When the Committee reported progress last evening the hon. the Minister had admitted by way of interjection that the immediate effect of his amendment would be that there would be a host of applications to Rent Boards for a revision of rents in upward direction. Significantly enough, the amendment was not introduced in the interests of existing landlords; it was introduced to remedy a defect in the hon. the Minister’s Bill and was made at the request not of existing landlords but of potential investors in blocks of flats. That is the significant aspect of the amendment which the Minister has now moved. I think the Minister has really therefore made confusion worse confounded. I must confess that until the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) spoke in regard to what is the correct interpretation of the new proviso, I had been inclined to interpret it in the way he had suggested at the commencement of his speech, but as he continued I think he clouded the issue. The proviso is certainly no clearer now after his exposition of the position. The hon. member for Ceres quite rightly points out that there is already a discretion vested in the board as to what percentage to allow in assessing the rental value in respect of these very items, plants and machinery. The board has the discretion to go up to 7½ per cent. The proviso must therefore have a different meaning; it cannot give another discretionary power which already exists, and it seems to me therefore that the courts will have to interpret it differently. The courts will have to interpret this proviso as being a limitation on the board’s discretion. It may well decide that the correct interpretation is to allow all or nothing, that is to say, to allow up to 2 per cent or to allow nothing. That is the interpretation which now seems to be the only one after having listened to the hon. member for Ceres.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) asked me two questions last night to which I should like to reply. The hon. member asked me, in the first place, whether landlords would now have to appear before the Rent Board afresh and apply for increased rentals if they do not already receive the 8 per cent or whether that would automatically happen when the Act came into operation. The reply is “No”; there is no question of it happening automatically. Every case is decided on by the Rent Board. Whereas the Act provided that up to 8 per cent could be allowed we are now doing what we did in the original Bill; in other words, in connection with land we have deleted the words “up to 6 per cent” and fixed it at 6 per cent. In respect of valuation we now provide, as far as properties which are to-day controlled are concerned and which were placed under control prior to 21 October 1949 that it shall not be up to 8 per cent but 8 per cent. In the second place my information is —and I think my information is correct—that in many cases the Rent Board have already allowed up to 8 per cent and that there will therefore not be so many cases where application will have to be made afresh. But they will have to apply again and decisions will have to be taken.

How will that affect rentals?

Well, the effect will be that the rentals will be increased where the landlords have not been allowed 8 per cent.

On a large scale?

No, not on a large scale because, as I have said, in many cases it has already been fixed at 8 per cent; that is my information.

The hon. member will remember that when the Bill was introduced everybody said it was a good Bill; everybody welcomed it but there were certain points of criticism. One of the points of criticism was that we ran the risk under this Bill that it would retard development because investors would not be sure of a reasonable profit. That was a general complaint, not only on that side of the House but also on this side of the House. Certain financial institutions then came to see me and because of the attitude I adopted at those discussions they were convinced that it was not my intention to hamper investment. I told them that was one of the reasons why we did not introduce general control but that we only wished to apply rent control where there was development. When we made the concession in respect of the minimum of 8 per cent in the case of new buildings we were immediately faced with the question what to do in those cases where there was already control. We could not allow it on the capital already invested although we could allow it on the valuation, if we also wanted to treat the landlords fairly. That is why we have changed it in this way. I think that ought to be clear to the hon. member. I do not expect a rush because many people already receive what we are proposing here. If there are people who do not get it their cases will have to be considered.

We now add a proviso in order to prevent people who just want to make money from abusing the position. If hon. members look at the original Act they will see that “reasonable rent” is defined and then it goes on to say—

That is what the Act says. It says at the end—

That is the existing proviso. We now add this further proviso—

In other words, the Rent Board may now say to the person: “You have applied but you are neglecting your building; you are not treating your tenants justly because you do not see to it that that which they have to pay for is in order. We shall have to keep count of that when determining your rental. It is clear that you have been neglecting your building over a period of years; you only want to make money and do not want to meet your tenants. If you improve those things we shall allow you what the law says we can allow you, but if you do not do so we now have the power to prevent you from deriving any benefit from that provision in the Act.”

You admit that most rentals are fixed.

Listen to that former Auditor-General, Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. member not know that rentals are continually revised?

Yes.

What, then, is the point?

Most of the rentals have already been determined?

Surely a complaint can be lodged at any time because certain obligations have not been fulfilled. When a rental has been fixed it is not fixed for all time to come. I am sorry, but I cannot assist the hon. member. I shall rather address myself to the hon. member for Durban (Point) because he is genuinely concerned in this matter. I want to tell the hon. member that it is within the discretion of the Rent Board. In terms of this new provision they may allow a portion, or nothing, or the full amount.

Is that the legal opinion?

Yes, that is the legal opinion and that is why this proviso has been worded in this way. I have no doubt whatsoever that it is correct.

When I first raised this question during the second reading about the Rent Boards having to watch the people who got the 2 per cent the hon. the Minister said that if he did what I said he must do I would call him a dictator. I see, however, that he has done what I asked him to do and I will not call him a dictator.

Not exactly what you asked me to do.

More or less, but I will not call him a dictator. I want to help the hon. the Minister and tell him that what he is going to do is so vague that it will be of no effect. I know what I am talking about because I have practised for a long time as a lawyer. I have attended many Rent Board cases, which is something the Minister has not done. The Minister must listen to those of us who are experienced in this type of thing. I want to give the hon. the Minister an example based on this proviso of his: The Rent Board determines the rental on the application of either the landlord himself or on a complaint lodged by an inspector or by a tenant. In 99 cases out of 100, before an application is made to the Rent Board, the building is put in a proper state of repair; it is painted so that it looks pretty. The Rent Board inspects that property, finds it to be in order and makes a determination. At what stage after that determination has been made will this proviso come into effect? The landlord says: “I have got my determination from the Rent Board but I will not spend the money.” The Minister will tell me that it will be the duty of the tenant to complain. I want to give the hon. the Minister and this House the benefit of my experience and tell them that 99 per cent of the tenants are afraid to go to the Rent Board because of their land-lord. They are afraid of what the landlord will do to them to get them out of the premises once they have upset him. I now want to give the Minister some advice. This is a very good proviso but there should be a further obligation on the man who gets this 2 per cent to submit to the Rent Board, either annually or once every two years, an auditor’s account of his expenditure on that building to prove that he has spent the money the Rent Board has allowed him. Otherwise, Sir, you can take it from me that this will be abused; that a lot of people will get away with it; the tenants will be afraid to complain and the whole idea behind this amendment will be nullified. I know what the Minister wants to do. He wants to prevent premises falling into a state of disrepair; he wants to prevent areas from falling into slum conditions. I think the Minister has a very laudable object in mind but he must make it workable, Sir, and he is not making it workable with this wording. I would like to move—

The inspectors can do that.

That is a difficult point. There is something else, Sir. The landlords get 2 per cent for repairs and depreciation. I have yet to find the man who says his property has depreciated when he goes to the Rent Board. I have not yet met one landlord who has said his property has depreciated and that is why he wants his rentals to be increased. All of them say their properties have appreciated and they want their rents to be increased. Yet the Rent Board says: “We will give you 2 per cent for repairs plus depreciation.” The whole thing is cock-eyed. We should view it in its proper perspective and try to pass a law which will have the effect the Minister wants it to have. I am afraid this amendment will not give effect to what the Minister wants to achieve.

Motion put and negatived (Mr. Barnett dissenting).

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move as an amendment—

; in line 4, page 5, after “lessee” to insert “of a garage or parking space situated on controlled premises”; in the same line, to omit “a” where it occurs for the second time and to substitute “that”; in line 5, to omit “situated on controlled premises”; and to add the following paragraph at the end of the clause:

1. (c) by the addition of the following subsection:
   1. “(4) If the lessor has made application to the Rent Board before the date referred to in sub-section (2)bis or (2)ter for the determination of any rent referred to in either of the said sub-sections and the Rent Board has for any reason been unable to dispose of such application before the said date, the provisions of this section shall not be construed as prohibiting the lessor from recovering from the lessee the rent payable in terms of any existing agreement until such time as the Rent Board shall have determined the rent, but any determination of the rent in such a case shall thereafter be deemed to have been made with effect from the said date.”

The effect of this amendment is that we are making provision for those people who are bona fide occupiers of their houses and who leave for a long period and let those houses for that period during which they would otherwise have stood vacant. I think this is a reasonable concession.

I move as an amendment to the proposed proviso—

When the hon. the Minister originally introduced this clause he wanted the period to be three months. He then extended that period to four months. It is obvious from the decision to extend the period to four months, that he had some doubts as to the advisability of three months only. Where you have a furnished house or flat, which will come under control as far as the furniture in that house or flat is concerned, it is felt that consideration should be given to such cases where people go overseas on holiday. They invariably go away for four months or more, and by the time they come back that period of four months has expired. It now means therefore that they will have to get permission to rent the furniture in that particular house or flat. The same thing applies to public servants. They let their houses in Pretoria when they have to come to Cape Town for the parliamentary session and some of them let their flats or houses here in Cape Town for the period when they return to Pretoria. You have the same situation in the case of the diplomatic corps. They too come down from Pretoria to Cape Town and their furnished residences in Pretoria have to be let for a period of six months. You also have that position in the case of the M.P.s and Senators. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that where you have these special circumstances, consideration should be given to these special cases, either by accepting the amendment standing in my name, and extending this period to six months; or if he does not see his way clear to do so—because of abuses which may take place on the part of people who do not fall into this category—then by exempting these categories of persons either by way of regulation or by some other means. I know the hon. Minister will reply that in most cases this will only apply to controlled dwellings. But you have the position that where the Minister proclaims an area in terms of Clause 7 of this amending Bill, the dwellings or blocks of flats in that proclaimed area will fall under this restrictive clause. They will then have to get special permission from the Rent Board to let their furnished houses or flats at a determined rental for six months. Bearing all that in mind, I think my amendment is one which should commend itself to the hon. the Minister. I feel that special exemption should be given to these genuine cases otherwise I am afraid they will be greatly prejudiced.

Let me reply at once. I am sorry but I cannot meet the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog). He will remember that we discussed this matter very thoroughly. The persons to whom he has referred, namely, the public servant and the Member of Parliament who owns a house elsewhere in the country and lets it, usually lets it at a nominal amount and does not come into the picture. We are only going to take action against those people who exploit the position. As Minister of Housing I am only interested in protecting those people whom the Housing Act indicates must be protected, namely, the lower and middle income groups. In their case ceilings have been fixed, namely, those people who fall within the R180 and R200 per month groups. I am not interested in the person who pays R200 per month for a house. I am interested in protecting those people who cannot find accommodation elsewhere. If I were to accept the suggestion of six months I shall be creating a problem of which the hon. member for Durban (Point) is fully aware and in respect of which I have received many complaints, inter alia, from Durban, complaints to the effect that people were asking such exorbitant rentals for the six months we shall then be allowing them, particularly at holiday resorts, that they could afford not to make that accommodation available for the remaining six months. That is precisely the sort of thing we are trying to prevent. But if a person were to go overseas for four months or even for six months and he asks a reasonable rental he does not come into the picture at all. The hon. member’s problem is therefore really no problem at all. It only depends on whether the person asks a reasonable rental. In any case I am exempting him for four months. Those persons who have to move elsewhere like public servants and Members of Parliament—I think the hon. member also referred to the poor Senators—usually let at a nominal figure because they are only too pleased to have somebody looking after their homes. I really hope hon. members will not insist on this. We considered this matter very throughly.

I may tell hon. members that after the second reading I also had discussions with the chairmen of the rent boards in all large urban centres. This difficulty was also discussed with them. After a very thorough discussion I was convinced that we should adhere to the amendment before us and as formulated by the Department.

I realize that the point of view of the Minister is based upon an attempt to prevent the very evil which this clause is designed to fight. As the hon. the Minister correctly said I brought to his attention cases where controlled flats had been furnished and let at exorbitant rentals. I think, however, that there is a slight misunderstanding. The Minister says the ordinary person who moves to Cape Town for the parliamentary session or who goes overseas will not be affected by this control because he won’t be charging an exorbitant rental. But that is not correct, Sir, because in terms of the proposed new subsection under Clause 5 no person in a controlled building may let that building with furniture unless the Rent Board has determined the rental whether it is exorbitant or not. In terms of the original Bill Clause 5 proposes a new sub-section (2)bis. This provides that no person whatsoever may accept money for the use of furniture, linen, etc., unless the Rent Board has determined the compensation. If I have a house or a flat which falls under rent control and I want to go overseas or come to Cape Town for six months and let that house or flat furnished I cannot charge rental for it unless I go to the Rent Board. As I read this clause no person who occupies a controlled property, a pre-1949 property, can let that property without obtaining the Rent Board’s establishment of the rental.

A memorandum which I submitted to the Minister stated that the flat dwellers were concerned about the possible abuse if the period of sub-letting was long. I think the cover there is the provision the Minister has made that a building which is ordinarily occupied shall be subject to this proviso. If I may repeat that for the hon. Minister’s benefit: This proviso deals with dwellings which are ordinarily occupied by the owner or lessee. In other words, it means that only a person who normally resides in a building or flat can sublet it or let it for this limited period. Therefore the abuse that was taking place in controlled blocks of flats which were furnished and let as holiday flats at exorbitant rentals, will not fall under this exemption even though they were only occupied for six months. The trouble which this amendment to the Act seeks to eradicate would not fall under this exemption because those blocks would not be ordinarily occupied by the owner or the lessee.

I therefore do not see that the danger of extending it to six months, thereby eliminating considerable difficulty to a number of people, will lead to abuse. I recognize that there is a fear but I feel sure that that coverage of the words “ordinarily occupied” is a protection which will ensure that only genuine sub-leases are acceptable and that the person who tries to exploit by letting it for six months and leaving it empty for six months will not be able to escape the intention of the Bill by making use of this proviso. I would ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not reconsider this in the light of this specific class of person.

Before I sit down I would like to express my appreciation to the Minister for his response to the various representations which he has received and for the manner in which he has dealt with them.

May I just tell the hon. member that the cases which may arise, namely, those people who vacate their houses for a period longer than four months, are going to be very few.

What about the session?

If they are afraid that they will be dealt with in terms of this clause they can always go to the Rent Board and ask for a determination.

They commit an offence if they do not.

That is the one type of person who will be directly influenced by this clause. People may find themselves in the position as described by the hon. member. In that case there is a second way of dealing with the matter, namely, they need not let their furniture. In that case they need not go to the Rent Board. In both these cases the hon. member will admit that the number of persons concerned will be minimal. We should not allow these minimal cases to influence the dominating problem. The dominating problem is to combat the exploitation of which the hon. member is fully aware.

During my second-reading speech I explained that I had this difficulty that I could not be sure that this measure would work 100 per cent. We are dealing with a problem and there will be cases of hardship. There will be exceptions to be dealt with. But on the balance I think it is better to decide in favour of stopping the exploitation and making it difficult for the other few people who are directly hit by the measure. I would plead with hon. members not to insist upon an alteration of this clause. I am convinced that this is the only way in which to deal with the exploitation that is taking place.

I would like the Minister to explain why he thinks that the question of exploitation or the degree of exploitation would become of greater significance in respect of six months than he thinks it is in respect of four months.

That is quite obvious.

No, it is not quite obvious. I want to put this to the hon. the Minister: If I happen to be the owner of a property and I have to go to Cape Town for six months, which applies, e.g. to 25 or 30 Members of Parliament from the Witwatersrand, and I know I am going to be away for six months, I may find a reputable person to live in the house; then I make a private arrangement with him, usually on the basis that he pays nothing like the rental value of the house—he is really a caretaker—usually on the basis, as the hon. the Minister well knows, that I, as the landlord or the owner, do not take into account the cost of the furnishings, the cost of maintenance, the cost of the assessment rates—in other words, just to have somebody in the house. But the Minister says: You can come to that type of arrangement for four months, because I have no fear that you will exploit that potential tenant or the tenants, but if you want to do it for six months, then you may become an exploiter!

I am sorry to say, with great respect to the hon. the Minister, that to me that does not make sense, because the exploitation of a tenant in respect of that period of two months is no more possible or likely than it is in respect of the basic period of four months which the hon. Minister is prepared to concede. First of all, the tenant must be prepared to be exploited; secondly, the landlord is taking a certain risk in exploiting him, and people who let a home for six months as a rule are not men of straw, but people who can be found and can be prosecuted, whose property can be attached, and so on. The Minister, I think, is wrong in saying that these six-month cases are minimal. As a rule those people are either on transfer or seconded to a branch of the company, for example, or they want to go overseas for health or study purposes, or they belong to the leisured class who contribute very largely to the Receiver of Revenue’s affluence—people who are entitled to go away for a period of six months are entitled to be, shall I say, as free from any allegation of exploitation as people who want to go away and let their home for four months. I do not want to press the point, Mr. Chairman, but I honestly think that once the hon. Minister is prepared to concede any point, is prepared to concede a period of four months, there is nothing to be lost by conceding a period of six months, especially in regard to people who are concerned with the commerce and the government of the country; finally, I want to assure him that the clause will work as well for a six-month period—or as badly for a six-month period—as it would work for a four-months’ period.

I really want to make an appeal to hon. members. Look to what all this has led. Originally we suggested 90 days. I then tried to satisfy hon. members and I made it four months. Hon. members are not satisfied with that either; they want it to be six months. Once you make it six months, why not eight months and why not a year? You see, Sir, we are dealing with a certain problem and the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) knows what that problem is. That problem also exists in a place like Cape Town where housing is very scarce during parliamentary sessions. The same argument hon. members advanced in respect of these people who have to let their homes elsewhere, I can use in reverse and refer to those people who often have to pay high rentals when they come to Cape Town for a parliamentary session. There is therefore also another side to this picture and you cannot satisfy everybody when you are dealing with a Rents Act. From the nature of things it is difficult to handle a Rents Act and you have to formulate it in such a way that you will have the highest degree of certainty that you will prevent exploitation. My point is simply this: When we had 90 days originally hon. members asked us please to make it a little longer. We did make it a little bit longer and now they want six months. But that will not give satisfaction either. Just now they will tell me that some people go overseas for seven or eight months.

We are only asking for six months.

Originally the hon. member too only asked for four months but he asked me to be a little accommodating. I have gone a long way in this Bill to meet the investors and the landlords.

I do not want this Bill to be watered down to such an extent that I can eventually no longer prevent exploitation. I am sorry to have to differ from hon. members but I cannot make any further concessions on this point.

I appreciate that there are difficulties in connection with this question, but the problem is a very real one and I do hope that the hon. the Minister realizes that there may be criminal consequences as a result of a breach of this provision. The cases, I submit, are not as rare as the hon. the Minister thinks they may be. I know of a block of flats in this town where for years persons who are retired live for six months and they let the accommodation together with the furniture for a period of six months. I personally have stayed in that block and I know at least of one other hon. member who has stayed in that block of flats for a period of five years. At one time there were no less than four Members of Parliament in that block. It is the criminal consequences which are the difficulty. I appreciate the hon. Minister’s difficulties when he says “If you make it six months why should you not make it seven?” It happens that six months meet the problem, but I concede to the hon. Minister that it would allow exploitation for a period possibly of six months. I wonder if the Minister cannot investigate this matter further. Take for instance the case I mentioned to this House of a Member of Parliament who let his house for a period of six months. He was very fortunate to get a tenant well below its real value, say an amount of £50 a month. It happens to be a big house in a popular suburb in Johannesburg. For the next session he was able because of the fact that the accommodation position had changed, to let it at an amount of £75 per month. Now £75 a month in my submission, knowing the particular home and the furniture in it, is still below its true rental value as things are. Sir, if an arrangement could be made that in cases of this sort there could be an immediate application to the Rent Board and to get an immediate determination, it may be possible to meet the requirements of justice, if the hon. Minister is not prepared to lengthen the period. The mere fact that the hon. Minister is conceding the period of four months justifies, possibly under some form of control by the Rent Board on objection being laid, the letting for a period of six months. The persons concerned could then make an immediate complaint to the Rent Board if they objected to the rental. I can see the point that when there is a shortage of accommodation there are people who will abuse the position. But I would like to say that the vast majority of lessors in this country do not abuse their rights, particularly if they are going away for short periods; they are generally very fortunate to get the rental of their flat back. The hon. Minister knows of many Members of Parliament who are only able to get something less than their rental back, notwithstanding the fact that they have got their own furniture in the place. Sir, it is quite clear that there are a very large number of cases arising from the fact that we have a session for half the year and I do hope that the hon. Minister will be prepared either to accept the amendment with safeguards, or that he will be prepared to agree that some means should be found whereby a person can let and get an immediate decision in respect of the matter. Then he will know where he stands. I believe that there is a case here for an amendment. We are reasonable people, we know that the Minister has difficulties, and I know it is very difficult in a matter of this sort to know where to draw the line, but I do submit to the hon. the Minister that I think it has been demonstrated that the choice of a period of four months is not really a happy choice. Six months would be better. It still would not take the letting out of the control of the Rent Board. I hope that in one way or another the Minister will be able to eliminate the difficulties. It is a problem which not only applies to civil servants and Members of Parliament. It is a problem which arises throughout this country in respect of persons who are going overseas on extended leave.

Very briefly, I would like to give the hon. Minister a further reason for acceding to our request. Firstly, we do not ask for seven months or eight months, or six and a half months—we are asking for six months, and when the matter is disposed of, clearly we cannot ask for any further extension. Secondly, we are not making a lighthearted appeal on behalf of non-existing persons or interests. The hon. member for Germiston (District) has referred to the very large body of public servants who are involved in this situation. I have referred to the very large number of employees of nation-wide companies who are moved around for reasons of their own, and of the companies, for periods of six months or more. I want to put it to the hon. Minister that, in any case, there is a very easy way out of this difficulty. If anybody does not want to obey the law, there is nothing to prevent him from giving occupation of premises at no rental at all. The hon. Minister knows that a couple of years ago when there was a glut of flat accommodation, a tenant would be offered, as an inducement, two to four months’ occupation free of any rental whatsoever, if only he was prepared to sign a lease for a period of six, 12 or 18 months. If the hon. Minister thinks that the landlord of the “six-month” period would be an exploiter and the landlord of the four-month period an honest man, the exploiter of the six-month period who sets out to get a total of R1,200 for his house or flat over the six-month period, when he finds that the law says that he may not, without applying to the Rent Board, enter into such an arrangement for more than four months, can simply give the would-be tenant as an inducement for moving in, the offer of “no rent” for the first two months, provided he pays the R1,200 for the second period, being four months! That will probably happen—thus the landlord gets the R1,200 just the same! Since we do not want to encourage exploitation, and as it should be normal for a person to let a furnished apartment, a house or a flat for a period of six months …

Most of the estate agents with whom the amendment was discussed were completely satisfied.

