I move—

This Bill is a hybrid Bill. It was advertised as such, and all the riparian owners concerned, also above the point where the dam is to be constructed, were consulted and an agreement was reached. This is an agreed measure, and after second reading it will be referred to a Select Committee for further investigation.

Will the owners give evidence?

They can come along and give evidence if they wish. I am merely saying that it is an agreed measure. I do not think there will be any opposition on the part of those people, because they all agreed that this Bill should be introduced. I would just like to say that the object of the Bill, briefly, is to make arrangements for the apportionment of the water from the N’Jelele River. The distribution of the water must be brought under control in order that there may be regular distribution amongst the various riparian owners. The source of the river is on the northern slopes of the Zoutpansberg range, and irrigation from this river has been carried on for many years by the riparian owners right from the source of the river down to the point of its confluence with the Limpopo. The soil is deep and fertile, but, owing to the steep gradient of the land through which the river flows, the extent of the available land is not very large. There is very little irrigable land along the river. The climate is sub-tropical, and the land is therefore suitable for growing all sorts of crops, especially vegetables, which can be cultivated there almost throughout the year, also those vegetables which cannot be grown during the winter months and which therefore fetch a high price upon the Johannesburg market. It is a profitable type of farming. The catchment area of the N’Jelele, together with the Joubertstroom, which flows into the N’Jelele—so that the river has two sources—is excellent. There is a particularly high rainfall in the catchment area during certain times of the year, especially in summer. The rainfall is high from October to May, and the water which normally runs away is more than enough to irrigate all the available land, but from July to September there is a shortage of water, and for that reason we have received a request to build a dam so that the floodwater could be conserved for the period of scarcity. As I have said, normally there is no frost, and the people can grow vegetables throughout the year, vegetables which cannot be grown in the winter at other places. There are farmers who during the past five or six years have experimented with the growing of vines during winter. It has been a great success, and they can put their grapes on the market in Johannesburg during August and September. They get a very high price for them. I think hon. members will realise that it can be a most profitable type of farming, if crops can be grown there during winter which cannot be grown in the winter in other parts of the country. Where such intensive development takes place, the question of water is always a critical factor, especially when there are periods when there is plenty of water and then again periods when there is not enough water. There has also been a proper arrangement, and the distribution of the water consequently causes much dissatisfaction and a lot of difficulty. The result was that in the years 1936-’37 there was already a water court case. The court was asked to investigate the matter and to give a decision on a proper distribution of the water. During the hearing of the case the parties concerned came to an agreement. The irrigable land was estimated at 3,290 morgen, and that was included in the agreement. It has appeared since that this estimate was completely wrong, and that the extent of land was over-estimated, with the result that that arrangement was not satisfactory either, and there has still been dissatisfaction. The agreement also provided that the riparian owners should construct sluice gates and other apparatus for the proper distribution of the water, because we all know that if we do not have such sluice gates then there can be no proper distribution of water. The people did not construct these sluice gates, with the result that the same difficulties arose and are still continuing. All the dissatisfaction regarding the distribution of the water still exists. In addition, there was also the difficulty that the extent of the land had been overestimated, and that also contributed to the difficulties. The majority of the owners who were affected by the judgment of the court have always complained that there was no fair distribution, and that they were not getting a fair share of the water. For that reason representations were made to the Government. In the first place, it was requested that a storage dam should be built in the river in order to conserve the surplus water. In the rainy season enough water ran away to the Limpopo which could, if it was stored, supply the farmers during the four critical months. An investigation was made by the Department, and they found an excellent place in the river for building a dam. It is a place on the farm Nairobi, 17 miles south-east of Mopani station. It is on the main line to Louis Trichardt and Messina. The dam will be able to hold 20,000 acre-feet of water, and it will also be built in such a way that, if need be, the dam could later be made considerably larger at very little cost. The construction of the dam will cost £150,000. The construction of the dam makes it necessary for the order of the Water Court to be declared null and void. The Water Court gave judgment in connection with the normal flow. We will now have to dam up the normal flow together with the flood water, with the result that the order of the Water Court would be nullified. The riparian owners are satisfied with that. We will therefore not only deal with the normal flow but also with the flood water and it is accordingly proposed in this Bill to provide for the order of the Water Court to be nullified, except in regard to costs. Apart from the judgment in regard to costs the rest of the judgment is cancelled by this Bill. Then there is still the question of the riparian owners above the dam. They were included in the order of the Water Court and they presented considerable difficulty. We have, however, reached a settlement. We give them precisely the amount of water they would have got under their rights as riparian owners to the normal flow—we actually give them more than they would have received in terms of the judgment of the Water Court, and they are satisfied. The majority of the riparian owners above the dam fall under the Native Trust. The Native Trust is the owner of the largest portion of the riparian land. There is a small minority who do not come under the Native Trust. As far as the future distribution of the water above the dam is concerned we shall, once all the riparian land belongs to the Native Trust, have little difficulty. It could then be arranged quite easily. The Native Trust will eventually own all the land there.

How does it affect their water rights?

The position is that as a riparian owner, the Native Trust has a right to the water from the river and it cannot be deprived of that right. But we have now made this arrangement that they will get a greater volume of the normal flow than previously and they are content. The largest portion of the land above the dam belongs to the Native Trust and eventually all the land there will belong to it.

Have they given their consent?

We have the consent of all the parties concerned. The Bill therefore provides for the distribution of water, for the construction of the dam and also for the establishment of a Board. The Board which will be established will have the ordinary functions of a Board under the Irrigation Act. The whole of the irrigable area along the river has been declared an irrigation district and a Board will be established; but in order to be able to carry out its functions more effectively, this Board will have more powers than are granted at present under the Irrigation Act. A river area will be proclaimed, and there are also private works in addition to the irrigation works, and we will give power to this Board to exercise control. I think I have now mentioned all the details in connection with this Bill. It is a sub-tropical area with a low rainfall during certain periods of the year, but the river has an excellent water source in the Zoutpansberg. There is enough water and I expect great and intensive development in this area which will be of great advantage to the farmers in that area owing to the fact that they are able to grow crops practically throughout the year, such as green beans and such things—not wheat and mealies—which cannot be grown in other parts during the winter. I have also mentioned vines which they grow there during the winter and for which they have a good market in Johannesburg. They have a good market for their products particularly during the months when those particular products are very scarce.

I just want to say that I want to congratulate the Minister on his intentions to construct the dam in the N’Jelele. We are grateful towards his Department for having arranged it so that all the riparian owners along the river have unanimously agreed to the construction of the dam and allowed their rights to be prescribed by this Bill. As far as the flow of the river is concerned, I want to point out that there are parts in the catchment area where the rainfall is 80 inches per year. During the summer months all that water runs away to the sea. When this dam has been built, not only will the farmers be enabled to produce more, but it will also help the consumers in the country. I want to mention, by the way, that many of those farmers started on a very small scale. It will be of great assistance to them, but it will also be of great assistance to the urban population as far as food provision is concerned. These people are able to produce food at a time when other parts of the country cannot produce the same kind of food. The Minister is doing a great service to the people of South Africa by constructing this dam. There will be great progress, not only for the farmers of that area, but for the nation as a whole, particularly in our large cities. It will not be necessary for their fruit and vegetables to be put in cold storage; or rather, it will not be necessary for city dwellers to get those products from cold storage, because they will be able to get them fresh from these people. They send their products off in the evening and the next morning they are on the Johannesburg market. I want to give my wholehearted support to this motion of the Minister and I hope that all sections in the House will see to it that there is no delay with regard to this legislation.

I am glad that the Minister explained to the House that this Bill represented an agreement between all the interested parties, because as far as the legal provisions of this Bill are concerned, it really is an outrageous measure. I do not think this House has ever dealt with a Bill which so flagrantly interferes with the provisions of the Irrigation Act as this one does. In the first instance we have to deal here With an order of the court which is being set aside. But in this connection I want, to tell the Minister that there is one thing which I cannot understand. If this is an agreed measure, why are the costs not dealt with in this Bill at the same time? Here Parliament comes along and deprives certain people of their rights. At one time important legal proceedings were conducted in connection with those rights. The interests of the various parties had to be protected by the court. They were compelled to appear in court, and now it seems to me we should meet these people also as far as the costs are concerned. That should also have been included in the Bill. In connection with this Bill, I want to ask the Minister whether he is not going to listen to the wish so often expressed by the public that a proper Irrigation Act he placed on our statute book once and for all. As the Irrigation Act stands today it may be all right for the established part of the country where irrigation has been carried on for a long time. They can still carry on with this Act. But we see how the country is beginning to develop as far as irrigation is concerned. There are parts of the country where irrigation is only in its primary stages and in those parts this Act will not function properly. As has been proved here, again, various parties had to go to court. The court, in terms of the Irrigation Act, determined their rights and now Parliament has to come along and throw everything overboard once more. I want to appeal to the Minister of Lands to appoint a commission to go into this matter. This commission could consist of two lawyers well versed in water-law, an engineer and one or two farmers. Let them take evidence and in that way ascertain to what extent the Irrigation Act does not comply with modern requirements and to what extent the Act has a restraining influence on the development of the country. They can then submit a draft which the Minister could examine in consultation with his Department and then the Bill could also be referred to a Select Committee of this House so that we could make a good job of it.

The hon. member cannot go into that too far.

That is my last remark on the subject, but I think it is necessary because this is the third time now that the time of the House is being taken up in order to declare the provisions of the Irrigation Act to be null and void. I now come to clause 4 of the Bill relating to the distribution of the water. In this clause these people are being deprived of certain rights excepting between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. At any other time the owners have no right to the water as they have had in the past. There are also other groups who are being deprived of their rights. There are three groups which are deprived of rights in terms of Clause 4. The Minister says that the parties have all agreed, but I would like to have an absolute assurance that they have all given their consent. Then there is clause 6 which also contains an important amendment, namely, that all rights to the use of the water in the N’Jelele River within the boundaries of the irrigation district shall vest in the Minister and shall be exercised by the board. This is also an outrageous provision. These people may have vested rights in the catchment area above the dam. The Minister says that they also gave their consent.

Yes.

I am only mentioning rights which they are deprived of. Then there is clause 8 (3) which reads—

In terms of this clause, certain rights are also taken away and the board takes powers over private owners. I take it that in this connection an agreement was also reached. Rights in respect of the normal flow are taken away. Another important provision is that in clause 11 which is in conflict with sections 15 and 16 of the existing Act with regard to protection. It reads—

The Minister knows what the provisions of sections 15 and 16 are. Whenever an irrigation work like this is constructed, then the riparian owners above the dam have certain servitudes and rights. They have to be registered. They cannot be tampered with. But in order to allow future development they must, if they want to start new works, apply within three months to the Water Court and then the Water Court investigates the cases where they want to construct new works above the dam. A period of five years is allowed to these people to build dams upstream, and the court may even grant an extension of time up to ten years. Now I take it that the owners in this instance are also willing to surrender their rights. The Minister said that most of the farms above the dam belonged to the Native Trust.

Yes, eventually they will all belong to it.

And then I come to clause 13 (3)—

The Minister and the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) may have gone into the matter, but it does seem to be going too far. If there is a farm of 50 morgen which is cultivated intensively, then the father may want to divide his farm between his two sons so that each receives 25 morgen of irrigable land. The Minister said that the soil was good, that it was deep, sub-tropical, and if there is sufficient water, a person should be able to make a living on less than 50 morgen.

There are people who have only five morgen.

Here in the Western Province, if a person has 25 morgen under irrigation, then he is a fairly big farmer. I think that the Minister should take this matter into review. It will restrain development. We are trying here to protect a number of farmers who each have 50 morgen under irrigation, but on the other hand we do not want to allow them to transfer the land to their children. They must get permission from the Minister on the recommendation of the Central Land Board to sub-divide the land. I think this provision must be deleted. For the rest, this side of the House has no objection against the Bill. I only thought that we should make absolutely sure that all the rights have been surrendered. For that reason I mentioned them specifically one by one. I feel that in doing that I have done my duty. I am not totally unacquainted with those parts. The former member for Zoutpansberg called me to his office one day. It was in the beginning of September and in his room he showed me grapes. The muscadel was not too wonderful, but the other grapes were very nice and they came from those parts at that time of year. If they could put such grapes on the market at that time of the year, and make a decent living out of it, we welcome it.

I do not want to enlarge upon this matter. I think that the Minister has explained the matter well and also the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers). The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) is concerned over the rights which these people are deprived of. As farmers we are all jealous of our rights. But since the Minister has given the House the assurance that the owners concerned have given their consent, we should be satisfied with that because they are in a better position to judge on their own rights than we are. I just want to raise one point and that is in connection with clause 13. I want to appeal to the Minister to do what he did in the case of the Olifants River last year or the year before, that is, not to insist that 50 morgen under irrigation only shall be regarded as a proper holding for any person to farm on. I just want to tell the Minister that when we reach the Committee stage, I want to ask him to accept an amendment not to adhere strictly to this provision but to provide that subdivision will be allowed up to not less than 25 morgen. We who are irrigators, particularly in the Transvaal, and I mention this because I am well acquainted with the position in the Transvaal, know that in many cases one could make a decent living on 12 morgen or even 10 morgen. I want to ask the Minister not in that way to restrict production.

We are glad to learn that the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has, on behalf of his side of the House, promised their support of this Bill. He revealed some concern, however. In the first place he mentioned the costs, but as we understand the position, the Government was not a party in the previous Water Court proceedings and the costs in that connection accordingly only applied to the parties concerned, and the Government has nothing to do with that. The position is that by means of this Bill the Government is practically granting them better rights than they have had in the past, and I do not think that we should couple that with any responsibility for paying the costs of Water Court proceedings. I am only mentioning this point so that the farmers who are interested in the matter shall not be under a misapprehension and that they will not say that to a certain extent their rights are being encroached upon and that on top of that they still have to pay their own costs. We must keep these two matters apart, because the one has practically nothing to do with the other. The costs of the legal proceedings in the Water Court have nothing to do with this Bill we are now dealing with. Then I also want to endorse what the hon. member for Rustenburg has said. We are just as chary of depriving private persons of their rights, but as the hon. member for Gordonia may know, many of the rivers in the Northern Transvaal do not run at all during the winter. They may have a fairly strong flow in summer but in certain months of the winter it may happen that the rivers completely stop flowing. As we have heard, these people have not built storage dams, they only have diverting channels, and that means that if there is no normal flow of the river, they have no water for irrigation. The Minister is now going to build a dam in which the flood water of summer can be stored so that it can be at the disposal of the riparian owners during the scarce periods. We feel therefore that these people are not losing any rights, but on the contrary that they are getting more and better rights than they have today, because they will have more water to divide amongst themselves. Of what use are rights if there is no water to divide? We feel that there is no infringement of private rights, but on the contrary that they are getting something which is of much greater value than what they have had up to now, and it is something permanent. It happens quite frequently that during the winter months fairly large crops have to go without water. We want to prevent that happening again, especially in view of the food shortage in our country. Where a person has spent his time and his money to produce crops, we want to prevent those crops from being lost through lack of water. We also want to tell hon. members on the other side who may be wine farmers, that the types of grapes produced in the Transvaal will not compete with the Western Province, because they will come on to the market at a time when the Western Province cannot put any grapes on the market. We want to thank the Minister for this measure, and in the Committee stage we can still make an amendment here or there if it appears to be necessary.

I am pleased to notice that even the other side of the House has voiced its approval of this measure. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) talks about drastic provisions which will necessitate decisions by the law courts. I have already explained that the decisions by the court actually did not benefit the people concerned to the slightest extent, because the court decision was that certain apparatus had to be constructed, which was never done, and the confused position existing before the people went to court in 1936 was only made worse. They did not have any administration at all, they had no control, no body which could exercise control or could make Certain that the order of court was given effect to. In order to rectify the position and to see that the water shall be properly distributed and that every riparian owner shall obtain his legitimate share, we decided to improve the position if they gave us their consent, and they are glad that we are taking these steps. Instead of taking away any rights, we extend those rights, and we want to provide for these people obtaining the proper benefit of the water. In connection with the expenditure involved I want to point out that the matter came before the Water Court in 1936 or 1937 and the Government had nothing to do with that. Now, however, we step in and I want to assure the hon. members that the people there are very pleased about this measure. Those people could never make proper use of the water. The existing rights only apply in regard to the normal flow, but it was used in such a way that they actually had less than 25 per cent. benefit of the water. We are now creating a proper body to control these matters. That is all, and so I think there cannot be any suggestion of rights being taken away. The normal flow can still be used by them, and the flood water is now being added to it. The hon. member referred to Clause 11; in terms of that clause a body is to be created which, if it has to manage the business, will have to possess certain rights. If, for instance, an application is made for an extension, for the construction of some work or other, one cannot allow, after the Control Board has perhaps constructed proper lock gates, that any owner can come along and construct another lock gate. Provision has to be made for that possibility. If they want to improve matters, they can apply through the Board and on refusal they can go to the Water Court.

