him. His attitude towards the settlers should be of such a character that they may feel that they can approach him as they would a father. The Minister has denied here that he has been holding back Crown land grants. There are hon. members here who will stand up and bring instances to his notice where he has actually done that, although the people complied with all the conditions years ago, and consequently asked for these grants.

I challenge anyone to mention a case where a Crown land grant has been illegally held back.

I have one case here, and I shall give that case to the Minister personally. It is the case of a person who has been struggling for three or four years to get his Crown land grant. I asked the Minister a question regarding how many people had made application for the Crown land deeds, and how many had had them granted. His answer was that it would be too much trouble to find that out, and that the cost would not be justified. I maintain that the costs would not be so great, and that it would be well worth the trouble. This is one of the easiest questions to answer, but we do not get that answer from the Minister because he does not wish that we should know the actual facts. But we go further. The most important matter that I want to mention is the question of the Minister’s conduct towards the church, and especially towards Kakamas and the Kakamas Commission. When we discussed this matter on a previous occasion the Minister, in a period of an hour and fifty minutes made a terrific attack on the church’s administration of the labour colony at Kakamas. If I had been in the place of the Minister I would have seized the opportunity to appoint a judicial commission to prove what I had stated was the truth. During the last few years bitter attacks have been made by the Minister against the church, bitter accusations in connection with the administration of Kakamas by the Kakamas Commission. The church has denied those indictments and it is in the interests of the country that a thorough enquiry should be instituted. And when as the result of a motion it was suggested that a judicial commission should be appointed, we expected that the Minister would readily accept that— but he did not accept it. He has come along now with another commission, and he is taking care that there will be a majority of party men on it who will turn the scale. In other words, the Minister is going to assume the role not only of complainant, but also indirectly the role of judge by his appointment of partisans to the commission. If the whole matter is above reproach on the side of the Minister as well as on the side of the church, there is only one body that can come to a decision over it, and that is Parliament, who can resolve to appoint a judicial commission. In the meanwhile the Minister has come with his charges against the administration of the church, and after he has levelled his charges he wants in an indirect way to officiate as judge. I think we can honestly say that we have never yet had a case where a Minister has been the accused, and in a sense the complainant as well, while he simultaneously wants indirectly to assume the role of judge. One of the Minister’s accusations, or rather he declared here that one of the greatest mistakes that he made was to nominate the Rev. Du Toit, the chairman of the Kakamas Commission, on the Committee of Enquiry. I want to point out that the Rev. Du Toit was at that time not even a member of the Labour Colony Commission. He came on to the Committee of Enquiry quite unprejudiced, and by what right did the Minister state here that he had appointed the chairman of the Kakamas Commission on the Committee? At that time the Rev. Du Toit was not even a member of the Commission. Later he was chosen as a member of the Kakamas Commission. Then the Minister went out and stated that the Kakamas Commission had accumulated surpluses, first of £7,500, then of another £4,500, and then of £141,000. What does his own report say on page 8? The Minister also said that the people could not appoint their own predikants. But what does his own report say about that—

I say that the Minister stated very clearly that the predikants were appointed by the Kakamas Commission. We state that the Minister’s own commission contradicts that. Then the Minister goes out and he accuses the Kakamas Commission of having derived all its trading profits from the colonists. Is the Minister then a stranger in Jerusalem? That whole area of Bushmanland trades with Kakamas, and a portion of South-West Africa also trades with Kakamas. I go so far as to say that the income of the stores is derived for the most part from people who are not colonists. Then the Minister stated here further that the officials of the Kakamas Commission were obliged to write a certain letter in order to refute certain allegations that had been made by the Minister. What do these people themselves say? They say that they reject that allegation of the Minister’s with contempt. The Minister further stated that according to the admission made by the management of Kakamas itself, it appeared that the accumulated profits of the church did not only come out of the pockets of the settlers, but also out of the pockets of the poorly-paid clerks. What do these people themselves say about that. I shall quote that. Before I do so I should like to point out that the Minister stated still further that the church paid their people less than they were bound to by law, and that they were fined for infringements in the law, and that they had to refund some £239 to the people concerned. Let me read out what these people themselves have said. The people who are working for the Kakamas Commission have themselves protested against this allegation. They say this [Translation]—

Then they ask—

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

I want to continue and mention a few further points in regard to the employees at Kakamas [Translation]—

1. (3) Special leave to employees is actually never refused.
2. (4) Cost of living allowances, which here are only applicable from the 18th June, 1943, were paid by our employers of their own accord from the 1st January, 1943—an amount of £380 for that period.
3. (5) Instead of working 46 hours per week, as laid down by the law, we work only 45 hours a week. There are even times during the winter months when we work 42½ hours. We also enjoy other privileges that we enjoy, such as for instance receiving all our requirements at cost price, but the above will suffice to indicate that we are not exactly being oppressed and exploited.

But now the Minister comes and he says that this letter was drafted and that the people were obliged to sign it. I should like the Minister to go there and repeat it. It appears from the letter in regard to the Minister’s attack that they deny that there is any truth in it. What does the Minister say further. He said that the farmers were prevented from establishing farmers’ associations. Here are his words out of Hansard in col. 4014—

He goes further and says this—

And later he says—

I think that I can speak with some authority about the farmers’ association at Kakamas. I have had the honour for a period of three years to have been chairman of the North West Agricultural Union, and no one less than Mr. Collins was secretary of that union. There are more than 500 enrolled members. In 1940 I was vice-chairman of the North Western Union. I met the people at Kakamas and they placed their problems and their difficulties pefore me. Where does the Minister get this from, that they have been prevented from establishing a farmers’ association? The Minister goes further in his speech and he says—

The Minister accuses the Labour Colony Commission of having refused to give land for agricultural education. The fact is that the Labour Colony Commission lease the land to the Department. They lease it for a short period, just for a year. They do not lease it for a long period, but it is untrue that they refused to give a bit of land for agricultural education. It is there in Hansard, and I am glad that the Minister has revised his speech.

Did the Minister really revise that long speech?

The Minister made this charge. He cannot act as complainant and also as judge. I should like to deal with all the points over which the Minister spoke. He said—

He states here in column 4017—

The church also established a labour colony there. I received the particulars from the Department of Labour, and in connection with Goedemoed they state—

Now the Minister uses these important words—

Let us see what his own commission states.

What does my commission of 1916 state? Read that also.

The Minister’s commission says this ….

When was that?

1940. This is the Minister’s own commission on which his own people were in the majority. What do they say—

1. (a) This undertaking has as its object the rehabilitation of families who on account of improverishment were not able to make a decent living on the platteland. This was also part of the great effort made by the church to combat the problem of poor whiteism.
2. (b) Originally this object was fully realised as the indigent families were again placed on their own feet, and the church through this valuable and enterprising work was the means of contributing to the realisation of the value of closer settlement for the benefit of indigent families.

And listen to this—

1. (c) It was not the original intention to keep the colonists in the colony for a defined period, and then send them elsewhere to seek a refuge. For the first years there was no State land settlement scheme to which they could be transferred. The question of them leaving the colony, if any of them can see better prospects elsewhere, has always been quite a voluntary matter and still is today.

On page 5 they say—

This is a commission on which the Minister had a majority, and that is the sort of report it brought out.

I maintain that it is the Rev. Du Toit’s language.

A greater insult to the provincial councillor, Mr. Mike Louw, and to Mr. Le Roux, Chairman of the Cape Land Board, I have never heard and if I were they I would immediately resign to register my protest of the contempt that the Minister has shown towards them.

Why does the Minister not rather resign?

Now the Minister goes and he refers to a letter from the Surveyor-General. I have taken the trouble to see what I could find out about Kakamas. We find that a law was made, Act No. 10 of 1909. The commission were given the power there to make regulations. Here we have one paragraph after the other which furnishes proof that it is not true that these people are under compulsion to leave the land. There is not a single word about it in the whole thing. That is the constitution of Kakamas. They have to abide by that constitution as signed by the then Minister or the Governor General. I mention this because it has been stated that the position created by the exchange of letters in 1907 has not been adhered to. A proclamation was also published in the Government Gazette, No. 163 of 1910, and that has been strictly adhered to. But now the Minister exclaims: Look at the profits the church is making! The church debt is still in the neighbourhood of £121,000. I want to ask the Minister whether that debt was writtten off. Is that not money that they owe? What is the policy of the Department of Lands when a settler can pay; is the debt then written off? No, the department collects every penny. But when the church collects money that has been invested in the settlement in order to pay off the debt in connection with the loan it got then the Minister quarrels with that. Moreover, the Minister is now attacking the church because they desire to use their money for extension.

My complaint is that they have accumulated capital, and that they are charging the people in the colony 5 per cent. interest instead of paying off their debt.

We find the Minister’s accusation in column 4085 of Hansard—

I ask whether the Government did not reckon interest on the money that they advanced to the church. They wrote off £5,000 in connection with Renosterkop, but does the Government give the money without interest? Has not Kakamas to pay for interest and redemption? But a part of the profits are used for extensions and improvements. What is wrong with that? The Minister now states that the sum of £90,000 may be spent on which 5 per cent. interest has to be paid, this being where funds are required for the establishment of other colonies. But according to Proclamation 163 of 1910, this can be done with the consent of the Minister. Section 7 of the proclamation states that with the consent of the Minister, the money can be devoted to other settlements or for industrial purposes. That is under the Act and the proclamation. Now the Minister comes here and he makes a further attack on the church; he says—

Those workers are the State’s workers; it is not the church which has to place these people in employment. The State has men employed on roads, on soil erosion works, and on irrigation schemes, and it is the State which must assume the responsibility for it. But when the State paid the starvation wage of 4s. 6d. the church said that the people could not exist on that and that they would add 10d. And then the Minister dares to attack the church, because the church found that the Department of Labour were paying starvation wages. Then the Minister went further and stated—

Why? Because the church abided by the conditions contained in the contract and regulations of 1910? But what does the church do? They are putting indigent families on the land, and they do not drive the sons away from the parents, or the parents away from the sons. If a man breaks the regulations and is put off the land, the proclamation lays down that compensation should be paid to him. It may not be more than £200. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Minister is not in very good health and I would like therefore, to give him the assurance that we on this side will chastise him in moderation. I don’t propose being too hard on him, but I am going to deal with him as I think fit. I wish to avail myself of the half-hour rule. First of all let bring one small point to the Minister’s notice. In February we had terrible floods in the Transvaal and part of the Free State, and the Minister flew over the country like a bird, after which he returned, and I then asked him to make a statement to the House. With tears in his eyes and a lump in his throat he made a statement here which gave us all the impression that these poor people who had suffered such great hardships were going to be assisted so that we could leave the matter with full confidence in the hands of the Government, and that every possible measure would be taken to assist these people. Now we get letters from our constituencies where these floods occurred, in which we are told that no such assistance has been given. Let me mention the case of Mrs. Vos, Box 85, Bothaville. Her house was flooded and the walls collapsed. The house is on the Vaal River and it has been destroyed. Her husband is old and these people had saved a little money with which they bought this little place where they hoped to spend their declining years. Now the floods have washed everything away and they cannot get any help. I hope the Minister will go into this case as well as into other cases. I hope he will not leave it with a lump in his throat and a tear in his eye, but that he will follow up his promises by taking action. Now I want to discuss the department’s policy, and first of all I would like to deal with closer settlements. I notice that another commission has been appointed in consultation with the Minister to visit all these closer settlements and to report on them. I would like to put this question to the Minister : Is it fair in this country to appoint a commission consisting purely of South African Party people to enquire into the subject of settlements? I notice that there are four members of Parliament on this commission, all of whom are on the Government side. The other members, as far as I know, are all members of the South African Party, and then there are the officials.

Is not that a commission in connection with the war?

The commission has to enquire into the question of settlement and the settling of people on land. Mr. H. van der Merwe is the Chairman, and I notice that immediately after the Session the commission will start visiting the settlements and that it will go thoroughly into conditions prevailing in all parts of the Union. It is going to visit the settlements, and I make the charge that it is a one-sided commission consisting exclusively of members of the S.A.P.

There is no such thing as an S.A.P.

