May I just ask the Minister of Finance, for the convenience of members, what the Government proposes to do in connection with Good Friday and Easter Monday which fall on the 30th March and the 2nd April, respectively. Will the House sit or will it be free, because hon. members would like to make their arrangements accordingly.

We propose to follow the same procedure that we adopted in the past few years, namely, not to sit on Good Friday but to sit on Easter Monday.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, although this Bill is a simple one in its terms, it is by no means unimportant in its implications. The effect of the Bill is to amend the constitution of the Incorporated Law Society of Natal, which constitution is reflected in Act No. 10 of 1907 of Natal, and what the Law Society seeks to do, Mr. Speaker, is by amending its constitution, at the same time to do two things; to diminish and increase its jurisdiction. It seeks to diminish its jurisdiction by relinquishing its authority over advocates practising in the Province, and it seeks to increase its jurisdiction by extending it to cover certain conveyancers who at present are not covered by the constitution. That portion of the Bill which touches the position of advocates has the full support of the Society of Advocates. As members probably know, until comparatively recently we have had in Natal in the legal profession the dual system. That system enabled a person in certain circumstances to practise at the same time both as an advocate and an attorney. However, in 1932, by a rule of court, legal practice was separated, and save for preserving the rights of those who at that time enjoyed them, as was done by Act No. 37 of 1939, the Bar was divided. And it was felt for these reasons and also because of the fact that there were certain advocates who at no time had been members of the Law Society, that it was right and proper that the Law Society should divest itself, of the jurisdiction in respect of advocates and that that jurisdiction should properly be vested in their own organisation, their own Bar Council. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, these provisions, so far as they touch the position of advocates, have the entire approval of the Society of Advocates. So far as conveyancers are concerned, the Bill really introduces no new principle. The principle was approved by Parliament in the Act of 1934 with which I shall deal presently. The necessity for the Bill, however, Mr. Speaker, has come about in so far, at any rate, as it touches conveyancers, because there are a certain number of conveyancers, who, notwithstanding the clear intention of Parliament, have discovered a way of freeing themselves from the jurisdiction of the Law Society, and have taken advantage of it. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the necessity and justification for the Bill will be appreciated if I give briefly a survey of the various legislative enactments which have affected the position of conveyancers in Natal. There are in the Province today five different classes of conveyancers There are, firstly, those who have become known as the 1904 conveyancers. They are persons admitted under Act No. 23 of 1904 (Natal). Prior to the passing of that Act it was possible for any person, without any qualifications, to practice as a conveyancer, provided he took out a licence, and, needless to say, paid for it. The 1904 Act provided that any person who desired to practise as a conveyancer had to be admitted as such and could only be admitted after passing a prescribed examination. Any attorney or notary could also be admitted as a conveyancer but he was not required to pass any further examination. The effect of the Act was to create two types of conveyancers; those who were solely conveyancers and those who, in addition, were either notaries or attorneys. That Act was repealed by the passing of the Natal Conveyancers’ Act No. 24 of 1926. Those who had acquired the right to practise as conveyancers up to that time, that is, under the 1904 Act, retained the right. However, thereafter only persons practising either as attorneys or notaries could sit for the conveyancers’ examination. They were not required, beyond taking the examination, to be specifically admitted as conveyancers. They constituted the third class. In 1934 Act 23 of that year was passed. That Act required that an application to Court was necessary over and above the examination, but that application, in addition, could only be made by an attorney. That provided the fourth category. Now there is a fifth group and it is in respect of that fifth group that this Bill is concerned. A conveyancer having been admitted under the 1934 Act by virtue of the fact that he had also been admitted as an attorney, was nevertheless not required by law to practise as an attorney. He could, if he so chose, confine himself to the practise of conveyancer. All the Act required was that he should firstly have the qualifications of an attorney and be admitted as an attorney before he could be admitted as a conveyancer. The motion that any conveyancer so admitted, might give up his practice as an attorney in order to practise solely as a conveyancer, was one which it is fair, I think, to suggest crossed nobody’s mind. However, that did happen, and those who have taken this course constitute the fifth class. They are persons who, having been admitted as attorneys and conveyancers, have either never practised as attorneys, or having started, have given up the practise and have thereafter confined themselves entirely to the practice of conveyancing. Now the Constitution of the Law Society reflected, as I have said, in Act No. 10 of 1907, does not provide for conveyancers as members of the Society, and persons, therefore, who, although admitted to practice as attorneys, have chosen to give us such practice and to carry on the practice solely of conveyancer, because of the Constitution as it reads today, fall outside the jurisdiction of the Law Society. Here I would remind the House that it was this very practice, that is, of enabling persons to carry on solely as conveyancers, which the 1926 Act was intended to put an end to. Now, the number of persons who have taken this course at the Moment is small. It numbers seven, but I want to submit that unless the position is dealt with without delay, the very object of the 1926 Act will be defeated. It may be of interest to members who are unfamiliar with the position in Natal to know that quite by far the larger proportion of conveyancing work which is done in Natal, and principally in the two largest cities, is done by conveyancers who are not attorneys. These conveyancers are engaged mainly in the Estate Agency business on a substantial scale, and they enjoy advantages in their work which are denied to the conveyancers who practise at the same time as attorneys. The conveyancer who is an attorney is obliged to respect the laws, written and unwritten, of the Law Society, and that Society has authority over him, but the conveyancer who is not practising as an attorney, is free to commit some of those acts which, if committed by an attorneyconveyancer, would offend against the rules of the Society and would result in his being visited with certain penalities by the Law Society. Conveyancers who are estate agents are entitled to advertise their estate agencies, and this is done on a large scale. They are entitled to seek for agency work; they are at liberty to bargain over fees and share their fees with all and sundry. They can arrange for the conveyancing work which results from a sale affected by them. Now the 1926 Act intended that the class of conveyancer I have referred to would in due course come to an end, and after the passing of that Act, it would only be a matter of years before all the conveyancing work would be done by conveyancers who enjoy the qualifications required by the 1934 Act. In other words, it would be done by conveyancers, all of whom would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Law Society. The 1926 Act, it is right to say, did provide for a certain measure of control over the conveyancers who were not subject to the Law Society, but members will appreciate the extreme difficulty of enforcing a rule against one person who is answerable to the Law Society, but happens to be in partnership with a person who is not so subject to the jurisdiction of the Law Society. Although, therefore, technically there was a certain measure of control over the 1926 conveyancers, the practical effect was limited, and in its practical application it is difficult to stop these people from touting and committing the other offences I have referred to. Now, Mr. Speaker, this postiion does not obtain in any of the other provinces because the conveyancers are members of the Law Society and under the control of the Law Society as much as the attorneys are. In Natal, I have tried to make plain that the person who ceases to practise as an attorney ceases to be under the jurisdiction of the Law Society, and although this person continues to be enrolled as an attorney under the Law Society, the Society has no control over his conduct. So a person by becoming an attorney and being admitted and thereafter becoming a conveyancer by the 1934 Act can by ceasing to practise as an attorney, put himself beyond the jurisdiction of the Law Society, which was the very principle which the 1936 Act was designed to prevent. I want to mention one further point in illustration of my contention, that Parliament set its face against the perpetuation of that class of conveyancer who did not enjoy the qualifications of an attorney. Section 7 of Act No. 24 of 1926 did contemplate the right of persons to practise as conveyancers only, but that section was repealed in the 1934 Act, which shows quite clearly that in 1934 Parliament was very strongly opposed to what might be regarded as the independent class of conveyancer. These persons who have so far taken advantage of the escape of the provisions of the 1926 Act will not be prevented in any way from earning their livelihood by carrying on as conveyancers. What the amendment to the constitution will ensure is that those persons will be no better off or enjoy any preference over their fellow conveyancers who are also practising as attorneys. They will be required to fall into line with those conveyancers who are attorneys and will be subject to the rules and regulations of the Law Society. Beyond that their rights will not be touched. There is one final aspect of the matter which I would like to mention, and that is this: Membership of the Law Society is limited, as I hope I have made it clear, to persons who are practising or are enrolled in the province. It follows that only persons who are engaged in the practise of the profession are membars of the society, but there are attorneys who have become enrolled in Natal but ordinarily practise elsewhere. They visit Natal occasionally when it suits them and they then appear in our courts. The effect of this amendment to the constitution of the Law Society would make these persons liable for the annual subscription. At the present moment they are not liable for anything. They have obviously come to Natal to be enrolled for the purpose of any advantage that they can get from it and it is felt that it is only right and proper that they should contribute to the management and control of the profession in each province in which they are engaged.

After hearing the speech by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) I am more than ever convinced that the feeling I have held for some years that conveyancing in itself was a racket, is correct. It now appears that it is a very lucrative racket indeed and this Bill represents an attempt on the part of the Natal attorneys to collar this lucrative racket for themselves from the estate agents who have done most of the trade. To do this, they are prepared to sacrifice certain individuals. The hon. member was careful not to read out from the report of the Select Committee the circumstances in which certain persons are concerned. Now the hon. member has developed his argument from Acts passed in this House, but Acts passed in this House are repealed from time to time and because Parliament expressed this in a certain way in a certain clause, but one can argue two or three points of view as to what they mean. Because Parliament did that in 1934, there is no reason to think that Parliament expressed that as the only view. Now the hon. member contradicts himself because he says in one instance that Parliament decided that the practice of conveyancing should only be done by persons who have the qualifications of attorneys and in another phrase he says it must be practised by the person who continues to practise as an attorney. Then again he has made great play of the rules and regulations imposed by the Natal Law Society, but I want to suggest that these rules and regulations and restrictions are not imposed on the practice of the conveyancer but on the practice of the attorney, and when a man gives up his practice as an attorney and continues to practise as a conveyancer, it is not to be expected that the rules imposed on an attorney should also be imposed on a conveyancer. The two things are entirely different. These rules are imposed on attorneys in their capacity as legal practitioners, and they are imposed for good reasons, they are imposed to see that no malpractices take place. Why? One can readily understand it is not the correct thing, for instance, for a lawyer to argue upon fees—though I think sometimes it would be much better if some kind of argument did take place, and I believe it is a very general practice of people in some professions. It may not be the correct thing for an attorney to seek more work, or to advertise, but I do not think that conveyancers advertise openly, or that the type of conveyancer against whom the Bill is directed seeks work. They just happen to be in a position where they can get the work because of their association with estate agents, and it seems to be logical if one buys a house through an estate agent that the conveyancing work should be done at the office or in the building of that estate agent. Surely that is much more logical, if not more efficient, than that one should have to leave the building and go somewhere else to get hold of an attorney to do the conveyancing. It certainly does in the long run come out much cheaper.

[Inaudible.]

But it does. Your argument was that practising conveyancers are not under the Law Society, and that they are allowed to haggle for fees and seek other work. In other words, you suggested they had certain privileges over the practice of attorneys, but the speaker failed to state that though the conveyancers still have privileges over the practising attorney they have given up their practice of attorney, or whatever privileges they may have had by being in partnership with an unqualified person. That is a part of the Bill that the hon. member skated over carefully. He has lost by giving up his practice as an attorney. Let us look at the gentlemen pilloried in this Bill, the gentlemen who are to be deprived of the businesses they have built up. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) says these gentlemen will still be able to practise as conveyancers. Then why all the trouble? If they are still to get the privileges, why bring in a Bill? But he knows perfectly well that that is not the case, and Mr. Winterton who gave evidence before the Select Committee said—

The hon. member has almitted that in at least one of the cases the individual is not practising at all, and I want the House to take note of that. Certain attorneys have given up practice and are now practising solely as conveyancers. Two are in partnership as estate agents; one is secretary of a local building society; one is in partnership with an estate agent and auctioneer. He has only recently taken this course, and he did so because the Council objected to his association as an attorney with the unqualified person with whom he has now opened in partnership. That is in Mr. Winterton’s evidence, and he goes on—

What a terrible crime! Here is a man who has the confounded audacity to qualify as an attorney in order to be able to perpetuate his father’s conveyancing business. Surely we have not got to the stage in this House where we are going to accept Bills of this description which actually deprives a man of the right to carry on his father’s business. Is there any moral right that the Law Society can put forward with the attorneys in Natal, to say that that man should be deprived of the right of carrying on his father’s conveyancing business, because it is presumed it was a lucrative practice, and that it should be divided up between the atorneys who inhabit the town. Mr. Winterton’s evidence on the point goes on—

That is another terrible crime. A man qualifies as an attorney and runs the business in partnership with his brother. One is the son of a 1904 conveyancer now deceased, and has continued in partnership with his father’s 1904 conveyancer partner. That is the evidence. That is another instance where a son who is only carrying on the business of his deceased father, who was a conveyancer. He qualified as an attorney for the purpose of becoming a conveyancer, and, as the law has been amended, it is impossible to become a conveyancer in any other way. In those two instances—two sons of two fathers—these men were done an injustice by the Act that Parliament passed in 1926, and so they had to go to the extent of actually qualifying as attorneys before they were allowed to carry on the businesses that had been established by their own fathers. This House actually took up the attitude with the previous Bill that we had to more or less force men through a legal training, so that when after they are qualified they could go back to conveyancing. I think we ought rather to have a Bill to force a number of them out of the legal profession and into a more honest class of business. Then we come to the last of the seven—

There cannot possibly be any objection to one who practises as a conveyancer on his own account. This is a side line on how lucrative the conveyancing business must be, because here we have an attorney who is concentrating on only one aspect of the profession, and even in this instance the Law Society demand that this man should fall under their jurisdiction. Further, the hon. member—rather peculiarly for a Natal member—raised the point that this is not the practice in the other three provinces. I was a Natal member for ten years, and as a Natal member it was always my pride and joy that Natal is different from the other provinces in the Union. They are different in many ways, and why should they not be? They always have been different. I would point out to the hon. member that when the rule of court was originally made there was no attempt to preserve the existing rights of certain dual practitioners in Natal, and some hon. members will remember the demands made by Mr. Nel, then member for Newcastle, to see that these existing rights were preserved, and eventually after several attempts Mr. Nel persuaded the House to agree to the rights of the dual practitioners being preserved, and today those who care to can still practise in a dual capacity. But there is no attempt here to protect the existing rights of these individuals. I should like to ask the hon. member for Umlazi the names of these seven men and the firms with which they are connected, because it seems to me an attempt is being made to interfere with some of the largest and respectable estate agents in Durban, and with some businesses that have even a higher reputation than the Law Society, businesses that have been in existence for many years. The House should not be a party to passing legislation of this kind until ge know what we are doing. I have had no information myself, but I should like to know who are the seven men concerned. Apparently one was threatened by the Law Society that if he went into partnership with an unqualified person it was the intention of the Law Society to introduce such a Bill this Session. This particular attorney did not pay any attention to that because he realised the Law Society was not in a position to prejudge what the opinion of this House might be. From the evidence it appears that the Law Society think they need only introduce the Bill and the House must accept it. However, this individual paid no attention to this threat, and he has entered into this partnership. The whole point is, was it originally the intention of Parliament to hand over the whole of the conveyancing business to the legal profession or to the attorneys; or was the intention of Parliament by the legislation we passed in 1934, to raise the standard of conveyancing? I suggest that Parliament at no time approached a subject of this description from the point of view of Parliament making itself an auctioneer and saying this class of thing must go into the hands of attorneys. I suggest that what was in their minds in 1934 was the raising of the standard of conveyancing and the safeguarding of the public, because bad conveyancing can cost the public extra money. If the conveyancer makes mistakes the deeds are sent back and the individual has to pay; and in the long run most of the conveyancing is done by civil servants. So I feel that Parliament had behind this no more than the idea of raising the standard of conveyancing, and they felt that possibly the best way to raise their standard was to confine the Act on Conveyancing to men or women who had passed their examinations as attorneys. Having done that, I believe that was all Parliament was interested in. If attorneys in Natal wished to give up their practice as attorneys and revert purely to the practice of conveyancing, I do not think it is a matter of interest to this House at all. We are ensuring a high standard of ability by the fact that they have taken their examination; that guarantees that the conveyancing will be done on the best possible standard, and whether it is done in connection with legal people or the estate and agency business does not matter, I believe, and if in the course of development the estate agents get most of the conveyancing to do, that is just too bad for the attorneys. But I do not think the attorneys of Natal are entitled to come along here and say: “These boys are pinching all the work, they are getting all the cream, and we should get it.” This report of the Select Committee does not read too well to me. When a responsible Law Society appears and pleads that in present circumstances they are losing all the conveyancing business and suggest that the House should come to their rescue by agreeing to this in order to allow them to get more of the business, it does not give a good impression. The hon. member has made his case on the grounds of the control that should be exercised by the Law Society—I take it that is his idea—in respect of the good conduct of the conveyancer concerned. But running right through the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee is a clear indication that the simple, selfish object of the Bill, is to provide that the attorneys in Durban, Maritzburg and elsewhere in Natal shall get their fair share of conveyancing business, that in the course of time attorneys who have given up practice and linked up with estate agents and auctioneers are getting more than their fair share, and that this House should come to the rescue of the attorneys in Natal and prevent these others, two of whom are carrying on their fathers’ businesses, from continuing their work until they come under the Law Society, and forcing them to give up their association with unqualified persons. It is not a question of saying that these men should go back and practise as attorneys. It is a question of when they are posted to the Law Society of Natal that they shall give up their association with the unqualified people they are at present associated with. The result will be, for instance, that these two sons who are carrying on the businesses established by their fathers will have to get out of their businesses if this Bill is passed, because they will not be allowed to continue in business with their unqualified partners. That is the crux of the matter, to prevent attorneys entering into partnership with unqualified persons. The House is not entitled to pass this Bill until it is more carefully gone into. No evidence was led before the Select Committee, except the memorandum by Mr. Winterton. The seven people concerned have not been before the Select Committee. Whether they are aware that a Bill of this description is before the House, I do not know, but if it is possible that this Bill is going to do an injustice to these seven people, and do something which I think the House is not entitled to do, namely, to apportion their work between one class and another, we should not proceed with it. It is not our place to say who shall get this business and who shall get the other. These people are entering into competition in the ordinary way. I also feel we shall be interfering with businesses that have been long established in Durban and Maritzburg, and we may be casting a slur on them by suggesting they are not fit and proper persons to do the conveyancing; and in the long run I feel we may be increasing the cost of conveyancing to the people of Natal—something to which I am opposed.