Then I have been talking to the wrong estate agents, because those I spoke to were dissatisfied.

You have been talking to the wrong ones.

Well, I hope I am talking to the right Minister! What I am trying to say is that there is really no difference in the principle as to the letting, without interference or application to the Rent Board, in the case of four months as in the case of a period of six months. I think the hon. Minister has set his heart against it, and his amendment will probably be accepted, but the hon. Minister, with respect, has not really given any other than a personal reason—namely, that he does not like the idea—for rejecting our proposal.

Ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw).

I cannot at this stage, according to the Rules of the House, address myself to the hon. member for Durban (Point), even though the hon. Minister advises me to do so. I therefore address myself through you, Mr. Chairman, to the hon. Minister, and I ask him again if he will not agree to our request and to explain in simple language where the difference in principle is if you change four months to six months. Where is the difference in principle in allowing a four months’ lease to go, as it were, unwept, unhonoured and unsung by the Rent Board, but to require that a six months’ lease of the identical property, the identical premises and furniture to exactly the same people, shall receive the attention of a Rent Board which he himself admits will be over-burdened with more serious matters? We would like to know what the reason is.

The amendment of the hon. Minister is not worth the paper it is written on, I am afraid. If I want to circumvent this law, it is very easy. According to the hon. Minister’s amendment for four months I can do what I like.

You try!

According to the hon. Minister’s amendment I am pleased to do for four months what I like. I am not touched. That is the amendment. So I charge a tremendous rental for three months and a nominal rental for the fourth month, and I get much more money in the first three months than the Minister says I should get.

Who will be so foolish to pay?

There are plenty of fools who would pay. You would be surprised to know how many parliamentarians would pay. This Act can be easily circumvented. But I am not going to disappoint the Minister and I will leave him with his little baby. Hon. members all worried about four months and six months. This only applies in respect of controlled premises. How many members occupy controlled premises?

That is what I said.

There you were right for once. It only applies to controlled premises, and why should a man whose premises are under control get a higher rental than the value placed on it by the Rent Board? I am not in favour of that at all. But the premises of people in Johannesburg who have occupied their premises for a long time are not affected. They can charge what they like. But what I do want to ask the hon. Minister is to explain the clause as it is printed. I do not want to talk about the hon. Minister’s amendment because I do not think it is worth my while. But does the Minister now intend by this amendment really to protect the poorer people? I drew the attention of the hon. Minister to this point myself. Take the case of poorer people who rent premises at, say, £5 a month. Then furniture is brought into the premises after the control has been determined and they charge £15 a month. Does it now mean that these people will not be able to charge £15, but can only charge £5, unless they go to the Rent Board to get a determination in regard to the value of the furniture?

I replied to that point in my second-reading speech.

Yes, I agree with the hon. Minister. But is this going to be retrospective? If the Minister finds a man who has done this, will this be retrospective and can the man who has been exploited claim damages and a refund? Or will it be condoned? You see, Mr. Chairman, it is no use bringing in this amendment unless the people who have circumvented the law in the past are to some extent punished for what they have done. We should have more clarity on this point. The provision is not clear at all. I do feel that if the Rent Board is required to call upon all people who have controlled premises to give a return of the rentals they have received for furniture, the Rent Board will be busy for so many years …

Read the first sentence.

“As from a date 90 days after the end of the month in which the Act was promulgated no person shall require or permit …”

That is the answer to you question.

No it is not. What about the past? What if they are going to sell the furniture to these tenants? What can the hon. Minister do if they sell the furniture at £200 when it is only worth £25? To be paid off at a rate of £10 a month? They sell the furniture to the tenant. There are so many holes in this legislation. I hope the hon. Minister will succeed in protecting the poor people, for which we have pleaded so hard in the past, but I have my doubts.

I move—

; in line 51, to omit “referred to in any” and to substitute “in respect of which the provisions of this Act have been declared to be applicable by a”; and to omit all the words after “and” in line 60 to the end of the proposed new sub-section (1 )ter and to substitute “such rent shall be deemed to be rent determined by the Rent Board and may not be reduced by the Rent Board without the consent of the Minister and if any such proclamation declares the provisions of this Act to be applicable in respect of any such dwelling which was not let on or before the said fixed date, the rent for such dwelling shall be the rent as determined by the Rent Board under this Act for such dwelling: Provided that the so determined rent shall not be less than a rent which would give the lessor a net return of 8 per cent per annum on the audited actual cost of erection of such dwelling”.

This also flows from the decision contained in the statement I have already made. In this connection I just want to say that the effect of this clause, if amended in this way, will be that 8 per cent will be allowed on the actual costs, in respect of new buildings in this case.

I think I should avail myself of this opportunity of once again emphasizing two other points. The first is that new buildings—that is to say after this legislation has come into operation—will only be affected if a second proclamation were in fact issued placing such a building under control. The effect amounts to that. I say that because I want members to be clear on this point seeing that a certain amount of misunderstanding still exists. In discussions with investors I put it to them and they were quite satisfied with it. I wish to emphasize, therefore, that in respect of new buildings which have to be erected now, a second proclamation has in effect to be issued before such a building can be placed under control. The second point I wish to emphasize is a point I have already touched upon in passing under another clause, namely, that I am only interested in protecting those people who, in tepns of the Housing Act, clearly fall within that group who need State assistance. It is not my intention to step in where people choose to pay R200 per month in a block of luxury flats. I think the more those blocks of flats are occupied by people who are willing to pay such rentals, the more flats and other housing units will become available for the lower and middle income groups. It is not the object of this legislation to take action in respect of those housing units. We have definite groups in mind under the Housing Act. In the Housing Act reference is made to the lower and middle income groups whose income is less than R180 per month. These are more especially the people who will enjoy protection. I just wanted to avail myself of this opportunity of stating that clearly.

I move as an amendment to the third amendment proposed by the Minister of Housing—

Both in the original clause and in the hon. Minister’s amendment provision is made by which the machinery of rent control can be extended to a new area or to new buildings from a date to be fixed in a proclamation by the State President. Now this is the second proclamation to which the hon. Minister has just referred. The fixed date from which the rent control machinery shall operate may then be earlier or later than the date of the proclamation itself. We naturally accept that the extension of rent control to these new buildings or new areas will be applied with discretion. But whenever a fixed date is earlier than the date of the proclamation, there is of course retrospective activity in regard to the application of law to the particular buildings concerned. I assume that a measure of retrospectivity may be necessary. When, however, laws are applied retrospectively, such as is going to be the case here, then two principles should apply. The first principle is the parliamentary safeguard that Parliament itself should determine the limits of retrospectivity in respect of the laws which it passes. As hon. members will know there are a host of examples on our Statute Book in which laws have been made retrospective and Parliament itself has fixed the limits of retrospectivity. Here there is going to be a departure from that principle in that the executive Government, in the form of the Minister, will be given a free hand to fix the limits of retrospectivity to which rent control will be extended, as the amendment reads “to all dwellings” referred to in the section itself. My amendment will still enable the State President to apply the law retrospectively whenever he is so advised, but he will only be able to make it retrospective for three months and no longer. In other words, the fixed date prescribed in the proclamation may be earlier, but not more than three months earlier.

The second principle involved is purely a practical one. It is a practical safeguard because everyone knows that there must be finality in financial transactions which are carried out in the ordinary course of business. The settling of accounts is an essential part of business, and there is just as much an obligation on the landlord to settle his debts timeously as there is on the tenant. I suggest that it would be wholly unreasonable and unfair to allow this backward adjustment of financial accounts to be insisted upon long after the transaction itself has expired. This backward adjustment means a disbursement of money and I suggest that a period of three months is reasonable. Unfortunately this Minister, when he gets ruffled, becomes personal, but here we are dealing with a matter where there is no need to get ruffled. There are two fundamental principles involved. The one is purely a parliamentary safeguard and the other is entirely a practical safeguard, that there should be a limitation of adjustments. My object in moving the amendment is to give effect to both these principles. Sir, I am not wedded to this period of three months. I suggest it as a period which seems to me to be fair and reasonable when there has to be an involved inquiry, and following it a backward adjustment. But I am not wedded to three months and if the Minister can suggest a more reasonable period I hope he will do so. If he cannot I would urge him to accept the amendment, because it will not in any way render impossible what he is striving to do; it will facilitate what he is trying to do, but it will firstly be fair and reasonable, in regard to the period, and secondly, it will enable business people to deal with their finances in a businesslike way, so that there will be finality in their accounting arrangements.

In his earlier explanation the Minister gave us to understand that he liked the luxury flats and felt they were good because they left more accommodation available for the groups he is concerned about. I think many of us agree with him, but the position that causes me concern is this. Assuming he has the type of tenants who are prepared to pay big rentals and these luxury flats are available, what is the position if certain tenants who cannot pay these rentals get themselves installed and after a while apply to have the rentals investigated? What is the position then with regard to the future? How could such difficulties be overcome? Will these luxury flats then also be brought under control?

I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) because that would nullify the whole clause. Let me just remind the hon. member that these persons—they only constitute a small number but they exploit on a reasonably large scale—were not unaware of the risk they were taking. As long ago as 2 August 1963, after I had received complaints from Durban and Cape Town and elsewhere and, amongst others, also from the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), I issued a statement which was given very great publicity in all the daily newspapers and in which I warned people that if they continued with their methods of exploitation I would be obliged to introduce legislation at the next session of Parliament to put a stop to those abuses. In other words, in August of last year those persons were already warned not to continue those practices and clearly told that legislation would be introduced. And do you know what one of them did, Sir? They actually boasted that we would not be able to clamp down on them. We know a great deal more about the activities of these people than hon. members think. Some of them boasted and said they would not allow themselves to be dictated to by us. The hon. member now moves an amendment which will nullify the clause in respect of the very point we want to deal with, namely, exploitation, the increasing of rentals to an extent which is absolutely out of all proportion to reality and I can most certainly not agree to that. It will destroy the whole purpose of the clause; it is intended to deal with exploitation against which a warning was issued on an earlier occasion. Should I ignore those tenants who complained about the way the housing shortage was being exploited and tell them that in spite of the warning I issued I cannot do anything to help them? That will be the effect of the hon. member’s amendment and I am sorry but I cannot accept it. Those persons who have made themselves guilty of exploitation must bear the consequences because they knew beforehand that they were running that risk.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Mr. Dodds) asked whether there was not a danger that people would be forced to pay these high rentals in luxury blocks of flats due to the lack of other accommodation. Ofcourse that danger always exists but I do believe that to the extent to which provision is made for the higher income groups more accommodation will become available for the lower and the middle class income groups, accommodation which is to-day occupied by the higher income groups. I think this process will bring relief there. Of course, the Rent Board can investigate any complaint about exploitation. But it does not follow that action will be taken. I have simply made a general statement of policy because I wanted to reassure those people who wish to erect luxury blocks of flats. I trust the hon. member realizes that. That, however, does not exclude the position that where there is a complaint about exploitation the Rent Board will have to investigate it and report to the Minister.

If the hon. Minister says it has to be retrospective to the date on which he issued the warning can he not make it retrospective to that date only or at least give an undertaking to this House? In that event there will be a certain amount of certainty because as the clause reads at the moment there is no certainty as to how far back it will go. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has advanced a very strong argument. Surely the owners of flats should have certainty as to how far back the period will date in respect of which they may perhaps be obliged to refund rentals, which were too high. Cannot the Minister give an undertaking or make it retrospective only as far as the date on which he issued his warning?

It is retrospective to the date of my warning.

May I give the Minister an example of how this will work in a case which has perhaps not been carefully considered yet. I realize that the Minister has devoted a great deal of attention to the matter and that his officials, as he has told us, know a great deal more about exploitation than we do, but unless we have the details of a specific case, then obviously we cannot discuss it with the Minister. Therefore I should like to give him a more or less hypothetical case, but not hypothetical in the sense that it does not exist. Usually large buildings are owned by companies, and when such a building is sold, it involves not so much the sale of the building as the sale of shares. Let us assume that he was the innocent buyer of a building of 50 flats and is buying the shares of a company which has been guilty of exploiting its tenants. The Minister would not know that the company which has sold him these shares had been overcharging its tenants for a year, at the rate of R40 a month, and because there are 50 flats there has been profiteering to the extent of R2,000 a month, and in a year the landlord robbed his tenants of R24,000. Now, the investigations come to a head and the Minister, being the new owner of the shares, says that the company must disgorge the R24,000 which was taken illegally from the tenants. This is where the question of retrospectivity becomes important because the would-be buyer would have some sort of security if there was a limitation of three months on the retrospective liability for a refund.

I will consider the suggestion of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje).

Then I have no further need to press the case put to the Minister, if he accepts the plea of the hon. member for Jeppes.

I will consider it, and if necessary I will bring in an amendment in the Other Place, but not at this stage.

In view of what the hon. the Minister has said, and with the leave of the Committee, I will withdraw the amendment I moved.

May I just explain what I meant?

No, I accept what you said, and I withdraw my amendment.

I will consider making a statement on it.

The Minister has already told us that he will consider the suggestion of the hon. member for Jeppes.

I said I would at least make a statement.

I think it went further than that. I think the Minister said he would either incorporate it in the legislation or give an undertaking in this House to that effect.

Yes, I will consider it.

Amendment to the third amendment withdrawn with leave of the Committee.

That places me in a difficulty, but I still accept the Minister’s bona fides. I now move the second amendment standing in my name—

It is to substitute a different proviso from the one moved by the Minister. Of necessity the amendment had to take this form, but the essential portion of the amendment is to be found in the last two lines of it, which read that the proclamation “shall not be construed as including any dwelling which was not let on or before the date of the commencement of this Act”. We on this side have made it quite clear that we accept that a measure of control has become necessary because of the housing shortage. I am not going to repeat the arguments advanced during the second reading as to why that shortage has come about, but I say that if the Government is sincere in emphasizing to overseas investors, as it does, that South Africa has a free enterprise economy, then it must demonstrate its sincerity by limiting the scope of the measure in terms of my amendment. I know the Minister is himself concerned about this aspect and he has attempted to meet the situation in the way he has explained, but I think that is not sufficient. If we are going to assure people that this is a free enterprise economy, the Minister should go as far as my amendment provides. This is a legislative principle which is to be found in all previous legislation dealing with rent control. Every previous law dealing with rent control has a limitation clause as to what it shall apply to, and it only applies up to the date of the law itself and has left the buildings erected subsequently free from control. Up to a point the Minister appears to have met this difficulty in his own amendment inasmuch as that whenever he proclaims an area the existing buildings are included unless the State President expressly provides otherwise by proclamation. Up to a point that provision meets the point I wish to make, but I think the House will realize that such a power of exclusion or inclusion from control is unsatisfactory. It places the power to include or exclude virtually in the hands of one person, the Minister, who countersigns the proclamation which brings the law into force. That is an invidious power to grant to anyone who holds public office, unless the basis on which he is to make his selection is prescribed by the law itself. Here the basis on which he is to make his selection is not prescribed. The basis of selection is left entirely to one person, and it can be applied quite arbitrarily and even capriciously. The question therefore whose building shall be included or excluded from control is left to an arbitrary discretion of only one person, and I say that is a very dangerous provision to make and places the Minister himself in an invidious position. Anyone who then ventures into new building enterprise will still face the position that he may at any time become subject to rent control. My amendment is aimed at preserving two things. It will firstly preserve the rule of free enterprise in respect of new buildings and it will allow the forces of competition to protect both the landlord and the tenant; and secondly it will preserve the legislative principle to be found in every previous bit of legislation in this country dealing with rent control. Unless private enterprise is allowed to operate on the basis of competition, the effect of this Bill, notwithstanding what the Minister has done to remedy some of the defects, must be to restrict free enterprise, and it is therefore likely to bring about a further shortage in the housing position.

I cannot reconcile myself with the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) because he suggests that all new housing units erected after the coming into operation of this legislation should be excluded from its provisions. That is the same principle which we have in the existing Rents Act. It was accepted at that time that all housing units erected after October 1949 would not be subject to the provisions of the Rents Act but I am convinced that since then much more exploitation has taken place in respect of precisely the new buildings which were erected after 1949 than in the case of the buildings which existed at the time. I am not prepared to consider something similar. If there has to be rent control it has to be in respect of all houses or housing units and that is why I do not want us to make the same mistake which was made in the previous legislation. What assurance have we that the person who is going to erect a block of flats to-morrow will not make himself guilty of exploitation? There is not yet an acute shortage of housing to-day but we do not know what the future holds in store for us and the opportunity for exploitation may perhaps be much greater in future than to-day. Why should we make an exception under the pretext that if we excluded new housing units it would encourage people to erect housing? All housing units should be treated alike. If I could have my way I would ask the Minister to place all housing units under control and not to keep certain buildings erected since 1949 decontrolled until they have to be controlled because of a complaint and an investigation. I am convinced that if we were to accept this amendment we shall run the risk of having large-scale abuse.

I have always thought that one matter was clear in this House, namely that the Government as well as this side believed in free enterprise, but the last speaker apparently has reservations in so far as the building industry is concerned. He is not satisfied with this measure of control, but wants to extend it to all types of buildings.

You have misunderstood me.

The Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs have repeatedly said that the Government believes in free enterprise. Admittedly this Bill is the exception to that principle and we agree to it in these special circumstances. We all know what those circumstances are. For a period of two or three years there was very little building activity and the economic activity was not of a very high order, but suddenly over the past 18 months it picked up so rapidly, as the Minister of Finance told us, and on top of that we had the Government’s policy of immigration which brought immigrants to the country.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

The point I wish to make is that special circumstances arose and for that reason we must have control as far as existing buildings are concerned, because there is no doubt that the owners of existing buildings have exploited the tenants. But what of the future? Surely if we believe in free enterprise the market itself will correct the position. If the Minister would only look at last night’s newspaper he would see what the effect has already been of the system of free enterprise, because the amount of plans for flats passed this year are already double those of last year, and far more houses have been planned too. The normal processes of free enterprise are already looking after the situation, or does the Minister envisage that for all time we will have a housing shortage and exploitation? Surely one cannot deal with one part of your free enterprise, and not with the rest. Why should the building industry be different from anything else? The situation is already remedying itself rapidly, but to-day we take artificial measures like this Bill and it will discourage people from building. I have not the slightest doubt that the present shortage of housing will be cured very rapidly and we should not take measures to discourage people from investing. I think that if the Minister reflects on this he will see that he should not lightheartedly make such inroads on a certain sphere of private enterprise, where in effect he says he does not believe in free enterprise or in the forces of competition. I do not think the Minister has considered that this Bill in effect perpetuates the system of costplus as far as housing is concerned. Every person who builds flats will always have at the back of his mind the cost-plus situation. I do not know how much experience the Minister had of cost-plus during the war, but he must realize that it is one of the greatest factors destroying incentive. People are always looking for cheaper ways of doing things, for cheaper ways of building. But once you have a cost-plus system, that whole incentive is removed, because the man who now builds a block of flats more cheaply than another can do, because of his superior intelligence, actually suffers as the result of it because he gets a lower return. For all these reasons, if the Minister had half the faith that the Minister of Finance has in the system of private enterprise, he should accept this amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South).

I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). If I were to accept the hon. member’s amendment, I would be creating this position, in the case of buildings which will not be controlled until such time as a proclamation has been issued, that the owners of those buildings will be at liberty to indulge in exploitation until such time as I can put a stop to it by the issuing of a proclamation. In other words, we are dealing here with the same principle we rejected a moment ago. For that reason I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. We have taken other steps to meet the investors. All the investors with whom we had discussions were satisfied. I know of no investor who harbours any fears to-day. We gave them the assurance that where we had to take action we would act not only in the spirit of the existing Act, but that we also guaranteed that we would not allow them less than 8 per cent on their investment capital. If I were to accept the hon. member’s amendment it would briefly amount to this that I would be giving people an opportunity of exploiting the tenants in a group of buildings, for example, until such time as I was able to follow the matter up by way of a proclamation. The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) asks me to show some faith, and the faith I have to show is that the housing problem will be solved. Surely that has nothing to do with faith. The fact of the matter is that a housing shortage is precisely one of the signs of development in a country; that is the position throughout the world. The hon. member ought to know that all countries where there is a rapid economic upsurge, struggle with housing difficulties. We in South Africa expect greater economic growth; the Economic Advisory Council predicted only the other day that the tempo of economic growth maintained in the past years would be exceeded next year. The stream of immigrants is continuing to grow.

The faster you grow the more you should control; is that your argument?

Oh no, surely the hon. member knows that I am not introducing universal control. He knows I am only taking the power to introduce control where there is exploitation. Why is the hon. member continually representing to the country that we are introducing universal control? Surely that is not so. Every investor is free of control until such time as he exploits his tenants. Why does the hon. member not tell the country that? Why does he not explain to the public that there will not be universal control; that control will only be introduced when there is exploitation in an area or in respect of a building? Only then will this Act be applied. I challenge the hon. member to vote against this clause. He will find that a large section of his own party will not be prepared to vote against this clause as I have amended it—that is the test—because a cry has gone up from that hon. member’s party itself that we should take action in cases where the tenants are exploited. For that reason I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South).

The very statement which the Minister has now made, in which he says that there is a certain amount of confusion in the mind of the public as to what this clause means, compels me to ask the Minister for some clarity as to the difference between the statement which he made on 23 March and the amendment now standing in his name. Sir, on 23 March the hon. the Minister said—

The amendment which is before us, now refers to the “actual audited cost of erection of such dwelling”, and there is a world of difference between the hon. the Minister’s statement and the clause which we are now being asked to pass. I would like to ask the Minister to reconsider this matter so that the public can have absolute clarity as to what is meant by “cost of erection”. Does the “actual cost of erection of a dwelling” include the value of the land?

