I move—

The Bill which is now before us at the third reading will enjoy the support of this side of the House. We gave our support to it during the second reading and we made our point of view clear during the Committee Stage. We welcome the protection which this Bill will afford to tenants against exploitation by rapacious landlords. There is no doubt that there was exploitation and legislation was necessary. We on this side of the House recognize that. In fact, we not only support, but we sought the provisions which form the basis of this measure which is before us. There was exploitation in various forms—by the furnishing of controlled buildings and the charging of higher rents for use of the furniture; by the charging of exorbitant rents for garages; by the conversion of controlled buildings into furnished holiday flats; by the removal of tenants so as to obtain demolition orders so as to be able to embark on the rebuilding or reconstruction. All these things were going on; we recognize their evil; the Minister accepted the position and has now acted.

But we have a measure before us which has had to cover a very difficult field indeed. We recognize the problem which the Minister has had and we recognize the difficulties which he has faced. These difficulties have been shown only too clearly during the passage of this measure through the House. When we look at the Bill which is now before us we find that more than half of the Bill is not the Bill as it was originally presented to this House; more than half the Bill comprises amendments introduced during the Committee Stage, amendments which we now have to consider in the new form in which this Bill is before us. We had statements by the Minister; we had statements about those statements; we had amendments introduced by the Minister; we had amendments introduced by the Minister to his own amendments, and then we had more statements during the Committee Stage itself; there are still three issues on which the Minister has accepted the probable or possible validity of arguments advanced from this side of the House concerning possible snags still in the Bill as it is. I make this point because I think it is only fair to point out that we on this side of the House foresaw these difficulties; we foresaw the snags which the Minister was going to face and we appealed to him to send this Bill to a select committee so that when it was presented to this House at the third reading it would have had the advantage of calm, unhurried consideration. I think in fairness the Minister must now agree, after the experience he has had in piloting the Bill through the Committee Stage, that we were right in our first contention. I realize that it is too late in this case to do anything about it but I think the Government must realize that when you deal with a measure such as the Rents Bill affecting the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of people and where the Opposition has pledged its co-operation, this House could have produced a better measure than the one which is before us now. But that does not mean that the measure was unnecessary or that we are not going to support it. What it means is that the Minister with our assistance could have avoided the snags which he faced and the embarrassment which he faced. I think he will agree that there were stages in the discussion where issues were raised which he was unable to consider on the spur of the moment. We do not blame him; they were complicated legal issues; they were issues affecting the consequences of this Bill in its long-term effects, and no Minister could have handled them on the spur of the moment and given an immediate decision. These difficulties are difficulties which the people of South Africa will be faced with in their day-to-day lives. The vast majority of the people in this country, particularly those living in the cities, will be faced with the consequences of this Bill. I emphasize this because as a result of the course which the Minister chose, the course of piloting this Bill through as quickly as he could, as a result of that decision of the Minister himself, there are two points on which we on this side of the House have reservations. The Minister in both cases must accept the full responsibility for the decision he has taken. I make this clear because in time to come it must be apparent to those people who are affected by this Bill that the responsibility rests on the Minister and the Goverment.

The first of the reservations we have is the fear that this Bill may stop or slow down the provision of housing by private enterprise in some areas of South Africa. In the Committee Stage the Minister gave us the assurance that he was satisfied that would not happen. We have our doubts. The Minister has given the assurance, as is his responsibility, that this measure will not slow down, will not damage, the part which private enterprise must play in providing housing for the people of this country. The Minister has given that assurance and future investment by entrepreneurs depends on the assurances given by the Minister. We accept his good faith, and I think many of the entrepreneurs will accept in good faith, those assurances by the Minister. The future of building investment depends on his goodwill and on his undertakings. But there is no undertaking that he will be the Minister to-morrow. He may be transferred to another Department. Heaven knows, there are enough Departments which even he could handle better than they are being handled to-day. He may be sent to one of those other Departments and I think he would do a better job than many of the present Ministers in those Departments. This Minister’s assurances in this debate are the sole guarantee which private enterprise has in regard to its future investment in housing. Therefore, we on this side of the House say we accept those assurances; we accept his assurances to this House but we place the responsibility on his shoulders in that acceptance. [Interjections.] Hon. members over to my left apparently do not want us to accept the Minister’s assurances. What I am saying is that we accept them. They apparently do not accept those assurances. They want us to accept the responsibility. We say we accept the Minister’s assurances but in that acceptance we say it is over to the Minister. That is all I want to make clear in regard to the consequences of this measure on the provision of future housing by private enterprise.