It is perfectly clear to me that the United Party is more venomous than the S.A.P. could ever have hoped to have been. We are not opposed to the appointment of a commission, but we protest against its one-sidedness because that commission will not have to enquire into the interests of members of the one party only. Citizens belonging to all parties will have to be helped on to settlements. But what is the Minister’s policy in connection with closer settlements? In the first place I would like to know whether, when land is allotted, the applications will be treated on their merits. Will the question of the individual’s competency be enquired into, or are these people simply going to be settled there irrespective of their knowledge about land or irrespective of the question as to whether they have had any experience of agriculture or not. In the second place I would like to ask whether those people who have no knowledge of agriculture but who are going to be settled on the land are first of all to be sent to an agricultural school, or whether they are going to be given special training under proper supervision so that they can be a success. We do not want a repetition of what happened after the last war, when millions of pounds were spent and the people who had been settled left the settlements within a very short space of time. We want these settlements to be a success and that is why we want the applicants to be treated on their merits. Are people going to be selected because they know something about land and are those people who know nothing about land going to be given some training? Are returned soldiers and other citizens all going to get their legitimate share under this closer settlement scheme? I want replies to these few quesions. Now, let me say a few words about Section 11. In this connection the position is, as the Minister knows, that these people have to select the land themselves, and the Department then makes the necessary advance if the Land Board approves. But I noticed that the Minister had made a statement in Another Place that after the war land would also be allotted to people who were not citizens of this country, that after the war it was intended to advertise in England and that people would be able to get land here under Section 11. I know that the Minister has that power under the 1912 Act. There is such a clause but it has been a dead-letter so far, and no Minister has ever availed himself of it. That is why it has not been repealed. I see now that the Minister has followed a new policy and that he has said : “Well, when the war is over I shall allow people from overseas to be assisted to get land under Section 11.” Those people from overseas will not have any experience of farming and I want to know whether the Minister now intends advancing Government money to put them on land although his doing so will probably end in failure and then we shall be told again that Section 11 of the Act has not answered its purpose. I refer to this also because thousands of people belonging to this country, thousands of our own people, thousands of bywoners, and thousands of tenants, need land and unfortunately cannot afford to buy land without help. Now this is my argument : First of all help your own people and once they have all been helped, and there is still land left, then you can think about those other people. If I look at the land which is on the closer settlements, and at the farms available under Section 11 which we can buy for our own people, I do not think that there will be any opportunity of providing land for people who are not Union citizens. I hope the Minister has been misreported. But that is what he said in Another Place, that Section 11 would also be open for people from abroad. Now let me come to another point. I would like to deal with the manner in which the Department of Lands has been competing with our own farmers. There is hardly an agricultural settlement or farm where the Government has not started Government farming in competition with our farmers. Let me quote a few figures. On the Olifants River, £500 in being spent on Government farming. I have no objection to that because it is probably necessary for an experimental farm to show the people there how to farm. On the Orange River farm the Government is spending £15,000 on State farming — that is the amount which is being spent on State farming in one year to compete with the farmers. Could not the Department of Lands temporarily issue that land to people to carry on farming there? At Vaal-Hartz the Department of Lands this year is spending no less than £25,000 on State farming to compete with the farmers in this country. We hear complaints from all sides against the Government’s doing this. The Minister tells us that they are planting potatoes so as to enable them to sell seed potatoes to the farmers. I made application because I knew that the Government had imported seed potatoes, and I was anxious to get the first year’s seed potatoes, but I couldn’t get any. The Government competes with the potato farmers and we feel that that is wrong. Sell the imported seed to the farmers and they will then be able to supply the seed potatoes. If we go to Loskop, we find that the Government is spending £22,000 on State farming there. We can see the figures on page 208 on the estimates. That is the amount—I am not dealing with the management costs and the sub-divisions—that is the amount which the Government is spending according to the main estimates on State farming. Then we come to Riet River which is a settlement on which we have had several debates in this House. There the Government is spending £23,000 on State farming. The farmers complain that it is unfair and that it means unfair competition as far as they are concerned, but the only reply we get is the old story that there is a war on. Then we come to Pongola, which the Minister of Lands considers to be one of his poorest settlements, a settlement which is fit only for natives and not for Europeans. I remember the Minister arriving there two years ago with a great caravan, accompanied by a number of members of Parliament, senior officials and advisers, and it was then that they arrived at the conclusion that it was such a poor settlement. But notwithstanding the fact of his saying so the Minister got a commission to make an investigation, and what did that commission report? That commission reported that it was one of the best settlements in South Africa and one of the most suitable for closer settlement. So here the Minister’s own commission differed from what the Minister himself had said. On this settlement, the Minister is going to spend £40,000 on State farming. The total amount which, according to these estimates, the Government is spending on State farming is no less than £126,100. It should be clear that that is an unsound condition of affairs. We have no objection to an amount of £500 or so being spent on a farm such as that on the Olifant’s River to teach the people there how to farm. But if a Government department continues competing with the farmers we consider the Government’s action to be most unfair. I would like to know from the Minister whether he is of the Opinion that the farmers should be eliminated, and whether, as my hon. friend here has said, the Government wants to become so communistically disposed as to have only State farming. Here we have the thin end of the wedge of the communistic system. The farmers are being gradually eliminated. But let me take this question of the Pongola settlement a little further. The Minister stated that it was one of the poorest settlements and that it was fit only for natives and that our young men had to be moved from the place. They have been moved, and against their own wishes they have been sent to Loskop. That is the extent to which the Minister went, and yet we find that the Minister’s own commission reports as follows—

The commission goes on—

Some of the settlers have taken the money, and the others have been sent to Loskop against their will. I say that this step was taken for a political purpose. All these people were Nationalists and the Minister of Lands knew it. The Wakkerstroom seat had become unsafe. These people had to go to Loskop but they answered from Loskop with their postal vote. The Commission goes further in its report—

Then the Commission indicates the expenses which would be involved in bringing water to the land—how much it would cost per morgen. I think it is important for the House to know these figures. I don’t mind if the cost per morgen is high because it is in the interests of the country to take out the water for irrigation purposes. The comparative figures are as follows—

Pongola is by far the cheapest scheme, but in spite of that it has to be closed down and the settlers are sent to Loskop. Those who do not want to go can get their money from the trust account, the money they have saved, in final settlement of their claims.

How many were sent to Loskop?

Let me quote from the report again—

They had ho option. In spite of all they had done on the settlement and the magnificent lands they had laid out, in spite of the fact that a number of them had made money, the Minister of Lands closed down the settlement. Some of these people were, against their wishes, transferred to Loskop, and others had to draw their money. I have sworn statements from these people to the effect that they were given notice that they were either to go to Loskop or they were to take their trust money. The Commission states that three of them refused to go to Loskop. They simply took their money and they had to go somewhere else to try and make a living. Those people had worked very hard on the settlement in trying to develop the soil; they had had good crops there. One of the settlers, a man named Roux, a year ago had a return of £1,200 from his holding, but the Minister begrudged him his earnings. He wasn’t allowed to get the benefit of his work on the settlement; the Minister sent him away to Loskop. And what is the Minister going to do now? What does he intend doing with that settlement in future—a place where 400 people could probably have been settled? I say that this was a political move. That constituency had become insecure, and those people had to be sent away. 400 people can be settled there, but they are simply not sent there.

Was not that decision arrived at long before the by-election?

Yes, but why isn’t the land allotted to other people? To me it is perfectly clear that the Government has some purpose in its mind in regard to this settlement. Still, I don’t want to say any more about this point. I say that this settlement reveals a sorry state of affairs in the Department of Lands. This was an experimentar settlement. It may now be argued that there was no profit in it for the State. But it was an experimental settlement for young and inexperienced people who had to farm there under supervision. The Commission states that the success of these people was such that it recommended the system for future settlements, i.e. that such young men should farm under supervision. Young fellows from the Cape Province and from other parts of the country were settled there, and I have quoted what the Commission said about the settlement, and that is the way those people were treated. Some of these men had to go to other settlements and the others simply had to draw their trust funds and try and make a living somewhere else. How can those people possibly have any affection for settlement? How can one expect them to apply to the Government for Government land? No. What the Minister of Lands did there was most unfair. Apart for that I would like to deal with a few other points in regard to these estimates. We find that last year an amount of £30,000 was voted in connection with sugar planting. This amount does not recur. I should like to know from the Minister what is the reason for its not being voted again. But I also notice that in spite of the fact that this amount is not to be voted again, there still is a committee, a committee of management, and £400 is to be voted for that purpose. If the experimental station is no longer there and if it is no longer necessary to vote the £30,000, then why is it necessary to keep the committee of management there? Surely there must be something wrong there, something which isn’t quite as it should be. I want the Minister to explain the position to us. The Minister asked me personally whether I had read the report, and I replied that to my mind it was a very favourable report. I said that I hoped a railway line would be constructed there. I would welcome it. In a previous debate, the Minister severely criticised us because we had stated that the Department acted unsympathetically towards our people. I would like to quote a few instances. Let me read an extract from a letter from Mr. A. J. J. van Vuuren of Kaalpan, P.O. Delareyville. That unfortunate chap was poor and he had a farm on lease, and he was advised to buy that farm under Section 11. He bought the farm under Section 11 and for a number of years he has had to contend with all kinds of difficulties. He has had years of drought and deterioration, and he says in his letter [Translation]—

Now I want to ask the Minister this. If a man has sown and ploughed and developed his land and invested £400 in it, is it reasonable then to drive him away? Is that a sign of affection for the settlers?

Didn’t he say that he had sold the farm?

No, he says here that he could have sold the farm for £6 per morgen but that his request had been turned down. He had developed the land and spent money on it and now the Board gives him notice to quit.

But surely if he had wanted to sell the farm it must have been his farm. He couldn’t have had it on a lease.

He bought the farm under Section 11 but he had not yet paid the purchase price. He approached the Land Board and asked for permission to sell it. He could have made a good profit on it, and if he had been allowed to make that profit he could have made a living somewhere else. But unfortunately the Land Board refused and eventually told him to leave the place.

Now tell us the reason why his lease was cancelled.

Because he didn’t pay last year.

But surely you know that we can only cancel a lease after he has been in arrears for four years?

If the Minister is correct that that man was four years in arrears …

I don’t say that, but that is the position.

I don’t know whether that’s the position either, but surely it would have been fair to have’ allowed the man to sell the land as he could have made a good profit. He would then have been able to pay up the arrears. Let me say this to the Minister. Take this case which occurred in Klerksdorp. Nearly all the land below Klerksdorp has been bought under Section 11. This is mineral-bearing land. I advised those people to sell, and they made profits running into thousands of pounds. [Time limit.]

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter in connection with drills. He told the House some time ago that he realised that in the Zoutpansberg District there was a very dry area and that he would use his best efforts to get water bores there. I want to tell the House that the farmers there are struggling hard and I hope the Minister will do all he can to supply that part of the country with the necessary bores. There is one matter which strikes me as very peculiar. Water bores come under the Department of the Minister of Lands. He has to see to it that our stock get water, but it seems peculiar to me that erosion, or rather the combating of erosion, comes under a different Department. I think something should be done about this when we are dealing with the question of erosion so that this section also comes under the Department of Lands. How can one make boreholes and prevent erosion if the two things come under different Departments? I hope the Minister will do all he can to bring the combating of erosion under his Department. We are carrying on our work under very difficult conditions. I also would like to make some remarks about the 1 per cent. farms and I want to say that I feel that the Minister is now following the right course to protect those people against themselves. Let me mention a few instances. In my district there is a man who got land at the rate of interest of 1 per cent. He was given the land for £200. He sold it the other day for more than £1,000 and now he is doing nothing. He owed a bit of money and it was with the idea of getting rid of his debt that he sold his farm. He bought a motor car and now the money is gone. Today he is living on the Flats. I think it would be the right thing to keep these people on the land. I would also like to say a few words about closer settlements, and I want to express the hope that the Minister will see to it that undesirable elements are not admitted to the closer settlements. Some of those closer settlements are of such a nature that it would be unfair to allow the land to get into strange hands as is happening today with the 1 per cent. land. In my district some of the land was opened up in 1910 and today I am convinced that not 5 per cent. of the farmers who originally were allotted the land, are still there. I want to assure the Minister that he would get a shock if he were to investigate the position, and saw who owns the land today. Most of the people who own those lands now live in the towns and they farm to the detriment of the farming population. People who have to make a living out of their farms now have to compete against men of the towns who have a lot of spare cash. I want the Minister to see to it that our people in the rural districts are protected and I want him to prevent those townsmen who do not have to make a living out of farming from competing with the farmers. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) stated earlier that the Government should not compete with the farmers. I would like to associate myself with that, but let me say this to the hon. member, I have never forgotten what he made me suffer when he was Minister. He caused 300 morgen of my crops to be ruined and I have never got a penny for it. For two years he put me into quarantine.

That question has nothing to do with this Vote.

I bow to your ruling but I want to remind the hon. member of this fact in view of his telling the Government that it should not compete with the farmers. Let me remind him that in 1928 we paid £28,000 for rams and sheep to compete with the wool farmers.

Whose sheep were they?

Abe Bailey’s.

I can hardly see the fairness of hon. members over there telling the Minister not to do certain things which the previous Minister himself actually did. Let me put this question to the Minister. I know it doesn’t come under him but he has a certain amount of control, and my question is in respect of bulls.

That is a question which comes under the Department of Agriculture. You have missed the target again.

My hon. friend opposite is not going to divert me from my point. Unlike other people I don’t live in a constituency other than the one I represent. I live among my constituents, and I look after their interests.

Under which vote does that come?

We have been told here that aged people are being driven off the land. Let me say this to the Minister, that the pensions which these aged people get are sometimes held back to pay the interest. I hope the Minister will see to it that the pensions of the aged are not held back and are not used for that purpose. Hon. members opposite spoke about children being driven from the holdings as soon as they reached the age of 21. Let me remind the Minister that the settler as a rule, has not only one child. He usually has a few children, and we would like the Minister to allow children of 17 and 18 years of age to stay on the holdings and assist their parents and not have to go elsewhere. But if a man reaches the age of 21 we want the Minister to take steps and see to it that he is not kept on the farm and used like a native to help his father, but that he is assisted to get a bit of land either under Clause 11 or on “Oom Paul’s land” as we call it. We want him to get the same help as his parents have received from the Government, and we do not want him to be made to work like a native on the farm with his parents. In my district there are a great many settlers, about three-quarters of the district is occupied by the settlers, and nobody can tell me anything about settlements in that part of the country. I listened yesterday to the pleadings of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) on behalf of the settlers in the Northern Transvaal and I contend that he has no more right to publicity in the “Noord Transvaler” in the matter of standing up for the rights of the settlers than I have. I stand up for the rights of the settlers in the Northen Transvaal as much as he does, but I would like to add, that I personally have never had a bit of settlement ground in my hands, and that I have never taken over any land from a settler. I have had to work for every bit of land. I ask the Minister to do all in his power to protect our settlers so that they will not be deprived of their land again in days to come.

I am glad that we are having the opportunity of going into the report of the Commission of Enquiry on the Pongola Settlement. I think the country should be grateful to the Minister for the fact that he has gone to the extent of appointing a commission to go into the whole question of the settlement and its history and to report on it. The difficulty in connection with the settlement came to light for the first time a few years ago before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. There was a recommendation before the Select Committee that the scheme as such should be closed down. The reasons for the recommendation made by the then Secretary for Lands, not the present one were first of all—hon. members can find it on page 3 of the Pongola Commission’s report—

And then the Commission goes on—

It was Mr. Rudd, the former Secretary of the Department of Lands, who gave that as his principal reason, or as one of the principal reasons. The Commission afterwards had evidence from doctors on the subject, especially from Dr. Annecke, Dr. Cluver and Dr. Thomson, and on the basis of that evidence the Commission expressed the opinion that malaria could no longer be regarded as an important factor. I therefore feel that the country owes a debt of gratitude to the Minister of Lands for having ordered the enquiry to be made. Not only has the whole question of malaria in the various parts of the country been thrashed out but other matters have also been enquired into. As far as malaria is concerned, which the previous Secretary for Lands mentioned as the chief drawback to the scheme, that objection has been completely overcome by the evidence given by experts and also by the evidence of former settlers. It was established before the Select Committee that there had been a few cases of malaria but they were cases of young fellows who had gone out to hunt wild pigs and who had sat round a fire afterwards and talked and thus contracted malaria.

They went out at night to shoot impala.