I am sorry that the hon. member who has just sat down could not make his speech without the usual kick at the legal profession, but I shall not take any notice of this, because I think remarks of that kind are best treated with the contempt they deserve. The hon. member has made a very unjustified attack on the Bill. The rules of the House make the most ample provision for advertising when a private Bill is introduced, in the Gazette and in local papers, and to suggest that the seven persons affected by the Bill do not know about the Bill seems to be very farfetched indeed. It is known right through the Province concerned. If people do not read the Gazette, if people do not read their local newspapers, if they are so indifferent that they leave Parliament in entire ignorance of what rights they have and of what rights they are claiming, surely it is not for any hon. member to come and comment as if they had taken notice of the Bill and given the evidence that they were entitled to give. In other words, the ordinary inference one could draw from that is that they did not think it was necessary to oppose the Bill. If they were really objecting to interference with the position, surely they would have taken the step to appear before the committee, and the matter would have been considered. I do not say that Parliament is prevented from going into the Bill, but I merely say that the inference that the hon. member drew from the non-appearance of the parties concerned that they knew nothing about the Bill, is very farfetched. Conveyancing is part of the legal profession and has always been recognised as such. It is a technical thing, and requires the knowledge of the law. As a matter of fact, in England originally conveyancing was only done by members of the legal profession who were practising as barristers, and actually the examinations for advocacy are higher than those for attorneys. One understands that, because there was no compulsory registration of title there; and in some parts of America when the American Republic was established, they took over the English law in this respect. When I was in New York some years ago I found they still had no compulsory registration of title, and therefore one had to employ people with a special knowledge enabling them to ascertain whether a man had the right to sell certain property. That led to the institutions dealing with this matter and a number of them guaranteed the title. By payment of a premium if any trouble arose over a title they paid compensation. Here we have had compulsory registration for a long time. Today conveyancing is an essential part of legal work, and it is clear from the Acts quoted by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) that Parliament decided it was to remain an essential part of the legal profession, and that you had to be an attorney before you became a conveyancer. That is the law, but the law-makers left a loop-hole—that the man could become an attorney and then immediately decide not to practise as an attorney but to practise as a conveyancer, and thus escape the control of the Law Society. Parliament never intended that. This is simply to make the intention of Parliament clear. Therefore no injustice at all has been done to these seven individuals. They are not being deprived of their right to practise as conveyancers. They can go on practising as conveyancers.

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon. member think that a practical suggestion, that they have to give up their fathers’ partnership? He ceases, it is true, to have any connection with the auctioneering and estate part of the business, but he opens up as a conveyancer, and is there anything to prevent his father’s family from sending the conveyancing to his office? Nothing at all; it is merely done in a different way. These men will, in future, practise as conveyancers only, and their old clients who have confidence in them, instead of remaining in the old office to have the conveyancing done, will come up to them or go across the way, and hand them their work. That is not the point at all. You could not have a partnership between say a dentist and somebody else who was not a dentist. You could not do that in the medical profession; you could not do it in any profession. A profession must be carried on by professional men. Once you have a profession recognised as such, under the control of a proper council, that professional man must not carry on a partnership with non-professional people. In so doing he escapes the control of the body that regulates the profession. Although the conveyancers, in this case, will have to give up their partners, they need not give up their business. As the hon. member said, these men get the work not because they are conveyancers but because they are connected with businesses that get an enormous amount of auctioneering. Now they will open up on their own as conveyancers, and confine themselves to conveyancing. When this law is passed they will have their separate offices as conveyancers, but if their clients have confidence in them they will send them their work in the ordinary way. But the point is these men will be conveyancers and under the control of the Law Society, as all the other conveyancers are and as all professional men ought to be. There is no injustice in this Bill as I see it, and that is why no one appeared to oppose it or to give evidence. Where is the grievance? The hon. member suggested that members of the Law Society were trying to take other people’s business away from them. I can see nothing of that kind. They are seeking to put everything under the control of the Law Society.

Read paragraph 10.

Sub-paragraph 10 of paragraph 2 rather strengthens my argument, rather than the argument of the hon. member. It says—

Then the witness goes on to refer to estate agents, and he says—

Later Mr. Winterton draws attention (in subparagraph 12) to Section 7 of Act No. 24 of 1926. He says—

The only inference is that of putting these people under control, the people who are at present not under control. Then the hon. member said he was surprised that a Natal man introduced a Bill of this kind. Why should Natal be different. I thought we were a Union, not even a Federal Union, we are a Union under unified control, and it is because of Natal and the differences in Natal that we took over…

[Inaudible.]

Natal came in as a partner in the Union. My hon. friend is very quick to see some slight where no slight is intended. There is no slight in what I said that Natal came into the Union as a partner, but he wants it that having come into the Union it should remain outside the Union for all practical purposes. If this occurred in respect of other branches of the population, you would have a most extraordinary state of affairs. Advocates throughout the Union are not yet in possession of a constitution which enables them to designate themselves as advocates of the Union of South Africa. They are admitted as advocates in Natal or the Free State or the Transvaal or the Cape. They get admission in each province and pay fees and so forth; although we have been a Union now for 35 years; there is still no Union as far as advocates are concerned. Attorneys have got their Bill through, but not advocates, on account of the dual practice in Natal. Advocates are in the same position as if there was no Union. I think it is rather sad that though we have Union, there are so many directions in which we have not Union statutes. I hope that this little effort of the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) to bring about union so faras Natal is concerned will succeed. I do not regard it as something to be opposed, but something to be encouraged. I think it is simply a Bill to carry out the intention of Parliament in 1926 and 1934. It is to stop a loophole, and no injustice will be done to these people who carry on their conveyancing work and make their profits out of the work as before, except that they will not be able to carry it on in partnership with non-professional persons. That is right. They will lose nothing by it. The work they used to get from the estate agents when they used to share an office with them, can still be sent to them. I hope the hon. member will get the consent of the House for the second reading of the Bill.

I am indebted to the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) because of his very lucid explanation of the position. I do not think it is necessary, therefore, for me to deal more than cursorily with the submissions of the hon. and learned gentleman from Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside). I do think that he scored a bull’s eye, but it was on the wrong target. I am sorry that the hon. member did not do what a number of other gentlemen did, and did not ask me previously to explain to him what it was all about. When other people asked me it did not take me more than a few minutes to set their minds at rest, if they were in doubt. Mr. Speaker, the position is this: The intention of Parliament is reflected in the 1934 Act. It is that the principle, as the hon. member for Cape Town, (Castle) said, should be appreciated as recognising the work of attorneys and conveyancers as one. Had the Natal Constitution used the word “or” instead of “and” and had it provided that the society should consist “of attorneys duly admitted and enrolled and practising as such”, and had not provided for people “enrolled, admitted or practising”, these seven persons who have found a champion in the hon. member for Fordsburg, would not have been able to take advantage of this. Furthermore, they knew what the intention of Parliament was and they should not have taken this step. They took it, and they took it with their eyes open, and the Natal Law Society now asks Parliament to allow it to put its Constitution in line with the Union legislation, and not to put the Union legislation right. My hon. friend said that I did not mention the names of the seven individuals concerned. I hope the hon. member did not intend the reflection by that, that I deliberately avoided it because it was a weakness in the Law Society’s case. The fact is that the reference to these seven members is embodied in the report of the Select Committee, which I am sure has been read and re-read’ by every member here. I merely avoided reference to these people so as not to occupy too much of the time of the House. I am afraid my hon. friend is asking me to do something impossible when he asks me to divulge the names of the people concerned. Even if I knew them I do not consider it would be proper. We are concerned here in any event with the principle and not with the seven individuals. I cannot emphasise too strongly what the member for Cape Town (Castle) said, that these people will not be prevented from carrying on their work as conveyancers. The only effect of the Bill is to put them in the same position as other conveyancers, and to do what Parliament, by the 1934 Act, intended should be done. There is no intention of prejudicing these people, nor any such risk. My hon. friend talked about the cutting of fees with great approval, I could ask whether he would approve of that principle in the trade unions.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I object.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 16th March.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that in 1937, Act No. 20 was approved of by this House and that Act gave the City Council of Durban power to build and construct a dam at the Umgeni Site. That Bill, furthermore, Mr. Speaker, authorised the City Council to borrow and spend money on this project. The amount laid down was £1,700,000. Furthermore it authorised the City Council to charge interest on the money borrowed against capital for a period of six years, a period after which it was hoped the scheme would be completed, and from then onward it would earn revenue. Unfortunately, since then the war has intervened and as a result of the war, calculations have been considerably upset, with the result that the municipality has now had to come forward with this amending Bill. The reasons for this upset, in the calculations are many: Firstly, Mr. Speaker, the cost of the scheme has been greatly increased for reasons with which I will deal with now. This increased cost has been attributable to many factors. The first is that the original estimates were not accurate. The reason for this inaccuracy was that the estimates were prepared in advance of the detailed designs and also before all the investigation work had been completed. As a result it was found that in certain respects it was necessary to modify the scheme, either on account of the difficulty of obtaining certain materials, or because it was subsequently found necessary to effect certain improvements. With regard to materials I do not want to go into the matter fully, except to give an example. It became evident at the outbreak of war, that it would be particularly difficult to obtain large diameter steel pipes. I believe the Minister of Economic Development felt that it was necessary to conserve all steel and in order to conserve these steel pipes the municipality felt they would try to substitute something else. With that view in mind the aqueduct was replanned and the municipality investigated to what extent they could eliminate the large diameter steel pipes by introducing reinforced concrete tunnels, etc. As a result of replanning the aquaduct they have not only cut it down from 29 to 27 miles, but they have also eliminated at least half the distance where they would need these large diameter steel pipes by using reinforced concrete tunnels. In that particular direction they have managed to make big alterations. Secondly, although the original scheme provided for sedimentation works and reservoirs at the dam itself, it was subsequently decided that it would be better if they were provided at the other end of the aqueduct, and it is for that reason that they provided the sedimentation tänks and filter beds at the Durban Heights. But the difficulty in providing this scheme was that they found that the revised estimates were out of all proportion to the original estimates, perhaps owing to these three reasons: the increased cost of material, the increased cost of labour, and the terrain in this particular area. In fact the revised estimate was in sharp contrast to the original estimates as provided for in the original Bill. In regard to the sedimentation works and filter beds it was necessary to increase the capital expenditure from £126,000 to £257,000. As regards the reservoir the cost was increased from £22,000 to £65,000. I think it will be of interest to point out to the House that the municipality, in providing for the Durban Heights emergency works, has done a service not only to Durban itself but to the country as a whole, in that they have been able to augment their water supply to an extent of an additional 5,000,000 gallons per day, from 10,000,000 or 13,000,000 to 15,000,000 or 18,000,000 gallons. By doing that they have not only been able to meet the requirements of the Durban people but also for the increased shipping which has used the port, particularly that shipping which has come as a result of the war.

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

When the House adjourned I was dealing with the modifications that had been introduced since the original scheme started some six or seven years ago, and I was dealing with the second modification with regard to the establishment of the Durban Heights Emergency Works. I indicated to the House what the increased costs were, and the benefits which had accrued through the introduction of this scheme. The total consumption of water by Durban from all the existing schemes is something like 10,000,000 to 13,000,000 gallons a day. The emergency scheme is giving the municipality an additional 5,000,000 gallons a day. As a result of that one can appreciate that they have been able to meet the very increased demands during the last few years of the war and the House will realise the importance of the scheme when they take into account that the daily consumption of water in Durban has increased from 13,000,000 gallons in 1937-’38 to 20,000,000 in 1943-’44. Even so far as the industrial requirements are concerned there has been an increase from 4½ million gallons daily in 1937-’38 to 8 million gallons daily in 1943-’44. So hon. members will appreciate the advantages which have accrued from the introduction of this scheme and requirements of Durban have been well provided for. The third modification that it is intended to introduce into this scheme is the flood diversion weir. I do not intend to deal with that, except to say, this modification has advantages which are dealt with fully on page 8 of the Select Committee’s report. The third point that has contributed considerably to increasing the costs of the water scheme is the rise in wages and in the cost of materials. When the scheme was first brought before the House in 1937 the estimates were based on wages and the cost of materials in 1936, and since then there has been a gradual increase, and on page IX of the Select Committee’s report, hon. members will see that a number of items which have increased by110 per cent. or more. The average increase is at least 60 per cent. My second last point is in regard to lower labour efficiency under war-time conditions; that also includes another point. If hon. members will refer to the Select Committee’s report they will see on page 11 the difficulties the municipalities had to contend with in finding labour for the scheme. But apart from the difficulties in obtaining labour there has, of course, been the point that the labour that they have been able to get has not been of a very high standard of efficiency. The position is very clearly shown on page 11 of the report, and if I may quote a short extract, it will indicate the difficulties of the City Council—

Even with regard to these difficulties, on account of not having the personnel, and professional personnel, the result has been instead of plans and designs being provided for in a few months it has sometimes taken twelve months. The last point is in regard to shortages of material. I need not remind the House that the Government has spent something like £20,000,000 on fortifications. That will indicate the seriousness of our difficulties. No wonder the municipality had difficulty in getting corrugated iron and fencing wire. Then there was an extreme cement shortage. As a result of these difficulties, there have been times when certain jobs have been held up for twelve months or more. I think the reasons I have advanced are sufficient to prove my second point, that the progress of the scheme had been retarded by the shortage of material and manpower. I shall conclude by referring to this amending Bill, which has been brought up to meet these difficulties. The Bill merely provides in Clause 2 that the extra money shall be increased from £1,700,000 to £2,800,000. It gives the municipality the power to borrow this additional amount. I have indicated the difficulties that there have been in regard to the time occupied by the scheme owing to the shortage of labour, and Clause 2 provides for extra time, the period having been altered from six years to eleven years. The period during which interest payable upon moneys borrowed for the scheme may be paid out of capital, is extended to eleven years. Those are the two clauses in the Bill. The first gives the Council the power to borrow the additional money required, and secondly the municipality is given power to extend the period over which the interest on the money borrowed may be paid out of capital account. With that brief survey of this amended Bill, I hope the House will bear in mind that the principle was accepted by the House in 1937, and that it will in view of the difficulties that have had to be met on account of war-time conditions, allow the municipality to go on and finish the scheme with the additional powers conferred on it under this amending Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

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

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I rise to support the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). In my opinion it is one of the most important motions which has come before the House this Session. Yesterday we had a discussion on agriculture in the Budget debate, and it was stated by the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) and later by the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. De Kock) that there was a small percentage of farmers in South Africa who were absolutely independent. Ninety per cent. of the farmers are not rich people. They have to work hard to make a living and to keep their heads above water. This motion deals with that section of the farmers who cannot keep their heads above water, and it is the duty of every member of this House to see that some relief is granted to those people where a heavy burden rests on them as a result of the disaster which overtook them in the year 1932-’33. Since those burdens are forcing them under, it is the duty of every member to ask the Government to come to their assistance. One so often hears of the interest subsidy and other forms of assistance given to farmers. But in my opinion the interest subsidy means a slow death for that section of the population. It cannot save them, because the fact is that they are over-capitalised, and in addition to that they have to contend with the elements, with droughts and floods, stock diseases etc., which makes it difficult to rehabilitate them. If we do not relieve them of their burdens, they cannot become rehabilitated. I am convinced that it is the duty of the State to come to the assistance of that section of the farming community. We must not always look after the rich people only. We must not look at their position only and then come to the conclusion that all is well with the farming community. We should keep an eye on that section which met with adverse fortune and got into difficulties, not through their own actions but as a result of circumstances which forced them into that position. I have numerous letters on my desk, some of them emanating from my constituency, and, inter alia, there is one from a farmer who sets out the position very clearly. I want to read this letter to the House. It is addressed to the hon. member for Aliwal with the request that he should read it to the House, and I do so on his behalf—

He has no right to say that he cannot understand why the farmers cannot improve their position in these days.