Our second reservation, Sir, is in regard to the effect this measure will have on existing controlled rentals. The Minister has assured us in the Committee Stage that the amendments which are now being introduced giving a fixed return, will not lead to a spate of applications for increases in the rentals of existing controlled flats. The Minister has the knowledge; he has his Department behind him; he has the facts available to him. He has told us there will be no large-scale increases in the rentals of controlled buildings. Again I say, the Minister having made that statement, we accept it. But we say the responsibility rests on the Minister’s shoulders. We believe there may have been other ways of dealing with the situation, other ways which might have been more satisfactory. In that case we would have shared responsibility on these two issues. Because the Minister chose his own course we support him on the Bill as a whole but we say on these two issues we accept his word and his undertakings and we say, therefore, we cannot share in the responsibility because we have had no part in determining the final form in which those two issues are before the House.

I have listed the abuses with which this Bill will deal. We on this side of the House believe that it will in fact deal with those abuses. We have no doubts about that; we have no reservations in regard to the manner in which this Bill will prevent the abuses which are to-day taking place. It will give the Minister power to counter those abuses and to prevent them. We have no sympathy whatsoever for any person who tries to exploit the housing shortage by forcing excessive rents on people who cannot afford them in order to feather their own nests. Where that is happening no sympathy at all should be shown the person who is prepared to exploit the position and to demand from a tenant unjustifiable rental. In that the Minister has our full and unqualified support. We will support him in the future administration of this measure for this measure will depend on its administration. As it is now before us it is a measure which places tremendous responsibilities on the Minister and his Department in its administration. Whole fields of control are left, in fact total control over all buildings since 1949 is left to the discretion to the Minister and the Rent Boards. Therefore, the Bill as it stands at the moment is purposeless without efficient and careful administration. This Bill is largely an empowering measure. It empowers the Rent Board to investigate, the Minister to recommend and the State President to proclaim. In that process the contents of the Bill we are now passing will therefore be worthless unless properly administered.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give this House two assurances. Firstly, that he will take the necessary steps to ensure that the necessary staff is available to cope with the extra work which this Bill will place on his Department. Nobody can escape the fact that a tremendous, an unforeseeable, amount of additional work will fall on the Rent Boards and on the Department. If the Minister is going to place that burden on them I believe we have the right to ask him to give an assurance to this House that he will take the necessary administrative steps to make that administration effective and quick. It will be no good at all to have this protection for the tenant if there are going to be months of delay in coming to a decision. If it is going to take months, or even years, to reach a decision, in terms of the powers we are now granting to the Minister and to the Rent Boards, that protection will be meaningless. On that point, I would ask him for an undertaking that he will, in good time, and not only when there is the usual chaos which follows upon too much work, see that the necessary staff is there so as to prevent such chaos resulting from this Bill.

The second suggestion I should like to make is that the Minister, in carrying out the powers this Bill is granting him, should bear in mind that it affects two classes of people. It affects the tenant who must be protected but it also affects the landlord directly. I do not believe the Minister has the right to expect private enterprise to subsidize cheap housing. I would like to make the suggestion to the Minister that instead of only the slow process of building houses, he bears in mind the fact that this Bill is placing restrictions on existing owners who are to-day providing housing to the lower income groups. It would be far easier for the Minister, by means of low-interest loans or interest-free loans, to subsidize the housing which this Bill controls and so maintain the availability of that housing than merely to try to build new housing. Where this Bill will establish control over a block of flats, and that block of flats is perfectly suitable for housing, it will be a tragedy if the effect of this Bill should be a desire by the owner to demolish it. That is what we are finding. We are finding all over South Africa that perfectly good buildings are being demolished because the effect of this Bill which is about to be passed, and the effect of the previous provisions, was that the owner did not receive an income which he regarded as reasonable.

Nonsense.

The hon. member says I am talking nonsense. Only three weeks ago the hon. the Minister himself assisted in preventing the demolition of a building which had no need to be demolished. Buildings are being demolished in order to build luxury flats because the income from the rentals determined under existing legislation, and as to be determined in terms of this amending Bill, is not considered sufficient by the owners. In my constituency alone I can name at least ten buildings which have been demolished or are in the process of demolition or reconstruction over the last 12 to 18 months.

I plead with the Minister: In applying this legislation do not so apply it that existing buildings will be pulled down because they are not economic to the owners. Let there be a partnership between the State, the Minister and the private entrepreneur. Let the State assist where necessary or where possible so that existing low-rental housing which this Bill protécts will continue to be available and so that there will be no desire whatever to break it down. Off-hand, I can think of six buildings in my constituency which are half to three-quarters empty at this moment, while thousands of people are seeking low-rental accommodation. They are half empty because the owners, as the tenants leave, do not relet those flats. They hope that when they have emptied the buildings they will get demolition orders ether to rebuild or to reconstruct. As I say I can think of six off-hand where that situation applies in my constituency at the moment. That will continue. The Minister has no power to deal with that problem. This Bill does not give him that power. This Bill, however, gives him the opening he can use in order to eliminate that position where people would rather not let a flat than accept the rental which is allowed.