Well, impala are much more attractive than wild pigs. The previous Secretary for Lands based his views on a factor which was completely upset by the experts and by men of experience who had lived there as settlers, and also by neighbouring owners who have land in that area. The evidence given by the experts further holds that malaria can be effectively controlled. That argument therefore falls away. If effective steps are taken against malaria and the regulations are properly complied with as suggested by Dr. Annecke— who is the great expert in that respect— it can be controlled. The other factor which contributed towards inducing the previous Secretary for Lands to recommend the closing of the scheme was the contention that large stretches of irrigable land were waterlogged; that the water filtered through from the canal and destroyed crops on land under irrigation. The Commission accompanied by witnesses visited the alleged waterlogged flats. I may say that the Commission came across one of the men who knows the country well. We were on a bit of land which was alleged to be waterlogged and that man remarked: “If you call this waterlogged, please give me the land, and I will prove to you what can be done on it.” The Commission took the trouble to make a study of the stretches of land which were alleged to have been waterlogged and we found that the allegation had no foundation. Hon. members will see from the evidence of the former Secretary for Lands that one of the principal factors was that the canal leaked. But the expert evidence given by engineers and by practical men was unanimously that that factor didn’t count at all. They said that the leakage was so unimportant that it wasn’t even necessary to line the canal with cement. They didn’t say that there was no seepage. Any practical man knows that if you dig a furrow a certain amount of water always goes to waste but the evidence was to the effect that it was very insignificant. That was the other important factor which contributed to causing the previous Secretary for Lands to arrive at the decision in favour of the closing of the scheme. With the exception of two of the former settlers who are now at Loskop, the other men who used to be there all said : “If you tell us tonight that we can return to Pongola we shall pack up and we shall be on our way tomorrow.” The Select Committee in this instance also rendered the country service by drawing attention to the whole matter. The Minister then decided that the whole question should be thoroughly investigated and he gave an undertaking that a further investigation would be made before the end of the war, so that a clearly defined scheme can be laid down. When the Food Controller intimated that more food had to be produced, the present Secretary for Lands said : “Let us make an experiment at Pongola.” And that Pongola settlement which had been dubbed a failure and a fiasco under the management of the former Secretary for Lands in one year’s time turned out to be a huge success under the present Secretary for Lands. There I cannot understand the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) either. He knows as much about this affair as anyone else does and he should admit that an experiment was made and that that experiment turned out a great success. We are glad the experiment has been made and it has proved what can be done.

It had actually been proved even in my day by the settlers themselves.

Not on such a big scale. It has been carried out on a much larger scale than in the past. I don’t want to belittle what was done when the hon. member was in office, but it almost turned out a failure under the former Secretary for Lands. If the hon. member for Wolmaransstad had continued in office any longer as Minister of Lands and he had allowed himself to be led by the former Secretary for Lands it would have turned out a failure, or otherwise he would have had to follow a different course than the then Secretary for Lands recommended. The present Secretary for Lands made the experiment under expert supervision by the Controller of Settlements and a superintendent, and they have succeeded in proving what can be done. [Time limit.]

I am sorry the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) is not present. I couldn’t make out from what he said whether he was making an attack on me or whether he was agreeing with me.

He is annoyed that the “Noord Transvaler” praised you.

Anyhow, I want to support him in regard to his request to the Minister that more drills should be made available for the settlers and in that connection I want to refer to an anomaly. I hope that I am mistaken in my suspicion, but I believe that if a settler applies for a drill from the Government and his application is granted, and it turns out a failure, and he doesn’t get water, or he only gets water in the third hole, after he has drilled two dry holes, he doesn’t get the same concession as the ordinary farmer gets. I understand the argument to be that the Department of Lands applies to the Department of Irrigation for a drill for the settlers, and in this case the full amount has to be paid. If an ordinary farmer applies, and his boring operations do not meet with any success so that he has one or two dry holes, he only pays for the oil, and if he gets water in the third hole, he only pays for the third borehole.

Won’t you raise that under Irrigation?

Yes, I shall do so because it is a very important matter and it affects the settlers. Now let me come to another question. I am glad to notice that the Minister is in a better mood than he was yesterday. I again want to discuss the subject of Crown grants and I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister. I understand that when I was absent yesterday the Minister said that our barristers and our attorneys wanted to induce people to take out Crown grants so that the attorneys could make their 10 per cent. interest. The Minister knows that that is an unworthy insinuation and I hope that he will not repeat it. He may have said it in the heat of the moment. I want the settlers to understand that no settler has any need to pay 10 per cent., 8 per cent., or 7 per cent. Money is so plentiful that they can get it from any institution, or any bank, or the Land Bank, at a reasonable rate of interest of 4 per cent. or 5 per cent.

In some cases they can even get it at 1 per cent. and 1¾ per cent. from us.

That is where I want to make an appeal to the Minister. Parliament has passed the law in which special provision is made that if a settler cannot get the money, and cannot go to the Land Bank, he can get the money from the Department of Lands. I also want to tell the settlers now that they should not go to the attorneys or to people like that who will ruin them. They should go to institutions like the Land Bank where there can be no question of their being charged unfair rates of interest, but in the first place they should go to the Minister of Lands. In this connection I also want to make an appeal to the Minister of Lands and I would like to ask him that where people are entitled to their Crown grants he should be willing to give them a bond if they haven’t got all the ready cash. If the Minister will give us the assurance that he will give Crown grants to the people who are entitled to them our objections will fall away. The charge which we make against the Minister is that people who were entitled to Crown grants but did not have the cash were turned down, and we were compelled to help those people. I make no secret of it. We assisted those people to get their Crown grants, not with an idea of evading the law, but to get ahead of the law. I would like to ask the Minister to be fair and reasonable and not to delay the issue of Crown grants. Give those people the opportunity of availing themselves of the law passed by Parliament. If those people have been on the land for ten years and more, and are entitled to their Crown grants, the Minister must not allow the policy which we assume he wants to follow in all good faith in the Bill which we have been dealing with here, to stand in the way of his letting those people have their Crown grants. It will make hundreds of them feel happy because they will then have a Crown grant to which all these restrictions will not apply. If we have that assurance, all these objections in regard to Crown grants to which people are entitled, and which they can claim, fall away. I repeat that if the department refuses to do so, and if the individual is entitled to a Crown grant, I advise him to go to institutions like the Land Bank—not to the attorneys—to get the money to pay off, and he can also go to the Department of Lands to get money there. The Minister cannot blame those people for wanting to get their Crown grants. It is fair and reasonable and if the department refuses to issue them, then I am convinced, with the little legal knowledge I have, that the court will not allow the department to refuse to issue them. I am glad to hear from the Minister that there will be no need for these people to go to court, and to hear that he will not refuse to issue Crown grants to them.

We have never yet refused them.

I understand the Minister to say that they have never been refused yet.

In no single instance where these people were entitled by law to have their Crown grants.

I am glad to hear it and I assume therefore that if people have been ten years and longer on the land the Minister will not refuse to issue their Crown grants. I am glad to hear from the Minister that that will be the position because it will remove a great many of our objections.

I should like to reply to the debate now because my reply may otherwise possibly take too long. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) referred to the question of floods and he said that I had been so interested in them that I had personally gone to see what had happened and to report to the House. The Government immediately afterwards appointed the Secretary for Public Health, the Secretary for Agriculture, and the Secretary of the Education Department as a commission with instructions to go into the whole question and to render the necessary relief. There can be no question of compensation because we don’t want to be held responsible for the damages. The Commission had to visit affected areas, and inspect the cases where people’s lands had been washed away and where damage had been caused, and they were to try to assist at once in putting matters right. They received almost full authority. As far as I know subcommissions were appointed, for instance one commission to deal with the area from Kimberley to Parys, another for the North Eastern Transvaal and another one for the area from Pretoria to Thabazimbi. Three commissions were appointed and they have put in their reports. I can assure my hon. friend that relief was provided with the greatest possible expedition. We told them that they should not wait because possibly the land had been covered by sand as a result of the floods and so on, and that they should if possible be given the opportunity of cultivating the lands during the present year. The commissions acted in that spirit and did whatever they were told to do. The hon. member mentioned the case of Mrs. Vos. I do not know what has been done in regard to that case. The Government cannot of course take up the attitude of having to pay compensation.

Are you prepared to help with a loan?

We shall take that into consideration.

In some instances, in my constituency, you refused to help.

The position in regard to Christiana is that in some cases houses were practically destroyed. The water rose as a result of the dam which we had built in the river. When that dam was built the engineers drew a line and said that the houses below that line would probably be under water if there was a flood.

The Government at the time bought up those houses and paid large amounts of money for them. But this flood was so severe that it went over the line and other houses were also flooded. We do not want to evade our responsibility in that connection. It is a matter for the Irrigation Department and immediately after the Session a commission will be appointed to investigate the damage caused by this dam. In cases such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, however, we shall act with the greatest possible sympathy. We want to help those people. But I would like to say this, they must not ask for compensation. We want to assist them to recover. Wherever we can assist those people by means of small loans we shall give their cases sympathetic consideration. The hon. member also spoke about the Commission of Enquiry. I want to explain that it is a Demobilisation Committee which has been appointed by the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation to conduct an investigation in regard to settlements for soldiers. It has nothing to do with my department. The hon. member says that only S.A.P. men have been appointed to the Committee. If hon. members opposite are desirous of assisting us in regard to a matter of this kind we shall be only too glad to have their co-operation. But I have nothing to do with it. The hon. member further asked what our policy is in regard to the allotment of land after the war. I can only say that when land is allotted it has to be advertised in terms of the law. It will be advertised and the returned soldiers and any other citizens will be able to apply. I do not, however, want to give the House a wrong impression. If a private individual makes application and a returned soldier makes application I think the scale will balance on the side of the returned soldier.

And if their qualifications vary?

The Land Board has to advise us and it will always see to it that each case is dealt with on its merits. But I want to be frank. If a private individual applies and a soldier also applies I think the soldier will get preference.

Has the Land Board itself adopted that policy, or have you forced it on to the Land Board?

The hon. member should not try to drag the Land Board into politics. I have made an open and frank statement here. The hon. member further stated that I had made a declaration in the Other Place in regard to foreigners and Section 11 of the Land Settlement Act. The British Government asked us what openings there would be on our schemes for the settlement of people from Great Britain. After consultation with my department we replied to the British Government that we were not able to give them the assurance they wanted because we would have our hands full in looking after our own people, and we were going to attend to them first of all. In addition to that we said that the Government would give consideration to the question of assisting Britishers—not people coming from any particular place, but British subjects—under Section 11, if they wanted to buy land.

That is the statement which appeared in the Press.

The hon. member spoke about people_ from overseas. I spoke deliberately about British subjects. The hon. member also spoke about competition with the farmers by the Department of Lands because we are growing potatoes, mealies, etc., on the various settlements. That is perfectly true. I want to quote briefly the figure of the amount spent on State farming from the beginning up to and including the amount now on the estimates. I believe we start in 1942 and up to the present the amount is £276,000.

Is it bigger than it used to be?

We started in 1942 and that is the total amount since 1942 up to and including the amount now on the estimates—altogether £276,000. We required tractors and all kinds of implements. On those we spent £20,000 or £25,000. The Secretary has just drawn my attention to the fact that this £276,000 does not include the amount now in the estimates. We have had to buy tractors to an amount of about £20,000 and that money has been paid out of the yield which we got from our enterprise. And what we have got in so far more or less covers the expenditure. We have more or less balanced expenditure and revenue. There is no loss. Now let me explain the position in regard to competition by the State. In the first instance we were threatened in 1941-’42 with a serious shortage of potatoes and vegetables. The Government had decided not to allot any holdings during the war. We had the holdings there and, as hon. members know, the land in many cases had not been surveyed. We had the water, and my department thereupon stepped in to try and prevent any serious shortage. The Government had no intention of competing with the farmers and the main things which we supplied were potatoes, mealies and wheat. Nobody will get up in this House and tell us that we competed with the farmers in regard to mealies, wheat and potatoes, but there was another benefit in connection with the department’s intervention. The department worked and developed a number of holdings which would otherwise have had to lie fallow until eventually the settler arrived on the scene. He would have had to level the land, clear it and cultivate it. The department has now done all these things and we have a large number of holdings which have actually been cultivated and when the settler arrives he can walk in at once and start farming. It will prove a great benefit as far as the settler is concerned.

If you had left the land uncultivated the Opposition would have criticised you just as much.

But there is another advantage in connection with what has been done—and the whole country will benefit from it. The whole country will benefit from our action in regard to growing seed potatoes. We were, as hon. members know, unable for a time to import seed potatoes. There was no shipping space available and apart from that it often happened that when the potatoes arrived here they had gone bad and often the seed potatoes had sprouted to such an extent that they were of no value. The country was threatened with a very serious shortage of seed potatoes. Had it not been for the intervention of the Department of Lands I can assure hon. members that, for the last two years, the farmers in this country would have been at their wits’ end to secure seed potatoes. The Department of Lands stepped into the breach and grew seed potatoes.

It is not seed, it is seed potatoes.

What is the difference. We know what the Minister means.

I say that the Department of Lands grew seed potatoes.

But it is not seed potatoes, it is “moere”.

All right, I’ll concede you that point.

You can call them potato-“moere”.

I hope hon. members will give me the opportunity to proceed with my statement. It is an important statement. It is important to the House and to the country. It is of great economic importance as far as South Africa is concerned for the future in regard to seed potatoes. The potatoes which we imported were never quite sound. No matter whether we got them from Great Britain or from Ireland or from America, the potatoes we imported were not healthy. They always suffered from some disease or other, whatever you did about it, but in the past we were always dependent on that kind of seed; so the Department of Lands made a start with the growing of seed potatoes. I want to say further that the man who is charge of the growing of potatoes and seed potatoes is unquestionably the best export we have in South Africa today in the matter of potatoes.

Who is he?

It is Mr. Wasserman who is at Vaal-Hartz at the moment. He is very definitely an expert. We then went in for seed potatoes and I have already told the House about the large quantities of seed potatoes that were made available to the farmers of this country. My hon. friend opposite says that he could not get any seed potatoes. It is possible that he put in his application too late because we were only able to supply a certain number of the farmers. I have prepared a statement in regard to this question of seed potatoes, and I hope the House will allow me to read it. It is not very long and I hope I shall be allowed to read it so as to point out to the House what we have done in regard to the growing of seed potatoes. It will also be important as far as the future is concerned—

I am sorry the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) is not here because I should have liked him to have heard this statement.

He is ill.