Order order! I want to remind the hon. member that he is not allowed to quote from a letter which refers to a debate that took place in this House.

Very well, in that case I shall omit that paragraph. The letter then he goes on to say—

I have another letter which I received from my constituency and which deals with the same difficulties. Cannot the Minister of Finance devise a scheme to relieve the position? It is no use relying on patch-work measures which were taken in the past and which proved to be ineffective. It is no use making promises. Cannot the Minister become progressive and devise a scheme under which those farmers who got into arrear and who are unable to get rid of their liabilities, can be rehabilitated? Reference has been made here to the local committees. The Minister of Finance need not write off all debts indiscriminately. Treat every case of over-capitalisation on its merits. If the Minister is prepared to do that, he will find that a very large proportion of the cases which are pending, are deserving cases. Let the committees go into these matters and come to a decision. Where recommendations are made, meet the people and relieve them once and for all of that over-capitalisation, of that chain to which they are fettered and from which they cannot break loose.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. members on this side of the House agree that the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) has brought this motion forward from the best of motives. We all feel that he is one of the very serious members on the opposite side who does try to approach farming questions from a farming point of view. I personally would like to pay him that tribute. At the same time I do not entirely agree with the motion he has put forward. I feel that there is a fundamental difference between our approach and the approach that he has suggested— the approach that has often been the policy of members of this House for several years past. That policy, I have always looked upon as a policy of running to the Government for help on far too many occasions. That really is the weakness of the agricultural policy adopted by this House many years ago. Agricultural conditions in this country are very, very difficult. This is not an easy farming country. There are few branches of agriculture to which South Africa is particularly suited. Generally speaking, it is a difficult farming country, and the line of approach has been that because conditions are often bad and because a very large percentage of the farming population find it difficult to make a reasonable living, the Government must come to their assistance. That is all very well up to a certain point but has a tendency to make the people rely on the Government too much for assistance, instead of relying on their own independent work and their own way of making a living. I think that is a tendency which in many cases has not been to the benefit of the farming community in South Africa. I think a much better approach is the one put forward by the Agricultural Unions and largely adopted by the Government, and that is that the farming community, like every other section of the community, is entitled to a reasonable return for its labour—that the labourer is worthy of his hire—and that farming should adjust itself largely to the requirements of the country and to the climatic and agricultural conditions, rather than that the Government should subsidise them in order to keep them on the land. This question of subsidising and helping the farming community has undoubtedly been done from the best motives, but I do not think it has been done in the very best way.

What do you suggest?

I will come to that in a moment, but I want to make this point that the method of subsidising farming has, to my mind, largely been a question of keeping on the land a large number of people who cannot make a living in any other way. The Government felt it was better to keep them on the land, even on small uneconomic holdings and poor soil, rather than to allow those poor families to drift into the towns where they would be a whole-time burden on the State. That, I think, has been the policy and it has been a misguided policy. It has undoubtedly led to serious harm to the soil. Large numbers of people farming small pieces of the worst land with the worst implements and without sufficient capital, have in the end developed into a problem to the whole country. It has caused the whole country to wake up and realise that something better should be done. A previous government— I do not know what government it was, and I do not claim that it is essentially a United Party idea—adopted the policy of trying to take these poor farmers away from these very difficult surroundings, starting with the children in order to uplift them. Many of the families have been taken on the railways and have been given low wages, but the children have been able to attend school and get better food, and a better outlook on life than would have been possible on these small farms in the circumstances of their life. That is an improvement. Then we have the more recent policy of taking a lot of these youths into the Youth Training Brigade, giving these young people a certain amount of discipline, physical training and better housing. This has assisted them to become better citizens who can hold their own and battle for themselves. I think both these ideas have done a lot to uplift our poor people. Although I feel that the hon. member’s idea undoubtedly is sincere, I do not think it is not the best all-round approach. The motion suggests that farmers have not been encouraged to produce. I do not think that can be borne out by the facts of the last four or five years. There has been a very considerable inducement to farmers to produce. Take the wheat farmers. I do not think that any hon. member who is sincere can say that the Government has not given very considerable inducement to farmers to produce wheat.

They cannot import at the prices they are paying here.

I did not say that. I say that the Government has given the wheat growers a very considerable inducement to produce wheat. Possibly the encouragement has gone too far, because I know that farmers have been induced to produce wheat on land which is not really suitable for it, on thousands of acres in districts not really suitable for wheat growing. Now in the district that the hon. member for Aliwal represents, and the adjoining district of Elliot, which I represent, you have doubtful conditions of that kind. There are thousands of acres of land cultivated for wheat which, in my opinion, would be more suited for pasture and dairying conditions generally. The growing of wheat on the poor soil in a high rainfall area soon depletes the soil of its fertility. That combined with the use made of marginal areas is creating a serious problem, but it is strong evidence of the inducement to produce. People have been encouraged to produce commodities that cannot be imported and which we must have, and there certainly is no justification for saying that production has not been encouraged. There was encouragement because we were not in a position to import.

I mentioned certain areas.

, A few weeks ago I undertook a considerable tour through the Western Province in the wheat producing areas, arid I was appalled by the state of soil erosion. I would like to say more about this, but I understand that I am not allowed to do so now. But I think I am entitled to say that the inducement to produce wheat during the war period has been a very serious thing from the point of view of soil conservation.

Quite right.

The hon. member suggests that the Government should introduce legislation to do a number of things. I feel that we run to the Government far too much in South Africa for legislation. We want to legislate for everything. A very much better principle would be to encourage our people who are finding great difficulty to produce under these conditions, to form co-operative societies to market their products to the best advantage. I have advocated that and we have had surprising results in East Griqualand and in Natal where the bulk of the dairy products is handled by co-operative societies. Those co-operative societies are not squealing in this period of emergency to anything like the extent of the squealing on the part of the proprietary companies. We find that there is agitation for an increase in the milk prices, and it comes from the people who supply proprietary companies. We who sell to the co-operative societies do not experience the same difficulties. I want to make that point by way of illustration. We have the same in regard to the marketing of our meat. In Natal the marketing of slaughter stock is developed along the lines of a co-operative marketing organisation. I simply want to put this point of view as illustrating a point of view which is much more in the interests of the farmers than the point of view which was advanced by the hon. member for Aliwal.

You can have both.

I do not quite agree with his point that there should be a very considerable write-off of debts. I have always felt that this policy of trying to get money from the Government and then getting the debt written off is wrong, with the result that the people who have been helped in that way are expected to vote for the parties responsible. That is the sort of policy that has done incalculable harm. I would strongly recommend to the hon. member that instead of advocating this policy, he should advocate the policy of making farming independent because it pays a living wage. I know that the hon. member has suggested this from a sincere motive, but I am trying to point out how I think a better approach can be made. He has mentioned local committees to recommend the writing off of debts where necessary. Investigation is necessary but there again the system is open to abuse. I personally feel that the whole policy advocated here can be very much improved upon, and I suggest that it could be improved upon by trying to get the Government to adopt the policy that every labourer is worthy of his hire. Production of food is one of the most important requirements that any section of the community can be engaged upon, and the people producing food should be as well paid as any other section of the community. We have moved, Sir, along the line of better marketing and distribution of our products. That is a subject that has peen discussed in this House. Parliament has decided that it is essential that there should be better marketing of products and the Marketing Act was passed to control matters so that we could establish better marketing methods and distribution. On that point I would like to mention that there has sometimes been a difference between the farming community, the commercial community and the consumers, and I have advocated that we should gêt together and try to eliminate every unnecessary service and wastage in every possible way. By doing that, we can encourage a greater consumption of our farm products. Our best märket in South Africa is our local market. Sometimes the view is expressed that the high wages being paid today in the towns are not to the benefit of the farming community. Experience overseas and in this country indicates that the farmers are prosperous when consumers are able to buy. It is no use having a lot of produce if there are not enough consumers. The principle has been adopted of protecting practically every section of the community by means of wage determinations, limitation of hours of work, etc. All these things add to the farmers’ costs. It would be a mistake for the farmers to oppose this policy because these things are necessary. I think the correct policy for the farmers to advocate is that they are entitled to a price for their product that will enable them to have a comparable standard of living. They have worked and they have produced these commodities, and they should be well paid and be able to hold their heads up and feel they are a necessary part of the community, rendering essential service, and the rest of the community should recognise that and be prepared to compensate them accordingly. That leads me to the general question of the reconstruction of agriculture that is bound up with the question broached by the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). On the reconstruction of agriculture we have some very far-reaching proposals. In discussing these proposals we have, I think, come to the conclusion that more control rather than less control is necessary. Control has been criticised, but if we come to consider measures for improving any particular set of conditions, they boil down to this, that somebody has got to exercise control. In this connection I may mention that in regard to the best use of our land in South Africa, I think it is essential that the Government should, at an early stage, consider the introduction of legislation. That is a point many farmers will find difficulty in agreeing with. Many farmers believe that because they have bought their land and hold the title to it, it is theirs for all time. I contend that the land is the property of the whole of the people of the country, and no owner of land is entitled to work that land in such a way that he deprives future generations from getting food from it. There, I think, we are moving possibly along more socialistic lines.

That is Hitler’s policy.

We accept the principle now that the owner of land may not grow noxious weeds on it to the detriment of the whole neighbourhood; and I think we also have to accept the principle that no one should be allowed to use land in such a way that it damages the land to the extent that future generations will not be able to live from it. The land is the source of all our food supplies, and is our most valued asset. I think we have to accept that a more enligtened way of using the land is essential. Another thing that would help the farming community more, in my opinion, than the legislation advocated by the hon. member, is the policy of increased employment throughout South Africa. We have to accept this policy of providing full work for everyone in South Africa; if we do that our problem of overproduction immediately disappears. We have, in fact, never had much overproduction in South Africa. We have had a very slight overproduction, and that small percentage of overproduction has on many occasions slumped our market to such an extent that the whole of our production became uneconomical. That is something we have to guard against. We have to see that the purchasing power of the people is increased to such an extent that we have an unlimited market for our farm produce right at our very door. Today agriculture is organised to a degree and along lines quite different from the organisation of the past. Our agricultural organisations today realise that most of our main products are controlled by control boards. Prices are being fixed, and the consumers’ representatives on these control boards are insisting that before any price fixation takes place accurate costs of production must be produced. Agriculturists have not in the past realised the importance of having a knowledge of productive costs. Now, however, we have appointed wholetime organisers who will be able to produce facts and figures bearing on the cost of these commodities, so when the control boards or the Government are called upon to fix prices we will be able to present a price that is absolutely borne out by the figures. In the past we have often failed to get a fair price for our products simply because we could not furnish precise costs of production to impress the Marketing Council, the Government, and various bodies who had the fixing of prices in hand. Today we are organising along these lines. We are appointing the best men we can get to see that the farmers put their case forward in the best possible way, and their case will not be spoiled by the old bugbear of party politics. So many of our farmers’ causes have been decided not on their merits, but depending on whether this party or that had taken it up. If one particular party has not initiated a matter, followed it up very strongly and so to speak got a monopoly of that particular case, the other party has invariably tried to look round for a different point of view; in that way our farming questions have been discussed on party political lines. It is very difficult today to lay down a policy or to advocate a line of action that would be the absolutely correct thing from a permanent point of view. Today all our farming efforts are under unnatural conditions; we are operating under war conditions. We have high prices for one commodity caused by an abundance of spending power or a shortage of supply. We have had exceptionally difficult climatic conditions, and during this period when we have had these exceptional farming difficulties we are asked by the hon. member to bring in legislation to set up committees and to deal with this problem in a particular way. I think it is very much better if we concentrate today on trying to produce as much as we possibly can, even if our costs of production are very high for that product. We have to continue such uneconomic farming in many cases to ensure that the people get sufficient food. That is our first consideration. That bears out the arguments that have been made on behalf of the Agricultural Union, that the Government should pay a little more for farmers’ produce in order to make for overproduction. We never know when we may strike a bad season. Droughts are always recurring in this country. Various supplies are at times unobtainable. So the only sound policy is to produce more than the market would normally be expected to consume. Having done that, we must see that over-production does not depress our prices to such an extent that our costs will not be covered by the return we receive from our produce. Having arrived at that conclusion, I feel that this policy of subsidising wheat production particularly, should as soon as the war is over, be closely reviewed by the Government. A much better policy for South Africa would be the encouragement of dairy farming on a wide scale. Dairy farming is much more calculated to build up our soil than wheat growing. Dairy farming provides employment for a large number of people, and I think that if the Government Will concentrate upon the reconstruction of agriculture with the object of providing fair prices for farmers, that will give them a reasonable reward for their labour, a clear margin of profit, and encourage the production of the largest quantity of food possible, even if the State has on many occasions to take over what is considered to be a surplus. That, I think, would be a much sounder policy than the policy of trying to legislate for all these individual cases. I have no doubt there are many cases where a write-off is necessary. But I want to impress upon the House that this policy of encouraging everybody to run to the Government for loans and subsidies, and perhaps a little seed wheat, or a subsidy for lucerne, is not an attractive policy. I think the only way to tackle this question is by a very determined effort on the part of the Government to put into effect the recommendations of the Committee on the Reconstruction of Agriculture. Let us get down to a sound farming policy. Then we can forget these bolstering up processes which, in my opinion, are indicated in the motion by the hon. member for Aliwal. I have gone into the question rather fully, but I think it is necessary that on these farming questions we should get a sound policy rather than have the country misled. The reason I have done it is that there are many people in South Africa, supporters of both parties, townspeople, who feel annoyed every time they hear that a farmer is going to get an extra ½d. more for something or other. A feeling is growing up in this country, of resentment at any increase in the price to the farmer, and many of our newspapers feel that it is easier to say something sensational and to criticise the farmers, than to put forward constructive proposals. I always feel that the farmers have suffered in the past through their case not being presented to the towns in the best way. I am certain that the townspeople would in respect of wage determinations, fixed hours, etc., be quite willing to help the farmers to obtain similar benefits, but they do want to feel convinced that the best use is being made of the land, and of the money being paid to the farmers. It is very easy to say farmers are inefficient. It is much more difficult to explain in detail to townspeople what the position really is, and I think a great deal more could be done by farmers generally in the way of encouraging the townspeople to take an interest in the farmers’ problems.

I listened attentively to the hon. member who has just sat down. He gave a very good account of what the farmers desire. But he spoke of the farmers who are in a sound position, the farmers who are rich, who are able to pay their debts, and who do not need to ask for assistance, farmers like the hon. member.

I did not have the opportunity.

Of course not. The Government does not help rich farmers; it helps poor farmers.

The Government should assist everyone.

It seems to me the hon. member does not understand what the motion wants. It contemplates two things; firstly, that where a farmer cannot pay his debt and gets into difficulties, he should be assisted so that he can farm economically and become rehabilitated. We want people who are on the land to be kept on the land and that they be assisted in order to make a success of farming. It is no use putting people off the land who were born on it and who grew up on it, and to drive them to the railways or to other places, as the hon. member apparently wants. Why should they be driven away? Because they are supposed not to farm economically. But in many cases it is as a result of circumstances beyond their control that they got into the position in which they now find themselves. It is of no avail driving away those people and putting others there as settlers at great expense. Take the case of the Riversdale Constituency. Drought prevailed in that area for seven years and the farmers did not have a decent crop of grain. This year, thank God, they had a fairly good crop. The people in that area were assisted with seed wheat, artificial manure, etc. Thé country wants wheat and they had to be assisted.

Did they ever have a hope of making a living there? Are the holdings economical?

Does the hon. member want people who are struggling to be kicked out, so that he can get a reasonable price? These are people who were born there; their parents and forefathers made a living there, but as a result of the drought they have not been able to make a living. Those are the people we want to assist, poor people who are starting and who have suffered a setback as a result of the drought. The hon. member complains that the consumers have the wrong idea in regard to the position of the farmers. I agree with him. That is true. But can he expect them to hold any other view when he himself makes the type of speech and the type of remark which he has just made in connection with marketing and the methods to be adopted? I want to tell the hon. member that the farming community, including the wheat farmers, have made a bigger sacrifice in this war as a result of the control of their products than the urban and town dwellers. Although the price of wheat rose to £3 and £5 during the previous war, the farmers have been obliged to sell for £1 16s. during this war. Wheat cannot be imported at that price. Every year we have to vote £500,000 or £1,000,000 in connection with the importation of wheat.