On the other hand this Bill deals with the position of the tenant who is being exploited. I hope the Minister will be able to balance those two problems so that we will be able to say that despite the fact that we are not entirely happy that we have achieved all that might have been achieved, by having supported this Bill we have enabled an improvement to be effected and have accorded protection to tens and hundreds of thousands of people who have to pay rental every month and who, by this Bill, are now protected from exploitation.

Therefore, Sir, we on this side of the House support this measure …

Hear, hear!

Those members do not understand, Sir, because they only know one expression “Ngiyabonga—Nkosi Nkulu”. They think that if you agree with something you must accept it blindly, hook, line and sinker; you may not blink an eyelid. Those members are so indoctrinated by the idea of submission to the will of a Minister that they cannot understand that a principle can be good, that an objective can be good, but that you still have the right to criticize. We exercise our right to criticize. We are not like a lot of blind sheep. We have made our proposals and we hope the Government will take advantage of that advice.

It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to introduce a Bill of this nature. It was evident immediately that it was the duty of the Opposition to accept the principle but at the same time to be critical of what was contained in the measure. That became evident immediately because soon after the introduction of this Bill the Minister saw many a deputation; he dealt with a considerable amount of correspondence in connection with this Bill; he received a considerable number of telegrams, something which many other members in this House experienced, and in the light of all that the Minister introduced a number of amendments himself.

We are not entirely satisfied with the wording of many of the clauses of this Bill. In fact, there is a proviso to Clause 7 which will most certainly require careful redrafting by the law advisers when the Minister discusses the matter with them in the light of the criticism that was levelled against its drafting during the Committee Stage.

What has been the experience of other Governments in the past in dealing with rental legislation? We have only had two Acts passed by this House in regard to rent. One was passed in 1920. That was immediately after the war. The other was passed in 1950 which was in a sense a consolidation of what had been passed previously with the addition of new provisions. In both these instances a select committee was appointed. It called for evidence and when one peruses the report of the last select committee one finds that many of the original clauses of the Bill, as presented to the House at that time, emerged from the select committee with a large number of amendments, many of which have been found to have been extremely useful. This is not surprising in view of the nature of this type of legislation. This legislation is social legislation, Sir, and it affects the intimate lives of the citizens of the country. The Minister himself knows with what anxiety the people of the country watched the passage of this Bill through the House and what it contained. We were disappointed because the Minister should have known what was taking place last year. He knows what the expanding economy of this country has brought about. There has been a greater demand for manpower. He knows South Africa has made every effort to bring as many immigrants as possible to this country in order to provide that manpower. The Minister must have realized immediately what the consequences would be. He should have visualized what position to expect and not waited until the situation which arose towards the end of last year and which became accentuated during the early part of this year, when tenants were placed virtually at the mercy of landlords and against whom the hon. the Minister is now legislating.

When this side of the House pressed for a select committee, it was not with the object, as the hon. the Minister tried to suggest, of delaying the Bill but rather with the object of bringing about greater clarity and in order to ensure that justice was done to both the tenant and the landlord; to ensure that the tenant would be protected and that the citizens of the country were not exploited, but at the same time to ensure that no obstacles would be placed in the way of a continuous process of building flats and houses which South Africa needed so badly. This is not the first time we have experienced something of this nature in this country. We therefore believe that the Minister has in many senses failed in his duty when he arrogantly took unto himself the sole right to arbitrate what should go into the Bill in order to protect both the landlord and the tenant. We now find ourselves in the awkward position where the Minister has to make certain inquiries, and where he has to have certain discussions with the law advisers. He will probably find himself in the position where it will be necessary to amend the present Bill still further in the Other Place. We commend all that. We feel that we have rendered a service to the community in our criticism of this Bill and in having guided the Minister and having pointed out to him some of the pitfalls and difficulties which are likely to arise.

One of the assurances asked for by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) was that the Minister should see to it that adequate staff was available so that the administrative machinery of this Bill, when it became law, would operate smoothly and satisfactorily. The hon. the Minister has already had representations made to him. Those representations could not be dealt with under the present Bill but representations have already been made to him in regard to the staffing of Rent Boards and the speed with which the Rent Boards must apply the terms of the law. We are well aware that a chaotic condition may easily arise if, in terms of Clause 1 of the Bill, there were to be a suggestion that rentals will be increased over a very wide field because a change is being made in the assessment of a reasonable rental by the Rent Board. One does not really know what the effect of that is going to be. I fed the hon. the Minister should give this House an assurance that this Bill, when it becomes law, will not embarrass tenants and that it Will not bring about chaotic conditions in the heavily built-up areas of our cities where the question of rental is; a very important factor, particularly to the people in the lower and middle income groups.