I am sorry; anyhow I shall proceed to read this statement—

There were three growers and I am now giving the production in bags per morgen and I am comparing the Settlement seed potatoes with the growers’ own seed potatoes. The yield of Grower No. 1 per morgen from Settlement seed potatoes was 333 bags. No. 2 planted Settlement seed potatoes and his yield was 393 bags per morgen, while alongside those he planted some of his own seed potatoes from which the yield was 173 bags. The yield of Grower No. 3 from Settlement seed potatoes was 352 bags per morgen while his own seed potatoes yielded him 171 bags.

Is that per morgen?

Yes, it is almost incredible, but these are the facts—

The department must let us into the secret too.

We have a man who is an absolute expert doing this work. He has a small quantity of seed potatoes which are 100 per cent. clean and sound and he guards them like gold. We are going plant these in the Riet River area. Our intention is to proclaim that area and not to allow any seed potatoes to be planted there except with the department’s approval.

Are those seed potatoes grown at Vaal-Hartz or at Pongala?

Those seed potatoes are grown at Vaal-Hartz. Now let me go on—

We have already asked the Agricultural Department to take this up and it is now making investigations on the Riet River Settlement, and only such potatoes as have been approved of by us will be planted there.

All the seeds potatoes grown in this area will then be strictly controlled and these steps may go a long way towards making these lands independent in regard to the maintenance of supplies of healthy seed potatoes with high production capacity. This will also contribute towards reducing the annual importations of seed potatoes, a very expensive annual undertaking which so far has been necessary for the maintenance of supplies of seed potatoes in South Africa, If the standard of the seed potatoes is maintained and if it can be further improved along the lines proposed, it is clear that the settlers who will be placed on this settlement will gain a great deal through their growing seed potatoes of outstanding quality and productivity which will command a higher price than those grown in uncontrolled areas. The quantity which can be grown on the existing Settlement area may exceed 100,000 bags per year, and consequently the Riet River Settlement may occupy a key position in this direction and may become a very prosperous and successful settlement. The officials in control of the scheme are deserving of great praise for their work and the results of their intensive labours cannot be overestimated. Those labours are fully recognised and they have already benefited the industry in the country to a large extent, especially under present day abnormal conditions.

Mr. Wasserman has proceeded so far that there is a prospect of South Africa becoming entirely independent in regard to seed potatoes, and of our having seed potatoes which are healthy. After the statement I have made in connection with this matter I hope that hon. members will no longer talk about the State competing with the farmers. We did go in for the growing of vegetables but under abnormal conditions. It was done in time of war when there was a sudden great demand for those products and we tried to help. Nobody will be able to say, however, that we are competing with the farmers if we produce meat, mealies and potatoes. I even think that hon. members opposite, if they are reasonable, will congratulate the department on having progressed as far as it has done in regard to the potato problem. The hon. member also asked what had become of the £30,000 which was placed on the estimates last year in regard to sugar. As a result of the sugar experiments at Pongola we do not require the £30,000 any more. Sugar cane has been planted there.

I am quite satisfied with it.

According to the report, if we are to make a success of Pongola we shall have to have a connecting line with Piet Retief. I have already brought this matter to the notice of the Minister of Transport and he will, I am sure, when the time arrives, and we have the products, take the matter into favourable consideration. The case of A. J. J. van Vuuren is not quite clear to me. If the hon. member will give me the details I am convinced I shall be able to satisfy him of the reasons why the cancellation took place. We do not want to do an injustice to anyone. It may be an instance of a man who has been in arrears for four years, and as the hon. member knows I cannot give an extension. The hon. members for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) and Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) asked for more drills for water boring. This is a very difficult subject which we can possibly deal with more appropriately under Irrigation. I haven’t yet replied to the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). As a matter of fact I have nothing to reply to him. He finds fault with me on account of my “bitterness” and “personalities” and my “attacks and my venom” and so on. Let me say clearly that nobody is more patient and long-suffering than I am—except when hon. members throw mud at me and call me names. The hon. member over there even went to the extent of comparing me with a “bad dog”. Do hon. members imagine that I am going to keep quiet if language of that type is indulged in? If they talk like that they mustn’t complain if I hit back. They use improper language and they want me to remain quiet because I am a Minister. If hon. members accuse me of acting “satanically” and doing “devil’s work” and if I hit back, well, they shouldn’t cry. I can take it but I can also give back. These types of attack which have been concentrated on me remind me of an old saying: “It is not the worst peaches that the worms get at.” In regard to Kakamas, I need not reply again. A Commission will be appointed and the interested parties will have every opportunity of placing their case before the Commission. If I have made any insinuations or any misstatements they will be able to prove those before the Commission.

Will it be an impartial Commission?

That, I think is an offensive question.

What about Crown grants?

Yes, the hon. member asked me whether my department refused to issue Crown grants in cases where settlers were entitled to them, where they had been ten years on the land, and had paid off their indebtedness. The hon. member can take it from me that we have never refused to issue a Crown grant if an individual has come along with his money after he had been 10 years on the land and if everything was in order. We cannot refuse in such cases. It would be illegal for us to do so.

And now, under the new Act?

Once the Act has been proclaimed the position will be somewhat different. Applications will be coming in from now onwards until the first month after the proclamation possibly. Applications have come in and they have been approved of but they have not yet been put through. Hon. members now say that we are deliberately holding them up in order to get the law passed first. Let me assure the House that there is not a single instance where everything is in order and has been approved of, which we are holding back. On the contrary, we have sent a telegram to Pretoria giving instructions to expedite the issue of Crown grants as far as possible in all cases which have been approved of. But the hon. member asked me another question. There are instance where people have come along with their cash but they have not yet been in occupation for 10 years. In some such cases the people have borrowed money at 8 per cent. and 10 per cent., and in some of those instances we have refused. I say that we must protect the people there. They pay 3¾ per cent. to us and we cannot allow them to pay 8 per cent. or 10 per cent. when borrowing elsewhere. It would be their ruin.

What about cases where they paid with their own money?

If they have not been in occupation for 10 years we have refused. A man comes along with the cash or with a cheque and we think it is his own money. A month later he applies to the Land Bank for a loan of the same amount as that which he paid to us. The Land Bank enquires from us what the position is. They tell us that the man has asked for a loan of £660, the very amount he has paid us the month before. This is an actual case. We asked him what he wanted the money for and he replied that he wanted to pay off a debt which he had incurred with a financial institution where he had borrowed money at a high rate of interest. It is wrong that a settler should be able to borrow money from two different State departments and I do not think it will be allowed in future. The hon. member further asked this: If a man takes out his Crown grant and he has been on the land for 10 years, will the Department of Lands then give him the balance of the money on bond. Yes, we have always done so. I have often advised people not to go to the Land Bank or to any other institution but to come to us and get a bond from us at 4 per cent. That is the policy.

I would like to come back to the statement by the Minister in connection with prospective British settlers in our country. The Minister, in reply to a question, said that British settlers could not be assisted to get land in the usual way because there was not sufficient for our own people, but under Clause 11 the Government would help British settlers if they wanted to buy land. Now what has been our complaint so far? That insufficient money has been provided under Clause 11. At the moment there is no money at all available. In other words, ordinary Union citizens cannot buy land today under Clause 11.

As much as they want to. The money is available.

I have studied the estimates and also the loan estimates and I do not find any money provided there for the purchase of land under Clause 11.

We haven’t turned down a single application. It appears under the loan estimates.

I have the loan estimates before me and I cannot find the amount there which is provided for purchases under Section 11. There is £400,000 there for the purchase and development of land for settlement purposes.

Look at Head D; Item 1 (a).

I shall be glad if the Minister of Lands will explain to us later on what that amount is and where it is to be found. I am under the impression that during the past two years very little land indeed has been bought under Clause 11 although the Minister tells us that there has been as much money available as people require.

Very little land has been bought, and I shall tell the hon. member what the reason is.

Very, very few of these people who have applied under Section 11 have been given assistance. I shall be glad if the Minister could tell us how many people have made application this last year under Clause 11, how much land has been bought and how the amount bought compares with the pre-war years. During the war years very few people have been assisted under Clause 11. Even before the war there were constant complaints that too little money was provided under Clause 11 and in all probability we shall have the same position after the war. The Minister should bear in mind that a certain situation is developing. The Government refuses to make any land available now with the result that there is an accumulation of people who want land. So, when the war is over—if it is still the Government’s policy then to assist people under Section 11—it will mean that the Government will have to provide enormous sums of money to meet these accumulated applications. We can imagine that the Government will not provide sufficient money to meet those needs, in which case the announcement made by the Minister of Lands means that the Government is going to use some of the money—which is not even enough to meet the requirements of our own Union citizens—for people from outside, for strangers who are not paying taxes in the Union. Has any Government the right to take the money of its own people for such a purpose if it means cutting down the provision for its own people in order to help people from outside? We have thousands of people in South Africa who are waiting for an opportunity to get assistance from the State. I shall be glad if the Minister will give us an explanation of the Government’s settlement policy generally, and particularly in regard to Section 11. The Minister mentioned the fact that at Vaal-Hartz and at other places the Government was availing itself of the opportunity to produce food and to augment the country’s food supplies. If there is a shortage of food nobody will blame the Government if it refuses to allow land to lie idle. That doctrine we accept. But are we not faced with a shortage of wheat in South Africa? There is also a shortage of tobacco. There is a shortage of wheat in the country. In my constituency there is an extensive area which is known as the “New Belgium Block.” It covers about 60 farms.

That has been divided into 40 holdings.

Yes, but originally that area held about 60 farms and those farms are highly suitable for the growing of wheat. The Minister seems astonished. Has not his own Department told him so?

No. I know it.

If the New Belgium Block is cleared thousands of bags of wheat can be produced there. The Minister may know that the production of wheat in those areas has gone up from between 16,000 and 20,000 bags to about 150,000 bags in the last year. I am not talking of Waterberg only now, but the whole northern part, but nevertheless, most of the wheat came from my constituency. The production has increased enormously and one of the best blocks for wheat production is this one block —these 40 farms in that particular area. These farms are lying idle but for a number of natives who live there, and one or two favourites who have been temporarily assisted and given a place to live, but the greater part of that land is uninhabited. What is more, the Government has built houses there and those houses are also standing empty today. In view of the fact that there are hundreds and hundreds of people who have no land at all on which to live, and who are making applications for land—assuming it is the Government’s policy to allot land only after the war, and we are told the war may last another five, six or ten years—that land could be given to them for the duration of the war so that they could live there temporarily and make a living there. We have a shortage of wheat, with the result that there is a shortage of bran, and as a result of that again, we have a shortage of milk, butter, cheese and so on. [Time limit.]

The Hon. the Minister of Lands said that nobody who had met his commitments had not been given his Crown grant. Let me mention a few instances, and if I do so I trust the Minister will tell me why those people did not get their Crown grants. The first case is that of Mr. C. J. R. Geel, of Welgevonden, P.O. Swingley. He has 655 morgen of land, and on the 18th October of last year he had paid all his instalments. I saw him on the 5th April and he told me then that he had not yet received any reply.

Had he paid what he owed on the land at that time?

He told me that he had paid everything. Then there is another case, the information in respect of which was given to me by the man’s son. I can give the Minister the man’s name privately. On the 10th April, 1943, all the instalments had been paid and on the 5th April, 1944, nearly a year afterwards, they had not yet received their Crown grant. The man’s son told me that they were very annoyed at having to wait so long. I am very grateful at our having the opportunity of talking to the Minister because there are a few other points on which I would like some explanation. I have been asked by settlers why it is that some of them have to pay 3½ per cent. interest while others have to pay 3¾ per cent. and I shall be glad if the Minister would explain it to me. I would also like to mention that there are settlers in my part of the country who are very much annoyed with the Minister because of the Bill which he has introduced here.

My life is in danger there.

The Minister is in such a good humour today that we are going to try and get things put right. He seems to be so happy that we can almost expect him to invite us to dinner. I am glad that the Re-united Nationalist Party has succeeded in getting the Minister to calm down a bit. I again want to mention Mr. de Klerk’s case. He has been occupying his farm for three or four years.

If you come to my office I shall give you all the details in connection with that case.

But what I want to get down to is this. Owing to that man’s children having been compelled to go away it has become impossible for him to look properly after his farming activities. He could not employ a native who himself had 30 or 40 head of cattle and he couldn’t afford to hire anybody. The result was that he couldn’t milk his cows as he should have and the upshot was that he was unable to meet his commitments. Why was not that man given a proper chance? The Inspector of Lands, Mr. van der Poel, visited the holding and I personally discussed matters with him and asked him to try and meet the man because I know that the man wants to carry on his farming activities. But no help has been extended to him. The result is that that man is off the land today and is in one of our towns, in spite of the fact that we know that the Government has to take steps to prevent people drifting to the towns. This man with his wife and children worked every day until late in the evening and they built a dam on the holding. After he had left he received a number of demands in respect of fencing which he was alleged to have cut down. He hadn’t done anything of the kind. He took some loose fencing wire, but he didn’t take any fencing that had actually been put up. The dam cost him from £150 to £200 and he didn’t get any compensation for it. All he got was a number of demands for the wire and for other arrears. The Benoni magistrate himself sent a policeman out to warn him that he would be prosecuted if he didn’t pay. It is things like that which make the settlers feel very uneasy and the Minister should guard against them. If a man fails to meet his commitments, give him a proper warning but give him a chance. That man wanted to farm but he was unable to carry on because his children were forced to leave him. Some hon. members have been speaking about boreholes. In that connection I would like to say this. I know that there are farms in the Marico district which are practically uninhabited simply because there are no boreholes. People have gone to live there and they have gone out of their way to construct dams. I want those people to be given a chance to build dams. The farms are lying idle today. Give them a chance to build a dam, and let them live there free of charge for a few years so that they can develop their land. If there is no water it means a lot of trouble and expense to carry the water over distances of many miles. These people cannot afford to pay. They are poor. My request to the Minister is that they be allowed to stay there for a few years without being called upon to pay anything, so that they may have the opportunity of working day in and day out on the dam. The man who eventually gets occupation of the farm will in that way also benefit by it.

I cannot help but congratulate the committee on the spirit prevailing in this House this afternoon. It only goes to show that if the father acts severely the troublesome children begin to love him.

You are now trying to ruin that spirit.