During the previous war I paid £4 per bag.

Yes, and for that reason I realise that since the farmers are now getting £1 16s. only, they sacrificed the difference between £1 16s. and £4. The control boards have deprived the farmers of that benefit. There are well-to-do farmers who do not need assistance, but we are asking for assistance for those who need it. I can mention one case, and in this connection I must say that this Government is responsible for the position in which this man finds himself. He obtained a small loan for seed wheat and artificial manure from the Government. His crop was a failure and he had to take up employment on the dam. There he had to sleep in bush huts and tents and he then contracted tuberculosis. But he still owes the Government this money. He has a wife and children; he suffers from tuberculosis in an advanced degree, and the State has to support him and his family. But what is being done? At first this man was able to make a living.

Could he make a living there?

He could make a living, but he got into arrears during the drought years, and today he is getting £2 10s. per month from the Government. But do you know what the Minister of Finance is doing? He encourages the magistrate to get this man to pay 10s. every month on his small debt out of his allowance of £2 10s. I agree with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. V. G. F. Solomon) that the city dwellers do not realise what the position is. I know it. The type of speech which the hon. member has just made is not going to improve the position. This motion does not deal with well-to-do farmers but with people who are not able to keep their heads above water and whom we want to save. All the motion asks for is that a committee be appointed to put these people on an economic basis. Do not spend thousands of pounds to put people on the land who will never remain on it; keep those on the land who are there at present.

This motion asks for legislation not for a committee.

It cannot be done without legislation. The hon. member says that assistance can be obtained through the Farmers’ Assistance Board. The Farmers’ Assistance Board has done very good work but it deals with certain people only and in respect of a certain period only. If a farmer deals with a business man and gets into debt and is called upon to pay, he can go to the Farmers’ Assistance Board when he becomes bankrupt, and the Farmers’ Assistance Board then convenes a meeting of creditors and says: “The farm is not worth £5,000 but £2,500. This man owes £5,000; we shall contribute half and you must abandon the other half.” In that way the man is kept on the land, but only under certain circumstances and for a certain period. In that way we want to assist the people who cannot get assistance at present. The Farmers’ Assistance Board keeps the farmer on the land who otherwise would have had to go to town in order to make a living, where he would have had to work for 3s. 6d. and 4s. per day in the gardens of rich people. We ask that these people be assisted if they cannot be assisted by the Farmers’ Assistance Board; we ask for assistance for people who today find themselves in an uneconomic position for some reason or other.

There I agree.

But in that case you ought to vote for our motion. We want to place such farmers on an economic footing and rehabilitate them.

There is no reference to a committee in this motion.

Read Paragraph (b)—

I just want to bring this principle to the notice of the hon. member briefly. It does not pay to put untrained and uneducated people on the land and to try to make farmers of them, and then to drive away poor people who have got experience of the land. It will pay us better to save the poor farmers and to keep them on the land than to place others on the land. The second proposition is that we agree with the remarks of the hon. member in connection with the sale of goods by co-operative societies. But that has nothing to do with the motion. Nine-tenths of the speech of the hon. member is not relevant to the motion. I have said for the past five years that the farmers do not want subsidies but reasonable prices for their products. But this has nothing to do with the motion.

I replied to a question of yours.

As far as the improvement of land is concerned, one could discuss that question the whole day. For example, I would be able to talk about the laxity of the Government in connection with the question of kraal manure. When it was decided to grant a rebate on the railage of kraal manure, I got up in this House and stated that two factors should be taken into account, firstly, that they should see that what the farmers saved in the form of railage was not paid in the form of increased prices for manure, and secondly that the manure which is sold will be of good quality. What is the position today. The Jews and speculators have bought up all the kraal manure and today they are milling it.

It is all in the hands of the speculators.

Yes, and what the farmer saves on railage he is paying in the form of increased prices for manure. I pointed out this danger and pleaded for price fixation, so that speculators would not be able to buy up everything. Today one cannot get manure, and if by good fortune one succeeds in getting it, one cannot get a truck to convey it. The speculators control everything and they are able to obtain trucks for milled manure which is worthless. Talk about soil improvement! But that is not what this motion deals with. Of course, it is essential. We also realise the desirability of co-operation. It is necessary to cultivate a better spirit in the minds of townsmen, but I do not agree with the hon. member that one can accomplish that by talking to them. I spoke in this House of the interests of farmers. An anonymous resident of Cape Town then addressed a letter to me in which he referred to the “grasping farmers” who, he alleged, were responsible for the present position. That is the spirit. One cannot change it. It is there. It is no use saying that they are wrong. The attorneys have their society; the doctors have their society and every labourer belongs to a trade union which looks after his interests. Similarly thé farmers ought to try to protect themselves. That is the position. As far as the milk farmers are concerned, since the hon. member is a big dairy farmer, I want to point out that the dairy farmers can get ll½d. per gallon when they deliver milk for condensing purposes. It used to be 10½d. But when a man delivers milk in the city, he gets 1s. 9d. Is that reasonable? The farmers are not able to put up their prices, and the Minister of Finance prevents the price of milk from being increased because in that event the price of butter will also have to be increased, and the Minister of Finance does not want to pay more for butter because he wants to give it to coloured persons and poor people at a fixed price. The result is that we are now importing condensed milk from overseas at 1s. 3d. per tin while, if the price of milk were fixed in our country at 1s. 2½d. per gallon of condensery milk, it would be possible to sell condensed milk at 9d. That is the argument. The farmer has to get 10-½d. or 11½d. for his milk because the Government wants to give cheap butter to the poor people and to coloured persons. This is the Government which is encouraging the production of milk. This is the member who knows what the position is. This subsidy which they are paying for the products of the farmer is not a subsidy to the farmers. It is a subsidy which is being paid in order to enable the consumer to get these goods more cheaply. Take any commodity. Take fruit. It is not the farmer who gets the subsidy. I would not mind paying 4d. or 3d. for an apple if I knew that the farmer was getting it. The position is simply this. Nothing has been done by this Government to change the position.

Let things take their course.

The price which the farmer gets for his grapes is less than 2d. and the consumer has to pay 6d. The farmer has to throw away half his grapes and thê result is that the Government has to pay a subsidy, but that subsidy is not being paid to the farmer; it is being given to the poor people. Some people get it free of charge. The Government which that hon. member supports dare not reduce that price for the middleman, because it represents the middleman. It is of no avail. I could go on the whole day; but I just want to ask the Minister to accept the motion of thé hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). There are numerous poor people in my constituency too, who are unable to repay their loans. These people have to pay interest on the loans. Let the Government investigate and ascertain who can pay and who cannot. If the people can pay, let them pay, but where they cannot pay, their debts should be written off. Must the people who cannot pay their debts always go about with a black mark against them like ex-convicts? As soon as the man sells anything, he gets into trouble. If the Government appoints a commission, they will be able to ascertain who can pay and who cannot pay. Surely no purpose is served by having these debts on the books; they will never be repaid. There is just a chance that the man may later discover gold on his farm, and in that case the Government may get the money back, if the man’s conscience worries him, although I must say that my conscience would not trouble me. What would the Government lose by doing that? What would it lose by passing legislation which will enable the farmer to get assistance from a board which is functioning at the moment? Why cannot such a board always exist? In that case all the people who need assistance could go to the board. Today the position is that if the farmer gets into difficulties he cannot get assistance anywhere; he must go under. I want to tell the Minister that I know of one man—let us call him a Scotchman—who has had nine farms sold in our district. These people cannot go to the Farmers’ Assistance Board. Let them have such a board then. After all, the board would not act wrongly. If it is an uneconomic proposition or if the man should not be assisted, they will not assist him. As far as the commission is concerned, that is the most important aspect of the matter, because if the Minister does not write off their debts, those people will go under. They have no hope for the future if they have to bear those burdens. I make an appeal to the Minister to afford some assistance in connection with this matter. It was said by one of his members that this is a very good motion, but that the farmers ought not to get subsidies. We are not asking for subsidies. We ask that these people be placed in such a position that they will have some hope for the future.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) evidently has not read this motion because he talks about a commission. This motion does not ask for the appointment of a commission. It asks for legislation and the appointment of local committees. Where does the commission come in? If the motion had asked for a commission to investigate the position of these farmers, then I think we could have supported the other side.

You have committees already.

I notice the hon. member for Swellendam is going off now. Apparently he does not want to hear what I have to say.

He is going to catch a train.

He has been trying to convince us that his arguments are correct. I have every sympathy with the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom), and our feelings and our objects would be to rehabilitate the poor farmers in this country.

Thank you very much.

But you will still vote against it.

But this motion, as far as I can see, is asking for something that is not possible, that is, the writing off of debts and to relieve the people of their liabilities.

You have already done it.

What right have we to single out the farmers for special treatment? If we do that for the farmers every other section of the people will have the same right.

Only certain cases.

No, I know the hon. member has in mind the poor farmers, of course. I think the hon. member would have done far better if he had framed his motion in a different way, i.e. to try to improve the position of the farmers to enable them to make a living on the land without writing off debts. There are many ways in which the Government can help.

Et tu Harold.

.I do not follow the hon. member. If the hon. member for Aliwal had gone into the suggestion how the lot of the farmer could be improved in this country to enable him to make a better living, we would have had a much more reasonable motion than we on this side could have supported.

You amend it and I will support it.

One of the first things I would suggest is that every farmer who has an uneconomic unit, where he is not able to make a living, should be assisted by the Government. The Government should assist him to buy additional land so that it can be made an economic unit. Most of these people are on small plots, on uneconomic farms, and with all the assistance in the world they will never be able to make a living. On those lines we would have supported the hon. member and we would have tried to get the Government to accept his motion. Then there are other ways in which the farmers can be assisted. We want the Government to assist us to get better stock for the farmers. Most of the stock these poor farmers have is scrub stock. I would support the hon. member had he asked for an extension of the Farmers’ Assistance Act….

Why don’t you ask for it?

This is not my motion. If it had been my motion I would have asked for it. But we have got to discuss the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal.

Surely you are free to move an amendment.

I am discussing the hon. member’s motion now. The motion comes from that side of the House. If I were to move an amendment they would object to the amendment too. There are many ways in which the Government can help the farmers to put them on a better footing. Hon. members talk about droughts, floods and hail and all that sort of thing. If the Government would bring in a national insurance scheme to prevent the farmers from losing their entire crop through drought, hail or floods, it would be a good thing.

A good idea.

I think a national insurance scheme would assist them to avoid these losses, and I think if we were to press the Government for a national insurance scheme against drought, flood, etc., we could assist the farmers. I would be prepared to vote for a scheme of that sort. I would suggest that the hon. member consults with us next Session and let us come to some agreement.

You are a bit lazy today.

It is along those lines that I think we can help the farmers. I do not think the Government can possibly write off these debts. I would like to support the hon. member if he asks for an extension of the Farmers’ Assistance Act, not only to be confined to the few years of the depression, but to be extended to these years too, because many farmers have got in the same position and I think they should be treated on the same lines as they were treated in those years.

There was such a proposal last year and you did not support it.

My feelings are that this Act should be extended. So that it can assist the farmers even at the present time.

You voted against it last year.

If that were the motion I could support it. Of course, they do not write off debt. If you are in difficulties, the main creditors are called together, and if they are prepared to accept a reasonable amount-, the farmer is helped in that way. The creditors write off the debt, and if they do not do that, the Government allows the farmer to put up the place to auction and the Government buys it at a reasonable price. The Government buys it at a reasonable price and gives the man a new start. But the Government will not do that unless there is a reasonable chance for the farmer to make a living on that farm. Although this motion has been under discussion, we have heard a great deal about other things that affect farming, but not with regard to the poor farmers in this country. We know that if the Government will allow us farmers to demand a reasonable price for our products, which will cover the cost of production plus a reasonable living, most of our troubles would be over. But unfortunately our Government has never accepted our statements in regard to the costs of production. They have had to get others to investigate the position, and when recommendations are made by others, they are again too high in their estimation. That happened to the dairy, industry.

That is true.

But, of course, the Government has other bodies like the Marketing Council and the Board of Trade and Industries. We have not yet heard what recommendation either the Marketing Council or the Board of Trade and Industries has made to the Government, but I maintain that if they investigate the costs of production, they will find that the request we have made for the prices of these products is not only reasonable but the prices we should get.

But they do not listen to you.

We know that as far as the fresh milk trade is concerned, where no control board, where no Marketing Council or anyone else has fixed the price, they have put a much higher price on that fresh milk than we have got under the Dairy Control Board.

I think the hon. member is wandering very far from the motion.

I was trying to deal with the price of farmers’ products. I was trying to show that all we are asking for is a reasonable price for our products and a fair margin on which we can live. Unless the farmer can get an economic price, he must get into difficulties. He must get into the position of these farmers whom the motion seeks to help. I would suggest to the hon. member for Aliwal that he should not press this motion today, but that he withdraw it and come forward next year with a much more comprehensive and a better considered motion, on which we on this side of the House will perhaps support him. This motion merely asks for debt to be written off …

Only for hopeless cases.

I have been trying to demonstrate to the hon. member that these hopeless cases can never make a living unless they have economic farms on which they can make a living. It is impossible to make a living on a great many of these farms, and if this motion had asked for a commission to go into the whole of this question and make recommendations with regard to the position of these farmers, I would have supported the hon. member. Of course, the Reconstruction of Farming Report by the Agricultural Department deals with that matter, and they recommend that farms should not be sub-divided into uneconomic units, that no one should be allowed to sell a portion of his farm, which will make his farm an uneconomic unit and which will also make the portion he sells an uneconomic unit. The danger to this country is that it is not a country for small farms. It is different to farms in Europe and in other countries.

Ever under irrigation?

Where you have irrigation, it is a different matter, of course. A small farm under irrigation can be made an economic unit. You must have a reasonably sized farm on which you can run stock and grow crops. The trouble in this country is that everyone wants to buy land; even the poorest people want to buy land. They feel there is a living on it for them. I have had soldiers’ wives coming to me for advice. They want to buy a small farm of twenty acres near town where they can settle with their husbands when they return to this country. I have told them that they would find themselves in difficulties because there is no living to be made out of a small farm. After all, what would the position be if everyone were to start growing vegetables. This country is a pastoral country. Of course, we do produce a fair amount of agricultural products. But the future of this country lies in stock and stock products. That is the branch of agriculture which the Government should develop to its fullest extent. It should look after our land and develop this country on stock lines, and not try to make this country an agricultural country. As long as we continue on these lines, I think we will have less of those small people than we have at the present time. I do not think I need say much more. I think my hon. friends over there understand my attitude. I sympathise with them and I want to help them, but I think the hon. member has drawn up his motion in the wrong terms. I think we can help the farmers in a better way than by trying to write of their debts.