Would you explain what you are driving at?

What I am trying to establish is the meaning of the words, “the audited actual cost of erection of such dwelling”. As I understand the position, it refers only to the cost of erecting the building, but it does not include the cost of the land; whereas the statement made by the Minister in which he referred to the actual capital cost, would mean the cost of the dwelling plus the cost of the land. I think if the Minister is going to let this clause go through as it stands, it is going to lead to a lot of confusion and litigation. I believe it to be the Minister’s intention in this amendment that there should be a net return of not less than 8 per cent on the value of the land and the cost of erection of such dwelling. I think if the Minister will insert the words “on the value of the land and” after “8 per cent” we will have absolute clarity as to the Minister’s intentions.

There is another aspect on which I would like to exchange views with the hon. the Minister. There seems to be a lot of confusion on the question as to whether the Minister has the right to declare “an area” as a proclaimed area. In other words, does the Minister concede that say the beach front of Sea Point can be proclaimed as an area subject to Rent Board control? Because if he has that in mind then the wording of this clause is such that it is going to lead to a lot of confusion and subsequent litigation. In Clause Ibis the following words are being introduced by the Minister—

Only “after consideration of a report from the Rent Board” can the State President, through the Minister, proclaim an area. Does that mean, if he wants to proclaim the beach front of Sea Point, or the beach front of Durban or a portion of Hillbrow, that he cannot do so until there has been an investigation by the Rent Board? And before the Rent Board can report, it will have to investigate every single building in that particular block. That is going to cause a great deal of delay and a great deal of unnecessary expense. I would like to suggest to the Minister that the clause should not provide that he can proclaim “an area” after consideration of a report from the Rent Board. After considering the Rent Board’s report he can proclaim a building, but he should reserve the right to himself to proclaim an area. He should not require the Rent Board to investigate every block of flats in a particular area before he proclaims that area. I see a great deal of trouble ahead for the Minister, and I foresee insurmountable difficulties and problems which are going to arise.

I can proclaim a number of buildings.

The Minister is reserving the right to himself to proclaim an area only after consideration of a report by the Rent Board. Sir, the ordinary investor can be worried that an area such as Hillbrow is likely to be proclaimed. The result is that he does not purchase vacant stands in Hillbrow. The net result is that you are stultifying building development in certain areas where such development is urgently needed. It appears that in curing the illness the Minister is killing the patient. The remedy suggested by the Minister is really worse than the disease. I suggest to the Minister that this particular aspect dealing with the proclamation of an area should be withdrawn from this clause, because that is what is causing a lot of confusion, worry and doubt in the minds of investors in property. The actual proclamation of a building or of certain types of buildings in a certain area is not a serious matter, and I think that is a prerogative which the Minister should justifiably reserve to himself, but the power to proclaim “an area” as such is a dangerous one and should be withdrawn from this clause. The Minister is quite correct in saying that there is a great deal of confusion in the minds of members of the public. They do not realize that a proclamation first has to be issued before control can be instituted, and unless the Minister and this House can get it across to the investing public of South Africa that it is not the intention to institute universal control, that areas as such will not be controlled, then I am afraid that building projects are going to be stultified in the future. I feel that the Minister is riding a tiger and he is finding it difficult to dismount. I have with respect made two suggestions to him, one of which I would like to move as an amendment. I would like to suggest to the Minister that these two suggestions should be incorporated in this particular clause so that, at least as far as this aspect is concerned, there will be no confusion in the mind of the public. I move as an amendment to the last amendment proposed by the Minister of Housing—

As regards the hon. member’s request relative to the question of the costs of construction and the cost of the land, I can at this stage only say that it is a matter I shall have to consider; I cannot give a conclusive reply to that now. I shall have to see what exactly we meant when we issued the statement, and then try to bring it into line with these provisions. I am not now prepared summarily to accept such an amendment until such time as I have duly considered its implications. Should it appear necessary, an amendment may be introduced in the Other Place.

The hon. member must not take it amiss, but I have to disagree very seriously with him on his final remarks. I think the hon. member is doing the investors themselves an injustice. I should like to remind the hon. member once again of a discussion between myself and others at which he was present. After I had given them this assurance, they stated that they were highly satisfied to proceed. They said they really wished to concentrate upon the provision of housing units for the lower and middle income groups and that they had not the slightest fear that they would fall under these exploiters. On the same day something else happened, and that was that a prominent financial institution in the country issued a public statement in which it specifically stated that it had the fullest confidence that it could continue under this measure, and that was before my statement on Clause 1. So the hon. member must not take it amiss when I accuse him of wishing to sow a little confusion. The hon. member is aware of the provisions of this clause; surely he knows that universal control is not being instituted.

I said so.

All right, then the hon. member surely could also assist in removing the confusion in the minds of the public by telling them emphatically that universal control is not being introduced. Why does he refer to confusion? For there ought not to be any confusion after the statement by the financial institutions and after the statement made by me in regard to Clause 1, and in view of the clear undertaking given to individual investors. Those individual investors are not a lot of fools, and they were quite satisfied. So there ought not to be any further confusion. Now I should like to appeal to the hon. member not to try to create confusion where there is none, just for the sake of scoring debating points.

Then I come to the second point raised by the hon. member. He is afraid that I shall scare off investors when possibly I proclaim an area. But under this Bill I have also been given the power to exclude a building from an area which has been proclaimed. I have the power under this Bill, if it is passed, to exempt from control a building erected prior to 1949 and which was therefore subject to control. Why must hon. members always emphasize the negative provisions and not the positive provisions of this Bill, namely that it is our object to create opportunities to meet investors who have built decent places of this nature? That is the first point. But in the second place I need not proclaim an area if I wish to introduce control; I am already empowered to subject buildings to control; I may subject to control one building, two buildings or 20 buildings, which will then constitute an area. All this will depend upon one matter only, and that is whether I am satisfied, after inquiry, that there has been exploitation. The means at our disposal of tracing exploitation may not always be effective, but we shall avail ourselves of these means as far as they are at our disposal. If there is large-scale exploitation, an area will be proclaimed, but I foresee that one will not even require the power to proclaim an area; one could still proclaim a series of buildings, with exactly the same effect. That is my reply to the hon. member. I really do not think we should now raise bogies of this nature. Even where an area has been proclaimed, one can still always, if one deems it necessary, exempt from control one, two, or more buildings.

I wish to deal firstly with the proviso which appears in the last three lines of the hon. the Minister’s amendment to this clause. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) has moved an amendment, which the hon. the Minister said he was going to consider, so I do not wish to labour the point but I wish simply to say that the Minister has stated that his intention is to provide a return of 8 per cent on investment capital. That intention, I suggest, is clearly not reflected in the Bill as it stands because the cost of erection of the dwelling cannot possibly be the same as the investment capital, which also includes the cost of the land. Beyond saying that I do not wish to labour the point.

There is, however, another point that I would like to raise in regard to this proviso and that is the words “shall not be less than.” The proviso as it stands now says—

I would like to know from the hon. the Minister why the words “not less than” are used in this context in the light of the amendment which the Minister moved to Clause 1. It seems to me that in the light of that amendment, which has now been accepted by the House, there may be a conflict between the two sections, because on the one hand the board in dealing with new buildings is required to determine the rent under the Act; the proviso then goes on as it is worded here. Now, in determining the rent under the Act the board must, of course, fix a reasonable rental in accordance with the provisions which are set out in the definition of “reasonable rental” which has now been amended to provide for a return of 8 per cent and a return of 6 per cent, that is to say, not more than those two figures. But once the words “shall not be less than” are used it necessarily means that it can be more, though it cannot be less, so on the one hand, in terms of this proviso, apparently a rental of more than 8 per cent could be allowed but in terms of Clause 1 it is limited to 8 per cent. It seems to me that that also is a matter which ought to receive the hon. the Minister’s attention.

There is a third point that I would like to raise in regard to this proviso. The Minister has said that he has had discussions with large financial institutions who have in mind large building projects and that they are satisfied with these provisions. I accept the Minister’s word. But it does seem to me that although the big investors, the financial institutions are covered by a provision such as this, an individual builder may suffer hardship because if he is to be allowed, as provided for in the proviso as it stands now, “the audited actual cost of erection of the dwelling”, even if that is changed to include “the cost of the dwelling plus the cost of the land”, no provision is made for the individual builder’s profit, and in the case of an individual builder he is surely entitled, if not to a profit then at least to include a reasonable salary for himself as part of the cost of erection, which in my submission could not be allowed if that proviso were to stand, because the board would be limited to the actual cost of erection, and the actual cost of erection in the case of an individual builder cannot include any salary for himself or any amount by way of a profit. He is not covered therefore in the same way as the large financial institutions would be covered.

That is one point I wanted to raise. From there I would like to go on to deal with the proviso which appears roughly half-way down the Minister’s amendment, that is to say, the proviso which reads, “provided that any proclamation whereby the provisions of this Act are declared to be applicable in respect of all dwellings …” Section 1 bis, as it will read if passed by this House, empowers the State President to declare the provisions of this Act to be applicable “to any specific dwelling or the dwellings in any specific building or all dwellings or any part of dwellings in any area”. The proviso on the other hand omits the words “any specific dwelling or the dwellings in any specific building” and includes only the words “all dwellings or any class of dwellings”, so as it reads now the intention which I suggest the Minister has, e.g. to provide that all new buildings erected after the date of the proclamation of this Act, may come under control only when there has been a specific proclamation to that effect by the State President. It seems to me that that is clearly the hon. the Minister’s intention, but I suggest that that intention is not given effect to, because as it reads now a specific dwelling or the dwellings in a specific building could be proclaimed without express proclamation by the State President. I do not know whether I have made myself clear to the hon. the Minister. Have I not made myself clear? Well, let me put it this way. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would be good enough to say whether I am right in my assumption that his intention is that no new building shall be brought under the provisions of the Rent Act unless the State President expressly provides to that effect in a proclamation. [Time limit.]

I should like also to express some misgivings on the last few words of the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister. I refer to the words “not less than 8 per cent”. I think in this respect I have to agree with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. As the clause provides that it shall not be less than 8 per cent, it must necessarily mean that it may be more than 8 per cent. If that is the Minister’s intention, then of course we understand each other.

Nine per cent need not be exploitation.

That may be so. Then I should like to proceed to another aspect of the matter and that is the statement made by the hon. the Minister. I should just like to point out that in the Act of 1950 provision is made for 6 per cent on the fixed property. In other words, if it is provided here that the cost of the fixed property should also be taken into account at 8 per cent or say 9 per cent or 10 per cent or what have you, it means that in one case provision is made, in the letting of property, for 6 per cent on the value of the fixed property, and in the other case provision is made perhaps for 8 per cent or 9 per cent or 10 per cent on the value of the land or the actual purchase price of the land. The hon. the Minister now wishes to make inquiries to ascertain what was intended when the statement was issued. Personally I feel an anomaly will result if provision is made in the case of buildings erected previously for 6 per cent on the value of the land, while in the case of new buildings provision is made for 8 per cent or 9 per cent or 10 per cent on the value of the land. I do not think it will be quite fair, but the hon. Minister has said he will have to make inquiries to determine what exactly was meant when he made the statement.

I should like to refer for a moment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and the implications thereof. If we delve into the history of this Clause 1n question, we find that all buildings erected before 1950 were subject to rent control. In Section 33 of the 1950 Act, provision was then made for buildings not occupied before 1949 not to be subject to rent control. Now we have the position that all buildings occupied for the first time since 1949 are not subject to control to this day. All of us agree with the hon. the Minister that some of those buildings should be subjected to control where there has been some abuse. The State President may by proclamation subject such buildings to control. The hon. the Minister provides, in his amendment appearing on page 298, that buildings not let prior to the date of the particular proclamation will not necessarily be included, save when the proclamation makes such provision. But now the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) says on his amendment on page 303 that the buildings not let at the commencement of this Act should be excluded, and that in respect of such buildings, no proclamation at all may be issued in terms of the section in question. I do not think we can agree with that at all. I do not think the hon. member can argue that because we did so in the 1950 Act, we must do so now also. The fact of the matter is that we are now creating a new position. We are now creating the new position that all the buildings erected since 1949 will continue to be free of control until such time as a proclamation is issued placing them under rent control. It is possible that all of them will remain free of control. Only buildings which are specified by the Minister on the recommendation of the Rent Board may be subject to rent control by the State President. As we are now creating an entirely new position, the argument of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) becomes valueless because we no longer have those conditions to-day. We are not subjecting all buildings erected since 1949 to control. We are now creating an entirely new situation in which we are subjecting to control only those buildings where exploitation has occurred and where the buildings have been abused. For these reasons I do not think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has any case when he asks that buildings erected after the commencement of this Act should be excluded. His argument carries no weight. I would urge that it should also be possible for buildings erected after that date to be subject to rent control by way of proclamation.

I should like to revert to the point I was dealing with when my time expired. As I understand the Minister’s intention it is that no new building shall be subject to control unless the State President has expressly so provided in the proclamation or in any subsequent proclamation.

That is correct.

Thank you. That, with respect, is not the effect of the proviso which the Minister has now moved for the reason I gave earlier on, namely, that this proviso is going to form part of Clause 1 bis which appears on page 5. Clause 1 bis says—

Then the various types of dwellings are set out. First of all there is any specific dwelling, then dwellings in any specific building, all dwellings or any class of dwellings in any area. So there are four types. The proviso which is intended to provide that new buildings cannot come under the Rents Act except if specially so proclaimed by the State President deals only with two of those four categories. It only deals with the dwellings or the class of dwellings in any area. It does not refer to the other two categories, namely, a specific dwelling or the dwellings in any specific building. So that those two categories would not be subject to the proviso and could therefore be brought under the provisions of the Rents Act without a specific proclamation by the State President.

The hon. the Minister has already indicated that he is not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) which seeks to exclude all new buildings from the provisions of this Act.

When you refer to “dwellings” do you take into account the definition of the term in Section 1 of the principal Act? “Dwellings” is defined there.

I appreciate that the word “dwelling” is defined in the Act but I suggest that that does not affect my argument. As I have said Clause 1 bis refers to four types of dwellings.

But “dwelling” is defined in the original Act.

Is the Minister’s point that because it is defined a specific dwelling or a dwelling in any specific building cannot be proclaimed unless tie State President includes them in a proclamation?

My point is that “dwelling” means any room or place occupied by somebody.

That, with respect, cannot make any difference to my argument. The point of my argument is that the proviso, which the Minister has introduced in order to bring about the result that new dwellings cannot be brought under the Rents Act unless the State President expressly includes them, is not worded in the same way as Section 1 bis which empowers the State President to bring into the net of the Rents Act certain types of dwelling. It enables him to bring four different types into the net.

Reverting to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South), the hon. the Minister has already indicated that he was not prepared to accept it. I would ask him to reconsider his attitude for this reason: There is a shortage of houses at the moment and both the hon. the Minister and we on this side of the House are anxious to see this shortage overcome as soon as possible. I suggest that the best way to achieve that object is to give the maximum encouragement possible to persons who are able and willing to build. The only justification for controlling new buildings would be if there was reason to believe that the rents to be charged would be exorbitant. I suggest, Sir, there is no such evidence. That was not the case the Minister made and with respect to him I do not think he has justified in any way extending control to new buildings, bearing in mind the object we all wish to achieve which is to get as many dwellings built as quickly as possible so that this shortage can be overcome. If in fact the situation arises that persons who erect new buildings do charge exorbitant rentals that is a matter which can easily be remedied by legislation during the next session of Parliament. There is no difficulty there at all.

The argument raised by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé), who says we do not know whether there will be a shortage at any time in the future, I suggest, is not a strong argument in favour of this proposal to include new buildings as well because if there is a shortage in future and if there is exploitation, that situation can easily be remedied by legislation. In saying this I appreciate that new buildings do not automatically come within the control of the Rents Act but nevertheless these provisions empower the Minister to control certain new buildings and to that extent it must inhibit somewhat—I cannot say to what degree—new building programmes people have in mind embarking upon.

Finally, before I sit down, I should be glad to hear from the hon. the Minister what his views are in regard to the individual builders the case I have put forward on their behalf.

The hon. member has raised the question of the interpretation he places on the proviso. I shall take that matter up with the law advisers and make sure that what is intended is actually laid down in the clause.

As far as the individual builder is concerned I can only say that this clause deals with the individual builder. We state specifically that not less than 8 per cent should be allowed. All the circumstances prevailing will be taken into consideration when fixing the rental. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) made the point that the percentage was not fixed at 8 per cent. It may be 9 per cent or 10 per cent. That is precisely the point; 9 per cent or 10 per cent need not be exploitation in special circumstances. My difficulty was that I could not fix a maximum percentage; I could not fix it at 15 per cent or at 12 per cent. That would have led to exploitation on a very large scale because all landlords would immediately have raised their rentals up to that standard. We consequently had to give a guarantee that we would not make it less than 8 per cent. But we are able to deal with the individual builder in terms of this clause. That is my reply to the hon. member.

What the hon. the Minister himself has said about this clause, as well as the statements made by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) and the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) indicates very clearly that the Minister, like Hamlet, had a certain problem, and that was “to control or not to control”. So he decided, if I understand this particular clause as amended correctly, to compromise. He said in effect: “I am not going to control, but I am going to take the power to control.”

I am taking the power to act against exploitation.

All right. I know this question of exploitation looms very largely in the mind of the hon. the Minister. It is important to us, too. It is important to everybody who wants to ensure that we achieve the ideal, the desideratum of housing in South Africa, and that is that there shall be an adequate number of letting units at adequate reasonable rentals. Surely that is the object. If that is the object, then what we have said on this side, particularly as far as the statement by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) when he moved his amendment was concerned, is—and I do not want to be dogmatic about this—that the Minister may well be discouraging the building of housing units by virtue of the fact that he is going to be in a position to fix the rentals of a building even before that building is beyond the drawing-board stage. If this is known to persons who have a building scheme in mind, they may decide that as long as they can invest in something which is not so restricted—using the word “restricted” in its legal and narrow sense—they would rather not put their money into something which may well come under the axe, as it were, when the Minister decides to control that particular building. In trying to deal with the black sheep, with the exploiter, if I may mix my metaphors, he also wants to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Surely that is not the object the Minister seeks to achieve in this particular clause. He is almost certain to discourage a certain number of persons or companies from embarking upon the building of letting housing units. He is almost certain to do that. Assuming he is quite right in his belief that nobody who has the slightest intention of providing housing in South Africa, from to-day onwards will be in the least discouraged by this clause as amended, and I concede the Minister may be right; I do not want to be dogmatic about it.

I believe most investors are honest.

Sir, what the Minister has said half a dozen times this afternoon makes me believe that he thinks most investors are dishonest.

Those are in the minority.

I have no mandate to speak on behalf of the investors of South Africa, Sir, but I have the temerity to thank the hon. the Minister for this tribute, because up to now they have been entitled to gain the contrary impression, namely, that everybody who invested in housing for letting purposes, was an exploiter or at least a potential exploiter. Now that the Minister has decided that they are all honest men, with the few exceptions for which he needs this comprehensive Bill, I want to deal with him on this basis …

I am even prepared to grant that you are honest.

Sir, that is the nicest thing the Minister has ever said to me. Of course, he cannot call me a dishonest man in your company! Let us assume the Minister is absolutely right in his belief that nobody will be discouraged from providing new letting units as from to-day or from the date on which this Bill becomes an Act, and that we have accordingly argued on the wrong premises, there still remains the point he has not dealt with as yet, due to the limited time at his disposal, I assume—the point touched upon by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) when he moved his amendment—and that was the desirability or otherwise of the Minister himself taking so much power under this particular clause as amended where he will have the authority, as he said himself, to take a building out of control, and to put a building under control. That was what the Minister said a little earlier on. In other words, it will be a case of the Minister giveth and the Minister taketh away. That is all very well in higher circles, but I do not think a Minister should be in a position to giveth, and to taketh away. I can tell the hon. the Minister to-day that he will find himself seriously embarrassed; and he can mark my words, because this is what will happen. Assuming the Minister knows me and I happen to be a person who has erected a building containing a hundred flats. As you know, Sir, the Minister approves of my political philosophy; he thinks I am an honest man—he has just said so—and so I approach the Secretary of the Minister’s Department and say: “Please don’t control my building”. The Minister can then decide not to control my building. But a similar property, let at exactly the same rental, owned by somebody of whom he does not approve, will be controlled just the same! There are certain buildings in which members of the Cabinet are tenants. I think they will be embarrassed. There will be pressure on every official of the Government who has access to the Minister because the question of whether a building is controlled or not will certainly make a great material difference to the person or company owning that building. There will be so much “toutrekkery”—I think the Afrikaans is the better word—in connection with this matter to make sure that A’s building is controlled and B’s building not, although they are next to each other, cost the same amount to build and let to people at the same rentals, that I ask the Minister to think twice before he takes this power. He is certainly giving himself a present of a hot potato. He is going to find that he will be subjected, and so will be his Department and his senior officials, as well as other Government members, to the most undue and unreasonable pressure on the part of thousands of property owners all over South Africa who have a material interest in whether their particular property is controlled or not. The Minister may think at this stage that this is very funny, but I assure him that by the time he has had the experience of having to decide whether a building should not be controlled—supposing it was one that was erected before 1949—or whether a building erected this year should be controlled despite the fact that many others in the same street are not controlled, he will realize that he has wasted a great deal of time without having achieved anything.