The father has shown that he is not going to allow himself to be trifled with and he has smacked his children severely and this afternoon his children love him very much. At Barberton at Pilgrim’s Rest we have a lot of land coming under the control of the Department of Lands. We also have other land over which the Department of Lands has surface rights. That land comes under the Department of Mines. The first point I want to bring to the Minister’s notice is the way these lands are being surveyed. We have already had experience on the Letaba River. The land has been cut up into small strips. Experience has taught us that the area along the river has been completely trampled down. There are nothing but tracks for the first thousand yards from the side of the river. That area is completely trampled down. The land on the Lebombo Flats and to the west of the Komati River is not yet occupied by Europeans, but when eventually that land comes to be occupied we shall find the same conditions prevailing there. Today the land is being systematically overcrowded by natives. The Native Commissioners of both those districts don’t worry about that. If a native wants to “trek” he simply goes to the Native Commissioner and he gets permission to go and squat on the land belonging to the Department of Lands. The Minister would be astounded to find the scale on which soil erosion is taking place there. Trees have been cut down, the veld is trampled down and when the land eventually is allotted it will be almost completely ruined. I think the time has come to give definite effect to the segregation policy. In both those districts we have Native Trust lands which have been reserved by the Native Trust. The Department of Lands has an inspector there but without the inspector knowing anything about it natives squat on the lands which come under the control of the Department of Lands. Then we have other land which also comes under the Department of Lands, mining land, over which the Department of Lands has grazing rights, and I can assure the House that that land is overcrowded with tens of thousands of natives who are squatting there and who are ruining the surface in a most disgraceful manner. Large-scale erosion is taking place there, all the timber has been cut down and there is no control over these people. The Department of Lands doesn’t interfere and the Department of Mines has no control. As I have said, the Department of Native Affairs issued “trek” passes to the natives without worrying about the consequences, and those natives then squat on these lands. The time has arrived for a greater co-operation between the Department of Lands and the Department of Mines in order to put a stop to this condition of affairs. The natives have their own land which has been reserved by the Native Trust. There is adequate room for them and there is no need to overcrowd these lands with natives.

I would like to say that when the hon. member this afternoon moved the deletion of the Minister’s salary he was somewhat unduly severe. I felt that if a man was ill, he should at least have something left to him for hospital expenses. But the hon. the Minister made some very far-reaching statements here this afternoon. I appreciate the manner in which he made those statements, but there is no doubt that those statements are very far-reaching and constitute an interference with the rights of a large section of our population. What I resent most is that the Hon. the Minister for quite a number of years has been giving this House a totally different impression. This question on which I am going to touch now has been dealt with by this Committee year in and year out, and every year the Minister has got up and announced the policy of his side, and as recently as the 3rd April, 1944, he gave us a very solemn assurance. That solemn assurance amounted to this, that he would wait with the issue of lands by his Department until after the war because when the war was over he wanted to give the people who were taking part in the war, who were in the fighting lines and also those who were in prisoner-of-war camps an equal chance with the rest of the community to make application for those lands. That was the statement he made on every occasion and that was the statement he made on the 3rd of April of this year. Let me refer the Minister to his statement on this question last year. Last year, on 3rd March, the Minister said this—

The Minister here laid down an important principle, namely that when the land was allotted the people who had joined the army would have an equal chance with the rest of the community to get some of the available land. He stated this very clearly. He stated that as recently as 3rd April, 1944. Today we are being disillusioned. The Minister today makes this statement. He say that if land has to be allotted and a private citizen makes application as well as a soldier and all things are equal the soldier will get preference.

And so he should.

That is his statement.

He said so even before.

*Mr. SERFONTEIN; If what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) says is correct, then it is even worse. Then it means that the Minister is changing his policy from year to year. He first of all said that they would give preference to the soldiers. Afterwards he said that the civilians and soldiers would be given equal opportunities for the land which was being allotted.

This side of the House is under no misapprehension as far as the position is concerned. The Minister’s attitude is perfectly clear.

If that is so then it is high time that the Minister’s attitude was carefully considered. If he changes his policy every year, what then will his policy be next year? I now want to refer to his statement of policy this afternoon. There are various categories of soldiers. First of all we have the people who have been at the front. There are others who have only been in the Union. There are others who meanwhile have occupied very comfortable positions in the Union and have made more money than they have ever made before. But the Minister now wants to give preference to all categories of soldiers provided all things are equal. I contend that the Minister’s statement is a very serious one. The land is provided by the State. Is the Minister prepared to get up and tell the House that he will absolve those people who were opposed to the war from their contributions to the taxes required for that particular purpose? Where does the Minister get the right to state here today that the money in the Exchequer is to be used for certain specific classes of people who are to be given preference, although our taxes are paid by people of all political parties and colours? The Minister has made a number of contradictory statements during the past few years, and he has misled the public. This is the impression he has created. Let the ground lie there—we shall prepare it and build houses, keep on paying your taxes and when the land is allotted everybody, together with the soldiers will get an equal chance of getting land. Now that the land has been prepared and houses have been built and money has been spent he makes a statement that all things being equal the soldier will get preference—not only the soldier who has made sacrifices but the man who has been making money here during the war, more money than he has ever made before—the man who prays that the war will go on for ever. He gets preference over the rest of the community. Is that one of the ways the Minister has in mind to fill up the settlements with people holding the same political views as he does? Is he afraid of the forthcoming elections now that he can see the signs of the times? Somebody said that the Minister was a good man when he was sitting down, but a hopeless man when he was on his feet. I don’t want to blame the Minister. The man sometimes doesn’t want to get on to his feet, because he might fall over. If this policy is carried out to its logical conclusion it means that he is going to fill up the land which has been levelled and prepared with people holding his political views. That is what he has in mind. I want to ask the Minister whether by any chance he contemplates standing for a particular seat.

Soldiers who are Nationalists will also get preference.

If the Minister can give preference to the soldiers he may just as well go the whole length of giving preference to soldiers holding his political views. I very much resent the fact that the Minister for years has been giving the country the impression that all people of this country would be treated alike. The money has been voted year after year, development work has been carried on, houses have been built for settlers on the understanding that they would all get an equal chance, and now that the money has been spent he makes this new statement. I protest against it most emphatically. It is going to lead to a state of chaos. In consequence of this precedent, Government after Government will be able to use the money of the Exchequer to benefit its political supporters. The Minister is creating a very dangerous precedent. But he is going further. He is now preparing under Section 11 also to assist people from Great Britain to get land. [Time limit.]

There are a few questions which I want to reply to. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) spoke about British settlers and land which was to be allotted to them in spite of the fact that we have no land to give to our own settlers and in spite of the fact that we are not providing any money under Section 11. If the hon. member will look at Item D on the estimates, he will see that there is an amount provided there under Section 10 and under Section 11 of the Act. It is under the heading “Settlement”. Every year we have systematically provided £500,000 and sometimes £600,000 and this money is in respect of purchases under Section 10 as well as under Section 11. If we run short of money we can always apply for more to the Treasury. Let me make it clear, however, that in wartime you cannot spend as much as usual under Section 11. The prices of land in wartime are exorbitant and that being so we are not spending as much as we do in normal times. An application under Section 11 has to be approved of by the Land Board. It must be an economic proposition. If the prices are abnormally high, we cannot recommend the purchase of such farms.

And you turn them down?

We do not turn them down. If an application is made under Section 11, it is immediately enquired into and if the price is found to be reasonable the transaction takes place. But the number of cases of that kind has dropped considerably because the prices of land have gone up to an uneconomic level. We want to avoid, when the war is over, being faced with the position of people being left high and dry on land sold to them at unduly high prices. In regard to the “New Belgium Block,” let me tell the hon. member that there are nine people there and I believe that all of them are his supporters.

Oh, no, Mr. Moll and Mr. du Plessis de Beer would have seen to that.

Well, I haven’t enquired into the politics of these nine people, but the superintendent, whose name I have forgotten is a supporter of the hon. member’s.

What about Major Avêre?

That old gentleman was in the service of the company years ago, and I believe the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) helped him there in those days. He is well over 70 years of age, and has rendered many years of service to the company. We cannot just put him off now that he is old. We allow him to stay there. Quite possibly by the time the war is ended he may have passed away. But the man who has been appointed as superintendent, I think he is a Mr. Henning, is a strong supporter of the hon. member.

I don’t know him.

Then the hon. member doesn’t know his own supporters. Anyhow, this is not a matter of favourites. There are 34 farms there, with 34 dwelling houses, and the necessary dipping tanks, and the reason why these farms are not being let is that we don’t want them to be neglected. I was there some time ago and I can assure the hon. member that thousands of morgen have been burned.

They burn them every year.

The grass was fired and nobody checked it. The few supervisors who were there cannot look after all those farms; if you put a temporary tenant there, the soil is ruined and trampled out. There used to be natives there who had hundreds of head of cattle.

The natives are still there.

There may be a few of them—they are supervisors who have a few head of cattle, but I can assure the hon. member that there are no large numbers of natives left there today. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) mentioned Mr. C. J. R. Geel’s case. I don’t know the details but if the hon. member will come to my office and give me the details. I shall give him whatever assistance I can. We have looked into the De Klerk case and the hon. member can get the information. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Raubenheimer) spoke about the Lebombo flats. I have visited that area and I want to tell the House that it is one of the best cattle areas in the Transvaal. It is a very fine country along the Komati River. Surveys have been made and we intend getting the water out of the Komati River by means of a turbine and we shall be able to irrigate 36,000 morgen. When the time arrives we shall have to make some plans about the natives. They shouldn’t be there. It is Crown land and we shall have to devise a scheme. Now let me say a few words regarding the statements I have made from time to time about the issue of land. I have been asked how I am going to issue the land. I am going to do so in terms of the law. We have to advertise the land and wait for applications and any citizens of the country, including soldiers, will have the right to make application. What I have said and what I want to emphasise again is that if applications come in, and there are two applications, one from a citizen of this country who had stayed in the country and has not taken part in the war—it doesn’t make any difference to which Party he belongs—it might even be my own son—and the other application is from a soldier who has risked his life for his country—I ask hon. members whom they would give preference if they had to judge?

I would deal with each case on its merits.

The one man has fought for his country.

That is a matter of political opinion.

The one is a private individual and the other a soldier and they have identical qualifications. The scale would be in favour of the soldier who has joined our army. I am sure if my hon. friends opposite were frank—if they had to judge and, they wanted to be fair, they would give preference to the soldier. The old Republics, the Transvaal and the Free State, gave farms to their burghers, they gave farms to the men who had taken up arms in the Kaffir War. The man didn’t even have to apply. All we ask is that our friends opposite will show reasonableness, patriotism and appreciation to people who when their country was in danger of being overrun, took up arms to fight for their country. I ask them to agree that we, who have had to stay behind, must recognise the services rendered by these people and we must do so in the manner I have indicated.

I am very glad the motion I introduced some time ago has had the effect of clearing the atmosphere in this House so that we need not go any further into this position in regard to Kakamas. I hope the Minister will announce the personnel of the commission. I shall be glad if he will do so so that the enquiry may take place as soon as possible, because my only object in proposing the motion was to calm down people’s feelings. The Minister will agree that I introduced my motion in that spirit. I explained that it should be a judicial commission because the subject also involves a number of legal points. The Minister told us how people were going to be assisted to get land after the war. We, on this side of the House, feel that out of the large and extensive areas which are available, part, at least, should be made available to the public. Now, let me mention the case of a man who originally came from the Calvinia district. In 1934 he was on the roads as a “ trekboer”. In the beginning of 1934 he bought cattle to the value of £225, and he had to farm in between the fences because he had to pay back money he had originally borrowed. He had to pay back a loan of £300 which had been granted to him after the drought in 1933. Now he writes to me that, inclusive of interest, he haS repaid an amount of £493. This is what he says—

This man comes from a fairly large family. He is Mr. J. J. H. Steenkamp of Upington West, c/o Mr. H. van der Merwe. I met the man in my constituency.

Can he not buy under Section 11?

I met the man at Upington last year and he gave me the impression that he would make an excellent settler. He comes from a large family, and he couldn’t carry on in Calvinia as there was no land available for him, so he went to Gordonia where there was more land. Latterly land has also become expensive there and this man so far has had to keep body and soul together by trekking with his cattle, but he has met all his commitments. Eventually he was forced to sell the whole of his farming business. He found it impossible to get land. After he had sold everything he wrote to me and asked me what he should do now. I approached the Department of Lands to try and get work for him, and the Minister of Lands promised me that they would try to give him work on one of the irrigation works as an ordinary labourer. That’s not the way to treat this type of person. This man is a good citizen who has met all his commitments. I quoted from his letter to prove that there is a great land hunger, and to show that there are some very deserving cases among these people. If a man of this type can be assisted under Section 11 to get a farm, this Parliament and the country will be proud of what we are doing for him.

Let him apply under Section 11.

But this poor fellow has already sold his farm. It is happening continually in the north-west. The Minister knows what is going on there today. Most of those trek roads have been closed and people have to remain between the wires. I don’t know how they keep body and soul together and how they meet their commitments. In my constituency there is a part of the population which should have the Minister’s special attention. I am referring to the Bastards who are farming there. Those areas, in days gone by, largely belonged to the Bastard population. In 1930 a reserve was established for these people at Mier. Since those days, however, very little has been done for them. I can tell the Minister that at the moment he is giving twenty-nine families an opportunity to make a living. Last year, just before the prorogation of Parliament, I noticed to my surprise that an amount of £15,000 had been placed on the loan estimates for a dam at Rietbos, which was to be an irrigation dam for those people. I have been doing my best throughout to get irrigation works started for these people, and I should like to know from the Minister of Lands how far that scheme has progressed.

It is now being started.

I notice that this year again there is an amount of £15,000 on the estimates. Does that mean that the dam is going to cost £30,000?

No, we did not spend the money last year, so it has to be voted again now.

On Loan Vote D (I) I notice an amount of £2,500 and a further amount of £15,000 in respect of advances in connection with this settlement of Bastards. In previous years small amounts of money were voted. There was an amount of £1,000 and two amounts of £500, and I should like the Minister to tell us how much of that money has been spent and what progress has been made. The Minister, during one of his visits, promised the coloured people that they would be given a settlement along the Grootrivier. I should like to know from the Minister what he is going to do to help those people. Many of them have grown up as farmers and they are anxious to have a bit of land. I should like the Minister to consider whether he can get land further down along the river for those people, where they can be placed on a proper settlement under the Department of Lands. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), when he was Minister of Lands, did a good stroke of business by buying the Garieb Estates on behalf of the State. A large number of people are farming there, and they are using the land from year to year. I understand that towards the beginning of December they will again have to apply to lease the farms for another year. I want to ask the Minister to make this a pure formality because these people have been there for years. They have been living there since the Government took over the land, and they even lived there before that time. When the Government took over the lands these peoples’ rents were increased— they had to pay more than what they paid the private company. They are not allowed to make improvements, and if they do effect any improvements they do so at their own risk, and the Inspector of Lands is very keen about it. [Time limit.]