I heartily support this motion of the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) except in one respect, and that is in connection with the writing off of debts of people who find themselves in such a position that they cannot pay their debt. I think the time has arrived or is long overdue when the State should take a greater interest in the land and in farming in South Africa. My opinion is that the State is the temporary curator of the land. The present owners of farms are very fond of telling the people that it is their land. That is not the position at all. It is altogether wrong. The land does not belong to the present owners. It belongs to the future generations of South Africa. They are only temporary occupiers of those farms. It belongs to the generations of the future. This subsidy or let us rather say “dole” which is given to the farmers on their products is something which the farmers do not like; I am concinved of that. They do not want charity. What they want is a reasonable price for their products, and the State owes it to future generations of this country to keep the land in a productive form. For that reason I am opposed to the form of the subsidies which are being paid today. Do not subsidise the man; subsidise the land; give the land fertiliser and let the farmer then produce. Feed the soil and then the farmer can double his production. In that case we would not rob the soil but conserve it for the coming generations which will inherit it. One of the main evils in connection with farming is the high prices of land, and the State ought to intervene and appraise all land in South Africa; and when the farmers get into difficulties—those farmers whom the hon. member for Aliwal has in mind—and they are unable to pay their debts, they ought not to have the right to sell the land to the person offering the highest price for it. I always find it tragic to attend the auction sale of an insolvent person. It always reminds me of a number of cockroaches who, on discovering that one has died, all come along to gorge on the dead cockroach. They all come along to see whether they cannot buy anything at the auction for speculative purposes. That method ought to be stopped and only the State should have the right to buy the land and to let it at a nominal rate to the farmer who got into debt, in that way giving him an opportunity of rehabilitating himself. We in the cities do not want those people in the cities. They are a source of danger to us. We organised in order to get the remuneration which our labour is worth. These people now come to the city. They made a failure of farming and like drowning persons they grasp at any straw. They will do the same work for which I get 30s. per day, for 10s. per day. They have to live and they have to support their wives and children. We do not want them in the towns. We want them to remain on the farms to produce the food we need in the cities. The platteland population ought to enjoy more facilities in the form of recreation centres, in the form of educational facilities for their children. We must have more school farms in the country. It should not be necessary for the farmer to send his child from Carolina to Pretoria or from Zwartruggens to the Ermelo High School. There should be educational institutions near the farm so that the farmer can give his child the parental education which the child so misses when it is put in a hostel. We on this side—I can hardly call it a side —but we on these benches adopt the attitude that a scheme of State insurance for the crops of farmers ought to be instituted. I do not know whether the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) got hold of one of our programme booklets, but it seems very much like it. We advocate the institution of a State insurance scheme for compensation in the case of loss of crops and stock as a result of natural causes such as droughts, floods, locusts and commando worms; etc. The farmer ought to be assured when he plants ten morgen of mealies of reaping a crop of ten morgen. He ought to be able to insure those ten morgen for what it ought to yield, approximately hundred bags. If he produces less than that number, he ought to receive compensation under such an insurance scheme. If he produces more than that number he ought to pay in an extra sum to the insuranc ecompany. That also applies to stock. If many of these farmers would only listen and learn something about organisation, of the spirit of co-operation, they may in ten of fifteen years’ time to able to put their house in order and keep it in order. I am very sorry to notice that an attempt has been made in this House to talk down this motion of the hon. member for Aliwal. I would not have discussed this matter although I can make a valuable contribution and say certain things which may be of great value to some of the platteland farmers, but since hon. members want to talk down this motion, I shall help the hon. member for Aliwal by recommending that the farmers should come to people who have organised trade unions and learn from them how to put their own trade unions in order.

I should like to contribute my share to this debate. In the first place I just want to say that if anyone tries to abuse me by calling me a farmer, he is only describing me correctly. I was born a farmer. I am still one and I hope to die one.

Are you a farmer without land?

The hon. member obviously wants to suggest that I am not the owner of my land. I have always been the owner of my land, and if he does not want to take my word for it, let him trespass on my farm and then <we shall see whether or not I am the owner. I now pass to this motion of the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). I must say that if the hon. member had been a little more concise and if he had more closely defined the people whom he wants to assist, I could have supported him, but as the motion stands, I cannot do it. The hon. member does not say which people are to be assisted. This motion was deliberately framed in these terms. We know what happened in the past; there were deliberate transactions; politics were dragged into the matter and today those people find themselves in difficulties. If the hon. member had asked that consideration be given to certain cases, I would have supported him, but he has introduced a motion which casts a reflection on the whole farming community, and I cannot agree with that. We farmers are all willing to pay our debts. In my area there are people who paid their debts up to the very last penny. Other people who were more well-to-do, did not pay their debts, and now they are continually asking when the Government is going to write off their debts. If we do that, what about those people who made sacrifices in order to pay their debts? No, it is unreasonable on the part of the hon. member for Aliwal to come forward with such a proposal. Let us examine this motion. It states that there is no encouragement whatsoever for the farmers. If we are not réceiving encouragement in these days, I really do not know when we will get it. The Government is doing everything in its power to meet and to encourage the producers. I make bold to say that there are people who are making a living out of flowers, insignificant little flowers which I would not have given a second glance, but that represents money and encouragement. If those members do not know how to farm, they ought to get a holding for themselves on a settlement and cultivate flowers. Then they will make enough money. But look at the wording of this motion. The hon. member says that the farmers are being handicapped. I am a farmer; am I handicapped in any way? I am as free as I can be. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) got up in this House and read out a letter which is supposed to emanate from a true S.A.P., a hundred per cent. S.A.P. That member is years behind the times. There is no longer such a thing as a S.A.P. Where does one find a S.A.P.?

You are one.

There the hon. member is making a mistake.

You are all S.A.P.’s still.

Order, order.

The S.A. Party has long since been something of the past. I belong to the Únited South African National Party. A member of the United South African National Party would not write such a letter. I do not believe it. I go further. The hon. member did not refer to a section of the farmers. He spoke of everyone.

No, read my motion.

I did read it.

Then you did not understand it.

It is stated here clearly: “To rehabilitate every farmer.”

Do you want to rehabilitate certain farmers only?

Of course, it is only certain farmers who need rehabilitation. I do not want anyone to rehabilitate me. I shall not allow such a reflection to be made on me. My constituents would hold it against me if I allowed a motion of this kind to be accepted by the House. The hon. member for Aliwal will get my full support if he asks for concessions for the impoverished section of the people who require assistance.

But that is what I am asking for.

That is not what is stated in the motion.

You do not understand the motion.

Order, order.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is again necessary for me to mention the example that if one throws a stone into a bush and a howl goes up, one can be sure that one has hit something. The hon. member states clearly in his motion that all the farmers are to be rehabilitated. I can understand well enough what the motion says. Then the hon. member referred to the bad times of 1933. I make bold to say that the hon. member is being wilful. I like him. I am very fond of him. Together, he and I experienced great hardships as boys, and for that reason I feel that we ought to be closer to each other and support each other. But he must not come forward with motions of this type and then expect me to vote for them. No, the hon. member should define more clearly whom he wants to assist. I know that there are impoverished farmers who need assistance; let him clearly say which people he wants to rehabilitate. He must not say in this House that the farmers are not being encouraged. He must not tell the House and me and hundreds of farmers that our land does not belong to us. My land is mine, and if that hon. member thinks it is not, let him trespass on my land, and then he will soon learn what the position is.

Here we have it again right from the beginning. I would like to ask Mr. Speaker whether we have not a little milk here for the lambs that have been bleating since this morning. It would appear to me that the members of the Opposition have never read the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). They do not know what it contains. In the first place there is talk of the limited ambit of the Farmers’ Assistance Act. A limited ambit! There is not a farmer in South Africa who does not know what facilities there are for the supply of a windmill, a plough and anything the farmer needs.

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 adjourned; to be resumed on 16th March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Goverment business.

I move—

I am very pleased that the Prime Minister introduced an amendment in the Act, as we asked for on this side, and I would very much like to make a request to him. Certain of our people went away to war and they have now been away from their families for five years. The Prime Minister knows that if a person is so long separated from his family, then the family ties become weaker, and he would be the last person who would want to allow such a thing to happen. I would like to ask him whether it is not possible to allow those people to return as soon as possible, so that they can continue with their normal work; that he should give facilities to these people to return as speedily as possible. Further I would like to tell the Prime Minister that he has large defence camps in the country, and as I said the other day, the sooner these people return to their normal work, the easier it is going to be to get the people, who are still on active service back into their normal vocations after the war. If that is not done, then everything heaps up, and the expenses in regard to those camps increase enormously. The further question is this. We have complaints from every Government department that there is a shortage of personnel. These officials are now all in the Prime Minister’s defence force, and I think that whereas there are more than 100,000 men who are not doing service, the time has arrived to allow those officials to return to their normal work. Why should they sit in the camps? A further point is this. We are very much concerned about the work which the police have to perform today in the country. There are robberies, theft and assaults. There is hardly a district which does not complain about it, and the only reason for it is a shortage of police. Those police are today in the Defence Force whilst they are required in our own country. I think that the Prime Minister should make plans to allow these people to return so that they can protect the civilians against robbery, theft and assaults which are taking place in the country. I speak subject to correction, but I believe that in Johannesburg there are a few hundred returned native soldiers doing duty as police. They know nothing of this type of work, and it would appear that the European police are more necessary to keep an eye on these returned soldiers than that they are an acquisition as a means of improving matters there. I am only mentioning these few points. I am one of those who supports discipline, and in as much as the Prime Minister has introduced this Bill to make provision for the carrying out of the necessary discipline. I support the Bill. Once again I want to express the hope that the Minister will take these few points into consideration and that he will bring back the officials and police as speedily as possible, and that he will not allow the people to keep on increasing in the camps. He must allow them to return to their normal activities as soon as possible. If that does not take place, we are going to have a heaping up after the war, and the position is going to be very difficult, quite apart from the fact that in the meantime large expenditure is being incurred

The proviso which the Hon. Prime Minister included on pressure from this side of the House has changed the whole nature of the Bill. Thousands of people are affected by the alteration. The Bill looks quite different to what it was when the Prime Minister moved it, and that is by virtue of the attitude adopted by this side of the House. I would like to repeat that more thousands than we know of are being affected by the long proviso which the Prime Minister proposed, on pressure from this side of the House. It appears rather strange to me that the Prime Minister at the time mentioned not a word about the fact that this amendment originated from this side, an amendment which has such far-reaching effects, and which is entirely changed by this Bill. Now I say that it is strange that at the time the Prime Minister did not say a word about the fact that this amendment came about by reason of the attitude adopted by the Opposition. Honestly, I must say that I expected of the Prime Minister that he would have put the position clearly. The Prime Minister would not have put in that proviso had it not been that the Nationalist Party here in the House of Assembly came forward with that proposal. The Prime Minister did not have that amendment in mind. Far from it. He came here with a considered Bill, which the law advisers had drawn up on his instructions, and which was approved by the Government and then moved here in Parliament, and that proviso was not contained therein. It was left to the Opposition to insist that it be included, whereby the Bill, in its nature, was altered to the advantage of thousands of South African soldiers. I must express my disappointment that the Prime Minister did not make that admission here. I can only assume that that is again proof of the attitude of the Government, especially in this Session, towards the Opposition. However that may be, it must be clear to this House and to the country that this amendment which we proposed, is going to affect thousands of soldiers who are presently prisoners of war overseas, inasmuch as they are being met by virtue of the fact that they cannot be compelled to do military service of any kind whatsoever there. I feel inclined to go a little further into this matter, and to say at this opportunity that it truly occurs to me that the point of view taken up by the Government is that the Opposition is a necessary evil. You just have to tolerate it, and nothing more. This Bill is particularly one which should have been referred to a Select Committee, so that the Opposition would also have had an opportunity of thoroughly improving it. Then we would have had an even better opportunity to do so than we have now had. Here we have another example of what has so often happened during this Session, that the Government adopts the attitude that the Opposition is simply a necessary evil, and that it must simply tolerate the Opposition and nothing more. By reason of what we have here today, I would like to tell the Prime Minister that the Government would make much better progress in regard to the legislation which it brings before this House, if it takes a little more notice of the Opposition, and does not adopt the attitude, especially as has been done at this Session, that the Opposition is merely there as an evil which obstructs it and which he must attempt to bypass and ignore as far as that is possible. An Opposition is there to keep a watching eye on the Government in power, and when it offers assistance in regard to any Bill, then that assistance should be of such a nature that it should cease with that particular measure. We find that Lord Randolph Churchill, the father of the present British Prime Minister, said this, amongst other things, on this point—

That is what happened in regard to this particular Bill. Here we assisted the Government but with a kick, and this is to point out to the Prime Minister that in the event of our having offered him assistance, as the Nationalist Party offered him assistance, at least he should have said so, in any case, that he is indebted to the Opposition because the Opposition assisted him not only to avoid making a mistake in regard to this Bill, but also to do a grave injustice to the soldiers.

You wanted the caress from him.

It would in any case have been more appropriate if it had come from his side, but that caress should have come at an appropriate time. In this sitting we have had several cases of this nature. These are matters of the same nature and therefore I assume that I may mention them here, Mr. Speaker. Assistance is offered by this side, but it is simply swept aside with a brush of the hand. In this regard I would like to read out a sentence from the work of Jennings on the British Parliament—

In this Session there is not the slightest indication of consultation; no consultation whatsoever regarding legislative measures. I do not know whether the Prime Minister wants to follow the practice of the British Parliament. In any case, there the Opposition is continually being consulted by the Government in power with the object of ascertaining whether measures it proposes cannot be improved with the assistance of the Opposition. That does not happen in South Africa. Suggestions from this side of the House are brushed aside as something evil. Just the other day the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) made a noteworthy suggestion in regard to the air conference. That was simply brushed aside. A few days later the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) again made an outstanding suggestion as to how the Opposition could assist to solve one the greatest problems of the country, namely, the native question. Again it was simply ignored with a sweep of the hand. I want to mention these few things again to indicate that no attempt is being made to make any use of assistance which the Opposition can offer. That, of course, is a game which can be played on both sides. When the Hon. Leader of the Opposition at the commencement of the sitting moved his motion, which was a motion of censure, that motion was described in different ways in the beginning.

I regret that the hon. member cannot now go into what happened in a previous debate.

I am just mentioning that in passing, Mr. Speaker, because it has reference to the point I am making here, that the Government simply pushes the Opposition aside, and we are practically threatened, if I may use that expression. First the motion of the Leader of the Opposition was described in various ways, and when the Government had arranged things in such a manner that the motion could not be given preference, then it was described as a motion of no confidence. I have not for a long time in the procedure of this House seen such blatant deceit practised towards the Opposition. In regard to this Bill I want to say that we received no information whatsoever from the Prime Minister. When handing it in he only explained its superficially, and when he was asked how many people would be affected by the Bill, he suddenly crept into his shell and said that that is a military secret. In other countries Parliament is given all the information by the Government, but by virtue of the accusation that we are people who would be disloyal to the country, this information is refused us in South Africa. We are not allowed to have it. We do not get information. The Prime Minister has repeatedly been shown that he ignores the Opposition and he gives us no information here. When we ask for information, there is simply a wave of the hand and the reply is that we cannot be given any information in regard to these matters. I want to put the matter to the Prime Minister in this way. Take the commissions which have been appointed—they are simply packed out with supporters of the Government. Apparently there is no Opposition which must be taken into consideration, notwithstanding the fact that the Opposition is an essential portion in the legislation of the country. When it suits the Government, it appoints a Select Committee, and then we have to contribute our portion to assist to improve the legislations. Then our assistance is utilised. I would like to offer the following suggestion, that is, namely, that Bills of a contentious nature, as this one is, should automatically be referred to a Select Committee. Then much better arrangements for dealing with legislation can be made than is presently done. Parliament can be assembled; legislation can be laid on the Table, and Select Committees can be appointed. Then the House of Assembly can be adjourned for a fortnight or longer to give the Select Committees an opportunity to do and complete their work. The members who are not members of the Select Committee, and are not engaged on the Bill, can go home for a time. After a few weeks Parliament can again be assembled when the Select Committees have finished, and then these Bill can finally be dealt with. Thereby we will attain two goals. In the first place the assistance of the Opposition is called in to improve the Bills, and in the second place the work of Parliament will be tremendously expedited. In relation to the Bill presently before us, I can say, for example, that it would have had a very different appearance if it had been before a Select Committee previously. I want to suggest that this matter should be investigated. But, Mr. Speaker, you know how impossible it is in the present circumstances for a Select Committee to thoroughly take a Bill under consideration. There is no time for it. This House also sits in the mornings. That means that the members of the Select Committee must commence their meeting at 8.30 and continue until 11 o’clock, and then they have to come to the House. In relation to this Bill I want to submit it for the serious consideration of the Government as to how far it can make arrangements to enable us to have a better opportunity to go into Bills properly and improve them, so that the Government would simply be pretending that there is no Opposition. The Opposition has function to perform, and if such an attitude is adopted, then the Opposition and the whole House will be given a better opportunity of doing its work properly: And our country will benefit thereby.

I see no reason for the tirade in connection with this debate which has come from the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus). He is acting on an entirely erroneous supposition. His supposition is that the amendment now proposed on pressure from the Opposition, has entirely altered the Bill as it will now be passed; it will be something entirely different from the Bill which was moved. Naturally there is no ground for that supposition. The Bill, with the amendment, contains nothing more than the Bill which was moved.

The sting has been removed.

The only difference is in the drafting of the proviso. Hon. members on the other side were of the opinion that it was open to abuse, as it was originally drafted, but which I deny. However, it was the allegation that it was open to abuse, in the sense that a certain amount of pressure could be applied to prisoners of war who returned. In order to avoid such misunderstanding, I was immediately prepared to make the alteration. I immediately moved the amendment in my reply on the second reading; and the amendment is now being confirmed. It is just a matter of removing misunderstanding and suspicion which arose in the minds of some of the hon. members on the other side. Otherwise the Bill remains the same. In general, the hon. member for Moorreesburg argued as though it were a contentious Bill, and he said that when a contentious Bill was moved, it should be sent to a Select Committee. In general I agree. But to call this a contentious Bill, is to entirely miss the mark.

As it was in the first place?