I, for one, believe that the hon. the Minister should not, in his own interests as well as in the interests of public policy, allow himself to be manoeuvred into the position where he has to make a decision which is purely a commercial one as far as the owner of the building is concerned, although it may be a matter of public policy as far as the tenants and the public of South Africa are concerned. I want to know how the hon. the Minister is going to meet that responsibility in the certain knowledge that he has done justice to everybody. How is he going to convince any property owner, who, having asked the Minister to de-control his property and the Minister, for good reasons, having refused to do so, that he has not suffered an injustice when he knows that the properties of A, B, and C are not controlled? It can only bring the Department into disrepute; it can only create a great deal of unnecessary administrative work in regard to hearing the applications and turning them down or accepting them. I ask the Minister why he thinks he needs this particular power when he can choose ether between no control of new buildings or the control of all new buildings after a certain date. That would be a much simpler course to follow, although I do not suggest it. But that would be a much simpler line to adopt than this half-way house the Minister is building for himself by assuming the personal right and authority to control or not to control.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to his own amendment at the foot of page 298 where these words are used “the audited actual costs of erection”. I should like to ask the Minister whom does he contemplate the accounts should be audited by because this Clause 1s not clear on that point. The accounts could be audited by a person who is not qualified. I think the Minister should clarify this. I think they should be audited by a person registered in terms of the Public Accountants and Auditors Act. Otherwise it will be possible for the builder concerned to have the accounts audited by a friend or relative of his but I am quite sure the Minister does not contemplate that. I think the intention is that the accounts should be audited by someone registered in terms of the Public Accountants and Auditors Act. I think that should be put beyond any doubt because that may give rise to difficulties in future.

I shall see to it that it is put beyond any doubt.

In view of the assurance given by the hon. the Minister that he accepts, in principle, the amendment that I have moved but that the wording will have to be gone into, I wish to withdraw my amendment with the leave of the House.

After listening to the hon. the Minister’s explanation of his inability to withdraw proclamation of “an area”, I think the Minister has really answered my case. He has told us that he has all the powers to proclaim a specific dwelling or dwellings in a building. Seeing that he has all that power should he still insist on this power to proclaim “an area”, something which may worry a prospective builder? There is furthermore another item I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister, if I may. I think this is also a matter that he should consider in the Other Place and try to eliminate this particular worry.

I refer to the fact that any post-1949 building will have their rentals fixed as at a certain date to be proclaimed by the Minister. For argument’s sake let us take it that it will be March, 1963. If an owner wants to increase his rental after that date as a result of increases in assessment rates or increases in unemployment insurance premiums or anything of a statutory nature, he has to go to the Rent Board to have such rentals increased. The impression is—and here I want the Minister to correct me or to say what he really intends in this matter—that once the owner goes to the Rent Board for any statutory increase to which he is entitled, his property then falls fully under the jurisdiction of the Rents Act and that all the irritations and complications of that Act will apply to his particular building. For instance, the limitation of the ejection of an unsatisfactory tenant in view of the fact that the tenant has now become a statutory tenant. My impression of the Minister’s intention, is that he does not want the Rents Act to become applicable in all its facets to that particular class of building. I think his main objective is to control the rent of that building and nothing else. I do not think the Minister really intends that once it comes before the Rents Board for increased rents due to statutory increases, all the implications of the Rents Act should apply.

It is not the intention of the Minister, but the intention of the Bill.

But that is the intention of the Minister. And that is also another worrying factor, Sir. Then it means that any new buildings will also if the area is proclaimed, be subject to the same restrictions. Any landlord who wants to put up a new building will be concerned that all the implications of the Rents Act will apply, although there is the 8 per cent nett guarantee.

That point has been discussed ad nauseum. I explained that during the second reading.

It is news to me, Sir, and I must say it is news to tens of thousands of people who are worried about the correct interpretation of this Bill. It certainly is, and if that is the intention, I would say it is a worrying facet and something that the Minister should reconsider. I do hope that he will reconsider this particular aspect. Because the whole purpose of this Bill is to check exploitation in regard to rentals. That is really all the Minister set out to do, to prevent exploitation of tenants as far as rentals are concerned which I fully support. He did not have in mind that all the other implications and irritations of the Rent Act should apply to landlords, and I am really disappointed to hear that that is the attitude of the hon. the Minister.

The hon. Minister knows that there is in essence no difference in principle in regard to this clause, but the technical detail of it has been argued by a number of hon. members, and I refer to the hon. member for Durban-Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie). But the hon. Minister has given assurances that he is going to consider these matters, and he may be able to revise the clause perhaps in Another Place. I believe that there are technical difficulties and I think there is much in some of the points that have been put, but I believe that in principle it is clear that there is a large measure of agreement, and I can only express the hope that the hon. Minister will look at this. I can only assure him that the hon. member for Musgrave and others would only be too willing perhaps to talk to the Department and see if they can improve some of these provisions so as to eliminate uncertainty which might exist.

I will ask the law-advisers to get into touch with those hon. members.

Thank you very much. If the hon. the Minister will do that, I believe we can in a measure help to get a good Bill on the Statute Book. I think it is clear from the discussions that this is the type of measure that can better be dealt with in a select committee. I mention that for future information. But in view of the hon. Minister’s assurance that members can talk to the law-advisers in respect of some of these technical details with a view to getting complete clarity on the Bill, I think that would go a long way to meet the points that have been raised.

With leave of the Committee, amendment to the last amendment proposed by the Minister of Housing withdrawn.

Amendments in lines 35 and 40 put and agreed to.

Omission of all the words after “1949” in line 45, to the end of the proposed new subsection (1 )bis put and agreed to.

Substitution of the proviso proposed by Mr. Plewman put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Substitution of the proviso accordingly negatived.

When the House adjourned on 21 February, I was indicating that this side of the House gives its wholehearted support to the creation of an agricultural research account, and I was urging that a research council should also be established, a research council moulded more or less according to the pattern of the Scientific Research Council, which is an independent body responsible only to the Cabinet. Since then I have asked the hon. the Minister a question in connection with the former Agricultural Research Advisory Council and his reply was that the advisory council had been disbanded. When I say “disbanded” I mean that it died of its own accord and was subsequently disestablished. The Minister added that a directorate of agricultural research had been established, and he was satisfied that the directorate can co-ordinate agricultural research in a proper way, and that that directorate will be able to indicate to him and his Department how funds at the disposal of the Agricultural Research Account should be spent and where research projects should be tackled and for what part of the industry, etc. In introducing the debate, the Minister also said that under his Department there had been voted an amount of R31,000,000 on Loan Account and that in his Department there are no less than 1,184 professional posts for both research and extension officers. I do not know how many of these posts have been filled. He also said the research institutions in our country falling under his Department, receives the greatest financial contribution from the State for research. We accept that fully. Agriculture with its great diversity of branches and with its many problems, urgently needs that research. On previous occasions I indicated why agriculture has so many problems, and I shall have to repeat some of them very briefly. I should like to say that as regards our animal husbandry, as we have large numbers of game moving to and fro across our country, veterinary research is one of the most important things that could ever be done in our country, and it goes without saying that we must have the greatest veterinary research institution in the Southern Hemisphere, because the game are the hosts of parasites and we do not wish to destroy the game.

While the State is making such a great contribution to research, I should like to point out briefly that it is not only the contribution of R680,000 mentioned by the Minister as paid into the Research fund by the control boards; and not only the R1,203,000 for training and the provision of bursaries, etc., but there also are large additional amounts made available for research, and now I should like to ask the Minister at the same time, because it is still quite vague to me, whether the amounts paid in the interests of sections of the agricultural industry as opposed to agricultural research insitutions which they already have, have all been brought into account. If I may be more specific, I should like to know from the Minister what amount is paid e.g. by the Wool Board to the South African Wool Textile Research Institution and whether this amount is also brought into account in connection with the Research Account. If it is brought into account, I should like to know whether the Minister or his Department or the Council he has. established is capable of distinguishing at any stage between what is purely biological or purely fundamental research and what is scientific research? Hon. members opposite and the hon. the Minister know that when dealing with research in respect of leather or fruit or wool or what have you, and when you start with the growing and production of the articles in the first place, whether it is the hide of the animal and its treatment or whatever it may be, whether it is the wool and the washing of the wool fat and the methods applied there, and when you come to the more advanced research which may be regarded as pure scientific or industrial research where the processing process takes place, and when you then proceed to industrial research, and the C.S.I.R. comes into the picture, how then must the division of the funds occur, and what must be contributed to the C.S.I.R. eventually? In other words, at this stage it is not clear to me where biological research ends and where scientific and industrial research begins and how they are distinguished. And while we do not have the division at this stage, it remains a cardinal question to me how the Minister will distinguish, while there is a Scientific Research Council responsible to the Cabinet and with its own funds at its disposal largely provided by the Government. but which receives contributions for specific projects, for specific branches of industry to a great extent. This again brings me back to the reply of the Minister to the question when he said that the Agricultural Research Advisory Council cannot fulfil its functions owing to the great diversity of agricultural facets existing in the country. Now I should like to tell the Minister that there is an equally large diversity and a greater diversity in respect of industrial research and in respect of scientific research. It must necessarily be as great as or greater than in the agricultural industry. And if there can be a Scientific Research Council and if there can be a Medical Research Council and if particular research councils may be created for the industries and for the mining industry and what have you, what then is the difficulty where the S.A. Agricultural Union has over a number of years appealed to the Minister and to the predecessors of this Government for the establishment of an independent Agricultural Research Council, why the Government has not only set its face more and more against this thing, but in the first place, in an attempt to partly comply with the request, established an Agricultural Research Advisory Council, and when this thing disappeared, created a directorate of research, a directorate of which not a single member, as far as my knowledge goes, is a representative of the S.A. Agricultural Union or organized agriculture; why is it that during all these years the Government has been appealed to in vain for the establishment of an independent Agricultural Research Council? I am surprised that the Minister and his Department have burdened the directorate by saying that now and for the future it will be the Council which will decide what contribution should be made to institutions and where and in respect of what part of agriculture and what contribution should be made to research as such. The Minister himself refers to a broad level and if provision is to be made from public funds on a basis of priority, and mindful of the research that is required, I ask myself again why such an independent Agricultural Research Council cannot be established. I am thinking for instance of the prevention of the consequences of droughts in our country. How much could not have been done already, and how little have we done. Just think of conditions in the Northern Transvaal at the moment, as well as the drought conditions elsewhere. And all we are trying to do at this stage, or one of the greatest things we are trying to do, is to vote funds and to give financial assistance to the farmers through the various financial institutions. We are not scornful of the assistance that is given. But that is no answer. It can never be the answer. And while I have been referring to research, I am surprised that the Minister does not confer upon a Central Agricultural Research Council the power to take cardinal decisions in connection with for whom and where money should be spent for research of all kinds. And as regards the C.S.I.R. we should not forget that if any part of an industry comes along with a donation to the Scientific Research Council for a specific project, and the Scientific Council through its principal officials has decided that the project is worth while, then the C.S.I.R. helps to carry out the project, and then the funds can be canalized with only that object in view. Now it is provided in the Act that the same thing can happen here in the case of the Research Account, but will parts of agriculture ever vote funds for specific projects equally openly and willingly or will they as openly and willingly give it as they would have done had they known there is a Council in which agriculture also has its representatives? Will they not do so more openly and willingly if they know that such a Council may decide, without interference from a department, on the research?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday a remark was passed on the Government side that it appears as if this side always wants to cast suspicion upon officials and does not trust them. Now I just wish to say that as far as I am aware, this side of the House, and that applies also particularly to the agricultural section on this side of the House, does not for a moment doubt that the officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and Marketing are people who are doing their best, and who are honourable persons. We wish to state this clearly to remove all doubt, but that does not derogate from the fact that if there is a method of administering this Research Account that will create greater confidence within the farming community and if the Minister could find a method that could create greater confidence, it should be applied. Agriculture has repeatedly recommended it, and in his reply the Minister ought to do two things. Firstly, he should tell us why the Government will not accede to the request for the establishment of an Agricultural Research Council. Have we now to believe—and this thought has already occurred to many farmers—that agriculture is beginning to become the step-child of the Government, and that the Government is willing to give agriculture some but not too much say in their own industry? If that is not the reason, then the hon. the Minister should tell us why the Government will not agree to the establishment of such an Agricultural Research Council to administer this fund.

In conclusion I should like to say that agriculture, in the parlous position in which it is to-day—and it is no good saying, as the hon. member for Somerset East has said, that things are going well with the woolgrowers— needs a research council. Ten years ago there were many farmers in the country who were concerned about the high taxes they had to pay, but to-day the man just wants to know how he can keep his head above water, and this goes for all farmers. I am using this as an argument to indicate to the Minister that if in the past it was necessary to have an agricultural research council, it is much more necessary to-day than it was ten years ago when the farmers were clamouring for it, and we should like to ask the Minister to accede to their request. While this Act does not provide for it, we should nevertheless like to ask him to give us an agricultural research council.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) has now made an allegation which really hits below the belt, that financially the farmers of South Africa are in a very bad way. I do not know how that is relevant to this Bill, but I do not wish to follow the hon. member in his arguments. He is pleading for an agricultural research council. That is a matter of opinion. Many members will be in favour of it, and some will also be against it, but all good things come in time and as we are still developing it will in due course become possible to establish such a council. To-day one of the greatest aspirations in the world is to raise human dignity. In UNO it is submitted daily that human dignity should be maintained and raised, and it is the undoubted aspiration of every country to do so, but in order to achieve that it is necessary for the standard of living of every nation to be raised. In South Africa we have a very high standard of living comparable with the highest in the world. Unfortunately that does not apply to all countries. The standard of living of many countries is much lower than ours, and I am not referring only to our White population, but also to the non-Whites. In the meantime primitive nations have emerged and they are availing themselves of science and technology to make up the leeway in respect of research. I do not think there is a single country in the world that does not appreciate the importance of research, nether do I think any country exists that does not appreciate that sufficient food will have to be extracted from the earth. We ourselves are extracting as much food as possible from our land, and this can only be done by means of research.

There has also been the disturbing increase of populations, particularly in the East, which have to be fed. Whereas mortality in general has dropped, the populations are increasing and within 20 years there will be a shortage of food. Overnight much more emphasis has been laid upon research in respect of agriculture, and there has been a strong desire to combine forces which will result in a common goal, in order that there may be coordination between all nations in conducting research, particularly in respect of agriculture and guidance. Here our agricultural research workers have played a very important role, not only as regards our own fatherland, but also with regard to the whole continent of Africa. The hon. member for East London (City) made an allegation here which I cannot allow to pass without comment. I quote from Hansard what he said—

I think the hon. member has cast a reflection upon the competency of our research workers who have set the entire continent an example. They have also offered their services to countries overseas. But when the hon. member was chairman of the Wool Board, tremendous sums of money were spent on advertising and bursaries, but did the hon. member ever see to it that sufficient funds were made available for biological research? Very little money was made available for that purpose, and that is what he is cavilling at to-day. He never imagined he would ever become a member of this House and that he would have to give an account of himself. Why did he not at the time see to it that the Wool Board also assisted biological research? Why did he not give a lead at that time? To-day he is making charges against the Minister which should rather be directed against himself.

Mr. Speaker, we have about 75 agricultural research centres in the country, and 75 research projects were carried out last year alone in respect of sheep and wool, but the hon. member says we are not doing enough.

Eighteen projects dealt only with sheep diseases. A few years ago we could farm with merinos in certain parts of the country only, and to-day, as a result of research, we can farm with merinos virtually throughout the country. Take soil conservation and farm planning and the eradication of weeds and the eradication of jointed cactus and other weeds, for instance. Research is conducted in every respect. Those are things that affect our wool clip and our grazing. Last year 111,683,000 morgen were proclaimed soil erosion areas. Of these one out of every 231 morgen is infested with jointed cactus, and therefore research had to be conducted, and it is being conducted. But we should not be critical of our research workers. They are achieving something. Take the locust plague. A few years ago the locust plague caused tremendous damage in the Free State, Transvaal and the Cape. This year there has been an even worse outbreak, but thanks to our research workers and the speedy intervention of the Department, not very considerable damage was done. Our research workers contributed their share, and we thank them.

Then research is also being conducted in connection with Karoo caterpillars, termites, ticks causing paralysis, etc. Research is being conducted at various experimental stations in regard to the feeding of animals. The hon. member referred to the drought conditions. Thanks to the Minister and his Department, a special committee has been appointed to investigate the feeding of sheep in times of drought. Apparently the hon. member is not aware of this. Then there is physiological research, particularly in regard to the fertility of sheep. In the long run this Act is going to mean much to us, and I should like to pay tribute to our research workers not only for what they have done in the past, but for what they are also presently doing. They are working for us. They are enabling us to take everything out of our soil, and the farmers ought to be grateful to them. We all thank them, and this agricultural research account which is being established to-day will see to it that agricultural research will receive its legitimate share in future.

I have listened to the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. H. J. Botha). Anybody listening to him would say that this account is hardly necessary because we are already doing all the necessary research in South Africa and that we have made enough headway with our planning. If that is so one wonders why the account which is being created here is necessary. This account is necessary, however, if we are to give agricultural research a big forward push. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) has put forward a plea here for something which I think is very necessary and that is the establishment of an agricultural research council which will be able properly to co-ordinate and to promote all the various forms of research which are being undertaken in the agricultural industry. The farmers have repeatedly asked for this in the past. But, as the hon. member for Aliwal has said, one realizes that all these things take time. The hon. member realizes that it will be a good thing to establish an agricultural research council and that such a council will be established in due course, particularly after the pleas which have already been put forward and which will continue to be put forward from this side of the House. Nobody will deny that great progress has been made in the sphere of agricultural research and I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Aliwal who paid tribute to the large number of research workers employed in the agricultural sphere. We are greatly indebted to these people who are carrying out their task with great zeal. We know that there is a great shortage of these trained men, and important research is suffering as a result of this shortage. Before I come to my next point, I should just like to refer to the report of the Minister’s Department, in which they say the following in connection with this shortage of trained men. On page 7 we find that in the year 1961-2, 145 professional officers and 211 technicians were appointed, but in the same year there was a wastage of 135 professional officers and 105 technicians. One accepts that many of these people leave the service because they reach the retiring age, but many of them leave because they can earn very much more with private companies and co-operative societies. That is why there is such a shortage of these people, it is because of this shortage of trained men that much of the research that ought to be done is not undertaken. We also know that our agricultural industry is going through a very difficult stage, particularly as far as the economic aspect is concerned. Great demands are being made to-day upon the ingenuity of the South African farmer because farming has become a very highly complicated and specialized industry. The farmer is expected nowadays to be an engineer, a mechanic, an economist, a bookkeeper, a manager, a businessman and a veterinarian. In addition to that we are faced with the fact that most of our farmers, including the small numbers who enter the agricultural industry each year, have not received the necessary specialized agricultural training. That is why an additional responsibility rests on the shoulders of the research directorate to keep the farmers abreast of the latest developments. There are, of course, many farmers who do a great deal on their own in the sphere of research. The research done by the farmer is often of very great value because it is done by the practical farmer who fully realizes what the effect of such research is on his own pocket. This legislation, is therefore welcomed because the establishment of this fund can be of assistance even to the practical farmer who is engaged in some research project or other. There are many farmers who have an aptitude for research; they do research in connection with cross breeding, fruit trees and wheat varieties. They have the aptitude for it but very often they cannot afford it. We therefore welcome this legislation under which it will now be possible to assist them. I want to express the hope that those people will not be overlooked when they require financial assistance. This legislation will also enable well-disposed people to make contributions to the fund so that research can be undertaken for the benefit of posterity.

But what I regard as the most important aspect of this Bill is the fact that it will help us with the training of essential research workers, as well as the fact that loans and bursaries will be made available for the training of research workers. I think it is essential that no stone should be left unturned to encourage these people, particularly young men who want to become research workers and who wish to obtain a degree in agriculture and then carry on with post-graduate studies. Under this legislation it will now be possible to help these young men. It costs a great deal of money to train these people and our country frequently suffers because capable young men who wish to study cannot afford to go to university. It will now be possible to make available money for that purpose, and we welcome any step that is designed to wipe out the present shortage of research workers. But here I must add that research which is carried out in the laboratories and goes no further than the laboratories is worthless to us; it might just as well not be done. The results of that research must reach the farmers; that information must be placed at the disposal of the farmers. That is why this legislation is welcomed because in terms of Clause 3 (1) money will be made available for the provision of facilities for the collection and dissemination of information of a technical nature in connection with the agricultural industry. That is one thing that is lacking in South Africa. I do not know who is responsible for it but it is high time the Minister accepted the responsibility for the dissemination to our farmers of information emanating from the research institutes.

But there is another matter too which flows from this discussion and which causes me a certain amount of concern. There are certain research services which fall under this Minister. In fact the most important research that is done in the sphere of agriculture falls under this Minister and he has established a special directorate for that purpose, but research is also done by his colleague, the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, and inevitably there must be a certain amount of overlapping, as the hon. the Minister will see in the report of his colleague’s Department at page 82 where reference is made to their statistical research and to the type of work that is done by that Department. The question that occurs to one immediately is whether moneys deposited into this account will also be made available for research undertaken by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. I deprecate the fact, of course, that agricultural research is not done exclusively by one department. I do not think it is in the interests of our agricultural industry that there should be divided control in respect of agricultural research. But if, as a result of the setting up of this account, all research can be concentrated in the hands of one Department, then it is a step that should be welcomed. I think the ideal position would be to place all agricultural research under the control of one Minister. I think the advantages of such a development should be obvious to everybody. It would eliminate the wastage of research manpower and it would limit overlapping to a bare minimum. If the establishment of this account will bring that about, then we welcome this Bill.

I want to say immediately that I do not agree at all with the hon. member who has just sat down that research should only be in the hands of one Minister. I think this House should be very grateful to the Prime Minister for having split this Department into two. He did so for the very reason that he realized how important it was that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services should mainly concern itself with things like that while the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing should at the same time also undertake research. This is a matter of the greatest importance. I wish to read something which I read in this House about a year ago and which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail: “All time record mealie crop will be reaped in the Transvaal and the Free State this year”. That was in 1925 when approximately 25,000,000 bags of mealies were produced. Last year, in 1963, 67,000,000 bags were produced as a result of research. I am sure nobody in this House will deny that; that is so, and that is not only the position in regard to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services or in regard to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, but that is the position in all spheres in the developing and civilized country in which we live. You find that in all Departments, Sir, and where the Government is to-day making an effort of this nature, where money is specially voted to be spent in a certain direction, this House ought to welcome that very heartily.

Nor do I agree with the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) when he pleaded that the farmers should be represented on this board. Let me say immediately that research can only be done by the technologist and by the technologist alone. It does not follow that we do not appreciate what some farmers have already achieved. But which farmer can afford to undertake research? Research costs millions. How can a single person undertake research. The Government simply has to find the necessary money for research no matter in what field. In the first place the individual person cannot afford it and in the second place he has not got the necessary equipment at his disposal. Those of us in this House who do not know what has already been achieved in the field of research must be very careful what we say in connection with a matter of this nature. Just think of the tremendous progress that has been made in connection with grain research. I have already mentioned mealies and the fantastic results that have been achieved in that respect. Had it not been for the very adverse climatic conditions we experienced this year I would have liked to know what the mealie crop would have been in South Africa as a direct result of research. Tremendous progress has been made not only in respect of the type of seed to which I have referred but also in respect of fertilization. Who conducts those experiments? Some individual farmers do indeed experiment; let us admit that, and we are very grateful for that, but at the same time the individual farmer is not in a position to carry that research through to the end. In a country like America billions are spent on research and their technologists receive fantastic salaries. Even in our own country we pay extremely good salaries to our technologists in order to retain their services and yet we still lose some of them. Let me say at once that I am not sorry about it; it is indeed regrettable that we lose those people but to me it is something to be proud of. I am proud of the fact that we lose our technologists, our artisans, because what does that prove? In the first instance, where do those people go? They are lured away by countries such as Rhodesia and other countries; they are offered higher salaries and better conditions of employment. Why? For the very reason that those technologists have proved themselves to be wonderfully efficient in their particular field and they have proved their devotion to their duty; that is why they are lured away.

Yet most of them do remain here.

Yes, obviously. I say we can be proud of the fact that other countries have such a high opinion of our technologists that they try to lure them way, countries like Rhodesia and other countries, because that proves how wonderfully efficient they are. South Africa would like to retain their services herself. Where do those men come from? They are the products of our own universities, our own extension officer stations and research institutions. Let me just say something else; just think about the research that has been done in connection with the artificial insemination of sheep, cattle, horses, etc. We even find that in the breeding of poultry artificial insemination is used to-day. In passing I just want to say that our Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, for example, breeds sheep by way of artificial insemination. He keeps a record of every sheep on his farm. Surely when a farmer has progressed as far as that research has reached the highest possible level. When we think what we have achieved in this direction this, legislation should be welcomed from all sides. Who carried out this research? I have already pointed out that it is done by our technologists and I think we should think twice before we give the farmers representation on a board of this nature. I serve on such board and there are hon. members on that side who also serve on such boards. We all talk a great deal and often we talk about things we know nothing about. Will we not be doing more harm than good by having farmers’ representatives on such a board? The technologist, the expert, is not a person who talks a great deal; he is a person who makes an intense and sound study of his subject; he is equipped with his knowledge and his love of his subject to do that research work. He knows if he does this or that a chain reaction will set in. We should not allow other people to interfere with the research work our technologists do because we shall achieve nothing by doing that. Mr. Speaker, this country should be very grateful to places like Middelburg in the Cape Province, Glen in the Free State, Potchefstroom in the Transvaal, etc. etc. I just want to emphasize for a moment that but for citrus research this country would have lost millions and millions on the exportation of citrus. That is a great source of revenue to South Africa and who made that possible? We owe that to technologists who were trained in this country. There is hardly a disease or pest in South Africa in respect of which we cannot get assistance by simply telephoning for it. I want to deal for a moment with the serious dangers which threatened us in the past. Take, for example, foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy-skin disease. Just think of the number of farmers who have been ruined by those diseases. Just think what that has cost the State. Just think of the number of farmers who have been ruined. How did we combat those pests? To-day the farmers take precautionary measures timeously by injecting. Just think of blue tongue and all the other pests which threatened the sheep farmer. When I was a youngster in the Eastern Province where I grew up the farmers had a very hard struggle against scab disease. Research has brought us to the stage where scab disease has been completely overcome in South Africa. So I can go on; I think I can talk for hours on this subject because it is a subject which is very dear to every person, particularly the agriculturist. I think therefore that where provision is made in this Bill to consolidate this matter we should be careful with our criticism. I accept it immediately that the hon. member for East London (City) did not think very well before he levelled his criticism. I take it that hon. members opposite welcome this Bill just as much as the agriculturist on this side in particular welcomes it, because in the near future South Africa will most certainly have to produce very much more food than to-day.

That side of the House made quite an issue of the economical difficulties in which the farmers find themselves. Sir, everybody in South Africa regrets that, but let us be fair and honest; that is due to climatic conditions and not to a lack of research or to a lack of “know-how” on the part of the farmer; that is definitely not so.

I have referred to the tremendous progress that has been made in the field of farming as a result of research. Years ago, in the Transvaal, every farmer lived in fear in the autumn. He feared the results of heart water, red water, splenic fever. Simply by injecting a needle, by injecting a vaccine, those diseases have disappeared. I want to point out to the hon. member for East London (City) that when Australia placed a prohibition on the exportation of sheep to South Africa years ago the wool farmer of South Africa did not take fright and say: Now we are lost. By means of intensive research they have bred a sheep in South Africa which can be compared with the very best in the world, and South African wool, as a result of research, can be compared with the very best in the world.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) said the results of the research undertaken in the laboratories should be carried over to the farmer. How can that be done? Sir, for every success achieved in the laboratory there are 1,000 failures. The atom bomb was not created in one day; no great discovery was made overnight. What sometimes happens in a laboratory is enough to break the heart of any research worker. He sometimes does research work for years without ever achieving success. In other cases he suddenly succeeds, but before a single success is achieved, in the laboratory there are dozens and dozens of failures. That is the very reason why the technologist must be a dedicated person prepared to persevere with his research until he achieves success.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side do not only welcome this legislation; we are very grateful for it and we are grateful that such a measure is going on the Statute Book, a measure that will assist the South African farmers in future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking all members on both sides of the House for the support which they have given this Bill. But after having listened to the two Opposition speakers, I feel that for the sake of clarity I should state the position a little more clearly and more explicitly so that there will be no misunderstanding. In the first instance, I want to say a few words to the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) who is apparently under the misapprehension that this Bill provides that provision for agricultural research will be made only under this account. That is not the position. Parliament, just as in the past, will still continue to vote a certain amount for agricultural research under my Vote. All that we propose to do here really is to enable those bodies and private institutions or individuals who wish to make contributions—most of them for a specific purpose—to do so for the purpose of promoting research in a specific or special field. We are giving them the opportunity to make contributions which will then be deposited into this Account which will be administered by the accounting officer of the Department, namely the Secretary, and the Minister. But what is important is that it will be possible to use these funds to achieve the purpose for which they were donated, without having to comply with so many formalities. In other words, any money which is deposited into this Account will be administered separately and will be additional to the moneys voted by Parliament. Sir, in passing I just want to congratulate the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) on his speech. He replied to quite a number of questions which I would otherwise have had to reply to. The hon. member talked about special funds which may be made available for special research projects. Such funds will now be deposited into this Account. He also spoke about research workers who were leaving the Public Service. I do not think it was his intention to create the impression that most of them were leaving this country and going to neighbouring states and other countries. It is true that some of them do go to countries beyond our borders, but most research workers and technicians who resign from the Department are engaged by private bodies which have a direct or an indirect interest in agricultural requirements and the supply of agricultural requirements to farmers and who need that technical experience and assistance within their own institutions. In other words. South Africa still retains the services of the people. I pointed out to our fertilizer associations and companies on one occasion that they were really playing a parasitic role as far as the staff of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services was concerned and I told them that since they were making such a good living out of the agricultural industry they should consider the question of accepting the responsibility for making funds available for the training of at least agricultural technicians for the service by way of. compensation for what they were getting out of the Department. I pointed out that up to the present moment the main responsibility for research, as well as for the training of students, had rested mainly on the shoulders of the State, apart from the contributions made by a few of our control boards. The result of this was that I was offered a sum of R5,000 by a certain company. I was unable, however, to accept that money on behalf of the Department for agricultural research because it would first have been necessary for me then to deposit that money into the Treasury and then ask Parliament to vote it again next year under my Vote. It became perfectly clear to me that there was a need for such a separate research account into which contributions made by private bodies could be deposited. It was then decided to withhold this contribution for the time being to enable us to first to pass this measure and to put it into operation. I believe that additional funds will in fact be given to us. The member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) has asked whether it will also be possible to make available money from this research fund to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing for the purpose of research. Sir, there is the closest co-operation between these two Departments. The only research which is done by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing relates to agricultural economics—the economic aspect of the agricultural industry and farming—and unless the funds which are deposited into this account are donated for specific research purposes they can also be used for research in connection with the economic aspects of farming.

But your officials also undertake research in connection with agricultural economics.

No. There is coordination between the two Departments, but the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, as the Marketing Department, is really the Department which is responsible for research in connection with the economic aspects of farming. If therefore we have money in this fund which has not been earmarked for a specific research project, then it can also be used, in co-operation with that Department, for economic research, which is absolutely essential. I do not want hon. members to think that there is any overlapping between the two Agricultural Departments as far as agricultural research is concerned. There might possibly be a certain amount of overlapping as far as research is concerned between the two Agricultural Departments on the one hand and the C.S.I.R. on the other. The C.S.I.R. also does research of a secondary nature in respect of agriculture, but there too there is a committee on which the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is represented. We try to eliminate overlapping and wastage of manpower; we do no research which really falls within the province of the C.S.I.R. The hon. member for East London (City), supported by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West), pleaded for the establishment of a separate research council. But he went further and advocated the establishment of an autonomous research institute on the basis, if I understood him correctly, of the C.S.I.R., an institute unconnected with the Department and not falling under the control of the Department. He says that organized agriculture has been pleading for such an institute for years. Sir, I want to tell the hon. member that if he makes that allegation, then he has lost all touch with organized agriculture. If there is one matter in which organized agriculture supports my policy, the Government’s policy and the policy of my Department, it is this particular matter. The position in point of fact is that organized agriculture does not want agricultural research to fall under a separate autonomous research council. The hon. member himself has said that there are so many branches of agriculture and that there is such a variety of problems that one scarcely knows where to begin with research. There is a variety of problems in the agricultural industry in connection with which research has to be undertaken and in connection with which the farmers need guidance and information. Climatic conditions and the nature of our veld differ so much from region to region that we would have to have a huge council to determine precisely which research projects should be given priority in each ecological agricultural region. The fact that I have established a research directorate in my Department does not mean that research is now being tackled for the first time within the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. All research in the agricultural sphere has been done by this Department throughout the years. All that has happened since the separation of the two Agricultural Departments into two separate Departments is that research has been intensified and stepped up and improved and made more effective and organized more effectively. One of the strongest recommendations contained in the report of the Rautenbach Commission, which really went into the question of making more effective use of our scientific manpower in the interests of research and in the interests of the agricultural industry generally, was that a separate agricultural research directorate should be established. That recommendation has been given effect to, and to-day we have separate field services and research directorates. On the one hand, for example, we have the Onderstepoort Research Institute which undertakes basic research, and then we have a Veterinary Field Services Division, because we cannot do agricultural research and make effective use of the results of that research unless there is a close link between research and the day-to-day problems encountered in the agricultural industry.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) has raised the important point that research is useless unless the results of that research are conveyed to the farmers. I contend that all research results worth conveying to the farmers are readily available to them. It is not necessary for the farmer to come to the Department to obtain that information; he need only listen to Radio Agriculture; he need only read the agricultural pamphlets; he can attend Boeredae; he can visit agricultural institutes and agricultural experimental farms. We have divided the country into various regions and in every region we have a research advisory committee, consisting of the representatives of organized agriculture in that particular region. We create opportunities for the local farmers’ unions to have discussions with the heads of our local institute in the presence of our extension officers who are familiar with the circumstance and the requirements of every region. At those meetings they have an opportunity to discuss which research projects should be given the highest priority in their own particular region. Furthermore, research experiments are carried out on a co-operative basis, and in this way we link up with the farmer who is willing to work in collaboration with the Department. That is what we are doing here in the Western Province. I am convinced that in the sphere of fruit research, in the sphere of combating pests, etc., in our fruit industry, we would never have made the progress that we have made if we had not tackled this research on a co-operative basis together with our farmers. I am convinced that we will in no way improve the position by establishing an autonomous research council outside of the Department, where our research organization has been built up over the years, where we have been able to make the best use of every research worker in our employ, where it has been possible to centralize and to co-ordinate the research done by every research worker and where we know precisely what headway he has made and on what research project he is engaged. We encourage and stimulate our research workers in all sorts of ways, and they have better opportunities of promotion to-day then they have ever had in the Public Service. I am convinced therefore that if we change this system we are going to harm research rather than promote it.

If I understood the Minister correctly he said that all amounts paid into this research account would consist of amounts contributed by agricultural bodies and boards. No State contributions?

Yes, amounts which are not derived from the State will be paid into this research account. The State can, however, supplement such donations.

This account will be used to supplement funds made available by the State for agricultural research. Let me give an example. Let us assume, for example, that the Poultry Association decided that they would like research to be done in connection with a specific aspect of their problems. The money donated by them for that purpose would then be deposited into this fund and would be separately controlled; it would not be controlled by the Treasury as such. The account will be audited by the Auditor-General to ensure that we do not spend the money wrongly or put it into our own pockets. It will be a separate fund for which we shall be able to accept contributions made by individuals. If we want to do research within the Department in connection with the poultry industry, we shall be able to engage persons on a contractual basis to carry out research into a particular aspect, under the control of the Department, but their fees will be paid out of this fund. That is something which we cannot do at the present time. I therefore regard this fund as something of great value. The same thing happened in connection with the wine research fund and the tobacco research fund. Apart from the R1,000,000 which the State deposited into the funds of each of those industries, the position to-day is that interested parties such as commerce, for example, have the opportunity to make direct contributions so as to strengthen those funds for the purpose of further research.

I think I have replied to more or less all the questions put to me. I think I have thanked everybody for their support of this Bill, including the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. H. J. Botha), as well as hon. members of the Opposition who support this Bill in principle although they have certain misgivings.

I move as an amendment—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

I move—

We all know that the Soil Conservation Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1946 and it has always been considered by everyone to be one of the most important pieces of legislation relating to agriculture and to our soil as such. That legislation gave the Government wide powers. It also gave wide powers to soil conservation committees which could be established in terms of the Act, and if those powers had not been used very carefully and with responsibility, I make so bold as to say that I am sure we would not have had the support and co-operation of the farmers and have achieved the degree of success we have achieved. Without the co-operation of the occupiers, the trustees of the soil themselves— the famers—we may just as well forget about soil conservation in South Africa. In moving the second reading of this Bill therefore I not only want to pay tribute to but also to express my gratitude to the farmers throughout South Africa and, moreover, to other public bodies and organizations which do not farm themselves but which have a great love for our soil, which realize the necessity for its conservation and which are aware of the fact that it must be conserved for the sake of future generations because it is an asset to our country. I want to thank them for their interest in and their co-operation in connection with nature conservation and the combating of destructive and damaging practices. The Act was amended for the first time in 1960 and our powers were increased to a certain extent in terms of an amendment that we made at that time. It is generally felt that the time has come when we cannot simply apply the provisions of this Soil Conservation Act on a purely voluntary basis but that we should make the matter slightly more compulsory in order to be able to achieve the ideal that we set ourselves at the time and to arrange matters in a more orderly fashion. In isolated cases we have experienced some measure of unwillingness which has actually obstructed our efforts and placed stumbling blocks in our path in having certain soil conservation districts proclaimed and implementing certain plans that have been approved of.

The actual purpose of this Bill is to rectify certain matters which according to legal advice and legal interpretation must be rectified, matters which may not only cause confusion but which can be interpreted as being in complete conflict with our actions in the past. Let me explain it in this way. In the Soil Conservation Act, as amended in 1960, there is a definite provision to the effect that if we want to serve a soil conservation plan on an owner or apply it in regard to a particular area, we must give notice to this effect not only to the owners of the land but to every occupier. An “occupier” is defined in the Act as every person who has the right to live on that land or who even has only the right to chop wood there. That plan must be served upon all those people so that they will have the opportunity of objecting to the plan. If such a person does not object to the plan, he can be held responsible for the implementation of the provisions of the plan. This is not a practice that we have followed in the past because we have never interpreted the law in that way but this is why the amendment is being made with retrospective effect. It will not place any further financial burdens upon anyone even though we are making it of retrospective effect; it simply eliminates the possibility that somebody who may perhaps have received State assistance in terms of the Soil Conservation Act to do certain things may perhaps refuse to pay what he has to pay. He may be advised by his lawyer that, as the law stands, if the Department did not originally serve the plan on every Coloured or on every squatter and everyone who has the right even to chop wood on that land, the soil conservation plan may be declared to be invalid. That is the advice we have been given by the law advisers. If that were o be the court’s decision, the actions of the Government would be invalid and no claim would exist in regard to financial assistance that has been given. Any obligations imposed upon any individual in this regard would also be invalid because the plan had not been served on all these people. We want to amend this provision. It must be amended retrospectively in such a way that we need only serve the plan on the owners or the occupiers of the land whose addresses are known to us. This then will eliminate all the other difficulties because to serve the plan on people who have nothing to do with the matter and who, in any case, we are not able to trace, who may be birds of passage, which is what the law compels us to do at present, will mean, that if such person cannot be traced, the plan that has been served on the farm owner may be declared invalid. We are now providing that the plan can be served on owners or occupiers of the land whose addresses are known to us.

The question may now be asked: Why not only serve the plan on the owners? We do not experience much difficulty with owners but we do have some cases in which we cannot trace the owner of the land, because he may be travelling abroad. He may perhaps have let his land. That is why we cannot provide that the plan be served on owners only. But there is another reason why I do not want to provide that the plan be served on owners only. I want to take the example of Members of Parliament who are farmers and who have sons working on their farms. In terms of the Act, that man is an occupier; he is not the owner. I feel that it is necessary to recognize the lawful owner in this regard as well. This will give the owner a stronger hold over the occupier of the farm and over the labour-tenants who are in his service in order to compel them to carry out any commitments that have been undertaken in regard to soil conservation works. After all, those people are co-responsible because notice has also been served upon them. This does not at all detract from the position of the owner. Let me mention an example. Certain soil conservation work requires camps to be fenced in order to safeguard grazing land, but the owner of the land may not be there. I feel that if the occupier is also aware of the plan, he must be held co-responsible for the maintenance of soil conservation works that have been constructed there. We could have made things easier by confining the provision only to owners or lessees, but I felt that we should retain the expression “occupier” and simply include the words “whose names and addresses are known”, which will then comply with requirements. This will also have the effect of spreading greater responsibility amongst more people. I think, for example, of fire prevention. If a fire protection plan is served on certain people, then the owner and the manager of a farm and the labourers there can be notified and so will also have a responsibility in that regard. I think that this provision will have a salutary effect and will also make for greater co-operation.

The other amendments are merely amendments of a formal nature. Where up to the present we have used the expression “Governor-General”, we are now using the expression “Minister” and so forth. I do not feel that any further explanation is necessary and I hope that this Bill, like the other one, will receive the support of both sides of the House.

We on this side support this legislation wholeheartedly. The hon. the Minister has rightly said that the Soil Conservation Act is one of the most important Acts on our Statute Book because the conservation of our soil for future generations is of the most vital importance. The amendments that are being effected here are important to the application of the Act as we want to see it applied. There have been loopholes in the Act but these are now being eliminated and the amendments that are being effected to the Act have our wholehearted support.

I wish to reiterate what has been said by the hon. member who has just sat down in connection with the Soil Conservation Act. This is an extremely important measure that we have on our Statute Book and the future will prove to us just how important it really is. This does not mean to say that although we have progressed a long way as far as the conservation of our soil is concerned, we will not have to continue to amend this legislation from time to time in order to make it as effective as possible, or to make it more effective than it is.

I want to confine myself to the clause which makes provision for the lawful serving of the soil conservation plan upon certain people. It is, of course, necessary that the serving of each such plan must be done lawfully. This is necessary because of the enormous asset which the Soil Conservation Act itself is to our country and because of the importance of conserving the soil of our country. It is also necessary with a view to the vast sums of money that we have already invested in order to conserve the soil of our country for future generations.

The hon. the Minister has said that the fact that the notice has to be served on the tenant as well as on the owner and every occupier whose address is known is something of an innovation. To my mind this is not so strange although I must say that the provisions of Clause 9 are not quite clear to me because of the fact that the addresses of the farm labourers are not known to the Department. If there is one matter which is of the most vital importance to the whole of our population it is the question of soil conservation. As far as people in the towns are concerned, it is already a function of the National Veld Trust to educate those people and make them aware of the importance of soil conservation. Why should we not also take the necessary steps to educate the Coloured labourers on our farms and make them realize the importance of soil conservation as well? They are the people who have to work with the farmer; they have to do certain work on the farms and it must of necessity lend status to a soil conservation plan of this nature when an official visits a farm and serves the notice in connection with the soil conservation plan on all the people on that farm. I want to emphasize this fact. It so often happens in the dry areas, Mr. Speaker, that Coloured labourers become resentful if one does not want to allow them to place their donkeys in a camp constructed in terms of a soil conservation scheme. They regard the farmer as being unsympathetic but what actually happens is this: The only tree that remains green in the dry north-west area is the shepherd’s tree, and as soon as one allows those donkeys into a soil conservation camp, they immediately start eating the bark of that tree; they denude that tree of its bark entirely with the result that that tree which is the only green thing in a dry world, wthers and dies. It will be of assistance to the farmer if a notice of this nature can be served on his farm labourers by an official of the Department. I want to mention another example of a very, very valuable bush in the northwest area in regard to which the farm labourer is also often disinterested—sometimes it is the fault of the owner because he does not make provisions for fire-wood for his herder out in the middle of the veld—and that is the koolganna bush. It is a bush which is easily uprooted. It is a dry bush but it does have some foliage; it is as hard as a rock but it is just as valuable as concentrated feed and it is gradually being eradicated, resulting in the deterioration of our veld. If a notice of this nature could be served not only on the owner of the farm but also on his employees, they would realize that when, for example, their employer refused to allow them to place their donkeys in a soil conservation camp, he was not doing so because he was unsympathetic towards them but because it was his duty to ensure that the veld, the plant life, together with the soil, was conserved. Mr. Speaker, when we see what we have achieved under the Soil Conservation Act since 1946, then we realize how important it is for the hon. the Minister to have the powers contained in Clauses 11 and 12 in order to be able to amend soil conservation plans on the recommendation of the Soil Conservation Board, after notice in the Government Gazette. I support the Soil Conservation Act wholeheartedly and that is why I consider it to be no more than right that all the necessary powers should be given to the hon. the Minister in order to enable him to apply the Soil Conservation Act effectively, because, with all its advantages, as it is to-day, the Soil Conservation Act still carries the sting of its own failures and this will become apparent if it is not applied effectively.

When business was suspended I was emphasizing the necessity not only for giving consideration to the planning of soil conservation but also to the fact that the whole population should be made soil conservation-conscious. That is why it is necessary for these soil conservation plans to be served on every occupier. I also said that if the Soil Conservation Act was given into the wrong hands and applied in the wrong way it would carry the sting of its own failure. We passed the Soil Conservation Act in order to bring about better farming methods in the country, in order to conserve our soil, to increase its productivity and to improve it for our future generations. When we consider conditions under which farming in this country is carried on to-day we realize that agriculture is considered to be such an important industry in this country that about 108,000,000 morgen of land of the available 143,000,000 morgen are being planned. If the State considers it so important to place 108,000,000 morgen of land under conservation farming and to proclaim that land into 799 soil conservation districts, 700 of which have already been served with soil conservation plans, and we think of the number of applications that are being dealt with, then we realize that the State is in earnest in wanting to conserve the soil of South Africa in order to enable us to feed a steadily increasing population and for other reasons as well. It is necessary that we should not resort to half-measures as far as this Act is concerned and so forfeit all its advantages. That is why I say that it is necessary for us to give certain powers to the hon. the Minister so that he will be able to take action in the future under certain circumstances. 311,301 applications have already been dealt with and once those works have been completed they will have cost R24,500,000. This is apart from other loans which have been granted and the administrative costs which amount to some millions of rand.

In the old days when droughts struck, grazing deteriorated and stock died. To-day, however, under our conservation system, we have the veld under control. The carrying capacity of our soil has been determined and every farmer is only allowed to run a certain number of sheep. In other words, the farmer himself determines the number of his stock and, to some extent too, he also determines how long the animals will remain there. When his grazing is finished, he feeds his stock fodder for which he has obtained a fodder loan from the State. He feeds his animals in this way. The farmer is very grateful for the assistance he receives from the State. But what happens during that process? The soil is violated to such an extent that it no longer reacts if only a little rain falls. If that process is permitted to continue we will all within the next 50 or 60 years only be able to farm along the banks of our rivers. We will have created a manmade desert, notwithstanding the fact that we have our Soil Conservation Act. That is why I say that if our Soil Conservation Act is given into the wrong hands, into unsympathetic hands, into the hands of people who are perhaps ignorant or who may perhaps be driven by necessity to violate the land, it will carry the sting of its own failure. It is necessary for one man—the hon. the Minister—to have the powers which he is asking for here so that he can take the necessary action when he has to.

Under the present system, when a drought becomes unbearable we transport our sheep from one farm to another. The carrying capacity of the farm to which the sheep are taken is determined within the framework of the Soil Conservation Act. Therefore, by doing this, we are acting against the spirit and the letter of the Soil Conservation Act. What is more, we do this with the assistance of the State. Circumstances compel us to do so. The provisions of the Soil Conservation Act are not being correctly applied to-day in every respect and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will in future have to amend these soil conservation plans. For this and for many other reasons which are quite obvious I consider this Bill to be very important.

I want to mention one more point. When our soil has been trodden out, when it needs a rest, this Bill gives the hon. the Minister the power, once again in a democratic way, to draw up a soil conservation plan, after consultation with the Soil Conservation Board and after notice in the Gazette, by means of which other land can be included in the plan in order to allow that soil to recover. These are necessary provisions. I can mention farms next to one another, farms having absolutely the same rainfall and which may eventually have rain after to or three years of drought. One finds then that the farm which has not been treated properly does not react to that rainfall at all, even after three rainy seasons, because no grazing appears. It is that type of farm which must be reclaimed for the sake of our future generations, for the sake of the carrying capacity of our soil and because it can prove to be such an asset to the people of South Africa in the future. The hon. the Minister must have the power in the future to draw up soil conservation plans. For this and for many other reasons I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill now before the House.

I hope the Opposition will pardon me if I do them what is probably an injustice by saying that in a debate such as this, a debate which is of the most vital importance to agriculture, there are hardly any members of the agricultural section of the Opposition present in this House. Moreover, only one single Opposition speaker has participated in this debate up to the present. He has said that the Opposition support this legislation. We are grateful for their support. But the strength of any Government lies in the strength of the attacks made upon it by its Opposition. Is this the strength of our Opposition in regard to agricultural matters? Are our Opposition such that in a serious matter such as this they cannot muster speakers to participate in the debate? I am quite convinced that if it was at all a question of Coloured affairs or Bantu affairs …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

Very well, Mr. Speaker.

What about the Rents Amendment Bill?

We can refer to the Rents Amendment Bill and indicate the amount of time that has been taken up in discussing this measure. But when we come to a serious matter such as agriculture there is no debate at all. This is the Opposition which is trying throughout the country to win urban seats for its farmer members so that they can discuss agricultural matters in this House.

We regard soil conservation legislation to be one of the most important matters affecting our country generally. If the State and the hon. the Minister need legislation in order to tackle this question of soil conservation they must not hesitate for one moment to come to this House in order to ask for those powers which they need. We on our part will assist them to make use of every possible means to tackle this serious agricultural question for the benefit of the country as a whole. If the task resting on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister is made more difficult because of loopholes in legislation, he must come to Parliament for the necessary assistance. We appreciate the fact that he does so and we want to give him that assistance as far as we possibly can so that he can tackle this great problem.

According to the latest census figures agriculture still has 107,000,000 morgen of land at its disposal. We must protect those 107,000,000 morgen as far as we possibly can. Not only must we try to prevent the deterioration of that soil but we must build up that soil for the future if we as farmers want to be able to comply with South Africa’s future requirements. Our cattle population has stood at the same figure now for a number of years. When we consider the number of cattle that are slaughtered, we are concerned at the possibility that South Africa may in the near future not have sufficient cattle to supply its people with beef. We slaughter only about 1,500,000 oxen per annum but we lose nearly 1,000,000 oxen per annum through drought and disease. In order to improve South Africa’s ox and cattle population and to enable them to withstand the tremendous droughts that we experience from time to time, it is obvious that we must take the necessary steps in order to increase our carrying capacity. One of the first steps we can take is by way of soil conservation. But there is a second aspect to which up to the present insufficient attention has been given in certain parts of the country and that is the question of water conservation and the prevention of soil erosion which takes place on such a large scale. I do not agree with what a certain member of the Agricultural Union said recently. He said that hardly any progress had been made up to the present in regard to soil conservation. I fully realize the tremendous progress that has already been made in the sphere of soil conservation. I also realize how far we still fall short of what can be done in South Africa. I repeat that if it is a question of passing legislation in order to give the necessary assistance to the hon. the Minister and his Department, the hon. the Minister must not hesitate to approach Parliament and ask for those powers. I think that this question of soil conservation and water conservation is a matter in which money should be no object in order to save South Africa from destruction. If we want to avoid droughts and improve the carrying capacity of our soil the obvious measures to be taken are soil and water conservation measures.

I once had the privilege of visiting the farm of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). Soil conservation has been practised on that farm now for a number of years. When I visited that farm the Cradock district was particularly dry; the veld was bare and arid. On the day before my visit, however, there was a good fall of rain in the mountains surrounding his farm. The hon. member for Cradock was one of those who was able to make use of that rainfall by means of the canals which he had constructed across his veld. He collected that water and allowed it to flow over his veld by means of those canals. His grazing was green and lush and had a high carrying capacity. The finest sheep that I saw while driving through that area were grazing on that farm. I mention this as an example of what can be done by way of soil and water conservation.

What about my farm?

The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) asks about his farm. I accept the fact that his farm is even better than the one that I have just described! This is a tremendous task, Mr. Speaker, and unfortunately, we are experiencing a great shortage of extension officers who can perform this task for us. The hon. the Minister told us to-day that certain companies and institutions are the only source from which we can draw these people and that the Department is making use of that source. I also realize that the bidding in that sphere will go higher and higher. The shortage of extension officers in this country gives us cause for concern at this stage. I do not know what plans the hon. the Minister has for relieving this shortage. There are certain districts which have been proclaimed now for more than a year but which are still without extension officers. They have to be served from other districts. I hope that the hon. the Minister will reassure us by telling us that he has certain plans to relieve this shortage of extension officers, the men who have to give the necessary assistance and guidance to our farmers. We are completely dependent upon these extension officers who have to make the necessary disbursements when the conservation works are constructed. If those works are not approved, the disbursements cannot be made. The extension officers are needed to ensure that those works are properly constructed. I think that there is a tremendous shortage of extension officers at this stage. I hope that the hon. the Minister has some plan or other to try to improve this position. One of the most important requirements in South Africa as far as agriculture is concerned is the need to hasten the construction of soil conservation works but we know that the hon. the Minister and his Department are doing their best in this regard. It is necessary for us to do everything in our power to try to combat droughts and to increase the carrying capacity of our veld as far as we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend taking part in this debate. We told the Government, through the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan), that we welcomed this amending Bill. We said, if necessary, we supported it fully and that was the end of the matter. Because we are a responsible Opposition, Mr. Speaker, we do not waste the time of anybody who is in the process of serving South Africa. But when the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) says: “Look what a poor Opposition we have; they do not even oppose the Government” I think that is one of the most comical acts anybody has ever performed in this House. He went further and suggested that if we accepted this amending Bill which is rectifying a legal position, the grass would grow higher on the farm of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). According to the hon. member for Christiana an Opposition should always just oppose. Now he says we are a poor Opposition because we are not opposing them. When we do oppose the Government they say: “Look how the Opposition is thwarting the Government.” What do they want?

What is the truth about this Bill? The truth is this: This Soil Conservation Act was passed in 1946. This is a United Party Act. It is not a Nationalist Party Act, but a United Party one.

No.

Of course. The hon. member for Christiana was too ashamed to admit it but not so long ago he himself was a United Party supporter and he was very proud of this legislation. [Interjections.] Of course he belonged to the United Party and he was very proud of it. The Act we passed at the time was so good that they want us to oppose it to-day. That is what happens to a person once he becomes a Nationalist—a Nat (wet). It is terrible once you have water on the brain. I want to suggest that the hon. member for Christiana go to the drought-stricken areas of the country so that the water on his brain can evaporate.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, I am just as close to the Bill as the hon. member for Christiana was, which was very far, I admit. I shall come nearer to it. How good was that United Party Act? I shall tell the hon. member for Christiana. It was so good that it took the Nationalist Party Government from 1946 to 1960 before they amended it for the first time —14 years. And then they were so stupid that they overlooked this legal point in the Act. It is only now in 1964, that they are putting that matter right. We do not hold that against them, but the hon. member must not say we are a poor Opposition because we do not want to prevent the Minister from putting something right which he did not notice previously was wrong. If that is the way in which the hon. member for Christiana thinks we must act in this Parliament I am very sorry for him. I thought it was the duty of an Opposition to warn the Government when they were allowing South Africa to become eroded, by colour questions that will destroy South Africa, but to support the Government when they came forward with something good. We are supporting the Government this evening. We shall support them again when they come forward with anything good. I am talking on behalf of my whole party when I say it is a great pity that they so seldom come forward with anything good that it is seldom possible for us to support them. I hope, after we have had this spectacle on the part of the hon. member for Christiana, that they will in future more often come forward with something good so that we can support them more often.

I just want to correct the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson).

You cannot.

Wait a minute; do not be in such a hurry. The whole argument of the hon. member for Sea Point, as far as the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) is concerned, was that this was a United Party Act and as such the United Party still boasts about what they did in the distant past. Let me tell you what the actual truth of the matter is, Sir. What was the position in 1946? The Free State, Natal, the Transvaal and the Cape Province unanimously, vis-à-vis the South African Agricultural Union, approached this House, after years of meditation and negotiation, and asked for this legislation. All the United Party did in 1946, with the full support of the Opposition, was to pilot this legislation through the House. They could not find a single weak point in that Act. To-day the United Party is ploughing with the South African Agricultural Union’s heifers and boasting about this Act. I now ask the hon. member for Sea Point …

Order! I think we now know enough about the history of the Act.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point what he has contributed to this question of soil conservation in South Africa?

We support this Bill.

That support does not amount to much, if the hon. member who has just spoken, is an example of it. What was his contribution? Absolutely nothing. What does the Opposition offer us, Sir? What we are doing here is to rectify an old Act. At what intensity is soil conservation undertaken in South Africa? That is something which does not only affect the farmer in South Africa but it also affects the urban dwellers; it affects the whole country. If we succeed in that it will mean increased production and the conservation of our soil, which is something holy we have inherited and which we must pass on in the same condition—and if possible in an improved condition—to posterity. That is how we must regard this matter; we should not act in this cheap fashion. What has the fact that the hon. member for Christiana was once a member of the United Party got to do with this matter? [Interjections.] Wait a minute; it is no good being silly and childish about such an important matter as this.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. I repeat this is an administrative measure to rectify certain things that were wrong. When we think how important soil conservation is in this country I do not think the spirit which prevails in this House tonight will promote the interests of this important matter.

Mr. Speaker, may I point out to you that we have only recently realized how important soil conservation was and the little that has been done has produced fantastic results.

Order! Soil conservation as such is not under discussion. Only the amendment is under discussion.

We are amending the Act, Mr. Speaker. I want to deal with that.

We are not dealing with the principal Act.

I do not wish to discuss the principal Act, Mr. Speaker, because that remains, but when we amend the principal Act surely I may refer to the importance of soil conservation as far as this amendment is concerned.

Every sneaker who has spoken so far has emphasized the importance of it.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with you, but when I regard the attitude of the Opposition. …

The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I said the intensity … [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon. member knows Afrikaans. “Intensity” (intensiteit) means the speed at which we are progressing. I am not satisfied that we are making the progress we ought to make. My plea to the hon. the Minister is to expedite this matter by applying better methods. If we do not succeed in that we can amend the principal Act as often as we wish but we shall not make the progress we ought to make.

The Opposition have said that this Bill has been introduced simply in order to rectify one certain provision in the principal Act. But that is not at all so, Mr. Speaker. That is only one provision of this Bill—to rectify a provision in the principal Act which is wrong. It is necessary to make that adjustment but this Bill also embodies quite a number of other important principles. I am afraid that the Opposition have not given sufficient attention to this Bill. If they had they would have realized that it contained certain important principles which they could discuss.

In the first place we think of the method to be followed in order to serve these plans upon owners or occupiers. The importance of this Bill does not lie in the fact that it seeks to rectify something. I realize that that adjustment is vitally necessary because it appears at present that all our soil conservation plans which have been drawn up over the past years could all be declared invalid. This adjustment is vitally necessary so that the plans which have been served upon people in the past can be regarded as having been legally served. This to my mind is particularly important. But I do think it is important for me to mention the underlying principle in this regard. When we read the long title of Act No. 45 of 1946 we find that it states—

In the first place, this amending Bill rectifies the legal position, an adjustment which is necessary in order to legalize the plans that have been served in the past. That is why this Bill makes the provision of a retrospective nature. This Bill also makes provision whereby these plans must be served on the owners or occupiers of land whose addresses are known, and that the plans be served only on them. We are dealing here with a very important matter. We know that there are certain areas which are held back for many years and which cannot be proclaimed because the addresses of the people in those areas are not all known. The plans can therefore not be served on them and their permission cannot be obtained. Accordingly, this is a measure which does contribute towards the better implementation of the provisions of the Soil Conservation Act. There is a third principle and that is that the hon. the Minister has the power to amend a soil conservation plan. If these are not important provisions, then I do not know which provisions are important. It sometimes happens that over-cropping is resorted to or that farming methods which amount virtually to over-cropping are resorted to and this results in the deterioration of the soil. It is a shame that people should be permitted to farm in this way in our country. That is why the hon. the Minister must have the power to take action against such people. A fourth important principle in this Bill is the proclaiming of reclamation works. As the hon. the Minister has said, it often happens that the whole of certain areas have to be fenced off and proclaimed. That is now being made possible.

There are a few other matters that I want to mention. We know that the Soil Conservation Act is of national importance and we do not want individuals to be able to frustrate the implementation of this legislation. Nether do we want the planning which we have to-day to be declared invalid or unlawful. That is why this measure is extremely important. We must also remember that every contribution that we can make, particularly as we are dealing here with legislation of national importance, must be made. This matter affects not only the farmer but every individual in the country. That is why we must not do anything to hamper the implementation of the provisions of this Bill. We must remember that we are on the threshold of tremendous development. Our people must be fed and it will be necessary for us in the near future to harness all our energy in order to make provision in this regard. We have droughts to contend with from time to time and without effective grazing methods and proper veld control we will not be able to feed our stock. That is why we must consider this measure in a serious light because it has as its aim the protection of our soil and the application of proper veld control to enable us to feed our people.

I am not surprised that this amending Bill has received general support and I said in my introductory speech that I would not be surprised if this were the case. It is a positive measure. I come from the Little Karoo where Langenhoven was born. He always said that the world turns, but that it always turns in the right way even though we do not always understand it. I am so pleased that even in this House things have turned out right again as far as the Opposition are concerned. Who would ever have thought that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) would have been told to keep quiet in regard to such an important Bill as this one? Otherwise he would also have spoken.

I said nothing.

It must have been a great strain on the hon. member not to be able to say anything. What is more important is the fact that the support which we have received for this Bill has been forthcoming from representatives of the Opposition party representing urban constituencies like Sea Point and Gardens. One has to travel a long way from those constituencies before one comes to a farm. But we are grateful for the support received from hon. members and also for the attitude adopted by the Opposition. Mention was made of the fact that the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) was formerly a member of the United Party and that he then made a change. He made a change for the better—he turned in the right direction. Hon. members of the Opposition who have participated in this debate turned in the wrong direction, they turned towards the cities, but I am pleased to see that they have still retained their contact with the platteland and with our soil and that they have supported this amending Bill on behalf of their party because its provisions are in the broad national interests of our country. I hope that this positive action will continue not only on the part of the two hon. members who have participated in the debate but also on the nart of many more hon. members opposite. Let me say this in all earnestness: We may develop in the industrial sphere as far as we can and as much as we want to and we can develop the riches which Providence has made available to the people of South Africa under our soil, but if we do not also develop the possibilities in the agricultural sphere which are also inherent in our soil and if we do not preserve the fertility of the soil, then South Africa will not have the opportunity which it ought to have of developing into a country which can take its place amongst the nations of the world.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Agricultural Warehouse Act of 1930 which provides for the licensing by the State of warehouses for the storage of agricultural products and the issue of negotiable warehouse receipts is closely linked up with the inland grain elevators built by the S.A. Railways. The object of that Act was to facilitate trading in, and particularly the export of, agricultural products at a time when there were no control boards to handle these matters.

With the introduction of the single channel system of control over maize in 1944, the position already changed appreciably. During the war years, when there was a shortage of maize, it was considered necessary to curtail the negotiability of grain elevator receipts in order to enable the Mealie Control Board to exercise effective control and to handle the distribution of supplies (firstly in terms of War Measure No. 20 of 942 and thereafter in terms of the maize regulation scheme which was introduced in 1944). The measures introduced at that time resulted in the fact that grain elevator receipts for maize issued to the depositor had to be handed over directly to the Mealie Control Board. The right of disposal of the maize consequently, immediately it was delivered to the elevators, passed over into the hands of the Mealie Control Board, and the person to whom the elevator receipt was issued was no longer able to negotiate it to any other person or to demand back the maize represented by the negotiable elevator receipt. The measures I have just referred to were necessary in order to comply with the requirements of a single channel system of maize marketing. Depositors of maize in railway grain elevators, however, retained the freedom immediately after delivering maize to offer the elevator receipts to the Mealie Control Board or any of its agents for payment of the value of the maize at prices previously fixed by the Mealie Control Board with ministerial approval. In terms of the system of control applied by the Wheat Control Board, approximately the same circumstances apply as in the case of maize.

On 1 May 1963 34 grain elevators in the Free State and the Transvaal which in terms of the Act had been declared to be agricultural warehouses, were transferred by the S.A. Railways to the Mealie Control Board, and it became clear that the Act, which was passed in circumstances quite different from the present circumstances, had to be amended in order to be adapted to the changed circumstances.

The present provisions of the Agricultural Warehouse Act (sub-section (3) of Section 2) requires a warehouse-keeper, with the exception of the S.A. Railways, when a grain elevator is licensed as an agricultural warehouse, to pay a licence fee of R2 per warehouse.

The present Act (sub-section (1) of Section 3) further provides that everyone, except the S.A. Railways, to whom a warehouse licence is issued must provide security for discharging all the liabilities he may incur in terms of the Act. The object of providing the security is to protect the holders of warehouse receipts, which are negotiable documents and which are accepted by them in good faith as commercial documents, or which are purchased as such, against the possibility that the ware-house-keeper, when these negotiable receipts are offered, may not be able to deliver the goods covered by the warehouse receipts or to compensate the holder of the licence for the value of the goods. This is of course a very necessary provision. In the case of maize this cannot happen any longer under the present system of marketing. As I have already mentioned, the right to dispose of the maize passes over to the Mealie Control Board when the maize is delivered, from which time the board’s agent, to whom the right to use the elevator has been transferred, is responsible to the board for the maize delivered. In fact, the elevator receipt to-day therefore simply serves as a document against which its holder can demand payment for the value of his maize from the Mealie Control Board or its agent. The question as to whether the maize is still available or not does not concern the producer, who can be the only holder other than the board.

In essence, the same circumstances already apply in the case of wheat. The only other grain handled and stored in these elevators in appreciable quantities, and in respect of which the guarantee requirements still apply, is buckwheat and in exceptional cases kaffircorn which was not purchased in terms of the floor price scheme. The relevant amounts of buckwheat and kaffircorn, however, constitute an insignificant portion of the total amount of grain handled and stored in the elevators.