I shall not detain the House long on this vote, but it is necessary for me to bring a few points to the attention of the Minister. As you will know, Mr. Chairman, I represent a district that also possesses a kind of settlement which goes by the name of Rust der Winter. When one calls there one receives many complaints, but on looking round it appears that there is little justification for them. Still, when you talk to the engineers it does appear that there are certain matters which should be brought to the attention of the Minister and of the Department with a view to an enquiry being instituted. The first point that I should like to touch on is that in the case of many of the plots that have been allotted the soil has little depth. I have spoken to the engineers about it, and they said to me: “Oom Hans, you can only go down six inches and then you are in the water”. I should like to know from the Minister whether he is of opinion that farming operations can profitably be carried out on such plots. I sincerely hope and trust that we will go into the matter. Then I should like to turn to another point. I am aware that at Rust der Winter two or three plots have been set aside for experiments, but it seems as if those plots have really been uselessly allotted for that purpose. When I go along there as a farmer I obtain quite a lot of information. I note how the grasses and how the various kinds of vegetation grow, but on asking the people there whether the plot-holders on the settlement make any use of the place, I learn that not a single one of them has ever been near it. They drive past and simply take no notice of it. It is one of the finest things in that neighbourhood, and I should like to know what the Department is doing to bring to the notice of the people the work that is being accomplished there. The local people have themselves gone so far as to set aside a day each year in order to invite people to visit it. Then I should like to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that Rust der Winter is situated remote from business centres, whether he cannot see an opportunity to establish a sort of co-operative store there, where the people could purchase their ploughs and other requisites. I believe that today such stores exist, but so far as I know they are owned by private firms. Another point that I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister is in connection with drinking water. We know that the Department of Education have had boreholes made there, and the water is sweet. The Department of Education made a plan to obtain drinking water there. This water is not as good as one might wish, and I think that the Minister ought to take steps in this connection. Then I should like to thank the Minister for the policy he has laid down in connection with Rust der Winter. We know that some parents have passed away there, and that the holdings which they occupied have fallen vacant. We know that several applications have been made for those holdings. Many people have approached me personally and asked me to use my influence to get holdings for them, but the Minister stood firm and allotted the holdings to the heirs of those people. I am glad to see that the Minister has given effect to his policy in those parts. I also want to voice my thanks to the Minister for the assistance he has rendered in connection with one or two cases that I brought to his notice, where the children made application for their parents to be allowed to stay with them, or where the parents asked that the children should be allowed to remain and help them. The Minister granted these applications. That is to my mind clear proof that the Minister is giving effect to his policy. There are, of course, very considerable difficulties in connection with obtaining labour in those parts, and the fact that the Minister has met them in this way is highly appreciated. In conclusion, I should like to say a few words on the proposal that has been made by the other side to delete the Minister’s salary. I hope that the House will agree with me that never has a Minister been so grossly insulted as today. Here we have an hon. member standing up and suggesting that the Minister is dependent on his salary. That is the most ridiculous thing imaginable. I think that it is puerile and pusillanimous when important people, representing Parliamentary constituencies make such childish proposals. They have no other arguments that they can bring against the Minister, so they come with this proposition and try to give him a smack in the face. They now want to delete his salary. If I were in order in doing so I would propose that the Minister should rather receive an extra £2,000 and that we should delete the salaries of hon. members.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) put one or two important questions to me, and I should like to answer them now. In connection with the question of Steenkamp, I want to assure the hon. member that I should like to help him. I shall see what I can do for him. The hon. member referred to the coloured population, and he wanted to know what we are doing for them there. A considerable area of ground has been set aside for them. My department has made arrangements with the Rhenish Mission Society, who themselves had Rietfontein, and which we have taken over from them, and it has been added to that bit of land. It is now as it were their capital. There is still a number of families for whom provision has to be made. But it is not possible to bring the people there before we have secured the water supply. We have to keep on trying one borehole after the other. The department gives them a subsidy if they make a well or a water hole. That is of considerable assistance to them, and as we get these wells and boreholes and dams so we shall continue to expand and the number of coloured people there will be increased. We hope within a few months to begin the construction of a dam at Leeubos. Then I just want to say that the amount of £2,500 is for advances. We give advances to the coloured people to purchase a number of sheep and cattle, and in those cases where we have made advances to the coloured people of £50 or so a considerable portion of them have already refunded it in full. The £2,500 is for advances and for development work there, such as well and dams. I have now received a report from the Irrigation Commission in connection with Trakol. Some 1,500 morgen are under water there. The water can be obtained at a moderately reasonable cost and led on to the land. This is intended for coloured people only. There is about 76,000 morgen of land, and each family will receive 2½ or 3 morgen of land under irrigation, and the plan is that they should develop there and be made self-supporting. Later on we hope to provide them with facilities, as for instance a post office. They will also have the opportunity in due course to become the owners of that land. The hon. member has referred to Groot Rivier. I do not think he finished on this matter, and I really don’t know what he wanted. I should just like to say that we did invite applications in the month of December. What the hon. member wanted was that the people who are now on the land should be allowed to remain there. This, however, I should like to inform the hon. member is going to be one of the biggest difficulties, and the department will have to keep that in mind at the conclusion of the war when we shall be allotting all these farms; it is then our difficulties will really begin. These people have now been there for years and years. The policy of the department is not to allow them to effect improvements, because once they effect improvements then they will really have entrenched themselves; and that will make it more difficult for us to remove them later. In the ordinary course, if they are removed after they have effected improvements they demand very much more for the improvements than they are worth, and this leads to all sorts of difficulties and court cases. Accordingly we are now making it perfectly clear to them that they are leasing the land. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) mentioned certain points in connection with Rust der Winter. Those holdings do not belong to the Department of Lands. They fall under the Department of Agriculture. The question of drinking water has never previously been mentioned, and I am unable to give any information on the matter.

It is with exceptional interest that I have listened to the hon. Minister’s explanation of our land settlement policy for the post-war period. I must say that I was disappointed, because I think the Minister approaches the question of land settlement from an entirely wrong standpoint. I think that the Minister should regard the matter in this light. The land of our country is the most precious possession and asset that we have. It is in the public interest that that land should be put into the hands of the right people. It is in the public interest that we should settle on that land the men who, in our opinion, will make the best use of the land, and there is only one test that the Minister and his board should apply after the war. Where we have vacant land, who is the man who is going to develop that land, our most valuable asset, in the best possible manner? The Minister must not tell us that after the war he is going to divide the people into two classes, a privileged section and a non-privileged section, because then he will perpetuate the bitterness that the war has created. Our land is our most valuable asset, and we must place the best men on that land; that is the only test that the Minister should apply. I should like the Minister to put into operation, as soon as possible, a vigorous land settlement policy in South Africa, to place as many people as possible on the land and to appease the land hunger that does exist. When I was Administrator of South-West Africa, I began a very fine land settlement policy there, and for a time voices were raised in the country that I was putting too many people on the land; but today I think South-West Africa is pleased about that. Everyone of those people who was settled on the land—I admit that for a time they did not find things easy— is today to a large extent self-supporting. They now have their heads well above water, and that is all that the Minister should bear in mind; and seeing that the Minister is looking round for places on which to settle people, I should like him to turn his attention to the South-Western areas. It has appeared strange to me that the State should expend millions of pounds here and there in damming up water for irrigation schemes, while in the Southwestern areas you can have the land and the water without any cost.

To what are you referring?

Mossel Bay, George, Knysna, and parts of Humansdorp. There you have a regular rainfall. I believe I have only touched on the fringe of agricultural possibilities there. There was a time when those parts were entirely devoted to forestry, but the centuries-old forests have gradually disappeared, both stinkwood and yellow-wood, and the people have been obliged to apply themselves more and more to agriculture. It is however an impoverished part of the country. I should like to ask the Minister why he has not established an experimental station there. I should like the Minister to arrange for a couple of experimental plots there. Put the best settlers on them and assist them to make experiments. Then it is possible that hundreds and even thousands of people will be able to make a living in those parts in the future.

It is very sour soil.

We have the same sort of climate there as in England. In England there was also sour land and sour grass, but gradually by the planting of the right sorts of grasses the soil was made sweet. That is what is required in those parts. I should be glad if the Minister would make a start now. There are thousands of people hungry for land. He will be able to accomplish something big there. But I think that the Minister’s standpoint is wrong, and the sooner he gets away from it the better it will be for his Department and for the country.

I want to thank the Minister for the setting aside of about 25,000 morgen of land, I believe that is the figure, for land settlement for coloured people.

There are 15,000 morgen of irrigable land and 76,000 morgen of grazing lands.

Then there are altogether about 90,000 morgen. I am very grateful. The question has often occurred to me whether this section of the community has received just treatment. In the past very valuable parts of the country have been allotted to the coloured people for occupation and settlement. To mention only a few names, we have places like Pniel, Herbertsdale, Saaron, Genadendal, Elim. Those areas were allotted and are today used exclusively for occupation by the coloured people. They are fertile areas, and if similar portions of land could now be granted for coloured land settlement, a cry would probably be raised immediately that there are many Europeans who are unable to obtain land while land is being set aside for the settlement of coloured people. While I give my utmost support to all land settlement schemes for Europeans, I feel that we here have to deal with an element of the population whom we should no longer neglect. Land settlement serves a valuable purpose. I have in mind at the moment a part of my own constituency that is occupied by coloured people. The people there are in an intelligent manner working out their own salvation. They have their own plots on which they can make a living, and when it is not the gardening season, and there is no work to be done on the lands, they go out and work on the farms. In this way they are not only made self-supporting, but they provide labour for farms in the neighbourhood. It is curious to notice that the health conditions there are so much more favourable than where these people are herded together in the towns. If you go to Genadendal, where there is a large coloured population, and you observe the health conditions there, that is the impression that is formed. There is no doctor living there, and hardly ever is a doctor called in there. There is little need for nursing services. Consequently one gains the impression that on the settlement they are in a much healthier state, that they are an asset to the State, and that they cause much less difficulty than parts where they are herded together, as in Cape Town. This settlement serves an excellent purpose. We know what sort of conditions are created by overcrowding. You get an undesirable element like the skollies, who are a burden to the State; and when you begin to improve things by means of settlements of the kind that the Minister is engaged in instituting under this scheme, you will be creating sound conditions, and the people will become more independent and will be enabled to work out their own salvation. They become an asset to the State. If you create such sound conditions then you will automatically bring about an influx from the overcrowded localities, where the conditions are undesirable, to these parts where you have a settlement. When you have a scarcity of labour, there is work for the coloured people who crowd into the large towns, but if difficult conditions arise and the employment becomes scarce, you get a surplus labour force in the towns, with the result that these people are not able to make a living. If people are unable to obtain employment, and are unable to live under decent conditions, they are bound to degenerate and these undesirable conditions result. For this reason I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to make more land available for the settlement of coloured people, in addition to the land that has been made available to them under the present scheme for coloured settlement. He will thereby be doing a service to the country, and a service to an important section of the community. It will redound to his credit whatever may be said to the contrary.

I want, in the first place, to take to heart a little the rebuke that was given to us by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) ; in other words, I do not want to discriminate. I have expressed my gratitude to the Minister of Welfare for the assistance that was given Christiana in connection with the floods, and I should also like to express thanks on behalf of the town of Christiana to the Minister of Lands. On the last occasion on which he made a statement there the Minister of Lands used the following words—

There was acceleration at the start, and on the morning that I arrived there the Minister’s representative was present. We are grateful that no time was lost in taking action, but I am sorry that after the initial promptitude, certain delays occurred, and so serious were these delays that I have had again to take action. Even yesterday I was still receiving letters indicating that the position was not what it ought to be. I think the matter has been brought to the notice of the Minister that some people are today still accommodated in tents, in the middle of winter—and it is an unprecedently cold winter—and cases have been mentioned where children have been born in the tents and where the child and the nurse have been almost frozen with the cold. For that to occur after the lapse of three months is not, of course, a very good record for the Department of Welfare and the Department of Lands. I should like to see the Minister making a clear announcement, so that I may be able to inform my constituents action will now be taken. When I was last at Christiana, three weeks ago, the frames of buildings had already been erected. The framework is standing now, but the roofs are not yet in place, and the people cannot occupy these places as they are roofless. I should also like to ask the Minister what the policy is in connection with these buildings. They will be buildings that cannot be washed away or flooded out. They are made of steel, and I want to know whether they will be sold to the people on an economic or sub-economic basis, for cash, or in what way? Many people will perhaps be paid compensation in respect of their houses that were washed away, and they will be able to invest that money in the houses that the Government has built. But I should like to know where these people stand. While I am on this point, I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister that the municipality has been occupied for years in trying to pump water on to higher ground. I have personally brought the matter to the attention of the Minister, and I should be glad if he will make a statement, so that I can explain this position to the public as well. As you are aware, Sir, one-third of the town was under water, and as far as the future is concerned that part is really valueless, and the only way out is for the town to be located higher up the river. If we can obtain the water higher up, the problem will be solved, and if we could then acquire the houses so much the better. The population of the town is about 3,000 to 4,000 Europeans, and we are suffering because the Vaal-Hartz scheme is so close to us. The Vaal River rises higher every year, and is already up about 15 ft. and the only way out is to rebuild Christiana higher up, so that the water cannot reach it. If this cannot be done I should like to bring the Kromellenboog scheme to the attention of the Minister. That scheme has been under consideration for years, and a survey has already been made.

Would you not rather bring this up under the Irrigation Vote?