It is now as it was at first, and it was as it is now. With the amendment which was put in solely to avoid certain suspicion. There is nothing contentious in the nature of the Bill. It was merely a measure to give us the opportunity to bring back to South Africa, in a decent way, the prisoners of war in foreign countries, who are now being freed. That is all. I largely agree with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). He says that the police force in our country is too small and that it would be well if members of the police force who are in the army are brought back. I agree. The hon. member must remember that a large proportion of the police who were in the north are prisoners of war who were taken at Tobruk. Those who returned were used for police work. A great deal is being done in this direction at the moment, also in so far as the public servants are concerned. There I also agree with the hon. member, and in so far as is possible public servants are being brought back to their departments. I also agree entirely with the hon. member in regard to volunteers who have been on service in the field for a long time. There is no difference of opinion on this point. Where volunteers have been away for several years, it is in their own interests and in the interests of the country that they return, and we are doing everything possible to bring them back. We have a regular air service to bring the people back as speedily as possible. In regard to the people whom the hon. member says are superfluous and are doing nothing in the camps, and who could go home, there are no such persons. My instructions are that where there are people in camps who can be released for farming or business, that should be done. We do not want to retain anybody who is superfluous and who is required in civilian life. Everything possible is being done in this regard. In general I agree with the hon. member, and instructions in this regard have been given.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

House in Committee:

Head No. 1.—“General Charges—Railways”, £82,810, put and agreed to.

Head No. 2.—“Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works—Railways”, £737,370, put and agreed to.

On Head No. 3.—“Maintenance of Rolling Stock—Railways”, £758,660,

With regard to the maintenance of rolling stock, it has been brought to my notice that the accommodation on the Durban-Port Shepstone train is faulty inasmuch as the lavatory accommodation has been allowed to get into a bad state of repair, and passengers are complaining bitterly about it. I hope that the Minister will see that the rolling stock is put into such a position that the complaints will cease

I would like to know whether more rolling stock will be placed in service, secondly where it is going to be manufactured and thirdly I want to put a question to the Minister in regard to the condition of passenger trains. We know that there is a war on and that passenger coaches cannot be kept in the same clean condition as we usually were accustomed to in peace time, but it seems to me that on some trains the position has become chaotic, not due to lack of personnel but to lack of proper supervision.

What item is the hon. member discussing?

£758,660.

What item?

“Rolling stock.” I am discussing rolling stock.

There are various items. What account is the hon. member referring to?

No. 4.

Is the hon. member discussing Coaching Stock, Locomotives or Goods Stocks?

Mr. Chairman, you have put an item of £758,660. I want to discuss that.

The hon. member cannot discuss that, he is only allowed to deal with the particulars of the increases.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 4.—“Running Expenses—Railways”, £1,149,439, put and agreed to.

On Head No. 5.—“Traffic Expenses—Railways”, £1,078,211,

We would like to have a little more information concerning the considerable increase under items 335 and 336.

On Account No. 335 the additional cost involved in compensation for goods lost in transit is due to the much larger volume of goods carried. We have had to pay rather more this year than was estimated for losses of goods in transit. In regard to Account No. 336, costs have risen owing to the claims for compensation in respect of fires caused by sparks from engines being higher than we anticipated.

I now would like to discuss this matter under item No. 320, “Other Staff”, the question of cleanliness on trains. That is one aspect ….

The hon. member is again out of order. He may only discuss the reasons for the increased expenditure.

What are the reasons? Expenditure increases, the service deteriorates.

The hon. member may ask what the reasons are.

I want to ask the reason for the increase and at the same time inform the Minister that the service is deteriorating.

I would just point out that the additional cost in connection with this particular account is due to additional staff and increased overtime payments consequent on increased traffic requirements, together with the revised grading and pay conditions which operate from October last year.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 9.—“Catering and Bedding Services”, £250,419,

What is the reason for the increase under this head in respect of bedding services?

Again, this is purely due to the revised grading and improved pay conditions of the staff as a result of the October adjustments.

In regard to Account No. 414—“Repairs and Renewals of Equipment”, falling under “Dining Cars”, I want to ask whether provision has been made that stewards no longer have to pay for breakages?

In regard to Account No. 414, the stewards still pay for breakages, but an allowance is made up to four per cent. on the turnover. It is only when the losses rise above that level that the stewards have to pay. That was accepted by the stewards themselves as a satisfactory settlement.

Under item 405 and item 412, we find considerable increases for liquor. Is that due to a larger turnover or to an increase in the prices of liquor?

The additional amounts in respect of Accounts Nos. 405 and 412 are entirely due to the higher cost.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 12.—“Road Motor Service—Railways”, £289,383, put and agreed to.

Head No. 15.—“Interest on Superannuation and Other Funds—Railways”, £1,966, nut and agreed to.

Head No. 17.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure— Railways”, £497,214, put and agreed to.

Head No. 20.—“General Charges—Harbours”, £3,838, put and agreed to.

Head No. 25.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure —Harbours”, £85, put and agreed to.

Head No. 28— “Working and Maintenance —Airways”, £61,886, put and agreed to.

Head No. 29.—“Interest on Capital—Airways”, £3,041, put and agreed to.

On Head No. 30.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure—Airways”, £3,073,

May we know what the reason is for the increased expenditure?

It is mainly due to the increased cost of living allowances which we are paying, being higher than was originally contemplated.

Head put and agreed to.

Capital and Betterment Works:

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works.

On Head No. 1.—“Construction of Railways”, £100,000.

Why is the additional amount of £100,000 required in connection with the building of the line from Oogies to Van Dyks Drift?

The whole reason for this additional capital expenditure is that we have been expediting the work. The work is now progressing at a much higher speed than was originally calculated because of the urgent need for more coal. That is the reason we have had to include £100,000 in this year’s estimates.

May I ask whether it is expected that the demand for coal will continue for some time?

We do anticipate a demand for coal for several years to come, for as much coal as we can produce.

Even after the war?

For a considerable period after the war, but it must be remembered as far as this coal is concerned it is more concerned with the war in the Far East than the war in Europe. The demand will continue for some time even after the conclusion of the war in the Far East.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 5.—“Harbours”, £591,367, put and agreed to.

Head No. 7.—“Airways”, £25,000, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds without amendment, and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, without amendment.

Report considered, and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds and on Capital and Betterment Works adopted.

appointed the Minister of Transport and the Chairman of Committees a Committee to bring up the necessary Bill in accordance with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure as adopted by the House.

The Minister of Transport brought up the Report of the Committee just appointed, submitting a Bill in accordance with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds and on Capital and Betterment Works adopted by the House.

I move—

The introduction of these Second Additional Estimates was foreshadowed when I introduced the First Additional Estimates at the beginning of the Session; and it was also taken account of in the Budget which I submitted a week or two ago. The amounts which we ask for on revenue and loan votes in these Second Additional Estimates are slightly in excess of the amounts indicated in the White Paper that was distributed when the Budget speech was made. On revenue account we are asking for about £24,000 more than the figure mentioned, and on the loan account for £1,500 more. Hon. members will however note that despite these small increases the amount of the revised estimates in respect of both the revenue and loan funds, as given on pages 1 and 2, is still the same as was indicated in the Budget speech. Indeed, as far as the loan estimates are concerned the amount is rather lower. The small increase, therefore, will have no effect on the Budget figure. The explanation is, of course, that we have reason to expect that this small amount of £24,000 will be met by savings on other votes. When I introduced the first additional estimates I gave the reason why it would be necessary to have second additional estimates. Perhaps I had better recall what I said then. When we introduce our first additional estimates in January we know that there are certain cases where departments will require more money before the end of the financial year but wherever possible, and where the case is not urgent, we do not provide for these amounts in the first additional estimates, but we wait for the second additional estimates. The reason why we do that is this, that the tendency naturally is for a department to state its requirements on the high side. It does not want to be caught at the end of the financial year with unauthorised expenditure, and so it plays for safety; and in spite of the vigilance of the Treasury we cannot entirely neutralise that tendency, but the nearer you come to the end of the financial year the more accúrate your estimate becomes. So we have found as a result of our experience in recent years, that by holding up as much as we can of the second additional estimates until March, we reduce the amount of money voted by Parliament and ultimately returned to the Treasury unexpended. That, of course, makes for better estimating and better control. The amounts we are asking for on these additional estimates are, as will be noted, £1,780,310 on revenue and £143,750 on loan funds. These amounts are a good deal less than we asked for in the second additional estimates last year, just as the amount we asked on the first additional estimates were a good deal less than we asked for in the first additional estimates last year. In other words, the control has been tightened up arid greater accuracy has been secured. Having regard to the large amount of our total expenditure, which has grown of course considerably over the last few years, and to the uncertainties inevitable in a time like the present, I do not think these amounts we have asked for can be regarded as excessive. No one, for instance, could have foreseen that an amount of £650,000 would be required as a result of the report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Public Service in order to provide for extra allowances. I merely give that as an Instance. Most of the amounts asked for in these additional estimates are relatively small. Following the usual procedure I shall, at this stage, only draw attention to the largest of them. I think I should, however first point out that in a large number of votes here additional expenditure has to be provided for in respect of increased cost of living allowances. I explained that, when we were dealing with the first additional estimates, as being due to the increased cost of living index which carries with it automatically increased allowances. In the first additional estimates we did not deal with all the departments, and so in these additional estimates we have to provide for the extra allowance in respect of those departments not dealt with in the first additional estimates. So far I am only referring to the cost of living scheme as brought into operation recently, but as hon. members are aware, we have adopted with some small modifications, the interim report of the Public Service Commission of Enquiry. That involves an improvement in the cost of living rates in respect of certain of the lower paid classes of our State employees, and it implies further an increase in the special allowance from five per cent. to ten per cent. in most cases, and to 12½ per cent. in certain other classes of cases. The adjustment of the cost of living allowance is ante-dated to the 1st January, while the increased special allowance is ante-dated to the 1st October, and on that account we have to make provision on these estimates for a considerable amount of money, payable for the most part in respect of a half-year. We have not been able to divide this money between the various departments. If we had to do that, we would not have been able to vote the money this year and to pay out the money this year, and in order to do so we are asking the House to vote the money as a lump sum under the control of the Treasury, as we did some years ago when an adjustment of salaries took place. Then let me refer to the other large items on the Estimates. The first is the provision on the agricultural vote, the Main Vote, 19, for which no provision was made on the first Additional Estimates. Here are a considerable number of small items, the main provision being in respect of increased veterinary services, £80,250 in all, to be accounted for mainly by the campaign against foot and mouth disease and the increased demand for vaccines. A further sum of £50,000 is required for increased cost of living allowances. Then the next vote on which there is a substantial amount is Vote 21, the Agricultural General Vote. There the main provision, in fact the item that accounts for almost the whole amount, is in respect of the butter subsidy which was not dealt with in the first Additional Estimates. The total amount required for the butter subsidy for the year 1944-’45 is £386,000, and that includes the amount necessary in connection with the recent decision to ante-date the winter premium from the 1st May to the 1st February. We are not providing for the whole amount here because we will not spend it before the 31st March. The balance is provided for on the Main Estimates. Then the next vote with a substantial amount is Posts and Telegraphs, which was also not dealt with in the first Additional Estimates. That is Vote 27. There we have an amount of £115,500 for salaries, wages and allowances, predominantly in respect of increased cost of living allowances. This is a big department and in relation to the normal staff and the provision made on the Estimates, £115,000, is not really a large amount. It represents only about three percent. Then we come to the Public Health Vote, No. 28. There again provision was not made in the first Additional Estimates, except for one or two small amounts which were of some urgency. Here, the main item is £60,000 in respect of the setting up of a new central store which will provide not only for the institutions falling under the Public Health Vote, but also for mental hospitals. That, of course, involves a large initial expenditure but an ultimate economy. Then we also have an item of £37,360 which is mainly accounted for by the typhus epidemic. The only other vote to which I need draw attention is Loan, Vote C, the Post Office Vote, where an additional £90,000 is asked for for development of existing telegraph and telephone systems. It has been found possible, despite the difficulties caused by the war, to go a little bit further with telegraph and telephone development than was originally anticipated. There is a great deal of leeway to be made up, and I have no doubt that this additional provision here will be welcomed. In any case, what we vote here, is of a revenue-producing nature. I think that is all I need say at this stage. The other points can be better dealt with in the Committee stage.

I must admit that the Minister of Finance has overwhelmed us with this matter and has brought it before the House earlier than was anticipated.

I did not intend that.

The result is that we are not properly prepared in relation to many of the important points which are dealt with in the Additional Estimates. However, we appreciate what the position is, and we know the circumstances which moved the Minister to bring it on today. It has my sympathy, for that reason we are not going to object. As the Minister correctly said, these are second Additional Estimates. The first amounted to £1,600,000 on income account. The second amounts to £1,700,000 —nearly £3½ million in the aggregate Last year it was more, and the previous year it was also more. In that respect, there is an improvement on paper. But I wonder whether in fact there is any improvement. Those of us who have paid careful attention to the methods of the Minister of Finance in the last few years, know that especially in the last few years he has developed a tendency to not only underestimate his income, but at the same time, purposely to overestimate his expenditure. He puts it as high as he possibly can. It appears to me that that is a method which the Minister of Finance has developed.

It is a good thing to be conservative.

Yes, but I think that the Minister goes further than to merely play for safety. It appears to me that he has some other purpose. Each year the Minister places his expenditure higher than he thinks it is actually going to be, and then I say that, if the Minister comes along afterwards with two Additional Estimates of Expenditure, then that is a very bad sign. I do not feel at ease today that that restraining hand is present in the Treasury, which there should be. I am not at ease about it. It would appear to me that the Minister was juggling with so many millions of pounds last year, that he has completely lost all conception of the value of money. The financial conscience of the watchdog of the country’s finances is no longer as active as it should be. On this aspect of the matter I have not been satisfied. In committee I am going to deal with quite a few matters, but I want to make use of this opportunity to deal with one matter in particular, and I am pleased to see the Minister of Lands present. I am referring to Vote 19, and the third item under that vote—namely A.14, the additional amount of £5,000 for dehydration. We know that the Department of Agriculture has said that it does not dehydrate fruit. We know that that is done by the Deciduous Fruit Board. We know that the operations of the Deciduous Fruit Board in relation to this aspect of the matter are in a bad financial way. We are expected to assume a greater loss than the Department of Agriculture expected from these operations. We expected that the loss on the operations’ of the Deciduous Fruit Board in connection with the dehydration factories would be merely £5,000, and now we have to be told that £5,000 is not sufficient and that £10,000 is required therefor. I must say that we are entitled to get from the Minister very detailed particulars in connection with this matter, before he dares to ask that we should vote for this additional £5,000. I have in my possession the figures of the financial operations of the dehydration factories for the last few years.

This does not concern dehydration itself, but research work in connection with dehydration, and I am afraid that you cannot discuss that matter now,

It is the research work which is being, done by the Department. £10,000 is being devoted to that, which is merely a small amount.

There is no indication here that it is merely for research. We are merely asked to vote more money for dehydration.

It is for equipment and general expenditure.

The dehydration factories of the Deciduous Fruit Board eat up money.

I do not think that you are entitled to discuss that matter in relation to this vote.

The loss on those factories comes out of the subsidy.

I think that the public is very anxious to know a little more about this financial operation, and here is nothing to indicate that we are concerned only with research.

The hon. member must accept the Minister’s explanation that that is the case.

Yes. I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Then I want to put the question in this way.

You have already said quite a good deal.

No, I have not yet. I have much to say in connection with this matter. There are many important matters which must be raised in this connection. There are still other matters which I am going to mention, but I specially prepared myself to raise this matter today. Let the Minister assure me that this amount has nothing to do with the dehydration factories. I would like to put the matter to the Minister in this way. There are dehydration factories at Ceres, Dal Josaphat, Groot-Drakenstein, Franschhoek and Stellenbosch, and I would like the Minister to give the assurance over the floor of this House that not one single penny of that £5,000 is being asked for those five dehydration factories. If any of this money is going there, then I contend that I am entitled to discuss this matter in detail here today.

I can give the assurance that none of this expenditure is going direct to those factories. Eventually the research work will naturally help them, but there is no direct bestowing of this money on them.

Is this research work not being done in the factories?

No, it is being done here in Cape Town.

Not one penny of this £5,000 is being used in connection with these five factories, and if I have that assurance then I must make use of a later opportunity to raise this matter. I can assure the Minister that I am very disappointed. I think that the outside public is also very disappointed that we cannot get the opportunity under the Standing Orders to have a candid discussion of this matter. Then I would like to put just a few more questions.

Your speech speech has now been dehydrated.

Yes, but that is just your good luck. I would like to put a question in regard to M.3. Here an additional amount of £14,000 is asked for in connection with the expenditure on the guano islands, which increases the expenditure from £60,000 to £74,000. I want to know why we have this position that, the more money there is being asked for the guano islands, the more dissatisfaction we get amongst the farmers in regard to the guano which is made available to them each year. Just exactly where are we going to end up, do our farmers who are complaining, get the guano which they require or which they were accustomed to getting? Surely a cost of living allowance is not being paid to the penguins and the other birds. We get only this increase in the cost, but we do not get any additional guano as the result of it. I would very much like the Minister to take us into his confidence, because this is a matter of great importance to the country. In the South-West districts the rainfall is good and the people can produce. But they cannot get the guano. There are farmers who did not get a single bag last year. They made application, and although their quota has always been small, last year they did not even get that small quantity. I would very much like to have information from the Minister. Then I come to Vote 46. This is a strange way in which to vote money.

We have previously asked for it in this way.

Yes, but it nevertheless remains a strange manner in which to make money available. I understand that it is for the purpose of giving effect to the first report of the Centlivres Commission. On this side of the House, with the increased cost of living, we do not begrudge our officials something extra. I would just like to ask the Minister this. I am pleased that the Minister of Justice is here and he can tell us whether the commission has also been instructed to investigate the question of police salaries.

Yes.

The police also get benefits from this.

I am pleased to hear that. Our public servants have had a difficult time of it during this war period. Many of the departments are overworked as a result of the war conditions which have been created. A large portion of the public service is tired and run-down. But if there is one portion of the public service of whom that is true, then it is the police. We who sleep peacefully at night and are unconcerned, do not realise what work the police are doing. But the public appreciate more and more every day the work that the police are doing. If there is a portion of the service to whom we would like to give an appreciable increase, then it is to the police. Then I want to come to the Loan Estimates, and I notice that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has asked for an amount of £90,000, for the extension of postal services, telegraph and telephone services, and wireless services. I hope that we can now expect that there will be a few more telephones coming to the rural areas, where a telephone service is so vitally necessary.

I hope to be able to spend much more next year.

I can merely say that if there is one thing in regard to which there is a crying need, then it is the expansion of the telephone service, and the expansion under this head. I have been somewhat put off my stroke because I may not speak about the dehydration factories. I had prepared myself for the Minister of Agriculture, but the Standing Order prevents me from talking on that subject, and I will do that on a later occasion.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to a few matters. An additional amount is being asked for for vaccines. Recently we noticed that the vaccine against Red Water and Gall Sickness was withdrawn because the authorities are of the opinion that it does not produce the correct results. If that is the case, then it is not right that for all these years the farmers have been paying 1s. per dose for this vaccine. Now it is withdrawn and it is said that it is no longer of any use. The farmers pay thousands of pounds for it because they have confidence in our veterinary surgeons. I am one of those who believe in them, and we must do everything in our power not to disappoint the people.

May I remind the hon. member of a ruling which has previously been given, that in the case of Additional Estimates, only the reasons for the increases in various votes can be discussed.

There has been an increase in this vote, and I would like to ask the Minister what the reason is for that increase, whereas certain vaccines have been withdrawn. In connection with Item 16, I would also like to know what the position is in regard to Nagana. Every time more money is voted for that, and we would like to know how the work is progressing. We would like to know what progress is being made at the station in Zululand. Then I come to Foot and Mouth Disease. Here is an additional amount which the Minister of Finance mentioned as one of the large amounts. We would also like to know what progress has been made in regard to combating this disease. Is the country now clear of it, or does danger from it still exist? I would like to have information from the Minister on these points, so that we can enlighten the people.

I want to say a few words about what the Minister said in connection with the increased expenditure on Foot and Mouth Disease. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he honestly believes that this large amount is justified. This district in the whole area still retains the permit system which was in existence since 1911 when I came there. When Foot and Mouth Disease broke out, a large number of personnel came to the district, veterinary surgeons stock inspectors, dip inspectors, and native assistants.

I want to remind the hon. member of the ruling which I have already given to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), that he may only discuss the reason for the increases.

I am coming to the reason for the increase which is mentioned by the Minister of Finance. The reason is that a whole force of veterinary surgeons, inspectors and natives were sent to the district. Is that in order?

Can the hon. Minister say whether that is the reason for the increase?

It is the police cordon which was drawn there.

Yes, there was the police cordon, and for that reason a whole force of veterinary surgeons, inspectors and what more were sent there. That is the reason for the increase. Am I now in order?

The hon. member may continue.

That large personnel was sent there, and if the permits had simply been withdrawn, then this would not have been necessary. Then the farmer would have kept his animals on his farm, and the whole thing would have been prevented with a much smaller amount. But then there were veterinary surgeons, inspectors, police and natives brought there. Natives in that area get £1 10s. and £2 per month, but natives were appointed there at £6 10s. and £7 per month. In addition to that they get food which includes half a bag of mealie meal, 25 lbs. flour and 30 tins of meat and vegetables. It is an unheard of condition that out of the taxpayers’ money such slices should be cut, as has been done there. If only the permits were withdrawn then investigations could have been made into the extent of the sickness. It appears to me that the Department takes up the attitude that every farmer is an ass, and knows nothing. They are the only people who know anything, and I am not convinced that we get value for this big amount. They can mulct the State in expenses—for nothing. We are incapable people; we are uneducated people, we show courage and bravery and initiative, and along comes the State and the taxpayer is mulcted in expenditure which is not justified, and as the representative of that area —because the whole outbreak is in my constituency—I must protest that the country’s money is being so shamefully wasted.

Under Vote No. 19, Head D.10, there is an increase of £7,500 in connection with “Noxious Weeds; General Expenses.”

What Vote is this?

Vote 19, D.10. Can the. Minister tell me whether this is intended for bigger salaries to the officials, or whether it is for the appointment of more officials, and if it is for the appointment of more officials how is he going to utilise these people?

It is mainly for the purchase of copper sulphate.

I should like to point out to the Minister that the noxious weeds are spreading frightfully; they are not getting any less.

As regards the points connected with agricultural matters, my colleague will dëal with them when we are in Committee. These are really points which can better be discussed there. All that it is necessary for me to react to is what has been stated by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) in connection with the additional estimates as a whole. I am glad that he accepts it as an improvement, but he says that I am inclined to underestimate revenue and to put expenditure as high as possible, and he believes that ulterior motives are involved in the matter. I can give him the assurance that there are no ulterior motives. I have, of course, to deal with departments that dispense moneys, and with departments that collect moneys. There is a very natural tendency for a department expending funds to place its requirements as high as possible, while there is a tendency for a department that collects moneys to place its expectations as low as possible. But the Minister of Finance has to wage a war on two fronts. He is always trying to bring the estimates of expenditure down lower, and to raise the estimates of revenue higher. The Minister of Finance has to engage in this war every year, and I think the facts indicate that we have carried on that war with a certain measure of success because every year we approximate a little more closely to an accurate estimate of the actual figures. There is, therefore, no evidence that Treasury control is not as good as it was. On the contrary the facts show that the control is considerably more efficient that it has been in the past.

Motion put and agreed to.

House in Committee:

The Committee has to consider the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue and Loan Funds during the year ending 31st March, 1945.

Expenditure from Revenue Funds:

Vote No. 4.—“Prime Minister and External Affairs”, £21,100, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 6.—“Treasury”, £3,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 13.—“Customs and Excise”, £16,900, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 16.—“South Africa Mint”, £31,750, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 17.—“Union Education”, £60,713,

Can the Minister give us any explanation of the basis upon which the University grants are awarded?

The University grants are based on a formula which, in so far as these estimates are concerned, is determined by the incomes of the Universities from their own sources, i.e. their income from student fees and from other sources. We have now, however, as the result of an enquiry held, changed that basis and are taking into account certain other factors. The new basis will, however, only come into force next year, and the new estimates are determined on the new basis. These estimates which are additional estimates, are still determined on the old basis, and in as much as when we framed the original figures the final audited accounts of the Universities were not available, it becomes necessary, when these final audited accounts do become available, to make adjustments in their subsidies. We do that in the additional estimates. These additional estimates therefore represent the difference required to bring the University grants and subsidies up to the amounts due to them on the basis of the formula hitherto in operation and in terms of the final audited figures.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 18.—“Industrial Schools and Reformatories”, £22,884, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 19.—“Agriculture”, £188,608,

I should like to repeat under this vote a few questions that I put on the motion to go into Committee, and I will add a few more. I see under A. 5, “Locust Extermination” an increase of £10,000. We should like to know whether there are locusts in the country, because the sum of £75,000 has been voted, and it appears now that it is too small. What is the reason for the increase? And while I am on my feet I should like to put a further question in connection with stock diseases under B. 4. We have trouble over heartwater in various parts of the country and although I cannot make an appeal under this vote, I should like to ask the Minister to help us in combating these various diseases. Then I find under B. 6 “Animals, Purchase and Maintenance” that an extra amount has also been asked for there. For what purpose is this amount required? Is it for farming at Messina, where we have had cross breeding, or for what purpose have the animals been purchased? I have noticed that cattle have been sent to the zoo for an experiment in connection with foot and mouth disease. Is that perhaps the case? We should like to have some information on that. I have asked the Minister about the question of red water vaccine that the farmers have been buying for years and they have apparently suffered damage,’ because it seems that it is no good. Then I should like to know how far we have progressed with nasana. I hope that he will be able to give us that information. It is a state of affairs that has existed through all these years. I do not know whether they are occupied with the traps that have been placed there to catch the flies. It seems to me that that experiment will cost us thousands of pounds later. I should like to have information from the Minister on these few points.

In connection with the heading D.10, “Noxious weeds, general expenses,” in respect of which an increase of £7,500 is asked, I should like to ask the Minister whether research work will also be carried out in connection with the eradication of the dangerous plant that is known as akkerwinde, which has destroyed thousands of morgen. It is a very dangerous weed and it seems to me that the department is asleep in regard to it, and that means have not yet been discovered to combat it.

I should like to repeat what I said to the Minister a moment ago. I wish to ask the Minister again ….

Let him reply now.

But the Minister is not standing up.

If the hon. member gives me the opportunity I shall reply.

Allow me to reply briefly to the few points that have been mentioned, in the first place to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) who has asked me in connection with red water vaccine whether the farmers have during the course of all these years, spent money in vain. The position is that there is no absolute scientific certainty in connection with the efficacy of the remedy. Some farmers think it is excellent. They swear by it; and at Onderstepoort they have letters showing that they have obtained good results, but in some cases the vaccine was not efficacious and consequently it was felt by the institution that it would be better not to continue with the issue of the vaccine. It was submitted to me, and on the facts placed before me We decided not to go on with it, so I do not think it can be said that we took the money from the farmers without providing them with a good remedy. It was, however, so uncertain that a decision was taken not to continue with it any longer. The hon. member also put a question to me in connection with locusts. So far there have been no further visitations, but as the hon. member himself knows, with the approach of rain the danger always exists that there will be further infestations, and one has to be prepared for that. I entirely agree with him in regard to the necessity for more veterinary surgeons. The difficulty is in securing the services of these veterinary surgeons.

The difficulty is the salaries you pay.

Yes, that is undoubtedly the difficulty. I fully agree with that. A considerable number of veterinary surgeons have of late found that they could do better for themselves in private practice, and to our very great regret they have, in the present circumstances, left the service to take up private practice. The question is, of course, at present being fúrther investigated by the Commission of Inquiry in connection with the Public Service, and I hope that it will be possible to make the salary scale that eventually will be laid down so attractive that we shall be able to obtain our rightful share of veterinary surgeons. South Africa as a country compares very poorly with other countries in respect of the number of veterinary surgeons it has in proportion to the number of animals in the country. Compared with the number of animals we have in the country we have a smaller proportion of veterinary surgeons than other big stock countries. I am thus in entire agreement with the hon. member, but we shall have to wait until that commission brings out a further report. The commission has produced an interim report that has been accepted, and a sum has already been placed on these additional estimates in connection with that report that has been adopted. Then the hon. member put a question in connection with animals that have been purchased. The position is that sheep have been purchased there at an increased price for the preparation of blue tongue vaccine.

At the controlled price?

No, it is outside the controlled area. The sheep that have been bought for that purpose have gone up in price, and that is the reason. The cost of up-keep of the animals has also increased, and on account of those two reasons the amount is larger. In regard to the campaign against nagana, I issue a full statement a little while back. Very good progress has been made with the nagana campaign and they are continuing with the traps and are doing their best to make a complete success of the campaign. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux) broached the question of the eradication of noxious weeds, under D.10. The increase in that case is mainly to be ascribed to the purchase of copper sulphate for combating the poisonous algae. The hon. member will have a further opportunity to go into the other questions that he has touched 0.1. I see that the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) is not here at present. It is perhaps also of interest to other hon. members to know why there is this increase in connection with the collection of guano. There are several factors in that connection. The collecting season last year extended over a longer period than usual, and that of course entailed our paying more by way of wages. Now we turn to the question of meat. The price of tinned meat with which the people on the island have to be provided has also risen.

Have they eaten all the eggs?

We thought it would be better if we gave the birds a chance to breed a little. The penguin egg, as the hon. member knows, is a luxury article. It is not bought in the ordinary course of events by the poorer consumer. The other reason is the increase in the price of sacks. That isa further reason, and for those reasons the cost of the collection of guano is so much more that we have had to ask for the extra amount. Then the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Raubenheimer) again recorded his protest on behalf of his constituents in Barberton, who today are undoubtedly very seriously affected because they have been so unfortunate as to have an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in their area. As I stated on a previous occasion, we have the greatest sympathy with the farmers over the disaster overtaking them there, but I want to make an appeal to the hon. member to accept that it is necessary to protect the remainder of the farmers in the country and that we have to take certain steps to confine the disease to the area in which it has broken out. We dare not run the risk that it should spread to the rest of the country and become a menace to all the herds in the rest of the country. It has consequently been necessary to have a police cordon and to take the steps that have been taken. I should like to ask him to co-operate with us to ensure that we should limit the disease to that area as far as it is humanly possible, and I can give him the assurance that we shall cancel these measures as far as possible as soon as the position is safe.

I should like to ask the Minister what this amount is for under A.14 in connection with dehydration; “Equipment etc., and general expenses;” in respect of what dehydration research is this. Is it in the Cape?

Yes.

In connection with this additional expenditure, I should like to state the position. At present we have two places within 30 miles of each other, each of them carrying on research in connection with the dehydration of vegetables, etc., and I believe that these two centres require this extra £5,000 for additional equipment and apparatus. In my opinion it is very wrong, unnecessary and redundant that we should have these two here together. I think the £5,000 has been granted in a wrong way to these two centres. I shall inform the Minister why I feel that. If you want to carry out research in a proper manner in connection with dehydration you will have to make the necessary arrangements for the supply of the raw material that is necessary for carrying’ out the experiments. In other words, in connection with the research station for dehydration there must be a farm to furnish the necessary vegetables for the dehydration research. There are many things to be done in that connection. If research is being conducted, for example, in connection with a thing like green peas the preservation of green peas, which has almost developed into an industry—they are being preserved on a large scale—the first thing that strikes one is that there is virtually no uniformity in connection with the preserved peas that one buys in South Africa. In connection with research work, it is necessary that you should have a station where the produce is grown so that it can be picked continuously in various stages of maturity. The second point is that the various varieties should be planted and cultivated in order to ascertain which of those varieties is the best. To mention a small point that is of great interest, the proportion of pod to pea is a very important factor, a factor that in a dehydration factory represents the difference between a profit and a loss.

I see that £1,000 of this £5,000 is going to the Western Province for the research station.

Then I am referring only to the £4,000. The research station in the Western Province has under it a vegetable farm on the Cape Flats, a vegetable farm of which they may be very proud and which can be of enormous importance to the vegetable growers in the Western Province and also is of enormous importance to these vegetable growers. Excellent work is being done which gives great encouragement to the farmers in the Western Province. But in so far as concerns dehydration they have that farm, and on that farm they regularly get their specimens, specimens of various types that are planted on that farm as a result of the directions of the people who conduct these experiments, and proper experiments can be carried out there because you have the two sides of the matter, on the one side production, and on the other side the experiments that are carried out with the produce. That is not the case at the Cape Town station. Cape Town has a laboratory that is intended for a totally different purpose. That laboratory was not intended for research into dehydration. That laboratory was intended for research in connection with the shipment of fruit to Europe. It is a low temperature research institute, and what our fruit farmers in the Western Province want to know is why the work on low temperature research has been entirely suspended during the war and when the war is over and when shipping accommodation is again available to send our fruits overseas we shall have behind us five neglected years in the course of which no low temperature research was done. The fruit farmers feel that this station on which we are expending this £4,000 for equipment should not continue research on dehydration, but that the research on dehydration should be left to the research station at Stellenbosch, because it has the necessary equipment, or if they have not got it they should get it, and because a link exists between the station and the production of the samples. In the second place we feel that in the Cape research should be continued in the laboratory along the lines for which that laboratory was established, and that is low temperature research. After the war we shall have to overtake the handicap "of five years in connection with low temperacure research. The sending of our fruit to Europe has in many respects left much to be desired. You, Mr. Chairman, will recall that a few years ago there was a big case in connection with peaches that were consigned to Europe and which arrived there in a bad condition. As a result of that the Government was involved in a big case and a big demand was made against the Government. I am not saying with whom the fault lay, but I do say that those peaches would not have arrived in Europe in a bad condition if we knew more about the keeping of products under low temperatures. It shows that much remains to be done in connection with keeping our products under low temperatures, and here we have a station that has been established for this purpose, that has spent a great deal on apparatus, and now, as a result of—I can say this because it is the truth—as a result of wire pulling inside the Minister’s department, we have now two stations within 30 miles of each other which are independently conducting research on the same subject, the one in the direction for which it was established and in the case of the other the object for which it was established has been completely jettisoned and it is now conducting research in connection with something that can be done at the other station. I had hoped that the Minister when he took oyer the portfolio would be strong enough to put a stop to this and in connection with this work in connection with dehydration to concentrate on one centre that both from the side of proauction and from the angle of research would be better adapted, where they could produce samples and where they could carry out research. I had hoped that the Minister would keep these wire pullers to the work for which they were established, work that is very necessary and work that we have neglected for five years and in connection with which we shall have to overtake this handicap after the war. We hope after the war again to export our fruit overseas. Here we had an excellent opportunity to conduct research in connection with the matter, so that when we were again given the opportunity to export fruit we should have the help of those improved methods which we could have discovered in those years. But we had this wire pulling, and we had these two departments within 30 miles of each other which are competing and trying to kill each other, and consequently I protest against over £4,000 being spent on a laboratory in the Cape. I say that that laboratory in the Cape should continue with the work for which it was established, and that is research in connection with low temperatures.

Can the Minister of Agriculture give us more information in regard to some of the items to which I wish to draw his attention. In the first place, there is the question of locust destruction. The total expenditure for the year is £85,000 of which we are asked to vote £10,000 now. Can he explain why this additional vote has become necessary, and perhaps he can tell us whether the new drug that is being used in the North of Africa, for the destruction of locusts has been tried in South Africa. I saw a reference to this in a daily newspapier two days ago. In regard to sub-head A.14 a sum of £5,000 is asked to be voted in connection with dehydration. Is this expenditure entirely apart from the Deciduous Fruit Board expenditure?

It is quite apart.

The Deciduous Fruit Board has embarked on some wild oat schemes in regard to dehydration built on land not belonging to them, which will call for criticism before we have done with them. Under sub-head B.4, Stock Diseases, there is a considerable amount asked for, £24,700. May we be told whether this is for the purpose of compensating the people who have had their cattle slaughtered?

That is to pay for the police cordons in connection with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

I hope that when there are any similar outbreaks, the Minister will make a little more investigation than has been the case hitherto. I think the compulsory slaughter that took place in Natal is …

The hon. member cannot discuss that matter now.

I do not propose to discuss the matter, sir. I hope that the Minister will submit to the criticism that a good deal of this expenditure is incurred in a very haphazard way. A very large proportion of the people affected do not believe, for a moment, that the outbreak is one of foot and mouth disease. They think it is only a sort of complex affecting a certain number of members of the Veterinary Department that this disease exists, whereas it is not foot and mouth disease at all. Then under sub-head B. 16, there is a revised, estimate of £18,550 in connection with nagana research and prevention. The additional amount asked for is £3,550. I hope we are not going to have a continuation of methods of wholesale game extermination in the forthcoming year. In the opinion of most people in our province, it is reckless and quite unnecessary expenditure. It is really a subsidising of biltong hunters who spend their life shooting species of game that will never be replaceable in South Africa. They are doing a great deal of wanton destruction. I hope we shall hear the last of this with the vote we are asked to approve on this occasion. Then item L.5 deals with inland marketing improvement. This is a very vague heading. Can the Minister tell us whether this includes the efforts that are made by officials to make up for the shortage in meat by going round as vendors of various forms of food in places like Durban and Pretoria; and if this is so, whether the losses that were made and may be made by the department in Pretoria and other centres are covered by this vote, or whether this vote is confined entirely to what is stated here, “Salaries, wages and allowances” for inland marketing improvement. It is well known that a loss is made in connection with these attempts to make good the shortage of food caused by the meat scheme, and I should be glad if the Minister would make some explanation in regard to this matter.

I should like to know what the amount under B.4 “Stock diseases, £24,700,” is for. Does this cover expenses in connection with the enquiry regarding foot and mouth disease in Portuguese East Africa? If this is really the case I want to say that it is intelligible and I should merely like to remove a misunderstanding on the part of the Minister.

It is to cover the costs in connection with the police cordon.

It is I who am speaking now. The Minister wants to give the impression that I and my district and the farmers there do not want to co-operate, and that is not so. Throughout the Union he will not find a body of farmers more willing to co-operate. What I want to come down to is this, the unnecessary expenditure of public money, the squandering of public money that is going on. Never have I nor my district had the opportunity to speak to the Minister face to face on this subject. They have always had an excuse, and I have never had the opportunity to tell the Minister what is going on there. I want, for instance, to mention the case of the natives who are nothing more than cattle herds. The standard rate of pay is £1 10s. and £1 15s., and they are paid £6 10s. and £7 to look after stock. This is what is going on. Then there are all the allowances that are being paid to veterinary surgeons and dip inspectors. People are being brought there who know nothing, who do not even know the symptoms of foot and mouth disease. They have to be shown what the symptoms are. We have to say to them: “This is what you are looking for.” In the meantime the public have been frightened out of their lives and there is nothing in the whole thing. We are prepared to co-operate and to come under quarantine under reasonable circumstances. An army of people have been sent there at terrible expense and the whole of society has been dislocated while the native population is on its hind legs.

Under B.8, “Vaccines and maintenance,” I see there is an additional amount of £31,000. I shall be glad to know what falls under that. I am glad to see that more money is being made available in respect of possible dangers in the future. There is such an important vaccine for example, as that in connection with heart water. If there is one disease in South Africa that has caused more damage than anything else it is heart water. The whole of the Northern Transvaal is subject to the disease, and the mortality figure, especially amongst calves, is enormous, and the ordinary farmer is actually not in a position to bring a well bred bull or cow from any other part of the country. The disease has spread through the districts of Pretoria, Waterberg, Pietersburg, Potgietersrust, Zoutpansberg, and is spreading over the rest of the country. In the Northern Transvaal it already exacts thousands of victims among the cattle and it is spreading over other parts of the country.

Quickly too.

Very quickly, and if it spreads further it will be a very big problem to solve and damage will be caused running into millions of pounds. A few years ago, as far as I can discover from the veterinary surgeons at Onderstepoort, they manufactured a very good vaccine which could be injected as a preventive measure for young calves before a certain age, and in 90 out of 100 cases it was effective. Suddenly Onderstepoort on instructions from the Government, stopped making available this vaccine to farmers. It is Still being made, but purely and simply for the purposes of Onderstepoort itself, and it is no longer being furnished to the farmers. People who are farming on a big scale can make the vaccine themselves, but for the ordinary farmer it is a totally uneconomic undertaking for them to make it themselves. I will not expatiate here on how the vaccine is made. That would take me too far. I will only say that when it was known that there was a reasonably effective remedy available for heart water, a sigh of relief went up amongst the cattle farmers in the Northern Transvaal. The disappointment was just as great when the Government eventually, with a view to war time economy, decided not to make the vaccine available for farmers any longer. As has been stated, only people who farm on a great scale, as for instance Lewis and Marks who farm on an enormous scale, can perhaps make it economically. Now the disease is spreading throughout the length and breadth of the country, and I hope that a portion of this money is intended to make the vaccine again available. I should like to have an announcement from the Government in connection with its plans for the manufacture of vaccine to combat heart water.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has asked me about the increase in the vote for inland marketing. He has suggested that the expenditure may be in connection with the food control organition that is selling food at Durban. That expenditure falls under Food Control and has nothing to do with the item here, which is due largely to an increase in the number of posts as stated in the vote.

What do they do?

They deal largely with the grading of agricultural produce and exporting. Then he has asked a question in connection with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease; he has expressed a doubt about it. What am I to do? Am I to accept the hon. member’s view as to what the disease is, or must I accept the opinion of the scientific investigators at Onderstepoort? They are satisfied it is foot and mouth disease, and surely steps have to be taken to safeguard the position and to see that the disease does not spread from that area into the rest of the Union.

Can the Minister give us any information regarding the mortality figure?

I cannot give that. Steps have been taken to localise the outbreak of the disease in the area where it has occurred.

Is the Minister aware that there is a large class of people who totally disbelieve that it is foot and mouth disease?

Quite a lot of people believe the earth is flat.

I must act on the expert information I have. The hon. member for Pinetown has also referred to what he describes as reckless and unnecessary expenditure in connection with the nagana campaign. He has given no instances. The information I have is that the campaign is progressing very satisfactorily, and that it is giving very good results. It will have to be continued with traps, and destruction of game to bring the disease completely under control.

What about the shooting of the game?

The game are carriers of the disease, and it will have to continue until the disease is under proper control. With regard to locust destruction, the hon. member asked me whether the new method mentioned in the paper today has been tested by the department. The department has found the bait method is a cheap method, but I am prepared to have this new drug investigated to see whether it would be an improvement on the method we are at present using in that connection.

†*Then the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) mentioned the matter of two institutions in connection with dehydration. His allegation is that all the technical work, all the research work in connection with dehydration should be done at Stellenbosch where the raw materials are available and that it should not be done here in Cape Town. He has made allegations of wirepulling between the officials in the two different institutions. The position, as I understand it is that the £5,000 that is being voted here will be made available for Cape Town in connection with dehydration under Dr. Dreosti, in so far as concerns manufacture, something quite different to the research which is being carried on at the Western Province fruit station at Stellenbosch.

It remains wrong to have two separate institutions. They are not doing the research work differently. It is all the one thing.

I shall go further into the matter and make a thorough enquiry. I understand that Stellenbosch is following another direction in regard to dehydration, but I shall go into the whole matter.

Also the question of low temperature.

Yes, I shall go into that. I do not believe that the matter of heart water that has been mentioned by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) falls under this vote. I think the hon. member and I too will have an opportunity to deal with it later.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 20.—“Agriculture (Education and Experiment Farms)”, £16,668,

I should like to have a little information from the Minister in connection with the various agricultural schools. Here we have an increase in connection with each of the agricultural schools, at Elsenburg, Cedara and Potchef stroom. To our bitter disappointment the schools have been closed during the last five years. They have always been a help to the farmers. Now I should be glad to know what this increase implies. We are already in the middle of March. Can the Minister tell us how many students there are already at the schools? It does not assist to place a sum on the Estimates and to approve of it if there are no students; at the schools. From a letter I have received from the Minister it appears clear that the school is mainly intended for returned soldiers. I should like to know whether any of them have yet registered, and whether any of them are actually at the schools.

I am afraid that cannot be discussed now.

I should like to know whether there are students there.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 21.—“Agriculture (General)”, £141,000.

Would the Minister kindly explain the reason for the payment of £3,000 for the loss on a cargo of fruit shipped by the Deciduous Fruit Board. These losses, seem to be of frequent occurrence. One of £28,000 was made not so long ago on a shipment to the United States. We have to bear in mind that our losses over the Deciduous Fruit Board have been considerable altogether. By way of subsidies we have poured down the drain £1,465,000. These losses are becoming monotonous. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the new loss represents.

The other figures are not losses but represent accumulated subsidies paid to the Deciduous Fruit Board. This £3,000 represents interest in respect of payment for a shipment of fruit that was sent just before the outbreak of war to the United States of America in order to try out the possibilities in that part of the world for deciduous fruit. A considerable loss was sustained on this shipment, and the Government decided to make good that loss. A settlement was long delayed and this amount is in respect of interest.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 23.—“Transport”, £9,500, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 25.—“Public Service Commission” £500, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 27.—“Posts Telegraphs and Telephones”, £115,500, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 28.—“Public Works”, £56,775, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 29.—“Social Welfare”, £65, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 30.—“Public Health”, £145,710,

I should like to refer to the amount of £37,360 that is being asked for “Refunds and Advances to Local Authorities and Administrators (Act 36 of 1919)”, and to learn whether this amount is being spent to advantage and whether the public are getting value for the money. Reference is made here to “Other infectious diseases” and I wish to know what infectious diseases the money is being expended upon. I am asking this because there prevails a great deal of concern amongst the general public in reference to the conduct of the Department of Public Health. We have, for instance, had the outbreak of infantile paralysis and, according to Press reports, the medical men maintain that according to their experience the disease has come from America. What precautionary measures are being taken at the airports in connection with the aircraft that arrive here so that no germs are allowed to enter from outside bringing with them infectious diseases. I think the Minister should communicate to us what steps are being taken to combat this Serious disease, infantile paralysis, which fortunately appears to be declining somewhat.

We naturally take a great interest in infantile paralysis, but I do not think it can be discussed now. We are only dealing now under 0.2 with refunds and advances to local authorities under the Public Health Act. That Act prescribes certain scales under which refunds are made to administrators and local authorities in respect of expenses incurred by them in connection with certain diseases.

I should like to know whether this amount refers to the combating of infantile paralysis.

No, not on this. This relates to expenses in connection with combating typhus fever.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 31.—“Mental Hospitals and Institutions for Feeble-Minded,” £49,400, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 32.—“Labour,” agreed to. £49,900, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 33.—“Mines,” £44,650, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 35.—“Deeds,” £3,400, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 39.—“Superior Courts,” £24,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 40.—“Magistrates and District Administration,” £22,787, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 41.—“Prisons and Goals,” £24,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 43.—“Native Affairs, £78,600,

I notice that the amount voted for blind natives is increasing from year to year, so much so that yet again after a short period an extra amount has to be voted. Last year provision was made for £165,000, and now, a comparatively short time afterwards, another £33,000 is being voted, which brings the total for blind natives to almost £200,000. This is apart from the allowances that are paid to aged natives by way of old age pensions. The Minister of Native Affairs can perhaps not say, but possibly the Minister of Finance will be able to tell us what is expended on allowances for European blind, bearing in mind this enormous sum here. In any case, I should like to know why the estimate was so faulty that another £33,000 has to be asked for. Is the case that some disease or other amongst the natives is causing blindness on such a large scale; is its incidence as great amongst natives as amongst Europeans? What is the reason?

Originally the natives hesitated a great deal about coining along and demanding a pension. Now they are beginning to discover that the money is available and the number they have registered under the scheme is 27,000. The grant is not being increased, but a larger number of persons are receiving the pension. That accounts for the amount being higher.

In the same vote, under S. an amount of £14,600 is being asked for natives who rendered service in the last war. Last year we recorded out protest at the large amount that was voted, and now another £14,600 is being asked for. I should like to be informed whether it refers to natives who actually did military service in the 1914-T8 Great War. We warned the Minister that it would run to a big sum, and he gave us the assurance that that would not be the case. Now an additional amount is being asked.

In the Pension Act provision is not made for pensions for natives who did service in the last war. This amount refers only to physically unfit natives who did service in the last war. This money is necessary, because they do not draw a pension under the Act.

And if the disability is in no way connected with military service in the last war?

Every case is investigated.

Is it only given to natives who became physically incapacitated as a result of military service?

Yes, so far as I know.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 44.—“Commerce and Industries”, £2,900, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 46.—“Adjustment of Salaries, Wages and Allowances”, £650,000,

This is a very large amount; I should like to know what it is for.

In introducing the motion for the House to go into Committee I explained that this amount was required as a result of the adoption of the first report of the Centlivres Commission.

We have adopted those proposals in connection with cost of living allowances and the special allowance, and as there is not the time to apportion the amount available between the various departments, we are making provision for a globular amount that will remain under the control of the Treasury in the same way as we did a few years ago in similar circumstances.

Vote put and agreed to.

Expenditure from Loan Funds:

Loan Vote B.—“Public Works”, £18,250, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote C.—“Telegraphs and Telephones,” £90,000,

Does this additional amount signify that we on the platteland who have made such appeals for telephones will now have something done for us?

There will be more than previously.

Loan Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote D.—“Lands and Settlements,” £34,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote T.—“Transport”, £1,500, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported that the Committee had agreed to the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Funds without amendment.

Report considered, and the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure adopted.

Mr. SPEAKER appointed the Minister of Finance and the Chairman of Committees a Committee to bring up the necessary Bill in accordance with the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure as adopted by the House.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE brought up the Report of the Committee, submitting a Bill.