I only wanted to know whether the people there are satisfied.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that all of them are satisfied with the Bill as it has been drafted. The various parties have been consulted, and they have expressed their satisfaction. Furthermore, the hon. member raised objection in regard to Clause 13(3). That clause refers to the 50 morgen limit. This matter has been discussed over and over again during the last session, this subdivision and cutting up of land. There must be a limitation, so that the people cannot subdivide arbitrarily.

That is quite correct, but this limitation is too large.

We say here “less than 50 morgen”.

We should like you to say “less than 25 morgen”.

I suppose that 50 morgen has been laid down here to correspond with what we have decided in regard to the Riet River Scheme. I just want to tell the House that in the Transvaal, where irrigation is practised in that manner, one comes across cases where land has been subdivided into one-sixtieth of a morgen. You find people there living on a quarter of a morgen, half a morgen and 1½ morgen, and the result is misery and poverty. This clause is intended to prevent such subdivision. We can go into this matter again during the Committee stage.

What about an amending Bill?

We have discussed this matter before, and I do not think we can deal with it at the present stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

This Bill provides for the consolidation and extension of laws relating to the control of welfare organisations in South Africa. The measure of the control which exists at the present time can be found by examination of the Ordinances of the Transvaal, Natal and the Cape. The extent of the control varies. In the Cape, by virtue of Ordinance No. 9 of 1919, a charitable organisation may function without being registered, but if it desires to obtain a subsidy from the Central Government it must be registered in terms of the Ordinance. If a charitable organisation in the Cape Province wishes to raise funds from the public, but is not desirous of obtaining any Government support by way of subsidy, it may do so with impunity in terms of the existing Ordinance. No special registration or special authority is required for that purpose. In the Transvaal, by virtue of Ordinance No. 5 of 1926, and in Natal by virtue of Ordinance No. 8 of 1932, the position is different. There no charitable organisation may function unless it has been issued with a certificate of registration by the Administrator, who is given considerable powers under the respective Ordinances. The Ordinances of the Transvaal and Natal lay down that before a welfare organisation may function at all it must have a certificate of registration from the Administrator. Hon. members are aware that some years ago the administration of poor relief was transferred from the Provincial Administrations to that of the Department of Social Welfare, with the exception of the Province of Natal; and since that transfer took place the control exercised in the Transvaal and in the Cape in respect of the registration of charitable organisations has been exercised by the Minister of Social Welfare. The control in so far as Natal is concerned continues to be administered by the Administrator of Natal. In the Free State there is no Ordinance governing the regulation of charitable organisations. The position, then, is that in the Cape there is a measure of control, but that control comes into effect only if a charitable organisation concerned wishes to have Government support by way of a subsidy. In the Transvaal and Natal there is fairly rigorous control. In the Free State there is no such control at the present time. For some time past it has been felt that these existing Ordinances themselves do not go far enough. The opinion has grown that the time has arrived for the introduction of a consolidating measure applicable to the Union as a whole, which will not only embody the terms of the existing Ordinances, but will also make provision for their expansion. Representations have been made to the Department of Social Welfare by local authorities and various welfare organisations for such a consolidating measure. The concensus of opinion, reflected in the representations made to the Department by these organisations, is that the time has arrived when something should be done to protect the public against bogus collectors, to protect bona fide organisations against so-called welfare organisations established for some ulterior motive, and particularly to prevent the maladministration of existing welfare organisations. This movement in favour of control of welfare organisations obtained an impetus when the war fund organisations came under control by virtue of War Measure No. 48 of 1944. Hon. members will recall that, in my capacity as Minister of Social Welfare, I dealt with the control of war funds in 1944, by virtue of the Emergency Regulations. There was general agreement, amongst the responsible war funds, that they should be controlled. At a conference held for the purpose of discussing this control, they readily agreed to submit themselves to control, but the view was strongly expressed that if the war fund organisations were prepared to accept control, the ordinary civilian welfare organisations should be similarly controlled; At that time, as hon. members may know, representations had been received by the Department of Social Welfare in regard to the general control of all welfare organisations. The Department of Social Welfare drafted a Bill in 1944 which I submitted to Parliament that year, but which reached only the first reading stage. During the 1944 recess copies of the Bill were circulated to the four provincial authorities, the nine principal local authorities, and eighteen welfare organisations, which included the Armsorgkommissie of the Dutch Reformed Church and the four Afrikaans organisations, the A.C.V.V., the O.V.V., and the S.A.V.V. and the N.C.V.V. The provincial administrations had no objection, excepting Natal which agreed to the principles of the Bill, but expressed the wish to control its own welfare organisations. Incidentally I am informed that the Province of Natal has since drafted an Ordinance, the terms of which are similar to the provisions of this Bill. Natal is excluded from the provisions of this Bill, but they have a similar ordinance.

That ordinance has not yet been passed.

I understand that.

Why not leave it to the other provinces to pass their own ordinances?

Because the other provinces agreed to hand over the control of poor relief, which involves in many cases these charitable organisations, but Natal stood out from that agreement, and as a logical consequence of that they are excluded.

They retained their liquor licensing revenue?

Yes. Copies of the Bill were circulated to these organisations. All the eighteen welfare organisations, including the Armsorgkommissie and the four Afrikaans women’s organisations, supported the principles of the Bill, but the O.V.V., the National Council for Cripples and the National Council of Women and the United Council of Social Agencies, while supporting the aims of the Bill, felt that too much power was vested in the Minister and suggested that some form of advisory council should be set up, which would be in a position to advise the Minister on all welfare matters, and would be responsible for the registration of welfare organisations. In actual fact, at present, the Minister of Social Welfare is responsible for the registration of these organisations in the Transvaal and, as far as the Cape is concerned, where they wish, to apply. In Natal it is the Administrator who is concerned. These organisations felt that that was too much power to place in the hands of the Minister or the head of a department, and they considered it wiser to establish an advisory body which would have advisory powers and executive powers in respect of the registration of welfare organisations. As the result of these suggestions the Bill was re-drafted by the Department of Social Welfare in the light of the comments and suggestions received. The most important change was the setting up of a Board of Control, and the effect of that provision in the new Bill was that the control of welfare organisations was to pass from the Minister and the Department of Social Welfare to the Board of Control, which, it was suggested, should consist of persons appointed by the Minister, but nominated by the welfare organisations. That re-drafted Bill was introduced into the House last year, but before proceeding to take it to the second reading I was faced with a number of objections which came from certain welfare organisations and certain of the churches, and in view of that I felt that possibly the best course would be to allow the Bill to go to a Select Committee. These were matters of social welfare, where one knows there is a great volume of strong opinion in regard to details, but where everyone is unanimous in wanting a workable measure. I felt that the proper course would be to allow it to go to a Select Committee, to give every interested party a chance of putting his views before the Committee. That took place, and the Select Committee heard evidence from many welfare organisations and from the three main churches, the Dutch Reformed Church, the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and also considered a number of memoranda placed before it. The Select Committee drew up a Bill, which was in substance the Bill which was placed before it, but with three main alterations. These major amendments provided for the exemption from registration of welfare organisations which had received no subsidies from the State or from local authorities, and which had not received money from the public. Another amendment dealt with the actual composition of the Board of Control. The third amendment was the provision of an ad hoc committee to hear appeals from the decisions of the Board of Control. This revised Bill was circulated during the recess of 1945 to all welfare organisations and interested parties, and I now find that it has the support of the four Provincial Administrations. Of the nine major municipalities to whom it was sent, only three have replied, but they all support its provisions. Of 80 organisations consulted, only 20 have replied. Certain of the churches are apparently still opposed to the setting up of this Board of Control, on the ground that they do not favour a statutory board of this nature.

Which churches are opposed to the Board of Control?

The Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church. To summarise the position, the Bill now before the House is the Select Committee’s Bill with one or two minor amendments made by the Department. The primary objects of the Bill are to provide the necessary machinery to enable the Minister of Social Welfare to consult registered welfare organisations in connection with any matter in the field of social welfare; secondly, to prevent any person conducting social welfare organisations for his personal gain; thirdly, to prevent the maladministration of welfare organisations which receive financial assistance from the State, local authorities and from the public; and, fourthly, to prohibit any person collecting contributions from the public without proper authority. Clause 2 of the Bill sets up the National Welfare Organisations Control Board. It provides that the Board shall consist of 24 members, who are to be appointed by the Minister after public advertisement calling upon welfare organisations and local authorities throughout the country to submit nominations to him. In terms of Clause 2, the appointments must be made upon a quota basis. One-fourth of the number appointed shall be trained social welfare workers or persons otherwise qualified in the social sciences. Another six are to be persons selected from those who are engaged in voluntary social welfare work in the country districts, that is, six platteland representatives. The remaining 12 are to be voluntary workers in the cities. The Board will in the first instance be appointed for two years, and after that for periods of five years. Provision is made, in section 5, for the creation of Local Welfare Boards, the Minister being empowered in terms of that section to establish them in any magisterial district or in any local authority area, or in any defined area. He may there establish a Local Welfare Board which will consist of not less than four and not more than 24 members. These Local Welfare Boards will give advice to the main Board, or to any Department of State, either on its own initiative or on request on welfare matters. It will give guidance to the Board itself in regard to applications for registrations from its own area, and it will make recommendations. Its functions will be purely advisory. But after the expiration of the first two years of office of the National Control Board, the appointments to that Board for the next five-year period will be made on the recommendations of local welfare boards. In the first instance the appointments flow from representations which are made from local authorities and welfare organisations in response to an advertisement. The second and subsequent appointments will flow from recommendations made to the Board by the local welfare board. The functions of the board itself are set forth in clause 3 of the Bill. Its functions are all advisory, as I stated before, with the exception of the executive authority to regulate and control the registration of local welfare organisations. Apart from that its functions are to advise the Minister in connection with any matter in the field of social welfare or arising out of the administration or operation of this Act, and it has to deal with any matter referring to the attainment of the objects of the Act, and to give advice to local organisations, welfare boards, etc. The procedure for dealing with applications for registration are also laid down in section 9 of the Bill. I need not go into every detail of that procedure now, except to point out to hon. members that there are safeguards against possible arbitrary action on the part of the Central Control Board. It might be suggested that this Board, having wide powers, may conceivably abuse its powers, and reject an application for registration on arbitrary grounds. The Bill seeks to prevent any such possibility. It lays down in section 9 (3) that the board may reject an application only on certain grounds, and these grounds are stated in the Bill itself. There is also provision in the Bill that if an application for registration has been rejected, the applicant body must be notified in writing of the grounds upon which the application was rejected. Then there is a new provision inserted by the Select Committee in Section 13 of the Bill, which provides for the right of appeal. In terms of section 13 there is to be constituted in every case, when the aggrieved applicant organisation lodges an appeal, an ad hoc appeal committee consisting of a magistrate with not less than ten years’ experience as the chairman. He must have had not less than ten years’ experience as a magistrate. Then there is provision for a person not being a member of the board, nominated by the Central Control Board, and a person not being a member of the appellant organisation nominated by that organisation. In other words, the ad hoc appeal committee will consist of a nominee of the appellant, a nominee of the respondent, and an independent person, viz. the magistrate who has had ten years’ experience. I hope that hon. members will feel reassured that, with this provision in the Bill, the possibilities of abuse and of arbitrary action are reduced to a minimum. Clause 6 of the Bill provides that every welfare organisation which receives financial assistance from the State, local authorities or the public must register before it can carry on its activities. Clause 7 provides for the exemption from the provisions of the Act of certain welfare organisations provided they do not obtain their funds from the State, from the local authorities or from the public. There may be, and there certainly are, welfare organisations which are endowed by private enterprise and do not need to make public appeals, and provision is made in this Bill for their exemption from the provisions of the Act, save the necessity for registration. They are all bound to register, but not all welfare organisations will be bound by the terms of the Bill itself. Clause 19 deals with persons who solicit from the public and makes quite clear that before they can do so, they must have the necessary consent. Clause 19 incidentally provides for a measure of flexibility in the Bill. There no doubt will be occasions when an individual or group of individuals or some body wishes to collect from the public to raise funds, but which is not an appropriate case for registration. Some bazaar may be held or some other function for raising funds for a specific purpose. In terms of section 19 permission may be given for the holding of these collections, or the soliciting from the public for a period of not more than one month. Then there are provisions in section 20 relating to the keeping of proper books, accounts and records, and in terms of that section the Minister is empowered to appoint any officer in the public service, to inspect any aspect of the affairs of any organisation, and to examine their books and accounts. It will also be noted that the Bill does not apply to war funds organisations, but, as I have said before, that is because these war funds are already controlled by emergency regulations. The war funds will go and the regulations will go, so it is not necessary to deal with the matter here. Another provision of the Bill to which I should like to direct attention is that in terms of section 25 (3) any regulations made under the regulatory section must be laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days, after their publication in the Gazette, if Parliament is in session, or if it is not in session within fourteen days after the commencement of the next session. Finally, another significant provision is contained in section 29 (2) which makes provision for the repeal of Ordinance 4 of 1919. These then are the main provisions of the Bill. It is a Bill to provide for control, and I submit a necessary measure of control in the interests of welfare organisations themselves, in the interests of welfare work and in the interests of the public. And I commend its provisions to hon. members as a measure, which has had wide support outside the House, and which has been thoroughly thrashed out by a Select Committee of this House.

If there has ever been a Bill which should have been referred back to a Select Committee, then it is this Bill. I am very sorry that the hon. Minister, together with the Bill, could not also have been referred back to the Select Committee. I am very sorry to see that the Minister is trying to create the impression that the credit for this measure goes to him exclusively. He said here that the great impetus for this legislation were the War Emergency regulations.

I did not say that.

I understood the Minister to say that.

It was not my intention.

I just want to say that this pressure on the part of welfare organisations to obtain in this way proper co-ordination and more support from the State, and to narrow the gap between those organisations and the State, has a long history which dates back many years.

I agree.

I have only to mention what has been done by the National Council for Child Welfare. As far back as 1939 they began to agitate and urged inter alia the necessity for: The need of a general basis of financial assistance to voluntary organisations who are engaged in welfare work to enable them to plan their work effectively, particularly when they have new developments in view; in the second place, the need for a national co-ordinating board which would act as a general advisory board to the Minister. I did hope—and I must tell the Minister that I am sorry he did not do so—that the Minister would address a few words of thanks and appreciation to all the various bodies who perform voluntary work and who have performed voluntary work in the past and who gave of their valuable time to give personal evidence before the Select Committee in order to place an effective Act on the Statute Book. I thought that the Minister would also address a few words of gratitude and appreciation to the Select Committee itself. I want to say that if ever there was a Select Committee which set about its task imbued with the desire of placing a piece of constructive legislation before this House, in a spirit of kindness and goodwill towards one another, then I think I can say that it was the case with this Select Committee. If the Minister could have been there himself and if he could have felt the spirit which existed there, he would perhaps have realised it.

I want to come to the Bill itself, and to begin with I might say that three different Bills have been compiled in connection with the registration of welfare organisations. There was the Bill of 1944 to which the Minister referred, thereafter the amended one of 1945, and ultimately the one which is now before the House as amended by the Select Committee, and various points in the Bills differ considerably from one another. If we look at the first Bill which was placed before the House in 1944, we see that in the main it had one object in view. The original object of the Bill was simply to protect the public against corruption. We see this in all the various clauses in the Bill of 1944, and the provision at that time was that all welfare organisations had to be registered, whether they participated in public funds or not. In the main, therefore, the urgent reason behind that Bill was but one thing, namely, to protect the public against corruption and malpractices which take place. Now this change has been brought about which was mentioned by the Minister. Now only the organisations which fall under the Bill will be compelled to register, organisations which receive funds from the State, from local authorities or from contributions collected from the public, others who receive financial assistance from the State or local authorities, and the third section who carry on their activities by the collection of contributions from the public. But when I come to this feature of the Bill, then there is one aspect which we must not lose sight of. I want to read by way of comparison what the original object of the Bill was in 1944 and what its scope and object are today. The following is a definition of a welfare organisation in the Bill of 1944 [translation]—

It is laid down that only the question of the material requirements of indigent persons should be included therein [translation]—

Then comes—

In the new definition a very important matter has been included, namely, that besides these objects I have quoted the following shall also be incorporated in the new Bill: That the purpose of this Act shall be the promotion of family welfare or the welfare of persons who are indigent or handicapped or maladjusted in the community. And I want to lay particular emphasis on the fact that in this Bill we find the aim is to care for and look to the promotion of family life, this being the endeavour of welfare organisations with the assistance of the State. It is perhaps one of the things which for years now has been omitted from our legislation, that when you are dealing with social welfare activities, when you are dealing with welfare work, your starting point must be that, the family is a unit and that family life is the nucleus which binds a community together. Let me put it this way, that the conception of the State itself developed from the conception of family life, and I think it is most important to keep in mind the promotion and rehabilitation of family life as such. Rehabilitate people who are maladjusted in a community or those who do not receive enough to live on; bring them back to family life, and then the State and welfare organisations will have less to do in caring for those people. I just want to refer the House to the fact that the Bill as compiled in 1944 had only one single object in view, namely, the prevention of corruption in the collection of public funds, but throughout the country there was opposition to that Bill, and in the main it was based, according to evidence, on the fact that the Minister as such received extraordinary power under that legislation. The Minister appointed the board of nine; the Minister made the provisions. The Minister would entirely dominate the whole affair. I have only to refer to the evidence given by the National Council of Women, to the evidence of the O.V.V. and various other bodies, as it appears in the memoranda which were submitted to the Select Committee. Throughout objection was raised to the extraordinary and unlimited powers the Minister wanted to take. And now members on this side of the House—who were later on supported by members on the other side—have laid particular emphasis on the fact that when we are dealing with welfare organisations, we are dealing with bodies which came into being through the voluntary initiative of those people who started them. When we have that voluntary initiative, when we have that love with which those people are imbued towards their fellowmen, that out of their own free will and impulse they establish organisations to assist their underprivileged fellowmen, then we must take those organisations into serious consideration. We must take into consideration the organisations which have existed up till now, and for that reason we asked that that aspect of the Bill should be completely changed. We must not simply leave the matter over to the pleasure of the Minister, but we must take into account the love with which these people are animated in performing this welfare work out of pure love for the sinking section of the population. We advocated the establishment of a national control board, which would comprise persons to be nominated by welfare organisations and local bodies. These are organisations who perform welfare work out of sheer love, because they are inwardly prompted to uplift those of their fellowmen who are under-privileged. In this connection special attention must be given to the platteland. There is hardly a place where there is a community that one or other type of welfare work is not carried on. That is why we felt the necessity for a national control board to cover the position throughout the whole country. We must give the platteland a special place in the representation on the control board. The Minister and his Department must know that there is hardly a village or place on the platteland which does not perform its own particular work in connection with the elevation and care of indigent persons, and that work is undertaken by the one or other local organisation which originated out of the initiative and love for their fellowmen of people in that vicinity. It is therefore necessary that on that national control board we must have people who are also acquainted with the circumstances on the platteland, when we are dealing with these organisations. We also felt the necessity for having trained welfare workers on the control board, people who had made a scientific study of welfare work and rehabilitation work. Such a board would be an advisory board to serve the Minister with advice, but it would also be a board giving guidance and advice. We have already introduced the system of giving guidance and advice—there are departments which guide and advise that section of the public. It is very necessary and there was a strong feeling that this board should be in a position to serve the Minister with advice on the one hand and also to furnish information to organisations falling under him in the execution of their duties — sound, scientific information in connection with welfare work which is carried on in a particular vicinity. By so doing a measure of co-ordination could also be obtained throughout the country as a whole. This principle of furnishing information by means of a national board is a very important principle, and it will be the link existing between voluntary organisations among the public, in linking them together, in engrossing them in their work and in intensifying their interest to the benefit of the social upliftment of the under-privileged section in the country. This national control board will then comprise six persons who are trained welfare workers, twelve persons who represent voluntary welfare organisations in the towns, and six who represent voluntary welfare organisations on the platteland. What then will be the particular functions of such a board of control? I will mention a few of them. The first will be an administrative function, namely the registration of the organisations. This in my opinion is a very important function. It is the body which will be the link with the general public, and because its organisation is spread throughout the country, this control board will be in the position and it will be its task to serve the Minister with advice, so that he can be well-informed of the work which is being performed by organisations in various parts of the country. When listening to what the Minister had to say in his introductory speech, one gained the impression that the Minister was not fully acquainted with what is being done by these organisations for the general public, that he was not well acquainted with the work which is done for the social uplift and care of that section of the nation who are not in a position to do it themselves. A further point in connection with this proposed board of control is that it can serve the Minister with advice, so that we will not have the position that the Minister is receiving advice of one kind from one side and then on the other hand being advised in another direction by other organisations. The Minister must support this board of control and they must support him so that there can be co-operation with relation to the work which is done for the social uplift of the under-privileged persons in the country. There is yet another point I would like to refer to. There are thousands and thousands of cases all over the country, and almost every day we find the immediate need arising for welfare work to be done in a particular vicinity. For instance an indigent person may meet with an accident. A few people will club together to contribute something towards making provision for hospital expenses or for the expenses connected with the care of such a person or his family. If the provisions of the Bill had remained as they were originally, there would not have been the opportunity for a few people to do anything like this. There is now a provision in the Bill that the magistrate in such a case can grant permission for the collection of funds. He grants that permission for a period of a month in such cases of emergency. Then I might mention that there is another provision which was discussed at length by the Select Committee, and it is the question of the right to appeal. Originally the Minister was to have been the highest court of appeal. We know that during the past few years the Minister has had strong tendencies to take dictatorial powers; to appoint himself as a dictator, and eventually as a court of appeal as well. I do not wish to discuss that unfortunate period. But unfortunately that tendency also crept into this legislation in 1944. The Select Committee felt that we should put an end to that tendency in the country, and when dealing with voluntary welfare organisations the right of appeal ought to be there, and that everything should not rest in the hands of the Minister.

I myself have discarded my dictatorial powers.

I do not blame the Minister for doing it now. When one realises the blunders which one has committed in the past, it shows that after all there is a chance of improvement. This ad hoc committee which will be the highest court of appeal is composed of a magistrate with experience. The magistrate in his official capacity deals with welfare work in his own village, and it is expected that that committee will consist of a magistrate with at least ten years’ experience, one person who is appointed by the board of control, who is not a member of the board, and one person who is appointed by the welfare organisation, but who is also not a member of the organisation. I now want to come to a few important points which are mentioned in the report of the Select Committee. In the first place I just want to refer to one recommendation in the report of the Select Committee. I listened to the Minister’s speech, and he stated that after the Bill had been before the Select Committee, it was referred back to all the particular organisations connected with it, as well as to the four Provincial Administrations. The Minister also stated that all four Provincial Administrations gave their approval to the principles of the Bill. If that is the case, I would especially refer the Minister to a recommendation made by the Select Committee in its report—

I would like the Minister in his reply to tell us what his attitude is towards this recommendation of the Select Committee. It is a very important question. If we compile legislation of this nature which deals with the social uplift of a section of the nation and bring it before this House, then that legislation ought to cover the whole country. It cannot be sound to exclude one section of the country. I shall be very pleased if the Minister will tell us in plain language what his attitude is towards the recommendation of the Select Committee. This was the recommendation we had throughout the proceedings from all the people and organisations who gave evidence. They felt one and all that it would be the right thing to do not to exclude one section of the country under legislation of this nature. I trust that the Government will adopt this recommendation of the Select Committee, and whatever may have persuaded Natal in desiring to be excluded under this legislation, we trust that legislation will be placed in the Statute Book which will include the whole Union, Natal included. The second recommendation of the Select Committee I want to mention is paragraph 3—

The war is now over. It is time that we gave our attention to these matters, and I would very much like to know from the Minister how he is going to react to this very earnest and appropriate recommendation of the Select Committee. Let me add this. The Minister replied and said that war funds would be discontinued, and because they were being discontinued the collection of money for them would also terminate. Apparently the argument is that if those funds are discontinued, the organisations will also cease to function. That is not right. The Minister knows that there are organisations who during the war were engaged in collecting money for purposes connected with the war. The war is over and the collection of money for those purposes will perhaps be discontinued, but they can still collect money for other purposes. Those organisations are still in existence and they ought to fall within the scope of the Bill.

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

With reference to the last paragraph of the report of the Select Committee, I just want to say that the question of bilingualism was raised once again during the discussions Of the Select Committee. As always, this side of the House proposed absolute bilingualism as regards both sections of the population. For that reason I moved in the Select Committee that as regards office bearers, provision should be made for those appointed to be thoroughly proficient in the use of both official languages. I am sorry to say that this proposal was outvoted, but thereafter we agreed unanimously to recommendation No. 4, and I would like to refer the hon. Minister to the last portion of the recommendation—

I want to express the hope that the principle of practical bilingualism will be carried out in letter and in spirit, and that we will not again find them hiding behind the provisions of Act No. 27 of 1923, and that in practice there is no equality as regards both official languages. Before I conclude, I just want to point out to the Minister that he is deeply indebted to the bodies and persons who have co-operated to make a complete success of this piece of legislation which we are now placing on the Statute Book. To me it seems as though the Minister does not realise sufficiently the scope of the welfare work which is carried on in the country by welfare organisations. To make the Minister feel how much he is backed up in his task as Minister of Social Welfare by voluntary work from voluntary organisations, I will quote the words of his own Department in their report of the year before last: “They are the Department’s best allies.” It is a great pity that the Minister should have forgotten his best allies in his speech—

1. (i) They are imbued with the spirit of service which refuses to be daunted by difficulties or acknowledge defeat;
2. (ii) they pioneer new developments;
3. (iii) they are less bound by restrictive rules than State Departments;
4. (iv) they are the people’s eyes, ears and conscience;
5. (v) they are ubiquitous, in the sense that there are very many villages and towns where there are no officers of the Department of Social Welfare, but very few where there are no voluntary societies.

As these welfare organisations are the ears, eyes and conscience of the people, I want to ask the Minister, where welfare work is carried on, to do it with an ear on the heart of the public conscience. I will conclude by repeating that throughout our work in the Select Committee, it was always our endeavour to ensure as far as possible that the Act would be of such a nature as not to hamper voluntary initiative and voluntary work of the great numbers of organisations. We felt that if the Bill were to go through in the form in which it was submitted to us, the measure would hamper, kill and undermine the work of voluntary organisations, and we endeavoured to amend it in such a way that it would not have this retarding effect, but that they would be able to cooperate with the Department in the social uplift and promotion of the welfare of the nation. The success, as I have said, will depend on the spirit in which voluntary organisations will co-operate, but it will also depend on the way in which the Minister and the Department treat the people. I feel that it would be shameful neglect on my part if I did not express thanks to the organisations for what they have accomplished so far. Before the legislation was introduced, during the discussion thereof in the Select Committee, and in particular with relation to the evidence which was given before the Select Committee, we received very valuable assistance. I want to mention a few sections of the population who deserve a special word of thanks. I do not think that this House fully realises the measure in which our Church performs welfare work. I feel that we should put it on record and that we should express our gratitude and appreciation here for the social uplift work the Church has done among the underprivileged section of the population. In performing this work, they are carrying out the command which the Church received from its Master. In the second place, I want to express the thanks of this House to the women of South Africa for the special part they have played in welfare work. They are rendering a real service of love. They do not seek to be honoured by the people; they are not out for fame and repute, but throughout the country women are engaged almost day and night in performing welfare work. They are engaged in social uplift work among the under-privileged section of the nation. I might mention the Vrouevereniging, the A.C.V.V., the South African Council of Women, the Women’s Federation, the O.V.V., and many others. I also want to mention local authorities for their contribution towards this work. And as we are going to apply this Bill as an experiment, as a new beginning, I trust that it will be carried out in a spirit of co-operation and reciprocal goodwill. I just want to refer to evidence which was given in connection with the question as to what the actual function of a voluntary organisation would be, how they would perform their work. I have in mind the evidence of the Rev. P. du Toit, who gave evidence in connection with the Church’s poor relief activities—

1. (a) Voluntary welfare organisations must carry out experimental work.

Give them the chance to carry on with experimental work.

1. (b) Voluntary welfare organisations must quickly adapt themselves to changed conditions and requirements and therefore keep their control methods and objects dynamic.

If the Bill had remained in its original form, this function of the organisation would have been stultified. There would have been no elasticity and no room for development and the valuable services of the organisation would have been lost to the nation and to the country—

1. (c) Voluntary welfare organisations must be resourceful, i.e. observe new requirements and develop and apply new forms of welfare work.
2. (d) Voluntary welfare organisations must often go against fixed ideas and vested interests, through one or more persons with wide vision, and thus become the pioneers of new developments.

Where the task of social work is being tackled, we trust that there will be hearty co-operation between State, Church and society in order, with united force and with the highest purpose in view, to tackle and fulfil the task and to answer the command which we have received that whether we like it or not, we are our brother’s keeper. For these reasons we support the principle of the Bill and trust that it will be carried out by all concerned, by Church, State and society, in a spirit of high endeavour and goodwill, the fruits of which will one day be reaped by posterity.

I feel as a member of the Select Committee I am under an obligation to stand up in this House in support of this Bill. I would like to endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein), because the spirit in which he put forward his criticisms is a reflection of the spirit which prevailed at the meetings of the Select Committee on this particular Bill. I would like to pay a tribute to the various organisations which presented memoranda and gave oral evidence to the Select Committee on this very important subject. It was evidence which was given in earnestness and with an obvious knowledge of the importance of this subject. The Bill in question is a definite advance on the draft Bill of 1944; but I do not intend to take up the time of the House in perusing the various clauses and dealing with the significance of each clause, because that has been ably covered by the Minister. I should like to stress certain aspects of the Bill, particularly those which have produced certain criticism, or in other words, which constitute the main objections to the Bill. The first centres round the question of compulsory registration. It was felt this provision might be subject to a degree of abuse. But when one examines the clauses, particularly clauses 9 and 13, it is obvious that the Minister in framing the Bill has definitely protected the social welfare organisations, and organisations who wish to register, from any abuse. In clause 9 there is outlined the qualifications for registration; and if, as may be suggested there is prejudice in the case of a particular organisation, or if for some reason an application is rejected, there is provided in clause 13 the necessary machinery to prevent any such occurrence. I refer to the appeal committee which is constituted by the appointment of a magistrate of ten years’ standing, who will be chairman, a representative of the aggrieved party, and thirdly a nominee by the Minister. A very important feature of that committee which will operate to prevent abuse in connection with registration is this, an appeal to that committee is a final appeal, and the Minister has no jurisdiction whatever. I regard this as a very important provision in the Bill. The Minister, in introducing the second reading of the Bill, referred to the constitution of the council and he referred to the fact that in that constitution this council will only have executive power in relation to registration; and it is important to appreciate that that council will be a democratic body duly elected by those organisations interested in social welfare, and they will have the privilege of bringing forward constructive suggestions in the field of social welfare for the consideration of the Minister. This function stresses an important principle that this democratically constituted body will enjoy. Apart from its executive authority in relation to registration we have thus another very important aspect, and that is the aspect of unified expert advice; it is advisory to the Minister. It will be a co-ordinating council. In this country we have numerous organisations functioning in a spasmodic and haphazard way, and whenever we can introduce legislation to unify and coordinate their activities we are producing legislation which is essentially constructive. This Bill constitutes a considerable advance; because with the personnel associated with this council we will have people who are experts in the theoretical field. I mention those associated with teaching in the universities. We also have associated with the council workers in the practical field of social work; and through the combined activities of the theoretical and scientific sides plus practical experience we shall have a body which can deliberate and secure through its experience and scientific opinion definite progress in the realm of social welfare. I feel I should comment at this stage on my own reactions from personal experience in this House in relation to welfare work where the under-privileged are concerned. The general outlook in this House is humanitarian. This was obvious in our deliberations in the Select Committee, and it is obvious from the speech of the hon. member for Boshof that when we come to such legislation we eschew party politics since we are all concerned with the welfare of South Africa and the uplift of the underprivileged classes. This I regard as a very important principle. When we deal with this type of legislation and have constructive rather than destructive criticism then we can hope for a great advance in our social legislation. It is fundamental; and it is very pleasing to record my experience as a member of the Select Committee, and also my experience in this House on what we may describe as fundamental legislation. The principle of registration which has been adversely criticised in certain directions has been dealt with by the Minister. We are a democratic State and this particular Bill has been endorsed by the vast majority of the people of South Africa. In so far as those criticisms on registration are concerned, the Minister very ably pointed out it was no new principle in our legislation. He referred to the position of the Transvaal where in Ordinance No. 5 of 1926 registration was compulsory and had to receive the approval of the Administrator. Due to the fact the Transvaal has given up its privilege in this connection, that approval is now vested by this Bill in the Social Welfare Department through the medium of the Minister of Social Welfare. We come to Natal, and here I should like later to dwell on Natal’s position, because there have been certain criticisms in so far as this Province’s exemption from the Bill is concerned. There is a Charitable Organisations Control Ordinance existing in Natal at the present moment, No. 8 of 1932; and this particular ordinance also necessitated approval being given by the Administrator before registration could be effected. Then we come to the Cape. In the Cape there also exists an ordinance, No. 4 of 1919, but this in fact was only a partially effective ordinance, as it did not cover the wide field the Transvaal and Natal ordinances covered. It only provided that those organisations which required a subsidy from the Government had to register so that nonmembers will appreciate that the principle of registration covered in this Bill is no new principle. In view of such previously existing legislation I cannot see there can be any objection to this particular Bill on such grounds. When the constitution of the National Social Welfare Organisations Council has been brought about I would like to stress this important point; namely, that the welfare organisations which exist throughout the Union are essentially voluntary organisations; and the one characteristic of a voluntary organisation and the workers associated with it is “initiative.” I feel a number of workers are rather concerned that this measure may be repressive to “individual initiative,” although as the Bill stands there will be no interference with the initiative of the individual or organisation. I feel it is incumbent upon me to make reference to this important matter and to urge the Minister in regard to that “initiative” to ensure that the utmost freedom be given to members of the council so that from initiative and personal experience the Minister through this expert advisory council may well be enabled to remove practical difficulties. The council, through its initiative and experience, will be able to advance to the Minister from time to time suggestions which should be embodied in future progressive social legislation. We must not at any time do anything that will repress the initiative so characteristic of social welfare work through the medium of our voluntary agencies. As suggested earlier, I feel one should now clarify the relationship of Natal to the Bill. I think that this House is well aware when the South Africa Act was framed that Natal only entered Union as the result of certain guarantees. This was not the point of view of Natal alone, but it was shared by the Free State, and Union only took place when certain guarantees were given in relation to provincial jurisdiction. In that provincial jurisdiction the main features of jurisdiction centred round provincial authority in regard to primary and secondary education, roads and hospitals. In addition to that the provinces had jurisdiction in relation to charitable work and poor relief. Natal is very concerned, as this House well knows, with constitutional issues. The South Africa Act has been described by the Prime Minister himself as a sacred Act, and there should be no interference with that Act unless it is through the will of the people. When the Statute of Westminster was enacted it made inevitable certain legislation and Natal felt very concerned about the legislation passed and the jurisdiction of the provinces. The sequel to it was an amendment to the South Africa Act, No. 45 of 1934, and this amending Act entrenched the particular provision in the South Africa Act which emphasised the jurisdiction of the provinces. If any interference or any amending legislation was considered it was then the obligation of the Provincial Executive, if they felt it was in accordance with the will of the people that they should do so, to ask for the amending legislation which would bring these matters within the purview of the central authority. We discussed in the Select Committee this question of Natal, because in 1940 the Inter-Consultative Executive Committee of the various provinces agreed to give up their jurisdiction in connection with charitable and poor relief work, but Natal stood out, and it is on this account and the amendment of the South Africa Act, No. 45 of 1934, that exemption has been provided for in the Bill. This position is thus safeguarded in accordance with the Act of Union. But I am exceedingly pleased that the door has been left open for Natal to come within the scope of this Bill which is framed on a national basis. That is provided for firstly in section 16 of Act 27 of 1940. Secondly I am pleased to note that the recommendations of the Select Committee in relation to Natal have been embodied in clause 27 of the Bill under consideration. It has left the door open, and if the people of Natal desire to come within the jurisdiction of the Bill, I feel they will be welcome. When I say the people of Natal in this connection I refer to the various individuals associated with charitable and poor relief in the Province of Natal. If it is their wish it is then incumbent upon these people to approach the Provincial Executive and ask for Natal’s inclusion to be considered in the present Bill. I am pleased that the “open door” provision has been made in clause 27 of this Bill. I do not want to detain the House, nor do I wish to go into the significance of the various clauses of the Bill, because it is obvious the Bill has the co-operation of this House and very little adverse criticism is being offered. But I would like to congratulate the Minister in putting this Bill before the House, since, allied to the Work Colonies Bill we are also considering, it is further evidence of the interest the Government and the whole of the House has in furthering the interests of the under-privileged and maladjusted classes in South Africa by putting on the Statute Book sound and constructive social legislation.

I intend to be very brief. I just want to assure the Minister that this side of the House supports him in this measure. I also wish to make a special request to the Minister. We support the Bill largely because we regard it as a step in the rationalisation of our social services. It is in accord with what many of us have advocated for some years, the need of a social insurance plan and the national organisation of our welfare activities. The social insurance plan, as envisaged by another Select Committee of this House and by a very important inter-departmental committee, will eliminate much of the cause of charity and organise the payment of benefits. The provisions will go much further than is proposed in this measure. We are a long way from a social insurance measure of that comprehensiveness; therefore we welcome this Bill as a step in the right direction. I want to ask the Minister to give us some elucidation as to the position of the trade unions under this measure. The Bill controls those bodies which get support from the Government, local authorities, or the public, in the form of donations. Trade unions rely for their revenue on the subscriptions of their members. But there are times of stress when for the purposes of relief they may have to go to the public for donations and for help. I am not quite clear whether under this Bill they will, in case of having to go to the public for assistance, be brought under its provisions and I would like the Minister to clarify the issue for us in that respect. In welcoming this Bill as a member of the Select Committee, and realising the unanimity in the House in connection with it, may I say I believe we have in our social welfare development arrived at a stage when we can put above racial and traditional factors the highest interests of our people, and particularly, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Col. O. L. Shearer) said those people known as the under-privileged classes.

I do not propose to answer the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein), especially where they may savour of a political flavour. I can assure him, however, that not only they on that side of the House, but the whole House, will give praise where praise is due. We feel with them that a generous measure of gratitude and appreciation is due to all the welfare organisations in the Union who have, without regard to considerations of their comfort, rendered such a magnificent service in ministering to the needs of the less privileged. The hon. member has, however, sought fit to mention a few organisations. He himself said that list is not exhausted. There are other organisations which are worthy of being mentioned, but I hope the omission of those organisations is without significance as far as the hon. member himself is concerned —and his party. Might we from this side mention a few? What about the Red Cross, the National Council of Women, the Child Welfare Association, Sawas, the Governor-General’s Fund committees—do these organisations not deserve a special meed of praise from this House? As I say, I hope the omission of these particular organisations and many others—we have not the full list before us—is without significance. The provisions of this Bill have been before the country for some time, and I am sure general accord will be given to the laudable objects it has in view. Further, I would like to mention one specific matter. I do not think the definitions now framed cover all the organisations that should be brought within the orbit of the Bill; in particular, I should like to mention the Legal Aid Bureau. Legal aid has been included in the terms of reference under which the Penal Reform Commission has been constituted. I do not think anything we say here this afternoon, or any amendments that may be accepted in the Committee stage, will in any way affect the activities of this commission. The subject-matter of this discussion has been taken up by the various law societies and by the Association of Law Societies with the Minister and the Social Welfare Department, so the proposal I wish to make this afternoon can be regarded as an agreed measure. The Legal Aid Bureau has been functioning for some considerable time. Under the aegis of this bureau, very valuable work has been done. It has assisted indigents in both civil and criminal cases. The word “indigent” might occasion a certain amount of criticism, but if it does not meet the case ways and means can be devised of coining a term which will not give offence. When we use the term “indigent” we feel there must be a means test. It cannot be expected that people possessed of means should be entitled to call on the legal profession for free service. As I say, valuable work has been done in the past by these bureaux, but their activities have reached a stage where it is felt their position should be entrenched by some legislative charter. At first, the Minister was approached and requested to introduce specific legislation dealing with this subject, but when this Bill was before the countrynegotiations were set afoot, and now an agreement has been arrived at. I think I am interpreting the attitude of the Minister’s Department correctly when I say the Minister will be inclined to extend the definition under Clause 1 to include organisations which have as their object the rendering of legal advice or assistance to individuals who are indigent; and that, brings with it a consequential amendment to Clause 9. We feel the Legal Aid Bureau should be under the control of the Law Societies; that is not an unreasonable demand to make, because it is the members of the legal profession who are called on to render this service gratuitously, and it seems desirable, therefore, that the law societies of the four provinces, controlled as they are by the Association of Law Societies of the Union, should exercise control in this matter. The Government will foot the bill. We feel that the registrar of the welfare organisations should be empowered to register any legal aid bureau, but not until it has been approved by the Law Society of the province concerned. After the second reading has been adopted, I hope to place amendments on the Order Paper, and I trust the Minister will at the appropriate stage, in Committee, accept those amendments. One further observation I should like to make in regard to Clause 27. I, too, would like to express regret that Natal has seen fit to stand out. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Col. O. L. Shearer) has made a brave attempt to justify Natal’s isolationism. But he expresses extreme pleasure that the door has been left open. The door may be left definitely ajar, but if Natal wants to come into the Union they must say so before the door is slammed against them. We hope that in the not too far distant future Natal will see its way to sink its isolationism, and to identify itself wholeheartedly with the Union, good, bad or indifferent as they may think it is.

There is one element in this question put forward by the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson), and that is that the “legal aid bureaux” should be recognised. Now if we recognise the “legal aid bureaux” we must recognise also the services given by the medical profession, the dental profession and other professions. We are tending to pour implications into this Bill which everyone including the Select Committee and the Minister were anxious to avoid. It is regrettable indeed that no opportunity of girding at Natal on this or that point is overlooked by some members of this House. The fact that Natal contracted out of ….

The Union.

…. the arrangements to surrender its charitable institutions as the other provinces did to the Union Government was mainly due to the fact that there is a certain element of distrust caused by the concerted action of the Government in years gone by to break the provincial system altogether. We had the confession of Mr. Havenga since I have been in this House, who, when addressing a member on this side asked him: “Would you break the provincial system”, and he said, “Yes”. Mr. Havenga said: “Try it. I tried it and failed”. The fact that Natal hangs on to the powers given to her under the South Africa Act is nothing to be ashamed of. There would have been no Union at all if these provincial powers had not been safeguarded, and yet hon. members of this House, knowing the facts, are always girding at Natal. I hope we will have seen the last of that now. The mere fact that Natal retained liquor licence fees and the control over charitable institutions is no reason whatever for hon. members saying these things, without recognising the fact that Natal is part of the Union, although so many hon. members of this House think it is not.

That is evolution for you.

The actions of members from other parts of South Africa have been such as really to antagonise Natal.

Oh no, we buy your bananas.

And your sugar.

As a matter of fact you buy your bananas from Delagoa Bay. Natal bananas are cut out, because Delagoa Bay produce enjoys Union agricultural produce rates over our railways from Komatipoort to all points of the Union. Having made my protest I do not wish to labour the point.

The hon. member who has just sat down reminds me of the story of an English friend in a Durban club, who stood his friends a few farewell drinks, and when he was asked whither he was going he replied: “I am going on a visit to the Union”. That is the spirit which Natal should not foster. We should like to incorporate them in all the laws of this country and if they are prepared to cooperate we can achieve more and better co-ordination. Now I want to come to the Bill. If ever there was a Bill which has shown the advantages of the existence of Parliament, it is this Bill, because when the Bill was introduced it was a Bill giving the powers of a dictator to the Minister and his officials, and when the Bill was introduced every member from every side of the House serving on the Select Committee was dissatisfied with the various provisions of, the Bill. We were inundated with requests and pleas to improve the Bill, and it is only due to the spirit shown by members from all sides of the House in their attempt to obtain the best possible legislation, that we have today before us this Bill on which all have agreed. Then the Minister comes along and says that he is prepared to forego his dictatorial powers. However much the Minister would like to be a dictator, this House has always insisted on a Minister being a person who has to give account to this House and to this House alone. We have achieved that in this Bill, and I suppose the Minister is also glad that all sides of the House are now satisfied. Furthermore I assume that he is glad that the protests which came from outside sources have disappeared, and that the people who have up till now performed a tremendous task in regard to the uplifting of the people, will continue as at present to devote their money and their time to the noble work which they have done in the past. I want to utter a few words of praise for the officials of the Department of Social Welfare. They assisted us to a very great extent, they were always prepared to assist the members of the Select Committee when the latter made suggestions. We could always draw on their experience, and it is due to the assistance we received from those officials that the Bill is today what it is. It should, however, be an object lesson to Ministers, in future not to attempt introducing legislation which gives Ministers such powers that they in fact would become dictators. In this particular case such an attempt was made in regard to charitable work. I hope that this lesson will be remembered in the future. We expect that the Bill, when passed, will function properly, and that as a result of the registration there will be less of the evils which existed in the past. One important principle was saved in this Bill, which would have been lost under the original Bill, and that is the individual initiative. That was a defect of the original Bill. No provision was made therein of the procedure to be adopted in emergency cases. In such cases the ordinary procedure of registration would have had to be followed. That would have meant applying in the first instance to the Minister. But ultimately, due to the fact that on the Select Committee we had some practical people, people with experience of this kind of work, this most serious defect was eliminated. Now the Bill carries with it the good wishes of all sides of the House, and we hope that the charitable work will now continue without the irregularities which sometimes clung to it in the past.

I did not serve on the Select Committee, but I thoroughly studied the Bill, and I believe that if there is one aspect on which the Bill may fail if we are not careful, it is on Clause 2, which deals with the appointment of a national board of control for welfare organisations. I cannot find anywhere in this clause a provision that the board of control will consist of Europeans only. We know that many welfare organisations perform work for natives, and among Indians and coloureds, and they will afterwards recommend a representative or a few representatives, and the Minister may perhaps have no alternative but to appoint a native, coloured or Indian. I am afraid that if our women’s organisations feel that they must sit at the same table with Indians, coloureds or natives, the matter may fail, and that they will withdraw from the board of control. I shall be glad if the Minister can give us an assurance on that point; otherwise we may be able to rectify the matter by means of an amendment during the committee stage. There are a few other matters which I want to raise in passing. I have been connected for a long time with this type of welfare organisation, and we sometimes found that when anything of this nature was suggested, organisations suddenly sprang up like mushrooms, and combined only in order to obtain representation. We should watch against that kind of development. In a large village or town an agitation might be set afoot in order to obtain increased representation for a certain section, and then a large number of smaller organisations might be established and each of them would want representation. We must be on our guard against such a development. I now come to the ownership of properties. The Government is going to give assistance to welfare organisations. To whom will the properties of such organisations be transferred when such bodies should be dissolved?

At 3.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 31st January, 1946, and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 11th March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Private Members’ business.

I have introduced this motion for discussion with the object of trying to find a better method of organising the Dairy Industry. I feel that this is a subject which may be discussed on a non-party basis. I think it is a question that affects both town and country, and I feel that a thorough discussion of this problem should result in benefit to all sections. I wish particularly to stress the public health aspect of this problem. I feel that at this time, when people are paying far more attention to public health than they did at one time, this is one of the subjects where we can bring about very great improvements, if we explore it from every point of view, and particularly try to encourage the production in every possible way of the largest possible amount of dairy products. We find countries throughout the world are quite willing to spend enormous sums of money on the erection of hospital buildings and on various other aspects of public health improvement. I consider that a good deal of good can be done by prevention rather than by cure in many of our diseases. Particularly in regard to tuberculosis and diseases of that nature I think one of the best foundations is a large and pure supply of fresh milk available to the public at prices within the reach of the majority of people in the country. That is the main point I wish to emphasise, that we should have large and plentiful supplies of fresh milk at the most reasonable prices possible for all sections. I feel that it is much better for the State to spend a considerable amount of money to bring that about, rather than to wait until people become ill and then to spend millions trying to cure them. I notice that during the war the British Government adopted a policy of doing everything possible to encourage a very large production of fresh milk. They spent large sums of money subsidising food, and particularly in encouraging milk production. In the last financial year for which I have the figures, they spent £252 million on the subsidisation of food. That is a large amount of money, and I think we in this country should consider whether we should not spend more money in that direction. In order to assure having plentiful supplies of milk, I think we should guarantee to the producers a reasonable price. It is necessary in a country where production is so seasonal, where droughts and climatic conditions affect production to such a large extent, to pay an attractive price. I think it would pay the country to encourage production by paying an attractive price at all times. We have a country with many advantages, but also many disadvantages. It is a very difficult country in which to produce dairy products, and it does not help by criticising and saying that production methods are inefficient, and that in New Zealand milk can be produced at a lower price. We have to have milk produced in South Africa, because when we try to import, particularly during the war period, we have to pay much more than we pay for our own product. That was brought home very clearly last year when there was a shortage of condensed milk. Owing to various factors which I do not want to discuss now, we had a shortage of dairy products, including a shortage of condensed milk. We decided to import, but the price we had to pay was far in excess of the cost of the locally manufactured article. The American farmers who produced the milk got much more per gallon for, their milk than the South African farmers got. Therefore it is necessary if we want a large volume of production to guarantee a slightly more generous price. Then I contend that it is necessary to have an organisation to see that the production we have is put to the best possible use. I remember very well the days before we had the Dairy Control Board, when we had a small surplus of one commodity bringing the market down, and the whole production became unpayable and people went out of production. When the Dairy Control Board started functioning they improved the position rapidly. They started off by trying to reduce distribution costs as much as possible, and through doing so they soon encouraged production and consumption in South Africa. But they had limited powers, and they did not use their powers to the fullest possible extent. I remember quite well, just before the war, we had an over-production of cheese, and the cheese manufacturers then sought a means of disposing of the surplus production, and the only way they could find to get rid of it without depressing the price of the whole market was to export to London. I was interested in that, and the nett returns from London were in the vicinity of 7d. per lb. That worked out at a price of 4d. per gallon for milk after allowing for costs of manufacture. At that time the condensed milk factories were crying out for a bigger supply of milk, and I do not think the Dairy Control Board had power to divert the milk, as when they were appealed to they said that this was a matter for the individual interests concerned to come together.

It cost us £3,000.

I am speaking of the period six or eight years ago. The hon. member evidently was not following my remarks. The position at that time was that we were exporting cheese and selling it at a dead loss to the industry, and that appeared to be the only way in which we could get rid of that surplus. Since that time the position has improved enormously. The Dairy Control Board has more power; they have more experience and they are making a very much better job of it. But it was felt that owing to the fact that fresh milk was not under the Dairy Control Board, and that milk was being diverted freely from one district to another, from one manufacturing commodity to another, it was felt that the whole of the milk production should come under one board, and a scheme was introduced to give the Dairy Control Board power to control fresh milk and all forms of manufactured milk. That was in operation for roughly a year. I think in 1939 they were given this power, and in 1940 some of the fresh milk interests felt that this was not to their advantage. They objected to it for some reason or another. They contested the validity of this and the arrangement was upset. The Board was hastily reconstituted and given power to carry on controlling cheese milk, condensing milk, butter, etc. It was considered at that time that the Marketing Act required amendment in order to enable the Board to take over the control of fresh milk. The Marketing Act was amended in consultation with the agricultural unions, and the farmers’ representatives at that time thought the principal object in amending the Marketing Act was to enable the Dairy Control Board again to take control of fresh milk. I think the Marketing Act was amended in 1941 and the Dairy Control Board very soon afterwards submitted a scheme to the Government of the day to enable them to take over the control of fresh milk. From that time no decision has been arrived at as to whether it is desirable or whether the Dairy Control Board should take over the control of the whole industry or not. Various representations have been made by different organisations and up to the present nothing definite has been done. The result had been that there has been a considerable conflict between the ‘producers of fresh milk, the distributors of fresh milk and the cheese and condensed milk interests. The Government felt that in order to ensure plentiful supplies of fresh milk they should fix a fairly high price in this country. Representations were made to the effect that fresh milk supplies were falling off very rapidly, and the Government said that under, the Marketing Act they had no power to deal with it, but under the emergency regulations they brought in a scheme for fixing prices for fresh milk. Under these emergency regulations a very attractive price was offered to the producers of fresh milk in contra-distinction to the producers of milk for condensing or cheese manufacturing. The immediate effect was that many people started diverting their milk from the cheese factories and condenseries to the fresh milk market, and from that time the fresh milk market has been assured of adequate supplies. I do not think there has at any time been a shortage of fresh milk in any part of the Union. The extra prices attracted supplies, and in many cases have been quite embarrassing to producers’ organisations in districts where the supplies can be easily diverted from one form of manufacture to another. We have found that in many cases the suppliers to co-operative factories have been tempted by the fresh milk interests to divert their supplies. The price was fixed at, I think, 1s. 7d. per gallon at a time when the cheese factory price was about 10d. or 10½d„ and the condensing milk price 1d. more. The result was that many people were tempted to divert their milk to the fresh milk market. One might say that that is a good thing for the towns, but it has been very upsetting for the industry and it has resulted in large numbers of people going in for expensive plants to cool or pasteurise their milk, and it has resulted in a great deal of overlapping between one form of the industry and another. Then, Sir, I would like to go on to the question of the opposition to the idea of bringing all milk under one controlling authority. Many of the fresh milk interests established in close proximity to the big towns have found their costs of production going up very rapidly. They have found that their land was becoming more expensive, that wage determinations and the cost of labour and various other expenses were making their costs of production so high that they had to have continual price increases to enable them to remain in business. The result has been that there has been a conflict between the producers of fresh milk in the immediate neighbourhood of the big towns and the producers of milk further afield, in a large number of producing areas where cattle are kept under more natural conditions and the costs of production are naturally very much lower. The people who are firmly established in industry maintain that owing to their higher costs of production they should be guaranteed either the whole or a very large percentage of the market that they had held for many years. They maintain that they should have a close preserve of this market, that the costs of maintaining their supplies were so high that they must have a much higher price. That automatically led to a higher retail price for milk, and the higher price for milk in the towns naturally again attracted supplies from the country areas where the prices were lower, so that we had this vicious circle —the costs of production in the towns forcing the retail price up, the high retail price attracting the surplus from areas where the production costs were lower, and we found a position developing where we had a very keen conflict between one section of the farming community and another to get into this market. An instance of what is happening — and I do not think it is a desirable state of affairs— is the position that is developing today in Johannesburg. I am informed on very good authority that a very large financial concern is today buying up the goodwill of small distributors of milk in Johannesburg. Options have been taken on milk distributing businesses, and I am informed that the figure is £10 per gallon on the amount of milk handled, for goodwill alone. In addition, for premises, I believe something in the vicinity of £275,000 is the figure involved, and a slightly smaller sum for plant, and on top of that £10 per gallon for the right to distribute milk. I believe this company is contemplating launching a scheme in the near future where they will appeal for a capital of roughly £1,200,000 in order to launch this huge scheme to distribute milk along the Reef. There, I think, the procedure will probably follow the line that has obtained in the past, where the Price Controller is asked to investigate the cost of production and to fix a fair margin of profit, based on the amount of capital involved in a particular business. And if the consumers have to be taxed in order to provide a fair remuneration on a very highly inflated capital outlay I think the result is going to be that we are going to have such a high retail price that the consumers in the towns will not be able to face it. Alternatively the Government will be asked to come forward and subsidise the poorer consumers who cannot afford to pay the high price, and I do hope that the Government will seriously consider this question before this becomes an accomplished fact and before they are asked to fix prices in Johannesburg based on very high costs of production in areas that are today absolutely uneconomic from the point of view of milk production, and also to provide interest on a very highly inflated capital outlay. I think that is an aspect that does require very careful consideration. I would also like to instance what has happened recently in Cape Town.

How many gallons are involved?

I cannot give the exact number of gallons. I was given the figure which, it is estimated, is covered by the Johannesburg concern, and the figure is from 16,000 gallons to 21,000 gallons per day. There are in Johannesburg various other organisations distributing milk, and I believe the capital involved there is very much lower, less than half the amount indicated as necessary to distribute this particular quantity. I was just going to instance the recent increase of the price in Cape Town. Quite recently the producers and distributors of milk approached the Government to have a fresh price determination made with regard to this area, and the latest determination is that the producers’ price will be 2s. per gallon and the retail price will be 5d. per pint delivered in the Cape Town area. I think the cost of 1s. 4d. per gallon for distributing milk in Cape Town is excessive, and I think the Government will seriously have to consider the whole question of whether it is fair, whether it is absolutely necessary to continue increasing prices in order to enable a whole lot of people who are producing and distributing on an expensive basis to carry on as at present, or whether it is not better to go into the question of rationalising the distribution by zoning particular areas and in that way bring about a very considerable reduction in price. One might say that the present people in their own interests should be keen to reduce distributive costs.

What about wage determinations?

The only remedy I can see is to go into the question of reducing costs in every possible way. It is no solution of the problem to say that certain costs have increased and therefore we have to pile the whole of the increased cost on to the consumers. A very large reduction can be made by zoning in all these areas. The British Government was faced with the same problem at the beginning of the war. They had to face two other problems. They had to face an acute manpower problem and they had to face a transport problem, and they said it was absolutely impossible to allow people to go on distributing milk under this old-fashioned wasteful method, where every distributor is allowed to go to every part of the city to deliver milk, where you have the position that eight or ten different distributors deliver milk in the same block of flats. They said that in the interests of national economy it was necessary to zone the areas and to let the distributor deliver in one area only, and in that way save manpower and transport. That was done, and it was done very efficiently, and it proved a great success. I feel sure that that is the only solution to the very high retail price of milk in South Africa. I think if the consumers of South Africa would really go into this question and come together they could, by co-operating, by insisting on more modern and up-to-date methods of distribution, reduce the cost of distribution very considerably. I contend that 16d. per gallon for the distribution of milk is unnecessarily high.

How do you know it is unnecessarily high? You have no figures. You are just saying that in the air.

Of course I have figures. The farmers’ price is 24d. and the retail price is 40d. That gives you a difference of 16d. If that is not correct I think the hon. member should tell me what is.

I asked you how you know it is so high.

We compare the costs of distribution overseas with the cost of distribution in this country, and I think it is quite apparent that 16d. for the distribution of a gallon of milk is a very high figure. I submit that if the British Government found that they could effect a tremendous saving by zoning during the war period we in this country should at least investigate the same method, and I think we have every likelihood of achieving a similar result.

Then I want to go on to another aspect. One of the reasons given for the very high price that is necessary to producers in the vicinity of the big centres is that they have always got to maintain a surplus over the daily requirements, and that they must always produce a 20 per cent. or a 25 per cent. surplus in order to be able to deliver the quantity that they are normally expected to deliver. They say that that involves a considerable loss in wastage and a lower price for the surplus milk, and that is one of the reasons why they have to have this high price. There I think a very considerable improvement can be effected by having collecting depots outside our big cities at well-chosen points, such as railway junctions, where we can form manufacturing units, dried milk factories, cheese factories or condensing milk factories, and then the collecting depots could collect milk in their immediate areas; they could forward a considerable quantity of their milk to the big centres. That practice was also started in England about 30 years ago in the area that I came from, and these collecting stations established on railway sidings very soon got big orders from the towns. The milk was sent forward by fast trains generally in glass-lined or stainless steel trucks, and having been cooled or pasteurised at the collecting station it was sent to the big towns, where it was bottled. A very considerable saving was effected, and I think that method should also be investigated in South Africa. We have many areas in South Africa where we have manufacturing units— dried milk factories, cheese factories and condensing milk factories—within 200 miles of the big fresh milk consuming centres. Those factories could easily divert a portion of their supplies and in that way guarantee the towns the regular supplies they need. It has already been done on a considerable scale in Natal and East Griqualand, and I think an extension of that system to the rest of the Union would be of considerable advantage; it would guarantee the towns that there will not be a wastage as a result of carrying a surplus over the existing quota. I think that is the best way of getting over the difficulty.

The question of pasteurisation has been given a lot of publicity. I have come to the conclusion that on all the evidence before us pasteurisation on a considerable scale will be necessary in the near future. Many people are opposed to pasteurisation. The idea has been spread that pasteurisation is a process to convert dirty, unsaleable milk into saleable milk. That is entirely wrong. The first essential of any milk production is absolute cleanliness so that we will be able to have a first class article from the beginning. Pasteurisation makes the milk safer, and according to the best medical evidence, pasteurisation makes practically no difference to the excellent qualities that milk possesses. I have always contended that many of these fads with regard to fresh milk and pure milk and pasteurised milk and all the rest of it do not really matter so very much. I think the main essential is at all times to have a plentiful supply of milk. I would much rather have a large supply of cheap milk than a small supply of very perfect and very expensive milk, and I think that medical opinion throughout the world is that we should at all times try to encourage the consumption of as much milk as possible. I have always followed that practice, and I do not think I have suffered whether the milk has been pasteurised or not pasteurised.

Do you put water in it?

I have from an early age made the major portion of my living from the production of milk, and I am naturally interested in the subject, and I like to popularise the commodity I produce. Then the question is what should be done if milk is centralised in the big towns. There is an idea that this should be a municipal commodity, that these depots should be run by municipalities. New Zealand has been quoted, where in Wellington the milk distribution is centralised. I believe that scheme has given very good results, but I believe one of the weaknesses of the Wellington experiment is that the milk is collected in the town and any surplus over the actual requirements for fresh milk consumption is disposed of as manufactured milk at a very considerable loss. Under the scheme that I envisage the production and manufacture of surplus milk would take place in the area of production, and there would be no loss because the ordinary manufacturing process would be able to pay the full manufacturing price for the whole of that milk. Also the surplus milk would not be burdened with a heavy railage rate. If we do not consider that the municipality should have the monopoly or the handling of these depots, the other alternatives, as far as I can see, are either a co-operative depot, a public utility company or allowing private enterprise to take over that distribution. On this question I feel that if the consumers in South Africa would take a keen interest in the subject, if they would organise their own distributive co-operative societies, and in conjunction with producer co-operative societies run milk depots, I think that would be the ideal way of handling it, but it may be better in the beginning to start with a utility company to handle this essential service. I think the majority of people realise that whether we have socialism or whether we have this private enterprise that some people are so much wedded to, we have to have efficiency, and under whatever system we operate I think everyone agrees that certain key industries, certain essential industries, should be conducted on a non-profit earning basis. I cannot think of any more essential industry or any industry that fits that description better than the handling of the bulk supplies of our milk for the large towns.

What about production?

I am stating my case, and I hope that when I am finished the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) will be able to put forward his view, and I would appeal to him to let me make my points. I do not think it is necessary to get side-tracked on any of these particular points of view. I’ am trying to outline the organisation that I feel would be best for the whole dairy industry.

I have left the question of butter to the last deliberately, because butter is the last thing that the dairy farmer will make if he has any possible alternative. There are other members on this side of the House who have had more experience of that product than I have had, so I do not propose to spend a lot of time on that subject. I would just like to make one point with reference to it, and that is that the Dairy Control Board has found that there is a tremendous amount of redundancy in the production of butter. There are large numbers of small creameries scattered all over South Africa, where the production varies from 100,000 lb. to 6,000,000 lb

100,000 lb. per day?

No, 100,000 lb. per annum to 6,000,000 lb. per annum, and the costs of production vary from 1½d. to 3¼d. per lb. If you have costs of production varying from 1½d. to 3¼d., and someone has to fix a fair margin of profit, you can understand that it is very difficult to do that. The idea behind the appointment by the Dairy Control Board of a committee is to try to reduce production and manufacturing costs as much as possible in order to be able to compete with the other branches of the industry that are able to pay higher prices.

What do you think of the question of margarine?

I would first like to finish those points that I have made a note of before I come to the question of margarine. I would just like to mention that the price the producers receive for milk as such varies from a little under 9d. per gallon where that milk is converted into butter, without counting the separated milk, to 12d. per gallon where the milk is converted into cheese, 13d. per gallon where it is used for condensing milk, 19d. where it is delivered to Durban as fresh milk, 21d. if it is delivered to Johannesburg and Pretoria and 24d. if it is delivered to Cape Town. These are the producers’ prices. So when you find that one farmer received 12d. for milk and another farmer receives 24d. for exactly the same quality, you can quite understand that there is a tremendous temptation for producers to get as much milk as possible into the most expensive market. You might say that the price of 24d. in Cape Town cannot attract milk from the cheese factories, but I believe you have cheese factories within a few hundred miles of Cape Town and the suppliers to these factories, however loyal they wish to be cannot continue to sell at 12d. per gallon if there is a possibility of their selling at 24d. per gallon. The railage takes a few pence off. That is the sort of thing that is disorganising the dairy industry, and I feel it is absolutely essential that the Government should consider the question at a very early date and see if it is not possible to bring about a more uniform and a more stable and a better state of affairs. My main conclusions are that the production of fresh milk should be encouraged to the utmost. Farmers should be encouraged to produce the largest possible quantity, and the industry should see that as much as possible is absorbed by the branch that can pay the best price. Obviously fresh milk is outstanding in that respect, and we should endeavour to supply that market to its maximum capacity at all times, we should not do that by disorganising the industries that have been built up at considerable expense and which are a definite asset to the producers in many districts. This is a problem where we cannot have divided control operating effectively. We start with one main product, milk, and whatever form it is finally marketed ’ in, if we have two forms of control, you must have overlapping and friction. You may have one part of the country organised on slightly different lines to the other. We have the problems attached to increased production costs in the vicinity of our big towns, and the tendency of medical officers of health everywhere to drive dairymen out of the towns. So we must look to the country areas for the production of fresh milk.

Then there is another point I would like to touch upon, and that is the conditions laid down by many medical officers of health in regard to the production of milk in the urban areas. They go to a great deal of trouble to lay down specifications for cowsheds and the way milk should be handled. I consider that is more a matter for veterinary than medical supervision. I do not think the average M.O.H. is necessarily an expert on the construction of cowsheds, the capacity of cooling plants and the various forms of disease that attack animals producing milk. Consultation between the veterinary side and the medical side and the farming community could bring about a better state of affairs. Many of our medical officers of health are striving to control a problem they are not familiar with, and a better solution could be found than the present one. The whole question of control of the Dairy Industry has been considered by the National Marketing Council. I read their report hoping there would be some indication as to how we might expect an improvement. They said in their lates report, for the year 1943-44, Part I, paragraph 55—

I do not know whether that is a definite conclusion or whether they are still feeling their way, but I do think this is a question that should be considered, and a decision should be arrived at in the near future. The problem is a vital one, and I feel certain if the present practice is continued of basing costs of production and distribution on existing methods and on inflated capital values, and in some cases on redundant assets, then the Government will be faced with a demand for a subsidy to enable consumers in our big towns to buy milk. I think it is a question of rationalisation or a heavy subsidy. I hope the Minister has listened carefully—I know he has—to the remarks I have made, and I hope he feels convinced it is necessary to go into this question at an early date, and that there will also be the fullest consultation between the agricultural organisations and the various interests affected.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to support this motion, and in doing so I wish to say the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) will have rendered a public service if we can induce the Government to make a thorough investigation into the position of the dairy industry and to reorganise it with a view to meeting the needs of the public from a health and nutritional point of view as well as reorganising the industry as a whole. I know the Minister will treat this motion not only with respect but with a knowledge of the importance that attaches to it. The hon. member for East Griqualand has dealt very fully with many aspects of the dairy industry. I shall confine my remarks to the health and nutritional part of the subject, and also try to show how production can be increased enormously and the cost of production reduced to a very large extent. The dairy industry is more than a business and an occupation, it is an essential national service that is vital to the whole country. On it depends in a great measure the future welfare of our people and the building up of an A.1. nation, and the Government should view it in that light as well as from the standpoint of its importance to the agricultural industry as a whole. Without essential protective foodstuffs of which milk and milk products are the most important, malnutrition, disease and deterioration of our people must result. We are bound to become a degenerate people if we are condemned to a future of malnutrition and disease. We have to start building strong, healthy and well-nourishel children until they are fully developed. We as farmers know that stunted and ill-nourished young animals can never develop into anything but scrubs if they are starved in their early youth, and that applies just as much to human beings as it does to animals. At present we do not supply the quantity of milk and of dairy products generally necessary to meet the needs of the people both from a health and a nutritional point of view; and we will never do so until the dairy industry is on a sound economic footing. This is what we are asking for in this motion, and it is possible to achieve it. We can supply all the milk and dairy products the country requires if the dairy industry was on a sound basis. I should like to quote from a publication by the Agricultural Department. It is a publication emanating from the Minister’s own department, and I think we can take it as correct, and for that reason I think the Minister must give it the consideration which is due to it. The title of the leaflet is “How to improve and safeguard our milk supplies.” That is how to increase our production and reduce the costs of production. This pamphlet is from Publicity Series No. 158 dated 31st August, 1943, and was issued by the Director of Publicity of the Food Control Organisation, which I expect the Minister will admit is a very important organisation. It says—

I hope the Minister will absorb that and keep it in mind when he is thinking of the dairy industry of the future. Then they go on to say—

That deals with the production of milk. It further goes on to say—

They state that we can double our production and reduce cost of production if we have better cattle and they are free from disease. The pamphlet concludes—

Quite recently I was fortunate enough to have a visit to my constituency from Dr. Quinlan, of Onderstepoort. He is, I think, the greatest specialist on dairy cattle diseases. He addressed a meeting of dairy farmers and he pointed out to us that the diseases which our dairy cattle suffer from are diseases the ordinary farmer cannot deal with. The ordinary farmer is not in a position to eliminate those diseases without special assistance from the Veterinary Department. Further, he went on to say our ordinary veterinary officers are not able to deal with these diseases as they have not specialised in dairy cattle diseases, and he said until we can persuade the Government to adopt a new system with the Veterinary Department, that is to train a certain number of veterinary specialists in these particular diseases we will never have any hope of eliminating them, and we shall have to go on in the way we are now with low production and high costs. That, I think, is such an important statement, as is also the statements in the bulletin that I hope the Minister will take it up seriously and make arrangements for a certain number of veterinary officers to be trained by Dr. Quinlan at Onderstepoort as specialists in these particular diseases, when we would have a hope, without increasing our number of cattle, or even improving the conditions under which they are kept, of doubling our milk supply and halving the cost, which is so badly needed for the poorer sections of our people. I think I have made out a fairly good case for the necessity of something being done to reorganise our dairy industry. Unless we do something along the lines suggested by the Minister’s own department and an expert like Dr. Quinlan we have not much hope of getting any further with the improvement of our dairy industry. I do not want to go into the question of prices; my hon. friend the member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) has put that before the Minister, but I would like to say the whole position of the dairy industry at the present time is certainly most unsatisfactory. As the hon. member has stated we have a control board for certain dairy products, namely factory milk, cheese milk and butter fat, but the most important part of the dairy industry, that is the fresh milk trade, does not come under any control whatever. I think we are all agreed ‘the time has arrived now when we must have a fresh milk scheme. I do not know whether the Minister will favour a separate scheme or whether he would think it better and in the interests of the dairy industry that fresh milk should come under the present Dairy Control Board, but certainly there must be some control of the fresh milk industry. You have to keep some relationship between fresh milk and other milk. But as has been pointed out at present, fresh milk prices are continually rising and rising and its purchase is becoming impossible for the poorer classes. There are ways of cheapening costs, but the whole of our milk production should be controlled under some dairy control board so that a relation could be kept between the values of fresh milk and milk for other purposes. Unless that is done every dairyman who possibly can will become a supplier of fresh milk. That will eventually result in the overproduction of fresh milk in the large towns to the detriment of the producer, and very little will be left over for our condensed milk factories and our cheese factories, while butter manufacture would suffer similarly. There should, of course, always be a higher price for fresh milk compared with factory milk, but the disparity should not become so wide as to induce dairymen who should be supplying factories to make every possible effort to get fresh milk to the urban areas. We will never be able to build up a sound and economic dairy industry under those conditions. A great deal has been said about the importance of the dairy industry to the national health. A national health service is being demanded but such service would, though most necessary, have to deal with many diseases due largely to malnutrition as the result of people not having protected foodstuffs to the extent that they are required. Is it not better tn prevent disease instead of only trying to cure it? I think the Minister and the Government should realise that milk and milk products are the most important foodstuffs required by the people to maintain perfect health, and that consequently the dairy industry should be • treated as one of the most important in the agricultural world. Undoubtedly milk and dairy products can prevent malnutrition and ill-health and disease if sufficient is made available to the public. If it is impossible for us, as farmers, to bring that home to the Minister and the Government we will have to call in the help of the Housewives’ League, the National Council of Women, and the mothers of all the children of this country. When that happens I am sure the Minister will not be able to stand up against it. The Minister has had so many deputations and representations from the dairy farmers that one might say he has almost become bullet proof against the recommendations we make to him, not that I wish to insinuate he does not attach importance to them, but when you are always nagging at the Minister he gets tired and irritable and he is not inclined to take us up seriously.

You have never seen me irritable, certainly not when I was at Estcourt.

I think I have seen the Minister irritable when the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has spoken to him occasionally. But joking aside, I only hope the Minister will take this motion seriously as it is meant, and that the representations we have made will bear some fruit for the benefit of the dairy industry in the future, and also for the future health of the people of South Africa.

I listened attentively to the mover of this motion and his seconder, to the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) and I must admit that I was disappointed. They have here a very fine motion which I would gladly support, and I anticipated that they would dwell on all aspects of the dairy industry. What they said was in the interests of that industry and I do not want to oppose that. I want to go further, however, and say that I am very sorry that the report of the Commission of Enquiry on the Production Costs of Dairy Produce has not yet been tabled. If we had had that before us we might have been able to see in which direction their recommendations point.

That report will come.

Before the end of the Session?

I do not know. It is now only a question of translation and printing.

I mentioned this because if we had had that report, we might have been in a better position to discuss this motion. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. members mentioned, made in connection with health matters, diseases among cattle, etc., and I do hope that the Minister will go into these points. There must be very few herds of cattle in this country completely free from diseases, diseases of which the farmer may be unaware, but which nevertheless decrease the milk production. I want to confine my remarks more in particular to the question of milk production for industrial purposes. The previous speakers mainly dealt with fresh milk production. In passing I want to say that the gap between the price for fresh milk and the price for industrial milk is much too large, and creates an unhealthy state of affairs. The position is that the one farmer tries to outvie the other farmer in his attempts to sell fresh milk. One farmer, for instance, sells cheese milk, but the other tries to outclass him by selling fresh milk, and he does receive a higher price for his fresh milk. This is a problem which should be dealt with by a commission from the Dairy Board; it should determine what the production costs of milk are. That there is a difference of 7d. or 8d. per gallon, that so much more is paid for fresh milk, can definitely not be justified, for the production costs do not vary to such an extent. As far as this matter is concerned I hope that it will be gone into with a view to reducing the gap between those prices. I want to emphasise once more that the dairy farmers very much regret that they cannot be assisted at the present time by means of the winter premium on milk. We are grateful to the Minister that he continued that premium during the drought. We feel however, that in view of the fact that we produced our dairy products at a loss in the past, and the fact that rains have now fallen which enables us to make a small profit to offset the previous losses, this period should have been bridged by means of the winter premium. Seeing that this premium has now been taken away I want to ask the Minister whether it will be possible to pay us 2d. or 3d. per gallon more during the winter months. It may be argued that the consumer will be opposed to it. The fact remains, however, that the consumer today is anxious to obtain butter and cheese. These products are so scarce that only 50 per cent. of the requirements can be met. We are living in abnormal times, and have suffered an abnormal drought. Last year we produced 16 million pounds less dairy products than six years ago. The dairy industry has deteriorated during the past five years. Something is radically wrong and should be investigated. The cause is to be found in the fact that the price for dairy produce was so low that dairy farmers could not afford to spend extra money on fodder, quite apart from the fact that fodder was unobtainable. I therefore appeal to the Minister that he should assist the dairy farmers during the winter months with at least 3d. per gallon extra so as to enable them to keep going until next summer. We ask that as a temporary concession. We do not say that it should remain on that basis, but the position is that the demand exists, that the public wants our produce, and this concession will assist the consumers and on the other hand also the producers. I am convinced that the consumer, because today he can at the utmost get half a pound of butter per week, will glady pay that 3d. per pound more, if only he can get more butter. I personally heard of a man who, at the end of last year, sold butter on the black market at 7s. 6d. per lb. What is the cause of there being a black market? A black market can only exist when the price of an article on the ordinary market is too low or when the article is in short supply. Why should it be in short supply? Because the price is not attractive enough. The price of fodder has increased so much during the last few years that it has become quite impossible to produce dairy products at a remunerative price. It may be said that we obtain a much better price now than in 1939-’40. We do not deny that, but if one looks at the comparative prices of dairy products, and those of maize, lucerne and teff, with which the cattle have to be fed, it will be found that the price of fodder has increased by more than 100 per cent., so that the price we obtain for our Miry produce is nothing wonderful. In the past the dairy industry in general always managed to stand on its own feet. The dairy industry is the branch of the farming industry with which the Government has interfered least, and in connection with which the Government has taken the least trouble to assist farmers to overcome their difficulties. Our dairy farmers like to be independent, and consequently they only ask that they be paid a remunerative price for their produce. The motion by the hon. member for East Griqualand calls for a reorganisation of the dairy industry and for an investigation into the whole industry. I agree with that. Many reasons can be advanced for such a request. We know that normal times will come again when our dairy farmers will once more have to face competition, and we cannot expect that an abnormal price be fixed also for the future when conditions return to normal. For that reason the reorganisation should take place as soon as possible, so that we may know exactly which shortcomings will have to be eliminated. I want to point to the position in regard to cheese manufacture. One finds, for instance, that in many cases a considerable number of cheese factories are situated in close proximity to one another, although belonging to different companies. Every cheese factory has its administrative expenses, its staff and its cheese makers, and sometimes the factories are working at a loss as a result of drought or other circumstances. They can, however, not afford to close down temporarily. I want to suggest that the Minister should enquire in how far co-ordination may be a practical solution. I specially have in mind areas where five or six factories may possibly be centralised, so that one large factory can collect the milk by means of lorries, thus making things easier for the farmer and eliminating unnecessary expenditure. I feel that the Government should also play its part in this connection. There are many industries on which the Government has spent large amounts of money, but so far not a single penny has been spent on a proper coordination of the dairy industry. I am convinced that in this regard certain people will have to be bought out; if centralisation takes place, certain factories will have to be closed, and compensation will have to be paid, and one can hardly expect that under such conditions the various firms will compensate one another. When co-ordination should take place, I would prefer a cooperative organisation being put in charge of the whole dairy industry, so that the farmers themselves will be the owners of the indutsry. I hope that the Minister will see his way clear to contribute a certain amount to effect this co-ordination, which will enable us, when normal times return, to market our products at lower costs. Once upon a time we had to export our cheese and butter at a considerable loss. We should avoid that happening again. The fact remains that we do not have a market in Europe for our dairy products. We should try to make our country a cheese-consuming country, and only the very best organisation will enable us to provide the consumer with cheese and butter at reasonable prices, so that the producer can make a living and the consumer is able to buy. For that reason I welcome the proposal that all the aspects of the industry should be gone into. Before I raise a few points, I want once more to express the hope that the Minister will reconsider the position in order to see in how far he can meet the dairy farmers during the winter months by slightly increasing the price—not the basic price; our request is that he should allow a temporary increase which will enable the dairy farmers to rehabilitate themselves to a certain extent, and if that happens the shortage in dairy products will be made good. Last year we spent £145,000 on subsidies for imported dairy products. I would much rather see that money being spent on the producers in our country, so that we will be able to boost our own dairy products. I hold the view that we should induce our country to consume more dairy products, and that can only be done when we have a proper organisation and when the distribution of dairy products is effected in the cheapest possible manner. The final point in this connection is the position of the farmer-cheese-producers. The matter was raised here last year, and this year I again raised it before the Dairy Board, which gave me a hearing. As far as the manufacture of our farm cheese is concerned, a farmer is allowed to process not more than 75 gallons of milk per day. There are only between 50 and 60 farmer-cheese-producers in the Union, and they are limited to 75 gallons per day. That is a most illogical and impractical position. I cannot understand why the Act was formulated in that way, and even the Dairy Board cannot understand it. But, in spite of that, the latter is not prepared to allow farmers to manufacture more. This limitation means that he can only process his own milk. He is not allowed to purchase milk for that purpose. As far as the request to allow farmer-cheese-producers to process more than 75 gallons of milk per day is concerned, the Dairy Board could not give me a reply. The excuse is that it would mean amending the Dairy Act of 1918 and there is little hope that this could be done during the present session of Parliament. That is the argument they advance, but I think it is a very poor argument. Apparently they cannot put up a reasonable argument why it should not be done. I want to put the position as follows: The farmer processes his milk and has five or ten gallons left over. He is not allowed to process that in his small factory. He must either separate it or try to sell it to a factory. The inconvenience is so great that he will rather give this milk to his pigs. Seeing that the restriction exists that he may not purchase milk but may only process his own milk, I cannot understand why he should not be allowed to process these few extra gallons. At certain times of the year he may have 80 or 90 gallons of milk per day and then again his cows will only give 40 gallons a day, but still he is not allowed to use more than 75 gallons per day for cheese making. I feel that this matter could well be reconsidered and that the farmers should be allowed to process more of their own milk production. If a farmer wants to process more he must register himself and incur all the expenditure of a large factory; he must have store rooms and other additional rooms and spend much money on the enlargement of his factory, although he has ample room in his own little factory to process the few additional gallons. In this connection I also want to make mention of the levy of one penny per pound which is still being collected from the farmer-cheese-producers. That levy originates from the time when cheese, surplus cheese, had to be exported. It is, however, many years ago since we exported cheese. During the last few years this small group of cheese producers has already contributed £25,000 to the Dairy Board and they are still paying today. That is an unfair burden on them. The farmer-cheese-producers are prepared to contribute towards the administration expenditure of the Dairy Board, but seeing that other factories pay only one-tenth of a penny it is unfair that they should pay 1d. per pound. If such a levy should ever be necessary again for export purposes, they will be prepared to contribute once more, but at the moment it is an unfair levy. I therefore hope that the Minister of Agriculture will give consideration to the dairy industry and will investigate what can be done to assist it.

I fully realise that a debate of this nature introduced by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) is regarded mainly as the prerogative of the farmer, but may I nevertheless take the liberty of giving certain views I have on the subject? In the first place I would like to say that I have found by actual experience no more hard-working man than the milk producer situate round the circumference of a town who produces milk for the town. He has feeding troubles which today make his life a misery through shortage of feed and lucerne, and he has had to make use of all sorts of substitutes, yet right throughout the period of the war and during the drought they never failed to provide sufficient milk to feed the towns. In that respect he has really served the community very well indeed. The hon. member made a very good point when he said that we need plentiful supplies of fresh milk at reasonable prices. The idea of a plentiful supply of fresh milk is what appeals to the cities. It is priority No. 1. The only thing I could not connect up with the rest of his speech was the fact that he seemed to object to the high price that was paid for fresh milk in the town as compared with milk used for cheese, etc. He says that the cheese and condensed milk factories suffered by reason of that fact. I do not know, but I presume that the Minister of Agriculture was responsible for allowing there to be a margin between the price of industrial milk and that of fresh milk and commerce and industry may have influenced that price through the Agricultural Department, but I say that in my opinion they have attained their object very well indeed, because at no stage did we have a lack of fresh milk in the towns. There is a tendency today in the Cape Town area, to have a little shortage, but that is seasonal. Therefore, I do not think the price of fresh milk is open to the criticism delivered by the hon. member. He criticised the fact that it drained milk from the other areas. If you do not have that disparity, you would not have been able to bring it to the towns at that price. The hon. member will agree that priority No. 1 was fresh milk, and it was better to overfix the price of fresh mik than to underfix it, and have a serious shortage of fresh milk in the towns. I would like to refer the hon. member to other remarks he made with regard to the cost of distribution, and I want to approach it not from any antagonistic ’ or aggressive angle, but to put it to the hon. member this way. He states generally that the costs of distribution are excessive. I say that just as I am not in a position to say that the costs of production are excessive, he is not in a position to say that the costs of distribution are excessive. He even went so far as to say with regard to production that when comparisons are made in this country with other countries, a certain amount of tolerance must be shown because of conditions here. I agree. I say it is no good trying to fix the price of production if you cannot produce the goods. Now let us come to the costs of distribution which the hon. member says are excessive. He suggested that we should have public utility companies or consumers’ co-operatives to attend to the distribution because it was such a tremendous factor in getting the food to the people at a reasonable price. I say that if the hon. member believes that, he must apply the principle generally, and if we are to have public utility companies and co-operatives to distribute we must also let them farm. I am sure that the hon. member himself will agree that he regards himself as a more efficient farmer than a public utility company or a co-operative.

Do you say production costs are too high?

I do not know, but you say distribution costs are too high and I say you do not know that. The hon. member further went on to analyse the various costs, and gave figures showing the discrepancy between the prices the farmer obtained and that paid by the final consumer. I have tried to analyse it also. I find that in Johannesburg 21d. per gallon is the price that the farmer gets for fresh milk. Over the counter, the quickest form of distribution, but which also involves keeping a shop and having assistants, it is 30d. a gallon. The difference is 9d. a gallon. I hope the hon. member does not think that that is excessive for the services rendered. It is only 1d. a pint, and the milk has to be retailed out. I say he is emphasising too much the cost of distribution. They actually deliver to the consumer in a bottle at an extra cost of 8d., i.e. 38d. a gallon. You have to pay for service. I think in this country the milk distributive costs are reasonably cheap, because we have cheap labour. I say all these wonderful ideas of zoning will not in my opinion bring down the costs of distribution. The hon. member referred to a combine that started in Johannesburg. I presume the basis of this combine which is buying up certain milk depots in the area, is to attempt to bring down distribution costs per unit and then to make an economic survey and apply zoning. But to try to enforce zoning by legislation is something we cannot tolerate in this country. As a consumer I want my milk when I want it. If I am restricted to one area, I may not get my milk until twelve o’clock. At present if a dairy does not wish to deliver milk when I want it, I go to another one, because my children must have milk at breakfast. Why must I be confined to a certain dairy?

Surely you have a refrigerator.

I hear the Minister say that. I have a refrigerator, but I want to stick to the economic point, and to try and instil in the minds of my producer friends that sometimes their prejudices go over the bounds of reason. The basis of the hon. member’s summing up was that he felt an enquiry should be made, and he seemed to indicate that fresh milk should also come under the Dairy Control Board. If it is going to mean that there is going to be a change of prices, and the towns will not have sufficient fresh milk, the supplies of fresh milk being curtailed to the towns because industry has a representative on the board, then I issue a warning. For my part I would rather be in the hands of the Minister than in the hands of the Dairy Control Board in matters affecting fresh milk. I do not wish to bring in a discordant note, but I want to put this to the hon. member for East Griqualand. He has referred to protective foods. In his motion to this House he says that this House, being convinced that it is necessary in the interests of public health that there should at all times be a plentiful supply of such protective foods—and then he goes on to mention these foods, milk being one of them. I put it to the hon. member, who represents the dairy industry, and who is an authority, that if he really means what he says in this motion then there is another factor which the dairy industry has to tackle, and that is the protective food called margarine, and if he really means that the health of the people in the country is suffering because of the lack of protective foods, I would expect him to give a lead when it comes to the manufacture of margarine, because unless we •get a lead from the dairy industry on this point, unless we can get them to realise the essential features of this scheme, we will battle for years in vain. Let us leave it to them and say that we realise that their industry is an essential industry to this country, that we as members of the House will see that they get a square deal, but that they also must see that the consumer gets a square deal.

I want to start by congratulating the mover of this motion this afternoon. He has covered a very wide field. He has travelled from the one extreme point of private enterprise to the other extreme point of communism. He has also spoken as a very practical man who knows his subject, and has admitted to the House quite frankly that dairy produce certainly filled his interior satisfactorily and has also filled his pocket satisfactorily. So I think we must give due weight to what the hon. member said. He wants an investigation into this important aspect of our farming industry, and his main point is that there ought to be a plentiful supply of fresh milk and indeed no dearth of all the other various dairy products which our population needs so badly as part of their protective foods. I would like to deal with this matter as briefly as I can. The position is that in 1937 we had an investigation instituted by the Board of Trade and Industries, as a result of which the recommendation was made that a control board for the dairy industry should be established in order to assist in the promotion of price stability in the industry. That industry had been subject to very severe fluctuations, partly due to the fact that surplus butter was exported at the time. In 1930 the Dairy Board was established. That was well before the Marketing Act, and by means of various devices it tried to maintain prices, but it was only in 1939 when it came under the Marketing Act and from that time onwards I think we can fairly admit that the board did a good deal to promote price stability and to eliminate many of the smaller uneconomic units, and small unpayable creameries which it refused to register, and so did a great service in avoiding too high a cost structure in the industry. At the same time the Division of Dairying in the Department did its best to bring about improved yields and for that purpose we had a milk recording scheme introduced in 1923 and very much extended between 1928 and 1930. It has been stated that we ought to have much more milk, and that there should be great expansion in the dairy industry. I do not want the House to overlook the fact that there has been a very substantial expansion indeed in the whole dairy industry, not only in the Union, but also in the adjoining territories against which hard words are sometimes said because we helped them at times in their food shortages, although they have done very much to replenish our rather meagre stocks of these protective foods. I do not want to weary the House. I know the feelings of hon. members at 5 o’clock on a Friday, but I do want to give a few figures to illustrate my point. Let us take the question of production for the Union in so far as butter and cheese and condensed and dried milk are concerned. Taking creamery butter first, in 1927-’28 the total production was only 14 million lb. In 1934-’35 the figure jumped to more than double, 28.1 million lb. In the first year before the war, 1938-’39, it jumped to 38 million lb. In 1939-’40 it had reached the peak, 45 million lb. Farm butter had very much the same tendency, being 9.6 million lb. in 1927-’28.

Expressed in terms of gallons of milk taken in, the industrial side of the dairy industry in the Union, S.W.A. and the Protectorates, increased as follows:

These figures show how, in less than two decades, our milk production in the Union and adjacent territories has increased by over 300 per cent. That is no mean achievement in so short a period. That relates to industrial milk. At the same time fresh milk consumption increased on a very considerable scale as well, and it is clear therefore that the whole of the dairy industry, fresh milk as well as industrial milk, has passed through a period of very rapid development; and, incidentally, it should be noted that the slowing down of the rate of increase of industrial milk production during the war occurred in those areas from which cities could be supplied with fresh milk. That bears out the point my hon. friend has made. Areas like the Eastern Free State, Natal and the Eastern Transvaal found it was the most lucrative outlet for their product, and they naturally sent the milk at the relatively better price where the demand was effective for their products. On the other hand, in the Eastern Cape and in Bechuanaland, conditions continued unchanged, and it is quite clear had it not been for the past three bad climatic seasons new high records would have been established. It think it is common cause, whatever interjections may be heard from time to time in this House, that we had a bad season in 1943-’44. The winter was very poor and the green winter fodder crops failed. In the 1944-’45 season there was a drought in January and February. The 1945-46 season started with the worst drought from November to January. There is a good deal of trimming of sails to the political wind. When my hon. friends on the other side want a subsidy they plead the drought; when they attack me on account of the food shortage I must not say that part of the decrease in food production is due to the drought; they say I am hiding behind the fig leaf of the drought. The fact remains there have been these three bad climatic seasons, and we have to take account of them. These are hard solid facts, and we must recognise them. We cannot, when it is convenient, overlook the drought, and then when it is convenient on another occasion exclaim: But there was a drought, and something must be done. In this world you cannot have your cake and eat it. Another argument is often put forward: It is said that the increase in the price of dairy produce has not kept pace with the increase in the price of fodder crops or the increase in the price of other alternative crops to which they can switch over, and it has often been put to me that the dairy industry is being ruined because of its switchover to more attractive forms of farming. I do not want to worry the House with figures, but that is the only way we can deal with that kind of argument, and I would like to take a few of the figures to indicate the increase in the price of dairy products taking the year immediately before the war and comparing them with more or less current prices. We take the index figure of 100 for 1936-’37 and we find for 1938-’39 it stood at 103 and for 1945-46 at 203. So producers prices just about doubled. For cheese milk the corresponding figures were 99 and 219, or more than double, for condensed milk it went up from 102 to 173, not quite double but a very substantial increase; for fresh milk, that is, Johannesburg, it went up from 103 to 181. Then in respect of fodder products we find taking the index figure on the same basis that for 1938-’39 mealies stood at 92 while for 1945-’46 it was 201, or just over more than double in price, and therefore more or less in the same relationship as the rise in the price of producers’ dairy products. Lucerne hay rose from 95 to 186, and oil cake from 108 to 164 for the year 1944-’45—I have not got the figure for 1945-’46. Dealing with the argument about the switchover to more lucrative branches of farming, we find that wheat in 1938-39 stood at 101 and in 1945-’46 at 180; mealies rose from 92 to 201; beef from 108 to 173; mutton from 97 to 187. So these figures make it quite clear I do not need to stress it further that the shortfall in production compared with local demand was not due to increase of fodder prices or the prices of various farm crops alternative to dairy produce, but climate was the big cause, plus another factor—the unprecedented increase in consumption.

I would like to give the House a few figures as far as increased consumption is concerned. Butter rose from 640,000 lbs. per week before the war to 1,200,000 lbs. in 1944, or double the pre-war consumption. Cheese, which was 190,000 lbs. a week has risen to 400,000 lbs. in the middle of 1944, or just more than double pre-war consumption. Fresh milk in the eight largest cities rose from 51,000,000 gallons in 1940 to 64,000,000 gallons in 1944. So we come back to the position that adverse weather, food shortages and rising costs have necessitated increases in prices. There is no doubt we have had to increase consumer prices as a result of these adverse conditions our farmers have had to contend with. I do not think I can let the opportunity go by without drawing attention to the fact that as a result of these unfortunate factors we have to take into account the consumers are now being asked to pay prices which are rather higher than are good for the long-term wellbeing of the dairy industry. I think the farmers will be quick to realise the importance of this factor, and therefore we ought to accept that some adjustment of prices will have to take place some time or other. The position today is that the retail price of butter is 2s. 4d. a lb., fresh milk is 5d. a pint in Cape Town, and 4¾d. in Johannesburg and Pretoria, while in the other cities it is 4d. to 4½d. With those rather high prices there is no doubt about it that we are getting fairly near the big prices we had after the last war, although I think it is only fair to indicate, particularly to the consuming public who are sometimes rather too critical of our system of control boards, that they have served the purpose of keeping the prices lower than they were at the comparable period after the last war. I might give the average prices. The average retail price of butter in 1919 was 2s. 10d. compared with 2s. 4d. today; in 1920 the average price went as high as 3s. 3d. and the highest price in that year was 4s. 4d. a lb. In 1921 the average price was 2s. 5d. for the year, and the highest price was 2s. 8d. In 1932, as a matter of interest, during the depression, the price average for the year was 1s. 6d. and the highest price 1s. 7½d. Fresh milk per pint for the average nine large cities of the Union in 1920 was 5.3d. per pint and the highest price during the year was 5.7d. and the lowest 5d. There again, although from the consumer’s point of view we have got the position of a better price level than we had after the last war, particularly if we bear in mind that the value of money was somewhat higher than today, there can be no doubt that from the standpoint of the long-term well-being of the dairy industry we must realise that some adjustment will have to take place when the time arrives for that to come about. There is no doubt about it when foodstuffs become more plentiful and their price consequently drops, that will have the effect of assisting in lowering the farmer’s costs of production and he will be able to face a lowering of this high price structure. That is one factor. But, at the same time, we have to face up to the fact that the matter ought to be dealt with more constructively than that. It is just as important from the point of view of the long-term well-being of the industry that there should be an increase in the milk yields, and also that there should be a lowering of manufacturing costs as far as that can take place. The high cost of the primary producer side of the industry is undoubtedly due in large part to the lowness of the yields. This fact was confirmed by the Marketing Council in its recent report, which I hope will be available to hon. members in the not too distant future. They went very carefully into the whole position and submitted a very valuable report, and the findings of that report have been accepted by the Government. That report, amongst other things, showed our yields are still too low despite a fair number of years of progressive breeding, partly for the reason that feeding practices have not kept pace. The Marketing Council recommended there should be an extension of the milk recording scheme, and a widening of the functions of the officers concerned with the milk recording scheme, that their activities should not be limited to milk recording, but that they should also be men capable of giving some advice and proper plans of feeding in connection with our dairy herds. The Government will effect such an extension, that recommendation is accepted, and a departmental committee is now examining the concrete measures that are needed to effect that. That committee consists of Prof. Reimers, Prof. Bonsma, who is at Pretoria, and Dr. Nel, Secretary of the Jersey Breeders’ Association, who used to be a professional officer in the Agricultural Department. So I expect we may be able to render quite a substantial service to the dairy industry of this country as a result of the recommendations to be made by this committee that is going into the question of the effective extension of the milk recording scheme. The Marketing Council also recommended that the policy of paying winter premiums should be continued, but that the premiums should start in June, and not in May, as they have done until recently; and that they should be continued beyond October if the season warrants it. Only on that basis will the country have the greatest benefit from its dairy industry. Some areas are suitable for extensive dairying, and others are intensive dairying areas. The western areas will have to remain extensive dairying areas. That is necessary so that soil erosion will not play havoc with our land. We must have proper pasture management.

We must also bear in mind that the manufacturing side, as I have already indicated, leaves scope for lowering of the cost structure. There the trouble seems to be largely that it is burdened with too many small factories. I indicated that the Dairy Board has already done great service in this connection, but there is still scope for improvement, and here I would like to give a few figures. The number of factories in which the annual production is below 250,000 lb. a year is as high as 11. From 250,000 lb. to 500,000 lb. the number is 10. From 500,000 to 1,000,000 lb. it is 16. From 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 lb. there are 10, while over 2,000,000 lb. there are only three. I am informed that an economic unit should handle about 2,000,000 lb., so hon. members will see there is great room for improvement there as far as our cost structure is concerned in relation to the manufacturing side. The figures for cheeseries are: Below 50,000 lb. a month, 15; from 50,000 to 100,000 lb., 18; from 100,000 to 300,000 lb., 46; from 300,000 to 500,000 lb., 5; and over 500,000 lb. there are 7, giving a total of 91 factories.

A good deal has been said this afternoon about the need for rationalisation, and that coupled with that we must have bigger and more economical units, coupled further with improved transport for the milk and for the butter fat. The Marketing Council has also dealt with that problem in association with the Dairy Board. That investigation is being conducted by a technical officer from the Research Institute in Pretoria — it is under Prof. Davel together with the cost accountant of the Dairy Control Board and the cost accountant of the National Marketing Council. I have no doubt that this enquiry also will yield valuable results, and that it may lead to further improvement in our dairy industry. Their business is not merely to find out what it costs to manufacture but why in each case it costs what it does, and what steps can be taken to cheapen the process of manufacture. Then the question of fresh milk has been raised, and the point has been discussed whether fresh milk should not come under a board and if it should come under a board whether it should fall under the existing Dairy Industry Control Board. I do not want to commit myself on the question as to the need of a board or the type of board. There are of course strong advocates for either attitude. A number of people feel there ought to be a fresh milk marketing scheme, and the proper body to deal with it is the Dairy Industry Control Board. The position is, however, that the Marketing Council is at my request examining the whole position and I shall await their recommendation. If they recommend there should be a fresh milk marketing scheme and that it ought to be under the Dairy Board I shall examine it.

Is this being done at the request of the dairy farmers themselves?

Yes, they have been wanting a fresh milk investigation for a long time.

Were they in favour of it?

Yes, they want a fresh milk marketing scheme.

I am not asking about the farmers who provide industrial milk, I am asking about the farmers who provide fresh milk.

I have not canvassed their opinion, but the fact is the investigation is taking place. The fresh milk producer does feel there is a good deal to be said against their interests being lumped with the other dairy interests on the Dairy Board, because they feel they would be outnumbered, and there is a feeling there should be a separate board, if a board at all, and that it should not be under the Dairy Control Board. But I shall await the findings and the recommendations of the Marketing Council and then only will be the time to decide what is the proper thing to be done.

A good deal has also been said about zoning, that there ought to be compulsory zoning to bring about rationalisation and cheapening of costs of production. There is to be an amendment of the Marketing Act and one of the provisions of the Bill will make that kind of zoning possible. But there is something in the point made by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) that we must not overlook the interests and the individual wishes of consumers, not only with regard to the time of delivery—which he mentioned—but also the quality of the milk. I think the consumer is entitled to say he likes to get his supply from a particular dairyman, because he may feel he is getting a higher quality milk from his dairyman; and to protect the interests of the consumer it may be necessary that there should be standardisation before zoning takes place. On the question of rationalisation I do not want to say too much. A commission is investigating this question; we all know the Distributive Costs Commission has been charged with the investigation of these matters, and I think we must await their report. We have had an investigation into producer costs, so we have some knowledge there, despite the point made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. But we do not possess the data yet as far as the distributive side is concerned, and we must await the time when some information is available from the Distributive Costs Commission.

Perhaps I ought to deal with a few points made by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux). He has again asked for an increase in the price of factory milk. He says he does not mind if it is not an increase in the basic price; an increase in the winter premium would suit him quite well. That does not simplify the problem for us in any way. The difficulty remains the same. The fact is if he gets an increase —he asks for 2d. to 3d. a gallon—the consumer price of butter would have to go up to 3s. per lb., that is, the retail price. I think the bulk of the producers of butter fat would feel it would not be in their interests to put the price to the consumer so high even under the present circumstances. No, I think we are taking the steps that were called for after thorough investigation by the National Marketing Council, including the interim investigation by the Dairy Production Costs Committee. We have effected an adjustment of prices, and I would like to take up what the hon. member for Drakensberg has said. I do not know whether he meant to be facetious, but he did indicate if I was a little bit impervious to the demands of deputations perhaps other means might assist, which he indicated. But I granted this investigation as soon as it was asked for, and no sooner did the investigating body make its recommendations than the Government accepted them; and is he not aware the farmers are highly satisfied with what was done? And unlike the hon. member for Drakensberg they do show some spark of recognition for what was done. I should like to read out to the House a copy of a resolution brought to me by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett), taken by dairy farmers in that area, a very representative and intensive dairy farming area, at a meeting held in Kokstad on 6th February. The following resolution was carried unanimously—

My hon. friend is far behind his constituents.

They are not his constituents.

No, but they are just as much concerned as the constituents of my hon. friend who are highly intelligent constituents. I had occasion to address them last year, and I found them very reasonable indeed. I think my hon. friend might absorb some of the qualities of his constituents. There are other facts that show that our price policy is the correct price policy. The price is better than it was last year. If one takes the average price it is a fair amount better than it was last year. I think I have the figures here and I can give them to the House. Taking all these winter premiums that we extended until January into account the position is that the butter fat producers will be getting an average of 27¼d. per lb. for butter fat, 12d. per gallon on cheese milk and 1d. higher on condensing milk, as hon. members know, so that that is really more generous than what was recommended by the enquiry that we had instituted. But there is a further test by which we can judge this matter, and that is the actual production figures, because that is a point that is also made, that if you pay the producer more the production will be better. Well, we paid the producers more and the production figures are better than they were. Paying more by itself, of course, will not achieve that result. Climatic factors also play a part, but the fact is this, although the figures should have been higher—there was a great break down at one of the creameries in South-West Africa—the figure for one week in January this year was 1,378,000 as against 1,221,000 for the same week of last year. I think the position is as set out by the dairy farmers of East Griqualand, that the Government has recognised the difficulties through which we have passed and are passing and has made the adjustment required in price to the producers of dairy produce. I do not think any case can be made out now for an increase, whether it is called an increase in the basic price or an increase in the winter premiums. Coming to the motion of the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett), he asked for an investigation. The position is that there has been a very thorough investigation into certain fields of the dairy industry. I have mentioned the investigation as far as the milk recording scheme is concerned and the extension of it. I mentioned the already completed report on the cost of production of producers’ factory milk, initiated by the Dairy Costs Committee and completed by the National Marketing Council. Thirdly, there is the factor of the cost enquiry I have mentioned, and finally there is the investigation by the National Marketing Council into the question of what ought to be done with fresh milk. So what the hon. member is asking the Government to do partly has been done and partly is in the process of being done, so that there is no need for the acceptance of this motion, and there is no need for the kind of language that the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) has used. In these circumstances I do not think it is necessary for me to accept this motion. What is being asked for partly has been done and is partly in the process of being done. The hon. member referred to the point that he made about diseases amongst dairy cattle. Of course, we are doing all we can with the now rather limited means at our disposal. Unfortunately, Onderstepoort, as hon. members know, is sadly understaffed today. We are doing what we can. I am hoping that the recommendations of the commission enquiring into the conditions of the public service will help us to retain the services of highly-qualified officials and to recruit new entrants on a much bigger scale. I would like to indicate to the hon. member that it is not so much a question of getting more vets. I think a good deal lies in seeing that the dairy cattle are properly cared for, and that they are properly fed I think there is a good deal in the proper care and the proper feeding of dairy cattle. In both respects we are moving forward, and I can assure the hon. member that we are doing all we can. In view of what I have said, I do not think it is necessary for the House to accept this motion. In view of what the Government is doing, as I have indicated, I hope the hon. member will now feel that his motion has served a very useful purpose, that of indicating to the public and to the House what steps the Government is taking. I am quite certain that the dairy farmers as a whole, who are a very fine section of our farming community —I have been struck by the high standard of the dairy farmers we have—I am sure they will accept this position, and I hope the hon. member will see his way clear to withdrawing his motion.

I must say that I thought the Minister would accept this motion. There are still a few minor factors which even his board or the Planning Council has not gone into. I would like to say, in support of the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett), that milk is the finest balanced ration in the world, and I want to give two examples of it. I want to compare, but not in any derogatory way, the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) and the hon. member for East Griqualand, with the hon. Minister for Health and the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and my advice to the latter is to drink more milk. I want to deal with the breeding aspect of cattle. We feel that there are far too many scrub cattle in this country, far too many animals that are not worth feeding. In this country we have approximately. 12 million head of cattle. Of that number, only about two million are improved cattle. There is tremendous scope for improvement, and the Cattle Improvement Act has certainly done a little in that direction, but we feel that the Cattle Improvement Act should be extended for many years to come. Unfortunately, during the war it was not possible fully to give effect to the provisions of the Cattle Improvement Act. We hope the Minister will now proceed with it full steam ahead. We hope the Minister will not stop at the first steps. After all, when you have animals of the first class they are only a cross-breed. After the first cross you should have a better bull, and a still better bull should be used for the third cross. We know that there are not many bulls in this country of a high standard, but there are large numbers of bulls from good cows that can be used to improve native cattle, for instance. We are practically in our infancy as far as cattle improvement is concerned. The number of cattle in South Africa could easily be reduced by half. That would help a great deal to relieve over-stocking and to prevent erosion. In Australia they have only 11 million cattle, and before the war Australia exported over £20 million worth of butter and dairy products. We in this country scarcely exported anything with 13 million cattle. We feel that if the provisions of the Cattle Improvement Act are properly carried out over a period of 25 to 30 years, not four or six or eight years, the cattle of South Africa will be worth feeding. There are thousands of cattle today that it does not pay the farmers to feed, and they are just allowing them to die. In some parts of the country the drought has done away with that type of cattle. But the farmers must be helped to keep better cattle. The Minister must see that ordinary scrub cattle are not given to these people, but a better-class animal.

Then I want to come to the breeding side. We feel that the Stud Book Society in this country should have more powers than it has today. We feel that the Stud Book should be revised, that the time has arrived when the Stud Book Association should be revised, and the 1920 Act should be revised still further. There are many breed societies today which are capable of managing their own affairs. In this country you have the Afrikaners, the Shorthorns and many other breeds, that should get a new status. In New Zealand you get a status which is higher than ours. The Government encourages breed societies, but as soon as the breed societies started to carry on on their own, the Government let them go on on their own, subject to inspection. We feel that for export purposes we also need a Government stamp, so we do not want the Government to say: “You can go on without supervision.” We do not want that, but we feel there must be a certain amount of supervision. We feel that the Act is very old-fashioned, and that these breed societies should be given autonomy. The breed societies do not want to break away from the mother organisation, the S.A. Stud Book Society, but they feel they are being retarded by the smaller breed societies as far as finance is concerned, and also as far as progress is concerned, and we want to ask the Minister to go into that point very fully. I think some years ago a commission was appointed to go into the question of the reconstruction of the South African Stud Book. I hope the Minister will go into this matter again, and see how far he can comply with the wishes of the different breed societies to have some progressive scheme that will give more scope to the individual breed societies. I can assure you that these men are doing their best to get good records, and if they are given more scope they will be able to develop on a much bigger scale on their own. I hope the Minister will go into that question. It is an urgent matter as far as the improvement of stock is concerned.

Then we come to the milk recording scheme. Our milk recording scheme has been handicapped in many ways. The recorders are not paid enough. Their salaries have been very low. These men must be men of integrity, men who can be trusted anywhere, and who can advise the farmers, and since the Minister has already stated that they are going into this matter, I would like the Minister to see what an important factor the milk recorder is if he wants to give the best advice on feeding. Feeding is a very delicate matter, and in different parts of the country different methods are used to a very great extent. I hope these recorders will have a good knowledge of feeding, and that they will make a study of the best herds in this country before giving advice to the farmers, because very often young men who go into the country lack the experience to give good advice, and I hope the Minister will see to it that before these young men go into the country to advise the farmers that they are thoroughly competent and qualified men. That is absolutely essential. I am sure that the South African Stud Book Society and the Breed Society will work hand in hand with the Minister, and do everything in their power to improve matters. We are very jealous of our breed societies in this country. We are also very jealous of our milk recording scheme, because we have proved that we have some of the finest dairy cattle in the world. The old scheme was perhaps lacking in some points, but it has done a tremendous amount of good. We feel that after the milk recording scheme has been in operation for some years, we will produce animals as good possibly as those of Holland or America, and we only ask for encouragement along those lines. We hope the Minister will go into that and get into touch with these breed societies. As a practical farmer, I want to put this point to the Minister. The Minister was quite annoyed the other day because I spoke about theorists.

I was not annoyed.

My contention is that theoretical knowledge must be backed up by practical experience. The theorist cannot give good advice unless he has had practical experience, and that is the point I want to drive home. The Minister has now appointed his commission. I feel that commission should keep in very close touch with the practical farmer of the country before the Minister brings his new scheme into operation. That will ensure the success of the scheme. There are more factors in this country affecting dairy animals than in most other countries of the world; there is the heat factor, cold, sickness and other factors, and I hope that when this commission has done its work in conjunction with practical men, they will work out some scheme that will fit in with all the dairy breeds in this country. I would like the Minister to take into account the different feeding methods which are adopted in this country. Sometimes the farmer has grain rations. Other farmers have not got grain rations. Where a farmer reports to a recorder that a cow of his has been sick during the past month, the temperature of the cow should be recorded not only for the previous month, but for the following month. In this way, by recording all the details a practical scheme can be established. In that way it would be possible to get a uniform system right throughout South Africa which may be more efficient than the one we have today. Finally, I just want to touch upon the matter of distribution. We still have cases where a man sends his cream a distance of 200 or 300 miles because he thinks he will get a better test. Very often there is considerable overlapping in this respect. In a case of that kind, I think zoning should be resorted to. We expect that the men who do the tests will be men of integrity, men who will do the right test, and if this were done the overlapping to which I have referred and the extra railway rates would then be eliminated. The position will be considerably improved in that way.

With a specific mandate from the dairy farmers of the Eastern Transvaal, I would be failing in my duty if I did not say a few words on this particular motion.

Very few.

I hope the hon. member will listen. He may learn something. The statement which has been made by the hon. Minister to the effect that in terms of the recommendation of the National Marketing Commission, it is proposed to introduce winter premiums from 1st June only instead of 1st May, is bound to cause a lot of dissatisfaction and alarm. Conditions have certainly altered of late. The hon. Minister knows that the flush period when milk is plentiful, as a result of there being a plentiful supply of green grass, is only from perhaps October to the middle of March. From the middle of March the grass goes off; it has already run to seed; you have not got a perfect feed for the animals; you have not got green food, and you have to supplement the natural food by means of additional feeding.

Last year we carried on the winter premium right until the end of January.

That may be so, but to start the winter premium in June at this critical stage in the history of the dairy industry would be fatal. The Minister knows that as docile and ductile as the Fries cow appears to be, you cannot fool her, and you can only take out in milk what you put in in feed. On this question of feed, most of our protein feeds are imported, and the Minister knows as well as we do what the cost of these feeds amounts to today. The dairy farmer may show a small profit during the summer months, but that profit he has to give back in the winter when he has to feed heavily, and not only in winter, but if he wants to keep his cows in good condition he must feed practically throughout the year. Dairy farming is a long-term policy. Some people call it a business; others call it a profession. It is neither a business nor a profession; it is a calling. It is something which requires lifelong specialisation, and you can only build up your herd by paying intensive attention to the study of your herd, and one of the main factors is the question of feeding. I think the Minister would be rendering the country and the dairy industry in particular a disservice if he did not take steps to stabilise this industry on a permanent basis. He knows that many of our most prominent dairy farmers are going out of production. They have sold their dairy herds, and they have switched to beef, and their example has been followed by others. Although production has gone up tremendously since the beginning of the war, we have not reached saturation point by any means. Fresh milk is something we cannot import. As the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) said, milk is the only perfect food as far as human beings are concerned, and on the other hand grass is the only perfect feed for animals. We have only a limited grazing period during which we can make full use of our grass, especially in the areas where we are subjected to frost. The other points have been dealt with by hon. members who preceded me, but I would urge with all the vehemence at my command that the importance of stabilising this industry on a long-term basis cannot be over-emphasised. It is no good saying to the cow: “The price of milk is only going up from tomorrow; you can expect an increased feed tomorrow.” Dairy farming is something that must be built up arduously and tortuously over a long period of years, and unless we do that we cannot expect to get the result we hope to get, and that is an increased yield from our dairy herds, and improvement in the quality of our dairy herds. I have not had sight of the market report to which the hon. Minister referred. I want to say in conclusion that before the adoption of that report takes place with regard to the fixing of winter premiums, etc., that the Minister will not fail to consult the interests concerned. We cannot over-emphasise the importance of the dairy industry, and I feel that any neglect in placing this industry on a permanent basis can only be fraught with danger.

I would like to thank hon. members for the very fine way in which they have received this motion. So far as I could gather, there has been practically no criticism. There have been one or two slight differences on the particular points I suggested. I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily, but I really regret the fact that the Minister feels he cannot accept this motion. I think that with the practically unanimous support that has been accorded to it, and the fact that the Government is acting very largely along those lines, the acceptance of this motion would not in any way have embarrassed the Government, and would have at any rate given satisfaction to the people who have expressed sentiments along the lines I have indicated. I would like to touch upon one point made by the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) with reference to a remark the Minister made that he might consider altering the period during which winter premiums are paid. I feel that on this very point, as in all matters of detail in connection with these matters, the Minister will be well advised to listen to the experts, to the Dairy Control Board that is representative of all branches of this industry, and before coming to any decision take them fully into his confidence and pay very great attention to their expressions of opinion. With the consent of the House and my seconder’s consent, in view of the fact that the Minister feels it is unnecessary for me to pursue this motion, I would like to withdraw the motion standing in my name.

With leave of the House, the motion was withdrawn.

I will not need much less than 45 minutes for discussing this subject. It is a very important subject, but in view of the fact that the Prime Minister is not present, and that we should very much like him to be present when we discuss this important matter further, and in view of the late hour, I want to move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 22nd March.