Yes. Then there are a few other points of less local importance that I should like to touch upon, and the first is in connection with servitudes. On the occasion of the last survey, when a dam was constructed and certain servitudes were imposed on the erven in Christiana, the engineers who were there, as well as the officials, gave us the assurance that the highest level that the water would reach would be below the houses, but now the water has come much higher. Is it fair that when a man’s property has been made subject to a servitude, in respect of which a payment of £20 has passed, that he should find the water coming higher than was contemplated, and his home being flooded out, in the face of the assurances of the experts; and that he should not receive adequate compensation? We thought the houses were safe after the assurances we received from the engineers and officials. My own house is a case in point. It would never have been built there but for the confidence that was felt in the Government experts. As the result of the silting up of mud the river is becoming shallower all the time, and I think that the Minister must keep this in mind and meet us in the matter. I should like to touch on another point. The Minister of Lands has talked here about the sale of farm products that have been cultivated by the Department, and as far as potatoes are concerned we can be satisfied. But farming operations are also being conducted on a considerable scale with vegetables which are furnished to the internment camps. That, of course, occurs in competition with the settlers, who are in a position to provide the vegetables.

We encourage them to grow vegetables, and we buy them.

Will the vegetables grown by the Department be reduced in proportion as the quantity offered by the settlers is increased. I want to point out that at Vaal-Hartz cattle farming is being done on a large scale.

We have leased grazing to the Department of Agriculture.

The animals are fattened there, and then they are sold on the open market.

The Department of Lands bought the animals for the market, and we have made grazing lands available to them.

The animals arrive there in poor condition. They are fattened up in order to be sold on the market; and that is, of course, competition with the farmers, because the farmers also purchase such animals to fatten them for the market. This has caused a considerable amount of discussion amongst the farmers, and I feel bound to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister. Then I should like to refer again to the houses that have been damaged as a result of the floods. Even higher up the river there are places where the houses have collapsed. I am aware that the floods were an act of God for which we are not responsible. Higher up the river, at Bloemhof, there are also houses that have collapsed, and I should like to know whether the people there may expect assistance. The Minister stated that loans would be given. I know of an instance on the diggings at Bloemhof where a person’s house collapsed, and he is now without a home. That man cannot be helped with a loan, because the land does not belong to him, and I should like to know whether in a case of this sort an ex gratia grant could not be made. These are the few points in respect of which I should be glad to have a statement from the Minister. It seems as if the Minister is in a very good mood today, and I hope that he will be so when he is dealing with the Christiana constituency.

I should greatly appreciate it if the hon. the Minister of Lands would make a statement in regard to how far he intends to go up along the river and pay compensation in respect of servitudes. This is a matter over which the farmers along the river are very concerned. I take a special interest in this matter from the angle of the farmers in the Hoopstad constituency, who are on the southern bank of the Vaal River. Representations have been been made that there are persons along the river who have suffered damage, and their allegation is that the damage they have suffered, although it is above the servitude line, is really in consequence of the dam that was constructed there. If the dam had not been built the flood waters would not have reached them, and the damage would not have been caused. I shall be glad if the Minister will inform us if this argument is correct, that at the time the high water mark of the servitude line was surveyed, the engineers did not take into account the volume of the stream of water that would come over the wall of the dam. If the dam wall is 40 feet high and the water runs an additional 30 feet above that, it means that the water is forced to rise higher up in the river.

Would the hon. member mind bringing this matter up under the Irrigation Vote?

The subject has already been mentioned, but if the Minister would prefer me to bring it up under that vote I shall do so.

During the course of the session I put a question to the Minister in reference to a certain farm in my constituency, namely, the farm Welbedacht. That was rented to a certain person, who was given notice, and then the farm was leased to someone else. The position now is this.

Is that Opperman’s farm?

Van Aswegen was the lessee; he was given notice, and then the farm was leased to a certain Jonker. But the point is that a returned soldier also made application for the farm.

He made application too late.

But how was it that Jonker knew that the farm could be leased? Jonker was incidentally an election agent of one of the candidates at the Parliamentary election. He was Gen. Conroy’s election agent, and he apparently was the man who knew that that farm could be leased. No one knew how he obtained that remarkable information. Then there appeared a man who had fought in the North, and had fought well, and he also made application, but he did not come into consideration.

I have stated that his application was too late.

Yes, but the point is this. How did Jonker know that the farm could be leased. Was the farm advertised? If the farms are leased or allotted in such a secret way, how is a returned soldier going to know about them; how are we going to know? I should be glad if the hon. the Minister of Lands could clear up this matter. I want to be fair to him, and I do not want to make allegations against anyone, but I am only giving the facts. I may say that it is a fact that the farm was leased to an election agent of one of the candidates after the election, and that it left a very nasty impression amongst the people in that neighbourhood. They do not want to accuse anybody, but they do feel that more especially a returned soldier who has done his bit in the North, should be given consideration, even if his application was late, that he should have been given some consideration in one way or another.

But you know, of course, that I certainly would have done it if it was possible.

I accept that. But will you ensure that farms are not leased in this secret way? Will you see to it that they are properly advertised so that the people can make application? Now I would like to say this: There are poor farmers who are greatly in need of such a farm. There are many farmers who are very poor, and who are more in need of a farm of that sort than Jonker, and we should like to know on what basis precisely he was selected. Now I should like in all fairness to come back to the other person who was involved in this matter, namely, Van Aswegen, to whom the place was formerly leased. When Van Aswegen was given notice he had to sell his cattle, because he had no other place to put his cattle. A little while ago I asked a question on this matter in the House. I asked what was the reason for Van Aswegen having been given notice, and the Minister’s answer was—

I think that is a slur on Van Aswegen’s name. That has now been recorded in Hansard against the name of Van Aswegen, and I am convinced that the Minister would not repeat that outside this House. He is a respectable man; he is held in esteem, and is one of the most progressive and ablest farmers in that district. There are few people who could beat Van Aswegen at the agricultural shows. He is an exemplary farmer.

Then it must be that he does not want to farm on Government land.

He doesn’t require it. I do not take it amiss from the Minister that the land was not leased to Van Aswegen. I would point out, however, that Jonker also is not a poor man. But Hartzenberg and other persons in the constituency are not well-to-do, and they require such a bit of land. But first you lease the ground to Van Aswegen, and next to Jonker, who are both well-to-do people, and the result is that poor people for whom such lands are intended, cannot obtain them. What I should like to have corrected here is the words that are recorded against Van Aswegen’s name. It is not right that they should remain there against Van Aswegen. I should like to read out an extract from a letter an inspector of the Department wrote to his Department in connection with how Van Aswegen had looked after this holding—

In view of this report can the Minister of Lands state here that this farmer neglected the holding? I would like to point out that that holding is entirely pasture land. It is not a holding which can be sown. There are only fences and pasture land. The man was not allowed to sow, and although he was not allowed to sow on the holding he tackled the weeds according to the Department’s own officials “in an energetic manner” at very heavy expense to himself. That was something he was not obliged to do. It was not necessary for him to have done that, and yet he did it. I hope that when the Minister rises to reply, he will clear Van Aswegen of this slur which stands against him.

I shall have the whole matter investigated.

I shall appreciate that. I hope the Minister will realise that I am not complaining that the farm was taken away from Van Aswegen. Nor am I complaining about Jonker. I am only saying that there are poor people in the district that are more entitled to the farm than these two men. In the second place, I want to point out that a returned soldier should have been taken into consideration, and in this case he was not taken into consideration. I know that the Minister states that he made his application too late, and accordingly I hope that in the future the Minister will see that such farms are properly advertised. Then I want to raise my voice with that of my colleagues against the policy of the Minister in withholding all these farms until after the war, and heaven knows when that will be! To give the farms out, and as the Minister has said, everything being equal then, the soldier will get preference. [Time limit.]

In the first place, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on the changed attitude which he has revealed today in the House. I think he will agree with me that it is better for him personally and also for his health, that he should act as he is doing today; and that it will also help to contribute to the maintenance of the dignity of the House, while it will afford us an opportunity to discuss matters on their merits, so that we in that way may be able to do the best for the constituents who have sent us here. There are only two small matters that I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister, and the first is this. I see here in the estimates that this year he is going to devote the sum of £23,500 to Government farming on the Riet River Scheme, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). Last year the figue was £40,000. We take exceptional interest in that district, and we will appreciate it if the hon. Minister would give us an explanation, because following on what he said today in connection with the potatoes, that it appears to me Riet River is not such a poor neighbourhood. We take special interest in that, and we would appreciate it if the Minister would explain whether the farming operations on that settlement have paid or not. Last year the amount was £40,000 and this year it is £23,000. It is an area which has been irrigated for the first time in the history of that part of the Free State. The people have not yet had the necessary experience. They do not yet realise what the good qualities of that land are. I should like to know from the Department of Lands what its experience has been in connection with potatoes.

Excellent.

We should also like to know what the experience of the department has been in regard to cabbages and other crops that are cultivated there, so that it may provide a guide to the settlers as well as for private farming. We should appreciate that. The second matter on which I should like to say a few word is this. The hon. Minister has stated here today, in reply to the remarks offered by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) that he is thoroughly convinced that there are no cases where a settler is entitled to a Crown land grant, and where he has been unable to get it. As I say, we appreciate the spirit in which the Minister has handled his vote today, and it is also in that spirit that we ask him these questions, and ask him for information. I have in front of me a telegram from certain persons in my constituency, which reads as follows—

That gives me the idea that they really are cases of which the hon. the Minister is not cognisant, where the people have already paid the full purchase price, and where they have complied with all the requirements of the Act, but have not yet obtained their Crown land grants. And if this Bill which we debated here yesterday is brought into operation soon, I am afraid these deserving cases are going to be overlooked and these people will have to suffer; therefore I should like to ask the Minister to ensure that no injustice is done in such cases. Here I have another case. I hope the hon. Minister will make a thorough enquiry into it. I have before me a receipt which was issued by the Department of Lands, and which runs as follows—

The full purchase price has now been paid. The receipt was issued on the 14th January, 1943.

Please repeat that date in 1943.

On the 24th February, 1943, the Department wrote to him as follows [Translation]—

What amazes me in this case is that it is admitted here that the Department as far back as 1941 approved of the person being given his Crown land grant. There can therefore be no obstacle. The man paid the full purchase price, but now when he comes and asks for his diagram and transfer the Department tells him : “ You must first wait; the Minister has got a certain idea in his head, and before the board approves or disapproves of it you will have to wait.”

How long has he had his farm?

That I don’t know, but the fact is this, whether he has had it ten years or not, the Minister knows that in certain circumstances approval is given for a Crown land grant even where the period is less than ten years. Whether the time has been ten years or not I do not know, but the fact is that approval was granted in 1941, and at that time the present Minister of Lands was Minister of Lands, and the issue of diagram and transfer to the man was approved. We cannot understand that sort of treatment. I know that he is a progressive sort of man. It is a very small piece of land, and if the Minister knows how small the portion of land is he will agree with me that no person with any enterprise would be content to farm on such a small bit of land. Of course he wants to increase the extent of his land. Here is a man who has now been placed in this position; he is now injured by things that are still in the mind of the Minister.

What is the date of that letter?

24th of February.

Last year?

Yes, 1943; that is the date the letter was written to the man.

I shall investigate the matter. If it is correct that approval was given I shall see that he gets his transfer. [Time limit.]

I cannot allow the reply of the hon. Minister in connection with the Belgium Block to pass without offering some comment. I stated that there were a few favourites of the Minister, and now the Minister tells me that there are nine of them and that they are all my supporters and not the Government’s. I can only express my pleasure that the Minister’s supporters are all now beginning to see the light and that they are becoming Nationalists. Let me just say this. I do not know whether there are nine. The Minister mentioned one man by name. I accept it that the man is a Nationalist. If that is the man I knew in Potgietersrust it very well may be so. The Department will recall that I wrote to them and registered a protest on account of certain Nationalists having been given notice to vacate the land while certain Government supporters were given the right to remain there. I would just like to return to the fact that the Minister with the exception of these nine persons, has not allowed the people to remain on the land. I shall not talk about the great production of wheat that occurs there. The Minister’s excuse is that if the people go to live there the veld will be ruined, and the grass will be trampled out. But the position is this. I do not know whether my information is correct, but my information is this that the natives who were on those lands are still on the New Belgium Block. They were not given notice to quit, but the Europeans are not allowed to live there. Now the Minister has not yet told me why that land should lie vacant, while it can be used to advantage. The Minister’s policy is that the land should not be allotted until after the war. But the war may continue for another ten or fifteen years if we are to believe the Americans. The Americans say that the war against Japan may continue for another ten years, and this Government has stated that when the war is over in Europe they will join with the other Allies in fighting Japan. That means that the land will lie idle for another ten years. Allow me, Sir, now to deal with the Minister’s argument. Those parts of the Waterberg veld will not be spoilt by being overrun with cattle. My experience is that the more you allow the veld in that part of the country to be used by cattle the more it improves. At present the veld is sour. There is no soil erosion. I want to tell the Minister now that the more he allows that land to be occupied by cattle the beter the grazing that he will obtain there later, because that will sweeten the veld. I am speaking from personal experience. To say that the veld will be trampled out is the most foolish thing in the world. The more the veld is overrun by cattle the sweeter it becomes. As far as grass fires are concerned I do not know whether the Department has to burn the veld itself every year.

That is a matter of opinion.

No, it is a question of facts. The grass grows there to a tremendous height, and if you do not allow it to be grazed off you have to bum it off. The fire runs its course. It starts and you cannot stop it in the long grass. The only way to make that unnecessary and to prevent it is for the Government to allow the farmers to let their cattle graze there so that the grass can be kept short by the cattle. The Minister has not got the slightest hope of keeping the fires out of sixty farms if the grass is so high as it does become every year. It would pay much better to allow the farms to be worked so that the people may be able to produce there. If he does not want to allot the farms let him permit the farms to be leased, even if it is on a temporary basis. Then in the course of three or four years if the war lasts so long the people will be able to produce so much wheat and tobacco that they will be able to get on their feet. It is one of the finest parts of the Transvaal for tobacco and wheat. Now these farms are lying idle while the houses are standing vacant. Does the Minister know the extent of the damage that can be done by ants? The woodwork will be eaten away if the houses are left vacant.

That is being attended to.