In the light of the above-mentioned circumstances and taking into consideration the fact that a control board, just as in the case of the S.A. Railways, is a responsible public and statutory body exercising control over supplies, it is considered necessary to relieve a control board which is also a warehouse-keeper, just as in the case of the S.A. Railways, from the obligation to pay licence fees and to furnish security.

The Agricultural Warehouse Act (Section 12) provides that a warehouse-keeper on accepting products for storage must issue a warehouse receipt to the person who delivers those products. A warehouse receipt must contain an undertaking by the warehouse-keeper to hand over on demand the products mentioned in the warehouse receipt to the holder thereof. Section 24 also deals with the handing back of products on exhibition of a warehouse receipt, while in terms of Sections 20 and 21 it is also clear that the receipt represents only the products.

In view of the fact that the Mealie Control Board becomes the owner of maize deposited in its grain elevators the document which it issues to the producer of the maize therefore cannot be a warehouse receipt for the purpose of the Act. The Mealie Control Board does not undertake later to hand back to the holder of that document the quantity of maize for which such document was issued. In view of the fact that the Mealie Control Board as a warehouse-keeper also stores its own product in the licensed warehouse, provision is made for that in Clause 2 (a) of the Bill.

As I have already stated, warehouse receipts no longer serve any purpose as negotiable documents, as was originally intended in the case of wheat deposited in the aforementioned 34 grain elevators, but merely burden the Mealie Control Board and its agents with procedures and documents which made the administration of the grain elevators cumbersome and expensive. If the warehouse-keeper, in respect of controlled cereals, is exempted from the provision in relation to the issue of receipts, it will have the effect that the simplified procedures which apply in the case of other mass installations can also be made applicable to these 34 grain elevators.

The slight advantage at present enjoyed by producers, in so far as they can decide to which agent of the relevant control board they will sell their receipts, need not be affected by the proposed amendment. The control board concerned can easily arrange that in cases where producers prefer it, a document can be issued to them which can be handed in against payment of the grain deposited to an agent other than the one who has the right to use the grain elevator concerned.

It is therefore intended by means of this amendment in Clause 5 of the Bill also to provide that a control board which in terms of the Act is a warehouse-keeper may be exempted by way of proclamation from the provisions relating to the issue of warehouse receipts or the separate storage of products in so far as products are concerned which are controlled in terms of the Marketing Act. These proposed amendments will do much towards placing the administration of these 34 grain elevators on a sounder basis without derogating from any facilities at present available to the public.

In view of the fact that requests are also received from time to time for the storage of buckwheat and sunflower seed in grain elevators which are declared to be agricultural warehouses in terms of the Act, provision is now also being made for such storage by including those products in the definition of “agricultural products” in Section 30 of the Act.

For the rest, use is being made of this opportunity to make a few minor amendments resulting from the replacement of the Co-operatives Act of 1922 and Act No. 22 of 1916 by later Acts, from the fact of our having become a Republic, the decimalization of our currency and the division of the then Department of Agriculture into two separate Departments.

On behalf of this side of the House I wish to support the hon. the Minister as far as this necessary legislation is concerned. We are convinced that this Bill is necessary and we believe that when legislation is necessary it is unnecessary to say much. For that reason I merely wish to say that we support this measure.

I want to thank the Minister heartily for this legislation. It will make it much easier for the regulatory board to do its work. I am also pleased the Opposition agree that this is good legislation; we are very grateful for that. The position is that up to about a year ago the regulatory board still acted in the same capacity as the Railways did when grain elevators fell under their control. There is not the slightest danger, as may exist in the case of a private company or individual who has a warehouse, that the producer may perhaps suffer a Loss. In this case when the producer has delivered the grain at the warehouse that grain becomes the property of the regulatory board and the producer is immediately paid out. Consequently there is no danger that his grain will one day be returned to him as was the position under the old Warehouse Act because now he gets paid out and the grain becomes the property of the regulatory board. I do not want to say much more except to express my appreciation for the general approval this measure has enjoyed.

I move—

It will be noted that the proposed amendments in this Bill relate to the State Advances Recoveries Act (known as the State Advances Act), the Farmers’ Assistance Act and the Finance Act of 1937. The section in the lastmentioned Act was in fact an amendment of or an addition to the first-mentioned two Acts.

Before giving an exposition of what the proposed amendments envisage, it is necessary briefly to sketch the background of these Acts, which are all administered by the State Advances Recoveries Office, and which all fall under the Vote of that office.

It is well known how for years from time to time special legislation has had to be adopted in order to create machinery and make available funds for that purpose when financial assistance had to be given to farmers.

A few examples of these are the Drought and Flood Distress Relief Acts of 1916, 1924 and 1927, the Farmers’ Special Relief Act of 1931, the soil erosion measure in the Finance Act of 1934, etc. In addition, special schemes like the tenant farmers’ scheme, the share-croppers’ scheme and the stock improvement scheme were instituted from time to time. This legislation and these schemes were administered by various Governmental bodies or by the Land Bank. There was no continuity, nor any uniformity of policy in regard to the granting of assistance or the collection of the amounts owing.

In 1933 a Commission was appointed to investigate agricultural credit. The report of this Commission contained recommendations that these forms of State assistance should be co-ordinated and combined, so that wherever and whenever it was necessary to grant financial assistance, the necessary empowering legislation, funds and machinery for the purpose would immediately be available. As the result of this report, Parliament in 1935 unanimously adopted the State Advances Act and the Farmers’ Assistance Act and thereby established a permanent organization, namely the State Advances Recoveries Office, to perform this task.

During those years of depression comprehensive assistance was given to farmers under the Farmers’ Assistance Act, but during the war years this legal provision fell into desuetude, with the result that only in 1959, when many farmers in certain areas of our country again required such assistance, was a so-called assistance scheme instituted for six months.

In terms of the State Advances Act, schemes were, however, introduced from time to time in particular districts of the country to grant advances for various purposes such as e.g. the cultivation of crops, the purchase of stock-feed, rations for farm labourers, etc. This practice of making assistance available only when a particular area suffered setbacks led to many problems. It was extremely difficult to demarcate these areas in a fair manner, and once they were demarcated the farmers concerned were inclined to assume that everybody in that area was entitled to such advances. That led to abuses to such an extent that in 1958 production loans, although only available in specific crop areas, were granted to the extent of R5,500,000. In terms of that policy it was not possible to limit advances to deserving farmers and to the needs of every case.

Apart from this problem, the capricious climatic conditions of our country resulted in the fact that every year since 1935 one or more production loan schemes had to be instituted in particular areas. Up to 1960 69 such schemes were instituted, apart from schemes for the provision of stock-feeding, etc.

This state of affairs made the Government decide to make available continuously to farmers the financial assistance provided for in these two Acts, to every deserving farmer who, owing to circumstances beyond his control, did not have the necessary financial means to continue his farming operations. Since 1960 applications for production loans throughout the whole country have been considered, each on its merits, and as from 1 October 1962 assistance in all its forms in terms of the Farmers’ Assistance Act has also been available. These forms of assistance naturally include loans for the payment of pressing debts and for any other purpose which can contribute to the continuation of successful farming operations. The Farmers’ Assistance Board can, of course, also enter into an arrangement with creditors to relieve a farmer of his obligations against partial payment of his debts or by giving him the opportunity for a specified period himself to settle his obligations from his income.

Over and above this continuous assistance from time to time special relief schemes are also instituted where an area is affected by drought or flood or other catastrophes, and where it is necessary to save the stock or to repair the damage. It should be noted that all this assistance is in the form of loans and that farmers are expected to repay these advances together with the interest thereon.

In my opinion it would be a sad day if the State was expected to grant assistance for the maintenance of our agricultural industry by way of charity. Fortunately the majority of our farmers realize this and they are not prepared to renounce their feeling of independence. This is evidenced by the fact that the total losses htherto suffered by the State in respect of such advances to farmers up to last year amounted to 3.17 per cent of the total amount advanced plus the interest thereon.

Now that the Government, as I have already mentioned, has accepted the principle that there will always be farmers whose credit requirements cannot be covered by the normal financial sources, and consequently the door is always left open for them to be assisted by the State, it has become necessary to revise the relevant legislation in order to facilitate administration and to make the granting of assistance more effective. That is the main object of this Bill. After years of experience certain defects in the legislation have come to light, and this Bill seeks to bring about improvements.

In so far as the provisions affecting administrative matters are concerned, I shall during the Committee Stage, wherever necessary, explain the clauses but there are certain provisions affecting principles in regard to which I should like to say something at this stage.

Section 5 of the State Advances Recoveries Act provides that advances may be made for the purchase of any article required for farming purposes. In the past, however, it was often found necessary also to grant advances for the payment of services rendered to farmers. Circumstances sometimes arose where farmers were unable to pay even the small amount which they had to contribute towards the cost of the transport of stock from drought-stricken areas, even after the State itself had made provision for payment to the Railways of a large proportion of those costs in the form of rebates. In order to save the stock State Advances was compelled to grant loans to such farmers. Advances were also made for payment of the rental for grazing and the transportation costs of fodder.

In view of the fact that no articles were purchased by means of this type of advance, it was impossible to grant these advances in terms of the provisions of the State Advances Act, and another procedure had to be followed. The acknowledgments of debt therefore take the form of ordinary promissory notes, and when the debt is recovered the provisions of the State Advances Act are not applicable.

Apart from the fact that the authorization for the granting of such advances derives only from an Appropriation Act and consequently does not have to comply with the provisions of the State Advances Act, this procedure also results in many administrative problems.

In Clause 2 provision is made for the granting of loans for the payment of any costs incurred in connection with the conducting of farming operations.

When a farmer who is in financial difficulty applies for assistance in terms of one or other provision of the Farmers’ Assistance Act, it often happens that a creditor has already taken judicial steps for the collection of the debt owing to him, or intends applying for the sequestration of the farmer’s estate. It will of course be useless for the board to devote time and incur expenditure in regard to an application when the farmer may in the meantime go insolvent or lose some of his assets, which are essential for the continuation of his farming operations, through attachment and sale in execution.

In order to give the board the opportunity properly to investigate a case and to decide on the best form of assistance, the Farmers’ Assistance Act provides that if the chairman or the deputy-chairman of the board are of the opinion that assistance will possibly be rendered, a certificate can be issued which stops all legal processes against the applicant and on the other hand prohibits the applicant from disposing of his assets until such time as the board has taken a final decision. The problem has, however, arisen that a creditor who has supplied an article to a farmer in terms of a hire purchase agreement is not affected by this freezing process because that article is in fact still his property and he therefore need not necessarily take steps to obtain payment of the amount owing, but instead he can repossess the article. Many instances therefore occur, while the board is still considering the rendering of assistance, of hire purchase creditors in the meantime repossessing farming implements, with the result that the whole of the farming operations come to a standstill. It would appear that many such creditors use this procedure as a pistol held at the board’s head to enforce payment of the debt. This conclusion was arrived at in many cases, mainly in the Northern Transvaal, where hire-purchase articles were left in the possession of the farmers for a year or two, while the drought lasted, but the moment it rained some hire-purchase creditors clamped down and removed the farmers’ tractors and implements from the land where they were busy working.

The object of Clause 6 is temporarily to stop this deplorable course of action on the part of some creditors as in the case of all other creditors, including mortgagees. It will be noted that this provision applies only to articles which are exclusively used in farming operations, and that the freezing which takes place lasts only until the Farmers’ Assistance Board is able to decide whether it will grant assistance or not.

Then there are the anomalies in the implementation of the provisions of the State Advances Act and the Farmers’ Assistance Act which, in view of the fact that these Acts are administered by the same organization and the expenditure is financed from the same funds, creates confusion. An example of this is the fact that some land is acquired by the Farmers’ Assistance Board and other land again by the Secretary for State Advances. When such land is disposed of different procedures have to be followed, and in the one case fees and transfer duties have to be paid by the purchaser, but not in the other case. These anomalies are now being removed by providing that the Secretary may transfer to the Farmers’ Assistance Board land which he has to purchase on behalf of the State, and the Secretary may deal with it as if it is the property of the board. In this way the board is enabled to make such land available to farmers who are not too well off.

In the Schedule to the State Advances Recoveries Act the procedure for the collection of loans is set out in detail and provision is made, inter alia, for the cancellation of a loan if the instalments are not paid or if the securities are dealt with in an irregular manner, etc. Many cases, however, occur where a creditor simply abandons securities in the form of movable goods belonging to the State. It sometimes happens that a farmer stops farming, pursues a different occupation, and requests State Advances to take possession of the movable goods and to sell them. Even then the prescribed procedure has to be followed, which results in losses to the State and to the farmer himself. It is now provided in Clause 3 (e) that also in such cases the securities may be attached immediately.

The Farmers’ Assistance Act provides that if a debtor’s land is hypothecated to the Farmers’ Assistance Board and his estate is sequestrated in terms of the Insolvency Act, the board can exclude the land from his estate assets in order to satisfy the claim of the board. There are, however, still two forms of insolvency, namely a deceased estate which is administered as an insolvent estate, and an estate which is administered as an insolvent estate in terms of the provisions of the Farmers’ Assistance Act.

The object of Clause 7 is to include these last-mentioned instances in that provision. I want to make it clear that there is no derogation from the rights of other mortgagees, because the Act provides that in such cases their rights must receive full recognition. In fact, no creditor is harmed by this because if the curator or executor is of the opinion that he, by keeping the land in the estate, can sell it at a price which will fully cover the debt owing to the board and still leave something over for the other creditors, the board will of course readily agree to it.

The object of the original provision—and of course of this proposed extension of it— is to avoid a position where the administration of the estate drags on for months and sometimes for years while the land is being neglected and the State has no authority over it. That is not in the interest ether of the State or of the estate. In passing, I may mention that the application of this provision in so far as sequestrated estates are concerned worked excellently and has not caused any trouble at all.

In Clause 8 provision is made for State Advances itself to have mortgage bonds registered in its favour. This is no new principle in view of the fact that it was done in terms of the old Farmers’ Assistance Act and that the Land Bank also follows this procedure. At first sight it may seem that it is perhaps unnecessary to amend the present procedure, but if it is borne in mind that farmers who receive this form of assistance are generally already in financial difficulty it will be realized that any delay in the paying out of loans may lead to great inconvenience and hardship. In addition, it often happens that the farmer does not have the necessary cash to pay the costs of the conveyancer. In view of the fact that the conveyancer has a right of retention on the documents and the loan cannot be paid out before State Advances are in possession of the mortgage bond, stalemate results which may delay the matter for months.

A further amendment in Clause 8 is a change in the procedure when attaching immovable property when the conditions of the bond are not complied with. The existing procedure of obtaining a judgment of court to declare that the property can be sold usually takes months. In a recent case it took 13 months from the time the mortgage bond was called up until the property could be sold in execution. That is chiefly due to the fact that the courts are usually very busy. In the meantime the farmer has left the land to find another job and the farm has been neglected, while State Advances had no say in the matter.

Also in this case the interests of the other mortgagees are not affected in any way, because it will be noted that only the legal process in the court is being eliminated and thereafter the sheriff deals with the property in terms of the legal procedure as if he had received an order of court. In fact, speeding up the finalization of the matter is in the interest of all parties concerned. In the case of the Land Bank immovable property is also attached without legal process, but whereas the Land Bank itself takes care of the sale and the division of the proceeds, here it is left in the hands of the Sheriff. The reason for this is of course that the Land Bank holds only first mortgage bonds and consequently fewer problems arise when the proceeds are distributed.

Apart from the aforementioned amendments the other clauses mainly deal with administrative matters and aim at achieving uniformity and facilitating procedure in order to make the task of rendering financial assistance to farmers cheaper and more effective.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that where this legislation is a revision to facilitate procedures for financing in cases where farmers have to be financed by the State and cannot obtain credit anywhere else, and the control remains the same as it was in the past, this legislation will receive the support of both sides of the House and that it will be passed speedily.

I have no doubt that the hon. members on the Government side will be very appreciative of the attitude of the Opposition towards any responsible legislation that is brought before this House. The hon. Ministers who have dealt with legislation this afternoon will be very appreciative of the attitude we have adopted so far. We have no intention in connection with this Bill of departing from our attitude towards such responsible legislation. I would just like to remind the Minister that this measure is long overdue. No section of our community in this country suffers greater hardships as the result of risks from climatic conditions like hail and drought than the farmers. The position is that when you get price fluctuations the first people to suffer are the farmers. We are prepared to support this Bill and I want to tell the Minister that in the Committee Stage we will ask him to give more clarity than he has given in regard to some of the clauses, and it may be necessary for us to ask him to accept small amendments. The Minister knows that at times farmers experience these grave difficulties and it is necessary for the Government to come to their rescue. He realizes, too, that financial houses seem to have lost that faith in primary production which was a characteristic of the past. But before I conclude what I have to say I have a letter here which I received only a little while ago, and I want to read a passage out of it. It is from my colleague and bench-mate, the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) who, whilst he is far off, seems to be very interested in this particular Bill before the House at present. This is the passage—

Mr. Speaker, I think this is very necessary at this stage, because we have a number of such settlers coming to this country and they cannot become citizens of this country before they have been here for five years. Anything can happen to those settlers, and they may require assistance before becoming citizens. I would ask the Minister to give due consideration to their position, and whilst I realize that he cannot deal with it under this Bill I would ask him to bear it in mind for the future. We have much pleasure in supporting this Bill, except that in the Committee Stage we may want to move amendments to it.

I should just like to point out, with reference to one remark made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, when he said that this Bill should have been introduced into this House sooner already, because in the meantime the farmers have had to endure much hardship as the result of plagues, that we wholeheartedly agree with him that much hardship had to be endured, but throughout the years not only has assistance been given, but time and again new forms of assistance have been devised, even by the creation of new principles that were never applied before, in order to assist the farmers. This Bill before the House to-night, is not something which has turned up after there had been a lengthy period of stagnation as regards offers of assistance; it is merely a continuation of what has been going on throughout all the years.

One thing is as plain as a pikestaff, and that is that the farmer of the Republic of South Africa will after to-night once again be satisfied that there is a Government which in these parlous conditions afflicting some parts of our country, holds out a helping hand to him and does not abandon him. They will be able to bear testimony once again to this day on which the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill, particularly when they will be enjoying the fruits of the Act to the great benefit of those who have had to endure hardship. There will always be amendments to Acts relative to assistance to farmers, in the same way that there will always be modifications in farming practices to meet changed circumstances, and so to-night we are once again on a further milestone along this road. Perhaps it is as well to put it clearly that this Bill, like all previous Acts dealing with assistance to farmers, must not be regarded in the light of instances where the drought conditions occur periodically only, hit hard and then pass away again, and the farmer is still able, with his own resources, to resist and to carry on. It always happens in the Republic of South Africa which just does not fall within the rain belt, and apart from this we still have many semidesert areas where our farmers have to eke out a livelihood. Nor does one think of the instances where, amongst other things, stock farming is being practised on a basis of regular provision of fodder during certain defined periods of the year, not because droughts are anticipated, but because it is part of the farming pattern in that particular area. Nor does it apply in areas where reasonable crops are produced in spite of periodical setbacks on account of commando worms, locusts, blight, wheat lice, red finches and floods. But there are areas which have for years on end been afflicted by hailstorms, foot and mouth disease and drought, which make assistance imperative; sometimes the farmers are harassed by one of these plagues and sometimes by two or three of them simultaneously or successively, and those farmers are then ruined. And when reference is made to unprecedented conditions for which this Bill seeks to make provision, it is desired to give expression to the seriousness, the intensity and the destructive nature of those conditions, but I am afraid that where such conditions are rightly described as unprecedented by those who are ravaged by the plagues, they are largely unknown in places further away that are not so directly affected thereby—sometimes even to State officials who have to render the assistance—and I say this with every good intention. One does not wish to link the origin of this amendment Bill, its conception, with conditions in a particular place or of a particular region, but surely the Northern Transvaal may with respect be quoted, as an example of how continuous drought conditions can force a farmer to his knees and make this legislation necessary. One could tell heartbreaking stories of formerly great and prosperous farmers who have been ruined financially, as well as of average and smaller farmers who have for years had to struggle in depths where they could no longer find a foothold and where they were faced with annihilation. But we do not wish to become melodramatic.

We have it on good authority that agriculture in general is in arrears with the payment of capital and interest to the Land Bank. However, it is added that if the. Northern Transvaal is omitted from the picture. conditions are wholly normal. If in a particular area comprising about 7 per cent of the land of the country, things are so bad that arrear debts to the Land Bank statistically rise sharply, things must be very bad in that area and we can appreciate that there can be no further delay in giving further and more effective and speedier assistance, such as we now contemplate. Then we should note that the result of 7 per cent of the total area is obtained merely by making a surface division in areas of equal size, more or less, but if the productive capacity of our land according to different regions were taken as the basis of calculation, it could be shown that a region which is responsible for a virtually insignificant percentage of the total revenue from agriculture, is being castigated so mercilessly that it disturbs to a considerable extent the over-all ability of the farmers of the Republic to meet their commitments, and then we must accept that such a particular region is being hit very hard indeed. We laud their perseverance and we laud all financial institutions and the Government for the assistance rendered to those people, which we again wish to render this evening. We laud the Government for assistance in the past and now, under special circumstances, for continuous annual aid schemes, for further assistance as envisaged in the Bill under discussion, as well as for the knowledge that over and above all this under the existing straitened circumstances, the Government is preparing, in the event of its becoming necessary, for further planning. May the people now realize, as in the past commerce and industry and financial institutions have realized, that assistance to harassed farmers is not sectional assistance, but that assistance to farmers, whether by way of loans or rebates or subsidies, amounts to national assistance. May it be so also as regards this assistance as extended and supplemented in the Bill before us to-night.

When we look at the concessions mentioned by the hon. the Minister, upon which I do not wish to dilate as it would be unnecessary repetition and a poorer attempt to say what has already been said, one cannot omit to mention once again merely one thing, namely that there also is freezing in regard to tractors and agricultural implements and irrigation machinery and lorries, etc., which are used for farming purposes during that period of enquiry; for I can corroborate what the hon. the Minister has said here, and I can testify that particularly in the Northern Transvaal, just when the rains came, the farmer was deprived of his implements and his farming activities were paralysed. A stop will be put to that now, and we thank the hon. the Minister most heartily for that.

