I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill falls quite naturally into two parts. The first part is to give effect to an important agreement entered into by the Union Government with the United Kingdom Government and other Dominion Governments for the future disposal of wool clips and of the accumulated stock of wool. The other part sets up a statutory wool board, a matter which has long been pressed for by wool growers of this country. I proceed to deal with the first part of this Bill, namely, the giving effect of the recommendations of the conference which took place in London from April to May of last year. Before the Government agreed to accept the findings and recommendations of this conference, we decided to follow the path of consultation, full and complete consultation with the interests most vitally affected, and the first step I took was to call the Wool Council together and to place the proposals fully before them. They accepted these proposals unanimously, and thereafter the second step was taken of calling in the executive committee of the National Woolgrowers’ Association and they likewise accepted the scheme fully, and approved entirely of the recommendations of the conference. Thereafter the matter was placed much more widely before the country. I issued a Press statement on 30th August last year explaining the main features of the scheme, and subsequently I went to open the congress of the National Woolgrowers’ Association at Bloemfontein, and there again I dealt fully with the main features of this agreement. For the rest of the conference at Bloemfontein Dr. Neveling, the Secretary for Agriculture, who was the leader of the delegation to London, stayed behind, and he also dealt exhaustively with the whole position. There also the recommendations of the conference were fully and completely and unanimously approved of. I think I could therefore say that the wool farmers of this country are unanimously behind this new wool agreement, to which we seek to give effect in this Bill, and I can only trust that hon. members of this House will show an equal measure of approval of the step now proposed by the Government. I do not think it necessary to go into the reasons which led to the accumulation of wool stocks during the war years, nor need I stress the necessity for arriving at an understanding regarding the disposal of this surplus in conjunction with current clips. I would, however, like to give the House the position as it obtained at the end of last season. The accumulated surplus then amounted to 3,245 million lbs. of wool, or slightly over 10 million bales, which is equal to two years production of the three Dominions together. That alone will indicate to the House that if wool prices were not to fall to uneconomic levels the four Governments had to put their heads together, and arrive at an agreement in connection with the disposal not only of the huge surplus but of current clips as they became available from season to season, and at the conference to which I have already referred as having taken place in April and May of last year in London, they considered the problem. Their report was published as a blue book and has been in the hands of hon. members and it has been before the public now for some time. I therefore propose to deal only with the main features of the report, which we seek to embody in this Bill. The position was that under the present Wool Agreement which, as far as this country is concerned, operated from. 1940, wool was sold to the British Government at a fixed schedule of prices, each producer’s wool being individually appraised to establish its type and yield. The British Government, in turn, sold its wool at a fixed issue price. That system which our farmers became accustomed to in the war years undoubtedly has its advantages, and there have been wool producers who have indicated they would welcome a continuance of this price system in the post-war years. It will therefore be clear that the method of disposal of wool was the first and most important matter with which the conference had to deal, and they went very thoroughly and fully into this position. After doing so and examining all the aspects and all the alternative methods of disposal they came to the conclusion that the system of open auction, the auction system, was the most suitable to recommend in this case, particularly bearing in mind the many individual qualities that wool has and the particular fancies and likes of buyers. It was felt that that system would be most in the interests of both producers and consumers. Once they decided that the auction system should be returned to, it was quite obvious that with this huge accumulated stock of two seasons’ clips—which is equal to about two years full consumption of Dominion wool—it would be necessary to have some measure of price protection; you have to protect sellers on the auction market if you want to prevent prices falling to quite an uneconomic level. This price protection is one of the most important features of the whole arrangement. The conference therefore decided that a joint organisation should be set up to maintain a reserve price for wool, being a buyer of new wool and also a seller of old wool, at not less than the reserve price to be fixed. The question of the disposal of the accumulated stocks over a period of years in conjunction with current clips is however one that depends on the increased consumption of wool. The conference went carefully into this question. They considered the prospects of consumption in the post-war era and they came to the conclusion that in the first two years of the post-war era consumption would be limited by the world capacity of manufacturing machinery, and they also came to the conclusion that a reasonable estimate would be an increase thereafter of some 20 per cent. over pre-war consumption. On that basis hon. members will see that it will take some twelve years approximately to work off the present surplus of Dominion wools. The relative proportions of old wool and new wool which will have to be disposed of from year to year can, of course, only be decided in the light of the circumstances then prevailing. The scheme proposed by the conference envisages all new wool to be offered by auction, and such portion of the new clip buyers are not prepared to purchase at the fixed price will be taken up by the new organisation. If all the wool, however, fetches a price at or above the new price level none of the clips will be purchased by the joint organisation. It is only when the price falls below or does not equal the reserve, that this organisation will itself be a buyer of portions of the new clip at the reserve price. The conference agreed to recommend the setting up of the joint disposals organisation for the purpose of buying and selling wool on behalf of the United Kingdom Government and the Dominion Governments concerned. The main functions of the joint organisation are set out in the conference document which forms a schedule to the Bill, and I do not propose to detain the House in repeating this now. As will be apparent to hon. members, the scheme embodies two very important principles; in the first place there is an open market to which everyone will be free to come and buy our wool; and, secondly, there is a reserve, a minimum price. I think hon. members will agree with me, as the producers themselves who are vitally concerned wete quick to recognise, these two principles make the scheme an attractive and indeed a very acceptable one. This is the more so as the reserve price is to be determined by the governments themselves, which will undoubtedly make for greater stability. The financial basis of the scheme occupied the major part of the deliberations of the conference in London, and it was ultimately settled on the basis of a full financial partnership between the United Kingdom Government and each of the Dminions. The Dominions are to take up 50 per cent. in the capital of the existing stocks of wool; that is, after depreciating it, they take up 50 per cent. of the capital represented in the stock pile, and they have to contribute that capital in equal instalments over four years free of interest. The United Kingdom Government on its part will finance 50 per cent. of all new wool which is to be taken up. The operating expenses of the joint organisation — which will not include interest — are to be borne as to one-half by the industry by means of a levy on all new wool sold, and as to one-half by the organisation itself out of proceeds. The ultimate balance, profit or loss, will be shared equally by the United Kingdom and each of the Dominions concerned. Let me say a word about the South African wool in the stock pile which is held by the United Kingdom Government. As at 30th June last year South African wool in that stock pile amounted to 645,000,000 lb., valued at £36,500,000, and represents 2½ clips in weight. Fortunately the various types were well distributed and the stock pile was then still fairly representative of the Union’s clip. The United Kingdom has written down or depreciated the stock by £4.48 million. I have indicated we take up 50 per cent. of the capital of the stock and we take it up on the basis of the depreciated stock that is to the extent of the depreciation, £4.48 million. The depreciation was done on the basis of a penny per lb. on the better quality wool and 50 per cent. on the poorer quality, on the average about l-5th of the total. In addition to that the United Kingdom Government has agreed to write off the 5 per cent. by which the Union prices have been reduced to bring them into line with the Australian prices. I do not have to go into that again. That point I have made quite clear from time to time, that our own delegation went fully into this matter and came to the conclusion that our wool prices were too high in relation to Australian wool prices, and therefore we had necessarily to take the step of dropping it by 5 per cent. We get the benefit also by getting a writing down of our stock pile by that 5 per cent. as well. The total depreciation therefore amounts to £6.3 million, and in that figure the £21 million in the divisible profits account is also utilised. The position, therefore, is that the total capital of which the Union will have to provide one half will be £30.2 million, and the Union’s half will therefore be £15.1 million. This capital payment is to be made over a period of four years, without interest, but since old wool will have to be sold during this period and half of all the new wool we take up is being paid for by the United Kingdom in terms of the partnership agreement, it will be appreciated by hon. members that not the whole of this £15.1 million will have to be paid in. Money will be coming in over the four years as well as going out, and, as nearly as it could, it is estimated that the net amount the Union Government will have to contribute will be about £10¼ million. I think that in itself is a very substantial step that the Government is taking, namely, being prepared to make an outlay of £10.25 million for the sake of bringing about stability and orderly marketing for our main agricultural product, namely, wool. It is quite true that the Government hopes and expects to get this money back, but it is taking a certain amount of risk in making this outlay. I now come, Mr. Speaker, to the contributory charge which producers will have to pay to meet the operating charges of the scheme, and which will be borne equally between the industry and the Joint Organisation. Interest does not form part of the operating expenses of the Joint Organisation. You will appreciate that on the amount of money the Union Government has to advance, £10¼ million, interest will of course have to be paid, and that will have to be provided for. Further, a reserve should be built up against possible future losses. The producers have shown they fully appreciate that this price stabilisation scheme is to their benefit, and they accept therefore that the general taxpayer should not be called upon to pay this amount, but they themselves should be prepared to pay for this scheme which brings them stability and a reasonable price level. There is one fortunate aspect about this charge which the producers will have to pay, and that is the existence of a margin between the producers’ price and the issue price that the scheme has operated on up till now. That difference amounts to 13 per cent., or just over 1½d. per pound. That amount can be utilised for the purpose of a levy without at present affecting producers’ prices in any way whatever. Depending upon the future trend of wool prices, which naturally will have to be in relation to general commodity prices, that margin will act as a cushion in regard to the reduction of prices, and it is only when the selling prices have to be reduced by the full extent or a considerable part of this margin, that it will be necessary for any levy to come out of the producers’ prices. There is also this observation I want to make, namely, if this margin of just over 1½d. a lb. can remain intact for a few years, we will be able to build up a fund which will make it unnecessary—should it be necessary to have a levy later—for that levy to be anything greater than somewhere about ½d. per lb. I want to repeat the assurance I have already given to the wool producers, and that is that the Government does not intend to make any money at all out of the wool growers. It has guaranteed all the losses, but if any profits shall accrue ultimately, such profit shall, subject to the approval of Parliament, be made available to the wool industry. That is set out in Clause 14 of the Bill. Before I leave the financial provisions of the Bill, I would like to draw attention to Clause 13, which provides for a Treasury guarantee to the Reserve Bank. The whole scheme is to be financed through the Reserve Bank, which is considered not only the most convenient form, but also the most appropriate to the business organisation which is to be established to deal with our wool. I now come, Mr. Speaker, to the setting up of the organisation itself, the constitution and functions of J.O., which it is proposed shall be set up, are set out in the appendix to the conference document which appears in the schedule to the Bill. The Organisation takes the legal form of a private company with an active subsidiary in each dominion. The principal company will have a nominal share capital of eight shares held by the four Governments, and the directors will consist of an independent chairman, who will be appointed jointly by the four Governments; four directors appointed by the United Kingdom Government, two by the Government of Australia, one by the Government of New Zealand, and one by the Union of South* Africa. That representation is based again on the basis of the financial partnership between the United Kingdom and the Dominions. That Government has a 50 per cent. interest with each of the Dominions separately, and, in order to give an equality of representation on the directorate, it has to have the number of directors I have already indicated. The legal documents for the establishment of the J.O. in London, the parent company, are now almost complete, almost in final form. There has been a certain amount of consultation, as hon. members can well understand, and they have now reached a stage very near finality, and I hope the principal company will be registered shortly. Hon. members will note from the Bill, as far as our own local organisation is concerned, it is proposed to appoint six directors, out of whom three will represent our producers. The producers will have an equality of representation on the board of the local J.O. Here again as far as this Bill is concerned I have followed the same path of full consultation, as fully as I could, with the interests vitally concerned. I made a copy of this Bill available to the executive of the National Wool Growers’ Association and they have expressed their views to me. They have indicated to me quite openly that they would have preferred to have had three directors out of the panel of six which the Bill provides for; they wish to have three of the six appointed by themselves. I had a discussion with a deputation from the executive of the association and after discussion they agreed to the provision as it now stands, namely, that I undertake to appoint two out of the panel of six to be submitted by the National Wool Growers’ Association, and that the third producers’ representative is to be appointed after consultation with the National Wool Growers’ Association.

Why then should there be another one?

There are very good reasons for that, but I do not propose to go into that now. I want to tell the House notwithstanding that agreement the chairman of the National Wool Growers’ Association saw me a few days ago, and after further discussion between us I indicated my willingness to reduce the panel for the producers’ representatives from six to four, so that I am now undertaking to appoint two producers’ representatives out of a panel of four and to place the nomination substantially on the same basis in that regard as it is in Australia. That indeed was the point Mr. Moolman, the chairman of the National Wool Growers’ Association, made to me. I agreed that was a reasonable point, and therefore indicated I would be prepared to accept that suggestion, and an appropriate amendment will be moved by me in the Committee stage to bring the Bill substantially into line with the provision of the Australian Act. I am sure that this House will appreciate that the organisation which we are setting up here is to be entrusted with the most important task of marketing our chief agricultural product, and it will handle not only many million pounds of wool but also millions of pounds of money, and for that reason it should be clear to everybody that we ought to get together on the directorate men with outstanding qualities, men with experience and ability and with integrity of character. That, Sir, is my aim in getting together as far as I have a part in it the directorate of this organisation. My aim is to get men of that type, and I am glad to be able to inform the House that as far as the appointment under clause 5 (1) (c) of the Bill is concerned I have succeeded in securing the services of Mr. J. Postmus, the ex-Governor of the Reserve Bank. The other names will be announced in due course. But I am sure we shall finally get first-class men for the purpose of directing the policy and the affairs of this organisation. So much, Sir, for the first and main part of the Bill. I now wish to say a few words about the second part, and that is the establishment of the statutory Wool Board. Hon. members who take an interest in wool will know that the Wool Council we have had up to now is a purely advisory body, and for a long time now wool growers have pressed for a statutory wool board with legal powers, and schemes were submitted from time to time with that object. One of the schemes submitted under the Marketing Act was declared ultra vires because it contained no marketing power. That scheme was put up before I took over the portfolio. After I took over, the second scheme was submitted which evoked a large amount of objection, the National Wool Growers’ Association, it appeared, being on the one side and, on the other, an unorganised section which came to be known as the Protest Committee. They were strenuously opposed to the second scheme. Their opposition was based mainly on the fear that the wide powers of the Marketing Act would be brought into effect as far as wool was concerned without adequate consultation. I do not want to go into the question now as to how far the fear was well founded, but the fact remains the wool growers themselves were split on this vital question. But the main point that interested me in not going forward with a statutory wool board at that stage was that the whole of the post-war picture had not emerged. We had this conference in London about to take place and it was clear to me we ought to wait until the post-war picture emerged much more clearly before we started exerting our influence to create a local statutory wool board. I therefore again got into touch with the National Wool Growers’ Association and made all my views about the matter plain to them. Now that picture has emerged, and we know what the whole set-up is, we know we are going to have a Joint Organisation, with a local organisaiton here, and that body is going to deal with the surplus wool, with the old stocks and the current clips. Therefore, I could see no reason why heed should not be given to the request of the Wool Growers’ Association to have such a board. I may say that the Protest Committee indicated to me they would not mind this wool board provided it was under a special Act, not a scheme under the Marketing Act. They said: Let us have a special Act for wool and bring in wool under that Act. I think it is fair to claim now that both sections should welcome the step under this Bill, to have this wool board set up under a special Act, as is being done here. This proposed wool board will, of course, have no marketing powers. The marketing powers are exercised by the J.O. You cannot have duplication of two bodies doing the same thing. But the powers of this new board are limited to the field of production of wool. They will deal with the promotion of research and the conduct of propaganda for the increased consumption of wool. As its powers are related only to the field of production, it therefore becomes unnecessary to have any interest represented on that board other than producers, so the board will consist of producer representatives and, of course, an official from the Department of Agriculture. The funds of the board will be obtained by means of a levy which is provided for in the Bill. The clause concerned provides that this portion of the levy shall not exceed three-twentieths of a penny per pound of wool, or 3s. 9d. a bale. That is the maximum the levy can reach as far as the statutory wool board is concerned. I would like, Sir, to indicate in conclusion that this Bill creates reasonable price stability on a long-term basis, and sets up an orderly system of marketing, and these are features which are in line with the Government’s general policy in regard to agriculture in the post-war era. If this Bill is passed it will be the first big legislative step translating into actual practice the Government’s policy which was announced in the White Paper laid on the Table of the House last week.

I am really very disappointed at the manner in which the Minister submitted this very important matter to the House. One can see that the Minister knows very little about this subject. That is why he tried to cover everything instead of giving us all the facts. I want to remind the Minister that a short while ago we on this side put certain questions to him as to why certain types of wool were frozen now that the scheme is already in operation. We also asked whether this was the beginning of the open market or not. We still await a reply to that question. The Minister tried to answer my question by making me appear ridiculous. All the Minister succeeded in doing was to evince his own lack of knowledge. There are a few points which are of paramount interest to the wool farmers in connection with this scheme, the first being the question of the open market. In the second place, there is the question of representation on the Council, where the wool farmers want to have the majority. We told the Minister at once that without assurance on those two points, the wool farmers could not approve of any scheme. This whole scheme is one which does not emanate from the wool farmers. It is the Government’s scheme. To start with, the Minister ignored the wool farmers. He sent a delegation to England, accompanied by one wool farmer in an advisory capacity. The National Wool Growers’ Association consists of 27,000 members. In addition to that, there is now another group. I believe it is called the Protest Group. They are the rebels amongst the wool farmers. The Minister also sent one of them to London.

I did not say that.

You told me that and my word is as good as yours. This is a Government scheme. The delegates then returned from England and submitted the scheme to us. I just want to mention a few points in respect of which the Minister was not clear and in respect of which he did not give a clear exposition. He stated that upon the return of the delegation he consulted the Wool Council. Why? This is not the wool farmers’ scheme. For political reasons he consulted the Wool Council in order to get their support. I was one of those who told him that this was the Government’s baby and not the baby of the wool farmers, and that he ought to hold his own baby. I refused to agree to the scheme unless the Minister and the Secretary for Agriculture undertook to recognise the National Woolgrowers as the mouthpiece of the wool farmers. Let the Minister say whether that is so or not.

I shall reply to that.