So the Minister has continually to be sending people to look after the houses. The best thing would be to allow the houses to be occupied. That can do no harm. If the Minister or his staff or the Land Board says that the land will depreciate in value if he allows it to be worked I maintain that they are wrong and that they don’t know what they are talking about. The land will only improve if something is done with it. But on what is the Minister’s argument based? There are nine holdings that he is allowing to be occupied. Are these not being trampled down? If he can allow nine to be occupied why not 34? It is necessary that that should be done in the interests of the land itself, and it will contribute towards supplying the country with its requirements in the way of produce, especially tobacco and wheat, two products of which there is a shortage. It is the more necessary to do this as there are many people who cannot find a home. I know what those farms can produce, and if they are given a chance over a couple of years the people placed there will be able to stand on their own feet. I want to express the hope that the Minister will re-consider his decision in connection with this land. If it is not considered a sound principle to allot the land then lease it on a temporary basis. In regard to the policy of the Government not to allot land during the period of the war I only want to say this that it is a policy that we cannot disapprove of in strong enough terms. There are in the country thousands of Afrikaans-speaking people who for good reasons are opposed to the Government’s war policy and who for that reason have not gone to fight. What the Government is saying to them is that they are going to be punished on account of their political convictions. That is what this implies. This war is a matter of political differences in South Africa and there is this difference between the two sections of the population.

There are hundreds and even thousands of Nationalists who are in the army and they will also be able to make application. There are thousands of United Party supporters who have remained in this country.

The majority of the people who have not joined up are people who do not belong to the Minister’s political party. If he wants to punish his own people who have not gone to fight I would understand that the more readily. If people encourage others to go and fight and do not themselves go into the field they do not deserve any consideration. But it is different with people who have not gone on account of their convictions. The Government demands taxes from all, and what right have they to withhold from a portion of the community the benefits that flow from that taxation? Take this war. This war is supported by a section of the population. What about the people who have fought in previous wars and their children? What about the original inhabitants of the Transvaal and their children, people who in the South African War sacrificed everything and who are today poor because they were ruined by the Three Years War? They are just stuck and are not assisted. The Minister is punishing them. Is that just? When we come into power—and the wheel does turn whatever the Minister may say—shall we have to reverse the policy? Our attitude is that it is the duty of the Government to look after every man in the country. Then when we assume office are we to help all those who share our political convictions? Is that going to be the policy? [Time limit.]

I want to return to the answer that the Minister gave to me on this matter. The Minister said: If you were in my position and two applications reached you, one from a returned soldier or from a soldier who has remained in the country, and another from a private citizen, and they are equal in other respects, what would you decide? I want to tell the Minister frankly that I would not discriminate between them at all, and that I would not give the one the preference because he is a soldier. I shall tell the Minister what I would do. If two of them applied, and other things were equal, I should see that they both got land, and not just one. If I had to decide I would not discriminate between the two and I would not give the soldier the preference, but I would see that they were both assisted. But why does the Minister put this question to me today? Why did he not put that question during all that period before the 3rd of April, 1944? Up to that time he stood for the same policy as I am now advocating, and he stated that all should be given an equal chance, and that no preference would be shown. That is what he said in 1943, and he has repeated that in another place. That is what he said when he made an announcement of his policy, and these were the words he used—

On the 3rd of April, 1944, the Minister said: “That policy still holds good”. Now I ask him what has happened since the 3rd of April, 1944, that the policy should no longer stand? The Minister owes us an explanation, and I am asking that of him now in a friendly way, in the atmosphere that prevails, and I should like a categorical reply. Something must have occurred, because there has been a complete change of front by the Minister. Is it because a motion has been brought forward to reduce his salary? Did the change occur before or after that? If a man turns a somersault there is usually some pressing reason.

Must I keep repeating while the hon. member is making jokes?

The Minister is again appearing in the light in which we usually know him. I am not making jokes. It is not a matter for joking when millions of pounds of the State’s money is being expended. We are entitled to know what has occurred. I want to refer the Minister to the Kraaipoort scheme. There are some seventy different plots there. Houses have been built and the land prepared. Last year, and also prior to that, I asked the Minister when the land could be allotted and under what conditions.

Are you talking about the Riet River settlement?

Yes. I asked when the holdings would be allotted and under what conditions. All along we have been brought under the impression by the Minister that they would not be allotted so long as the war was in progress. The houses have been constructed, the land has been cleared, but when the war is over the land will be allotted so that the soldiers not here will be afforded an equal opportunity with the other applicants. Now the Minister has suddenly departed from that policy. There are people who have been waiting for years and years to get a bit of land there. They have been waiting all this time in the hope that after the war they would be treated on an equal footing, because that is what the Minister stated. Today he comes and tells us that the soldiers will be given preference. The Minister’s statement now has also not been clear. Is he going to draw a distinction between the soldier who was at the front, and the soldier on the home front who did not fight, and those in uniform who obtained positions and drew higher salaries than ever before? Is he going to make a distinction between those two classes? The Minister is again engaged in setting up a precedent that one’s political supporters must be assisted. That is a very dangerous precedent, to assist your own supporters with State funds, people who are attached to your political opinions. It is a dangerous precedent that may have repercussions in our country. I hope that the Minister will give us a clear answer to the question that was put by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). Does he expect, when the war is over, and this side comes into power, that we then shall have to follow his policy and say that we are going to accord the preference to people who have not taken the slightest part in the war. [Time limit.]

This side of the House, and I think the country outside, too, are grateful to the Minister of Lands for the statement which he made here, so that there can be no uncertainty as to what the position is in connection with the allotment of land after the war. I personally, and I think the majority of members on this side of the House, are fully agreed that, all things being equal, preference should be given to the soldier in allotting land. The hon. member who has just sat down asked whether the Minister could differentiate between soldiers who fought up North and those who remained in this country. The hon. Minister can answer for himself, but I want to express the hope that he will give preference to those who endangered their lives at the war front. That is how I feel about the matter, and I hope the Minister will look at it in that light. In regard to the allotment of land to soldiers, that is a principle which has been applied from the earliest days in South Africa. Under the Crown Colony Government in the old Cape Province, land was granted to those who fought in the Kaffir Wars. That was done in the Free State and in the Transvaal. We know that even a kaffir captain in Zululand allotted land to Europeans who had assisted him. I think the late Gen. Botha was also one of those people. Then there is another point which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. I refer to wild animals on Crown land. I should like to know what his department is prepared to do to exterminate wild animals on Crown land. Farmers whose farms adjoin Crown land sometimes spend great sums of money in order to fence their farms, and to exterminate wild animals; and then it frequently happens that wild animals come in from the Crown lands. This is a very serious matter, and it causes great concern to farmers whose land adjoins Crown lands. Jackal and lynx come in; the farmer’s farm is adversely affected, and very great damage and inconvenience is caused. I should like to know what the department is prepared to do in connection with this matter. Then there is also the question of soil erosion on Crown lands. Although this might fall more appropriately under the Irrigation Vote, I just want to hear from the Minister what he is going to do in connection with this matter. Then there is another very serious matter, and that is what the department and the Minister are going to do to prevent the state of affairs which arose after the last war, namely, that settlers are attracted to South Africa under false pretences. I have in mind, for example, the valley of the Sundays River, to which people were brought under absolutely false pretences, with the result that they lost everything. I hope the Government will take steps to acquaint the people who come here with the conditions, so that they will not again be attracted to this country under false pretences, and subsequently find themselves in an unfortunate position.

I do not want to detain the Committee. The hon. member who has just sat down is probably well acquainted with the condition which prevailed in the Republics. He stated that in Vryheid farms had been given to Gen. Botha. There was a war between two kaffir tribes, and one of the tribes said: “Give us your assistance, and if you assist us we shall give this portion of land to you and your people.” In those circumstances the land was given to Lukas Meyer and Gen. Botha. That is quite a different position. I wanted to raise the question, however, which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) mentioned to the Minister, namely, that there are thousands of morgen of land in the country, on which houses have already been built. Everyone knows that when a house is unoccupied it becomes dilapidated. Even if the Minister took steps to see that the ants do not destroy it, it would still become dilapidated as a result of rains and grass, because there is no one to look after the building. Why should State money be expended in this way when the houses are not put to any use; why cannot the Minister lease this land in the meantime to the people who need it? There are people in this country who have no homes and who are roaming about. If they could get the land for two or three years, they might be able to improve their position to such an extent that they will be able to find a haven for themselves later on. No, it is a futile policy to survey land, to construct houses on it, and then to punish the citizens of this country by not allowing them to live there. I think the Minister should reconsider this matter; he ought to lease this land for two or three years to the people, until such time as it can be granted on a permanent basis. Then there is something else. The Minister said that all things being equal preference would be given to the returned soldiers. By means of an interjection he was asked whether he had given such instructions to the Land Board, and the Minister replied that we should not drag the Land Board into politics. The Minister has to approve of the recommendations of the Land Board, and we want to put this pertinent question: Is the Government going to give instructions to the Land Board that it is the policy of the Government to give preference to returned soldiers, and if the Minister does that how can he say that the Land Board should not be dragged into politics? If that is the policy of the Government, and if he is not going to inform the Land Board of it, he is remaining silent. But if he is going to give those instructions to the Land Board he will be dragging the Land Board into politics. Then I want to mention a few other points in connection with my own constituency. There is a small town called Leeudoringsstad in my constituency. Some years ago this town suffered a setback as the result of a train being blown up. The people suffered a great deal. The town lands are very small. The position is that, in the near future, one portion of the town will practically be right up against the location. I interviewed the Secretary for Lands in regard to this matter and asked him whether something could not be done in the matter. I am very glad to say that the Secretary for Lands treated me with every courtesy. He told me that if there was a piece of Crown land in the vicinity he would submit the matter to the Minister with a view to seeing what could be done. All I am asking the Minister now is to investigate the position and to see whether something cannot be done for this small town. This town is a very poor one. The Health Commission is very poor and it cannot afford to buy land, and I shall be very glad if the Minister can see his way clear to come to the assistance of this little town.

I shall be glad if the hon. member will see me in regard to this case. The recommendation of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) in connection with settlers and farms which we should select on which to make experiments in connection with the different types of grass, is something which we already have in mind and which we are already undertaking. We try to encourage the settlers, and we help them to import and to try to cultivate certain types of grass. We shall bear in mind the hon. member’s suggestion and see whether we can give effect to it. With regard to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink), I shall reply to him fully on the Irrigation Vote. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) asked me whether the farming operations of the Department at Riet River were profitable. He spoke of the cultivation of potatoes, the cultivation of vegetables, etc., and he also asked whether we would enlighten the farmers in regard to the best types. My Department is prepared to help as much as possible. With regard to the expenditure and income of Riet River, I want to point out that last year the expenditure was £17,000 and the revenue £18,500.

In that case you did not spend the £40,000?

No, we spent less because we could not get the artificial manure and the necessary implements. Nor was there sufficient labour available. We had to make use of the Italians and they proved to be expensive. With regard to the experience which we gained there, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that although the soil is of a sandy nature, it becomes very good once it has been cultivated, and as far as the quality of the soil is concerned, it will be an excellent settlement. I notified the farmers’ associations that if they wanted advice and convened meetings at Koffiefontein or Jagersfontein, the officials of the Department would give them a lecture on our experience. That also applies to private farmers. Let me say at once that the farmers in that area had no previous experience of irrigation, and they sometimes laid out those valuable lands wrongly. They do not know what to do in regard to the slope of the land, or how to make the beds. I offered that the Irrigation Department would at any time assist any farmer to lay out his lands properly; to show him how wide he should make his beds; how much the land should slope, etc.

Does that also apply to the farmers who are not settlers?

Yes, I informed the farmers’ associations that if they so desired, we would gladly send an official to give them full information.

Does that also apply to other settlements?

Yes, certainly

I am very glad.

In connection with the question of Van der Walt, I give the hon. member the assurance that I will investigate the matter. If the Department has once approved of his getting his Crown grant, he must get it. I want to repeat and emphasise that any person who applied for his Crown grant and who paid the full purchase price and occupied the land for ten years, obtained his Crown grant. If there are people who are entitled to it, they will get it. But anyone who is not entitled to it in terms of the Act, will have to wait. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) stated that we should allot the land. There is apparently a very great deal of force in his argument. He stated that this land might possibly be unoccupied for ten or fifteen years, if the war lasts as long as that. We were not so pessimistic in connection with the war as to think that it might last another five or ten years. I am much more optimistic.

You prophesied that by this time the war would be over.

I said by the end of 1943 or the beginning of 1944. I do not think I was very far out. I think the war will be over much sooner than the majority of us believe, and that land will then be allotted. I now come back to the question which the hon. member has raised here for the umpteenth time, and that is how the land will be allottes; to whom it will be allotted. There is no change in my statement of policy. I want to repeat what I said previously, namely, that no land will be allotted while the war lasts and until such time as the soldiers return, so that everyone will have an equal opportunity of getting a portion of that land. We will not have nearly enough land for all the applicants, and the land will be withheld until after the war so that everyone Will have an opportunity of applying. We can only allot land in terms of the Act, and it is laid down in the Act that we have to advertise it and invite applications. There will be applications from private persons who did not take part in the war—it does not matter to which party they belong—and from soldiers. I repeat that all things being equal the soldier will be given preference when applications are received from a soldier and from a person who stayed at home, provided their qualifications are the same, all other things being equal. One cannot, of course, give it to both; one has to give it to one, and where that is the position, the land will go to the soldier. Looking at the matter on its merits, the soldier has a stronger claim, all other things being equal.

Even if he is a Nationalist.

I want to put this question to my hon. friends on the other side. What would they do if they had to judge on the merits. Here we have two applicants. Their circumstances are exactly the same. Has the soldier not got a greater claim to the land?

What about the Oudstryders?

The Oudstryders lived in a different period. Many of them received land in those days.

They did just as much for their country.

In those days the Government did not feel that they owed as much to the soldiers who went on active service. The Government has recognised by degrees that it owes something to those Oudstryders, and in the first place, they were given a pension, and in the second place land was given to many of them. I make this statement because I do not want to bring the House under the wrong impression. If, on merits, the two applicants, the private individual and the returned soldier, are in exactly the same position, the soldier will be given preference.

Will you give instructions to the Land Board to that effect?

They must use their discretion. My policy will clearly be brought to their notice. The hon. member asked what steps I would take to see that there will not be a repetition of what happened after the last war. After the last war we did not have the land settlement policy which we have today. When the last war was over, the Government stepped in and bought land at enormously high prices. The people who were then placed on the land, did not receive advice from the Government to the same extent, nor the financial assistance which the Government now gives them, and the inevitable result was that they retrogressed. This time we are not going to allot land to the soldier unless the Land Board tells us that it is at an economic price.

I move—

Agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :