On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and arising out of the reply which was given on question 16, we could not hear distinctly what was said. We are interested in this question, because it is practically a continuation of the reply which was given by the Minister of Native Affairs. I believe the Minister of Economic Development laid the reply to the question on the Table of the House. I should like, with your permission, to ask the Minister whether he will not be good enough to read the reply to the House. If it is a lengthy reply, we have no objection to his reading it in English.

The reply to the question has already been laid on the Table.

The nature of the question is not such that the reply will contain a series of figures, and the objection of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) is that the reply has been laid on the Table. I believe it is customary to lay any reply containing a series of figures on the Table of the House, but not in cases of this nature.

It is to be regretted that this point was not raised when the hon. Minister asked for leave to lay the reply upon the Table. He asked for leave to do so and no objection was raised at that stage. The usual procedure, when a Minister asks for leave to lay a reply upon the Table, is to ask forthwith that he should read the reply.

Still on this point of order, may I put it to you that the Minister was very indistinct. We could not hear whether the Minister was asking that the reply should stand over, or whether he was asking for leave to lay it on the Table.

I am quite prepared to read the reply to the House, but I laid it on the Table and I have no copy at my disposal at the moment.

Arising out of this point of order, may I ask whether we are now to understand that short replies can be laid on the Table with a view to evading supplementary questions?

Replies are usually given verbally by Ministers, but when a reply to a question contains a long series of figures, or is very extensive, the Minister asks leave of the House to lay such reply upon the Table, and if no objection is raised, it is laid upon the Table by the Minister.

May I put it to you this way, that when a Minister asks leave to lay a reply upon the Table, you, in your capacity as Speaker, do not put it to the House whether there is any objection. If you did put it to the House, members might be blamed if they did not object. But at the moment the practice is for the Minister to ask for leave to lay the reply upon the Table, and he does so without Mr. Speaker’s putting it to the House or without there being any objection.

It is not customary to put it to the House. When the Minister rises to reply to the question, he merely asks whether he may lay same upon the Table with the leave of the member concerned and of the House, and in the absence of a request by the hon. member that he should read the reply to the House, he lays it upon the Table. I understand the Minister is prepared to read the reply to the House.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I beg to move the following motion which stands in my name—

1. (a) rehabilitating every farmer, easing his burden of debt, such as, inter alia, State advances, if deemed necessary, or writing off the whole or part of his debts, thereby giving the debtor a reasonable chance of providing for his family and meeting his obligations;
2. (b) establishing local committees consisting of—
   1. (i) the magistrate,
   2. (ii) one member elected by farmers’ organisations, and
   3. (iii) one member elected by the public, such committees to make full enquiries in order to deal with the case of each farmer on its own merits with the object of rehabilitating and keeping him on the land; and
3. (c) making the provisions of the Farmers’ Assistance Act permanent.

Since 1924 various Acts have been passed by Parliament with a view to assisting the farmers, farmers who for some reason or other met with adverse fortune and who dropped out. The last Act of that nature was passed in 1935. As a result of the various measures of assistance the greatest proportion of the farmers in the farming industry were rehabilitated for which the farming community is very grateful. Those farmers were again placed on their feet, and they are carrying on with production. We feel, however, that there are other farmers in certain areas where the rehabilitation has not yet succeeded. Those farmers are still in distress today, and I am going to plead today for assistance to that type of farmer. Before I proceed, I want to say that recently I met ten farmers’ associations in Dordrecht. Everyone of those farmers’ associations sent two delegates and I met the delegates. It was not a political meeting. I may say in passing that the majority of the delegates were supporters of the Government. The following letter was addressed to me through the secretary of the union to which those farmers’ associations belong, and I should like to take up a little time of the House in reading it to hon. members. The letter is dated the 23rd January, 1945, and it reads as follows—

That union is composed of the ten farmers’ associations of that area—

What is meant here is that in that area the great majority of farmers, as is stated here, still find themselves in a critical position. Then the letter goes on to say—

Mr. Speaker, you know yourself that in that area there are farmers who still have to pay off big debts to the Government, and for some reason or other they cannot meet their obligations. I want to mention the case of a man who has a debt of approximately £18,000. It is a farmer who got into difficulties. He bought many sheep, and we know there was a time when sheep were sold at 1s. 6d., 2s. and 3s. and consequently he lost all his stock, and today he is burdened with a debt of approximately £18,000. He can never pay it. He approaches the Farmers’ Assistance Board and says: “Please reduce the capital debt to £8,000 or £10,000, and then I shall be able to carry on; I shall be able to meet my obligations and become rehabilitated again.” But, the Farmers’ Assistance Board has not got the power to do it. All the Board has to do, if the man cannot pay, is to advertise the property. It must be sold by public auction. If it is sold by public auction, it is usually done at a great loss. In many cases, as we know, when property is auctioned in those circumstances, the purchase price only covers half the man’s indebtedness. It is then sold, but the owner himself cannot buy. If he buys the property himself, he is again responsible for the whole amount. I should like the Act to be so amended that it will not be necessary for the Farmers’ Assistance Board to sell the property by auction, and I should like them to have the power to help such a man, to be able to reduce the debt to an economic figure of, say, £10,000, so that the man will be able to carry on again. There are outstanding moneys, dating back to 1924, under the various loans which were made to the farmers, money which is still owing by the farmers today. It strikes me that people who are in receipt of old-age pensions or even invalidity pensions, have to pay off a few shillings per month on the debt which is still outstanding. I can tell you that my experience is that the Farmers’ Assistance Board is very sympathetic. The secretary, Mr. Meintjes, is a man with wide experience, and he has a soft spot for those farmers. But this has been the position all these years. When a business man gets into difficulties, he goes insolvent and he may pay so much per £, and he then makes a fresh start. But the farmer does not. He is saddled with this burden all these years, and he does not go insolvent. He is always required to pay. The Farmers’ Assistance Board grants suspension. Assuming the man’s debt is £10,000 and he can only pay interest on £5,000, the other £5,000 is placed on suspense account. By that means the man is assisted for the time being, but he is still saddled with the big debt which is outstanding. I want to ask the House this: Let us start with a clean slate in the case of all loans, and let us rehabilitate the people. Let us place them in a sound position. It is not such an easy thing to be a farmer today. And we know that the people are leaving the farms. In my area a very heavy burden rests on the people; they owe a great deal. It is one of the unfortunate areas which has suffered many reverses of recent years. The result is that the people no longer have the courage to carry on with their farming. The sons do not want to stay on the farms any longer.

They do not feel disposed to take over the burdens of the father or mother. They go to the cities and towns. I am not even referring to the lessees. They are hardly to be found today. When there is land to be leased, it is not the ordinary lessee who hires the land; it is the rich farmer who hires it, and the former lessee takes refuge in the city. This type of person eventually finds himself in the city, and in circumstances to which he is not equal because he lacks the education and experience to make a living there, with the result that later on he becomes a burden to the State. If these people had obtained the necessary assistance, they might have been able to remain on their farms. That is the great object of this motion. Here I also have the case of a very important man. He is a Major in the Defence Force, and I want to quote passages from a letter which he wrote to me. This is a man who serves on all public bodies in that area, and he knows the Minister of Finance well. He wrote this letter to me I received it on the 6th of this month—

He gives us his income which he derives in normal years from his crops and stock, and then he indicates what the deficit is in this particular year—

Then he points out that as a result of the drought his sheep produced less wool. He says there is a deficit of £140 on his clip, and then he goes on to say—

Then he planted 2 morgen of potatoes and he thinks he will only get £50 out of it. I need not read the whole letter, but it boils down to this that this man’s income this year represents a deficit of at least £1,240 on his normal income. He goes on to say—

I can show this letter to the Minister. He signs his name as a major in the Defence Force. This is the sort of thing which moves me to plead that we ought to go into the position now. We know what the farmers’ difficulties are. I just want to mention a few of the reverses, apart from the difficult times. In the first place we have the peculiar weather conditions Sometimes we have excessive rains. It seems strange to say that there may be too much rain, but when it does rain excessively and there are wash-aways, the farmer suffers great losses. Then again we have droughts, as we have just had in the area which I represent and in the rest of the Eastern Cape and also in the Southern Free State. This year we had an unprecedented drought. There has not been such a drought for 85 years. Then we have frost and hail, and now we even have eel-worm in the wheat, and blight. In addition to that we still have a new Minister of Agriculture. We also have the parasites. There is the blowfly, the wire-worm, the tape-worm and things of that nature. And the farmers say when a new Minister of Agriculture is appointed, another few are added. Time will teach us what they are. All those difficulties with which the farmer has to contend, moves me to plead that we should appoint committees, as I suggested in my motion, so that all those things can be dealt with on their merits. I feel that the composition of the local committees should be on the lines I suggested here. The first member should be the chairman. It should be a judicial officer, the magistrate or his representative. The second member should be elected by the farmers’ organisations and should not be appointed as the position is at present. The third member should be elected by the local organisation. He can be a lawyer or a business man, but he must be a leading figure in the area, a person who knows every man personally and who knows what his position is. Such a committee will be in a position to recommend who should be rehabilitated. That committee can then go into the various cases, as is the case at present, but only more fully, and then submit recommendations to the Farmers’ Assistance Board. The Farmers’ Assistance Board should then have the power to do what the committee recommends. If the Board is not satisfied with the recommendation, it can institute further investigations and it might send one of its members personally to the area to obtain the further information which is required. The recommendation of the commitee should then be put into efect. If they see that the man’s position is hopeless owing to the size of his debt, his debt ought to be reduced to a figure which he can bear, so that he can meet his obligations and become rehabilitated. We must remember that the farmers on the platteland are deprived of many privileges especially in these times when they cannot travel. The farmer is tied down to his farm year in and year out, and he has not got the privileges of the city dweller. At that meeting various farmers explained their position to me. One farmer planted 1,400 bags of potatoes and he did not reap one bag. That means that he lost £3,000.

That is a serious setback. If a man is very poor, it means that he is ruined, but the average man who is able to help himself, well, if he suffers such a great loss during any year, he gets into arrears to such an extent that he is no longer an asset to the State. The report of the local committee in regard to such a man can be sent to the Assistance Board, and steps can immediately be taken to rehabilitate the man straightway and without delay. We should prevent the people from leaving the farms because they cannot make a reasonable living. Large sums have been paid off by the farmers. I notice that the Minister of Finance said at the opening of an exhibition the other day that the farmers had paid £12,000,000 over a specified period. That is quite correct. But do you know that there are cases where the people borrowed money at a lower rate of interest, in other words, where they incurred fresh debt in order to be able to pay the Government? I am glad the Minister said that the farmers were paying their debts. We do not want any charity. We do not want to come to the Government hat in hand. We want to be fair. But we feel that the farming industry is not in a sound position and that the people cannot become independent in the circumstances in which they now find themselves. No country in the world can exist if it does not look after its farming community. The farmers are subsidised throughout the whole world. We are subsidised in certain respects, but the subsidy should not be passed on to us; the consumer should pay for it. But it is said that we are being subsidised. If the farmer is assisted along those lines, he can be rehabilitated again. I now come to my last point. I come to the Farmers’ Assistance Act. In this motion we ask that the provisions of the Farmers’ Assistance Act should be made of a permanent nature. In the case of great epidemic diseases, we have a system under which assistance can be given immediately. We want the Farmers’ Assistance Committees as permanent bodies, as they function at present. The whole machinery is in order. They can immediately help every farmer, but as the law stands today no farmer who got into difficulties after 1933, can get assistance under the Farmers’ Assistance Act. That ought not to be the case. Here and there farmers fall out who can still be a great asset to the State, who can still produce, and who cannot be assisted at present, and I ask the hon. Minister to amend the Act in such a way that assistance can continue to be given. In these few words, I have briefly explained the whole position as I see it, and I want to make an appeal to this House that we should not meddle with a principle which was designed to save the farmer. We must not try to make political capital out of the matter. Everyone of the farmers who requested me to introduce a motion of this nature is a supporter of the Government.

I hope the Government will decide today not to make political capital out of this motion, but that it will decide actively to assist that type of person who is in distress and who is looking forward to assistance and who wants to get rid of that eternal burden. The other day I spoke to the secretary of the Farmers’ Assistance Board, and he told me that they were going into the matter thoroughly. Where there are deserving cases, debts are written off, but that is not the general policy. My request is that the position of the farming community should be investigated properly and that assistance of a permanent nature should be given to those who require assistance. They should not always be handicapped with those burdens with which they are saddled today. I hope I shall be able to get this House to support this motion, and if we accept this motion, I think we will be doing something worth while for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I feel rather disappointed about the small number of members present in the House. I am speaking in English so that our townspeople can also understand the plight of the farmer. I was one of the men who acted on the Farm Relief Board. I was the member appointed by the hon. Mr. Havenga as adviser, and I think I can speak with a certain amount of authority on what I saw during my visits to the countryside. There were certain districts, for example in the north-eastern Cape, where the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) comes from and I will just tell you that in his constituency, in the district of Aliwal North, the farmers had bonds amounting to £1,000,000, held mostly by the smaller men. Then you have Molteno with another million pounds in bonds. There were about 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. of farmers who had no bonds. The same position applied in Burghersdorp and in many of the northern parts of the country. I am only pleading here for the underdog, the man who cannot be helped by your banks or by the Land Bank, I am pleading for that man who has fallen below that 66 per cent. I sould like to draw a picture. We all saw the picture of the Tennessee Valley. In some parts of the country you saw that very same picture; you saw the haggard appearance of the people, you saw people living in mudhouses with one or two rooms and families almost dying of suffering and exposure. In the north-west Cape I very often came to farms where the man had a few goats, a little house and four or five children, and with the little money he made he had to supply their wants. But that was not all. He was so hopelessly bonded and so much in debt that it was almost impossible for him to exist. The Farmers’ Relief Board came in and helped him to a great extent. The number of applications, in the beginning was 125,000, and the amount of money invested was £28,000,000. From 1926 to December, 1944, these loans were reduced to £49,000. That shows one that these people were able and eager to pay off their debts and they did do so in an admirable way. But there are still some of these people who cannot pay, and it is for that class of man that I am pleading, for the man who is so over-burdened with debt that he cannot exist. If you go to the Farmers’ Relief Board they will tell you that there is a big section of people today who cannot pay and who are always asking for an extension of time and praying for mercy, but ultimately they cannot pay and they are driven off the land. It is for that section of people, those who cannot get loans from the Land Bank, that I am pleading. It is true that the Minister of Finance helped to a certain extent by the last Act which extended the Land Bank advances to 66 per cent., but that is not enough. I have pleaded in this House on more than one occasion that the limit should be extended to 75 per cent. The existing Land Bank loans up to 66 per cent. have really helped the Farmers’ Relief Board in this way that £4,000,000 of Farmers’ Relief Bonds have been taken over by the Land Bank. In March there remained only £12,000,000 on loan. If the Minister of Finance were to extend the scope of the bonds to 75 per cent. I am sure that he would get another £4,000,000 under the heading, which the Land Bank would take over, and it would then be about £8,000,000 which the State would have to take over in giving help to these people. The question is what one will do with these people. Either one has to drive them off the land or else give them some assistance. The hon. member for Aliwal has given you some of his ideas. My ideas are very much the same. My idea is that the remainder of these people who still owe money under the Farm Relief Scheme should be treated as a burden, so to speak, of the State, and that their debts should be written off, or that they should have some form of help in order to diminish their debts in an easy way, firstly by giving them that money practically free of interest, or by making the rate of interest so low that they can exist. The second method is by writing off the uneconomic portion of their debts. We do not want to tell the Government exactly what to do, but we do feel that if they want to keep these people on the land and do not want them to become a curse, almost, to their own families and to the State in the future, they will definitely have to do something for them. We talk about the erosion problem, over-stocking and about the drying-out of South Africa. The reason for these things is that there are so many of these people who have to take every ounce from the ground in order to get out of debt and to pay their interest to the Government, and unless the Government does something to help them in some way they will turn those parts of the country where they live into a desert. They remind me of the picture we saw the other day, of the goat. That is the stage they have now reached. Their sheep have gone and their cattle have disappeared, and only the goat remains to take their place. The goat is destroying the herbage and the plant life, and it is causing erosion and the drying up of the country. It is for that section of the population that we are pleading with the Minister, that he should do something to rehabilitate these people or take them away, in some cases, from these farms, which are really more of a liability to them than an asset. When I was in the north-west and in Bushmanland I found that many of these farmers had been taken away there and put under the irrigation scheme. You have the Vredendal Scheme and the Koekenaap Scheme, and it was wonderful to see what it meant to these people to have their children nearer the schools. You will be surprised to see how the childlren have gone ahead instead of being driven into isolation and poverty. Something must be done for them. It is impossible to keep them there. Either they must be given economical ground or else they must be put on irrigation schemes where their children can be looked after. If they are not taken away it is quite certain that the State will not get its money back. They must be rehabilitated or otherwise they must be sent to the cities as unskilled labourers. If they go to the cities, what will their plight be? They cannot compete with skilled labourers. They will live at the level of the native. We have our duties to this country, whether we live in the towns or in the country. We have to do something for the sake of humanity. We hear about better wages in towns, but have you ever realised what the wages of these people are, these underdogs? They have to live on a pittance. There is no such thing as a minimum wage of 8s. or 10s. a day. The only food they eat is a bit of meat and mealie pap, and they have to rear families on that. Sometimes I think that we in this country are only barbarians. We talk about civilisation and democracy, but we allow people in this country to live far below the bread line. We only look after those who can help themselves. We do not look after those who cannot help themselves. These people live in dire poverty. I should like some of our city dwellers to go into those parts and to see for themselves what is happening, and they will be shocked. It is even worse than the back streets of some of our cities. We live in a country containing gold, and mineral wealth in abundance, but except for talking about it, what do we really do for the underdog? We are only parasites on the underdog. What happens to these small men? They cannot keep their stock because the farms are too small and the interest too high. They sell the stock and the bigger man profiteers at the expense of the small man. In every way the rich man is a parasite on the small man, and I think the time has arrived when we should stop merely talking and try to uplift our poor white population, so that they may live a decent life. Here we have all the gold and all the minerals in the country. There are only 2,000,000 white people and yet we have 300,000 of these people living under the borderline. And out of the 160,000 farmers I can assure you that there are at least 20,000 to 30,000 farmers living under the breadline and earning not 5s. a day. Many of these would thank God if they could receive 5s. a day for their work. You might think that I am exaggerating, but I would appeal to my town friends to go to the Farm Relief Board where they will find out that there are men who 8 years ago received loans and who have never been able to pay off a penny. They were not lazy but circumstances were against them and whatever they did they could not pay off the loans. If no steps are taken they will be driven off the land. Where the poor man could not afford to keep his lamb until it grew up, the richer farmer can keep that lamb to increase his flock. I think we must give these people bigger holdings or send them to the irrigation schemes, or else to the cities. I appeal to my town friends to help in keeping these people in the country. They have suffered much and they know the conditions. You cannot put other people in their place. It is impossible to put a man from the city in the place of these people, who have gone through all these hardships. All they want, and all we want, is help for the underdog. We have never had a decent policy in agriculture, and if we have a policy in agriculture where we have stability of prices and good control so that the farmer knows what he will make, as a business man knows, when once that man has been put on a sound footing and he is then not capable of supporting himself, he must go the way of all flesh; he must go to the wall; but as things are today there are thousands of good people who are wasting their efforts and living in great distress. I hope the Minister will at any rate alleviate the distress of that section, not the man who falls above the 66 per cent., and I hope that he will also increase the Land Bank Loans to 75 per cent. and that people falling under the 75 per cent. limit will be put on a sound basis so that they can become an asset to the country and not a drag as they are today.

Perhaps it is advisable for me to say a few words at this stage in connection with this motion of the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). This motion, as it was moved, really falls into two sections. The first is its motivation, the reasons which are given in support of the request which is contained in the motion; and the second section of the motion is the request to consider the introduction of certain legislation. I think we should deal with those two sections separately. Let us first look at the reasons which are given in support of the request which is made in the motion. It is said here that these things should be done—

That applies to the farmers in general—

It is the farmers in general of whom this is said—

In other words, the majority of farmers will never be able to discharge their debts—

That is the main point.

But is that really the case? Where are those areas, and are there not other sections of the population where we also find small sections who are less well-to-do than they were in 1933? Take people with fixed incomes. The cost of living has risen, but their income has remained the same. Take pensioners. Is that class not in a worse position than they were in 1933? But my hon. friend says the farmers represent the only section of the population which is in a worse position than they were in 1933. He does say in some areas, but he creates the impression in his motion that that is a general phenomenon. That is the motivation of my hon. friend’s motion. Is it really true that the farmers in general are not being encouraged to produce or to remain on the land, but that they are being handicapped? Is the position of the farmers really so bad today? Are the prices which the farmer gets for his products really so low? My hon. friend took the year 1933. I do not want to draw a comparison between the prices of products in 1932-’33 and the present prices. I shall not go back to 1932-’33; that was a very bad year; at that time the price of fat wool was as low as 5¾d. I shall take the year 1933-’34. During that year the prices rose again. Let us draw a comparison between that year and the year 1943-’44. The price for prime beef was 33s. 11d. per 100 lbs. at that time. In 1933-’34 it was 70s. The price of prime mutton was 6½d. at that time; in 1943-’44 it was 12¼d. The price for mealies ….

The Minister of Agriculture will contradict you if you give that figure.

I am giving the figures in respect of the year 1943-’44. I shall not fall into the trap which the hon. member wants to set for me. The price of mealies rose from 12s.1d. to 16s. 2d. The price of wheat rose from 20s. to 35s.

The price of butter fat rose from 13½d. to 20d. My hon. friend now creates the impression that the farmer cannot make a living, that he is being driven off the land, that his position is worse than it was in 1933. My hon. friend is erring in laying down a general proposition on the strength of a very small number of cases, because one will always find a number of exceptions. The great mistake which we are all inclined to make in politics is to exaggerate and to make general statements on the basis of small numbers. As far as the general position is concerned, it is certainly not as one might infer from this motion of the hon. member. I now come to the other aspect of his motivation, the unbearable burdens with which the farmers in general are struggling, which they will never be able to discharge in the majority of cases. Let us look at the facts again, and I shall not take the Land Bank figures now. There may be cases where the farmer discharged his debt with the Land Bank because he borrowed money elsewhere. But I am going to take the figures in connection with the loans by the State Advances Office over the past six years, and I want to point out that considerable decreases took place in the outstanding capital which is owing to that office by the farmers, and I think the hon. member will concede that it is not the result of extraordinary pressure or compulsion which was brought to bear on the debtors by that office.

It is.

What is the position? On the 1st April, 1939, the outstanding capital in that office was a little less than £23,000,000—£22,950,000. Three years later, on the 1st April, 1942, it had come down by £2,000,000; it was then £20,850,000. On the 1st April, 1944, it had come down to £12,800,000—by £8,000,000 in those two years, and the last available figure at the end of the last calendar year on the 31st December, 1944, is £10,750,000. In other words, over a period of less than 6 years, there was a reduction of more than £12,000,000.

What do the farmers owe today?

A portion of that, £4,300,000, is to be ascribed to the fact that a number of Section 20 bonds were taken over by the Land Bank because these can now be regarded as economical. In other words, the position has improved to such an extent that the people need no longer be treated on a sub-economic basis. But let us leave that point. We then find, as far as the State Advances Office itself is concerned, that there was a reduction over that period of a little less than 6 years, of approximately £8,000,000. Let me mention a few other figures. In 1936-’37 the capital collections of that office, the amount which they obtained from the farmers by way of capital reduction, was £375,000 during the year. During 1943-’44 that amount rose from £375,000 to £1,900,000. That is what the farmers repaid during that year, to the State Advances Office. The arrear interest on the 1st April, 1939, amounted to £822,000; at the end of last year it had come down to £542,000. The number of loans in the books of the State Advances Office under the various schemes on the 1st April, 1939, was more than 125,000 loans. At the end of the last calendar year the number of loans had been reduced to less than 50,000, although in the meantime a number of new loans were issued under various new schemes; nevertheless the number of persons who were indebted to that office, decreased by three-fifths, by 60 per cent. Out of the 18,700 farm mortgages in favour of the State and registered in that office, no less than 6,700 were completely paid off during that period, i.e. during the last 5½ years. Two thousand nine hundred were transferred to the Land Bank—of the old Section 20 bonds and of the 18,700 there are still just over 9,000 which remain unpaid; in other words, less than 50 per cent. As far as the Land Bank is concerned, it would have been possible to give similar figures, but I just want to mention one series of figures in that connection. These are figures which I took from the annual report of the Land Bank which I recently laid on the Table. These are the figures in respect of arrear interest on the outstanding capital of the Land Bank. It is a good figure to take; it gives one an indication of the position. In 1939 the arrear interest on capital with the Land Bank amounted to no less than 2¾ per cent. In 1939 it had come down to 1¼ per cent. and today it is less than ½ per cent. Then just one further fact—the last available figure of insolvencies. The figure in respect of the quarterly period from July to September, 1944, indicates that during that quarter not a single farmer became bankrupt. What do these figures and facts really indicate? In the first place, that agriculture in general is not faring as badly as an outsider might infer from the motivation of this motion, as it is set out on the Order Paper. In the second place it indicates that the farmers in general have made very good use of the measure of welfare which they have enjoyed in the past few years, and they did so by discharging their obligations and paying their debts. I have often thought in listening to speeches in this House, in which the speakers elaborated on the difficulties of the farmers, that perhaps the speakers were actually rendering a disservice to the farmers by making those speeches. These speeches create the impression in the country that the farmer has lost his sense of independence, that he only wants assistance from the Government, that his motto is to write off debt, that he cannot or will not discharge his obligations. That is the impression which is created by this type of speech, and it is an erroneous impression; and my reason for feeling that it is a wrong impression is, in fact, the experience of the past few years. That experience of the past few year ought to remove that impression, namely the manner in which the farmers have discharged their obligations and paid their debts during the past few years. It proves that the farmer, generally speaking, has not lost his sense of independence, and that the farmers, when they can discharge then obligations, do so. May I just say this in passing. I refer to the measure of welfare which the farmers have enjoyed over the past few years. Unfortunately there have also been farmers who in some cases have made the wrong use of this prosperity by buying more land at uneconomic prices and sometimes even by borrowing the money. Not only farmers but also townsmen have bought land in this way. Fortunately that tendency has not been as marked at it was during the previous war. We have succeeded to some extent in checking that tendency. Nevertheless it is a fact that up to a certain point purchases of land were made at uneconomic prices, and in that way land prices were unduly inflated. I just want to repeat this today. I warned against this tendency repeatedly, and I told the farmers and others that they should not buy land at uneconomic prices, both in their own interests and in the interests of the community as a whole, and I added that if they did so and got into difficulties, they should not come to the State for assistance to get them out of those difficulties. It is now being realised that there is a danger that some of these people will get into difficulty, and one again hears of assistance by the State to that type of person, by means of the old Section 20 loan. No, we warned them very clearly and if, notwithstanding this warning, anyone did the wrong thing and as a result of his mistake finds himself in difficulties within the next few years, he must not expect assistance from us along these lines. So much for the motivation of the motion. I think I have indicated by mentioning these facts that there is really no sufficient motivation for what follows in the motion. Since the reasons for the motion fall away, one might say that the request also falls away. But what does the hon. member really want? What does his request really mean? He wants us to amend the Farmers’ Assitance Acts in such a way that the farming community will be placed on a sound footing once and for all. I think the hon. member is somewhat optimistic. He personally spoke of the vicissitudes of nature, and whatever one may do today, there will be no guarantee that difficulties will not arise again in the future. “Once and for all”, that is putting it a little too strongly. The hon. member spoke of the difficulties in those parts of the country where he comes from. It appears from the speech that these difficulties, to a great extent, are to be attributed to a severe drought; in other words, the vicissitudes of nature, and no system of farmers’ rehabilitation can ever be a guarantee against the vicissitudes of nature. But what does the hon. member actually want to do? He wants three things. He wants legislative amendment to obtain three things. In the first place, every farmer must be rehabilitated, and then he refers more particularly to the farmers’ obligation to the State. He speaks of the State Advances Office. Well, a farmer can either discharge his obligations, or he cannot discharge them. If he can discharge his obligations, the best way of rehabilitating him is to allow him to help himself. One cannot rehabilitate every farmer. The majority of farmers do not need rehabilitation. If a farmer cannot meet his obligations, there is provision in the existing Acts. The Farmers’ Assitance Board can grant assistance. They do it. They do it by means of suspension, and they do it on a fairly big scale. They do it by means of extending the period of repayment. Where a debtor becomes ruined, they can even recommend that the debt be written off. Moreover, they do it. In this financial year, up to the beginning of this month, debt amounting to £150,000 was written off. Are we really to assume that every farmer must be rehabilitated?

Every deserving case.

Again the hon. member’s motion has been framed too broadly. I think he should withdraw his motion and alter it somewhat. There are cases where people are able to make a better living in some other occupation. That happens today. I am now thinking of my own constituency. I repeatedly come into contact with people in my constituency who were farmers formerly and who could not make a living on the farm, but who are today making a reasonably good living in the cities. We must not conclude that because a person has once farmed, he should always remain a farmer. There are many cases where the man did better than he did elsewhere and where the land is now being used by another person who can make a living on it. But the point which I really want to emphasise is that the power to assist the people, does exist. It is provided for in the Act today.

What about those after 1935?

I shall come to that in a moment. The powers do exist; and does the hon. member want to suggest that the Farmers’ Assistance Board is not making use of its powers in a reasonable and sympathetic manner? The hon. member himself said that the Board was using its powers sympathetically. What does the hon. member want then? Apparently more writing off. We are writing off, but according to him we are not writing off enough. He said he was not asking for charity, that he was not coming to the Government hat in hand, but at the same time he wants debt to be written off.

Certainly.

Is that not charity?

Indirectly.

Have we reached the stage where we can no longer regard it as charity when debts are written off?

Does not the city dweller also receive favours?

But the hon. member said he was not asking for charity.

Fairness.

Is it reasonable to write off in every case? No, every case is dealt with on its merits. Then he wants us to amend the Act in such a way that provision will be made for the establishment of local committees. Local committees do exist today; it is not necessary to amend the Act. What is the alteration that the hon. member wants? Does he want elections to take place in connection with the local committee, that the public should elect the members, that the public should elect one member of a Farmers’ Assistance Committee? I am sure he does not want that. We have enough elections.

How are they appointed at present?

The Minister appoints them. These committees are not, however, vested with executive powers, and apparently the hon. member does not want them to have executive powers. They are only advisory bodies. The executive power rests with the Farmers’ Assistance Board in Pretoria, and whether the committees are constituted in this way or under the existing system, their position remains the same; they remain advisory bodies, and the real power and responsibility rests with the Farmers’ Assistance Board in Pretoria. The hon. member now wants to amend the Act in such a way that its provisions will be of a permanent character. That would be quite a strange procedure. We have an Act on the Statute Book and now we want to pass an amending Act to make the existing Act of a permanent character.

To assist the post-1935 people.

Apparently the hon. member has not read the Act. There is nothing in the Act which prevents assistance being given in connection with debts contracted after 1935, nothing at all. The position is that there are really two sections of the Act; one is in connection with the establishment of the procedure of effecting a compromise between the farmer and his creditors. This section is of a permanent nature. The other section, to which the hon. member refers, is the one in terms of which the Farmers’ Assistance Board can give a certain amount of financial assistance. As regards the Act, the discretion is left entirely in the hands of the Farmers’ Assistance Board.

What about those cases where the creditors refuse?

My predecessor as Minister of Finance, when he introduced this Bill said that it was a question of administrative policy, and that the financial section of the Act would only be applicable to debts incurred prior to 1935. But no amending legislation is necessary in this connection.

I hope it will be done now.

I think the hon. member should revise his motion once again. All the necessary provision exists in the Act, but I certainly do not think this is the right time to depart from the policy of my predecessor in this connection. When one reads the motion, one feels that the hon. member did not really make a thorough study of this matter, and that he does not know clearly what he really wants.

I asked the Farmers’ Assistance Board whether they were of opinion that the Farmers’ Assistance Act is ineffective, as one might infer from this motion. They stated that generally speaking the existing laws were effective to provide the necessary relief to farmers who were in difficulties. It is very clear that the Board is making full use of the existing Acts in a sympathetic manner in order to help the farmers, and it is very clear that through the assistance of the Board and the State Advances Office, the farmers have been helped considerably. The figures prove that. I therefore regard this motion as insufficiently motivated and, as far as practical proposals are concerned, indistinct and ill-considered. I cannot see what useful purpose will be served by passing it.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

I may say that I have much to do with the class of farmer dealt with in this motion. I also want to add that I am well-disposed towards them. For the poor section of my nation I will do anything in the world to alleviate their burdens. But ….

Yes, now we come to the “but”.

Yes, the “but”. The necessity of this motion is really not obvious to me. We people, especially in the Transvaal, had the luck to be able to pay off much of our debts in the last few years. We feel happy about that. We cannot see why we should complain at the moment. We are satisfied. This motion aims at writing off debt. I must honestly say that with the experience I have had of writing off debts, I am opposed to it in principle. I shall tell you why. I also want to advise the Minister of Finance not to commence anything of this sort. I was a member of the Credit Association and we heard that a commission would come to investigate with an eye to writing off the debts of the people We were very glad about it and thought that 90 per cent. of the debt would be written off. Near my farm there lived two brothers who each owed the Credit Association a few hundred pounds. The one brother was very careful. If a sheep of his died he struggled until he had another sheep in its place. The other one killed a sheep at frequent Intervals; he lived well and did not worry about matters. The commission took evidence and the poor farmer who struggled hard to collect his herd received no writing-off. But the other one who had eaten two-thirds of his estate received a large writing-off. I felt that that was unreasonable and that I could not agree with it. I even went to see the Minister of Finance about it and made recommendations to the congress. Everything was rejected. We felt that we had to pay our debts. In the last few years the people have paid approximately 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of those debts. I now ask the House whether it will be fair to that class of person to ask for a writing off of debt. The principle is quite wrong. We must teach the people that if they buy something they have to pay for it. As I say, I have had experience of writing off and I say that it is a fatal system. I shall go on any platform, at any time, before my constituents to defend my point of view in connection with this matter. With the experience I gained in the Credit Associations and on the Farmers’ Assistance Board and other bodies I am against writing off debt. When a farmer cannot pay he can go to these various bodies and there is not the least objection to giving him an extension of time.

Must that last for ever?

I do not want to have debt for ever and nobody wants it.

And if he cannot pay?

I do not think there is anybody in the country in these times who, if he puts his shoulder to the wheel, will not be able to pay. Anyone who wants to farm and who understands farming can pay off some of his debt in these times in which we live. The prices are fair; the rain is unfortunately not always there but in spite of that we had fair crops and with the good prices for agricultural products people can pay their debts. If there is anybody who cannot pay his debts I would advise him to sell out and to look for work in the mines, in the factories or elsewhere. He will never make a success of farming if he cannot make a success of it in these times.

I think that there is quite a lot of misunderstanding about this motion. When one sees the motion on the Order Paper and one listens to the Minister of Finance, who tried to play the rôle of an advocate, one must give him credit for having made quite a success of playing that rôle. But if we listen to the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) it is quite clear, although he could perhaps have drawn up his motion better, what he aimed at, namely that he was dealing with people who in present circumstances, and due to adversity, are going backwards. I had it in mind that the Minister of Finance would make the sort of speech he has just made, and I must say that he has at least clearly proved to the townsmen, who think that the farmers do not pay their debts, that the farmers are in fact willing to pay their debts. The farmers are eager to pay their debts because by doing so they are helping themselves, their families and their own future. I turn now to the argument used by the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans). He said that if there are farmers who in these times cannot pay their debts, they should not be farmers. Must we hear this kind of argument from a farmer? That hon. member ought to go to the constituency of the hon. member for Aliwal and also to part of my constituency, and tell those farmers that they should not farm any longer. It is circumstances which place those people in that unfortunate position. Those are pastoral areas and we know that the Farmers’ Relief Board, shortly before the war, sent a commission there because they and the Minister of Finance were anxious about those areas. The war came and that helped the people a little to get rid of their debt. But now we find that it is the smaller farmers who are going to the wall as the result of adversity. Any farmer sitting in this House knows that the large farmer, when times improve, can get rid of all his debt which perhaps has been accumulating. He is able to reduce his debt. But the man with 300 or 400 or 500 sheep is in a different position. Our experience as practical farmers has taught us that it takes this man four or five years, if they are good years, to get rid of his debt. What about his bonds? If the hon. member for Losberg would reflect on the matter he would not say such foolish and irresponsible things.

I am speaking of the Transvaal.

It makes no difference whether a man farms in the Transvaal or in Aliwal North if circumstances are the same. I was surprised to see how farmers came to me in recent months, before the Session of Parliament started, in order to explain their position. I admit that they did not do what they did at Dordrecht with the hon. member for Aliwal, but they came to me and I was surprised to discover in what a weak financial position these people still are. In passing I wish to mention that most of them were supporters of the Minister of Finance and his Party. What happened to them in recent years? In recent years they sowed fodder, and in the past it was our habit to feed our wethers on the land in the winter months, August and September, then to shear and after that to sell the sheared wethers on the market The Minister of Agriculture, in his great wisdom, thought that one could have only one price right through and that it was not necessary to make a difference. That prevented the price of wethers rising in the winter months as usual. As a result farmers no longer fed sheep and wethers. They then tried to see whether they could produce wheat, but the drought came and they had no wheat crop. They had no crop, not even maize or potatoes. I am only mentioning the facts in order to convince the Minister that the least adversity will upset those small farmers again. We have here members of the Farmers’ Assistance Board. They know my private attitude. They know what my attitude is when I go to interview them; they know what my attitude is as regards writing off debts. But if the hon. member for Losberg makes such remarks, I want to say that he does not know what he is talking about. I have dealt with cases before the Farmers’ Assistance Board of people who were compelled to sell their farmers’ assistance sheep because the rental of ground rose so much, and who in spite of that were not able to pay all their debt. They had to seek work on the railways and then it was still expected that they should pay off their arrear debt. Those are the cases I am thinking about. I know of a case in my own town where a man got work on the railways and had to pay off 2s. 6d. per month. If that is the attitude of the Farmers’ Assistance Board, it does not aim at rehabilitating but is there to push people down. I want to lay stress on this, but I also want to say that where I brought such cases to the personal attention of the Farmers’ Relief Board they were very helpful and I felt that they wanted to assist people and they did assist them. But there is something else, and members of the Farmers’ Relief Board who are sitting here will forgive me if I say it; where the Farmers’ Relief Board in the past tried to rehabilitate and were anxious to help people out of difficulty, although individual members are today also sympathetic, I received the impression that today they are more anxious to act as debt collectors for the Government. I say this here without wishing to cast any reflection on them as individuals. They were always sympathetic towards me and always treated me with courtesy, but it seems to me that they must now execute another policy on instructions received from the Minister. I want to deal with something which the Minister said in connection with the relief to farmers. I wish to ask the Minister in future please not to descend to the trivialities he used this afternoon for the sake of making points in the debate, leaving the main issues undiscussed. The hon. member for Aliwal asks that the Farmers’ Relief Act should be extended, that the Act should be more conciliatory. The Minister of Finance then said that the Farmers’ Relief Act is no longer limited to cases which arose before 1935, but that cases which arose after 1935 could also be dealt with by virtue of that Act. The Minister of Finance said it in such a manner that the public outside, people who do not know everything about these matters, will believe that cases arising after 1935 can also be assisted. But the position is that farmers who contracted debt before 1935 can receive financial assistance under the provisions of the Farmers’ Relief Act while those who contracted the debts after 1935 cannot receive such financial assistance—they can only be assisted with advice. It is quite clear what the meaning of the hon. member for Aliwal was, and I cannot understand how the Minister can come here to try to make petty debating points.

Nonsense.

The hon. member, of course, does not understand what I am saying. There are two ways in which the farmers can be rehabilitated. The first is by making the prices more economic, so that they can produce again and so that it pays them, but then they must also have a market for their products. The other method is by reducing their burden of debt, and that is the reason why this side of the House is pleading for a scheme of reduction of mortgages. That is the crux of the matter. But this afternoon I wish to give my own personal opinion: Although it is good to fix prices in such a way that a man can produce, the State must also see to it that there are markets for the products, and the State was not always capable of doing that. I therefore think that one should adopt another method and see to it that as far as the small farmer on the small farm, who is burdened with a high mortgage, is concerned, he should be assisted to be released of a capital burden he cannot bear. Then only are you helping him so that he can stand both good and bad times, having a low rate of interest to pay. Although the member for Aliwal perhaps did not put it that way, and although I will admit that if he were a barrister he would have drawn his motion differently, I feel that the Minister today took up a very unreasonable attitude towards the hon. member, and as far as my constituents are concerned, portion of whom were not able to rehabilitate themselves in the war years, I feel that if adversity comes, that portion of my constituents will immediately again be in trouble. This motion aims at preventing that. For that reason I support it.

I must congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down on his attempt to try to improve, to some extent, a hopeless motion. He has practically admitted here that the motion as proposed by the hon. member for Aliwal is in fact a hopeless motion, if it has to be given effect to in the way it is drawn, but he tried to save the position. His arguments reminded me of the Bible text. He tried to kick against the goad. The Minister gave facts and supported them with figures, but now the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) says that he has a few cases in his constituency and knows of a few cases in Aliwal North in connection with whom the arguments of the Minister are not quite correct. We know, as the Minister also admitted in his speech, that a drought reigned in Aliwal North and in Colesberg. We also had a drought in the Transvaal, and I stand second to none in this House in protecting the interests of the farmers. My constituency contains more small farmers than that of any other hon. member here. I think 90 per cent. of my constituents are small farmers who earn a slender and difficult existence, and yet I make bold to say that the farmers will feel insulted if this motion is accepted. They do not wish to be beggars and they do not wish to approach the Government for reductions of debts with their hats in their hands. Even in my constituency they are trying to pay their debt. We all know the hon. member for Aliwal North. We respect him and love him. We know he has a very great heart; his heart is almost as big as his body, but in this motion his heart has run away with his brain. He meant it very well. I agree with him that something should be done for the small farmer, but this motion emanates from his heart and not from his brain. Even though we accept the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal North, will the small farmers be assisted for an appreciable period, or for a long time? It will not take long before they are again in a position where they have to come to the Government anew to ask for further support. We all have that experience in our constituencies. We had that experience when debts were last written off to help the farmers, and today some of them are again in the same precarious position in which they were. There is a further point which renders the solution of this problem very difficult to me, personally. The proposer of the motion referred to the small farmers. If the position of the small farmer in South Africa must be saved, the question arises how it can be done. With fixed prices the position is this, that if the prices are fixed high enough for the large farmers to make a decent profit, the small farmers can still hardly make a living. If, on the other hand, the price is fixed high enough so that the small farmer can earn a living it results in the large farmers making abnormal profits. What future is there for the small farmer? We saw what process is going on in other countries, for example in America, where the small farmer was eliminated and trusts and corporations are farming on a large scale. Is there still a possible existence for small farmers in South Africa? I want to put that question to the hon. member for Aliwal North, and if he can give a satisfactory reply to that question he will be rendering South Africa an important service. After this war, when prices become normal again, I foresee the position developing where the small farmers will again revert to the same desperate position in which they were in the past. I want to add to that that today the small farmers are not in a difficult position.

What are you going to do with the small farmer?

That is the question I am putting to the hon. member for Aliwal North who has proposed this motion. I do not know what the solution is, whether it means the elimination of the small farmer in general and a future only for large farmers and companies and trusts. According to my opinion the interests of the small farmers are not being protected properly. The Opposition call themselves the spokesmen of the farmers, but in their arguments they are acting, according to my convictions, purely as representatives of the big farmers. Their arguments are based on the interests of the large farmers. There is no small farmer on the side of the Opposition; they are all rich farmers. I want to give the hon. member for Aliwal North the same advice which was given him by the Minister of Finance, namely to withdraw his motion and to submit a proper motion in the interests of the small farmers. I am convinced that he has the interests of the small farmer at heart.

Propose an amendment yourself.

Seeing that the hon. member for Aliwal North wishes to protect the interests of the small farmer let him propose another motion. I am convinced of it that in the scheme of social security the interests of the small farmer will take their rightful place.

I am really surprised when I listen to a speech like that of the hon. member of Swartruggens (Mr. Henny) who, imitating the Minister of Finance, also tried to describe the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) as weak and ridiculous. I should like to hear what the farming community outside will say when they hear that the hon. member for Swartruggens describes as ridiculous a motion which aims at the rehabilitation of the farmers, and that their position as regards advances by the State should be ameliorated where that is considered necessary and where the hon. member proposes that the whole debt or part thereof should be written off in certain cases, in order to give the debtors a reasonable opportunity of providing for their families and of fulfilling their obligations. They will describe the hon. member for Swartruggens as weak and ridiculous. Even the Minister tried to poke fun at the motion. I will not argue that the wording of the motion, according to the speech of the Minister, is 100 per cent. correct, and I will not say that it could not have read a little differently. But it is really not reasonable for the Minister of Finance to devote almost the whole of his speech to the wording of the motion and so little time to what the motion really asks for. I know the constituency of the hon. member for Aliwal North and I know what the circumstances there are. I want to affirm that circumstances are somewhat more difficult than in 1939, and where the hon. member representing such a constituency comes here to plead for the farmers, the Minister tries to make the motion appear ridiculous. I think we should object to that kind of action. It is not fair towards the House and the country and where I say it is not fair, I say so because it is just as much to be deprecated that the hon. member for Swartruggens tried to do the same thing; and he made a hopeless failure of it. The things the hon. member for Swartruggens described as being ridiculous are being done today. Today portions of debts are being written off. Mortgage redemption takes place. And where the hon. member for Aliwal North, with an eye to reigning conditions and future difficulties, pleads that debts should be written off and help offered in greater measure, this hon. member describes it as ridiculous. The Minister of Finance this morning in his speech painted a picture pretending to depict that farmers are flourishing and that everything is fine. There is no farmer on this side of the House who is not truly thankful that a large number of farmers can minimise their debt. We are all thankful that this is so and that a large number of them, who had five good years, could redeem their bonds, but unfortunately this position does not pertain throughout the country. I am thinking of constituencies like Aliwal North and Albert-Colesberg and a large part of my constituency where for three successive years, there were crop failures. We represent pastoral areas where sheep farming is carried on on a large scale, but which progressed so badly that a commission was appointed to investigate the reasons for sheep farming becoming practically non-existent. After that the farmers began to sow with a reasonable measure of success, but in the past three years they have had practically no crops. It is self-evident that people in such circumstances find themselves in great difficulties. Whereas farmers under normal circumstances, when they reap a crop and are not over-capitalised, are able to reduce their bonds, if there is no crop they are not able to reduce bonds and their debt mounts up. Now the hon. member for Aliwal North is proposing that relief should be given in these cases, but the hon. member for Swartruggens describes it as ridiculous. I think if the hon. member were to appear before an audience of farmers they would describe him as weak and ridiculous. Are the farmers really so prosperous as they are alleged to be and as most hon. members on the other side seem to think? If we have regard to the fact that according to the committee investigating the rehabilitation of agriculture, 68 per cent. of the population of the country are farmers, and their income is only £50,000,000, less than 13 per cent. of the national income, it is quite clear that however eloquent, the Minister of Finance may be and however much the hon. member for Swartruggens is trying to imitate him, the fact remains that the farming community as such is not prosperous. It does not matter to me where he comes from, but I should like to see one single member who can prove to me that when 68 per cent. of the population of the country earn only 13 per cent. of the national income, that part of the population is prosperous. That can never be proved. We cannot get away from the fact that a large portion of the agricultural population is today still in difficulty. For a few years we have lived under the cruellest and darkest clouds of war. Now peace is in prospect and with an eye to that we ought to think of the future, and we, who in this Parliament fulfil an important position, have a duty to see to the future and to try to give direction for the future, so that we will be able to pass the transition period from war to peace with the least possible amount of difficulty. The Minister explained to us this morning that one of the good things which are happening now is that the Land Bank has taken over a large number of bonds from the Farmers’ Relief Board because the people have been rehabilitated. I should like to point to one danger in that connection. The people will be rehabilitated and placed on a sound footing only on the basis of the prices for agricultural products which apply today. In my opinion the great danger lies herein, that as soon as the war is over there will inevitably be a reaction as far as concerns the prices of agricultural products.

A depression.

The hon. member may laugh but only a few days ago I read in a paper, “Fortune”, the well-known American paper, that it is inevitable that there will be a reaction as far as agricultural prices are concerned. The hon. member laughs at that. We are busy with a serious matter but the hon. member ridicules it. I want to ask the Minister, that they must not act too hastily in transferring the bonds of people who, in their opinion, are rehabilitated, from the Farmers’ Relief Board to the Land Bank. We have full confidence in the Land Bank but more in the Farmers’ Relief Board. I think that we as farmers who in the past and in difficult circumstances had dealings with the Farmers’ Relief Board owe a debt of gratitude to the Farmers’ Relief Board for their action, and I do not like to see that bonds are now transferred on such a large scale. When the post-war repercussions come, the position of many of the farmers whose position with the reigning prices is regarded as sound, will probably be found not to be so sound in view of the prices which will then prevail, and we must not too lightly accept that a person is rehabilitated and withdraw the protecting hand of the Farmers’ Relief Board from him. In this regard I should like to issue a warning. I just want to say this: All my life I have believed that we in South Africa should do our utmost to produce more cheaply. We can do that by means of instituting long-term schemes which will only bear fruit in years to come, but there is one other method of lowering production costs. What is that? Solely and alone by rendering our farming operations economical, and it is quite clear to me that under existing conditions farmers were able to reduce their bonds, and did so on a fairly large scale, but there are still a number of farmers, known to us personally, who exerted all their energy towards becoming prosperous, but circumstances went against them and they were not able to reduce their bonds on the same scale or at all. Now the hon. member for Aliwal North proposes that where there are such cases the bonds should be reduced to an economic level so that that person can exert his full energies in order to redeem the remaining portion of his bond. I will go so far as to say that if the State had introduced such a scheme earlier, namely to reduce certain bonds to an economic level, we would not today have had a mortgage problem any longer, because the farmers would then have been able to redeem their bonds, i.e. the rest of their bonds during the war. But now they are still burdened in some cases with the full mortgage. In spite of what the Minister of Finance has said I believe that this motion introduced by an hon. member who represents a constituency of the kind he does represent, and who has the confidence of his constituents, is in the interests of the constituency and of that class of farmer to whom I refer. For that reason I support the motion.

I do not think that the hon. member who has just sat down has done the proposer of the motion or the farmers a favour by describing the speech of the Minister of Finance as an attempt to render the motion ridiculous. There can be no doubt about it that every right-thinking farmer will endorse what the Minister of Finance has said. His speech was based on facts, and to come here and accuse the Minister of Finance of wanting to play the advocate and of making debating points is an accusation bare of all truth. What is more, I think that the presence of so few members on the Opposition benches is an indication to us that the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) does not receive much support from them.

Look at your own side.

Do not drag in party politics.

That is quite right. But if we look at the slender support received by the proposer from his own side it shows us that they take very little interest in the matter. I can well understand that. If a reason for proposing a motion of this nature really existed in the country, not only would the Opposition benches be full but the galleries would have been full. I will concede that the small farmer is in a much more difficult position to rehabilitate himself than the large farmer. I can realise that hon. members opposite were perhaps thinking more of that kind of man, although the member for Aliwal quoted the case of a man who had £18,000 debt. He would have done better if he had definitely told us what that man’s debt formerly was, and his assets, and what his debt is now and what his assets are now. Everything has increased in price. We have this position, that the price of slaughter animals is today 100 per cent. higher than in 1932-’33. Wool is 100 per cent. higher than in 1933-’34; ground is 100 per cent. higher and mohair rose by 600 per cent. Wheat is 80 per cent. higher and maize about 100 per cent. I now ask the House: How is it possible that the great majority of farmers could not improve their position in those years? The farmers are not in such difficulties as hon. members opposite wish to pretend. I think that if we go about the country we will find that there are few farmers who are in that position today. The district from which I come has always been the Cinderella when compared With first class districts like Colesberg and Aliway North, and I invite those hon. members to come to my district, where they will discover that there are very few farmers who have not, since 1933, rehabiltated themselves in great measure. The argument was used here: Why are farmers who incurred debt and obligations since 1935 not given the same facilities as those who incurred debt before that time? We all know why it was necessary for the Government to go out of its way to help those people. The farmers who after that period contracted uneconomical debts did so with open eyes. They were warned again and again; with the example of what had happened in depression times before them, they contracted debts with open eyes. The farmer is optimistic. It is our nature that as soon as things improve and look rosy we are inclined to shoulder burdens which we cannot manage later. It is for that reason that the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), did not do the farmers a favour.

It is easy for you to talk. You are a rich man.

He suggests that mortgages should be increased to 75 per cent. on the valuation. In exceptional cases that may be good, but in general it is not in the interests of the farmers to enter into debts which may later perhaps amount to 100 per cent. of the valuation. It is the man who over-capitalises himself who gets into trouble as soon as bad times come. I am talking here as a farmer and the hon. member for Cradock tried to make my figures appear ridiculous. I do not think he succeeded in gaining kudos for himself. It is because I am a practical farmer and because I have also found myself in difficulties that I can speak with sympathy and that I wish to issue the warning that we should not let our farmers get into that position again.

What about those who are already in trouble?

That is a sensible question. But we have the machinery of the Relief Board, the Farmers’ Relief Board, and the Land Bank, for giving all the necessary assistance to these people. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) does not wish the mortgages of the farmers to be transferred from the Farmers’ Relief Board to the Land Bank. If we take a census we find that few farmers would not like to be transferred to the Land Bank, because then they will feel that they are again standing on their feet, are no longer subjected to inspectors and that they can again carry on business without interference from anyone else. Although I have very great sympathy with the hon. member who proposed this motion, I do not believe that this motion is necessary in these times and I do not think that any favour is conferred on the farming community by it. A lot is always said about the poor farming community. Townsmen are inclined to say: “The farmers are being spoonfed”, etc. Let us encourage the farmers to gain confidence in themselves and to make themselves independent, so that they will not be a drag but will contribute their share to the country.

I shall accept that the wording of this motion is perhaps not 100 per cent., but it is nevertheless a good thing which is being asked for by the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). He asks in his motion that the small farmer should be rehabilitated. We have numbers of small farmers in poor circumstances who need help. The hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) said here that he wants to do everything in his power to render assistance to the poor section of his nation which is going under. But at the same time he says that it will be a shame to write off debts. No, we feel that that is one of the main things open to the Government if it wants to help the small farmers who are in difficulties. In the Transvaal there are thousands and tens of thousands of our people who live in very difficult circumstances. They cannot even pay the interest on the amounts they borrowed from the Farmers Relief Board. They write letters from morning to night and even request us as members of Parliament to do something to get the Relief Board to give them an extension of time. Those people must be rehabilitated, and how will we do it if we do not write off their debt? We feel that the Minister should do something to help those people, and that is the aim of the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal. That is the whole aim of the motion and therefore I want to plead with the Minister of Finance that he should not try to represent this motion as being ridiculous. He must pay attention to what is the crux of the motion. We will go so far as to say that many of the farmers cannot rehabilitate themselves owing to the difficult circumstances reigning during the last few years. First we had the floods last year which caused a total crop failure so that farmers were obliged to buy the wheat they had to use for the year. This year we have a destructive drought so that the farmers have no prospects for the future. They cannot pay their interest and have to sell their cattle. But the cattle are in bad condition as a result of the drought. Not only that, but pests like the Commando worm which is eating all the veld, ensued. What can we do now to help those people? The only thing to do is to write off their debt and I think that we should help those people in this respect, as suggested by the hon. member in his motion.

This motion of the hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) shows contempt for our farming community on the platteland. Not one speech on this motion emanated from the members on the oppsite side which does not stamp the Afrikaner in the platteland as being the weakest section of the population.

You are talking nonsense.

You can say what you like but I will say what I like. A picture is always being painted to the country by members on the opposite side which gives the people the impression that the Afrikaner people in the platteland live in mud-houses, that they do not pay their debts and that they want to be and remain dependent on the Government. It is always being represented by the Opposition that they wish to place themselves in the hands of the Government so that the Government should be responsible for them and should help them. That is not reasonable and right as against the nation outside. I am proud of my constituents for having rehabilitated themselves since the beginning of the war in 1939. In my constituency, and I am convinced, also in the constituency of the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) there is nobody who lives in a mudhouse. There are few or none who live under the breadline.

The argument used by members opposite simply resolves itself to this, that he is vilifying the Afrikaner. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) resorted to telling the English-speaking public how weak the Afrikaners are, that they live in mudhouses on the platteland and that they must live under the breadline. That is simply nonsense and untrue; and if he allows it in his constituency he has no right to represent the platteland population. In the constituency from which I come no farmer has ever had the opportunity of receiving £18,000 from the Government with which to speculate—and then they ask that debts should be written off. I ask members on the opposite side whether it can be justified that £18,000 should be given to a man with which to enter into wild speculations although he is a farmer, and that he can then return to the Government and ask for that loan to be written off. That is what the proposer of the motion said. It is easy to talk and make a row here. It is easy to say: Put me in the place of the Government and I will remedy it. It is those members who in 1932 brought the country to such confusion that this Party had to be formed to save the country. The nation outside knows it. I do not want to say anything against the wording of the motion, although I said that the background of the motion is wrong, or rather, it has no background—the background is a phantom. I want to ask the Government to assist the farmers to make an existence on the platteland after the war when matters are normal again. The Government must consider the farming population in schemes such as the Housing Scheme and all the other schemes. I can give members opposite the assurance that the nation outside is very tired of the politics used in this House. In this House there is a lot of noise and we know that is just talk. It does not assist the country. If the hon. member who proposed this motion really wants to protect the interests of his district and if there are so many people who need help, it would have been better for him to discuss the matter with the Department concerned and not to bring it up here on the floor of the House. In this House there is just talk and a waste of time. We all have thé same interests and why must such matters be turned into politics in this House? I listened here to the speeches emanating from the other side. If a member on this side rises to speak, he is attacked in an unreasonable manner. He need not even speak. Members on the other side sit and watch our faces and if one of us smiles he is practically attacked. I represent a constituency just as much as those hon. members, and I want to say very definitely that I am proud of my constituency, and that does not only apply to members of my party; there is no necessity for us to bring motions like this before the House and to say that people live under the breadline. We have no such people. Our farmers are people who work hard. They are strong and fat; they do not live under the breadline, and I am convinced that the same applies to the constituency of that hon. member. It is not necessary for anyone today to live under the breadline if he is healthy and wants to work. There is good work for each man and woman in South Africa. I think that if members opposite would rather bring proved cases to light, we would be able to do more for the interests of the nation and will not deal with such ridiculous matters. There is no real background for this motion. Behind it there is just politics. The object with which I participate in this debate is to prove to the nation outside that the Opposition brings motions of this nature before the House to blame and insult our people on the platteland. I wish to tell the nation to read the Hansard Report where they will find the Minister’s explanation. None of us is so stupid that we cannot see through this motion. If the public outside reads this discussion of today, I am sure that they will understand my reasons for saying so.

I would be badly neglecting my duty if I did not support this motion of the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). We must investigate the matter a little more. Each one knows what the circumstances are in his particular constituency. I regard this matter from a national point of view and not from a political point of view. Because it is an incontrovertible fact that so far as the Free State is concerned, 67 per cent. of the school children are undernourished. That is the red light which warns us not to talk here and to say that the farmers and the less privileged portions of the population are so prosperous. That is not quite the truth. In my constituency I have four classes of people who are going through difficult times. The first is the small owner of ground. Their ground is bonded. Their cattle bear the brand of the Land Bank. For three years now there has been to all intents and purposes a crop failure and I in turn ask: Is it the fault of those people that they cannot pay their debts? Those people may not sell their cattle. The small owner of ground must pay the same high costs as regards fertiliser and implements and each year he has a crop failure, and then I ask is that man prospering? How can he pay his debt, because he cannot sell his cattle on the good market there is today. He may not sell his cattle. I am sorry that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Col. Rood) is not here because I used my influence to get employment for these people in the agricultural implement factory. Those people told me that they have bonds on their farms, that their cattle bear the mark of the Land Bank and that they have crop failures. They could not make a living on the farm and must look for something else to do. If that is the position, can anyone blame those farmers and say that they are irresponsible or lazy? That is an unreasonable accusation. I hope that what some of my friends who represent the platteland said here will be well reported by the press, so that the less priviliged can see what attitude is adopted in this House. The second class of people we have there are the lessees of ground. We know that the consideration for leasing ground has risen enormously today. Those people must hire ground. They have some cattle which they must keep alive. They perhaps have a few spans of oxen with which they plough and we must say here that many people who have surplus money and wish to evade taxes are driving up the cost of hiring ground. With all the increased living costs and production costs how can those people make a living if for two or three years they have crop failures? It is a shame to accuse those people of unwillingness to pay or of laziness if nature thwarts them to such an extent, with the result that they find themselves in those unfortunate circumstances. Then we have the third class, who sow on shares. Those people also have to cover their costs. They reap a small crop and must part with half of it. Who can accuse them of being reckless, lazy and unworried about their financial position? No, we must be careful. Those people in our country are beginning to feel hurt because unsound criticism and insulting language is continually being used against them. What is necessary is just what is asked in this motion, namely that the House should ask the Government to consider the expediency of introducing legislation to alter the laws in order once and for all to place the farming community on a sound basis. What was the object of the proposer of the motion? I believe that his sole intention was rehabilitation plans, once and for all to put those people on the platteland on a sound basis; that plans should be made which will be effective; that the Government should, if necessary, take £10,000,000 with which to buy enough ground so that each of those people can receive a piece of, ground on which they can work out their own salvation. That will lead us in the right direction. This motion of the hon. member clearly shows that he is not asking for a general writing off of debt for everybody, but that cases where it is urgently required, where a man has practically nothing left with which to earn a living, will be taken into consideration and that relief will be granted. I believe, as I say, that the general plan of rehabilitation forms the background of this motion, and we should like to know what the policy of the Government is as regards a general plan of rehabilitation. Those people who struggle and work hard year after year look forward to a plan of rehabilitation from the side of the Government, and therefore the hon. member in his motion asks that such a plan of rehabilitation shall be brought into existence once and for always to place our less privileged population on a sound basis. We must once and for always eliminate the subordinate position occupied by the “bywoners” and those who sow on shares. We must give those people back their souls by giving them a piece of ground in their own fatherland, South Africa, on which they can work out their own salvation.

Mr. Speaker, when I came into the House shortly before lunch the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) was busy making an appeal to townsfolk to show greater appreciation of the difficulties of the farming community.

My plea is for the underdog.

It is that appeal only which brings me to my feet now, because I am sure that hon. members will concede that I am essentially a townsman representing an essentially urban constituency. In so far as I and my constituents know anything about farming, our knowledge is that of very small farmers indeed, as people who grow a few vegetables in their back yards, so perhaps I should apologise for speaking about a matter about which we know so little. But as I said before, the appeal made by the hon. member for Cradock provokes me into saying something about the attitude of townsfolk towards farmers and farming problems. I would like to assure hon. members opposite, in so far as they represent farming communities, that at the present time, at all events, townsmen are neither ignorant of, nor unsympathetic towards the difficulties of the farmers The past few years, in my experience at all events, have witnessed a very considerable change of opinion on the part of townsmen towards these problems. There was a time, which hon. members will no doubt remember, when it was popularly said amongst townsmen that the farming community was a pampered community and that whenever they got into difficulties they ran to the Government for assistance which assistance was invariably forthcoming. Today statements of that kind made in the towns will meet with immediate contradiction and there is a far greater knowledge of the difficulties which confront the farmers and far greater inclination to urge upon the State the necessity of helping them. But I am bound to say that neither the knowledge of the townsmen nor their sympathy towards the farmers, will be, in my view, greatly increased by the manner in which this motion has been argued by certain members opposite. Stating it very briefly, it seems to me—I am not dealing now simply with the wording of the motion; I think certain hon. members were keen enough to concede that possibly the wording did not represent 100 per cent. of what was meant …

The motion could have been better worded.

I am glad to have extracted the admission that the motion could have been better worded. Throughout the arguments put forward to the House in respect of this motion, there has been, if I may suggest it, gross exaggeration of the position. We are at a time now when it is everywhere conceded that the farming community has benefited considerably, and broadly speaking, is doing well.

A good many are.

Let me say just one thing in that connection. I am prepared to admit, as a townsman, that but for the introduction of control, necessary control, over prices, the farmers might have been doing better still. On account of certain shortages they might have been getting better prices, and I should like to congratulate them on the ready way they have accepted control, on the ready way in which they have accepted lower prices in order to enable foodstuffs to reach the consumers at reasonable prices. There they have played a good part; but when they invite this House to believe that farmers as a whole, are suffering terrible privations and enduring great hardships, I can only say that hon. members carry their case no further and contribute nothing to the education of the townsman.

I said some areas.

Let me say one further word about the attitude of the townsmen to the farmers. I think the education of the townsman has progressed to this extent. We now recognise that the stability of South Africa’s economy, the stability of this country generally, depends fundamentally on the stability of the farming community. We recognise further that that stability cannot be achieved without a considerable amount of State interference and State aid. We recognise the necessity of the State coming to the assistance of farmers and helping them on their way. We recognise that the vagaries of nature and so on, make that imperative, but we make this qualification: We say, if that is to be the policy of the State—and after all it has been the policy of the State for some time past—it should at all events be accompanied by some recognition on the part of the farming community of their obligations to the community as a whole. That principle, as I think hon. members will admit, is fully recognised in the industrial field. It is recognised that if the State comes to the assistance of commerce and industry in the form of subsidies, protection and so forth, that lays upon that section of the community an obligation to put their house in order and to increase their efficiency. In other words, all assistance directed into these channels is conditional assistance. I think we, as townsmen, would welcome a greater recognition on the part of the farming community of that principle, a greater recognition that in so far as the State does and must come to the assistance of the farming community, they in their turn should accept certain obligations, and in particular obligations to increase in every way possible their efficiency, and to improve their farming methods. The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) is kind enough to nod towards me; I take it he accepts that. But I feel that if, in the manner the motion was put before us, there had been a little more recognition of that principle, there would have been far more appreciation of it on the part of the townsmen I represent.

In saying a few words on this motion, I want to confine myself to a certain class of farmer. I do not know whether the intention was to include farmers in general in the motion. Hon. members opposite have asserted that we are placing the farmers in a humiliating position when we plead for certain concessions in specific cases. Why was the Farmers Assistance Board instituted, in the first instance? Why have we got relief laws? Because during a certain period the people became involved in difficulties owing to circumstances over which they had no control, and today some of these people are still in difficulties. These are the people we are appealing for. I only want to say this, that it has come to my knowledge that the State Advances Recoveries Office have acted very sympathetically in connection with the people, and they are always accomodating, but nevertheless these people cannot get over their difficulties. It would be very interesting to have a return to show how many people are still in the books of the advances office, and from what date these people have appeared in the books. One point we must keep in mind is that when the government of the day decided, at that time, to assist the people who were in difficulties, exceptional circumstances existed. It was the general feeling at that time that these farmers should be assisted. There were substantial farmers in those days who had disastrous years. In my long experience as a farmer I never experienced a more disastrous year than 1932, and if you go into that you will find that most of the farmers appeared in the books of the State Advances Recoveries Office as a result of the difficulties which they experienced in those days. We are all inclined to make mistakes, even the Government, I imagine. I want to give an example In my district a piece of land was bought for settlement purposes. Settlers were placed on the land, but they were overcapitalised. They were put there under Section 11, and they set their teeth to meet their obligations, and the Government eventually legislated and wrote off half the value of the land. Today these people while they are not so very flourishing are making a living. If you knew these people during the period when this burden was resting on them, and if you saw them now, you would not recognise them. The people regardnig whom we are talking today and for whom we are pleading, are people who got into difficulties as a result of similar circumstances. They fell into arrears with their payments. I think the Minister of Finance said that the amount in respect of arrears of interest is fairly high.

Five hundred thousand pounds.

This amount allocated amongst that group of people represents something considerable, and if they cannot now pay off their arrears, and I take it that pressure has been excersised on them if they are in a position to pay, then there is really very little prospect for them in the difficult time that may overtake us when the war is over. Accordingly, we have made so bold as to present the position. Let us meet these people and write off their liabilities in those cases where we are convinced that owing to circumstances they have not been rehabilitated. In those cases where people are unable to fulfil their obligations and presumably therefore will not be able to so in the future, we ask the Government to step in and to put these people on a sound footing.

In dealing with the motion brought before the House by the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) might I say as a farmer, in the first instance, that I am not prepared to accept the motion. I have no doubt that that motion has been put on the Order Paper, with the very best intentions, by a practical farmer and not by a lawyer.

Thank you.

And it is for that particular reason that the motion is badly worded.

Oh.

But as a practical farmer, I can assure him I cannot accept that motion for several reasons. It is far too widespread altogether. It gives the impression that as far as the farmers are concerned, we are all paupers in South Africa, that we are always running after the Government for assistance, and in other words that we want our bread buttered on both sides. As far as I am concerned, and I am a farmer 100 per cent., I do think we should do everything we can to try to get away from that idea, or to refrain from giving the public an impression, that we are such a down-trodden portion of the community that in the ordinary way we are not capable of making a living. My own view about the matter is this. As far as the farmers are concerned, they are the backbone of South Africa, and I would like to take up this attitude, as a farmer, we have an obligation to the community of South Africa. The whole of South Africa is looking towards a better world. It is looking towards evolution into a better social period, and I say this without fear of contradiction, that in this country unless we have a planned economy as far as agriculture is concerned, there is no basis, for our social advancement. Let us be quite honest about ourselves, and I am speaking to my brother farmers. When it comes down to the population in South Africa, when it comes down to the difficulties which we have discussed in this House for quite a considerable time during this Session in connection with the scarcity of foodstuffs, what section of the population is suffering the least? The farmer, undoubtedly. I come from a very big agricultural area. There are no shortages in our area; all the farmers are well provided for. That is dealing with the most essential side, in my opinion, with the nutritional side of this country. Money is not everything. You may have all the money in the world but if you cannot buy food you are simply out; and to that extent the farmers are in a better position than our fellow citizens in the urban areas after five years of war. I think the Minister of Finance this morning dealt very effectively, as far as the economic side of farming is concerned during the last five years. The prices we have received for our products have been far in advance of any thing which South African farmers have had in the past. We have had figures given to us by the Minister of Agriculture, and the other day by the Prime Minister, which showed us how the productivity as far as agriculture is concerned, has advanced since 1938. We have also been presented with a picture that with the uplift of the economic conditions in this country even though that production has been quadrupled there is still a shortage. I want my farmer friends to realise that when we take into consideration the improved economic conditions in relation to our production since 1938, we have an encouraging picture in front of us for the future, but it is up to us to take advantage of that opportunity and to produce as much as we can, as cheaply and as economically as we can, in order to feed 100 per cent. of the population of South Africa. At present there are only about two commodities which under normal conditions can satisfy the requirements of the population; those are sugar and grain. The whole of the other production of this country falls very far short. On the basis of the nutritional values in this country, we are not producing enough protein products to feed 50 per cent. of the population. [Interruptions.] Our friends who have fears about margarine have nothing whatever to fear. I maintain that the farmers, provided they set about it on an economical and sound basis and with a planned policy, will make of our farming as sound an undertaking as any other occuption. The purchasing power of the community has been increased, and consequently there is an expanding market for all their products. This motion before the House deals particularly with placing the farming community “for all time on a sound basis”, and to put it on a sound basis the mover of this motion pre scribes the remedy of writing off all debts.

No.

That is what it amounts to He refers to the rehabilitating of every farmer. [Interruption.] It is true that my hon. friend, when he dealt with the motion in this House, did specifically mention certain farming areas, and if he had worded his motion to refer to those particular areas, I probably would have had some sympathy with the motion. But that has not been done. His motion goes on to suggest the “writing off the whole or part of the farmers’ debts” After all is said and done, when it comes to writing off debts I take it that we have a commercial side to farming, the same as any other business community, and we cannot imagine a business man who has undertaken obligations approaching the Minister and saying: “I am in a bad way; you must write off my debts”. When we contract our debts we do it with our eyes open. When it comes to land settle ment, can you tell me any country in world where farmers get land as cheaply as in South Africa? Can you tell me any country in the world where they can obtain farms on such advantageous terms as in South Africa? There is a low rate of interest, and 65 years to pay off the purchase price. If farming can be made economic at all, that is tantamount to giving the man the farm. In view of the fact that the farmers have during this period, as was pointed out by the Minister of Finance, liquidated their debts to a very considerable extent and reduced their total indebtedness from £23,000,000 to between £12,000,000 to £10,000,000. I do not think a motion like this is warranted. Now I want to say something of a constructive nature. If the money that the motion proposes to expend on the wiping off of the debts of our farmers is utilised for bringing forward a planned policy as far as agriculture is concerned, I should be very pleased. I am not quite so happy, because farmers are earning good money; they are probably earning so much money that it is not good for them, and as I see it, without a planned policy, in spite of the rosy times we are going through at present, they will not be in a position in the very near future that is comparable with that existing today. As far as agriculture generally is concerned I want to make two points, and one of these points I wish to stress very emphatically. In my opinion land values in this country are far too inflated, and in making that point I am directing an argument against myself. But let us come down to the question of land values. Inflated land values in the ordinary way are not conducive to planned and good farming. You cannot get away from it. Let us assume for a moment, that a farmer has bought land at inflated values. The moment he does that he over-capitalises his concern, and it is generally the man who has not got the £.s.d. who in the first instance, buys a farm at too enhanced a value. You will never find an agent doing silly things like that. But the poor farmer who wants to buy land has to buy land at an inflated value, which entails two obligations. The first obligation is towards the landowner or the bondholder. He has to reduce his capital commitment and secondly, he has to find the interest on the unpaid balance. He has to give his best attention to how these demands can be met. Once he has met these demands he is so short of cash that he is unable to carry on his farming on a proper and scientific basis. He has not sufficient money to finance his farming operations properly; he has no money whatsoever to permit him embarking on balanced farming, as between pastoral farming and arable farming. That is one of the big handicaps that faces the farmer who buys at inflated prices in the first place. I come to the second point, and it is this, the basis of subsidisation in this country. This is a battle which goes on between producer and consumer. I am quite certain that the consumer will have no objection whatever to subsidisation provided it is on a proper basis, and for that reason I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg), and I say it is eminently necessary that this Government, at the quickest possible moment, should institute an agro-economic survey of South Africa, and thus ensure that if the people of South Africa have to subsidise any form of agricultural production, that subsidisation will be done on a planned basis. Today we are subsidising agricultural products which, in the ordinary way, is not economical, and that basis of subsidisation and the rosy hue in which farmers are living today is going to be their downfall when South Africa is laid open to the markets of the world. The present basis of subsidies is a flat basis. During the last year an attempt has been made to improve the basis, in respect of mealies, to the extent of a subsidy of 1s. 6d. a bag up to 500 bags. We have to recognise that in this country wage rates and output are factors that will tend towards the stimulation of big-scale production, whether we like it or not. Therefore there must be a balanced economy as between big-scale and small-scale production. I know what I am talking about when I make these observations, as I have an intimate acquaintance with the conditions in one of the most progressive industries in this country; I know that I would be justified in going to a mealie farmer producing 50,000, 60,000 or 100,000 bags of mealies and saying to him: “On the basis of production and on the basis of subsidisation, do you realise you are indeed in a privileged position, and that you are being subsidised just because there are smaller men on the land; you have an obligation to the community of South Africa and to your fellow-farmers.” For that reason I say we should work up our scale of subsidisation on the basis of big-scale production carrying small-scale production. From a business point of view, the greater your output the lower your cost. That is an ordinary business maxim. You cannot tell me that if a man produces 50,000 bags of mealies a year his needs in regard to subsidisation are on the same footing as those of a small farmer who is producing 50 or 500 bags. I am only referring to mealies at the moment, but the observation applies to all our agricultural products. It is obvious and inevitable that the man who produces 500 bags of mealies cannot compete on the same basis as the man who produces 50,000 bags. Their overhead expenses are practically on the same basis, but the working costs of the small man are much higher per unit of output; You encounter that condition of affairs in any form of business. Therefore if your subsidisation is on a flat rate basis you are benefiting the producer of 50,000 bags of mealies to a far greater degree in relation to his expenditure than you are the producer of 500 bags. That obviously is a wrong basis of subsidisation. If we want to carry on small-scale production it cannot be carried on by itself. It must have some outside assistance. It must be conducted on a well-planned basis of subsidisation, coupled with big-scale production, which will lend its assistance as well. If such a course as I have suggested is not followed, the public of South Africa will, in consequence of our present basis of subsidisation, be paying too much for the commodities they consume. If you inflate factor No. 1, which is your land values, the land will have to carry that charge through its products, and so an extra charge will inevitably be borne from the land through its products to the consumer. If you do not help that small man with a proper degree of subsidisation you will be simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. I am not suggesting any penalisation of the big producer; what I am proposing is a basis designed for the benefit of the whole of the farming community. I could go on giving figures in support of this particular argument for a long time, but time is getting short. I do, however, wish to say this, that apart from the two points I have already mentioned there is another point which the Government will have to take cognisance of, and it is of importance in considering the extension of our economic field—the drift of our labour resources from agriculture to industry. Irrespective of the alignment of your economic values, it is inevitable that unless the farmer has in the ordinary way a sufficiency of labour to carry on his farming pursuits, his position is going to become dangerous, for the simple reason that farming cannot be carried on without labour. That is perfectly certain, no matter how clever you are. The difficulty arises from the difference in wage conditions between agriculture and industry, as the result of various wage, determinations. I want to tell my Labour friends most emphatically that I am not against a rise in the economic level of the worker; far from it. But I do want to say this, that farming should be placed on a basis whereunder the agricultural community can pay a rate of wages which in the ordinary way would be within measurable distance of the wages paid in industry ….

Order, order! I am afraid the hon. member is wandering very far from the motion.

I am afraid I am, sir. I am afraid I have got off the rails, and I shall come back to farming. May I just say this: In my opinion there is no justification whatever for this motion, and my deprecation of this motion is grounded on the simple reason that it makes it look as if we are a starving section of the community, whereas the greater portion of the farming community at this juncture are doing reasonably well and probably better than many of our friends who come from the towns. While I appreciate that this motion has been brought up with the best of intentions by the hon. member for Aliwal, I think he himself will admit—I am sure the House will not accept the motion—that it has not had sufficient attention bestowed on it in regard to a very important feature—the position of the farmer in our future economy. I agree with the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), and I too am sorry that there are not more members in this House, both farmers and townsmen, to listen to the discussion we have had of two different sides of a very important subject. It is a subject that requires very close attention involving, as it does, the basis of our national economy, and I can only tell my friends from the urban areas that unless we achieve a sound economy in agriculture there will be no basis for the social advancement that is projected for South Africa.

After the speeches that have been made by the hon. members for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans), Swartruggens (Mr. Henny) and Witbank (Mr. H. J. Bekker), I cannot remain silent but must say a few words. I am rising to appeal on behalf of persons in those constituencies who hankered after the Government embarking on and carrying out a policy such as that embodied in this motion. One thing is clear, and that is that the small farmers especially have recently had to pay enormous prices for everything, while they are also suffering under the weak policy of the Government. It has become clear during the debate that the small farmers need expect nothing from the present Government, and also that they cannot expect anything at all from hon. members on the other side. Their attitude in regard to this motion has clearly reflected that. The figures that the Minister of Finance quoted this morning demonstrate that money invested with the object of rehabilitating the farmers is the best investment that can be made in South Africa. It is very clear that the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) had one thing in mind, namely to rehabilitate that deserving section of the farmers, that section who have never had a chance. The signs are already present that this is perhaps the last chance to make a powerful effort to rehabilitate this section of the farming community. The evidence is there that if the farmer is only given a chance, especially that section who have been rehabilitated, then they are truly an asset to the country. We have heard so often from the other side of the House that the farmers are spoonfed. Those figures that the hon. the Minister of Finance quoted here afford the most striking proof that the argument has been knocked on the head once and for all. The fact is that the farmers have gained an advantage in the war years, but they have to fight a very bitter and hard fight against the discouraging policy of the Government. There is no other country in the whole world where the farmers have been obliged to engage in such a bitter struggle to secure their portion of the benefits as in South Africa. I recently read a report from the League of Nations in reference to the food position of the world, and if there is one thing that has struck me it is how the governments of other countries have done everything in their power not only to assist the farmers to progress, but to place the farmers in a sound position. There is the example of Canada; there is the example of Australia. Even during this critical war period Australia has recalled some of her manpower so that they may look after the interests of the farmers. I want to mention the example of England herself, because there are so many members on the opposite side who like to take England as an example. While before the war England imported two-thirds of her food requirements she assisted her farmers so greatly during the war, that in 1943 two-thirds of her food requirements were produced in the country, and she was only compelled to import one-third. In comparison with the position that existed before the war she has extended her agricultural lands by not less than 53 per cent. Her lands for the cultivation of potatoes have been extended by not less than 80 per cent.; and her lands for the sowing of grain have been increased by 60 per cent. She has increased her vegetable gardens from 3,000,000 before the war to over 5,000,000 in 1943. She has assisted her farming population, and especially this section of the farmning population to such an extent that this report from the League of Nations reveals the interesting fact that the English people are today better fed than they were before the war. But that is not all. Look at the prices, at what the farmers have to pay for agricultural machinery—and here I only want to establish the fact from the report of the League of Nations. While we have a couple of factories which we use to manufacture cheap war material, England, on the other hand, has during the war used a great proportion of her factories for the production of her own agricultural machinery. In comparison with the 55,000 tractors that England had for agricultural purposes before the war, she had at the end of 1943, 150,000 tractors in use for the development of her own agriculture. Let hon. members on the opposite benches take the example of England. England has followed that policy to the benefit of her small farmers who had experienced difficulty in making a living. Why cannot the Government come along now and hasten to the assistance of the small farmer. The signs are there that this is their last opportunity to direct any effort towards placing these small farmers on a sound footing, and that is the purpose of the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal. I am disappointed that members like the hon. member for Losberg and the hon. member for Witbank and others on the opposite benches, have let down the small farmers of their own party. If the Government will take a wise step today they will accept this motion of the hon. member for Aliwal and they will extend a helping hand to that section of the people who yearn for assistance, and who will make the best use of it.

I am brought to my feet by the intervention of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford). I should not otherwise have intervened in this debate, but he did not seem to be quite fair to the mover. I think it is perfectly plain that the mover and the seconder were pleading not for that small percentage of wealthy farmers to whom the hon. member referred, but for the 90 per cent. at least of very poor men who work very hard and who have very little to eat. And if I have not the time to say more I want to say this, that there is no type of worker in whom I am as interested as the poor man who tills his bit of land and does his darnedest to raise food for his family and a bit for other families too. That poor farmer is also a workman and a primary worker. If hon. members opposite have not heard of poor farmers, I am here to tell them. I have friends of my own in that beautiful little garden province of Natal, where the farmers with their wives work from sunrise to sundown, and very rarely indeed do they make a living. That is fact and not fancy, and from a townsman and not a plattelander. I want to give a lot of credit to the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) for the clearness of his figures. I was very sorry to hear them. I do not doubt them in any way. He tells us that there are at least 30,000 people working on the land whose earnings do not amount to 5s. per day. I am perfectly satisfied that that is true. It is a disgrace and it is a danger hot only to the platteland but to the city that I represent. I am very interested in the maintaining of small industries of every kind rather than the great, massed enterprises. I trust the little man with bossing up his own concern, and I say to this House that it is important from the point of view of national welfare no less than from the point of view of common decency towards distressed people, that those men who were born on the land, who know no other craft except the landcraft, shall be kept where they are. It is a matter of ordinary economic knowledge that a small business is not entirely at a disadvantage compared with a big business. The small farmer, if he is given the chance, takes a very great direct personal interest in his work from day to day. That is not the case in any industry which is carried on on a great scale. The little man himself concentrates on the production of food and he gets better results because of that moment by moment personal supervision. He has not got to look to a director to carry on the business. That is not so in a joint-stock company for instance, where for the settlement of affairs one has to wait until the board meets. I say the little man kept on the farm will give all he has got. That liberty of his is good, and not bad. Another point is that his family will also help. In a way it will be a very economically run farm.

At 4.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on Friday, 2nd March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

I move—

I object.

Bill to be read a third time on 14th February.

I move—

This Bill is a further step which is designed principally to help industry to fit itself for the future. It will also serve other useful purposes, but that is the immediate objective which we have in view. I think most people will agree that it is a step which is extremely important and long overdue. Other countries in this field are a long way ahead of us. New Zealand has a standard act on the Statute Book; Canada has legislated on the subject; in Australia there is a National Standards Laboratory in Melbourne. In Britain the British Standards Institution is a long established, well known body which is actively assisted by the National Physical Laboratory, and between them they control standardisation in Britain. The United States spend annually something over 2,000,000 dollars on a bureau of standards and has recently spent over £500,000 in extending laboratories and erecting additional testing laboratories. The Bill which is now before the House has been sent to various standardising societies in different parts of the world and has been very favourably commented on by them, and I think we can claim that the measure which we are now considering has been very carefully considered. In the Union the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission which was set up earlier in the war, dealt with this problem and recommended very strongly that a standardisation committee should be set up to make recommendations as to the best method of promoting standardisation in the Union; and that standardisation committee submitted a number of very valuable reports and finally recommended that we should take immediate steps to create the necessary machinery for standardisation. I may say that these reports were endorsed by the South African Standards Institution and various industrial and commercial and agricultural interests throughout the country and I think we may say that all the interests concerned in this question, are at one in urging the Government to take action and they are pretty well at one in the steps which we propose to take today to give effect to the proposals of the Standardisation Committee. We decided therefore to proceed with the establishment of a bureau of standards on the lines contained in this Bill. Standardisation is a very fine sounding word, and I do not know whether people understand what is generally implied by standardisation so perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words on it. Standardisation is really designed to bring about simplification in manufacturing processes, in the products of those processes, and in trades in general. It is a process which leads to economy and fitness of industrial conditions because it prescribes both the process, that is to say, the machinery and the method of manufacture as well as the quality of the commodities produced; and by standardisation you are able to apply the scientific measurement for evaluating quality and in that way both the manufacturer and the producer can work to specifications and both manufacturer and consumer benefit thereby. We are proposing in this Bill to establish a standards bureau. The chief functions of the bureau will be, first of all, to test and calibrate precision instruments, and secondly to examine and test manufactured goods to make sure that they come up to the required specification and thirdy to standardise patterns and sizes and qualities and processes with the object of reducing the number of types to the lowest number compatible with meeting the country’s demands economically. The bureau will also co-ordinate the efforts of producers and users for the improvement and standardisation of engineering and industrial material, for the simplification of engineering and industrial practice and production and distribution, and for eliminating the national waste of time and material which is involved in the production of an unnecessary variety of patterns and sizes. The result of that will be increased industrial efficiency, reduced distribution costs, and increased protection for the consumer. Up to now in the Union, the South African Standards Institution, which is a purely voluntary organisation, has been a body concerned with promoting standardisation and I want to say that it has done very valuable work indeed both from the practical point of view and from the point of view of promoting an interest in this subject and of encouraging all interests to back up the idea of setting up better machinery for standardisation than we have had in the past. But although it has done valuable work, it has not been able to function actively in the field of standardisation because it lacks the necessary statutory authority, because it lacks the necessary equipment and the facilities to carry out the necessary research. Of course, it lacks the money as well. This Bill will, we hope, remedy that state of affairs. The South African Standards Institution in terms of this Bill will continue to function as the National Standardising body and act as an advisory body on general matters of principle affecting standardisation. It will be an essential complement to the bureau which is designed to be the administrative centre and the workshop dealing with all matters affecting standardisation, and its prectical application in industry and commerce. I will say another word about the institution a little later. Of course, in this country during the war we have been compelled by war conditions to simplify our patterns and types in order to economise in our materials in short supply, so that you might say that a certain measure of standardisation in industry has been forced upon us by war conditions, and although we have only made a small start in this field, and with very limited facilities, and with very limited equipment, nevertheless, we have effected very valuable savings of materials, of shipping space and of distribution costs and of labour. For instance in the paint industry we have saved very large quantities of tinplate by reducing the number and variety of containers used for paint. We have largely improved our use of non-ferrous scrap metals by setting up standard specification for brass and solder. In the case of cigarettes we have a similar instance. Before the war we were using 400 tons of cardboard per month for packing cigarettes. By standardising the packing we are now only using 50 tons of paper. By reducing the different qualities and the waste and the size of the paper manufactured in our mills to a few essential grades we were able to increase the production of paper to a very great extent at a time when paper was threatening to be a very severe problem, here indeed, owing to its shortage. We have reduced the number of registered fertiliser mixtures from something like 300 to 11. We have the same condition in the case of refractory bricks. The production has gradually increased and we are now practically self supporting in our country in refractory bricks. But that only came about when we have reduced the number of standard sizes and shapes to 60 per cent. which enabled the manufacturer to concentrate on the reduced number of sizes and increase his output to meet the demand, and as a result purely of standardising them, we now have a refractory brick industry in this country which is meetting the needs of the country and which is exporting as well. There is another instance I might mention as well, and that is agricultural machinery. As a result of the difficulty in obtaining agricultural implements from overseas, and in order to assist in maintaining agricultural production we have, especially during the past three years, encouraged local manufacture, and as a result of that the production increased from practically nothing to 2,000 tons in 1941, to 13,000 tons in 1942, and this year we hope to exceed 17,000 tons, and on a weight basis the 1944 production was approximately 50 per cent. of out total estimated average requirements of such farming equipment, and represents a monetary value of something like £1,300,000. I know there are complaints from time to time about some of our farming machinery which we are producing, but I would ask those people who criticise to remember—and sometimes their criticisms are well founded—that three years ago for practical purposes, this industry did not exist, and it had to be built up against time and under very great difficulties, and it has filled a most essential and vital need in this country during the war, and we are most anxious that when normal conditions return, this agricultural machinery industry should be in a position to compete successfully with the imported article. At the present moment admittedly, it is not able to do so generally speaking either in price or in quality. When I say that, of course, I am only speaking generally because some of the articles we are producing are of first class quality, and if by standardising the different types of agricultural implements could be reduced to a number of standard patterns, and the patterns can be simplified and the quality improved, the manufacturers would be in a much stronger position to meet outside competition, not to mention the benefit which is would be to our farming community as a result of simplification and standardisation. As an example of that take the ordinary animal drawn plough. There are more than a dozen different varieties commonly used by our farmers. There are 5 to 10 different models of each variety or make, and what is worse, even as betwen models of the same make very few of the parts are interchangeable. You can see what that means to the farming community when they want to get a spare part, and you can see what it means to the stockist who has to stock an enormous range, and you can see what it means to the manufacturer if he has to make a small number of very different sized parts. If we get standardisation of a few types suited to our conditions with, as far as possible interchangeable parts, it would greatly assist our manufacture of farming implements. We have made considerable progress in the last few months in laying down a minimum quality and specification for things like plough-shares and other agricultural implements, and the result has been a pronounced improvement in the quality. But these specifications are only laid down under the emergency war regulations and therefore are merely temporary. This Bill however will allow progress to be made on these Unes in the post-war period. I know that I have the support of the farming community in what I say about farming implements, because in relation to this Bill we have received requests from no less than 23 farming organisations asking for standardisation, and one of the first tasks of the bureau when set up will be to deal with agricultural machinery. The object of the Bill then is to create facilities to enable industrialists to adopt in a scientific way the principle of standardisation in aU manufacturing precesses and also to enable the consumer to purchase the manufactured goods on the basis of quality as well as of price. Of course, this principle will be a long-term policy and the economic life of the country will have to absorb it gradually, but judging from the results achieved elsewhere the ultimate results must be this. First of all, an allround improvement in the quality of Unionmade goods, secondly greater efficiency in the manufacturing processes and lower cost of production, in consequence, and thirdly the greater use of commercial standards applied to the retail trade, in which price will be more closely linked to quality. Before I give details of the Bill may I just refer these three results. As far as improved quality is concerned standardisation is carried out in practice by voluntary co-operation between manufacturer and consumer. I want to stress that point, that the basis of the whole principle is voluntary co-operation between the producer and the user. The consumer knows what he wants for his particular purpose. He determines his requirements on a scientific basis. He knows the particular strength for example of the steel he will use in a particular job. He knows what properties are necessary for the cement he wishes to use. He may want a special strength of brick, or a paint with certain qualities or without certain qualities. He may require a glue with a certain degree of adhesiveness. We find a very considerable number of specifications drawn up for materials used by or produced in all kinds of industries, all drawn up to suit the particular conditions of the industry and of the country where the industry is situated; because the country where it is situated is an important aspect of the matter. Materials which may be produced to a particular standard in one country or climate or district may be first-class in that particular area, but no good in another country due to different climatic conditions. Where goods in this way are supplied according to specifications, properly worked out specifications, there can be no question of their quality. Either the goods are up to specification or they are not. The consumer’s requirements are precisely and scientifically defined and he gets and pays for what he asks for. Well, an essential feature of any such development having defined your requirements and ordered them on a scientific basis, is that it is essential that there should be facilities for testing the materials to see whether they conform to the specification, and for this an impartial and Government-supported organisation is essential. We had a case last year or the year before where we were making rope in the Union for an Admiralty contract, to Admiralty specifications, but when the rope was made we had no method or machinery for testing it and the rope had to be sént to Britain to be tested by the Admiralty before it could be accepted for use. I quote that as an example of the necessity for having proper machinery for testing. One advantage of this testing, apart from being able to assure yourself of the quality of the specification, is the knowledge which we ourselves gain of the attributes of manufactured materials. The Bureau of Standards in the U.S.A. at present has a regular staff of over 2,000 scientists and technically trained people and it hads reacently spent another 600,000 dollars in adding to the laboratories used for testing manufactured products Another feature which is important is the check which can be provided for a large consumer like municipalities on the quality of the goods that they have to import from overseas, because they order things to certain specifications, and the result of the test made by a properly authorised and impartial bureau of standards, will be accepted by supplying firms all over the world, and through this means one will be able to offer them further protection on goods bought from overseas. A very important field, as we found during the war, is the production of interchangeable parts for machines of all kinds and these parts have to conform to dimensional standards of the very greatest accuracy, sometimes as little as 1,000th part of an inch. The South African engineering industry during the war has done very fine work indeed in manufacturing parts for all kinds of machinery and war equipment, which was sent all over the world and the standard of their work has been satisfactory in almost every theatre of war, and we hope that the experience we have gained during the war will enable our industries to continue with at least certain types of this work in the post-war period. For these reasons, and for engineering products generally, the bureau will establish a laboratory which will carry out work on fundamental standards of measurement and testing and calibration of various types of equipment like hydrometers and gauges, and these instruments will serve as master gauges in the production and inspection of articles manufactured by methods of massproduction. So you see that working on specifications and the testing and calibration of instruments used in making these products, and testing the equipment used, must lead to a higher standard of efficiency and of quality, which should be the aim of very industrialist in the country. Everything which leads to greater efficiency results m reduced production costs. That is a vital problem on which the whole future of our industrial economy depends. One can quote endless examples in other countries where standardisation has increased the efficiency of the plant and has reduced costs. Here again very many lessons have been learnt from the war. After the fall of France Great Britain found that a very heavy strain was placed on her steel industry. Supplied of high-grade steel had been obtained from Sweden and from North Africa which were the two chief sources of supply, and these supplies were cut off, and at the same time the demand increased. At that time the steel products made in Great Britain were made on between 2,000 and 3,000 different specifications The British Standards Institute set out to reduce these specifications to between 80 and 90, and the so-called national emergency steels were produced which met all urgent requirements and had a very profound effect on the British war effort at the time. Another industry in Britain, the sweet industry, had to be rationalised, and there they cut down their number of packings from 99 to 16 and reduced the packages from 29 to 6, and m doing so they saved 20 per cent. factory space, 14 per cent. in labour and 50 per cent. in the use of paper, but their production was cut down by only 13 per cent. That is an example of how working costs are reduced. We have had the same experience in the Union. The Standardisation Committee which was set up in the beginning of the war found, amongst other things, that municipal requirements of things like manhole covers and stopcocks were being produced in a very large number of sizes and shapes. Every municipal engineer had his own ideas on the subject and everyone had his own fancy with the result that there were some 70 to 80 different types in use and some of them differed from each other by as little as a quarter of an inch. This meant a very large number of drawings and patterns being made and kept by the industrial people, because once they make a pattern they have to keep it. It entailed a great deal of unnecessary labour and expense but the Committee has now drawn specifications for ten standard types and in future new areas opening up will use these, and not only will they save a lot of money but it will be a great advantage to the industrialists because they can now make and keep in stock a large quantity of these things, economic quantities, knowing that the demand for them will be there as new areas open up. I could quote many other examples but I think I have made my point clear. The last thing we expect from standardisation is a greater use of commercial or commodity standards. So far I have been referring to the standardisation of materials which are sold in bulk quantities to industries and large consumers, and to the methods proposed for controlling and testing their quality. But for the ordinary consumer, the man in the street, testing is not really practicable, and yet there is no doubt that a considerable degree of standardisation is desirable for the protection, of the consumer. I think that the lack of sound knowledge on the part of the small consumer on the question of quality has undoubtedly contributed to the fact that in some cases, in the marketing of some products, competition has taken the form of a reduction of quality in goods in order to reduce the price. We propose to meet these cases by introducing the system outlined in the Bill of standardised markings, i.e. a mark which associates the goods with the specification, and in this way, and through the testing facilities afforded by the Bureau, we hope to link prices more closely with quality, and we hope to establish a healthier state of affairs as far as competition between manufacturers is concerned, and to produce an effective standard by which the man in the street can protect himself in respect of the quality of the goods he buys. After this brief outline of what is a highly technical subject may I just turn to an analysis of the Bill itself. We start off by providing for the establishment of a South African Bureau of Standards with well-defined objects which I need not detail because they are before the House. The Bureau will be governed by a council. The council will be a corporate body and will consist of five members appointed by the Minister. Two of the members will be appointed from a panel of five which will be submitted by the Standards Institution. I want to make clear why that is being done. It is desirable because the main interested parties in standardisation, the producers, the consumers and the industrialists, are all members of this Institution, which is a body with several hundreds of members, and a very strong, balanced well spread out committee, and which has done most valuable work in the past; and since standardisation is essentially a voluntary practice, this body, which has been in existence for many years, doing missionary work, must be kept well in the picture and be given its full share to play in the future of standardisation. For that reason the Standards Institution will submit five names, of which the Minister will select two as members of the Council. I lay stress on this point because standardisation is essentially a voluntary matter, and we will best secure voluntary co-operation through the Standards Institution which has this wide range of members throughout the country, representing all interests, and the large committee from which this panel is formed is one fully representative of all concerns. We have tried out this type of organisation in the Fuel Research Institute and found that it worked very well. We found that provided you have a good board it is hardly ever necessary for the Minister of the Department to interfere with the running of that board. Of course, it is intended to keep in close touch with the activities of the Bureau, and hon. members will note that several of the members’ functions on the council are subject to the approval of the Institute, not to cramp their style but to keep the Minister in touch with the scope of the work undertaken by the bureau. The bureau will be financed by establishing a capital fund. When the bureau is fully equipped it will involve a fairly large capital sum probably £100,000, but we do not think that as much as that is needed in the beginning, because we will first co-ordinate the facilities at present available. Meanwhile, whilst the bureau is in the process of being established, the Treasury will have to make annual contributions towards the running expenses. This will be submitted to Parliament annually, but we think that the total expenditure, when it is running fully, will not excede £25,000 a year, and when the bureau is in full swing, by the time we reach that point, we visualise that the bureau will be largely, and ultimately completely, self-supporting, owing to the revenue they will derive from fees collected for testing work which they will undertake. We have a good example of that in the Mines Department, in their economical section, some of whose functions are very similar to what we contemplate here. They test cement, the strength of bricks and the hardness of timber and so on, and for years they have not only been self-supporting but have shown a substantial surplus which I presume the Minister of Finance has duly received as an addition for this Treasury, and I hope he may later receive the same assistance from the bureau, in future years. The object of the bureau, therefore, is to cover the whole field of standardisation in commerce and industry, in all its aspects, and the council will be suppplied with the necessary funds to carry out its objects. There is also provision in the Bill for advisory committees. The idea of that is that we can then invite qualified specialists from all over the country to share in the work of the bureau and bring their skill into play in assisting in the solution of technical problems of a highly difficult and scientific nature, which certainly will arise from time to time. The bureau will work in close conjunction with the South African Standards Institution, where, as I have said, producers, consumers and manufacturers are all well represented. This body has been doing voluntary work since 1935, and we hope to retain it in active service in the general interests of standardisation. Then there is provision in the Bill for the production and the use of standardisation marks, to which I referred just now. These marks, when they are instituted in respect of specifications adopted by the Institution or the Bureau may be used by firms only who possess a permit, to ensure that goods so marked will conform to the requisite specification. The Imperial Conference of 1931 raised the question as to the possibility of establishing suitable facilities in the Commonwealth countries to control standardised marks, and that involves the question of providing a certain measure of control on the quality of goods imported from other countries, especially those goods where standardised marks can be used. Section 15 deals with compulsory standardisation. Provision is made for the Minister to declare the specification applying to compulsory standardisation. I have already said that standardisation is essentially a voluntary matter, but cases may arise where it is necessary to establish compulsory standardisation. Of course, in war time that necessity arises not infrequently, but unusual cases may occur even in normal times, particularly in regard to the quality of goods being exported. It may be necessary to lay down compulsory standards of goods which are being exported, if we are attempting to build up an eport market in different parts of the world. I hope it will seldom be necessary to use this compulsion, but in any case the Minister can only do so after he has satisfied himself that all parties who may be affected by such a decision have had a full opportunity of studying the proposed specification and of making any comments they wish to make on the subject. Lastly, there is provision for a general service under which any individual will have the right to go to the Bureau and on payment of a reasonable fee for testing, have that work performed, and consumers in this way can take the steps necessary to determine how far the product required adheres to the specifications. That, in brief, is the outline of the Bill. In conclusion, may I say that there is another reason for regarding this Bill as urgent, and that is the housing problem. To my mind the standardisation of building units and materials, in order to ensure economy in the use of material and labour, is essential if we are going to embark on the large building programme which we have in view, and a considerable measure of standardisation in this sphere is possibly even more urgent than in the sphere of agriculture. The Union is far behind other countries in this field. If it was not evident before, we have learnt a lesson in the war, where in the last four years, with the shortage of materials and manufactured goods we are experiencing, I think it was brought home very forcibly to all those who are in touch with the problems we are faced with, that rationalisation of standard has become an essential feature of the industrial and commercial economy, and I hope the House will find itself in agreement with me and that we will not lose any time in putting this Bill on the Statute Book.

I fear that a considerable number of members feel with me that one fails to really understand all the implications of this Bill, mainly because it affects industrial life and because the Bill, while it is not so highly technical in itself, carries highly technical implications. Accordingly, I shall confine myself to a discussion of the principles of the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister personally and also on behalf of this side of the House, for the full exposition that he gave of the advantages of the Bill. It is a need that has been felt that our industries cannot develop properly unless certain guidance is offered in connection with standardisation and the application of standards. The experience that we have had during the war years is an experience that we could have spared ourselves if we had previously been in the position of being able to apply standards in our industrial life. I think that the Minister in his explanation of the advantages of the Bill could have emphasised one of them a little more, and that is the psychological manifestation which we too often encounter in South Africa that everything that is produced locally is looked down upon. Here is a great factory in our midst, and some of the members of the staff will not use the product of that factory unless it is advertised under a strange name. With the institution of standards the general public will presumably learn to realise more fully that South Africa can produce products that are equally as good as those imported from overseas, and they will be less inclined to look down bn the articles produced in our factories. I think that the Minister can lay emphasis on this advantage of the Bill, that in this respect the Bill will contribute towards the development of genuine South African industry. Accordingly, we heartily welcome the principle that is contained in this Bill. We shall pass an opinion on the details later, but the need, as the Minister has stated here, is being felt more and more. It is true that in the development of industrial and mercantile life, other countries of the world which have reached a higher stage of development had a start over us in regard to standardisation, and that we could not compete, both in respect of the use of articles internally and overseas, because we have not made provision for standards in our industrial life. We have thus had to contend with great difficulties both as far as concerns overseas, and especially in regard to consumers in South Africa. We may thus expect that this measure will encourage our industries, and that it will be to the great advantage of all consumers. Theoretically and otherwise, it must stimulate the production of goods of a higher standard, and to greater production, and especially to cheaper production. Standardisation must lead to cheaper production. This will encourage our industrial life, and also afford protection in regard to the investment of capital. I want to express the hope that a large proportion of the capital that is required for our industrial development will be obtainable in South Africa. I do not identify myself provisionally with the details of the Bill, but as far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, big advantages must flow from it for the consumer in this country, and also for the consumer overseas, and consequently I maintain that there is a great need for such a Bill. I also endorse the last remark made by the Minister that there could be no significant export of manufactured products overseas unless we can convince the overseas consumers that our production is of a high standard. The Minister has said quite correctly that for a long period now, there has been the need for legislation on standards, because our industries, have not just begun anew. Our industries have been developing for the last 25 years, and there is thus a gap that we are trying to fill. But still, we are standing on the threshold of expected development on a large scale in the industrial sphere, and with a view to that expected development we must be prepared to accord all support to such a measure, because we cannot produce on a big scale, nor develop our industries if such an important link is missing as the standardisation of products. We have in South Africa so many raw materials that are suitable, we have a reasonably large supply if the consuming public is placed in a position to purchase, and we have in addition a large force of workers who can be trained and who can be absorbed in our industrial life as efficient workers. There is therefore no real reason that can be cited why we should not go over to the establishment of a system of standardisation that can contribute towards the creation of employment, and towards the independent development of our industries, and to the augmentation of our national income, regarding which so much has been said. We therefore welcome the essential elements in this Bill. The Bill, as it is before the House today, replaces a similar Bill of the previous year, 1944. The Minister gave us the opportunity last year to voice our opinion about the draft Bill that he wanted to introduce. I then evinced my gratitude for the consideration that he accorded us, and I want to acknowledge with thanks that the Bill that is, before us today marks a great improvement over that of last year. I am only sorry that I cannot tell him that as far as we are concerned we are in entire agreement with this Bill. But I want to give him the assurance in advance that though we differ from him on some details, we shall only differ on sound principles, and that we will conduct our discussion of this matter on principles. In my view, this Bill does not comply with the demands of South Africa, nor with the demands of the times. In the past, in the last 25 years, since the previous world war, states, and especially industrial states, have accepted a great responsibility for the development of the industrial life of the people, and an even greater responsibility for the use of essential means of existence, and a greater responsibility in the use of the labour force, and together with others we have accepted the responsibility for the provision of employment for all who are fit to work. In consequence of the development of the conception of State responsibility in regard to the whole economic life of the community, the State must accept its responsibility in every respect, and for every bit of legislation that comes before Parliament. In this respect the Minister has fallen short. In the principles that he has included in the Bill, he has not taken full account of his responsibility as Minister and the responsibility of the State in the future. It is especially this aspect that I want to emphasise, and I may perhaps say that in regard to two important points I consider that the Minister went wrong in his speech. In the first place, there is the question that standardisation should not necessarily be a voluntary affair.

I said that it is highly desirable.

That is still worse. If the Minister considers that it is highly desirable that standardisation should be a matter for private interest, then I consider that he has not proceeded from the standpoint of the greatest benefit of the population as a whole. It is no longer a matter for purely private initiative when it is a matter of the development in the highest measure of the sources of the national income and when it affects the use of these sources of income in the best way to promote the national income. The State must accept the responsibility to give the greatest contributions towards the full development and the full extension of the industrial means of the people. Accordingly I say that the State—and here the Bill falls short—must accept more and more responsibility in the promotion of the industrial life of the people. The State must give more and more guidance in regard to the promotion of industrialisation. It must make sure that our industrial life and all our internal industrial life reaches the highest pitch of efficiency, so that in respect of efficiency it is in no way behind industry overseas with which we must compete. That applies particularly to raw materials. The State must ensure that the raw materials of the nation are used in the best manner, so that we can compete with overseas. The State must contribute towards the attainment of the highest efficiency in order to strengthen the national income to the highest degree. That is one point in connection with which I believe the Minister’s conservatism was responsible for him making a blunder, where he took the standpoint that this is more a private matter than a State matter, to make the best use of all your resources. No, the State should accept the responsibility for standardisation. Now I turn to the real shortcomings of the Bill, according to my opinion, as a link in the industrial life. The Bill makes provision for a private institution, a bureau of standards. Under this Bill it is really a private organisation. The Bill makes provision, it is true, for the appointment of one member, and later possibly of two members by the Government, and it is true that the member appointed by the Government will be the chairman of the bureau, but nevertheless the organisation remains a private undertaking with a certain measure of State supervision. The Minister makes provision, apart from representation on the council, for inspection, but the inspectors are appointed by the council itself. He makes provision for the auditing of the accounts by the Auditor-General, and he makes provision that certain things may happen with the consent of the Minister, but nevertheless this Bill has the great shortcoming that the organisation that is created here as the principal means of providing enlightenment in the sphere of standardisation, remains a private institution. That, to our mind, is a serious defect. The oversight that the Minister can exercise on its activities, as defined in the Bill, cannot be effective oversight. He can not exercise any effective supervision on the transactions of the council, he cannot make the supervision efficient and in the highest interests of our development. Consequently I regret that the Minister has not had the courage to make this a State organisation. In conformity with his conservatism he has taken up another standpoint. If he had not been so conservative he would have had more courage, but now he has not had the courage to make a fresh start in this sphere. I do not launch that as an accusation against the Minister. I really mention this as a matter of regret and sorrow that owing to his weakness this is the position. I am sorry that in respect of this matter he has not been radical and started off on a sound foundation, so that healthy development would be ensured in the future. What I want is that we should have an organisation that answers to the requirements of South Africa, and a private organisation under State supervision such as is here proposed, is not the right thing. He ought to have proposed a Government bureau from the inception, that would be a sub-division of his own department. The activities could be more or less those described in the Bill. I have no objection to the compass of the activities as described in the Bill, albeit there are a few weaknesses to which I shall later direct attention. We have, however, no objection to the instructions, to the powers that are allotted to the council, but we should like to have a council that would be composed of scientists of the highest status, people who do not necessarily represent this or that body, a council that would function independently. Such a council should not necessarily be bound to other bodies that perhaps are very conservative. We want a council comprised of scientists of the highest status who can exercise an independent judgment on any matter. This Bill, it is true, makes provision that the council has the right to appoint committees, and that is all the more reason for me to plead that it should be a Government organisation, because the council could then make use of committees of experts in various spheres. I want on that account to suggest that the composition of the councils should be fundamentally modified, but I also want to make an alternative suggestion. I want to ask the Minister seriously to consider making this a Government bureau from the inception, with an independent council nominated by himself or the Government, and one in which he has confidence. If he will do that we can give him the assurance that we will support him on this side Of the House, and that should he one day no longer be in office, we on this side will see to it that responsible men serve on the council. This link ought to be an independent council of scientists.

The Bill makes provision for the appointment of committees.

That is why I advocate that the council should be differently constituted; it would make it so much the easier for the Minister. To be able to do that it will be necessary for him to refer the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading, because if we once pass the second reading we shall have accepted the principle of a private institution, and we shall not be able later to modify that principle. Let the Government bureau still be comprised of five or seven members, but let it be constituted by the Government from independent scientists, who enjoy the confidence of the Minister, and who will not necessarily be connected with one institution or another. I hope the Minister will give this serious consideration, but if he is not inclined to do so, I would like to see him make this at least a semiState institution instead of a private institution, and in that case he should see to it that in the constitution the State is the preponderating authority. I am in favour of the first alternative, but if the Minister finds it impossible to establish a State bureau, let him make it a semi-State bureau. We on this side of the House cannot be satisfied with a private institution. The State ought, at any rate, to have the controlling voice in the council. The Bill makes provision for the appointment of a person who is appointed by the Minister as chairman, for two members who are chosen from a panel of five, whose names are submitted by the institute, and two members who are chosen on account of their knowledge and experience in trade, industry and agriculture. As far as concerns the last group, this comprises three sections, each of which will not even have a representative.

The composition is made in such a way now that the State has control.

No, not control, that is only State supervision. There are even certain points in connection with which the council is eliminated, and I also regard that as a serious ommission in the Bill. But I am now advocating that this should be a semi-State institution, on which the majority of the members, at least three out of the five, should be appointed by the Government. Then the three groups to whom I referred a moment ago could also be represented, and the other interests could be easily replaced by committees. The State ought to have the final say in the organisation. The State’s authority in connection with the proceedings of the board should be decisive. Under the Minister’s proposal that is not the case. The council falls under the Minister’s supreme authority. That is so. But the majority of the members should also be appointed by the Government, otherwise the institution does not bear the imprimatur of a semi-State institution. In this Bill there is the flaw that in one respect the Minister can do certain things after eliminating the council. On the recommendation of the institute the Minister can eliminate the council. That appears to me to be a very great defect. If the Minister will accept our two fundamental suggestions, we shall do our best to get this Bill through the House as quickly as possible. But we feel we have objections towards a private body of this sort, and so we cannot give our support. There are, of course, a few other defects in the Bill. I refer, for instance, to the definition of “standard specification”. The institute is given the exclusive right to determine standard specifications. In my opinion that is also a serious defect. Moreover, in Clause 14 certain rights are granted to the council in regard to standardisation. In Clause 14 (1) (a) it is laid down that the Minister can, on the recommendation of the council, announce compulsory specifications. In that respect he may act on the recommendation of the council. The right, the exclusive right to announce standard specifications rests with an outside body. The Minister can, under the Bill and on the recommendation of the council apply specifications to certain commodities. Here the council is acknowledged, but in the following sub-section (b), the Minister can simply ignore the board and apply standard specifications for any commodity or for the manufacture, production, processing or treatment of any commodities without consulting the council. Here again there appears to be a defect in the Bill, seeing that the Minister lays down that he may take these important steps and ignore the council. There are other aspects that I should like to touch on, but I will be very brief. We urge, in the first place, that there should be a Government bureau, and if that is not possible then a semi-Government bureau, the Government having the deciding voice. There remain a number of other points in connection with which we shall move amendments during the Committee stage, but which I would prefer not to go into now. I have touched on the fundamental aspects. I can give the Minister the assurance that we are not the less concerned over the future development of our industrial life than he is. We want to have a law on standards, and we would like to have it both efficient and effective. We want to have the means of bringing it to the highest pitch of development. That is why I have made these suggestions that I have put forward. As far as the amendments are concerned, we shall deal with them later. We cannot accord our support to the Bill if the institution is going to be purely a private institution. It will be very regrettable if a division should have to occur in this House over the composition of the council; that is fundamental. We consider that the Government should shoulder the responsibility, and this Bill does not provide for that. Finally, I should like to make this observation. The Minister has a great opportunity. He is making a new start. Let that start be sound and fundamentally right. Then this Bill may be the cornerstone of a monument. But it the Minister is not cautious, it can be something quite different. In regard to the composition of the council, he could choose the members, and I can testify from my experience that there are thoroughly capable persons with the necessary knowledge to make the administration of this legislation effective and efficient. It may also be possible to appoint a capable person as director of the bureau. With these few thoughts I want to close, and I want again to ask the Minister to go into the matter, and to see whether we cannot get a Bill the principles of which we can all support.

I can assure the hon. Minister that this Bill is long overdue, and that it is welcomed by the country as a whole, I was also glad to hear from the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) that they also welcome this Bill. The hon. the Minister has, in the course of his speech, made a most interesting and explanatory statement which so fully sets out the objects of the Bill, that it leaves very little for us to add. But if I may shortly refer to the hon. member for Ceres, I may say that I found it rather difficult to follow his point. It is almost invariably a pleasure to listen to the hon. member; he does in fact provide us with an intellectual treat. But I could not gather his point about the State not having proper control of this council. I think that perhaps he mixed up the bureau with the council. There is at present in existence a South African Standards Bureau, but in this Bill the Minister sets out to establish a Standards Council. That Standards Council is constituted firstly by the Minister appointing a chairman. Then the Standards Bureau nominates two of the members. The Minister himself in addition appoints two members. That leaves the State in complete control with three members as against two.

Are importers represented on the board?

That question hardly affects the point in issue. It may be contended that the importers should have representation as well. What is intended by the Bill is to have a board on which every representative should have skilled knowledge. That is how the board should be constituted. The fear that was expressed, however, by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) is that the State would not have proper control. That that fear is groundless is shown by the constitution of the board. Ample safeguard has been made for that in the council, and it is quite clear that that is the intention of the Minister. The Minister indeed went further; in the event of the council finding that it has not at its disposal the specific knowledge that will be required to deal with certain matters that come before them—and obviously very few people will have that wide knowledge that will enable them to deal with the great variety of matters that will be submitted to the council—committees may be appointed under the provisions of the Bill. I have no doubt that these committees will be appointed whose members will have the particular technical knowledge that is required. That, I think, will remove the hon. member’s fear and I can therefore presume this Bill could be considered an agreed measure. Personally I feel that the Minister has set a landmark in the industrial history of South Africa, because to my mind it is a sine qua non in the development of industry to have a measure of this description as part of the law of the country. Why the Minister’s predecessors have never done this I fail to understand. This is a Bill that provides for that very machinery, that very precise machinery that is so essential for a young country like South Africa, which wants to establish and develop industries. Particularly during this war, when we have had this rapid growth of industries which have arisen by force of circumstances and products of such industries were not up to standard, some prejudice has arisen in the minds of the public which it will take a very long time to remove or live down. This seems to me, therefore, to be a very opportune time to improve our reputation that we have built up for ourselves and this Bill provides the very machihery for that. Because there was no machinery whereby our manufactured products could be tested and whereby specifications could be laid down in advance to safeguard our production, we have had to suffer in the past. I mention that particularly because we have had the experience in South Africa, and it has been to our serious detriment, that those who compete from overseas are often on the look-out for an opportunity to pick up an article that has been manufactured in South Africa, and to say: Just look at this article; it has been manufactured in South Africa, look how defective it is. My reply is that exactly the same knowledge that is at the disposal of the manufacturer overseas can be imported into this country; and I have yet to learn that anybody with special knowledge from overseas finds on his arrival here that that special knowledge deserts him. You can import these men with the special knowledge that is required or send our young technicians overseas to acquire that knowledge. So I completely repudiate the suggestion that our industries must suffer because we have not the technical knowledge available, or that it is not practical for us to produce certain articles of equal good quality in this country.

What has happened in the past to our detriment is that there has been no control of production whatever. Hundreds of people become engaged in industry, and undertake the manufacturing of articles of which they have not even a rudimentary knowledge. They may perchance be able, from an engineering point of view, to manufacture that article, but they have not that special knowledge of the raw product that is required for the successful production of the manufactured article. The result is that there is criticism of the article produced in the local factory. Commercially speaking one perhaps cannot blame the local representatives of overseas manufacturers, but there is no question about it they have exploited the opportunities that have arisen to condemn the locally manufactured article.

Very widely and successfully.

Yes, very widely and successfully, and what is more, our people were prone to believe them. There is one other aspect, namely where the Minister provides the machinery for compulsory standardisation. It is very often found that one manufacturer may be very jealous of his product and make a point of acquiring the best brains in the world to produce the article, but another manufacturer is only out to exploit circumstances in which the consumers find themselves, and is prepared by means of propaganda and advertisements to sell an inferior article to the consumers. That bona fide manufacturer suffers because of the bad reputation acquired by the other. This Bill will therefore protect that manufacturer. There is no question about it that if we want to build up our industries we must build them up so that our products will have a good reputation, because we need not talk about an export trade if we have not a good quality of article, equal to that on the overseas market, and when the Minister pointed out that this is one of the things we will have to be very careful about, I welcome that wholeheartedly. There is the further point which the Minister has stressed, which is one of the great economic factors of production, namely that if you go in for mass-production your costs must come down. In South Africa you find a duplication of numerous articles doing the same work. How does that come about? It is quite simple. You have for example in one country town about ten shopkeepers, each representing a different line of manufacture. That community will be divided in their custom and they may owe the trader money. The result is that the customer feels it is his duty to support that merchant, and he buys certain articles from that trader. The result is that in the same district, you have ten articles doing the same work. It stands to reason that the more diversity there is and the less standardisation, the more the article is costing. The more you standardise the more you bring down the cost of production. Not only does that benefit the consumer, but it makes it possible for the local industry to compete with the overseas manufacturers. The fact that the quality is stabilised not only protects the consumer but it helps the local manufacturer to be assured that no longer can the rumour be spread that he is not producing a good thing. There is one other point. In this country no small industry can afford to hire the best technical knowledge or the one technical man of outstanding ability, who may be very expensive, but through a concentration of knowledge in this proposed council, this knowledge can be given to the smaller industries through specifications and inspection and it will be very helpful to the industry. Then there is a question which has not been dealt with in this Bill, because it is a matter of practice, and it is this, that the sepecifications may be laid down for a particular article, but the Bill does not say anything about maximum or minimum qualities. But I take it that it will be always a minimum specification that will be stipulated which is what the general run of people require, and that minimum will be brought into line with the minimum of other countries, because otherwise our local industry cannot compete with the imported article. I also want to mention this particularly, that where this council has the power to standardise a certain article, they should limit—and that is a perfectly sound idea—the manufacture of the South African articles to a certain number. There is no question about it that in South Africa there are certain articles which are being duplicated unnecessarily. You find thousands of variations of the same article with the result that it is difficult to get spares, whereas if they were standardised and the various parts interchangeable there would be a reduction in production costs. I cannot give you the figures, but this reduction of production costs is very great, and it will make that instrument cheaper also to the farmer. If the Standards Council should lay down for example three designs for any particular article in South Africa, when once that is laid down, no-one can sell that article without a permit, until he has satisfied the council that that particular article complies with the specifications laid down. But will that apply to the imported article? If it does not you are faced with the anomaly that locally you are restricted to three designs but the importer may have twelve. You may find that because there is more variety in the imported article, for the sake of taste and because that implement looks nicer, it will be bought in preference to the local article, with the result that the local industrialists may lose the local market. I am merely pointing out to the Minister that things should be arranged so that that possibility is eliminated. I have nothing further to add. I must congratulate the hon. Minister on introducing this Bill and I am quite sure that as a result of this Bill, which I hope will go through as an agreed measure, this Bill will cause industries to develop much faster than otherwise would have been the case.

I am sure that every section of this House and of the public will welcome the general principles contained in this Bill, and I think we should congratulate the Minister on having brought it forward To me it seems strange that this Bill was not brought before the House years ago, particularly as our South African manufacturers have suffered as a result of there being no established hall-mark of quality attached to the goods manufactured in this country. This Bill, to my mind, provides for such a hall-mark, and in securing that hallmark we are securing the good manufacturer against the bad manufacturer. Over and above that we are securing the consumer, in the case of the ordinary commodity which the retailer sells. For too long there has been in this country, and particularly during the war period, a certain type of manufacturer who has put on the market certain manufactured goods, particularly goods in short supply, and having set up factories in back yards in Johannesburg and Cape Town and elsewhere, and having manufactured certain articles used by the public, to say the least of it, it has been found that some of these articles were positively dangerous to the users. This has been going on for a long time, and it has meant that the good manufacturer has been damaged because, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and the hon. member for Vereeniging (Col. Rood), it has opened the way for the consumer to say that he wants the imported article. Prior to the war the consumer had got rid of a good deal of that prejudice, but in recent years there is coming into operation on the part of certain people a practice of putting inferior articles on the market. I will not say it is our own people who do so, but people who come from certain parts of Europe.

Why do you not name them?.

We must face the facts. Well, these people must either be compelled to come up to the standard we are setting or be driven out of the industry altogether, and that will be possible under this Bill. This Bill will provide for a hall-mark that will secure all sections, the manufacturer, the retailer and the consumer, by a standard being set which will not only be acceptable to the people in this country but will compare favourably, and I hope will even be superior to the articles imported from other countries. One has to understand that a Bill such as this will require a certain amount of amendment in the committee stage, and I hope the Minister will appreciate that there are certain weaknesses in this Bill, but I want to say that I am not at all enthusiastic over the method in which the composition of the Stanrdards Council is to be set up. I feel that we must secure the position that the best men will be on that council, and I do not think that the South African Standards Institution is perhaps the best body to advise the Minister in regard to that. I think there are many other interests that are equally interested and capable of securing a good council. The position is that the South African Standards Institution is the only one now in existence, and one gives that body the full measure of approval for the work they have done, but I do feel—and when we come to the Committee stage we will have to approach this matter—that steps should be taken to ensure that all interests should be reflected and represented on that board. I think that even the consumer has some rights to being represented, and should find a place on that council. It may be said that the consumer will be a layman, but very often an intelligent layman on a council such as this will be able to secure that, having, shall we say, no interest in a particular industry—I was almost going to say no mercenary interest—he will approach the position from the point of view different from the point of view of people who are interested. I hope that when we come to deal with that matter we will see that we can compose the council in that way, the best council that we can get. And under Clause 5 (c) where the Minister states that two members shall be selected because of their knowledge of industrial, commercial and other matters, I can quite appreciate that these two members should be selected by the Minister himself, but there again I hope that some panel of names will be submitted to the Minister. When we come to that matter in the committee stage I feel sure that we will be able to assist the Minister. I would also point out to the Minister that many organisations exist that have not been consulted with regard to this Bill. I have received a telegram from the Associated Pharmaceutical Societies asking for a copy of this Bill and I am quite sure that they are very interested because many of the items which will be affected by this Bill are not provided for under the Food and Drugs Act, such as cosmetics, which are used by our women, and I want to say that many of them are using products which are a positive danger to them both from the point of view of skin diseases and of general health. We have to recognise, whether we like it or not that these are commodities which are used by the great bulk of women in South Africa and therefore I think it is necessary that this Council which is to be set up, will have a competent membership which will be able to deal with the manufacture of these articles. That is why I am surprised that the Associated Pharmaceutical Societies of South Africa have no information about the Bill. When it comes to the Committee stage I hope to improve the Bill in many directions. But as I said in the beginning, we welcome the general principles of the Bill, but it is necessary to secure certain weaknesses and our object, and particularly my object, will be to strgenthen the Bill particularly with regard to the composition of the council, because on that will depend the success or failure of the whole Bill.

Over the principle of this Bill, over what one might describe as the essential principle, there is no difference of opinion, as has already been stated by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). On such questions as the testing of machinery, the reduction of the variations in type that exist, the economies that will occur, and of course the question of quality there is no difference of opinion. The question of quality is one on which I personally feel very strongly, especially with an eye to our export trade. Whether it will be so easy to fix standards of quality is naturally another matter. So on the essential principle there is no difference of opinion. But I would like now to approach the subject from an entirely different standpoint, and that is a standpoint which is linked with the policy of this side of the House on the question of international trade. I shall approach the subject especially from the angle not so much of export of our own products, as that we should also have standards of quality, but more in regard to the other aspect of our trade, namely the import trade. A Bill sometimes appears to be very innocent, and the principle contained in it is sometimes very good. But we find sometimes that such an innocent Bill has far-reaching results in its administration. Today a comparison was made by the Minister with the United States of America, with the Bureau of Standards there. I am acquainted with that institution. It does exceptionally good work. But what we should not lose sight of is that the United States of America manufactures all its own manufactured goods, or the greater part of them; or to use an English expression, that country is “self-contained”. It is not necessary for the United States of America to be dependent on the import trade of foreign countries. But the position of South Africa is in that respect entirely different. We look forward to an extension of our industrial development in South Africa, and we are also glad that the Minister is interested in that. But for many years we shall be obliged to import a large part of our needs from overseas, and that is a factor that we must take into account in the discussion of this Bill. And it is in connection with this matter that I should like to submit the standpoint of this side of the House. This Bill goes further than merely the fixation of standards for our own goods that are manufactured in South Africa, the implications go further than that—there arises the question what standards are going to be fixed. How is our import trade going to be affected thereby. The further question arises whether the strict application of this principle that is here laid down, or rather the extension of it, may not have the possible effect of imposing restraints on our import trade or bringing it within certain limitations. It is desirable, I think, to bring up this matter at the second reading. As has been suggested by the hon. member for Ceres, we hope to lessen such difficulties by making an alteration in the composition of the council. But I cannot touch on this question of principle in the Committee stage of the Bill, and if it was mentioned at the third reading the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite would be able to say to me, and rightly too : “Why did you not bring up the matter at the second reading?” It is therefore necessary to mention the matter now with all frankness, and to express the hope that an alteration will be made in regard to the composition of that council, whereby the dangers that I see will be reduced, if not entirely eliminated. I think it is no secret; the hon. Minister will not deny it; that discussions took place in London before his departure. The Minister will not deny that plans were framed as part of a post-war economic policy with a view to making the British Empire an economic entity. It is not denied, and the Minister will not deny it; he knows it is so.

Who made these plans?

The plans were made and discussed by British government circles, and the Minister is aware of what went on.

No.

The Minister was in very close touch with the British Government when he filled the office of High Commissioner in London. We read continually how in connection with this or that matter the closest consultation had occurred between the British Government and the High Commissioners of the British Dominions. We further know that last year a very important address was given in Toronto by the British Ambassador, not in America but in Toronto, when he held out the prospect, speaking on behalf of the British Government, of an economic Empire unity—he might say it was his personal opinion, but I do not believe it. He gave an address there and laid down a policy in Toronto which very clearly envisaged the prospect of making the British Empire “an economic unit”, and in order to obtain that “economic unit”, it is necessary to adopt certain measures. I do not want to suggest that the hon. Minister came with that motive in connection with the Bill, but I would like to remind the House that two speakers, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) and the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie), both put the pertinent question, why such a Bill had never been brought forward in the past. To them that was strange. Well, that may simply have been a coincidence. I do not say it is so, but I offer that to the House for consideration. The fact is that this Bill, as it stands, will be used for purposes of Empire unity and especially seeing that large powers are here given to the “standards institution”, which stands in an entirely independent position from the Government. A tremendously powerful weapon is being given to persons or organisations over which the Government, as such, has no control. A mighty weapon is this provided. I refer the House to Clause 15—

It does not say commodities manufactured in South Africa, but “any commodity”—

The merchant may not sell it. Do hon. members realise what tremendous power is here placed in the hands of the council, a council which as has been rightly said by the hon. member for Ceres does not stand under direct Government control. It is not a Government council. Do hon. members realise that if the council wishes to exercise its power in a certain way it can be employed to restrict importation into the country. Do hon. members realise that if certain goods are imported from the United States of America the council could simply declare that they do not conform with the standards that have been perscribed by the council, and that means, in effect, that those particular articles could not be imported, because under Section 15 they could not be sold here. Consequently, you will see why bearing in mind the policy that we on this side of the House advocate, I approach this measure with a certain amount of caution, in spite of the fact that I am fully conscious that the principle contained in it is a good one. May I allude to my own, experience of the past. I do not know if the Minister, at the time he represented us in France had the same experience there. When I was Minister in France we had a tremendous favourable trade balance with France. We were anxious to sell more crayfish and fruit to France. But the French took up the standpoint that while the trade balance was so unfavourable to them, they could not allot a further import quota to us. At that time everything was regulated by quotas. They said that they would buy more of our goods if we bought more from France, and they referred specifically to railway material and machinery. A French representative called on me and said that our railway administration had something called “Standards of safety”. When the French manufacturers submitted a tender, although that tender might be lower than competing tenders and although similar material had been used for years on the French railways without occasioning any accident, our Railway Administration simply stepped in and said: “It does not conform to the South African standards of safety.” That is just an opinion that they expressed. The result is that those goods could not be exported and no orders were placed. The Minister consequently cannot say that I am producing bogeys when I maintain that the standards that are laid down under this Bill can be used to lead the import trade into certain channels. I had another instance in France. Tenders were invited for locomotives, and in order to reduce their unfavourable trade balance (as a result of which our country would have received additional quotas for our crayfish and deciduous, fruit) they submitted tenders. They made the promise that if we bought so many locomotives from them, we would receive a proportionately higher quota for fruit and crayfish. The Railway Administration, however, prescribed certain specifications. The representative of one of the biggest French firms came to me and said in the specifications for the locomotives they found there was one small part, which was of little importance, but in connection with which the specifications were so drawn that they were unable to submit a tender, because it would have implied that they would have had to alter parts of the factory in order to comply with those specifications, and that would have cost so much that they could not send in a tender. We see, therefore, the danger of standards and specifications. I have stated that I consider it my duty, seeing that this is a question that impinges on the policy of this side of the House, to mention these difficulties frankly. I am doing so not because I am antagonistic to the principle of the Bill, but because I feel that it contains certain dangers, and that consequently the Minister should do everything in his power to meet us when, in the Committee stage, we propose certain amendments with the object of eliminating those dangers to a certain degree. Then I want to emphasise something that was stated by the hon. member for Ceres. It has reference to this council that is going to determine the standards. We do not know what outside influences may be brought to bear on that council, what its policy will be, and what plans it will carry out. It is not a Government body; it is actually an outside body. So far as I know—I speak subject to correction—but if I remember aright the council that exists in America is a Government council. In America the Bureau of Standards is a tremendous affair that covers many morgen of land. So far as I can remember, it stands under the direct control of the Minister of Commerce. It is purely and simply a State institution and nothing else. We ask the Minister to take into consideration making this institution in South Africa a Government organisation. I do not want to detain the House any longer, but there is another question in connection with standards. Will the Minister in his reply tell us whether progress has been made over international standards. Much is being said of free trade as part of the post-war economic policy. We know what the Atlantic Charter states in that connection. Is there any plan to introduce international standards? Take something like electric light bulbs. Throughout the world the bulb is screwed in; it is only in Britain that the bulb is pushed into the socket and then given a slight turn. Then take the switch on the wall. In all the countries of the world it is a small object, but in England and in South Africa it is a big affair made of wood. We do not see that anywhere in America, France or anywhere else. Personally I feel strongly in favour of international standards and specifications, and they might enable us to escape some of the impediments that exist in connection with the free flow of trade and which are such a fruitful source of difficulty and of wars. I hope that the Minister will accept my remarks in the spirit in which I made them, and that he will not yield to the inclination which we notice on the other side, that when we on this side of the House bring forward legitimate and well-founded objections, we are told that it is all politics. I have all the proofs here of what I have said, but I will not take up the time of the House by going into them. Reference is often made to the wall that should be built around the British Empire, and we are opposed to that. Meet us and help us to mould this Bill in such a form that our objections may be removed.

I think the hon. member who has just spoken has fears that will never be realised regarding the import trade affecting our industries in this country. Under the clause that deals with the matter, the Minister has the power to override the council if such a standard is set by them as would be definitely detrimental to the interests of the country.

But the Minister would be very reluctant to override them.

It would naturally be compulsory for everybody to conform to that standard. I understand the position in regard to the compulsory clause is that it should be only used with regard to foodstuffs, and commodities of that nature, and that it would never be used in the ordinary course of industry.

Where do you get hold of that?

I think that you will find compulsory standards have been laid down in the Foods and Drugs Act in regard to certain standards of food. One of our troubles has been that when we wanted to supply the processed foods of this country, no definite standard had been laid down to which manufacturers could be made to adhere. We have had exactly the same experience in regard to our wines and brandies.

What about our wool?

One of the troubles we have had in regard to our brandies was that no standard had been laid down, which could be ascertained for export purposes, and we had to make use of the local Brandy Board to get a certificate of the purity of these brandies before they could be accepted for export for hospital purposes. I want to speak now more particularly from the point of view of commerce, because it is as a rule on the shoulders of commerce that all the blame falls for the sale of inferior products.

We are frightened of commerce.

Whether it is food or any other product that is affected, if it is a bad product it is invariably on the shoulder of the retailer that the blame is placed for selling that inferior product.

It is the standard you import from overseas.

It applies equally to the imported commodity. Time and again we have had that experience in regard to South African products. The initial product has been of a very high standard, a very good quality has been obtained, and good business has been done. Then after a few months, or perhaps after one or two years that standard falls off, and there never has been any merchandise mark at all that any customer could refer to and say that was the particular type of article they required. They did try with success with regard to certain agricultural products. Certain citrus was always marked with a definite standard mark, and the public knew, as a rule, they were going to get what the mark indicated. I think that was a type of voluntary registration which it was found could be most useful, and which the public welcomed. We have found all the way through these last few years, particularly during the war period, that this country has been flooded with cheap goods of poor quality.

Imported goods.

No, they are not imported goods. They have been manufactured locally, and they have been of very poor quality, the reason being that many people are engaging in industry who know nothing about the particular branch in which they are concerned.

There is lots of shoddy stuff

It has been absolutely shoddy.

That is due to there being no machinery.

It has been a case of not having the machinery to measure and indicate quality. I may say in regard to one particular province, at the beginning of the war there were 150 manufacturers employing 9,000 operators, and there are now some 270 employers employing the same number of operators. There has been this big increase in the number of employers and the quality has gone down. It has been found that those firms who have been doing their level best to uphold the high standard of the firms have been most severely hit by this competition. The steps that are being taken in this measure will give the opportunity to manufacturers in this country to adopt this system of standard marks voluntarily. They know perfectly well if they do adopt the standard mark—and I presume there may be a scale of different standards—and if the quality of their goods is high that will suffice nowadays to ensure the sale of their article, and the standard mark will do more than anything else to kill the market for these shoddy goods which though cheaper to purchase, invariably prove drearer in the long run. Anybody with any experience of this type of shoddy material that can be bought at very low prices, knows perfectly well that owing to the absence of wearing qualities these articles prove much dearer in the end. It is perfectly true that there has been a prejudice against South African goods. One reason for the prejudice is that at one time the imported article was a better article. To illustrate the remarkable progress that has been made in regard to the quality and growth of South African products, let us take one particular industry, the boot industry. During the war that industry has improved out of all recognition. That has been the case both in regard to the quality of all types of boots and shoes it is turning out, and in regard to the extension of its markets. Nor has this been entirely due to the difficulty of getting imported boots and shoes. The market and the prestige that our boot manufacturers have won by reason of the quality of their product have entrenched their position, and the industry will never recede to the place it held previously in relation to the imported article. There again, however, it is a question of having a definite standard and of maintaining that standard. Some firms in the country are definitely determined to see that that standard is maintained. The hon. member referred to this question of preference for imported goods, but surely it is realised that imported goods have got to stand up against the local article, and no one will go to the trouble of buying imported goods if the local article is of the same quality, but when an attempt is made to import an article that is not of the same standard as the local article, the importer will find that he will be without the advantage of the standard merchandise mark which our own goods bear, and which the public will soon learn definitely indicate the better and consequently the cheaper article. Take for example, paints. Some auction sales rooms in various parts of the country have been flooded with cheap paints, bad in quality and quite useless for the purpose for which they are purchased. They bear names which seem to suggest sound quality, but there is nothing to indicate to the public whether they are really of a reasonable standard. Under this particular measure that is one improvement that would be effected at once. Protection would be afforded to the ordinary individual who does not know a great deal about quality, and who would welcome the guide it is proposed to make available for him. During the last few years fortunes have been made in this country out of the clothing industry, out of the cheap and shoddy clothing that has been made by certain types of manufacturers.

You mean in South Africa?

Yes.

By whom?

There is a certain type of manufacturer who is out to turn out any type of article, no matter how shoddy, and when the article is presented to the customer it carries no indication of its standard of quality.

The material may be imported, and it may just be made here.

It always has been imported, but the manufacture of it is another matter. If hon. members could see some of the clothing that has been manufactured in the last few years they would realise the necessity that exists for this measure. The hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) referred to one or two matter in connection with this Bill. I take it that the institute that has been referred to, perhaps somewhat unkindly, has been a voluntary body. It has been in existence for many years, and it has been responsible for helping to get this Bill before us today. It is comprised of representatives of all sections; I think that the hon. member will probably find that sérving on that institute there are members of the Parmaceutical Society. Whether the Bill was actually referred to the Standards Institute, I do not know, but surely the Minister is quite right to ask it to nominate a panel of five, two of which would be appointed by him as members of the Bureau of Standards. Possibly the Minister might go to the hon. member’s party for a consumer’s representative. But I would urge hon. members to be careful and not to seek to make this council unwieldly; it must be kept to dimensions that will enable it to act quickly, and its members must have a sound knowledge of the technical side of the problems they will have to handle. I appreciate, and I think the House will appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member who speaks for the Pharmacy Board when he referred to the bad effects of certain cosmetics. I understand that the Health Act deals with the purity or impurity of these various types of cosmetics.

In a very negative way.

In any case, that is a matter that could properly be dealt with under the Standards Bureau; it certainly is a matter that could be discussed. Generally speaking I may say that this is a measure which commerce has been advocating for a very long time. I well remember how on the outbreak of war—and the hon. member will also know—how we were handicapped in connection with war supplies, because no definite standards were laid down and there was no possibility of taking measures to ensure that we would get the article we wanted. I can honestly say that the Minister will gain the thanks of all sections of the business world for this measure, and when the public realise the value of the Bill and the benefit they will derive from it, they will also extend their gratitude to the Minister.

I think there can be no disagreement on the question that the Minister, in attempting to place this Bill on the Statute Book, is indicating the starting of a new era of industrialisation in this country. In enunciating the principles of this Bill, the Minister did not clarify one or two points. In regard to these points, I should like to preface my remarks by saying that in recent years and perhaps more so just prior to the war, South Africa was becoming an open sesame market for the world’s junk. This was due to two reasons; the first was, that there was no legislation in this country to control the import of certain commodities of low standard, and secondly, the legislation that did exist in a few countries, as for instance in New Zealand, Australia and the United States of America, did not in itself afford sufficient protection, inasmuch as other countries were also exporting certain commodities to South Africa. The particular countries which I have referred to, such as New Zealand, Australia and the United States of America, have in operation laws which are strictly enforced, and they do prevent a state of affairs which exists here and under which South Africa buys the world’s junk. But these countries are not the only exporting countries. In making this statement I have in mind the thousands of articles which are sold over the counter to householders, particularly in the bazaars. I am primarily concerned with articles like electrical appliances and the installation work to which such appliances are attached. I think that everybody realises that there is on record in this country a number of deaths which have been brought about as a result of the very low standard of these electrical appliances which are being sold in this country. In fact, I know of a case which occurred only recently which entailed serious consequences. A patient was suffering from pneumonia and the doctor ordered radiators to be brought up to warm the room. These radiators, which were bought from a music store, were affixed to the ordinary lampholder installations. Within a few minutes the room was in flames and disaster was narrowly averted. This debate has, to a great extent, centred round the question of the control of articles marketed in this country and of articles that may be exported. The Minister indicated in connection with Clause 15 that if South Africa had become an exporting country, then we would have to adopt a certain standard in regard to our exports, and what was more, we would have to fall into line with the other dominions and adopt a standard that would be common to all of us. The Minister did indicate that the public would be protected in this Bill. That being so, Mr. Speaker, when he replies to this debate I should like him to indicate whether it is the aim and object of this Bill to debar from this country, any junk or articles which are potentially dangerous, that might be sent here from world markets. I want that position to be made perfectly clear. There are two other points I should like to raise. One is in regard to the position of the council of the bureau. It has been indicated by the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) that one would like to see a consumer’s representative serving on that council. I do not know whether he has in mind a representative from the National Council of Women or some similar body, but actually I think that when we regard the requirements of such government departments as the Departments of Irrigation, the Post Office, the Public Works Department and other State departments, I think we may rightly say that they are the biggest consumers in the country. That being the case, I would like to see one or two representatives from the Government departments on this council. I believe they would leaven up the membership of the council, particularly when we bear in mind that public servants have no vested interests in any commodity that is produced here or that is imported into the country. Not only is that the case, but being the biggest consumers, as I believe they would be, they would be entitled to express an opinion with a view to seeing that Government departments reap some benefit which will be derived from standardisation and the resulting quality. Consequently, in considering the appointment of a consumers’ representative, I do trust the advisability may be borne in mind of not only sub-committees to consider special matters having the assistance of these officials, but that these officials should be on the council too. Furthermore they would see that the Government and local authorities would not be dictated to by outside firms. We must guard too, against a possible dictatorship by the Institution. My last point is in regard to the appointment of inspectors. I believe this Bill will fail if we do not have highly competnt and skilled men to see that the principles of this Bill are given effect to. I believe that the type of men who are required can be found in this country, and that being so, I do want the Minister to give the lead to other departments and to see that highly skilled men are appointed, and also that they receive adequate remuneration. One need not cast aspersions on any particular aspect of industry or commerce, but I think if we are going to have inspectors who will see that the provisions of the Bill are effectively administered, they should be in a position that they will not be tempted by unscrupulous traders in this country. I hope that the Minister, in reply, will indicate what his attitude is on the three points I have raised.

As already mentioned by members on this side of the House, we agree in principle with this Bill laid before the House by the hon. the Minister today. The Minister has mentioned to us that there are various advantages contained in this Bill. I agree. In fact, I also agree with hon. members who pointed out that it was very much overdue and that it would have been to the advantage of the country if we had had it a long time ago. But there is another aspect of this question of standardisation. It is entirely wrong to maintain that there are advantages only and no disadvantages attached to this whole question of standardisation. It is no new idea by any means either. Standardisation was very strictly enforced by the craft guilds in Western Europe during the Middle Ages. They also had numbers of inspectors going through all the manufacturing concerns and inspections were carried out so rigidly, and the standards adhered to so firmly, that innovations were discouraged in every way. The same thing applied to the clothing industry of Florence, also in the Middle Ages. The result in these countries where standardisation was so rigidly enforced was that stagnation was caused, and consequently the trade which was in the hands of these countries left them and went to other countries where there was no standardisation. The same thing applied to the English cloth industry at various times, and then we come to France. Josiah Child said that standardisation in France caused stagnation in French industry with the result that the French industries lagged behind British development and that consequently French industries never caught up with the British industry during the Industrial Revolution or afterwards. An even later example of the disadvantages of standardisation is quoted by Professor Robertson in the Scotland Yard Regulations relating to taxi cabs. When two wheeled brakes were already long out of use the London taxi cab regulations still enforced that they should have two wheels with brakes, and not four, and that they should have metal sudded tyres, things that were long out of date already. The result is that taxi cabs were used in London which were very inefficient and which cost about twice as much as any modern motor-car which could be imported or manufactured in Britain. Imagine, Sir, that the first Union Government of this country, in 1910, laid down a standard for taxis to be used in this country. I would like this House to imagine, if we had introduced in 1910 very modern standards for the type of hansom cab, what the cabs would have looked like today as they lined Parliament Street. It therefore does not mean that when we talk about standardisation we are necessarily talking about progress in industry. Standardisation naturally is necessary and the intention of standardisation is to secure a standardised quality in certain articles, and therefore such a standard is laid down by stating that an article should not contain less than a certain percentage of this, that or the other constituent. Very often though progress makes it possible that the qualities of an expensive ingredient in a product can be reduced very considerably. I remember that investigations were made in the early stages of this war about the quantities of glycerine available for the South African explosive manufacturing industry, and then a problem arose, and a very serious one, as the hon. Minister will no doubt remember, about a shortage of glycerine; but when I had the honour of visiting the African Explosive Industries only a couple of months ago, I asked the Manager how he had overcome the problem, and he said they had done so simply by way of improving their methods by means of new investigation, and that they were now able to produce an explosive equal in quality to the one they manufactured before, and I have forgotten the exact figures, but I think he said that they reduced the percentage of glycerine used to something like 33 or 40 per cent. of what it was before. The point I am making therefore is that this House should consider that laying down standards is not the end of the matter. We are today living in a very dynamic world and if one wishes to keep up with developments overseas and be able to compete with countries overseas, it wil be necessary in future to see that this Bureau, this council, will consist not only of very highly qualified men, but of men with open minds who have no self-interest in the products, but who look to the interests of South Africa and the welfare of this country only. The Minister has stated that standardisation leads to economy, efficiency, and to decreased distribution costs. I think with these few remarks I have succeeded in pointing out that that is not always the case. The Minister, for example, mentioned the paint industry. I know and know very well that it is essential that certain qualifications and standards should be laid down for the paint industry, and this was done some time ago. Nevertheless if very rigid regulations were to be laid down for the paint industry, what will happen to that industry? If we do not keep in line with developments in the paint industry we will find ourselves lagging behind new inventions made overseas. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) mentioned agricultural implements and went so far as to suggest that the Minister should lay down only a few standards for the types of agricultural implement not only those to be manufactured in this country, but also those to be imported. In fact, that is the very thing that might be a danger. It might assist inefficiency if we are going to use standarisation as a mere method of protecting industries in this country against legitimate competition from overseas. I may point out that although standardisation may be extremely essential, and although standardisation in the form suggested by the Minister may be very helpful in time of war, in the various classes of things he mentioned, it might be very detrimental in the post-war period if not carried out with great care. The Standards Bureau must therefore be intelligently aware of new world developments and modern industrial improvements, and if that is not the case I am afraid we will not get the benefits of this Bill, the benefits it is generally accepted that we will obtain. There are a few points in the Bill itself, to which I would like to refer. With regard to the appointments of members on the council I may say that I feel—and here I agree with the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals)—that the Government should have control so that this council, like other institutions which were started with Government money, should not come to a stage where the Minister has to reply in this House that he has no power over these people. In Section 12 provision is made for the appointment of a director of this bureau, and lower down in the same section also for the appointment of the staff. I want to, as I have been doing all along from this side of the House, to plead again that these people should be fully bilingual.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26.(1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 14th February.