These matters are rightly brought to the attention of the House. One is rather surprised to find the type of jeering on the part of hon. members opposite when another hon. member seeks of the Minister, not only for assurances, but also draws his attention to the fact that this type of legislation, particularly when it deals so intimately with the lives of people, should be subject to the fullest scrutiny and that any evidence which can be brought to the notice of the House should be brought to its attention.

What I should like to know further from the hon. the Minister is this: Will he and his Department continue to maintain a watching brief over the effects of these amendments? And if necessary will they come back to the House ether with a further Bill or with a consolidating measure, together with a select committee in order to have the whole issue elucidated? We are hoping that the immigration to South Africa will continue at an ever growing pace. We sincerely hope the Minister realizes how important this aspect is to our country, and that he will ensure that we do not have to meet the difficulties in an almost ad hoc manner by bringing a Bill before this House, rushing it through, without being fully aware of the consequences of what it contains. The hon. the Minister will be the first person to admit that had it not been for the fact that during the second reading of this Bill certain anomalies were pointed out to him, he would not have been able to bring forward the many amendments that he has. I think he has already admitted during discussions on previous stages of this Bill that he has welcomed deputations not only from the public but also deputations introduced to him by members of this House and that that has given him a much clearer picture of what is required to overcome the pitfalls and difficulties which have been occasioned over the last six to eight months due to the change in our population.

I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with this matter on the level that it demands and that he will not only give us the assurances asked for but that he will give us any further explanation which is necessary in order to allay the fears of those people who will be affected by the terms of this Bill. I believe no Minister has the right to deal with legislation unless he declares publicly exactly what the implications are of a Bill and assures the public that it will not be embarrassed financially, that family life will not be disturbed and that it will continue to have a roof over its head to which it is justly entitled. That is one of the intrinsic bases of legislation of this nature. Let us therefore hope that even if the hon. the Minister has to lose face by moving further amendments in the Other Place, he will be prepared to tell us to-day that he, intends to move such amendments in order to eliminate some of the vaguely drafted portions of this Bill before it finally reaches the Statute Book.

We support the action of the Minister, if he is correct to have taken this action in order to put a stop to exploitation. This House is with him in principle for what he has done but this House is very critical of the manner in which this Bill has been handled. It is sincerely hoped that the improvements called for will be carried out.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) and Florida (Mr. Miller) tried to throw up a smokescreen to get out of their difficulties.

Once again the United Party has found itself in difficulties as a result of the weak and spineless manner in which they tackle things, as a result of the lack of policy and the pointlessness with which they approach legislation in this House. If the United Party want to be consistent, they should vote against the third reading of this Bill to-day. During the second reading they fought this Bill tooth and nail on the pretext that it should be referred to a select committee. They opposed this Bill and they voted against it. What happened then? Their supporters outside started to make things hot for them. They told them: “You may not do that; do you know what you are doing? It is essential legislation; we must have it on the Statute Book and you are acting against our interests in the House of Assembly.” As a result we to-day have this ludicrous attitude on the part of hon. members on that side of the House. They now have to retrace their steps, and now they are throwing up a smokescreen.

What attitude has the hon. member for Durban (Point) now really adopted in this third-reading debate? He says: Having been taken to task by our constituents, we are now at this stage desirous of having a share in this legislation. We shall vote for the third reading. We shall go and tell our constituents that we had a share in placing this legislation on the Statute Book. We assisted in protecting you against exploitation. We voted for the legislation in its final form.” Then he adds: “Whilst we are voting for it, I should like to say clearly that we are not going to accept any responsibility for any unpopularity that may result from it. In that event the Minister and the Government must bear the responsibility alone.” Mr. Speaker, the Opposition may vote against this legislation. We shall do the unpopular thing and we alone will bear the responsibility for the consequences. We do not need them. I challenge the Opposition to vote against this Bill.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) is so shameless as to say candidly: “We have now discovered that this measure is a popular one, and we should like to share in this popularity. For that reason we are desirous at this stage of voting for it, but if perchance this legislation does affect owners and lessors adversely at a later stage, they must please not come to us with their complaints and blame us for it; then they must blame the Government and the Minister for it. Because they must bear the blame, and if a slackness in the building industry does occur as a result of this legislation, they must not blame us for it. We are voting for the third reading for political reasons only. We are only seeking popularity, but any adverse consequences we place four-square upon the shoulders of the Minister.” Now that is a typical United Party attitude, a typical United Party point of view, one they have consistently adopted since the commencement of this Session. They wax hot and cold simultaneously; they want to sit upon all the chairs simultaneously. They want to tell the tenants they protected them, but they also wish to appease the owners and entrepreneurs and say to them: “We have tried to protect your interests and tried to fight for you.” Sir, the United Party will achieve nothing with this. They will fall down between all the chairs. We on this side are convinced that this legislation will not bring about any slackening in the tempo of building activities in respect of residential units, the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) yesterday testified to that. He said that in spite of the knowledge at the beginning of the year that legislation on rent control would be introduced, in spite of the fact that the people expected the legislation and that it has been introduced and has been before the House, there has been an increase in the tempo at which residential units in this country have been built. Yet in spite of this information which was at the disposal of the United Party they were so stupid as to try to oppose this Bill at the second reading, and they found themselves in trouble with their voters. We have been assured, particularly after the amendments introduced by the hon. the Minister at the Committee Stage, especially two of them, that there will not be the slightest discouragement of private enterprise to build residential units in our country. On the contrary, we expect it to increase, because under this legislation the entrepreneurs for the first time are getting the assurance that they will be able to obtain a minimum of 8 per cent on their capital. What is more, we are convinced that this legislation does not introduce general rent control throughout the country. After the Bill has been passed, not a single housing unit more will be subject to control than has been the case thus far. But what this legislation does in fact do is that it provides the Government with an opportunity to subject additional residential units to control in order to safeguard the tenants against exploitation, should that become necessary. We are convinced that hereby we are rendering an important and essential service to the country, and that it is an essential protective measure. The mere fact that we have passed this Bill will deter prospective exploiters and they will charge their tenants a reasonable rental. The Opposition should not come along at this late stage and under these pretexts, and say that they also now are in favour of the measure, while at the same time they wish to burden the Minister with the onus of any unpopularity that may arise from the measure. They should rather be consistent and vote against the Bill at this stage also, and then face their constituents outside in connection with this measure.

The accusations of the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) against this side of the House are typical of the irresponsible political propaganda which this Nationalist Government is trying to make at every possible opportunity. Not satisfied to make irresponsible political propaganda in racial matters, they want to bring it in in matters of this sort which have to do with the everyday living of the ordinary people of this country. Mr. Speaker, normally I would ignore the accusations of the hon. member with the contempt they deserve, but I intend to deal with them during the course of my speech.

First of all, I want to repeat what the previous speakers on this side of the House have made clear and that is that in regard to this legislation there are two matters which concern us particularly. There is firstly the situation of tenants and secondly the slowing down of housing. The hon. member for Parow asked us why it is, in view of the speeches made by the two speakers who spoke before me, that we do not oppose this Bill at the third reading. I will tell him. We do not oppose this Bill for the reason which we gave during the second-reading debate, namely, that there has arisen at the present time an extreme shortage of housing as a result of the complete incompetence of this Government, the incompetence of this Government to appreciate that if they were going to bring in thousands of immigrants, as they have done, they would have to house them somewhere and that if they made no provision for houses, but brought in thousands of immigrants, there was bound to be a housing shortage. As we made quite clear in the second-reading debate, we accept the fact that there is a housing shortage in this country at the present date and that there is likely to be a housing shortage for some time to come. Under those circumstances we say that it is clear that there must be a measure of control such as this to prevent exploitation of persons who have nowhere to live and who look for accommodation. Therefore we support this measure. That is the principle of this Bill and it is that principle which we support.

Nevertheless there are various matters that do give us concern, as has been pointed out by speakers before me, and up to now we have had very little satisfaction, in fact no assurance from hon. members on the other side of the House. In regard to the situation of the tenants what concerns us particularly is the situation that the tenants of controlled dwellings prior to 1949 may find themselves in the light of the amendment introduced by the hon. Minister to Clause 1, whereby a fixed net return of 8 per cent on buildings may now be allowed. I think we ought to be clear about this. Under the legislation as it exists at present there are two variables which the Rent Board can fix at their discretion. The first variable is the value to be placed on the land and the buildings; the second variable is the return which the Rent Board may allow on the investments. As the law stands at present the Rent Board is entitled to allow up to 8 per cent on buildings and up to 6 per cent on land, but the board can allow less than those figures. In terms of the new amendment introduced by the hon. Minister, the Rent Board must allow 8 per cent on the buildings and cannot allow less and must allow 6 per cent on the land. So one variable is done away with and it is now a fixed situation. In regard to pre-1949 buildings, those buildings which are controlled have had a value placed by the board on the land and on the buildings. That variable in regard to pre-1949 buildings is now fixed. The Rent Board, after this Bill is passed, cannot juggle around (I use that freely, without suggesting anything improper) with the value of the investment in order to prevent an increase in rentals. The situation then arises that in regard to pre-1949 buildings the two variables which exist under the legislation at present are done away with and in place of that there is a fixed return substituted of 8 per cent on buildings, which may or may not be greater than the return which is at present allowed.

Where do we go from here? Members of the Opposition do not have the facts at our disposal to enable us to decide whether or not large increases in rentals are likely as a result of this amendment. The Government on the other hand, because they control the Rent Boards, do have that information. That information is readily available to them, and the hon. the Minister has given us an assurance that he has consulted all the various Rent Boards and he can give us the assurance that the majority of rentals allowed by the Rent Boards at present are based on a return of 8 per cent. And so he can give us the assurance that because of that there will not be any substantial increase in rents. Therefore we say to him that we accept his assurance, but because that information is at the Minister’s disposal we placed the full responsibility on him for any possible increase that may result in those rentals.

Are you against this clause?

What has become clear …

Are you against this clause?

The hon. Minister is entitled to question me if he chooses to and I may answer the question if I choose to and I will choose to answer it in the way I want to answer it. We have made our position clear throughout this debate. We are against any substantial increases in rentals for tenants at this stage.

Why then did you not vote against the clause?

Because the Minister gave us his assurance that it would not result in any substantial increase in rentals. Does the hon. Minister want us not to accept his assurance?

I will answer in my time and not yours.

This is one of the reasons why we stated right at the outset that we considered that a select committee was necessary because on the one hand there was evidence that the returns which would be allowed in respect of land and buildings should be increased. There was that evidence. On the other hand we did not know what effect that would have on rentals and the only way to find that out was to have a select committee. That deals with what I have to say in regard to the position of tenants.

In regard to the slowing down of the building of houses, it goes without saying that the only way to overcome the housing shortage is to ensure maximum development, to ensure that the maximum number of housing units are put up, and clearly the best way of doing that is to place minimum restrictions or none at all if possible, on the construction of new dwellings. We on this side of the House have urged the hon. Minister to exclude new buildings altogether from this Bill, and frankly I still find it difficult to understand why the Minister is not prepared to do that. His arguments have not been satisfactory, because there is no evidence to show that there will be undue exploitation, or if there were undue exploitation that the matter could not be quickly put right at the forthcoming session of Parliament next year, in just over eight months; very little damage could be done in that period because it is unlikely that that many new buildings will be put up in that period. So I would again urge the hon. Minister to take the wise course and to exclude new constructions, new buildings, altogether from this Act. In that way he will ensure that there can be no possible stifling of new building. But if he will not do that, then I must look at the Bill as it stands.

The hon. Minister has said that he has had discussions with big entrepreneurs and that they are quite satisfied with the legislation as it now appears before the House. Once again I accept his statement. Whilst that may be the position in regard to the large entrepreneurs, I am still not happy that the amendments as drafted will cover the position of the individual builder. I do not wish to labour the argument which I advanced during the Committee Stage in this regard yesterday. I would once again, though, urge the hon. Minister to consider that aspect of it. His answer to me was that in regard to the individual builder, the clause as it stands provides that a return in excess of 8 per cent can be granted in the discretion of the board and the board may well use its discretion to give a larger return in respect of the individual builder. But, Mr. Speaker, it may well be that a court of law would not interpret the Clause 1n that way, because the clause specifically says that the Rent Board must take into account the audited actual cost of erection of the dwelling. Now the actual cost of the erection of a dwelling does not take into account any cost in respect of the labour of the individual builder. That is quite clear. So it may well be that the court may find that a Rent Board would be improperly exercising its discretion if on the one hand it were to allow no more than 8 per cent to a large entrepreneur but were to allow an amount in excess of 8 per cent to the individual builder. As I said a moment ago I do not wish to labour this point, but I consider that this is a matter which the hon. the Minister and his advisers should give further consideration to. The other point which I suggest warrants further consideration is the Minister’s proposed amendment to Clause 5 of this Bill, in terms of which he will exclude from the provisions of the new Section 1 bis flats which are let for no more than four months. Considerable argument was advanced during the Committee Stage to show how that can cause hardship to fairly large groups of people. I do not wish to repeat those arguments, but I would again urge the hon. the Minister to give further consideration to accepting the amendment which we moved, namely to change the four months’ period to six months.

Finally, I wish once again to make it quite clear that we on this side of the House are satisfied that at this stage a rent control measure is necessary and therefore we support this Bill. But at the same time the Government chose not to accept our suggestion to send this Bill to a select committee and chooses to press on with this legislation despite all the difficulties that have appeared during the various stages and have necessitated amendment after amendment by the Minister himself. In that situation we consider ourselves entirely justified to say to this Government, as we do, that we support this measure, but that at the same time we place on the Government full responsibility if this results in the two things or ether of the two things which we fear, namely an increase in rentals and a slowing down of new buildings.

If I were to follow the hon. members of the Opposition who have spoken here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, you probably would rule me out of order, but you will surely permit me to refer to the inconsistency revealed here this afternoon. The hon. member who has just resumed his Seat said once again that the Opposition accept the principle of this Bill, but the fact of the matter is that when a vote had to be taken on the principle of the Bill, namely at the second reading, they voted against it, and in respect of the contents of the Bill, against which they have spoken here this afternoon, they now intend voting in favour of it. Surely that is the utmost inconsistency. As I have said already, I do not wish to follow hon. members opposite, for the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) indeed referred to the incompetence of certain other Ministers of the Cabinet, and if I were to go into that, you will probably rule me out of order, but surely it is clear that as regards the conduct of the Opposition in this House in respect of this measure, they as usual run with the hare and hunt with the dogs. The fact of the matter is that the contents of this Bill are the result of a very urgent need which has arisen in our country. As a result of certain circumstances in our country, there has been exploitation and therefore it is fitting that any responsible Government and any responsible Minister should act immediately. That is exactly what is aimed at with this Bill. The actions of the United Party at the third reading remind me of the man who said to his son: Do not do what I am doing; do what I say. They are pretending to vote for this third reading, but they had a lot to say against it.

Now their great complaint is that the contents of this Bill are such that it may possibly have adverse consequences and they do not wish to share the responsibility for those adverse consequences; the contents of this Bill are such that it teems with defects. I have said that the Minister took this action because there has been an urgent need for it, and then I should like to associate myself with the English adage: “I prefer my imperfect way of doing something to your perfect way of doing nothing.” The hon. member for Dur-ban-Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) said that the shortage of housing is the result of the incompetence of the Government. No, that is not the cause. I should like to point out that the contents of this Bill will indeed result in more housing and flats being built. Sir, the reason why a shortage of residential units has arisen is simply an economic fact, namely that in the past there have been other more remunerative fields of investment, particularly since Sharpeville. Since Sharpeville there have been other fields of investment that were so remunerative that the investors concentrated upon them. Prices dropped tremendously on the Stock Exchange, and there was a very favourable field of investment on the Stock Exchange. Financial institutions which would otherwise have invested their funds in residential units, moved over to the Stock Exchange in order to derive the greatest possible benefit from the position. But since then conditions have changed to such an extent that at the present time the money one invests on the Stock Exchange yields a return of as little as 2 per cent, and now one will see that large financial institutions will once again revert to building units. There will be a revival in the building industry as regards residential units such as we have never experienced before. No, it has not been the Government’s incompetence that has caused this shortage of residential units, but it has been economic circumstances and particularly the wonderful field of investment on the Stock Exchange during the past two years. Now that the position has changed and share prices have risen to such an extent that the return is only 2 per cent, we shall have a revival in the building industry such as never before, and the hon. the Minister may be satisfied, that the position envisaged by hon. members of the Opposition will not arise. For that reason I shall very gladly vote for the third reading.

I left my seat for a moment because I was not prepared for the sudden collapse of the Opppsition. We saw a strange exhibition here to-day, which of course is not peculiar as far as hon. members opposite are concerned. It is now really becoming characteristic of them that they are like the Greek mythological figure Janus with two heads, but with this addition, that they actually move in two directions at the same time as well, and that makes them even more resemble a crab.

If there is one person in this country who is entitled to some credit for having helped to make this Bill possible, it is the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), but what does he do to-day?

I support it. [Laughter.]

He has come under the whip of those persons in his party who do not want this measure, because there are such people, and I want to ask those hon. members to deny it. The fact is that they had an opportunity in the beginning of the year in their caucus to vote on this question of whether they wanted rent control in this form or not and the fact is that they outvoted a person in their caucus who wanted to move a motion that further rent control should be instituted. [Interjection.] The persons who have to-day gained the victory in that party are those who also won at that time. But when we introduced the measure there was rebellion in that party. [Interjections.] We know of course that the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) and the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) got up here and frankly gave their wholehearted support to the measure, and then the others remained silent, but in the further stages of the Bill the others again got an opportunity to voice their protest, and they are still doing so to-day, and the poor hon. member for Point had to satisfy both sections, and what a complete mess they made of the whole thing.

Let us just analyse a few of these so-called attacks.

They are not attacks; they are intended as support.

Instead of the hon. member for Durban (Point) rather sticking to his guns, because that is always the best thing to do in politics, he grasped at the question of the demolition of houses. Now he knows that in terms of the Housing Act it is within my power as Minister to prevent the demolition of a building, and he knows that in the majority of cases where a house is still in any way suitable for occupation we do not allow it to be demolished. But I want to tell the hon. member that the number of applications of that nature is very small. There is one defect, namely that in some cases where people wish to demolish they give the tenants notice before having obtained the necessary consent, and in connection with that matter I have already taken steps and I have a Bill before the House which will be debated later, in terms of which the position will be changed so that notice cannot be given unless prior consent for demolition has been obtained. The hon. member pretends that this happens on a very large scale, but that is not so. I do not know whether I have had even 18 applications since I became Minister.