The Minister must tell us whether the National Woolgrowers’ Association is the mouthpiece of the wool farmers. That is the question to which the Minister should reply. I stated that I would only agree on condition that the Minister convened a meeting of the National Woolgrowers’ Association and submitted this scheme to them. That was done and they were therefore recognised as the mouthpiece of the wool farmers. That is what happened as far as the negotiations are concerned. The National Woolgrowers’ Association then adopted the attitude that they wanted to have a majority on the Council. The Association met and stated that they would support the scheme on certain conditions. The first condition was that the wool farmers themselves would pay a levy. The Minister himself stated that the public should not be asked to pay but that the wool farmers should pay a levy and at the same time build up a reserve fund. That is the reason why the condition was imposed that the National Woolgrowers’ Association must have a majority on the Council. That is the only proposal which has been accepted by the National Woolgrower’s Association up to the present. No other proposal has been accepted, and I want to ask the Minister to obtain the co-operation of the farmers in this respect; to go back to the Woolgrowers’ Association and to give them a majority on the Council, and not to do anything which will take away the rights of these people, because he may be certain that there will be objections if that happens. If the Minister wants this co-operation, let the Council consist of seven or five members, but give the National Woolgrowers’ Association a majority. Furthermore, we ask that this Council be appointed without any interference from the Department or the Minister, that when the woolgrowers nominate three or four persons, their choice will not be subject to alteration. Why should the Minister make any alteration in a matter on which we are agreed? Why must the woolgrowers, the best organised body in South Africa, propose a panel of four? At first he said six, now he says four. The Minister appoints three members and then he tells the woolgrowers that they can nominate a panel of four, two of whom will be elected by him. It seems to me that the whole idea is to deprive the farmers of every vestige of power and to place it in the hands of the Department and the Minister. They are to be allowed to make any arrangement they please. The freedom of the individual taxpayer disappears. The individual has no say in the matter; the Minister decides. It would have strengthened the Minister’s position considerably if he had given the woolgrowers control, but he has not done so. He now states that he himself is going to nominate one other wool farmer in consultation with the wool farmers. Who are they? The woolgrowers have not intimated to the Minister that they accept his plan in connection with these appointments. The wool farmers will have no say in the matter. If the Government wants to adopt that course, let it appoint all the members and let it hold the baby. We tried to co-operate, we did everything in our power to co-operate. I hope the Minister is not going to be stubborn and refuse to make concessions. If the necessary co-operation does not exist there is only one man who is responsible, and that is the Minister, because of the attitude he adopted. Now I want to revert to the past for a moment to the beginning of this wool scheme. The Minister went back to 1940. In 1939-’40 we proposed that there should be an open market plus the British scheme. That brought in £12,000,000 for the wool farmers. The following year the British Government held a revolver at our heads and informed us that Britain wanted to buy the whole clip, that if we did not sell the whole clip to her, she would retire from the market. Our plea was that if the British Government did that, the Union Government should keep the wool and give us an open market. That was our proposal at the time. They then came along and said: “We are giving you the same scheme as the scheme we gave to Australia”. We did not get the guarantee of 10.75d. that was given under the Australian scheme. Some of the people in the department—I do not want to say all of them—are theorists without any practical experience, and they are the people who worked out the type basis scheme. We stated that as things were we would not be able to maintain the basis of 10.75d. Moreover we lost under that arrangement. For two successive years the wool farmers lost £600,000 and £500,000 respectively, because the scheme which they introduced was not the same as the Australian scheme. Who was responsible? We on this side pointed out that we were not getting 10.75d. Eventually the British Government admitted that. The other side of the House did not admit it but the British Government did. The Prime Minister then went to Cairo. He took our advice and co-operated with the wool farmers in Australia. Our representatives in Cairo were obliged to use the same arguments that we on this side used, and they obtained an improvement of 15 per cent. plus 5 per cent. The British Government admitted that we were not getting the same as Australia, and there is no doubt that it was as a result of the advice of this side that that change was brought about. I remember that at the time when I put up a plea for higher prices many members on the other side stated that I ought to be ashamed to ask the British taxpayer to pay more for our wool. But the Australian farmer did not consider sentiment. There should be no sentiment in business. The Australian farmer looked after his own interests, and with the assistance of Australia and this side of the House we got the increased price, but the other side of the House never asked for it. At that time we also warned against a monopoly. We had an excellent example of a monopoly during the war. We entered into a scheme with the British Government to the effect that one-half of the profits made on wool which is sold outside the British Commonwealth would come to us, but we were not going to get any portion of the profit made within the Commonwealth. What happened? The British Government sold wool to America at a much higher price than we were paid. In some cases the price was twice as high as the price we got. But England delivered wool to her own factories at 10.75d. and the whole object was simply to create a monopoly for England after the war or during the war; to get the raw materials so as to be able to put manufactured articles on the market at a time when other countries were unable to do so. We sounded a note of warning because we felt that the only reasonable course was to have an open market. That scheme gave us a profit of £2,250,000. That means that a profit; of £4,500,000 was made by the British Wool Commission on wool sold outside the Commonwealth under the British scheme. The wool which was exported from this country weighed 315,000,000 lb. On that a profit of £4,500,000 was made. When one takes the weight of the wool that was sold through the British Wool Commission one finds that it works out at between 11,000,000,000 lb. and 12,000,000,000 lb., and converting that into profit one finds that we in South Africa lost something like £16,000,000. In addition to that, we gave Great Britain a monopoly. While this scheme was in the hands of England, she tried every possible means to starve the markets of Europe. There were certain parts of the world to which we could have sent our wool during the war as well as after the war. After the war there was a very big demand for wool in Greece. They wanted wool because the Greek factories had not been damaged, and Greece manufactures 80 per cent. of her own clothing. The British Government stated that there was a shortage. Just imagine that. There was an accumulation of 11,000,000 bales, but Greece was told that there was a shortage. Eventually they gave Greece 500 bales of wool for all her factories. But that is not all. In recent years there has been a very great demand for wool in Italy. 90 per cent. of the factories in Italy were not damaged. Italy buys something like 600,000 bales of wool every year. The Italian wool factories begged for a small quantity of wool. They were told that there was not a surplus but a shortage of wool. While there was an accumulation of 11,000,000 bales of wool they were told that there was a shortage. What happened then? Italy had to do something for herself and she proceeded to form a sort of organisation and to divide the small quantity of available wool, and today the price of type 64 wool is no less than 600 lire per kilogram, or 13s. per lb. in grease. The object of the whole scheme therefore was to give England a monopoly and to enable England to recover and to conquer markets, while wool was withheld from Italy which provides the Balkan countries, and from Greece which also processes wool on a considerable scale. Britain was and is still building up a monopoly. Our wool farmers then had to decide what we were going to do. We had no alternative but to accept this agreement in principle. But I want to make it clear that this agreement was not brought into being as a result of the efforts of the Union Government; it is the work of a handful of producers, a number of farmers, who were firmly in favour of an open market. The whole scheme nearly failed, but it is due to a number of Australian farmers and a few farmers in South Africa that it was brought into being. They realised the danger of a monopoly, and in this way the scheme came into being, and it was decided to buy back from the British Government one half of the wool so as to be able to get an open market. England is in need of money today, and if it had not been for that fact and the further fact that she needed this £90 million or £80 million, England would never have agreed. England needed this money, and was therefore forced to accept this scheme. But the scheme was based on free trade. It was based on an open market—an open market with a minimum basis. I do not agree with the fixing of a minimum price for our wool. I shall tell you why. It was argued that the Australian wool was lighter than our wool, and that New Zealand’s wool was also lighter, and that our clean yield was less than theirs. The first scheme was based on the type basis; the new scheme is based on the clean yield. It was then argued that the price to be paid to South Africa should be 5d. lower. But I am afraid that our representatives forgot to advance one important argument, namely, that in South Africa we grow 97 per cent. fine quality wool, i.e., merino, and only 3 per cent. cross-wool, while Australia grows 77 per cent. merino and 23 per cent. crosswool, and New Zealand 97 per cent. crosswool and only 3 per cent. fine wool. One cannot therefore make a comparison of this kind. But it was then agreed that there would be a reduction of 5 per cent. in the price of South African wool. What did the Government do, however? The Government had to deal with the British Wool Commission, and it allowed that body to reduce the price of our wool by 5 per cent., but whereas 5 per cent. was being deducted from the selling price, the Government failed to see that the selling price remained at the price which obtained during the war period. The wool farmers are getting less. America wants to buy as much as she can. America immediately placed an order to buy 80,000 bales of wool. Spain came along and bought as fast as she could; Sweden bought. They were prepared to pay this price for wool. The buyers told me that 10 per cent. or 15 per cent., or even 20 per cent., did not make much difference to them. Why did the Union Government allow the British Wool Commission to reduce the price? Why should the farmers of South Africa hand over 2½ per cent. of their money to the British Wool Commission as profit? Why this negligence? It is due to the fact that the people who dealt with it did not understand their work. But that is not all. The Government, together with the British Wool Commission, allowed certain types of wool to be frozen as far as America, Spain and Sweden were concerned. Is that an open market? Is it to be wondered that the people are distrustful? From the very start we have no control; the wool farmers have no control over their own product. Why were these types frozen? It created suspicion. One cannot get away from the fact that the British Wool Commission was buying up some of the accumulated wool —the better qualities—and as a result of the freezing of certain types there was no open market. That caused a shock not only to the wool farmers, but also to foreign buyers. I was approached by wool buyers from America and other countries, and I was asked whether we called this an open market. I had no alternative but to go to Pretoria and tell the Minister about it. When I arrived there, I found that neither the Minister nor his Department knew what was happening. That is what causes misgivings amongst the wool farmers. We then insisted on appointing the Joint Council without delay, so that a stop could be put to this sort of thing. Two days ago I received a’ letter in which I was informed that at last a stop has been put to the freezing of certain types. If we had not spoken, if we had not protested, that would still have been the position today. I have before me a document which indicates what the true state of affairs is. There is much less wool in South Africa today than we are told. What has happened from the time the wool was frozen up to the present? I ask the Minister to give us some explanation. How many bales of wool have been bought by the British Wool Commission for their own people from the time the types were frozen up to the present? He ought to know. It is our wool and our money. We must have an explanation. Take East London, for example. There are still 300,000 bales which have not yet been sold, and that includes stock pile wool, 114,000 bales of new wool and a little karakul wool. What has happened in the meantime to the wool which accumulated there? We want to know whether the British Wool Commission, in withholding the wool so that they themselves could buy it, did not commit a crime towards the wool farmers not only in South Africa but throughout the world. That is not an open market. I hope the Minister will tell us what happened. Now we come to the appointment of the Council. That is an important matter when we consider whether or not we can support the scheme. Will the farmers have any say on the Council? Is it going to be a political council? The least the Minister could have done for the wool farmers was to see that they had a majority. The Minister cannot say that the executive committee of the National Woolgrowers’ Association is satisfied with the Minister’s plan. But I want to refer to something else which happened during the war and which caused the people to distrust schemes of this kind. During the war the British Wool Commission did not buy our skins. There were three firms which had a monopoly of the skins, and they bought these skins for a mere song. At the time the wool farmers begged the Government to introduce a measure of control over the skins. That was not done. But do you know what happened? The speculators came along—I could give their names—and bought the skins and sent them to certain farmers, and those farmers sheared the skins and sold the wool to the British Wool Commission. That type of thing does not breed confidence. Originally when the Minister introduced the scheme he stated that this was a scheme for the farmers. He promulgated regulations to prevent speculation in wool. Within two months the regulation to prevent speculation in the sale of wool was withdrawn. That gave us a shock. Why should the speculators intervene? Why should wool be sold in this way to the British Wool Commission? When this type of thing is done one becomes distrustful. We feel that in the circumstances we cannot turn down the principle of the agreement which was entered into in London, because we are bound and we have no alternative. That is not the question today. But we ask the Minister to listen to an organised body such as the National Woolgrowers’ which has made a name for South Africa throughout the world. The Minister must not push them aside and take the advice of a handful of people who are not favourably disposed towards the National Woolgrowers. If the Minister listens to the organised wool farmers there will be no difficulties. But in every case so far he has not heeded the advice of the farmer; he has ignored the farmer’s advice. The price which we are getting today is, of course, better than we would have got under the British scheme. Our wool farmers also made mistakes. We did not know what would become of our wool after the war, and we suggested that Britain should take our wool for a certain period after the war. Unfortunately we did not say at what price. The British Wool Commission was trying to reduce the price of our wool to 10.75d. That would have meant an enormous loss to us. The price of wool, comparatively speaking, is lower today than that of any other primary product. The wool index is something like 120. The wool farmers are getting the minimum for their product today although their expenses have risen enormously. The Minister must not forget that before the war we got 8.2d., but that was based on a £ which was worth 15s. Today we are getting 12d., but the £ is hardly worth 8s. 6d. The purchasing power of our money is no more than that today. Our expenses have increased enormously. The wool farmers are today abandoning wool farming and switching to cross breeds and meat production. The wool industry is languishing. Whereas we had an average of 240,000 bales or sheared 240,000,000 lbs. of wool, our clip has fallen to 200,000,000 lbs. There is a great demand for fine wool, but we are afraid that the price we are getting today is not sufficient and that there will be speculation in our wool. The appointment of the Council in England is, in my opinion, the wrong procedure. On the main Council South Africa has one representative, New Zealand one, Australia two and England four representatives. Who is going to be the chairman? It will probably not be an impartial chairman. England will have the final say and will, of course, look after her own interests first. She will starve the factories of other countries—of Germany and France and Italy —so as to prevent them from getting wool and conquering the markets. In this way South Africa’s market will be restricted and eventually by means of this monopoly England will reduce the price of our wool to a lower level.

The English wool farmers are getting more.

The English wool farmer rejected this scheme from the very start because he did not get enough under this scheme. And what has become of the profit that we were to get on wool sold outside the Commonwealth? I have always said that we would not get anything. What is the position at present? This sum of £2,250,000 has been thrown in with the war supplies. It is not even enough to compensate for the depreciation in wool. The depreciation is more than £3,000,000 but the same wool is still being sold on the basis on which it was sold during the war. Why are we now called upon to pay more than 1d. per lb. in respect of depreciation? The old wool is being sold on the old basis and we are called upon to pay for depreciation. The old wool is selling very rapidly. In that respect we did bad business. We got nothing out of this £2,250,000. Now we find that there is no depreciation and that the old wool is being sold at the same price. In other words, we gave this money away. These are my main objections to this scheme. Our accusation against the Government is that it has broken its word to the wool farmers of South Africa and of the world from the very beginning and that it allowed the British Wool Commission to prevent an open market. It affected America particularly. During the war America bought more than 300,000,000 lbs. of wool. America is now getting a slap in the face. America is being driven out of the market. We protest most strongly against that. If America or any other country wants to buy in this country they should be given an opportunity to buy our wool on an equal footing. There is another thing to which we object, and that is that the entire credit is to be arranged through the Bank’ of England. Why cannot the purchasers buy direct from South Africa and make arrangements through our own banks to buy here? I recently went to Port Elizabeth and there I met a number of buyers. They wanted to buy wool for £1,000,000 but everything has to go through the British Wool Commission. They control the whole matter. Other countries are not allowed to join the organisation and to buy in our markets. The whole object is to retain a monopoly and people are being driven away from our markets. Wool growers today are not as they were 20 years ago. We read and see things and think and when such things are done, we lose our faith, and I feel that is one of those mistakes that the Government has already, before this scheme has been properly put into operation, allowed to be made. We asked the Minister to tell us whether he gave Mr. Ginnes — I will call him by his name—the right to freeze those types, in order that America could not obtain that type of wool. I want to know from the Minister whether the Union Government gave him the right to do that? If not, then he has acted ultra vires, and then they have damaged the scheme thereby. I hope the Minister will give us an explanation on those lines. We feel that an international body should be convened such as we have heard of in the Atlantic Charter. We heard that wars were still being fought because raw materials were not distributed evenly. We ask that all those people who are concerned with wool should be united in this scheme in order to ensure that the one or the other country is not neglected, or that the one or the other country does not have a monopoly, but that our wool shall be used in all parts of the world and in that manner we shall be able to meet the competition of synthetic wool. But if we are going to create a monopoly for certain countries our scheme will be a complete failure. I now want to say a few words about the statutory powers of the Wool Board. We laugh when we think of these so-called statutory powers for the Wool Board. Why does any fear exist for these people? I want to know from the Minister what powers we have today in addition to the powers we had when we were an advisory body. We have merely been allowed to raise a levy on our own people. We have only been allowed to tax ourselves and to look after ourselves, but what has he done? He has not given the Wool Board the right to dispose of their funds as they like. The Mealie Control Board has the right to spend their money as they wish, but we wool growers, the best organisation in the country, are treated like a lot of school children. They say to us: All right, we will give you the right to collect money, but the Secretary for Agriculture will have control over the money. Are we a lot of school children that the Secretary for Agriculture should have control over our money? We are tired of this sort of departmental interference in our affairs. We are tired of this business of the Department continually meddling in our affairs. It is our money. It is not the Minister’s money, neither is it the money of the Secretary for Agriculture. It is the wool growers’ money. In heaven’s name, give those people the right to spend the money as they think best. We are getting tired of this sort of bureaucracy in which our wool growers have no say. Here we find a so-called board. Two of the members are appointed by the unorganised farmers. Who are the unorganised farmers? To whom must they be responsible? Usually they are Government supporters, who will speak just as the Government wants them to speak, and the Government will put those people on the Board to say “Yes” to everything they do. The wool growers feel that we can do without these unorganised farmers on the Boards, that we are quite capable of running our own business, and I hope that the Minister will appoint people to this Board who represent all the wool growers, that they will handle the money of the wool growers, that they will be able to do their work without interference from the Department and the Minister, that they will be able to do what they think is the best for their interests. But we are still concerned with this question of management bodies. Here we have another Board of Management where the Minister and his Department are again interfering, just as in the past. The wool growers put their case; the Minister comes along and does something else. The Minister has said here that he explained the matter to the National Wool Growers’ Association, but in the past he has always fled from the wool growers. Two or three times the wool growers invited him to attend their congresses. Once the Minister sent me to explain his scheme to the wool growers. He said to me: Tell them that if they adopt this scheme, I will give them legislative power. A number of people behind the scenes, of course, objected to this, and he had to withdraw his words after he had made a fool of me by sending me to the wool growers. We want an honest Minister. We do not want a Minister who stabs wool growers in the back. When he called me out here and gave me his word, I thought that I was dealing with a Minister of Agriculture upon whom the wool growers could rely. I did not think that I was dealing with that type of man. I took him at his word, and I took the Secretary for Agriculture at his word. The wool growers adopted the scheme unanimously, and the Minister did not have the courage to put the scheme through. Now he comes along with a feeble scheme which is worthless. We have nothing to do with the marketing of wool; we can only use the wool funds to pay the National Wool Secretariat, to make propaganda and to do research work, but even there the Minister has left us hopelessly in the lurch. Australia realised what wool was worth to her. The Australian Government gave the wool growers of Australia a subsidy on the £ for £ basis, and the Australian wool growers raised a levy on themselves for £300,000 and the Australian Government gave them another £300,000, because it realises that wool is the life-blood of Australia. What has been done in this country? Not a penny is given to the wool growers. I would like the Minister to tell me where anything is given. [Time limit extended.] I shall be brief. The Minister and his Department have in the past always put a spoke in our wheels as far as our own research work was concerned. In any other country in the world, research work is done by the State. In this country, research is done with the wool growers’ own money. At Onderstepoort we paid thousands and thousands of pounds for buildings. We spent money to have young men trained, and now the Government comes along and tells us: Out of this levy which you pay, you must please give me £5,000 per annum in order that this research work may be done. Is that the action of a Government who has any sympathy with the wool growers? It surely is the action of a Government who has no sympathy with the wool growers. I ask the Minister now to see to it that this £5,000 for which the wool growers had to work hard—the wool growers have lost thousands of sheep—will be paid by the Union Government, and not by way of a levy imposed on the wool growers. It is the duty of the Government. We went further. At Grootfontein we erected a beautiful laboratory because we felt that it was not enough to work on theory alone. One must also do practical work, and at Grootfontein the wool growers erected a laboratory which cost them £17,000. We felt that there was too much theory, that the research with regard to wool could be done at Onderstepoort, but that animal husbandry, together with experiments, had to be done in the area where the practical sheep farmer lives, and we now ask the Minister not to be so stingy as not to give us proper apparatus and proper staff at Grootfontein. Let us help them. Now we ask the Minister please to allow us to use even the money which we collect, and not to have to give a portion thereof to the Government. We ask the Government to help us in the same way as the Australian Government is helping the Australian wool growers. During the drought some farmers lost hundreds and thousands of sheep. Farmers who had a few thousand sheep today have only a few hundred left. Do not let the wool grower have to carry all these burdens. It is also the duty of the Government to look after these people who have done so much to build up this country. The amount invested in sheep farming in South Africa is £160,000,000, and what revenue do the wool growers derive from this large capital investment? Their income from wool amounts to a mere £12,000,000. No person will tell me that this is a profitable return on such a huge capital investment. We ask the Government to bear the wool growers in mind. Consult practical people. The practical people are the people who will give you the right advice. Listen to the farmers. I would not say that all the officials in the Department are theorists only, but there are many farmers who could help them, and if the Minister would associate himself more with the practical farmer, his whole position would be made much easier for him.

On this red-letter day for the wool farmers of South Africa, which will go down in history as the day on which the wool growers received their Magna Charta, the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) comes along with a tirade such as we have seldom heard in this House, and it is especially intended to belittle the hon. Minister of Agriculture and, I even go further, to insult him. It is not the first time today that we have heard this tirade, but ever since the Minister of Agriculture has taken over the portfolio and tried to do everything in his power for the good of the country. Hon. members on the opposite side have tried to belittle him and to kick him out. But in spite of all this, he has emerged from these attacks covered with glory and he has proved that he is a Minister of Agriculture who is in every respect worthy of having control over our industry. The Minister has proved, although he is not a sheep farmer himself, that he is very well informed. This Bill which is being introduced here today by the Minister and which is being opposed by the hon. member for Cradock, this Bill, I say, will go down in history as the Magna Charta of the wool grower. The hon. member for Cradock took exception to the appointment of the Board of Directors. I can understand that very well. Our Treasury is responsible for maintaining this scheme and for the financial side of the matter, and for that reason I feel that the Minister is quite justified in taking this step to appoint the directors by means of a panel introduced by the wool farmers from which he can make his selection. If we look into the Wool Council and see how the executive of the National Woolgrowers’ Association and even the executives of the various unions, for instance the Cape Province Union, have been constituted, there is reason for the people in South Africa to be concerned over the constitution of these bodies. Some years ago when the hon. member for Cradock was chairman of the Woolgrowers’ Association of the Cape Province, secret meetings were held in Port Elizabeth to make sure that he would be elected as chairman the next day. Even in the district of Cradock, where there is one wool growers’ association, they saw to it that six branches and twelve farmers were sent as delegates. That is sufficient proof of the manner in which he arranged this matter. It has been alleged here that the wool growers lost £600,000 per annum because we were paid too little for our wool. The hon. member over there was in favour of our wool being sold to Japan and, in addition, that it should have been given to them on credit.

England also sold it to Japan.

England bought for cash. I would like to know from the Opposition what would have happened to the wool growers in South Africa if their spiritual allies, the Japanese and the Germans, had won the war.

America would have bought our wool.

The hon. member over there would not have been in the position then nor in this House to receive an extension of time when he makes a speech here. He says it is nothing. Is it then nothing that the wool growers of South Africa are today prospering as they have never prospered before? That is the proof. If a sheep farm comes on the market today the price is twice as much as before the war. As a result of what? As a result of the excellent prices we have received for our wool from Britain, the country which they would have liked to have suffered defeat and even to have been exterminated. The hon. member for Cradock spoke in an insulting manner of the wool farmers of twenty years ago.

He says that the wool growers of today are able to read.

I think he can take many of those farmers of twenty years ago as an example; farmers who, under much more difficult circumstances than exist today, paved the way for the wool growers of South Africa. Instead of talking disparagingly of them, he should be grateful to those farmers. He referred to the unorganised wool growers. How many wool growers are organised and how many are not organised? He talks such a lot about the excellent organisation of the wool growers. Let me tell the hon. member that there are many wool growers in South Africa who do not belong to wool growers’ organisations, farmers who are an example to others and whom we can respect.

Are you also one of them?

I belong to the organised wool growers, but I am not blind to the mistakes of the organisation, and when it is necessary I oppose them as I opposed them when they wanted legislative power for the wool council which I regarded as not being capable of passing legislation in respect of the products of the wool grower in South Africa. I state emphatically that by misleading them they managed to get 5,300 wool growers to vote in favour of the granting of legislative power. 1,800 wool growers voted against the proposal. They told the wool growers that they should vote for it because it did not mean very much. They told the wool growers: You need not be afraid to give us these powers; we will come back to you when we want to make a change. A protest committee which was formed obtained legal opinion, and it appeared that once legislative power had been granted to them, they could pass any legislation. But did they inform the wool growers to that effect? No, they proceeded. But I say that notwithstanding the fact that they did everything in their power to get all the wool growers on their side, they could only get 5,300 farmers to support their standpoint. As I have said, today is a red-letter day in the history of the wool growers of South Africa, because now the wool grower gets what many of us on this side of the House have long been pleading for. Did the hon. member for Cradock, who is one of the heads of the Wool Growers’ Association in this country, make any effort to get the wool growers to believe that it is in our interests not to isolate ourselves but to co-operate with Australia and New Zealand, the great wool-producing countries, and if necessary, even with other wool-producing countries in the world. It is only in that manner that, in difficult times, we will be able to cope with depressions and similar difficulties with which the farmer is faced. Now we are assured of a steady existence. We are assured of a steady market for a very long time I hope. I would like to say this, that it is in* everybody’s interests that a consistent price should be assured to the wool growers, because otherwise it would mean that with the good prices obtained today for out meat—once again under the able guidance of our Minister of Agriculture —a large number of our wool growers would change over to breeding sheep for the meat market, that is to say, they will go in for the Afrikaner type and cross-breeds. That is why I say that it is in the interests of the country that a steady price should be assured for our wool. I would just like for a moment to return to the point about the legislative power given to the Wool Council of South Africa which the hon. members on the opposite side asked for; because as I have said, we would have been at the mercy of farmers who were not able to make a success of their own business.

I have never yet heard such a poor speech.

What preceded this legislation? After September, 1939, we had an open market and an agreement was made with England that everything which was not taken up in the open market, would be taken up by Britain at a minimum price and this resulted in England having to take a poor quality wool and a poor type of wool, wool which would become very poor in quality and value. Subsequently Britain said that she was prepared to buy our wool at a fixed price, determined according to type, for the duration of the war and for one year thereafter. It was at that time, as I have said, that the hon. member for Cradock advocated that we should sell our wool to Japan and even on credit. I would like to know how that hon. member who is looking so prosperous now, would have looked if we had sold our wool to Japan on those conditions. At a later date our price was revised and we received 20 per cent. more for our wool than we were receiving at that stage. Once more they shouted from the housetops that the improved price had been granted at the insistence of the Opposition.

You opposed it.

That is the type of statement we get from that hon. member, statements which are not supported by the facts. Our Government has always been alert as regards the position of the wool growers of South Africa and they never failed to do what had to be done. I would just like to mention a few points which appear in the Wool Bill itself and that is in connection with our levy. The Board would be empowered to raise a levy of three-twentieths of a penny for local purposes. That works out at 3s. 9d. for a bale of wool. I must honestly say that the wool growers of South Africa will not be satisfied with that.

That is the maximum.

Thank you. Then we would like to know what the other costs in connection with this scheme are. There are rumours that it will amount to approximately one and a half pennies per lb. I would just like to tell the Minister that as our warehouses have now been completed and as the apparatus has been installed, I think that this charge of one and a half pennies is far too high and I hope that it is not true that that is the figure contemplated. And then I would like to ask whether it would not be possible not to deduct it from the price of the farmer, but to add it to the price paid by the buyer. In practice it may not make a very big difference but it would in any case give more satisfaction. Then just a few words about the funds. The funds under the control of the Secretary for Agriculture are deposited at the Reserve Bank. I would like to know what rate would have to be paid for overdrafts and whether interest will be paid on money held as a credit balance. These are questions which the wool growers would like to have answered. I would also like to know whether any interest will be payable on the reserve funds. I am convinced that the accumulation of wool which exists and which it is expected will be disposed of within ten years, will be absorbed by the market within five years and I expect that this scheme will work very smoothly and that it will not present much difficulty. Then there is section 17 which is divided into paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), which provides that wool can be withheld, that farmers can be prohibited from sending their wool to the market. I must say, candidly, that there are farmers who are most perturbed about this section about the withholding from and the sending of wool to the markets. In the past the farmer sent his wool to the market selected by him and if it means that in terms of this section, together with its sub-sections, it is made possible for the wool growers to be told where they have to send their wool, then I must candidly say that it will meet with much opposition and I hope that at the Committee stage the Minister will amend this section in such a way that the wool grower will retain the right and the choice to send his wool to the market he prefers. With these few words I would like to thank the Hon. the Minister and the Department of Agriculture and the Government for all the work they have done in connection with this matter and I want to give the Minister the assurance that the large majority of the wool growers of South Africa are solidly behind him in carrying out the terms of this Bill; and I honestly think that many wool growers would not only have been disappointed but would have been ashamed by the speech made by the hon. member for Cradock.

This scheme was described by the last speaker as the Magna Charta of the wool grower, and he hailed this as the red letter day on which it was introduced here. When we think of a Magna Charta we have in mind something permanent. He admits that this scheme will remain in existence only so long as there is old wool and so long as the J.O., the Joint Organisation, is in existence, and we on this side hope that the accumulated wool will be disposed of in the near future and that we will be rid of that Joint Organisation. At the same time, I am of the opinion that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) introduced a somewhat unfortunate spirit into the debate when he made such a violent attack on the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker); and I would just like to tell him that, notwithstanding that attack, we still regard the hon. member for Cradock as one of the authorities on the wool question today.

Shame!

Is the Minister not of that opinion?

I would rather reply in person to what you said.

After all, when a delegation had to go to London to discuss the matter, the hon. member for Cradock was one of the persons who enjoyed the confidence in general of the wool growers, and I think it was one of the greatest disappointments to the wool growers when they heard that he was not going.

They did not elect him in the first instance.

They elected me. You kicked me out. The Wool Board elected me.

We would rather leave it to the hon. Minister and the hon. member for Cradock to fight that out. But I would still say I have confidence in the hon. member for Cradock as regards the wool position, and I think he is in a strong position to defend our wool growers, and I am not at all sure that our wool position is not in need of improvement under this Bill. We hope that is not the case; but in view of what has happend in the past, we are inclined to be somewhat anxious.

Then move that the Bill be withdrawn.

We have never asked for the Bill to be withdrawn, but we insist on the right to criticise this Bill here. If that right were to be denied us, I am afraid we will land up in an impossible position. It is not worthy of my hon. friend to suggest to me that I should move that the Bill be withdrawn. We do not want the Bill to be withdrawn; but when the wool scheme was announced in this House we uttered a warning and criticism, and we want to do that in regard to this Bill, too. I want to join the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) in emphasising that the Minister should endeavour to obtain the co-operation of the wool growers.

That I have.

If the Minister has that, he at least has the prospect of making a success of it. If he lacks that co-operation, I am afraid this scheme will be a failure.

It will be easy to obtain that co-operation if you would only assist.

Now I want to bring the Minister in for a little bit of criticism. It is today exactly eight days since this Bill came into our hands. It is becoming the practice of Ministers to introduce legislation of the utmost importance at the very last moment and to ask us to deal with those Bills forthwith.

The whole scheme was announced long ago.

That is where my criticism comes in. We have hardly had this Bill in our hands for eight days, and already we are being asked to deal with it. I think it was in September when the Minister announced his scheme to the Wool Congress at Bloemfontein. The details of the Bill could not be given in the announcement, but the Minister should have had all the details of the Bill at that time. Long before then the delegation had returned from London, and they must have reported to him. He must have had the draft of the Bill at the time, but he produced the Bill a week later only. This Blue Book which contains the report on the Wool Conference in London appeared on 13th January—not quite two months ago.

Surely that is long enough.

We farmers take a long time to study, and we do so slowly. The Blue Book was published in January. The Minister must have had the draft Bill at the time; but at the very last moment the Bill was submitted to us, and we have to deal with it straight away. That is expecting rather too much. If a young man would take the advice of an old man, it is this: Let him see to it that this does not happen in future, and that measures such as these are placed in our hands in good time to allow us to study them. In dealing with a Bill such as this Wool Bill, we should not only consider the Bill, but we should also enquire into its precedents and assess its possible effects. It is extremely difficult for us to do all these things when a Bill is placed into our hands at such a late date. The Minister announced the scheme in September. I read that in the newspaper. I had to rely on a newspaper report. The report of the Wool Conference in London appeared in January, and now we have to deal with this Bill. I consider it very unfortunate that we received the same treatment when the original agreement was concluded. It was announced by the Minister’s predecessor in a speech on the wireless that he was proceeding with such a scheme. It took a long time before it was in the hands of the farmers and before they knew exactly what it was going to be. The Bill provides that wool grown between September, 1939, and subsequent years—it does not say until when —will be purchased by the British Wool Commission. The present wool contract with Great Britain came into operation in 1940. I have the contract in front of me. It was signed by Mr. Attlee and Mr. Waterson in February, 1942, only two years later. There was a certain set-back on the market; matters were unsettled until the difficulty was finally disposed of and the project got under way. We did not know from day to day where we stood. It was a very unfortunate position. I am afraid we still do not know exactly where we stand. In the agreement provision is made for a division of the profits. Separate accounts had to be kept by the Government of the United Kingdom of all profits and losses on the sale of wool; accounts had to be kept for wool-sales outside the United Kingdom, excluding wool washed in South Africa, etc. We are still being kept in the dark and I would like to put the Minister a direct question: Has any return been received from the British Government advising us what has become of the wool; has any return been received in respect of wool sold outside the United. Kingdom and of the price realised? In the agreement it clearly says that separate accounts have to be kept. I have the agreement here if the Minister has not got it in front of him. I think the least they owed him was to submit a return of the wool sales and of the prices realised. I think we have every right to expect that. It is our duty to go into the matter thoroughly. We have the right to criticise, and if we are of the opinion that there is any danger we should point it out. Perhaps they are not real dangers and merely fictitious dangers but we have every right to point them out to the Minister. The Minister should accept that in the spirit in which it is being done and not in a quarrelsome spirit but in a spirit which will help him to make a success of the agreement and of the Bill. Of course we find that where a contract has been entered into with the British Government and where wool was accumulated in our country, we have to shoulder a certain responsibility. Perhaps that is causing us some anxiety. We know what the position was after the first world war. The market collapsed and we hope that this agreement and this Bill will prevent that. We still remember what the position was at that time. We had to seek assistance from other countries to take our wool in exchange for goods. We had to enter into bartering agreements. Will this agreement safeguard us against that? We hope it will have that effect, but will it? Will we be able to count on the British Government to stand by us if matters go wrong? We are now assuming liability in regard to wool accumulated in our country and for which we are not responsible. We have entered into an honourable agreement with England to purchase the wool from us. Has England done her utmost best to secure a market for that wool or has she failed to do so? However it may be, she is responsible for the accumulation of wool in our country and we are now being asked, although we are the sellers, to be responsible for an article which we have already sold. If there are any losses we have to share in those losses. It is not right in principle. When a producer has sold his product we cannot expect him to be responsible when there is an accumulation of those articles and a loss is sustained in consequence. During that period we had no say in the matter of the sale of our wool. As I said, we disposed of our wool under the agreement. We had to sell it to the British Government. The British Government did not dispose of it, and now we are expected to help carry the responsibility. As the hon. member for Cradock rightly observed, the Joint Organisation was established to dispose of the wool. It is concerned solely with the disposal of the wool. That is where our criticism comes in—have we enough say in that organisation to look after our interests and to see that our interests are properly safeguarded, especially where we have to assume this responsibility which does not belong to us? We would like to know what quantity of wool has been disposed of to, say, America; we want to know whether there has been any demand for our wool. The hon. member for Cradock has pointed out that Italy and Greece wanted to buy our wool and they said we did not have the wool. To whom did they sell? Did Spain buy from them; at what price and what was the nature of the transactions? We want to know about all these matters so that we can know whether we can have confidence in this new organisation. I know it is essential to have everything above board in order to avoid suspicion at a later date. We are establishing a joint organisation and are vesting certain powers in it. It can buy and sell movable property. We practically empower it to trade in this country. What are the things they are going to buy and sell? We are putting this question to the Minister and we will be very glad if the Minister would reply. We want to co-operate; but let these matters be brought completely in order so that we can feel quite free to co-operate. What proof is there that this sales system might not exist for four or five years only? We would like to know how long the system can continue and at what rate they expect this business to proceed. Then we come to the Wool Board. What are the powers of the Wool Board? It also has the right to buy and sell movable and immovable property. Is there no danger of overlapping? They both have the right to buy and sell movable and immovable property. Where it is going to end? Are they not going to be burdened with certain assets which may be necessary today but which may in time to come become superfluous? The hon. member for Cradock protested against the composition of the Joint Organisation. I trust the Minister will use his influence in the interests of our wool growers and if need be sacrifice other interests for the sake of our own. In conclusion just this: An attempt has been made to establish a wool factory in South Africa. I want to emphasise that we should at least see that out interests are also promoted in that respect. In Australia at least 350,000 bales of wool were used for manufacturing purposes before the war. During the war they did not neglect their interests and the amount increased—500,000 bales were used for manufactures in Australia. There seems to be a notion in this country that we should look after the interests of overseas countries instead of looking after our own. We can use much more of our wool for manufacturing purposes in our own country if only we want to. We are manufacturing a few blankets and that is as far as we get. Let the Minister at least take the wool growers into his confidence and keep them advised of all the developments which are taking place.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to follow on the lines adopted by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). I was of opinion that we came here to make the best of the future rather than to fling across the floor of the House recriminations and accusations going back to as many years as one can remember. I feel it my duty, in the first instance, to express my gratitude and appreciation to the Minister in introducing this Bill which is designed to bring about an orderly system of marketing. It is also designed to lift from the market an accumulation of wool which, if not controlled, would bring chaos into the wool market. It goes further than that. It is actually to establish a market for South Africa on a fixed type basis and a fixed price basis. If South Africa can look forward to that kind of market for its present clips and have an orderly marketing of that accumulation of wool I say the farmers of this country have the right to expect a fairly prosperous time in the future. Having said that I want to offer a few observations, and to ask the Minister whether he will allow me at the Committee stage to move certain amendments to some of these clauses which to my mind will be designed to effect an improvement. My first point might be regarded as criticism. Clause 5 (c) of the Bill dealing with the local board of directors states—

That is the National Woolgrowers’ Association. I take it the Minister intends to appoint one man to the board who will represent unorganised farming. I think the day has long gone by when we should encourage farmers to remain unorganised. So much better work can be done and so much more orderly marketing can be carried out under organised farming, and I think the day has gone by when the Minister should, as he is by this appointment on the board, give encouragement to unorganised agriculture. I now come to Clause 6, and there again at a later stage I should like the Minister to accept a minor amendment. It states that the chairman of the directorate shall hold office during the < Governor’s pleasure, and other directors shall hold office for three years and—

All I want the Minister to do is to reappoint a director after he has been nominated by the organisation. Then a question arises out of Clause 9, and I should like to have some information. The Minister desires to establish this board, and he gives the chief executive power to a member of the board, and then he has decided to appoint one of the directors as a managing director who shall be the chief executive officer. I cannot reconcile the two. He may have special ideas in his own mind, but I should like to know why he considers it necessary to appoint a managing director. Then I want to come to Clause 17 (a). It is stated that the directorate may regulate the supplies of wool to auctions—

That may be interpreted in many ways when one takes into consideration the sparse shedding that is available, the number of bales that might be shorn on any one farm, disease, damage by blow fly and so forth, and I do not think it wise that this should be embodied in the Bill unless some explanation is given. Besides, I think it would not be healthy to apply a clause like this. It might cause a certain amount of irritation and I can assure the Minister it will be resented if translated in a way it might be possibly put into force. In Clause 27, dealing with the nomination of wool producers’ representatives on the South African Wool Board, provision is made for the appointment of two members representing unorganised producers. Having expressed myself on that principle already I do not intend to repeat the argument. Then, Sir, I come to Clause 29 in which the Minister makes these various appointments, and the wording used is, I think, far too slack, and I do not think it meets the case. I should like to move an amendment there at a later date; the words I object to are “other suitable persons.” I shall deal with these amendments at the right time. As I said in my opening remarks, one regrets a controversy should have been started over what to my mind is an extremely useful piece of legislation designed for the betterment of the whole industry. In conclusion I wish to thank the Minister for his efforts and I wish him every luck in bringing this measure to a successful conclusion.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) gave us the assurance that wool farmers at this juncture are flourishing wonderfully. T personally feel that the wool farmers are reasonably well off, but it is very strange to learn from the hon. member that they are in such a remarkably flourishing state. The index figures show that the price of wool only increased twenty points. It went up from 100 to 120. Those are hard facts, so where does the story come from that the wool farmers are so exceptionally prosperous. The same hon. member also stated that if the wool farmers were left to the tender mercies of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) and those who think like him, he wondered what would become of them. That is an uncalled for remark, and we cannot let it pass. I would merely say here that this side of the House objects in the first place to the monopoly created in the wool world. This side has objected to South Africa’s prices being fixed on a lower level than Australia’s. We therefore agitated there should be an increase in the price after the contract was entered into because production costs had risen. On every occasion we were very strongly opposed by the other side of the House. On some occasions it became so bad that we on this side of the House really began to feel that we were money-grubbing because we were pleading for an increase in the wool price. Eventually a five per cent. increase in the price was obtained. But what became of the profits spoken of and of which our farmers would receive half? We have to protest because after the contract was entered into with Great Britain it was stated in the clearest manner that half the profit that should have been made on our wool that was sold outside the United Kingdom would come to the wool farmers in South Africa. The contract ran for a couple of years and then it appeared that on the commercial side it would not measure up to the expectations the United Kingdom had anticipated. From the report it is clear that they did not buy the wool because they wished to assist the wool farmers as such, but they bought the wool purely from a business standpoint, purely and simply because they believed they needed the wool for their private businesses and the war effort. I would like to read out something from the report of the wool conferences—

Thus the agreement was not entered into to assist the wool farmers of the world but purely as a business transaction, and this transaction has now run for a number of years and certain profits have been made. At this stage it suits the United Kingdom to get the Dominions to bear 50 per cent. of the expenses of financing the wool that has accumulated. It suits them, but why is the profit not paid out that was made under the contract up to the present to the rightful owners, that is to say, the wool producers of South Africa? Why also is that profit used to ease the contract for the United Kingdom? What worries me further is that as soon as the Minister comes with a new idea, or as soon as he comes with a fresh contract, he always wants to hold out to the farmers of South Africa that wonderful fortune awaits them in the future. When the Minister intimated the new agreement to the farmers of South Africa he said—

What El Dorado does the Minister not hold out to the wool farmers? It does really look as though they are going to have their bread buttered on both sides. According to the Minister the wool farmers have now received a minimum price without a fixed ceiling price, and according to the words of the Minister the wool farmers may expect that if the enquiry for wool increases and the prices go up they will obtain the benefit of the increase. But it is absolutely clear to us that there is no intention whatever of allowing the wool farmers to receive a price in any way above today’s basis. The intention is to keep the prices down. That is very clear from what is stated here—

In other words, if it is clear that the world demand for wool is large and there is a danger of the prices mounting, the organisation will forgo the open market and auctions and offer their wool at fixed prices with a view to keeping the price level low. This is very clear and we, as wool farmers, ask why these precautionary measures are being taken. As we now have the scheme with a fixed minimum and an open market, according to the statement, why with malice aforethought is a plan being made to prevent the price rising reasonably and why is care being taken that prices should actually be pegged at today’s level? You cannot take it amiss if the farmers are suspicious that the agreement signifies in the first place that the farmers are being prevented from getting more for their wool. Apparently it is further being sought that England should retain a monopoly of wool for itself and its friends. But what is more, because the wool industry of England is today virtually intact and its factories are intact England will be able to produce more quickly than other countries. Now they can make more use of our wool because they have the agreement and can produce, and at the same time they have succeeded in keeping the wool price as low as possible. As wool farmers we must protest against that, and we do protest, because we feel that our wool farmers have been treated unfairly. If there is one section of the farming community which during the war has not been treated on the same basis as other farmers in regard to their earnings it is the wool farmers. The wool farmer’s price has not risen to anything like the same degree as other products, but his cost of living and production costs have mounted. Consequently we feel it is unfair that the wool farmer should again be knee-haltered. Even where we are supposed to get an open market it is already being foreshadowed that the wool farmers will not be allowed to get a price above today’s fixed basic price. We realise that if the price of wool soars too high we run the danger that synthetic fibre will take its place and compete with wool in a greater measure than today, but if the world shows that it requires wool and is prepared to pay a good price for it, it is the duty of the Government, in my opinion, to permit the wool farmers to have the privilege of a higher price.

How is the price limited? You can sell to any other country.

The Hon. Minister was not present when I read out an extract from the agreement. In the disposal plan it is stated that if it is clear that wool is going to rise in price the organisation can prevent it by spiling it outside at the fixed minimum price.

Who?

The general organisation.

It is comprised of the producers of Australia and South Africa

No, the general organisation can offer wool outside without bringing it to the auctions, and it can offer it at a fixed price in order to prevent the price of wool rising. No one in the world will buy wool at an auction at a high price if he can get it outside at a lower price. This is set out clearly on page 23. We protest and we say that the Government must see to it that the wool farmers of South Africa derive the benefit of an increased price for wool, and that we are not knee-haltered in this way. I would further ask the Minister to give organised farmers stronger representation on the local organisation. In the last resort it is the farmers who are financing the whole scheme. The Government lends the money to the farmers, but it is not going to cost the Government a single penny. Every penny will come out of the pockets of the farmers.

But there may also be losses.

They are on their guard against that. The Minister has clearly stated that they do not want to make any profit, but the farmers have to finance the scheme, to pay the interest and to bear the expenses.

As the farmers are themselves financing the scheme, I would urge that the farmers should have a bigger say, a more effective say, in the organisation. As the directorate is composed under the Bill, organised farmers will have precious little say. A panel of four can be recommended by them, and the Minister can choose two of the six directors.

I said that I would select two from the four.

But there are six directors, and there will be only two for organised farmers.

There will be three representing the producers.

You cannot count the people representing the unorganised farmers.

Where does it say “unorganised farmers”?

They are unorganised.

They represent producers.

The persons who represent the producers and who can speak and act on behalf of the producers are the farmers recommended by the unorganised producers. Seeing that a third person is appointed here, it is clear it will be a person with whom the Minister is satisfied; he will be his choice. We cannot tolerate the interests of the farmers being trifled with on every occasion, and the farming representatives being in the minority. Here they are dealing with their own affairs. I will admit that the directorate is not on the same footing as an ordinary control board, but nevertheless we ask for a bigger say for the farmers in a scheme they must ultimately finance themselves. In connection with the Bill, so far as concerns the local wool board there is not much to say. The Minister has now come along, and though the organised wool farmers have pleaded for years for such a wool organisation and legal powers, the Minister has coupled this firmly with the wool agreement, and the upshot is that the whole wool board you are now going to get will be nothing else than a board that can interest itself in propaganda and research work, but which will not possess any real power. So long as the contract exists they will not be able to possess any power. Of what benefit is a board that has nothing to do with the handling of the product? Because the wool board has nothing whatever to do with it.

It is only the sugar coating of the pill the Minister has given the farmers to swallow with the contract. We protest that the Minister comes at this late stage and gives the farmers something which after all means nothing more than a little sugar to be swallowed with the other.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for this measure. I can assure him that the vast majority of the wool farmers of this country will thank him heartily. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) said that the British Government refused to sell wool to Italy. Before that he also said that one of the reasons for going into the scheme was to enable the British Government to obtain cash to the extent of £80 or £90 million from the Dominions. But these two arguments are contradictory. If they were so keen on cash, why not sell the wool to Italy? I take it that the actual reason for not selling wool to Italy is that Italy cannot pay for it. I am quite sure the hon. member for Cradock will not sell any of his wool to Italy in view of the fact that the lira has practically no value at all. I also want to repeat the argument of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) that the wool farmers are flourishing in spite of what has been said here. The mere fact that they have paid off large sums to State advances, that they have considerable bank balances, and that the price of land has advanced enormously is sufficient proof that the wool farmer is in a good and strong financial position today.

They are never satisfied.

I just want to ask the Minister whether in offering the wool on the open market the producer will have the right to withdraw part of his clip, or whether the whole clip must be either sold or withdrawn. If he is satisfied with the price for part of the clip, can he withdraw that part of the clip with the price of which he is not satisfied? Then in connection with expenses, we have been told that the expenses are in the neighbourhood of 1½d. per pound. That is the cost in connection with the sale of wool. One feels that it is a bit too high. One hears that the British Wool Commission’s expenses is something like 1⅞th penny overall cost. Once more I wish to say that the wool farmers will support the Minister with regard to this measure.

The Bill contains, as the Minister has said, two provisions. Provision is made for a Wool Disposals Organisation and a Wool Board with statutary powers. As regards the Disposals Organisation, the agreement relating thereto was published quite some time ago, and it is now included in the Bill. In that connection we would very much like the Minister to tell us why there was so much secrecy maintained in regard to the matter, for the wool farmers were not consulted before negotiations in connection therewith had terminated. The farmers were not properly consulted in this matter, and until recently, until three months after the negotiations had taken place in London, the utmost secrecy was maintained. Thereafter we were informed of the agreement which had been entered into, and the Minister told us this afternoon that he consulted with the Wool Board at the time and that they supported the scheme. I think that the Wool Board and the farmers had no other choice but to accept the scheme. Through the actions of the Minister they were confronted by an accomplished fact. An agreement was entered into in England in connection with our wool, that of Australia and that of New Zealand.

We entered into no agreement in London.

How can the Minister say that?

Have you read the document? It does not seem like it.

An agreement was entered into there which is now contained in the Bill, and as far as the scheme is concerned, the farmers are today in the position that they have no other choice but to accept it because they have been placed in the position by the Government and those who initiated the agreement, that they are forced to accept it. We surmise that this agreement was entered into and that the negotiations took place on the initiative of the British Government. The initiative did not come from the wool farmers of Australia or South Africa or New Zealand, but from the British Government. Why do I say this? It is very clear why the initiative came from England. The British Government realised that on this occasion—in connection with the wool transaction which it had concluded at the commencement of the war—it did not have the opportunity of making the profit which it made on the wool transaction during the last war. That is very evident. When the war broke out, the British Government offered to purchase the Dominions’ wool. It did not do this out of love for the Dominions, but for two reasons: It did so because it wanted to make a profit and to speculate with the wool and because it hoped once again to make as much profit as it did during the last war, and the second reason was that it purchased the wool because it wanted to keep the wool out of the hands of hostile countries. One can understand that these were the two motives behind the offer to buy the wool from the Dominions. Then, however, it discovered that things were taking a different course to what they did in the last war. There was not the opportunity they had in the last war of selling wool in Europe at high prices, not even after the war. England is worried about that. She is particularly afraid that the countries who do not want to buy wool will not buy the old supplies, but will want to buy fresh wool. England is afraid that there will not be a large enough demand to ensure that the old supplies are easily disposed of in competition with fresh wool. During the last war England made a huge profit during the war and after the war, for even during the war there were countries outside to whom wool was sold at a huge profit. This time that is not the case. The world is in such a state of chaos that England is afraid that she will be saddled with these accumulated supplies, and that they will not be able to compete with fresh wool, and that she will perhaps sustain a loss on the old supplies. For these reasons she approached the Dominions and made the proposition. The proposition was accompanied by a threat. The sword of Damocles is hanging over the Dominions: “If you refuse to accept the wool agreement, then I will offload the old supplies on the market, and the price of wool will drop accordingly.” That is what influenced the representatives of New Zealand, Australia and South Africa to enter into the agreement. One cannot regard the agreement which was entered into as anything but a leonine agreement. The British Government only stands to gain and can lose nothing. It was running the risk of sustaining a loss, for there was a large quantity of accumulated wool, and it ran the risk of losing in competition with fresh wool. And now England is going to share the financial burden, which she took upon herself in purchasing the wool, with the Dominions, for the Dominions will take over 50 per cent. of the liability. In this respect she is offloading half of the liabilities on to the Dominions. But there is an additional advantage which England has gained by her threat, namely, that she is endeavouring to establish a monopoly over wool, but it is not a monopoly of producers, but of producers together with one manufacturing country, namely, England. Thus we see the advantages which England has gained. Her liabilities are shared, and she is creating a monopoly over wool, and in the organisation which controls the monopoly she will have more than half the say. Half the directors in the organisation will be British representatives. But not only will half the directors be appointed by England, but a so-called unbiased chairman will be appointed, and we can take it in advance that he will also be someone from England, someone who will sympathise with England’s interests, who will have more sympathy with England as a manufacturing country than with the producing countries. Moreover, the Joint Organisation will have its offices in England. These are all additional advantages which England will have as a manufacturing country, and it will place her in a very favourable position in contrast with other manufacturing countries in the world. We can understand that England favours such an organisation, and where she has called it into being by threatening the Dominions that if they do not accept the agreement she will offload the accumulated supplies on the market, I fear that the Dominions were unnecessarily alarmed. I do not think that England would ever have dared to place the wool on the market, for by doing so England herself would have lost too much, and as a manufacturing country she would have stood to lose so much that she could not have risked it. For that reason I think that the delegates who helped to draw up the scheme in London were unnecessarily alarmed at England’s threat. If the delegation had had a sufficient representation of producers, I do not believe that the threat would have proved so successful. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has already told us how the Australian wool farmers insisted on an open market, and then this concession was granted to the wool growers which was originally not included in the draft scheme, but nevertheless we feel that the representatives of producing countries at the conference were unnecessarily alarmed at the threat, and that as a result the interests of our wool farmers have been prejudiced. I have already mentioned the advantages which England has gained by this, and that she has been placed in a privileged position in connection with purchases of wool. She knows precisely what kinds of wool and how many of those kinds of wool there are. She has undoubtedly been placed in a very favourable position in contrast with other countries of the world who also want to purchase those types of wool. But we also have other reasons to be suspicious in connection with this scheme, because we have experience of the British Wool Commission. The British Wool Commission has proved in its activities in South Africa that it is not out to benefit the wool farmers of South Africa, but to benefit himself. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has indicated how the British Wool Commission went out of its way to keep certain types of wool out of the market when there was a big demand for those types. The British Wool Commission kept those types out of the market and perhaps it sold that wool to British manufacturers. We would like to know where that wool went to. We know, and we heard that there were all types of wool in supply, but the British Wool Commission did not offer certain types and we are entitled to know what happened to that wool. Let us now examine what the disadvantages are. Supposing my argument is correct that those types of wool were only sold to one country and not to other countries. We can assume in advance that when wool is once again offered for sale, that particular country who has already bought wool and who has sufficient of it, will not enter the open market to buy, with the result that the demand will not be so great because that country has already sufficient for its needs. She will not need so much, for she has already bought up what she needs and the result will be that there will not be the keen competition that there would otherwise have been. If one buyer has already been fed, then competition will decrease. But we have another reason to be suspicious towards the British Wool Commission. Its actions so far have been of such a nature as not to win our confidence. Not only has it kept certain types of wool out of the market, but we have also heard that certain wool has been sold to certain countries who asked for that wool, and that wool has been sold on an unheard of commission basis. I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to furnish us with information in this connection. Our information is that wool was sold on an unheard of commission basis and that the commission was subsequently divided between the various wool buyers in South Africa. It would be interesting to obtain the information. It is well-known that something of that nature took place, that the commission was unheard of and that it was then divided among the people in the wool trade who had nothing to do with the transaction. If the British Wool Commission can lend itself to anything like that, then we have reason to be suspicious of an organisation where the same British wool interests will be strongly represented. The wool farmers stand to lose a great deal as a result of the proposed scheme. They stand to lose because competition has been eliminated and will be still further eliminated in the future, because England will not have the interest which she has had in the past in maintaining prices by encouraging the processing of wool as widely as possible in other countries. If England had been left alone with the accumulated supplies, then it would have been in her interests. I want the Minister to follow this argument. My contention is that because England is no longer saddled with this large quantity of wool, she is no longer in the position of being interested in seeing the greatest possible expansion of the manufacturing process of wool taking place in the world; she is no longer interested in certain countries being assisted to be able to process more wool. In other words, she is no longer interested in other textile manufacturing countries being encouraged to take more wool. If she had had large supplies and she did not want to lose too much on them, then she would have been in league with us in bringing about an expansion of wool processing in other countries. Now she no longer has that interest at heart. Her only interest is to obtain as far as possible a monopoly of the textile industry, and we are afraid that under this agreement it is given to her. There we are running the risk of losing a great deal. That chance of interesting and encouraging other countries in the processing of larger quantities of wool must now go by the board. For instance, we learn that the textile industry in France and Holland and also in Belgium has not suffered as much during the war as we thought it had. The fact is that they have sustained a relatively small amount of damage. ’We hear that even in countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia the textile industry has not been weakened or curtailed, but that on the contrary it has been strengthened and expanded by the Germans. If they had received the necessary encouragement, they could have developed considerably in that direction and manufactured woollen articles. But now I fear that by placing England in the position which we have, she will not be our partner in bringing about an expansion in those countries; she will no longer be interested in encouraging the consumption of wool in those countries, but she will rather oppose it and endeavour to obtain as far as possible a monopoly of the textile industry. Another loss one can indicate which the wool farmers have sustained as a result of this scheme is that even this year and next year the wool farmers will lose no less than £1 million. Prices have dropped by 5 per cent. We see, therefore, that according to the general tendency of the agreement the wool farmers have no reason to be delighted with it, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) tried to make out. He said that the scheme was the Magna Charta of the wool farmers, and he congratulated the Minister of Agriculture in particular on it. I fear that we on this side are not convinced that it is a Magna Charta for the wool farmers. It may perhaps be the rope which, if it does not hang the wool farmers, will surely strangle them in the future. As regards the scheme, the wool farmers have been told that they will receive a proposed price, but we must remember that the price is fixed from year to year, and it can drop much lower in the future. Instead of the textile industry developing and being encouraged in various countries, we are afraid that a monopoly will be given to one particular country and the result may be that instead of the textile industry expanding in other countries, we will have the position that they will make more use of synthetic wool. Instead of their interesting themselves in wool, they will interest themselves in synthetic wool, as a result of the Imperial monopolistic agreement which has given England a monopoly and has practically excluded them from getting wool. From now on we may perhaps find that this agreement will not be the Magna Charta of the wool farmers, but a retarding factor in the expansion and preservation of the wool industry. As regards the particular provisions governing the control organisation, I would just say that as far as the Joint Organisation is concerned we can make no further alterations to it. An agreement has been placed before us which South Africa cannot alter in any way. We have been confronted by an accomplished fact and we must accept it as it is. But as regards the local organisation, we trust that the Minister will compromise with the wool farmers. He knows that the wool farmers asked him that as regards the local organisation the wool farmers should have a majority on the directorate. The Minister informed us that the wool farmers were satisfied with the representation which he proposed here. I want to ask him a direct question: Did the organised wool farmers not ask him to give them the assurance that they would have a majority on the local directorate; and if they did ask him, why did he not give it to them? The Minister could surely have given the farmers a measure of protection. He could have given them a majority, and when we are in the Committee stage we are going to propose it, and then we hope that the Minister will take it into consideration and accept it. But there is another matter in connection with the composition of the board which I want to mention here, namely that the chairman of the board must of necessity be an official of the Government. Why cannot such a board choose its own chairman; why must he be an official of the Government? The wool farmers are most anxious that this chairman should not be a Government official, but a wool farmer. For this chairman will also be an ex officio member of the General Control Board, according to the provisions of the agreement. We are already afraid that on the Joint Organisation, where South Africa has only one representative, we will not have the necessary influence, and it is most imperative that the ex officio representative in the person of the chairman should be a wool farmer. The chances are that he will not be a wool farmer. If the chairman of the Wool Board is an ex officio member of the Joint Organisation, then he at least should be a wool farmer. Now he has to be an official, and the wool farmers therefore have no chance of having a direct representative on the Joint Organisation. When we come to the Committee stage and propose that a change should be made in this connection, I trust that the Minister will be prepared to accept the proposal. As regards the further composition of the Wool Board I would just like to know why he has made provision for a managing director as well as a general manager. I would like to know the purpose he has in view. As I understand the position I cannot see how any useful purpose can be served by having two such persons. I would like to have some information from the Minister in this connection.

And there is no need for them to be members of the board.

No, it does not follow. The chairman can be anybody. As far as the Wool Board is concerned I cannot do otherwise but express the fear which has already been expressed by the hon. member for Cradock, namely that we are now running the danger that the Government, by granting the power to the Wool Board to impose a levy on wool, and especially as a result of the control the Government has over the functioning of the Wool Board, will, in the future, not deem it expedient to provide the farmers with the necessary services connected with the wool industry, such as research. We can expect the Government to off-load those duties on the Wool Board. We have had experience of this Minister. We have control boards under the Marketing Act, and we see that the Minister has a strong tendency to offload on them the responsibility of performing certain research work and other services for the industries concerned instead of it being done by the Government and his Department. Do we find any such thing in connection with mining activities? Is any levy paid on the part of mining interests to make funds available which can be used by the Department of Mines for research and investigation in connection with the mineral riches of the country which are in the interests of the mining industry? No, no such provision is made. This Minister is the Minister of Agriculture and the servant of the farmers of South Africa. He forgets that he is a Minister and therefore is the servant of the farmers. But instead of promoting the interests of the farmers he is acquiring more and more dictatorial powers in order to prescribe to the farmers what they must do; not to help and support them, but to prescribe to the farmers what they must do and to compel them to pay for it themselves. We know that the Minister does not sympathise with the farmers. In every respect he thwarts them instead of giving them support. He forced the tobacco farmers to provide funds for a research station. He forced the wool farmers to contribute towards a research station at Grootfontein. Through this control board he is now going to force the wool farmers to pay themselves for that essential research work and necessary work which should be provided for them by the Government; he is going to force special agricultural interests to provide the cost of research and investigation while these are things which should have come from the Central Government. We fear that may happen. As far as the composition of the Wool Board is concerned I hope that when we come to the Committee stage the Minister will effect a certain amount of compromise. This is, after all, a board of producers. They deal with the production of wool, and why should the Minister have so much say. If a recommendation is made and the Minister does not agree with it, if he refers it back and the same names are once again recommended by the organisation concerned, then he can apply the veto right and can make the appointments himself. Once again he is acting as the dictator — the Government’s strong man! Well, we might just tell him that this attempt of his to be a dictator and to manifest his strength has not succeeded. From it we discern not moral strength, but cowardice. A Minister who entrenches himself with so many powers cannot have much confidence in his own capabilities or in always having the support of the farmers. A man like that sees trouble looming on the horizon, and when it comes he wants to have the power in his own hands. He has practically acknowledged that he is not safe, and for that reason he wants to be a dictator. When the time arrives that a recommendation is made which is not to his liking, or an appointment is made which he does not want, he wants to have dictatorial powers. When I heard that a Wool Board with statutory powers was being called into being I was curious to know what those powers would be. All that I can see in this Bill is that that organisation only has the power to impose a levy on the wool farmers. As I have already said, this is a power it is going to use against itself, for the Minister will force it to meet expenditure which in the past has been borne by the Central Government. This provision is not going to be as advantageous to the wool farmers as we would have liked it to be. We on this side have been placed in the position that we are confronted by an accomplished fact. We can see the dangers connected with it. We do not intend to say that we do not want the wool agreement. We were not represented at the conference as Australia and New Zealand were represented. If we had been, we would not have panicked at the threat. Now we are confronted by an accomplished fact. We are, however, pointing out the dangers which we see, and I am afraid that those dangers will from now on materialise. And as we are endeavouring to give the wool farmers a certain amount of security—at any rate in connection with the composition of the local board—and as we intend making certain proposals in the Committee stage, we would express the hope that the Minister will not be too obstinate, and that he will agree to making certain changes. As far as the Wool Board is concerned, the farmers have asked for what we are suggesting, and we trust that they will be allowed in future to function the way they want to function and that the Minister will not force his will on them, and that he will not off-load on the Wool Board the essential functions resting on the State, so that the wool farmers themselves will have to meet the expenses.

We know that after the last war, when there was no scheme, our experience was that at times we sold our wool for practically nothing, and at other times at 60d. and 70d. per lb. That position was an unfortunate one, the most unfortunate that our country has ever experienced. We can therefore be very grateful to the Minister that he sent a deputation to London in order to consult the wool-producing countries. There the matter was discussed and an agreement was arrived at to fix the price on such a basis that wool may again be sold, but not in excess of the world price. As a matter of fact the Imperial Government paid 5 per cent. more for wool than the ruling world price, and in so doing they lost 5 per cent. The price of wool consequently dropped 5 per cent. That is why it is 5 per cent. less at the present time. An agreement was entered into between the producing countries. They worked out a scheme in terms of which we will sell our wool for the first ten years with the object of disposing at the same time of the wool which has accumulated during the war years, so that the market will not crumble. If ever a good deed has been done to this country for which we ought to be grateful to the Minister, it is certainly this step, because today the position of the farmer is that he knows what he can afford to pay for grazing rights and what costs he can incur because he knows what he is going to get for his wool. It assures the farmer’s future. I feel, therefore, that we ought to support the Minister 100 per cent. to put this scheme through because it is not only in the interests of the wool farmers but in the interests of the country generally.

Before dealing with the scheme itself I should like to say a few words in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) and the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Connan). The hon. member for Victoria West stated that the farmers were in a wonderfully flourishing position, and in order to prove that statement he mentioned the amounts which the farmers had repaid on their mortgage bonds. I thought that hon. member would be acquainted with the facts. The fact that the farmers repaid huge sums to the Land Bank and to the State Advances Recoveries Office does not afford the slightest proof that the farmers are in a flourishing position. It is a well-known fact that private moneylenders are prepared to make money available on mortgage at a lower rate of interest than the Land Bank or the State Advances Office. Thousands and thousands of pounds have been repaid to the Land Bank and the State Advances Recovery Office by farmers who have not got rid of their bonds but who have simply transferred their bonds to private moneylenders, because they were able to get the money at a lower rate of interest. The redemption of bonds to the Land Bank is no indication, therefore, that the farmers are flourishing. As far as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) is concerned, he stated that it was necessary for the Minister to have the power to appoint a certain person to the Joint Organisation, and that the panel system is the correct one because, he said, “Look at the way in which the wool organisation is controlled today,” and that for that reason it is necessary to make that stipulation. I am astonished to hear a statement of that kind from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District), but I cannot say that I understand it. As far as I know, that hon. member has never attended a wool congress, and he has not the faintest idea how the control of the National Woolgrowers’ Association is constituted today. If he had known he would have realised how dangerous it is to place that power in the hands of the Minister. He went on to say that the farmers would receive a stable price for their wool under this legislation. What is that stable price? Can he or any other member tell me what the price of wool is going to be in 1947-’48; can he or the Minister or any other person tell me what the price is going to be in 1949-’50? He talks about a stable price, but he entirely forgets that the price will be fixed annually. England is one of the partners in this scheme, and according to newspaper reports the wool farmers of England themselves do not fall under this agreement. Why is that? Why does one of the partners of the scheme see to it that the wool of her own farmers does not fall under this scheme as well? Does that not give us good grounds for reflection before we are prepared to say that it is such a beautiful scheme? Now I come to the scheme itself. The wool industry is one of the biggest industries in the country, and I expected the Minister to come here this afternoon with legislation and to give us full details in connection with the whole position, by indicating to us what the position is in connection with this industry. But the Minister has not done so. Since this scheme has been in operation from 1st August, I thought the Minister would try to convince the House that this scheme is acceptable and to the advantage of the wool industry and that with that object in mind he would tell us how the scheme has been operating from 1st August. But the hon. Minister did not tell the House how the scheme has been operating from 1st August.

I have the right to speak again; I will have another opportunity to speak.

That is true. The hon. Minister will have another opportunity. I want to ask him whether it is because he will have another opportunity to speak that he withheld this information from hon. members. I thought the hon. Minister would regard it as his duty to give this information and not to shield behind the fact that he will have another opportunity to speak and then to furnish this information after the debate has been closed. I certainly expected to get this information before we started the debate.

This is not the last stage of the Bill.

I am aware of that fact, but the principle is being accepted at this stage and that is the most important thing. We shall be able to move amendments at a later stage but we shall then be faced with the fact that the principle has already been accepted. Only certain amendments can then be made. I thought the hon. Minister would tell the House this afternoon how this scheme operates at present and how much wool has been handled under this new scheme. I expected the hon. Minister to tell the House what quantity of wool was taken over by us from the Imperial Government, but we did not hear a single word about it. We know it is a well-known fact that when the deputation went to London and when the agreement was made there it was generally thought that the wool which had accumulated there would be sold at a loss. That is why there was a depreciation; it was for that reason the wool farmers in South Africa had to agree that one-half of the profits would fall away. But in view of subsequent developments we know that the accumulated wool which has been sold since 1st August, has been sold at a profit. Now we have the following position: The Imperial Government has already received one half of the profit which was due to the South African wool farmers on the termina tion of the wool scheme between the Imperial Government and ourselves. They have already collected those profits. One-half of the profit on the wool which was taken over by us and which will be sold at a profit again goes to the Imperial Government. The Imperial Government therefore makes a double profit on one-half of the wool that we took over. I want to be fair. They will make a double profit provided all the wool is sold, but as far as we are able to follow the wool market there is no doubt that there has been an unprecedented demand for wool and it has been sold at a profit. Since this legislation provides that wool is to be sold by public auction, what is the position in connection with wool which is now being sold in South Africa? Can the hon. Minister tell us what is being sold by public auction? As far as we know the British Wool Commission handles the 1945-’46 wool clip, and I want to know what steps the hon. Minister took to ensure that our Government and the wool farmers are properly represented or that the interests of the wool farmers are properly looked after under the present system of handling the wool. If any steps were taken to ensure that the interests of the wool farmers were properly looked after under the scheme up to the present, I want to ask the Minister whether he denies that certain types of our wool were frozen, that when there was a demand for it that wool could not be sold; and since that wool could not be sold, is it not a fact that that involved the South African wool farmer in a loss?

That is merely repetition. I shall reply to it.

I can well understand that the hon. Minister does not want us to keep on hammering on this subject, because in doing so we expose the manner in which the Minister looks after the interests of the wool farmer, and once this becomes clear to the people the Minister will no longer get the support of the wool farmers. The hon. Minister stated in this House that he had the support of the wool farmers. I should like to ask the Minister where he obtained the wool farmers’ support? I hope he will give us a clear reply on that point. As far as we know the wool farmers accepted this scheme in principle, but at the same time they accepted the scheme subject to definite conditions, and as far as we know the hon. Minister has not complied with one of the conditions subject to which the wool farmers agreed to accept the scheme.

What conditions?

In the first place, one of the conditions is that the farmers must have a majority on the Joint Organisation. That is one of the conditions, and the hon. Minister cannot tell us that that is the position. On the contrary, in terms of the present legislation the farmers will not have a majority on the Joint Organisation. That is one of the conditions which the Minister has broken up to the present. We want to express the hope that he will remove this injustice during the Committee stage. I want to make a very serious appeal to him. As far as public auctions are concerned, it is not clear to me at all from the definition of “public auction” in this Bill what the term “public auction” implies. On the one hand the intention is that wool may not be sold out of hand, but what constitutes a public auction? We know that in Port Elizabeth a South African Wool Buyers’ Federation has been established, and we know that that South African Wool Buyers’ Federation has a regulation to the effect that wool may be sold only through their organisation by public auction, and I know that the South African Wool Buyers’ Association is already taking steps whereby persons who do not belong to that body will not be able to operate in the future. Is the Minister going to safeguard our position there? It is provided in the Articles of Association of the South African Wool Buyers’ Federation that no one may join that organisation unless he has operated through the organisation for two years and unless he pays a commission of 2½ per cent. to the South African Wool Buyers’ Federation. If wool is put up to public auction and if the members of the South African Wool Buyers’ Federation are the only people who are allowed to buy it, it cannot be said that that does not constitute a sale by public auction; it is public auction, but certain persons or organisations are prevented from operating at the public auction, and where that happens it can only be to the detriment of the South African wool farmer. The South African wool farmer will support the Minister provided he introduces a scheme which we are satisfied is intended to benefit the farmers, but the information which the Minister has furnished to the House up to the present does not prove in any way that this scheme is intended exclusively in the interests of and for the benefit of the South African farmer. In the light of our experience in the past we cannot help being suspicious. When the wool agreement of 1939-’40 was entered into, this side of the House objected to that agreement and all sorts of accusations were flung at this side. We on this side advocated that the agreement should be on exactly the same basis as the agreement with the Australian Government. The Australian Government itself handled the wool which was sold to the Imperial Government. If at that time the other side of the House had heeded the plea of this side and if our Government had itself handled the wool it would not have been necessary for us to get the British Wool Commission here to handle our wool; and in that case the Minister would not have been in the position in which he has found himself since 1st August, that he has had no organisation to handle the wool. He would have had that organisation operating, just as the Australian Government has a similar organisation operating today, and the Australian Government did not find it necessary to get an Imperial British Commission to control this matter for a further year. The pleas which have been made in the past by this side of the House have proved to be justified on every occasion; experience has shown that the methods that we suggested are the right methods of doing business in the interests of the farmer, and we want to ask the Minister to listen to the suggestions of this side of the House in the future. If he does that there is a possibility of his getting the co-operation of the farming community and of amending and framing this legislation in such a way that it will give general satisfaction. [Laughter.] Yes, the hon. Minister laughs. I am pleased to’ hear him laugh. It shows, at any rate, that he is not altogether cross. But I want to make an appeal to him, since the wool industry is one of the biggest and one of the most important industries in the country, that we should exercise the greatest caution’ in connection with this Bill. We must not frame the Bill in such a way that the farmer will eventually be the loser; instead we should introduce a Bill which will benefit the farmers.

I am rising not so much to plead the cause of the well-represented and prosperous wool farmers, but rather to draw attention to certain features in the Bill which I think are open to objection. I cannot refrain, however, from saying to my friends on the Opposition side that the prosperity that the wool farmers have enjoyed during all these difficult years are due entirely to the vigilance of the much-abused Government which has so well looked after their interests. There are certain features in this Bill to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister, and my one reason is this, that there is too great a tendency in our legislation to impose bureaucratic control on the ordinary commercial and business activities of this country, and this Bill is no exception to the rule in certain respects. Under Clause 5 the local organisation will be controlled by a board of directors. That board of directors is appointed by the Governor-General, which means the hon. Minister, who will be acting on the advice of his Department, and so again we shall have a board appointed entirely by civil servants.

Can you do better than that?

What I want to say is that we may not always have so fair and benevolent a Minister sitting on the front bench over here, but I think that the principle is the wrong one. However, the woolgrowers do not appear to have taken serious objection to that, but I object to the wide powers given to this directorate. Under Clause 17 they can tell the producer where to send his wool, whether to send it or not; in fact, they have complete control of the wool crop of the producer. It means that they can zone the country and tell the producer what to do with his wool. I think that the wool producers will agree with me that the wool industry has much to be grateful for to the wool brokers at the coast. During difficult times the woolgrowers were supported to a very great extent financially and otherwise in many ways by the wool brokers, and I can see that once this power is given to the directorate the power will eventually vest entirely in the heads of the department, because the Minister will act according to their advice, and the wool broker who has rendered such great services to this country and to the wool industry will be entirely eliminated. In the past our experience has been, during the war period, when controls have been imposed, that the legitimate channels of business have been entirely upset, and many a man on account of the way in which controls have been imposed has entirely lost his livelihood, and I particularly talk of the meat control in that connection. I say that that power should not be given to the directorate. It will mean simply that that power will vest entirely in the department itself and we will have entirely bureaucratic control as far as zoning is concerned, if that power is exercised. I understand that an assurance was given—I do not know whether the Minister knows of it; I do not think it is an official assurance—I understand that it was stated: “All right, leave that clause in the Bill; it will never be exercised.” Well, when the Greeks come with gifts I do not trust them. I would sooner see that power eliminated from the Act, or otherwise, if that power remains, I say do not let this directorate which is entirely appointed by the Minister exercise that control. Let them exercise that control in conjunction with the Wool Board that is appointed under Clause 23. But here again I have something to say about that. It is true that the wool producers are allowed to have eight producers on the Wool Board appointed by the National Woolgrowers’ Association or its branches, but funnily enough, although they have that power of appointing someone to preside on the Wool Board, under Clause 28 the Minister is entitled to say: “The person you have appointed is in my opinion not a suitable person,” and he can then call upon them to appoint another person in his stead, and if that person is not a suitable person in his opinion he can appoint some representative of his own. I think that is an entirely undemocratic provision to have in a Bill of this sort.

You are not stating the position correctly. It is only when they fail to nominate a person that I can appoint someone.

No, Clause 28 says distinctly that if in the opinion of the Minister the person is not suitable the Minister shall refer the matter back to the association and call upon it to nominate some other suitable person, and if the Minister is not satisfied with the second nominee the Minister may himself nominate a person who in his opinion is suitable.

I see you are correct.

First of all, it gives this power to the very people who ought to know best who can serve them on this board, and then under Clause 28 the Minister may say that the person is not suitable, apparently without giving any reason for it. I think that is an entirely undemocratic principle in an Act of this kind, and I hope that the Minister will in the Committee stage allow an amendment to eliminate that objectionable provision. As I have said, I am only drawing the Minister’s attention to what I consider are provisions open to objection and provisions that might interfere with the ordinary commercial activities of the brokers at the coast and of people who might be done out of their livelihood, and I hope that the Minister will give this matter very serious consideration.

We have had rather a lengthy discussion on this Bill. I must say I do not think that the wool farmers outside will be very proud of the discussion which has come from the other side of the House today.

What nonsense are you talking now?

Certainly not, especially as far as the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) is concerned. The hon. member had a large number of points of criticism of the scheme. He is, as he wishes to appear, the ringleader of the wool farmers in the House, and while such an important matter as this was under discussion, he came here and said his say and sat here for a while, and then left the House.

He sat up in the gallery.

That may be but he was not sitting in this House.

You are always small and mean. Deal with the case on its merits.

On a point of order, is the hon. member in order when he say the hon. Minister is always small and mean?

I did not hear those words. Did the hon. member say the hon. Minister was “mean”?

I said he must not be mean. I withdraw it.

I do not know how I could know that the hon. member for Cradock was sitting up in the gallery.

I told you he was sitting up there.

Yes, but after I had already said that he was not in the House.

But in any case a man who is absent as often as you are, should not take it amiss of another member if he is absent.

I am glad that the hon. member for Cradock has now turned up because I would not like to say in his absence what I want to say now. He comes here and criticises one point after the other as we have embodied it in the Bill, but in doing that, the hon. member shows one of two things. He shows that either he did not understand the scheme when it was put before the Wool Association or otherwise it shows that he is the biggest somersaulter that ever sat in the House.

Rubbish.

The hon. member said that they accepted the scheme provisionally. They accepted it on conditions; they accepted it in principle and all that sort of thing. It often happens that the hon. member says that he heard this or that and his ear is as good as mine and he stands by what he said. I realise now that there is only one manner in which to deal with that hon. member, and that is to have everything in black and White, and I have it here. Here is the resolution adopted by the South African Wool Board on which the hon. member served. He is thus jointly responsible as regards this resolution, and I am now going to read it. I shall read the whole letter sent by the secretary of the South African Wool Association to the Secretary for Agriculture and Forestry. The letter reads— [Translation]

That is quite a different tone to that adopted here; then it was a question of sincere thanks for services rendered— [Translation]

Where is there a question of conditions or a question of principle?

On a point of explanation ….

It depends whether the hon. Minister is willing to allow the hon. member for Cradock to make his explanation. Is the Minister willing?

Yes.

My explanation is this. The Secretary for Agriculture desired that the scheme should be immediately accepted by the Wool Board. I objected to this, and maintained that unless the Minister acknowledged that the National Woolgrowers’ Association was the mouthpiece of the wool farmers, I would not vote for that, and it was with the greatest difficulty that the Wool Board later took the stand we would refer it to the Board of the Woolgrowers’ Association, and the woolgrowers accepted that scheme on certain conditions. That was the decision.

No, the hon. member is really making a laughing stock of himself now. There is not a word of what he has just said in this resolution. This resolution was taken unanimously, including the hon. member. There was no question of conditions or of principle, and his demanding that I must lay it before the National Woolgrowers. I undertook to do it. I said to the Secretary of my Department: Lay this matter before the National Woolgrowers’ Board, and let them know that we are going to place it before the National Woolgrowers’ Association. But this is what you get—twisting round and round, turning here and turning there, but when you come to the resolution you cannot get past it, and now you have the case of what we have seen here this afternoon. Things of which he approved 100 per cent. he now says are wrong. We know, because the written document is there, but he says: Yes, he has no confidence now in the directorate which has been appointed for the J.O. in England. But he approved of it 100 per cent. All those things were placed before them; all those things are part of what the conference decided. Now the hon. member turns round and says: No, we do not accept it now, there is something wrong now.

I say I accent the principle.

What value can you attach to such an attitude as the hon. member has shown today?

And your attitude.

He now says that he does not believe I had the co-operation and support for the agreement of the National Woolgrowers’ Association. Fortunately I also have that here in black and white. One of the members of the deputation wrote to me after I had met them and discussed this Bill with them, and after they had accepted 100 per cent. the panel of six of which I was to appoint two, and in addition a producers’ representative, after consultation with the woolgrowers ….

Which deputation are you referring to?

It was a deputation of the National Woolgrowers’ Board which came to see me on behalf of the management, and one of the members of the deputation wrote that to me.

On whose behalf does he write?

The hon. member need not be so fidgety. If he waits a while he will hear. He writes—[Translation]

Who is he?

I do not mind saying who he is. He is Mr. Lotz, one of the members of the deputation.

He does not write on behalf of that deputation and he does not write on behalf of the woolgrowers.

May I go further and say that when the chairman of the National Woolgrowers’ Association came to see me a few days ago there was not the slightest question that he had entered into such an agreement. He was satisfied that we had come to such an agreement.

He told me something different.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

I was dealing with the groundless accusations made by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker).

The Minister said that my accusations were groundless. May I put a question to the Minister?

Order, order.

On a point of order. I want to ask if Mr. Lotz was at the meeting.

That is not a point of order, but a question.

I should like, with permission of the Minister, to put a question to him.

That is not a point of order, and I cannot compel the Minister to answer. The hon. member may not put a question.

I had experience of the hon. member this afternoon when I gave him a chance to make an explanation, and all he did was to try to put right what he could not, viz., a resolution which was recorded.

Why did you not read my telegram?

It was a resolution sent to the head of the department by the Secretary of the South African Woolgrowers’ Association. The hon. member now talks of a telegram of which I have no knowledge. We know well what his position is. There are two things which made him do what he did this afternoon. The first is that he feels put out regarding the first deputation to London in connection with the international Wool Secretariat. What the member did there, was to tell the country in an irregular manner that Mr. Gerhard Bekker was going to London as one of the representatives.

That is what the Wool Board did, not I.

After that was done, the deputation had to be curtailed owing to transport difficulties, and then the Wool Board did not choose the hon. member.

The Wool Board did choose me.

In the first instance, but the hon. member was not finally chosen. He was then left out in view of the transport limitations. Another trouble with the hon. member and of other hon. members on the Opposition side is that they are in a pickle in connection with the Bill and the whole agreement. We entered into an agreement which was of the very best for the wool farmers. It is an outstanding agreement. We can only give praise to the deputation which represented us in London under the leadership of Dr. Neveling, whom the hon. member has also tried to belittle as a theorist. It is an outstanding agreement which has been accepted throughout the country as such. But now the Opposition are in a pickle. They find that the wool farmers stand 100 per cent. behind us, and now they must try to make political gain and criticise. The hon. member is doing it by trying to represent the matter wrongly. The wool farmers outside know much better and understand the matter well, perhaps better than the hon. member, and they accepted the whole matter unconditionally.

Not unconditionally.

I want to deal with a few points which were also mentioned by the hon. member. He went back into the old history of the previous agreement, and in this connection his contribution to the debate was that everything that was right and an improvement in the agreement was due to him, but everything that was wrong and no good was due to the Government. His proposal at the time was to sell to Japan on credit.

You know that is not true.

The hon. member now wants to sell to Greece and Italy, probably also on credit.

England sold to Japan.

Then the hon. member and other hon. members made a great song with the accusation that the British Wool Commission froze certain types. He himself knows that that is not so any more.

But they were frozen.

I admit that. The hon. member must not get so excited. For a short while certain types were frozen.

For how long? Two months?

What were the reasons?

I will go into the matter. We cannot all talk at once. Perhaps hon. members will be able to sing a song of lament together over Caledon tomorrow, but we cannot talk at the same time.

You cannot bear interjections.

I know hon. members are not very interested in wool. I would like, however, to give the reasons why the British Wool Commission froze certain types. I will read the reasons they gave to me.

You were jointly responsible.

I must ask the hon. member for Cradock to stop interjecting.

We know that the medicine is a little bitter for him. The reasons they give are the following—

1. (1) At the commencement of the season there were no stocks at all of certain types held by the Commission.
2. (2) In other instances stocks were so negligible as not to warrant offering them to the trade for disposal overseas.
3. (3) Largely owing to the drought, the British Wool Commission were unable to estimate the quantity of types they were to receive.
4. (4) The Commission was not prepared to sell wools forward. (By this is meant selling types of wool in anticipation of receiving stocks.)
5. (5) An endeavour was made to accumulate types that were in short supply in order to give all buyers an opportunity of having an equitable proportion of the stocks available.

I must say that the fifth reason they give seems to me to be a reasonable standpoint. The J.O. must satisfy the buyers. They will have to sell wool for years, and it is certainly a good policy not to give all the wool of one type to one buyer, and to disappoint the rest. It seems to me that is a reasonable standpoint, that they do not sell all the types of which there are only small quantities to one buyer, but try to keep an equal quantity of all the types available. But the position is that at the moment not one type is frozen. Anyone can buy from one bale to a thousand bales. I would also like to inform the House of the quantity of wool sold since 1st August. The demand was phenomenal. The figures show that from 1st August, 1945, to 31st January, of this year, 700,909 bales, valued at £14 million, were sold. Since 31st January, a further quantity of 141,697 bales have been sold at £2,833,940, which makes a total of sales up to and including 26th February, 1946, of 842,606 bales, valued at £16,833,940. There is thus no question of holding wool back. The sales in this short time were of a phenomenal nature. So much for the accusations concerning the types that were frozen. Then the hon. member said that we had made a bad bargain, because we get back nothing of the £2,500,000 from the profits. The member is wide of the mark. The agreement with the British Government made provision at the time that the profits would be divided at the termination of the agreement, and there is the possibility that there will be no profit, that there will be a loss. Therefore the £2½ million is by no means a profit at this stage. But in either case we have the advantage. The 50 per cent partnership provides that the write-off in connection therewith includes the £2½ million, so that really we have the advantage of a sum of money which we perhaps would never have had when the sales period comes to an end. As usual, the hon. member is wide of the mark. Then he states that the B.W.C. has only a small clique of buyers to whom it sells. They only sold to members of the buyers’ association when the B.W.C. was carrying out the old agreement, but I arranged that that position would not continue. Anyone is now free to buy our wool. There is no longer a clique. I shall be very pleased if that is well understood, also by the hon. member for Cradock.

There, at least, he was right.

Perhaps he is right in one of the twelve matters he mentioned. The hon. member came to the statutory Wool Board and he has strongly criticised the statutory Wool Board, but the test for me is the National Woolgrowers’ Association. He has asked more than once if I admit that they are the authoritative body. I admit that. They are satisfied with the statutory Wool Board. They saw the Bill and expressed satisfaction with it. But the hon. member is not satisfied with their satisfaction. That is his trouble. It does not suit him as critic that the wool farmers are as satisfied as they are. He now tries a little insinuation. If he chooses this method of political suicide, I am satisfied with that. Then he spoke of the 5 per cent. by which the wool prices were reduced. For a short time it was not reflected in the sales price, but in any case we have the advantage of it, we do not suffer. Any profit which results is to our advantage. Then the hon. member spoke of the open market. I thought the hon. member realised, as I read, what the wool conference recommended. It was not that there should be for the first year an open market, as he means. But apparently the hon. member is going round with his eyes shut.

Read my telegram.

Then he says that the Secretary for Agriculture will be landed with the levy fund; the Wool Board are treated like a lot of children. Has the hon. member read the Bill? It says something quite different. The clause reads—

The Secretary for Agriculture has control over the levy fund, but the share of the Wool Board he pays over to them and the Wool Board gives it out. Perhaps the hon. member did not read that. I do not think it is necessary to deal with the hon. member any longer. I come to a few points made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) and I am pleased to see that he as a big wool farmer, and responsible person, at least realises the value of the agreement for our wool farmers. I would like to take advantage of the opportunity to reassure hon. members in connection with Clause 17. The clause is only included to help J.O. to arrange the marketing properly. I do not think that use will ever be made of this. Then he asked what the interest of the Reserve Bank would be on an overdrawn account, and what we would receive on money we had there. That is a matter of arrangement with the Bank. It depends what the bank rate is at a given time. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) as usual took part in the debate in a very reasonable manner. His great objection is that the Bill was only published a week ago and that the conference document only came to light in January. The fact that that is his great objection, shows that he has little fault to find with the arrangement. As far as the publication of the Bill is concerned, I am sorry it could not take place earlier. It was a matter of getting it back from the Government Draftsman. I published it as soon as possible after that. Regarding the conference report, hon. members know that it took a considerable time to have it published, and it also took place as soon as possible. He also went back to the old agreement, and said that Mr. Waterson and Mr. Attlee first signed it only in 1942. But that was purely formal. The agreement was not even signed by Australia and New Zealand. I do not think there is anything in that. Then he asked if we received a profit and loss account in connection with the sales. We had that before our deputation went to London; it will be published as soon as circumstances allow. Further, the hon. member asked if we had enough security for the agreement, so that we would not have to go back to the old barter system. The hon. member need have no doubt about that. Our great security for stability lies in the fact that the four governments are behind the whole arrangement. J.O. is their creation, and acts as their agent, but the four governments are behind the scheme. The agreement will naturally be taken into review after five years. Then the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouche) stood up and said that I held out an El Dorado to the farmers, but in practice it is not so. I did not rate the matter too high. The fact remains that two big principles in the scheme are especially attractive for the wool farmers, viz., open auctions in which the whole world can take part, and in addition could have what in effect is a guaranteed minimum price. Naturally, you cannot expect that an organisation like J.O. will hold wool back when the prices are good, and that it will not sell. The world would not have any faith in them if they did that. It is their duty to sell the accumulated surplus if there is demand and if the price is right. But there need be no fear that they will act contrary to the interests of the producers, and will not let them receive a favourable price. They will look after this, and the Government will stand behind them.

†Then I come to the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Connan) who raised the question whether part of the farmer’s clip may be withdrawn or whether it must necessarily be the whole clip that is withdrawn. That is, of course, a matter that must be settled by J.O. The conference simply recommended that the producer should have the option and the right to withdraw his clip if he wished to do so. The hon. member also referred to the levy of 1½d. I think that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) also referred to it and felt that it was rather high. I would like to indicate that that is not a levy. As I indicated in my introductory remarks that is the margin that at present exists between the price which the B.W.C. pays and the issue price. That is roughly over 1½d., and it is not expected that that will be the full cost of the administration of the scheme, but that 1½d. will be used to build up a reserve. If we go on putting this 1½d. into the fund for a few years it may not be necessary later on, unless prices drop very much—which is tied up with other economic factors—to make any levy in excess of ½d. a lb. So I would like to assure hon. members on that score also.

†*One of the biggest disappointments to me was the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) because I think he found himself in the same position as his colleagues on the other side. He now has to create a little atmosphere that everything is not so happy in connection with the wool scheme, and he did try to create that impression. He painted a picture that it was all in England’s favour, and in the process of doing so he destroyed his second argument with his first, because he had proceeded from the standpoint that England held a Sword of Damocles over our heads and said to us: If you do not make this new agreement then I will throw all the wool on to the market. But the hon. member says virtually in the same breath that England has half the wool and consequently England has a monopoly and can do what she wishes to. It will not permit other manufacturers to be interested in the wool. She will buy the wool herself and have a monopoly. But if this was the intention of England she would have to retain all the wool and then she could do what she liked with it. Thus the hon. member cancels out the second argument with his own argument. He also endeavoured to create the impression that the country that is deriving a big benefit from this agreement is England, but the hon. member is entirely wrong. I shall read out of an official document of the conference. We did not consider it necessary to publish it. It was published in Australia. But I should like to read out what the position is in connection with that matter—

This is one of the conditions in the contract that they can review the terms every year. The document goes on—

And now I come to something which I should like the hon. member to pay special attention to—

Read that paragraph out to us.

I shall do so but I would like to make this point. It is quite clear that England could have remained as she was, and she could have come out of it in a highly favourable way for herself.

If you were willing to sell for the following two years, but you did not need to do that.

But it was one of the conditions of the agreement. My hon. friend sees now that his argument is wrong. If there was one country that would have benefited by remaining on the old basis it was England, because we must also remember that England is a consumer of wool. She has a big wool industry and it suits her to sell her wool cheaply to her wool industries. The picture that my hon. friend presents that it is only England that derives an advantage is thus entirely wrong.

Just read out that paragraph.

I am quite prepared to read it out—

Hear, hear.

Just wait for the second word. You should not always show this hatred of England.

Naturally these people put the whole position in a very sober and just manner. They put both sides of the case. [Laughter.] I do not know what there is to laugh about. I do not know whether it is necessary to say anything further about the speech of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. I think his picture is altogether misleading, that it is very wide of the actualities of the case. Then the hon. member—I was very sorry to listen to it—made a personal attack on me. He says that in this Bill I am filling the role of a big dictator. He referred to that section that relates to the appointment of members of the Statutory Wool Board, and he says that that dictatorship of mine is nothing less than cowardice, and I am now the enemy and not the friend of the farmers. I should like the National Wool Growers’ Association, for whom my hon. friend is pleading in this way, to listen to those words, because that section in connection with which he has made such a personal attack on me is word for word as it was submitted to me by the National Wool Growers’ Association itself. I hope they will take due note of the standpoint the hon. member has adopted; and it is quite easy to understand that they should have submitted something of that sort, because that same provision is in every one of our control schemes. The hon. member does not need to be afraid that I shall act as a dictator.

Did the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) not talk about the same thing as I did?

Now the hon. member is trying to wriggle out of it. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) dealt with this in an entirely different way to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. I would just say this, that I had that power under all the control schemes under the Marketing Act, and I have never yet found it necessary to take such a step. That step would only be taken by me in exceptional circumstances.

But those boards under the Marketing Act have much wider powers.

I am referring now to the one instance where my hon. friend was completely wide of the mark. I can understand his anxiety to divert attention now to something else.

†In regard to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Lt.-Col. Oosthuizen) who referred to Clause 5 dealing with appointment of directors of the local organisation, I should like to know how he suggests these directors should be appointed. If the Governor-General is not to appoint them, who is to appoint them? I do not know how he arrives at the process of reasoning that because it is done by the Governor-General therefore they will be appointed by civil servants and therefore it is bureaucracy. I do not think he does justice to his legal standing as an old practitioner when he comes forward with criticism of that kind. I know he is a champion of the liberty of the subject and that he does not want to see any unnecessary bureaucracy. He also dealt with Clause 17, which I have already disposed of, and in reference to Clause 28 I have replied to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux), and I do not wish to repeat myself.

†*I will conclude by saying that my hon. friends on the other side find themselves in an ugly fix in connection with the matter. To their mind the Government has done far too much for the wool farmers, and now they want to make political capital out of it. There is no doubt about it. I come now to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker). I do not think he mentioned any new argument. I think he repeated most of the arguments contained in his previous speech. The question of the types I have already dealt with. The question of England’s wool farmers not falling under the scheme is easy to understand. England’s wool farmers produce a type of cross wool, not the same wool that we produce here. There is a reasonable market for it, and if the hon. member seeks to create the impression that England’s wool farmers are better off because they do not fall under the scheme, he is missing the point completely. As far as the wool farmers of England are concerned it is all the same to them in regard to the price they get, whether they are under the scheme or outside the scheme. There is no ground for the criticism that has been raised against this Bill, and I think I have now covered all the points that have been raised, and I hope the second reading will be accepted.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 14th March.

I move—

This is quite a simple little amending Bill in respect of which a White Paper has been tabled which really sets out the amendments and the various reasons for these amendments, and they also say it is really an agreed Bill, as the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) will know, as he takes a keen interest in these matters. The wine merchants have all had a sight of this Bill, and I can really say it is an agreed Bill. There are no amendments of any of the principles of the legislation we seek to amend. The amendments proposed in this little Bill are merely intended to improve the administrative machinery of the present Act, especially in so far as concerns the procedure for the fixing of the minimum price and the quality price of wine, and also to tighten up control, in order to ensure that the fixed prices are paid by those engaged in the wine trade. The main amendment is contained in clause 4 of the Bill which now substitutes a new sub-section (1) for subsection (1) of section 5 of the Act of 1940. That merely deals with the time factor. It fixes a date before which prices have to be published and a later date for the finalising of the prices. Experience has shown that it, will require at least two months between the date on which the K.W.V. makes their submission of the intended price and the date it is finally fixed. That has been done.

The old procedure created certain difficulties. In the first instance it was quite an anomalous position. I had to publish a notice in the Gazette indicating my intention of fixing certain prices when, in the result, I may not fix those prices at all because they are merely published to call forward objections. If those objections are well founded I would naturally have to give weight to them and ask the K.W.V. to fix another price, so in order to rectify that faulty procedure, that inadequate procedure provided in the old legislation, we now fix these new dates which I have mentioned, 20 th January as the submission date and 20th March as the final date. Under this new procedure the Minister will publish the proposals of the K.W.V. and call for objections. After considering any objections he may either approve of the K.W.V.’s proposal or call upon it to submit a new proposal which he then is empowered to approve without further objection. A further departure is contained in sub-section (a) (iii), which enables the K.W.V. with the approval of the Minister to fix the circumstances under which a fixed price may be increased and also the extent to which any such price may be increased. That is merely in order to bring the position so far as wine is concerned into line with what already obtains in regard to some of our other products, for instance mealies, namely making provision for storage charges, so there may be an increase in the price set out as well as the extent to which the increase may be made and the circumstances in which the price can be increased. Then we tighten up the control to some extent. The practice has grown up in the wine trade whereby merchants and distillers who have their own farms purchase wine at a price other than that payable by merchants and distillers, and it is very difficult to bring it home to them that they should purchase this wine at the properly fixed prices, and the Bill now deems in a case like that that they made the purchase as merchants and distillers and they will therefore be forced to adhere to the price fixed for merchants and distillers. A necessary exception has been made in the case of transactions between co-operative societies and their members as there is really no actual sale in a case like that. Finally, the Bill provides that persons who are not classified as merchants and distillers must purchase wine from producers at the same price as the K.W.V. pays for distilling wine. There again there has been the practice that some of the bigger people have been able to purchase from the smaller people, who have not the facilities, at the lower price. So now we lay down where they do purchase they cannot exploit the smaller people but they will have to purchase at the price the K.W.V. gives. These are the amendments that matter in this little Bill. As I say, it is an agreed Bill, and I hope the House will have no difficulty in passing it.

I think it is necessary to explain the reason for the amendment of this control Act of 1940. Under the constitution of the K.W.V., which is a cooperative, the price is fixed and the surpluses announced in the middle of January. The previous law made provision that the price of good wine must be fixed in November or December, while the price of distilling wine would be determined in the middle of January. It was accepted by the dealers and the farmers that the price of good wine ought to be £2 more than the price that the farmer receives for his distilling wine. Now you can realise that if the price of good wine must be fixed before you know what the price of distilling wine is going to be, and you have to make a difference of £2, you are beginning from the wrong end. The price the farmer receives for his wine depends on the consumption for the year, and there are still continual surpluses. I think the last surplus, declared in January, was 30 per cent. The position is that unless we know what the surplus is we do not know what the wine farmer will get, and if we are only paid the surplus in the middle of January we cannot make the difference of £2 they consider ought to be made. The difficulty was explained to the then Minister, the late Col. Collins, but he said we should let the thing stand and let it go through like that. The dealers are objecting; they say they must buy the wine in January, and they must know then what the price is. We explained the position to the then Minister. You must understand that the price depends on the surplus, and the surplus depends on the vintage we have to estimate, and the position in connection with the grapes is that if it rains in the fortnight around Christmas and New Year —that is the time that determines whether it is going to be a good crop or a bad crop —then the crop is usually twice as large as normally. If it does not rain the crop is smaller, and then the farmer gets more for his wine, and consequently a later date is fixed. We are grateful that the present Minister has accepted the proposal and that it has now been decided that the price for distilling wine and good wine will be fixed by us in January. We must give him notice on 20th January, and we will know by then what the price of distilling wine will be. Consequently, it is an improvement on the existing law. As far as the conditions go in connection with the fixing of the price of wine at the time laid down, the K.W.V. adopted this principle as far back as two years ago. When we come to the other part of the Bill, the part that deals with existing privileges that are being taken from the farmers, I think it is another matter. I should like to tell the whole story to the Minister, and then he can know what the position is. The remainder of the Bill and the alteration that is made here was made at the request of the merchants; the idea arose that the K.W.V. asked for it, but they did not ask for it. I must emphasise that here, because some wine farmers are dissatisfied over it. It is a privilege the wine farmer always had. If his neighbour had not the space for wine presses, or if he had a small number of vines and had no cellar, then it was a privilege the Wine farmer always had to buy his neighbour’s grapes and to press them. It has always been so. The right was also acknowledged in the 1940 Act. Unfortunately, there are three or four of these wine farmers—it is not the merchants who began to buy grapes from their neighbours; it is wine farmers who were not always able to sell their wine to the merchant, and who thus began to sell their wine by the cask. Those people were bound to the price. They could not sell it cheaper than the wine merchant had to pay. They had to submit to the fixed price, but naturally they sold it much cheaper than the merchant sold it, and in this way they built up a market. You will readily understand this when I say that £8 is paid for a leaguer of wine. A leaguer of wine is in the neighbourhood of 800 bottles, or 127 gallons. Every gallon contains six bottles. You can work it out for yourself. It is between 700 and 800 bottles. That means the farmer obtains for that wine round about 3d. a bottle, and the merchant sells this at the very cheapest for 1s. 6d. a bottle when it is new wine, wine that has not yet aged, and the result is that when the farmer starts trading he can undersell the merchant. So far as I know, there are only five farmers concerned. Two of them later took out wholesale dealers’ licences. Now the idea is that if they buy grapes because they are in the trade, they ought not to get them cheaper than the merchant pays for them. There is something to be said for it. But under any circumstances this is a privilege the farmers enjoy which is now being taken from them. This Bill is worded in so complicated a way that it has taken me hours to understand what is meant, notwithstanding the fact that I understood what the intention was. I have looked at both the Afrikaans and the English. I think there are passages where the wording could be improved. I am not worrying much about that because it is not my Bill, but I should like the Minister to have the wording clarified, especially in Clause 4, where there is a reference to the circumstances in which such a price may be increased and the degree to which such a price can be increased in the absence of these circumstances. I think that the word “moet” is not correct there. The English translation of it—or rather I assume that it is drafted in English—also seems to me very complicated. The price of good wine is fixed; the price of superior wine is fixed; you set out what percentage of superior wine the merchant must buy. Then you lay down the circumstances under which the price of wine can be raised, I assume that is if the merchant buys it. He buys in September; the price is £8 and he only pays in December. By that we assume that the wine farmer is entitled to interest and that he should receive a higher price, and that is what the Minister stands for there. If you look into it you will see it was expected of the K.W.V. that it should set out the circumstances, with the permission of the Minister, but the thing does not read right to me. If you look at the following clause you will also see that the same mistake is repeated there that was made in the old Act. The K.W.V. fixes the price of good wine, superior wine, etc. These prices are then sent to the Minister. This must occur before 20th January. Then the Minister advertises the price and the other circumstances in the Government Gazette, and he invites objections. Then objections are handed in. The Minister, after he has heard the objections, if he is satisfied the price should be altered, must request the K.W.V. to fix a new price, and if they fix a new price and he is not satisfied with that price, we are stuck; we can make no progress. It was the time in the old Act, and the idea was to rectify that. Someone must eventually have the last word in saying what the price should be. The proposal here appears to be that the Minister should accept the price that the K.W.V. has fixed the second time. I am satisfied if it is so, but I do not think this was the Minister’s intention. You had the same difficulty in the old law. It was a defect in the old law. You could get no finality. It had to be advertised, I think before 20th March, and if it was not advertised by that time no price was fixed for a year. Provision had to be made so that there could be finality, so that the wine farmers would fix a price that would put the Minister in a position to accept it. Someone must have the final say, and I think the Minister must make provision for that. Then we come to the last part. I should like the Minister to understand that the opposition there is emanates from the farmers who buy grapes, and if a farmer trades then I think there is a certain measure of justification for saying he must not get them cheaper than the merchants, because he is acting in competition with the merchants. I should like the Minister to consider seriously the position where a man makes wine and assists his neighbours. You get farms where there are perhaps only 5,000 or 6,000 vines or fewer. It does not pay that man to have a cellar, and he sells his grapes to a neighbour or to someone else who converts them into distilling wine. That privilege does not come into competition with the merchants. Nor would I make any objection to that. If the Minister would do that to protect the wine farmer there is perhaps something to be said for it. I would say this to the Minister, that the small farmer gets nothing more than distilling wine prices. The price of good wine has to be paid by the buyer, because the balance goes to the K.W.V. The idea of the Bill was quite good. It was to encourage the farmers to make wine themselves. I would say to the Minister that we can never make a good name for our wine if the farmers do not make the wine themselves. The merchant and the co-operative cannot make good wine. They buy grapes and wine and it is all thrown in together. They cannot make the quality wine that the farmer makes, that a man makes when he produces a wine of a good bouquet and flavour, because his production is localised and he has the cellar space to do it properly. We do things very differently here to Australia. There they do not have wine farmers but grape farmers. They sell the grapes to dealers who make the wine, and their wines cannot compete with our quality wines. A wine farmer builds up a name for his wine. It may be produced on the same farm and in the same environment for a hundred years. Such a country has at once an advantage over countries where the farmers do not make the wine themselves but where the merchants make it. It seems to me as if Clause 6 is depriving us of that privilege. I have consulted the draftsman, but it seems to me he does not know either what the position is. The farmers who buy grapes to make wine which they in turn sell to the merchant do not act in competition with the merchants, and it is only a small quantity of grapes that is bought by them. We must give these people a chance to do this and to make good wine. The farmer who buys the grapes pays the price for distilling wine. He will not get the grapes for less. He makes good wine and a part of the must he has to furnish as distilling wine. It is not right to make him pay the price of good wine for that. Then there is something in connection with the definitions. Farmers may produce moskonfyt and raisins and do not make wine. It seems to me that those farmers are excluded, because the reference here is to wine growers. In that respect the Bill should be reviewed. I shall endeavour to get into touch with the department and to propose the necessary amendments, so that the position may be clarified.

This amending Bill is of a technical character to make arrangements in connection with the K.W.V. and the merchants. We are, however, engaged in amending the Control Act of 1924, and I would like to bring to the notice of the House an important amendment which should have been introduced long ago. Under this Act of 1924 the K.W.V. may not sell its products in the country. It is an arrangement with the merchants through the wine farmers of the country that the K.W.V. will export its surplus liquor and not sell it within the country. The K.W.V. have built up a gigantic reserve. They have matured wine and today the position is that people overseas can get better liquor from us than we can get in this country itself. The K.W.V. have built cellars to mature wine and brandy. That good liquor is exported, but the K.W.V. may not sell a single bottle of it in South Africa. We can only obtain the product of the K.W.V. if you buy it from the merchant who has bought it from the K.W.V. In recent years a number of merchants have obtained supplies from the K.W.V. But you, Mr. Speaker, have knowledge of that, and every member of the House knows that we are frequently invited by the K.W.V. to come and see how the industry has developed and what class of product they can put on the market. Although we can sample the liquor as their guests we cannot get it on the local market. That provision in the Control Act of 1924 must be amended, because the public of South Africa would like to obtain the product of the K.W.V., and that in a legal manner. At the moment this cannot be done, and the external market obtains an excellent article while our local market is not provided with an article of the same standard. I think the House desires, with me, that the Minister and his Department should begin working in the direction of securing an amendment of the law so that the K.W.V. will have the right to place its product on the market just like any other co-operative has the right to place its product on the market in South Africa. We can understand the original reason for such an arrangement. I was young at the time, but I know in what a sorry plight the wine farmers were when they had to sell their wine at £2 and £2 10s. a leaguer. They had to go cap in hand to the merchants. Out of that distress of the wine farmer the K.W.V. was born. There were the vested interests of the wine trade. To put the matter in order this agreement had to be arrived at. But when the merchants in this country cannot place on the market the quality of liquor that the K.W.V. can the time will have arrived when we should help the K.W.V. to place its liquor on the market. We would then have a more perfect system of co-operation in the wine industry. I should also like to see the day when the K.W.V. has the right to assume control over the quality of the liquor that should be placed on the local market—that it should determine the quality. It should have statutory powers to determine the quality of the liquor sent to the market, under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture, so that we would be able to buy proper liquor on the local market. Today I fear that in the other provinces, especially in the Transvaal, the standard of the liquor people get leaves much to be desired. I think that if the Minister will go so far as to amend the Act of 1924 so that the K.W.V. secures the right to place its product on the market we shall have a better controlled liquor trade in our country, and we shall also arrive at the position that the farmer will get the reward that he has so richly earned. The wine merchants make thousands and thousands of pounds while the wine farmers on the other side are not as prosperous as many members think; 70 per cent. of the wine farmers each produce less than 100 leaguers. Consequently it is necessary that the K.W.V. should be placed in a position to manufacture the product of that 70 per cent. and to market it. I thought I should place these few opinions before the House, because the day has arrived for the K.W.V. to have a greater say in the liquor trade of the country.

I should like to support the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) in his effort to remove a misunderstanding. The great object of the wine farmers in South Africa is to produce a better quality wine, perhaps I should say to produce a greater quantity of wine of a good standard. I can say with justice that the best wine that is produced here can hold its own with that from any part of the world. I am not one of those people who believe that we can produce wine that is as good as the small quantity of wine that can be produced in the northern climate with their cool summers. They produce a wine that is so outstanding that it cannot be equalled in any other part of the world. But take the good wine of France. It is produced in three districts — Burgundy, Champagne and Graves. Then we also have the Rhine, which is virtually part of that. They produce a very excellent wine, but only a small quantity, the same as with the French wine. We are speaking of good wine, a first-class product that is used for ordinary purposes, and I say that South Africa undoubtedly can produce a great quantity of quality wine which not only can compare favourably with that of other countries, but which in some respects is better than that of any other country. When we come to heavy wines we can produce wines that are just as good, and indeed better, than those of countries from which we have borrowed the names of those wines. Just before the war seven or eight sherries were placed before a group of prominent wine merchants, and they were asked to arrange them ‘ in order of merit. The South African sherry came first. That applies also to our port types. As the hon. member for Swellendam has pointed out, we, like France, have wine farmers. In Australia they do not have wine farmers, but grape farmers. They sell their grapes to the co-operative association or merchants, who then make the wine, and who cannot make quality wine, or at any rate the wine that is made by a merchant or a co-operative is usually weaker than the wine a farmer could make himself. We want in South Africa to encourage farmers to make their own wines, and that they should not supply it to co-operatives. I am not referring to the K.W.V., but to small wine makers. A farmer who makes his own wine specialises with his grapes. He plants special sorts to impart a special character to his wine. It is not really profitable for him, because usually grapes of that sort bear very little. These people do that, however, because’ with them it is a tradition of generations to make a good quality wine. It is their delight and their pride. I can mention instances that I have encountered. A man wants to put a certain standard of wine on the market. He has possibly his connections with a merchant. The grapes on his farm are perhaps lacking in a definite character for two reasons. He has not all the right sorts, and it may also be a question of ground and situation. Alongside him is perhaps a farm where he can get the right grapes. I can give you the assurance that a very small distance sometimes makes a great difference to the character of the wine. I can recall that on my own farm— within three miles of each other—the same sort of grapes have an entirely different character. So he has to buy these grapes from that farm. Now I come to another point. In such an event the farmer buys grapes from his neighbour because he wants the right character for his wine. If the interpretation of the hon. member for Swellendam is correct, this clause is not going to offer encouragement to the farmers to buy grapes to press with their own grapes and to make a good quality wine. Instead of encouraging them, it will discourage them. We do not want to do that. We must encourage them as wine farmers to make the best wine. Consequently, I hope that the suggestion of the hon. member for Swellendam will be adopted. We should not oblige these people to pay more for the grapes that they have to buy to press with their own grapes. We must rather allow them to obtain their grapes at a cheaper price to encourage them. The wine farmers who buy grapes to press them do not buy great quantities. They have good connections. But even if they want to make a big quantity of wine by buying grapes, we should still encourage them, because it implies that proportionately more good wine will be made. It means that more quality wine will be produced. In 90 per cent. of the cases where a farmer buys grapes to press with the grapes produced on his own farm, it is a man who makes quality types, and we must do everything in our power to encourage him. We should not place anything in his way which would make his position difficult. I hope that the suggestion of the hon. member for Swellendam will be adopted. The effect on the law ought to be the encouragement of the production of a first-class article, and we should do nothing that will be an obstacle in the way of these people.

I am glad to see there is practically no opposition to this Bill. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) gave his interpretation of one of the clauses, and the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) felt that the effect might be that it would adversely affect the production of good wine while we ought to encourage it. There is no intention to place any stumbling block in the way of a man making good wine. We can go into the matter further on closer examination in the Committee stage. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) mentioned a matter which I cannot go into at this stage.

It ought to be ideal.

He wants, of course, to make propaganda for it.

Are you then so full of propaganda?

Then I will assume that the hon. member does not want to make propaganda and was only talking.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 8th March.

I move—

Although this amending Bill is short, there is something in it both for the doctors, the dentists and the pharmacists. First of all it is proposed that the Medical Council in future should be known as the South African, Medical and Dental Council. That is a very worthy gesture to the profession who have for some time past asked that they should be included in the Council for the regulation of their business and affairs. Secondly, the South African Pharmacy Board has felt that its powers should be brought into line with that of the doctors and dentists. In the case of the latter they have representatives from each of the provinces, and this amending Bill seeks to give the same arrangement as far as the pharmacists are concerned, and provides that there shall be representatives on the South African Pharmacy Board of the pharmacists from each of the provinces. These are amongst the not least important but the easier and more straightforward amendments contained in this Bill. When we come to the amending of the medical part of it, we are confronted with some fairly far-reaching implications as far as these amendments are concerned.

The main objects of the Bill may be summarised as follows:

Firstly to provide for the registration with the Council (which it is proposed should in future be known as the South African Medical and Dental Council) of certain classes of medical practitioners (such as medical missionaries, and doctors working for scientific institutions and universities) who, owing to lack of reciprocal recognition as between the country in which they received their training and the Union, cannot under the law as it exists today be registered and practise as medical practitioners. Their registration and the conditions subject to which they may practise would be prescribed in terms of regulations to be made by the Governor-General.

Secondly to regulate the conditions under which internes shall be entitled to registration and to practise as medical practitioners.

Thirdly to permit of a managing director of a corporate body carrying on business as a chemist and druggist to accept an appointment as a director (other than a managing director) of another similar body.

Fourthly to enable the South African Pharmacy Board to require chemists and druggists to furnish information relating to pharmacies with which they are connected.

Fifthly to permit of the levying of annual fees to be paid by registered persons with a view to simplifying the administrative work entailed in keeping the relevant registers up to date; and ensuring the maintenance of a steadier income.

Finally to ensure that prescriptions in respect of habit-forming drugs, inter alia, shall be signed personally by medical practitioners or other authorised persons, thus obviating the risk of rubber stamp impressions being used in such cases.

Clause 1 provides for the change of the name of the South African Medical Council to the South African Medical and Dental Council. This change is being made at the request of the Council in deference to the wishes of the dental profession. The clause provides also for each province to be represented on the South African Pharmacy Board by at least one chemist and druggist (elected), thus constituting an extension of the principle which already applies in respect of the Council in so far as medical practitioners and dentists are concerned. At present six chemists and druggists are elected members of the Board. The proposed amendment in clause 2 is dependent upon the amendment contemplated in clause 4, and provides for the erasure from the relevant register of the names of any persons whose period of registration may have expired in terms of regulations made under sub-section (2) of section 22 of the Act. This would affect such classes of medical practitioners as medical missionaries and persons working for scientific institutions and universities who would not ordinarily be entitled to registration as medical practitioners. Clause 3 amends section 17 of the principal Act. The proposed new paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of section 17 is dependent upon the amendment contemplated in clause 8, and provides for the erasure of the names of registered persons who may have failed to pay, within three months of the due date, any fee which may have been prescribed on the authority of the Governor-General under sub-section (2) of section 95 of the Act as it is proposed to amend the latter as set out in clause 8. This relates particularly to any annual retention fee which may be imposed by the Council (or the Board) upon registered persons. The proposed new paragraph (e) which is dependent upon the amendment indicated in clause 7 provides similarly for the erasure of the names of any registered chemists and druggists who may have failed (within a period to be determined by the Board) to furnish such particulars relating to pharmacies with which they may be connected as the Board may require in terms of paragraph (o) of subsection (2) of section 94, as set out in clause 7. Paragraph (a) of clause 4 is consequential upon the first of the proposed amendments of the section as set out in paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) provides firstly for the addition of a new sub-section (2) to section 22 to enable the Governor-General, upon the recommendation of the Council, to waive (by regulation) the reservation against the registration of certain classes of medical practitioners if the only bar to their registration as such is lack of reciprocal recognition as between the Union and the country in which they received their training. It is proposed that such persons shall, if registered, be allowed to practise as medical practitioners subject to regulations relating to the period during which their registration may be effective, the area or areas within which they may practise, or such other conditions as may be considered necessary. Such persons would include medical missionaries and persons (who have been trained as medical practitioners) employed by scientific institutions and universities. Cases have come to notice in which, because of the existing provisions of the Act relating to reciprocity as one of the conditions precedent to registration, persons of international fame have been precluded not only from performing for gain any acts specially pertaining to the profession of medical practitioners, but also from using any name, title description or symbol indicating that they possess a degree, diploma or other qualifications as medical practitioners, doctors of medicine, physicians, surgeons or accoucheurs. To do so would have rendered them liable to prosecution under Section 34 of the Act (No. 13 of 1928). In consequence the services of such eminent persons have been lost to the Union or have necessarily been subject to so much restriction as largely to deprive the Union of the full value of the services which they could otherwise have rendered in scientific institutions or in universities. Similar difficulties have arisen in the case of certain medical missionaries who, having been brought into the Union at the instance of missionary societies, have been debarred from carrying out the very functions which they were originally intended to do and which, but for the reservation in respect of reciprocity, they might otherwise have been qualified to do. Inasmuch as such medical missionaries generally have their headquarters in relatively remote areas where the absence of a registered medical practitioner entitled to practise as such constitutes a hardship in so far as the local communities are concerned, the fact that such medical missionaries have been precluded from filling the gaps in this respect, has reacted unfavourably from the point of view of the local communities and can hardly be regarded as in the best interests of the public. Thus the amendment to the Act would tend to bring about two beneficial results in so far as the public interest is concerned, viz.—

It may be added that at present only persons holding degrees, diplomas or certificates conferred by specified universities in the Union, Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Irish Free State, Australia or New Zealand are entitled to registration in the Union as medical practitioners. In addition, persons holding degrees, diplomas or certificates conferred by specified universities in France, Germany, Holland, Switzerland (in respect only of qualifications obtained prior to 3rd January, 1934), Austria, United States of America or Sweden, are entitled to registration in the Union only if they were born in or domiciled in the Union. It may be mentioned, further, that the question of registering such medical practitioners and allowing them to practise in the Union first arose some two or three years ago, when representations were made to the Council by the Refugees Representation Fund with headquarters in Johannesburg to the effect that the Council should agree to register various refugee doctors in the Union, emanating mostly from Europe. At the time the Council was opposed to the idea as other doctors from Europe had attended courses at South African universities for three years in order to secure registrable qualifications. Subsequently, however, a memorandum signed by those doctors who had taken further courses in the Union was submitted to the Council indicating that they were in agreement with the representations which had been made. Finally, following upon further representations made by the Swedish and Danish Consuls, the Director-General of Demobilisation and others, the Council appointed a committee in June, 1944, to investigate the whole position. This subcommittee found that the doctors concerned could be divided into three classes, namely, scientific workers, mission doctors and refugees. After careful deliberation the Council decided that the two first-mentioned classes merited sympathetic consideration. One or two refugee doctors practised illegally and were prosecuted. Paragraph (b) of clause 4 provides, secondly, for the Governor-General to prescribe by regulation the conditions under which internes may be registered and practise as medical practitioners. The necessity for such a provision in the Act was stressed as far back as 1939, when the Committee on Medical Training, under the chairmanship of Professor M. C. Botha, at that time Secretary for Education, and on which Dr. S. M. de Kock (then Vice-Chairman of the South African Medical Council), Dr. K. Bremer (as a member of the South African Medical Council), Sir Edward N. Thornton (then Secretary for Public Health) and Dr. P. J. du Toit (Director of Veterinary Services) served as members, recommended, in its Report (No. U.G. 25—1939), that a year of compulsory interneship prior to registration as medical practitioners should be instituted. In support of the recommendation, the Committee stated—

In comparing the training of medical students in Great Britain with that in South Africa, the Committee expressed the opinion that the standard of the latter was roughly equal to that in the former country, but pointed out that differing circumstances must be taken into consideration—

In further elaboration of its argument in favour of compulsory interneship, the Committee added—

The views expressed by the Committee received careful consideration by the South African Medical Council which has indicated that it recognises the necessity for instituting a year of compulsory hospital training for medical students after graduation before they are allowed to enter into private practice, and has intimated to the Government that the “time has now come when it is considered imperative that this power be given to the Council so that it can take effect from 1st January, 1947. To delay such an advance as the amendment will bring about, would be detrimental to the public, and the amendment is regarded by the Council as urgent”.

The proposed amendment of section 76 is intended to enable the managing director of a body corporate trading as a chemist and druggist to hold an appointment as a director of some other body corporate trading as a chemist and druggist. The restriction imposed in the present section 76 has been found irksome to persons who have been invited, by reason of their special knowledge, experience, or capabilities to become directors of other companies. The South African Pharmacy Board feels that there is no objection to a managing director being a director of another pharmaceutical company provided that he does not perform any of the acts described under section 37 in respect of the other pharmaceutical company to which he may be appointed director. A chemist and druggist carrying on business in his individual capacity may hold a directorship in other companies, but a chemist and druggist who is registered as a managing director under the law as it stands at present is precluded from being director of any other pharmaceutical company—an anomaly which it is considered, calls for remedy. Clause 6 amends section 80 and requires all registered persons to render detailed accounts in respect of the services provided by them and will obviate the necessity of members of the public having to ask for detailed accounts. The requirement that detailed accounts shall henceforth be rendered in respect of professional services will, it is submitted, tend to discourage the making of excessive or extortionate charges and, at the same time facilitate action on the part of the South African Medical Council (or the South African Pharmacy Board as the case may be) in cases where such charges are considered excessive or extortionate, with a view to such steps as may be indicated being taken under the disciplinary provisions of Chapter IV of the Act.

The proposal that the South African Pharmacy Board should be empowered to require chemists and druggists to furnish particulars of all pharmacies with which they may have any connection provided for in clause 7 is intended to enable the Board to compile a list of all pharmacies in the Union with all relevant particulars. To quote from an explanatory note submitted by the Registrar of the Board—

Clause 8 amends section 95 and is designed to enable the Council (or the Board) to impose, upon the authority of the Governor-General, annual fees to be paid by persons registered under the Act, with a view to simplifying the administrative work entailed in keeping the relevant registers up to date; and ensuring the maintenance of a steadier income. It is proposed further, having regard to the intention of the Council to ask that the amount of the registration fee payable in the future by medical practitioners and dentists under the Second Schedule to the Act be reduced by way of a proclamation, that the Council should also be empowered to impose different fees in respect of persons registered before dates to be specified by proclamation and those registered subsequently. In explanation it may be stated that the Council has intimated its desire that the amount of the registration fee applicable to a medical practitioner or a dentist under the Second Schedule to the Act should be reduced from £25 to £15. Thereafter it is proposed that medical practitioners and dentists who may have paid the higher registration fee and been registered prior to the date when the proposed reduction becomes effective shall be called upon to pay an annual fee of 10s., while those who become registered subsequently, after payment of the reduced registration fee, shall be required to pay an annual fee of £1. Section 96 of the principal Act is amended in order to remove any possibility of doubt as to the meaning of the term “signed”, and so obviate any possibility of abuse through the use of rubber stamp or similar impressions of signatures, particularly in respect of prescriptions relating to habit-forming drugs. One such case actually came to the notice of the Department of Public Health in the course of its administration of the Act but in view of the absence of a definition of the term “signed” in the Act, a case for prosecution was, on the advice of the Attorney-General, withdrawn. I trust that these remarks, Mr. Speaker, have explained adequately the purpose of the Bill before the House.

Much of the content of this Bill has been before the profession, and the Medical Council, and the public for a good many years. For the last six years it has been felt that these provisions with regard to the improvement of the equipment of the newly qualified doctor have been necessary; that has been felt by the Medical Council and the profession very largely for a good many years. And we are very glad at last we have reached the stage where this amending legislation is now taking effect. I want to say just a word with regard to including the words “Dental Council” with the name of the South African Medical Council. At the first request of the dental members we were only too pleased to recommend it, and I am glad the Minister has seen his way to adopt it and to Call it the South African Medical and Dental Council. I am glad to see the dental profession, and the dental members on the Medical Council feel they are at liberty to achieve representation for their profession on an absolutely equal basis with the medical profession, and in order to remove any possible doubt with regard to equality of status we are glad that the Minister has seen his way to adopt this change in the name. With regard to the new powers given to the Medical Council, with regard to creating registers for certain groups of medical practitioners, we realise that this is a very far-reaching change, and it gives wide opportunities to the Medical Council to create registers for certain groups of persons. It has not really originated with the Medical Council at all, but it has originated largely in a demand from certain public bodies and from sections of the public more than from the Medical Council itself. Everyone feels if it is thought necessary to bring into the country certain research experts for our institutes and certain professors into the medical schools, it would be below the dignity of those persons to do their work and yet in their contact with the public and with the profession be precluded from the status derived from being on our register of practitioners. As far as the Medical Council is concerned they were quite prepared for this innovation. The medical profession was agreeable to this, and I think the public will be agreeable. In regard to the request from the missionary societies that certain medical men from countries who do not enjoy reciprocity with South Africa should be allowed a limited field to practise, in and around a mission of any particular missionary society, it was felt that if the Medical Council had the power to limit the area, to limit the type of work and to limit the period during which such persons could do the work, no harm could come from such a concession. I feel most probably that demand will grow less and less and will eventually fall away entirely. During the war the missionary societies of other countries have learned they could very largely employ South African doctors, and the tendency today even for foreign missionary societies is to employ South African doctors; and I do not think this will in any way endanger the status of the profession in South Africa. This is a general clause and it gives the Council, perhaps unfortunately, the power to include any group of persons, to make a register of any group of persons and unfortunately one foresees that although the Minister will have the last word, it will be the Council who will be pestered for certain groups of persons to be placed on the register. But I would like to assure the House the Medical Council will not be found to be easy game in this respect. The Medical Council is perhaps on the whole rather conservative with regard to the admission of any new groups. In any case the Minister would have to give his approval to any such group. One new group we intend to institute almost immediately is a group of persons who will be registered not as full medical practitioners but as internes. It is the intention of the Council if the powers under 4 (b) (ii) are given that they will create a group of internes who will be the young newly qualified practitioners who have just obtained a degree in medicine and surgery. They will be placed on the register of medical practitioners immediately after their interneship but will make application to be placed in this new group which the Medical Council, with the consent of the Minister, will call into being; that will be the group of internes. These internes will work in the hospitals for a year. The date when this will take effect has not been fixed; it is dependent on the time when South Africa has round about 260 hospital appointments for the newly qualified medical practitioners. At the moment we only have about 200 such posts, if that, and of course it was unthinkable we should insist on a year of interneship from the newly qualified doctor if it is not possible for him to obtain such an appointment. Here again we come up against this very difficult question of the divided control as between the provinces and the Central Government, and before we can make this effective we shall need an assurance from the provinces that they will help to create these posts. I mention this here because it is of fundamental importance for the education of the young doctor that these interne posts should be created in South Africa in sufficient numbers. Why are these posts not created today in sufficient numbers? It is because it is expensive for the provinces to create these posts. The province has to pay these young men £5, £10, £15 or £20 a month, but that is not the chief expense. The chief expense is that they have to be housed and fed, and their laundry bill is also included, and the provinces find this rather a severe strain on their financial resources. As long as we are thinking in cheese-paring terms of the various small salaries needed for these people we will not be able to make this advance we want to make for the better education of our medical men. We cannot make that advance unless we secure that co-operation and unless we are given it immediately. The Medical Council is not a body which can approach the provinces. It has not the power to go to the provinces and ask them, with any authority, for the creation of these posts. The Public Health Department, the Minister of Health with the co-ordinating machinery he has at his disposal, should be the channel through which these appointments can be made available for the newly-qualified doctors. I mention this as being important because it was our desire to institute this regulation on 1st January, 1947, if this Bill has then become law. I do not see why it cannot be dope. I am convinced that our large hospitals can take twice the number of internes they are taking today, nor will the young men and women be underworked. They are largely overworked today. One young fellow left my house on 31st December last. It is now March, and he has not been able to come back to my house to collect his clothes, because he has been busy in the hospital day and night. They are not underworked, but overworked. Even if we employed twice the number, it does not mean they will be underworked; it implies new work. I think my colleagues on the other side of the House will agree with me we can improve the work in the hospitals, we can get more work done, and we can carry it out in greater detail amongst the large number of out-patients and in-patients if we employ these people; and in order to make this effective, I would ask the Minister to give us his assistance in this connection. We have made provision here that our own students who will qualify should become internes, or we have given the Medical Council power to say they shall be internes for a year, and at the end of the year we can make certain demands, and if these demands are met they will go on to the ordinary register of the country. But what occasions me concern is that we have not made provision for those doctors who have qualified outside South Africa. I should like the Minister to ascertain whether the Medical Council would have the power to make a regulation, with the consent of the Minister, providing that any person wishing to register in South Africa shall have to undergo a period of interneship, though not under the same conditions as the young South African doctor. It would not be under the same conditions, because conditions overseas would be different.

Even when there is reciprocity?

Only when there is reciprocity; we are not concerned with the other countries. We do not want to see young doctors from England, Scotland and Ireland coming here without having done their year of interneship, because we believe our medical education is equal in standard to 25 per cent. of theirs, and better than the training given in 75 per cent. of these overseas institutions. Therefore, we want to have the assurance that under the existing powers the Medical Council will be able to make provision in regard to the interneship of young doctors from overseas. I am not quite clear on the point at the moment; we were going to discuss the matter tomorrow with the Secretary for Public Health. But we do feel that the Medical Council should have the power to insist that every person registered in this country shall have done one year of interneship. I would be satisfied if this applied to any person qualified after, say, the end of this year. I am not desirous of making it retrospective in regard to doctors who qualified in those countries which have reciprocity with us before the end of this year. But after this year it should be laid down that they shall have done a year of interneship. In fact, it is quite impossible to think that we could allow this Bill to go through unless that power is in our hands. The next point I have to make, Mr. Speaker, is this. The Minister has made it clear that the Medical Council desires to alter the basis of contributions from members of the profession on registration. At the moment it is the intention to reduce from £25 to £15 the fee paid on registration, and —if the power is given us—to have an annual fee of say £1 per annum from every doctor who is newly registered, and 10s. per annum from all those who have paid their £25 registration fee in the past, or any such sum as the Minister may approve. But what I want particularly is that section 95 of the original Act should be altered so that the annual fee shall not be contingent on these words—

Then the Minister will allow the Council to levy this annual fee. I think that position can be met if the Minister is willing under clause 8 of this amending Bill to amend section 95 (ii) of the principal Act to read—

I take it from his remarks the Minister desires the Council to have power to levy this fee irrespective of whether its funds were exhausted or not. I hope it will be possible in the Committee stage to get this done. Then, Mr. Speaker, it is proposed to amend the original Act by making it compulsory for any medical man, dentist or chemist, to send a detailed account in the first instance; thereafter he can send an “account rendered”. Up to now the law has been when anyone demands a specified account the doctor must immediately comply with his request and give a specified account. But the public felt they were in an invidious position when they had to ask the doctor for a specified account, because the doctor might feel the patient did not trust him and thought he was overcharging. That is not the case. The public feel where an account is only sent once in three, six or twelve months—very often it is only twelve months—the doctor may have made a mistake, or the dentist may have made a mistake, and he has no control over it. After the lapse of nine months he cannot say to the man with any certainty: You were or you were not at my house on such and such a date. I hope the House will accept that. I see no objection to it. Doctors today know they have to keep book-keepers and I think other professions do this, and there should be no objection to the medical profession being called on to do so. There was a demand in this House last year, on both sides of the House to the Minister of that day, that power should be given to the Medical Council to fix maximum fees for services in a schedule. The Medical Council considered this very exhaustively and asked the Medical Association which speaks very largely for the profession what its opinion is. The Medical Association was not in favour of this innovation of fixing maximum fees in a schedule, but they were prepared to accept the term “standard fees”; they were agreeable to having a schedule of standard fees drawn up so that the public may know what the cost is of certain services. There is nothing in the Act with regard to maximum fees, although the Medical Council felt that the time had come to lay that down; we realise that that is a very difficult question and that it bristles with difficulties and on the whole I think that it would be better to have more definite consent and co-operation from the medical profession rather than to introduce it against the feelings of the profession so that it may be perhaps just as well to let that stand over until the profession has had a further opportunity to express its views on that point. I think we are going to improve the standard of the doctor let loose on the public very considerably by the powers we get under this Bill.

Let loose?

I am afraid that the public uses the term “let loose” quite correctly in many instances, and I hope that this Bill will have the passage which it deserves in this House.

One welcomes this amending Bill to the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act. Section four, as the Minister explained it, amends section 22 (13) of the 1928 and 1935 Acts. The only thing that worries one is this. Although the Minister explained that such registration will only apply to men and women who come here with high qualifications from overseas to do research and to missionaries and other specific classes who at present cannot be registered in South Africa, nevertheless once a recommendation has come from the Medical Council to register these persons it will be a most difficult thing to take the registration away once it has been granted, although I see that power is given to do so. But one feels that it would be a good thing if it could be provided in the clause that such applications should have to be renewed annually; in other words, that a registration of that kind cannot last indefinitely, but that application will have to be made annually for such registration, unless you lay down a hard and fast rule that persons so registered will not be in competition with established practitioners, and that they will limit their practice solely to what they are registered for, because in the Act once, they are registered their practice is not limited. I agree with the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) that section (b) is only there as it stands in name. In the first place I want to tell the hon. Minister that I am not very fond of the word “internes,” especially as it is spelt here. In Great Britain they talk about “house physician” and “house surgeon,” and in Afrikaans the Bill talks about “inwonende geneeshere.” This word is going to cause difficulty. It is something culled from the United States of America, and it is a word that is not at home in the English language as I know it. The Botha Commission quite correctly stressed that a resident medical and/or surgical appointment of at least one year should be compulsory, and this was also stressed by the National Health Services Commission, and every person agrees; but as the hon. member for Stellenbosch pointed out, as things are today in the Cape Province, and certain other provinces too, it is absolutely impossible to give every new graduate such a house physician or house surgeon position as this Bill specifies, unless we have a hospital system under the central Government. In the Cape Province at all events we will have the status quo. In the Transvaal we have seen that they are going forward with their free hospitalisation scheme, but in the Cape Province, although we were told a year ago in this House that the increased provincial subsidy was to provide health services, so far we have not heard of any increase in health services, and neither in word or act has anything been done in the matter. In fact, at Groote Schuur, which is a teaching hospital, we have the greatest difficulty in getting anything done in the way of improvements or in the way of new accommodation by the provincial authorities. It is almost impossible. After all, it is no criterion to say that so many house physicians and house surgeonships will be available on the number of hospital beds available. It is no use sending a newly qualified medical practitioner into a small country hospital of 30 beds. They are to be there for the specific purpose of being trained either to become first class general practitioners or as a preliminary training ground to take up a speciality, and in my opinion it is useless to send them to a small country hospital where the necessary experience and the necessary teaching facilities are not available for them, and they may actually evade the intention of this requirement by taking up such a position in a small country hospital, and in that way they may get past what the Medical Council lays down, and yet not give the public what they want us to give them in the way of qualified persons. In other words, we will still be letting loose people who are not fit and proper people to practice.

Of course, they will be working under supervision in the smaller hospitals.

Yes, but the supervision is hopeless. I speak from experience.

It is better than nothing.

But better than nothing is not good enough.

It is still better than nothing.

I know the hon. member for Stellenbosch will agree with me that it is preferable and advisable that these newly qualified practitioners should have their postgraduate training in first-class hospitals.

Definitely.

Now I come to another point where I am glad to see that the Minister in section 9 is bringing in an amendment to the effect that “signed” means subscribing directly in one’s own handwriting, and does not include the use of a stamp or other means of impressing a signature. The Minister said that that applied especially to a prescription for the supply of habit-forming drugs, but I know that the Medical Council and the various executives of the Medical Association in the past have had a good deal of trouble with medical practitioners signing certificates of incapacity or ill-health or signing certificates in connection with the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There also I think it should apply that the certificate should have the actual signature, and that it should not be merely a rubber stamp. It should not only apply to prescriptions of habit-forming drugs but I also think it should apply to any prescription given by any doctor. If that were insisted upon it would overcome many difficulties which are today experienced especially in connection with Workmen’s Compensation cases. Then I think that the deletion of the words “when so requested by such person” under section 6 in connection with the rendering of accounts, is rather hard on medical men. I think that the public will be expecting too much, especially where a patient is under long treatment, to require the doctor to give a complete specified account. I know that under the Workmen’s Compensation Act it has given a lot of trouble. Medical practitioners do not like the fact that they have to give the time and date for every visit paid, a description of everything performed, even to the number of stitches they put in—whether it was three or four. It makes the work of the medical man who is hard-worked, more onerous than is necessary, and I think the old law was quite good enough where it was provided that when a patient wanted to know the cost of any treatment beforehand he could demand it or where an account was sent he could demand a specified account afterwards, but now the onus is thrown on the medical practitioner, and I think it would have been better if we had amended the Bill or, for that matter, by the introduction of a scale of maximum fees. That would have simplified matters. It would have relieved the medical man of the onus of handing a specified account in every case to every patient. After all, I know that our profession is becoming commercialised but why over-commercialise it? I think that this procedure of requiring medical men to give full detailed accounts is over-commercialising the profession.

On the contrary it is to avoid over-commercialisation.

I think the fact that the man has to specify the time and the services performed is totally unnecessary unless the patient wants it, and under the old Act the patient has the right to ask for such an account. I just want to say that I hope that in the Committee stage, when I shall go more fully into section 4, the Minister will accept a proviso that in no case where such registration is granted shall such practitioner be in competition with a practitioner registered under ordinary circumstances; for example, that a missionary doctor working in a prescribed area should not be in competition with a doctor in the same area by attending to private patients. I shall be very glad if the Minister will perhaps use his influence with the Minister of Finance so that we can hear specifically this year what particular sum of the money given as a subsidy to the province, and what portion of the increase this year is specifically earmarked for health services, because until we can put our finger on that amount and get the province to show what they are doing we will get nowhere with hospital services in this province.

Whatever they give, we give 50 per cent.

But the Cape Hospital Board has not been able to spend anything near the requirement on improvements or new material at the Groote Schuur Hospital and we are very behind-hand in our requirements and I can state without fear of contradiction that the Cape Hospital Board and the Provincial Administration in the last year, have not met the needs of the medical sub-committee at that hospital, and from day to day the position is being shelved. As far as I can see the Cape Hospital Board and the Provincial Administration have no intention of implementing what we were told last year was to be the policy of expansion.

I hope it will not be regarded as presumptuous on the part of a lay member in this House to intervene in a debate in which our professional members have already taken part, nor is it my intention to enter into the disagreement which apparently exists between the medical men as to some of the details of this Bill. I rise to say first of all that I have no doubt whatever that whilst the profession is likely to benefit by this Bill I am sure the public would also get some benefits out of it. But I have a special reason for taking part in this debate. It is to bring to the notice of the Hon. Minister and also to the notice of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) who is authoritative in these matters as far as the profession is concerned, the question of a number of practitioners— I do not know how many there are—who were refugees in this country from enemy countries and from countries in respect of which there is no reciprocity. During the war they have served with the military and they have given their services as doctors. The hon. member for Stellenbosch probably knows of some such cases. They have given their services and they have been found to be satisfactory, and the position in which they are placed at the present time, unless some provision is made in these regulations, will be that after having given their services to the country in a military-medical capacity, they will now be virtually thrown on to the street. They cannot go back to the country from which they came. As a matter of fact, the cases that I know of have either been sufficiently long in this country to be entitled to become Union nationals not only by reason of the period they have been here but also by reason of their military service, and I feel that since we are continually talking about playing the game with those who have served us during the war, we should not overlook the case of medical men who have also done service in the army during the war period, and who, unless some provision is made, will find themselves thrown out on the streets. I think it would only be fair to make some provision for them, and the suggestion I make is to include them not as a group, because that may imply a few specialists, but as individuals who have qualifications to entitle the Medical Council to allow them to become registered as doctors. I think that that will be favourably taken into consideration not only by the hon. Minister, but also by the hon. member for Stellenbosch, because I am sure that if the hon. member for Stellenbosch agrees the Minister will probably listen to him; he will not listen to me, but he will listen to the hon. member for Stellenbosch. I hope that will be done both in the interest of those men and in the interest of fair play as far as South Africa is concerned. The fact that they were good enough to serve as military medical men in the army proves that they are good enough to serve as, civilian medical men, and if need be the Medical Council, if they want further protection in connection with the matter, may provide for some special test or medical examination to satisfy themselves that these men are qualified. They have their degrees; they have their qualifications and diplomas. They have had years of practice both overseas and later in this country in the army, and I think it would only be a fair gesture by those of us who believe in playing the game to enable these men to become practitioners and to practise in this country.

It is always a pleasure for a Minister of Health to move amending legislation dealing with the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, because he has a great sponsor in the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer). I am grateful to him and to all the other members for the assistance they have given me in connection with this matter. May I deal with the various points raised by them? The question of making adequate provision for the accommodation of these “internes” in order to give them these facilities for practice is obviously very important.

You say “internes” [pronounced internees]—that is a new one on us.

That is the reason why the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) does not like the term “internes.” It is no use passing legislation insisting that a certain group shall be given special training unless facilities for such training exists. There are, of course, a great number of smaller hospitals which are not being used at all today. Some of them will no doubt provide an excellent training ground for that purpose. But the root of the problem is the one to which the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) has referred. We are depending for such facilities on institutions controlled by an authority other than the central Government. As the constitution stands, there is at present only one method whereby we shall be able to give effect to this most desirable arrangement, that is, by obtaining the co-operation of the hospital authorities. Fortunately, as the hon. member for Stellenbosch and other members know, there does exist today the necessary co-ordinating machinery. I refer to the Co-ordinating Council established by my predecessor last year, on which there is equal representation of the central Government and the provincial administrations. It is a body which might be expected and should be asked to consider this very important point. I threw out the suggestion that the Medical Council will request me to use my influence with the Co-ordinating Council for such arrangements to be made, so as to enable us to use the provincial hospitals, not only the big hospitals, but also the number of smaller hospitals which at present have no house surgeonship, and where these young practitioners can get this year’s training. The medical members of this House know that many of us have picked up very useful experience at such small institutions where the responsibility has been thrown on us to do the work. The second point made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch was in connection with the position of young graduates coming here from overseas. As I understand it, under the law as it stands at the moment, section 22 of the original Act, we have the power to insist on this very type of post-graduate training and experience. Tonight we are merely doing this: we are legislating so as to enable the Council to promulgate regulations whereby these young men who are to serve their internship can during that period be registered as practitioners. That being so, then the point made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch falls away. I can assure him that the legal advisers are satisfied that this point is fully met by the law as it stands today. He explained to the House the attitude of the Medical Council in connection with the fixing of maximum fees, later modified to be standard fees, and in his usual fair manner he pointed out that whilst the Medical Council wanted this to be enacted by legislation the Medical Association was not yet prepared to give this far-reaching step its blessing. Thus the position differs considerably from the legislation which this House was asked to pass a week or two ago—the amendment to the Nursing Bill. There we had a request simultaneously from the Nursing Council and every member of the nursing profession who by law is a member of the Nursing Association. The position is very different as far as medical men are concerned. The Medical Council for reasons well known to the House has pressed for some time for similar powers, but there has so far been no uniform expression from the Medical Association on this issue. It was felt, therefore, particularly as there has been no congress of the Medical Association for some six or seven years, that it should be given the opportunity to express its view on this very fundamental factor—which we hope it will do at its congress to be held in the near future. I trust that I have now dealt with the points made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch. The hon. member for Rondebosch would like us to provide for missionary and other classes to re-apply annually for their registration. One rather hopes that the amending Bill before us, by virtue of the very close circumscription of the conditions, makes this unnecessary. In any case this is a matter for the Medical Council; if the Council decides that to be necessary it can frame its regulations accordingly. I doubt whether it is necessary to incorporate that provision in the Bill itself. All that is being asked by the Medical Council is the power to frame regulations, and I have no doubt that in those regulations, knowing how jealous the Council is of the standing of medical practitioners, that it will consider the point made by the hon. member for Rondebosch. He objected also to the use of the word “interne.” I am told that this expression, as has been indicated, is freely used in America, and has also come to be used quite freely in this country. The difficulty is to find a single term which will cover both the house surgeon and the house physician and the gentleman who may assist in maternity hospitals and other institutions. Until we can find a better word than “intern,” which I hope will not be mispronounced, we may have to be satisfied with this term.

What about resident medical officer?

That would make him an R.M.O.

It may be confused with other terms. Another subject raised by the hon. member for Rondebosch is the question of “signing.” The definition of “sign” does not apply only to habit-forming drugs. I merely gave that as an example. In fact, it is meant to deal with prescriptions and other documents signed by medical practitioners. That, I think, meets his point. He is worried also about the amendment which provides for rendering detailed accounts. We must regard that as a part answer to a very difficult problem. This House, through its members, has asked repeatedly for some method whereby we should control what occasionally happens — the charging of exorbitant fees. There were two alternatives. The one was to fix maximum fees and this without the approval of the medical profession. It was felt that such action under these circumstances would not be justified. This is the other method of achieving, if not the entire ideal, then of getting somewhere near it. Lastly I turn to the issue raised by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I must point out that this whole question of registration was considered by a special sub-committee appointed some time ago. The practitioners to whom the hon. members referred were here at the beginning of the war and asked to be given an opportunity to serve. The Medical Council, in consultation with the Military Directorate, considered each case on its merits, and the offer of several such practitioners was gladly accepted. I should like to take this opportunity of speaking in a semi-military capacity to pay tribute to these refugee practitioners who were commissioned with the S.A.M.C. They gave of their best and undoubtedly rendered great service to the State. Whether or not the law as it is now proposed to be amended will enable such practitioners to be included in any regulations which the Council might decide to promulgate is a point to which I cannot give an answer at present. It says in this clause: “Any class of person”. I see no reason why the Medical Council should not frame its regulations if it so desires so as to meet this group, or for that matter any other deserving group. But as in the case of regulations generally, so in this, the decision rests with the South African Medical Council. This Bill seeks to provide the power whereby the Medical Council will itself be able to promulgate regulations, and I repeat that it will rest ultimately with the Council as to whether this particular class will be provided for or not.

There was just the one point of the annual leave.

I had hoped that we might, with the permission of the House, take the Committee stage tonight. If we do so, then I shall move an amendment to Clause 8, which will meet the point raised by the hon. member for Stellenbosch. The hon. member for Rondebosch has, however, indicated that he may want to consider certain amendments. If that is so, then of course I shall not be able to ask for the Committee stage to be taken now.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

On clause 4,

At this stage I would like to have this matter quite clear about people coming here from overseas. The Minister said that under Section 22 of the original Act the Governor-General may from time to time after considering any recommendation of the Council or Board prescribe by regulation the several degrees, diplomas and certificates granted after examination by a university, medical school or other examining authority which, when held singly or jointly with any other degree, certificate or diploma entitles the holder to practice under the law. I take it that the Minister means that the words “certificate which may be demanded” will cover the case of a person from overseas.

I can assure the hon. member that that is so.

In section 3, I want to move an amendment as follows—

The position is that these people are not always resident in the sense that they spend 24 hours of the day there. They are very often, there only from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and I do not know whether this legal difficulty might arise. I take it that we would regard these people as being “inwonende geneeshere” or resident medical officers. But seeing that in Afrikaans we have the words “inwonende geneeshere” I suppose we can use the words “resident medical officer”.

Apropos of what the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) said, in Great. Britain it is customary to use the term “resident house physician” and “resident house surgeon”. The term “resident” in certain cases applies whether they live in hospital or not, but usually it means “living in”. In Cape Town we have no residents, for example at Groote Schuur, who do not live in. I think that when the Botha Commission, of which the hon. member was a member, suggested this phrase “resident medical officer” they insisted on the sound principle that these men had to be actually resident in the hospital, because the very fact that they live in a hospital gives them that atmosphere and tradition which is so necessary in their training. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that the word “resident” should be retained, and as regards “inwonende geneeshere” in the Afrikaans print I think “resident medical officer” is the nearest translation.

I am prepared to accept that provided we insist that R.M.O. is used for Railway Medical Officer, because it could also stand for resident medical officer, and before long we will have another type of R.M.O., the regional medical officer. Provided hon. members are able to satisfy me that they are able to distinguish the one from the other, I have no objection to the term.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause as amended put and agreed to.

On clause 8,

I would like to move the following amendment—.

I am told that that is the problem of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer).

I am not at all sure about this yet. In the original Act, sub-section 2 of section 95, the conditioning part of the whole paragraph is this, namely the words “if at any time the funds of the Council or Board prove insufficient for its requirements”. I do not follow where the Minister wants to insert the words “or at any time”. It is not necessary to condition that section, and I feel that we should omit these words “if at any time ….” also. Then sub-section 2 would read—

And then follows this amendment as it is moved here now.

If the hon. member feels that that will still further meet the case, I am quite prepared to accept the amendment.

I would like to move the amendment then as follows—

The hon. member’s amendment is net in the proper form. It is in the form of an amendment to the principal Act—not the Bill before the Committee.

Is it not possible to delete certain words at all?

Only in the form of an amendment to the Bill before the Committee.

Then if it is to be conditioned by these words, we will remain in this difficulty, that we cannot do anything unless the funds of the Council are exhausted. It is really an absurd position. It was never intended to be like that. If the Minister can give me the assurance that the Council can levy an annual fee in spite of its funds not being exhausted, I shall be very glad. The Minister may know that we sold a property for £4,000, which the Minister of Finance kindly allowed us to keep. We need that money, and do not want to exhaust our funds.

I can assure the hon. member that the clause as now amended meets his case entirely.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Health put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments considered.

Amendments in Clauses 4 and 8 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.