I should like to refer to one matter mentioned in this Bill, to which one has to refer because one is inclined to look at and confine one’s attention to the assistance given to the farmer, and forget that the farmer who is being assisted now incurs a liability to the State which has assisted him. I am referring to the additional remedies of the Board in respect of applicants who are in default in meeting their commitments. Let us say at the outset and in anticipation that we know that when assistance is given, that assistance also entails commitments. Not that our farmers do not realize and recognize this, and not that our farmers do not honour their commitments. We have heard the Minister say that the bad debts or losses incurred do not amount to 3 per cent, and I do not think anybody can mention other financial institutions in the whole world that suffer such a trivial loss with such a tremendous turnover. The necessity of further and new assistance as contemplated in this Bill, is reflected among other things in the fact that from 1960 to 1963 rebates for the carriage of fodder only amounted to R1,857,509. That was in consequence of droughts which ravage and harass the farmer and over which he has no control, and for which nobody, not even the State, can be blamed. The Government has always appreciated that assistance was necessary. There is the fact too that ration loans in those hard hit areas for the purchase of food for the labourers on the farms at RIO per family per month to a maximum of R100 per month per applicant, were regarded as necessary in the past. Also the fact that subsistence loans to a maximum of R52 per month per White family were granted in some regions, payable in five annual payments commencing 12 months after the last grant, and interest free. All these things taken together constitute the background, partly, against which this Bill has to be examined, as well as the fact that production loans have from time to time been increased and now also apply to the large and affluent farmers who were able to withstand droughts and to keep going until they eventually came to the end of their tether. We think of the drilling of boreholes where the farmers have been harassed by droughts, and where they wish to extract from the earth the water required in order to attempt to continue farming operations which have been half-paralysed, and the large numbers of dry boreholes for which payment must be made. In one small area the amount is R32,000. We feel they have been pushed further into misfortune and that this assistance is indispensable and is accepted with the greatest gratitude.

I should like to mention most modestly, a few things which in my opinion are required. One of these is expedition in the implementation of the assistance schemes. The Minister has pointed out several things aimed at expedition. The people are in distress and the assistance must be given forthwith. Now the procedure prescribed in the Act requires the farmer to send his application for assistance to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, which refers it to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for the requisite enquiry and report. Then it is referred back to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, which then submits a report to the Cabinet for its final decision. Then back again to Agricultural Economics and Marketing to submit it to the Treasury for making the necessary funds available. Next back again to Agricultural Economics and Marketing for submission to Justice, which in turn must instruct its magistrates to notify the farmers of the available assistance. I accept that it is necessary that a careful procedure must be adopted, for of course it is necessary that caution and vigilance should be exercised. Now it might sound somewhat exaggerated when I mention all these sources to which the application for assistance is referred, but I am nevertheless satisfied that in the circumstances matters have none the less run so smoothly that our farmers have not had to wait too long for the assistance offered. However, one does wonder whether this procedure cannot sometimes be made a little shorter.

The second matter I should like to raise is co-ordination in order to burden only one department of State with the task of giving assistance. I do not wish to dilate upon that. The matter is discussed frequently and we know that it is also receiving attention. I should also like to mention the need for research not to plan for certain areas with a view to enabling the farmer to recover from the effects of a drought which has hit him, but research to institute and plan farming activities in drought conditions, geared to drought conditions for certain areas, thereby enabling the farmer to ward off the blows dealt him by the drought, and not merely an attempt to try to cure after the blow has been struck.

Which Clause is that?

In regard to the interjections from the opposite side as to which clause this relates to, I have discussed more or less the background. the tenor and the contents of this Bill, and I think I have the right, which cannot be denied me, to make certain recommendations in all modesty for the consideration of the hon. the Minister. [Interjection.] One thinks, among other things, of rej search with regard to the growing of crops that are drought-resistant yes, which should be grown in spite of poor prices and may perhaps have to be subsidised in order to ensure ! a reasonably constant income for the future, rather than continuous risk farming resulting in one good year and thereafter four or five poor years which swallow up the income of that one good year so that nothing is left over. For honestly, in regard to the methods adopted up to now—with the greatest gratitude and acknowledgment to the Government—one is faced with the possibility that one has to ask oneself what else, other than loans, can be offered? Sometimes one thinks that one can hardly conceive of something new along the: lines we have followed thus far. When one considers the assistance already being given, one asks what can be added. There are rebates on the carriage of stock by rail and by road; motor service: rebates on the conveyance of fodder by rail and by road motor service; rebates on the carriage of stock and fodder by private transport. Then there afe rebates on the carriage of fodder acquired and consigned by co-operatives, and rebates for the re-consignment thereof if the farmers do not require it. There also are loans for the purchase of fodder; loans for the hiring of grazing; loans to cover the costs of carriage of stock and fodder; loans for rations for farm labourers; loans for necessaries of life; loans for maintenance by Social Welfare and loans to consolidate debts. It seems to me the thing we are searching for is continuous agricultural exploitation, and one wonders whether the term “farmers’ assistance” should not make way for something of the nature I have mentioned, to get away from the idea of accepting challenges as a result of droughts; but that we should have such planning of farming operations that we throw out a challenge to droughts, said with all respect and reverence. We have got away from terms such as miners’ phthisis and poor-white, and I am wondering whether we should not get away from the term “farmers’ assistance” to take away the stigma which is attaching to it to an increasing extent. We thank the Minister for this Bill and we thank the Government for its good care of the farmers. We welcome it most heartily and we shall return to our constituencies which are afficted, and we shall say to them: See, the National Government is your father, and you have heard his voice in this Bill.

The hon. member for Waterberg did a real egg-dance. He discussed a Bill which is not before the House. He talked about Government assistance for which the farmers must thank the Government but this Bill does not deal with additional assistance that should be given. As a matter of fact, this Bill has nothing to do with that. The hon. member did not read the Bill and that was why he talked about something which has nothing to do with it. I can only conclude that when we on this side of the House get up to support a Bill because that Bill is necessary, the occasion is used as the hon. member for Waterberg has used it. He suggested that he could now return to his constituency and say to the farmers: “Look at the wonderful speech I made” knowing full well that that speech had nothing whatsoever to do with the difficulties the farmers were experiencing.

Behold the Government …

Look at the Government which has done nothing for the farmers except to make them insolvent. In 1932 the farmers had to move to the cities because the old Nationalist Party Government had made them insolvent. We then introduced the Farmers’ Assistance Act to save the situation. All this Bill is really doing is to rectify a few technical points, but everything the hon. member for Waterberg said, was nonsense; it had nothing to do with this legislation.

Let us see what the Bill says: Clause 2, which is of importance, has nothing to do with assistance to farmers. The same applies to Clause 3. The only clause which is of any importance is Clause 6 and this clause simply says that where a tractor or other vehicle required for farming purposes has been sold to a farmer on hire purchase, that farmer cannot move away until a certain certificate has been handed in. I think the Minister himself will agree with me when I say I hope there will not be a long delay. But what did the hon. member for Waterberg talk about? Why did he not read the Bill properly before he got up and attacked the United Party?

Is that not assistance that is given?

No, it is not assistance. All that is done is this: There are a number of people in the Transvaal, the hon. member said in his constituency as well, who act improperly by selling tractors to farmers and re-possessing those tractors as soon as it rains so as to sell them to other farmers. That is all that happens. The hon. member said so. [Interjections.] That was all the hon. member said. The hon. member must not talk nonsense and then go to his constituency and say to the farmers: “Look there, I also spoke”. What kind of business is that?

Mr. Speaker, here we have a Bill which is necessary for us to have. The Minister is right in coming forward with this legislation. The effect of this Bill will be to make the old United Party Act, the Farmers Assistance Act which was passed in order to help the farmers out of the misery in which the old Nationalist Party had landed them, easier of application. In other words, therefore, it is in the nature of an administrative measure. Where the United Party declares itself willing to assist the Government to make the machinery of State operate more smoothly, hon. members opposite should not use it as an occasion to act in such a way that they can return to their constituencies and say: “Look, I was also there and I also spoke”. This is not the occasion on which to act in. that way. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned it gives us great pleasure to support the Government in regard to this Bill—one of the few pieces of legislation it has introduced which we regard as good and necessary.

We see now why that poor Party no longer has any platteland members—because they use speakers in a debate on agricultural matters like the hon. member who has just sat down. This is an example of a Party which has lost its contact with the platteland; this is a Party which seeks to place the every-day risks of agriculture upon the shoulders of the Government but which does not want to recognize the part played by natural disasters in this regard. It is because the United Party is in such a confused state that the platteland has condemned it, compelling its members to try to look after platteland interests from urban constituencies. Just listen to what the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) said here. He said amongst other things that the difficulties of the farmers were due to the National Party. Does he consider that foot and mouth disease, a four-year drought in the Northern Transvaal and other natural disasters can be laid at the door of a political party? The hon. member says that the Government is responsible for the fact that the farmers are bankrupt and he says this knowing all the while that, according to statistics, the Land Bank has suffered a loss of only .002 per cent on loans to farmers. The Department has had to repossess the largest number of holdings ever during the war years when the United Party was in government—20 per cent then as against 4.2 per cent now. They are the people who make this sort of allegation and say that this Bill gives no assistance to farmers. That sort of statement betrays bankruptcy as far as a knowledge of agricultural conditions is concerned. But I do not have any more time to devote to the sounds made by these empty vessels and that is why I want to return to the Bill itself.

But before I raise certain points which spring from the clauses contained in this Bill I think that it is time for us to place certain things on record. Agriculture or farming is one of the most important facets in our national economy. Indeed, South Africa’s survival depends upon it because if we do not have sufficient food or clothing we cannot survive. But at the same time it is a face which is hampered by many great risks. Here I want to make it clear that if we did not have the State Advances Recoveries Office, or if we did not have the Farmers’ Assistance Board with all its farmers’ assistance committees, it would be a bad day for agriculture in South Africa. Because of the diversity of risks run by this section of our national economy we would have wholesale bankruptcy and many farmers could not survive. Because this is so, I think that we in this House must convey our thanks and appreciation to the State Advances Recoveries Office and the Farmers’ Assistance Board. At the same time I want to place on record the fact that the Secretary for the State Advances Recoveries Office, who is also the chairman of the Farmers’ Assistance Board, has, because of his approachability, his humanitarianism and capability, rendered valuable services to our economy, and particularly to agriculture, both recently and in the past. I also want to say that the farmers’ assistance committees which have magistrates as chairmen and practical farmers as members have really rendered invaluable services to agriculture and, thereby, to South Africa. I think that it is time for us to thank all these bodies in this connection. I want to come now to the Bill itself. When I look at Clause 1 I note that a necessary adjustment is being made in terms of this clause. This is the provision whereby the powers given to the Secretary for the State Advances Recoveries Office in terms of our existing legislation can be delegated to other officials and also to magistrates. These powers deal not only with the giving of assistance but also with the spending of money. This is an important provision particularly if the assistance which is actually given is borne in mind. Let us take as an example the assistance that was given during the period 1947 to 1961 in respect of seed, artificial fertilizer and so forth. We find that the State Advances Recoveries Office rendered assistance amounting to more than R6,000,000 during this period in respect of the aforementioned items. If we look at the loans granted in respect of fodder, fodder which is vitally necessary in order to keep stock alive, we find that an amount of about R2,500,000 was made available in loans to farmers over the same period. This is only the assistance given by the State Advances Recoveries Office. There is still the assistance given by the Department of Water Affairs, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, amongst others, in consultation with this Office. The total amount made available by these bodies in the form of assistance to farmers amounted to about R52,000,000 over the past 15 years. With this in view it is necessary in my opinion that the powers by means of which assistance of this nature can be given in time of adversity, such as during droughts, in the event of foot and mouth disease epidemics and so forth, should be delegated to local bodies. When we look at the latest report of the State Advances Recoveries Office we find that loans have been made available to farmers even as far as rations are concerned so that those farmers have been enabled to feed the labourers on their farms from day to day. So it is necessary that powers of this nature can be delegated to, for example, local farmers’ assistance committees. This is necessary so that assistance can be given as soon as possible. That is why Clause 2 of this Bill is a clause that we welcome. I said just now that assistance to an amount of about R52,000,000 had already been given to farmers. I want to point out that to that amount must also be added the ordinary loans made available to farmers by the Farmers Assistance Board and the State Advances Recoveries Office during the period 1948 to 1962, which amount to almost R39,000,000. This gives us an indication of the services rendered in this regard. I see that the hon. member for Sea Point has now left the Chamber after having made a number of accusations. That proves how interested hon. members opposite are in agricultural matters. They stand up here, make a number of accusations, and then disappear. Actually, they have no interest in agriculture at all. We must remember that the assistance to which I have just referred has not been given because some or other Government or Government policy has been responsible for the number of bankruptcies. It has been given because of the conditions under which agriculture is carried on in this country and the risks involved in this regard. The position of agriculture is different to that of commerce because agriculture is knee-haltered by natural elements, by disease, pestilence and so forth. This Bill has as its general aim to ensure the swifter giving of assistance to farmers. When we look back into the past we find that delays were very often caused in regard, for example, to the transport of stock, or of stock feed or in connection with the leasing of grazing land. We will eliminate these delays by means of this Bill. This is important because in agriculture—and apparently this is something that hon. members opposite have not yet realized —one cannot tolerate delays similar to those which may arise in our general industrial and commercial life. In agriculture one is dealing with the lives of animals; one is dealing with seasons. If fuel, seed, artificial fertilizer and so forth are made available too late, the farmer loses a full year. The provisions of Clause 2 of this Bill will eliminate this delay completely.

Let me mention another point. Hon. members opposite stand up and say that they support this Bill but they accuse hon. members on this side of trying to make a political issue of it. But those hon. members have not yet read the latest report of the Activities of the State Advances Recoveries Office. There are many schemes under which assistance can be given. There are, for example, loans for the maintenance of stock, loans for production, loans to combat foot and mouth disease, for rations and so forth. This sort of assistance cannot be given effectively under the procedure prescribed by the present Act. That is why the hon. the Minister has introduced this Bill in order to amend that procedure so that this assistance can be given more swiftly. Let me mention another example. This Bill also makes provision for the partial exemption of movable securities. Hon. members opposite have really not read this Bill. Do they know the difficulties which farmers have to contend with when they want a loan to enable them to buy stock? Those stock must carry the brand of the State Advances Recoveries Office. The number of the stock increases with the result that they eventually number far more than they did when originally given as security. Now the farmer has to receive exemption for some of that security. This could not be done in the past but this Bill now makes provision in that regard.

When we look at Clause 3 we find that in the past the farmer was always responsible for any debit balance after the securities had been sold. It is in the interests of the farmer that the security available be given the proper protection. I know of numbers of farmers who have simply written to the Secretary for the State Advances Recoveries Office when, because of circumstances, they have no longer been able to continue farming, or else they have approached a magistrate to ask that their assets be taken over; they have gone to look for work because they could not continue to farm any longer. It is not that the Government or the marketing systems make it impossible for such a farmer to continue farming. Foot and mouth disease or droughts bring farmers to their knees and they have to find some other work to do. Under the present legislation there has of necessity to be a long delay, because of the involved procedure that has to be followed, before that farmer’s property can be confiscated and looked after properly until such time as it can be converted into money and the account closed. This Bill now makes it possible for that confiscation to take place immediately, thus eliminating the involved procedure to which I have referred.

I have nothing to say about Clause 4. I want to come to Clause 5. To my mind this clause affects a very important aspect of agriculture. Provision is being made here whereby the Farmers’ Assistance Board can transfer land and treat property which it has had to confiscate as property which it has received. This Clause 1s to my mind an indication of how necessary it is for us to ask the hon. the Minister and the Government whether the time has not come for a very careful investigation to be made into the possibility of setting up a Department of Agricultural Finance. There will have to be the closest co-operation between a department of this nature and the Department of Lands so that when property is confiscated, it can be consolidated. Uneconomic units can be eliminated in this way and the people who are farming upon uneconomic units can be rehabilitated. In my opinion this clause opens the door to the first step in that direction.

Let us look now at Clause 6. I say that it is absolutely useless—and I want to emphasize this fact—to incur expense in investigating the position of the farmer while, in the meantime, he has, because of some or other adversity, disposed of his assets and ceased his farming operations. The hon. the Minister has indicated to us that with this clause, such an investigation need not be a fruitless investigation because at the start of such an investigation one can take steps to ensure that a farmer does not lose his assets. The investigation can be arranged in such a way that immediate action can He taken. This clause also refers to hire-purchase legislation. I want to make it very clear, although I am sorry to do so, that we have noticed in the past that companies selling farming implements to farmers on hire-purchase. act exactly like a man who lends one an umbrella when the weather is fine; that is when one has no need of an umbrella. But when it rains, he takes back his umbrella! We know of numbers of cases in which these companies have taken absolutely no action when farmers have been struggling, but as soon as conditions have improved and those farmers have had the opportunity to get on their feet again, those companies have repossessed the goods which had been sold to those farmers under hire-purchase agreements. Up to the present the State Advances Recoveries Office has not been able to offer the farmer any protection in cases of this nature. But this provision of the Bill is such that these people will no longer be able to exploit the farmers in this way. It is necessary for legislation to be passed in this connection because if a farmer has to struggle to make a living during a period of drought and undertakes to start paying off the implements which he has bought as soon as conditions improve, only to find that when he can start ploughing and planting his implements are taken away from him, he will lose his crop for that year and may be ruined finally. But the hon. the Minister has closed this loophole by means of this provision. The State Advances Recoveries Office and the Farmers’ Assistance Board will in the future be able to close this loophole in order to prevent the exploitation of farmers in this way. That is why I think it is necessary for us to have this provision in the Bill. Indeed, we welcome it.

The provisions of Clause 8 eliminate in the first place the delay which may arise in the granting of assistance and, more particularly, in the registration of bonds! We have often had the experience in the past that when a farmer has been practically brought to his knees and has had to approach the Farmers’ Assistance Board for assistance, his bond has first had to be registered. Until this is done, the Farmers’ Assistance Board cannot render the necessary assistance. That is the case under the present legislation. This clause aims at eliminating that delay. I want to thank the hon. the Minister in this regard. I want to say here again that agriculture cannot be dealt with in the same way as an ordinary business. Agriculture must be dealt with as an economic facet which has to be considered in the light of seasons, rain, drought, frost, spring, autumn, and so forth. Besides, this one has to bear in mind the fact that there are times for planting, for ploughing, for cultivating and for harvesting. That is why any assistance that has to be given must be given in such a way that it fits in with these seasonal circumstances. This is of course not possible as long as a farmer is required first to register his bond before he can be given assistance. This must of necessity result in a delay because of the pressure of work in the deeds office. It may be pointless to try to assist the farmer once the bond has been registered because his need for that assistance may have passed. By that time he may no longer be in the frying pan but in the fire, and the assistance will have to start all over again. This clause contains a provision which will solve that problem. There is another provision in Clause 8, namely, that contained in the proposed Section liter, which to my mind is very important. We have already had so many cases in which farmers have gone to look for work because they have no longer been able to continue their farming operations. The Department then decides to confiscate their land, not with the idea of tripping up that farmer and bringing him to his knees, but in order to protect those assets which the farmer has and to ensure that the value of those assets remains as high as possible. This will assist in rehabilitating that particular farmer in the future. Up to the present this confiscation could not take place without the necessary legal processes, and because of pressure of work in the courts, these processes have often been delayed. We must remember that, notwithstanding the fact that a farmer’s goods may be confiscated, he is still held responsible for any debts still outstanding. In other words, once everything he has has been converted into money and all his creditors have been paid and an amount still remains owing, he is responsible for that amount. That is why it is necessary that the goods of a farmer who has become dispirited and has: given up should be confiscated as soon as possible so that they can be well looked after with the purpose of ensuring that they retain their maximum value. The proposed Section 22ter makes provision in this regard. This could not be done in the past.

You are now eliminating the courts.

The courts are not being eliminated. In pursuance of that interjection I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the interests of the farmers are now being looked after on the other side of the House by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). And he has no love for the farmer! This, therefore, is the affection which the United Party reveals for the farmers of South Africa! I challenge the United Party to allow its farmer members to participate in this debate and to tell the farmers that we are eliminating the courts by means of these measures which are being taken to assist the farmers and that this is wrong. They want to knee-halter the farmers by making them endure long legal processes. The farmers may be ruined in this way and then the United Party can shout “Hosannah” here at the bankruptcy of the farmers. That is what the hon. member for Durban (Point) wants. I want the farmers to take note of this affection which the hon. member has revealed for them on behalf of the United Party.

Do not distort my words.

I am not distorting the hon. member’s words. He said here …

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Very well, Mr. Speaker. I come now to Clause 9, another very important clause. I do not think it will be resented if I utter a word of warning here. In this connection I have various parts of our country in mind. I think, amongst others, of the Western Transvaal and I want to say that there are many farmers in the Western Transvaal who thought that we would never have another drought in our country. Accordingly, their land is over-capitalized. This land has now become a millstone around the neck of agriculture and of certain farmers. We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that some of this land is sold for as much as R200 per morgen. It is maize land. Clause 9 embodies a principle which to my mind is one of the finest in this whole Bill. The principle is that if this overcapitalized land has to be taken back, the Department will be able to allocate that land to farmers who are less strong financially but not necessarily at the same price as that for which the land was taken back. This is another indication to my mind that we are on the way to the establishment of a Department of Agricultural Finance in which the State Advances Recoveries Office and the Department of Lands will both play important parts. In other words, this clause opens the door to the consolidation of uneconomic units and the making available of that land to farmers who are less strong financially in order to enable them to farm on an economic basis. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Point) is apparently the only hon. member opposite who has anything to say about this Bill although he knows nothing about it. Let me tell him that this is an example of the positive, realistic and practical approach of this Government and the hon. the Minister to the problems of agriculture in South Africa. In this way we are ensuring that agriculture remains an extremely important facet of our national economy. It must not act like a beggar, hat in hand, but it must be treated as an independent and full-fledged unit.