Now the hon. member says this Bill was characterized by amendment after amendment and by one embarrassing situation after another for me. Let us test the truth of that. The fact is that when I made my second-reading speech I myself held out in prospect four amendments, without any urging on the part of the Opposition. I said that on closer study I would introduce four amendments, and then in the Committee Stage some hon. members made pleas, like the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje), who said, inter alia, that I could not expect people to provide houses unless they could make a decent profit. Now the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) comes along to-day and quarrels with me because there may possibly be people who will make a bigger profit. There you have the two heads, the Jeppes head and the Musgrave head.

You know that is not true.

Order! Did the hon. member say that the Minister knows it is not true?

Yes, and I withdraw it.

The hon. member and the whole of the Opposition know that this Bill was before the House for weeks without its being discussed.

Then there was time enough for a select committee.

In other words, it is not true, as the hon. member alleged, that it “was rushed through the House”. There was time enough for consideration, but what happened? Not a single one of the amendments moved by those hon. members was acceptable, because what did those amendments amount to? Take the amendments of the hon. members for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and Springs (Mr. Taurog). What did their amendments amount to? Sir, had I accepted those amendments I would not have been helping the investor, nor would I have been protecting the tenant, but I would have been assisting the exploiters, and I make this accusation to-day, that the amendments of the hon. members for Port Elizabeth (South) and Springs were calculated to protect the exploiters.

Nonsense!

That is the one head of that party, and those are the interests they represent here. They do not represent the interests of the tenant or of the decent investor, but those of the people who want to make use of the housing shortage to exploit others. The fact is therefore that in the Committee Stage there was not one appreciable amendment moved by the Opposition which was worth considering, but now they complain. But on the other hand I moved amendments here which were the result of consultations with investors. I make no secret of it, and what is wrong with it? The investors who came to see me had so little confidence in the Opposition that they did not ask the Opposition to put amendments on the Order Paper but came straight to me, and they convinced me that their interests would be served by it, and I acceded to their request. But they did not go to the Opposition because even they have already given up the Opposition.

But the hon. member for Durban (Point) went further. He said that I should give him assurances, firstly, that I would have enough staff available. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend giving him any assurance, because in the same breath he said the assurances I give are worthless because I do not know how long I shall still be here. If he then thinks that my assurances are worthless, why should I give him an assurance?

You might as well give it while you are still here.

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) said that I should two years ago have foreseen that there would be exploitation.

I said last year.

No, the hon. member said two years ago. I should not have given the warning Last year, but I should two years ago have foreseen that there would be exploitation this year, but now that I have introduced this legislation he is against it.

No, I am satisfied. [Laugh’ ter.]

Those hon. members remind me of an old man who lived in the town where I grew up. My parents told me that he loved his grandchild so much that he hugged him to death. Those hon. members are so fond of this Bill that they want to squeeze the life out of it. Then the hon. member said I had to interview numerous deputations and had to reply to numerous letters. That is not true. I received a small number of letters from people in regard to this Bill, and most of them were people who supported me or said that I should take even more drastic action. And there were not numbers of deputations. Two deputations interviewed me. But I can understand that this seems a lot to that hon. member, because if two people interview him it must seem a lot, so unpopular is that party now.

The hon. member for Musgrave also tried to be very clever here. It seems as if another little head is growing out of that party. What is his objection? His objection is that this position would never have arisen had this acute housing shortage not existed in the country. Where is the acute housing shortage? I said during the second reading, and I said yesterday, and I repeat it to-day, that there is no general housing shortage in South Africa. There is a shortage of a certain category of houses, viz. for the middle and lower income groups, and particularly of houses for rent. Just look at the advertisement columns in the newspapers and hon. members will see that what I say is the truth. The hon. member for Musgrave said a most reprehensible thing in order to create the impression that we do not have enough houses. I thought he was so anxious for us to get immigrants, but what will frighten away an immigrant more than to tell him that he will not get a house in South Africa? Does he want this to be used for foreign consumption? Because the fact is that there is no immigrant in this country who does not have a house to-day.

May I put a question?

No, I am not prepared to reply. If the hon. member had treated me decently a little while ago when I wanted to put a question to him, I would also have treated him decently. The fact is that there is no general shortage, and in the second place the hon. member talks nonsense when he says there is a general shortage of housing. What is more, no immigrant here lacks accommodation, and even more than that, the Government started last year already, long before the Opposition woke up, and it took extra measures to combat the housing needs of the country. Therefore we did not make plans only in regard to conventional building methods, such as we are now implementing, but we also took steps in respect, of prefabricated material. Therefore we are to-day granting loans for the building of wooden houses in order to stimulate our timber industry, and we have adopted various courses in regard to the provision of housing. If the hon. member therefore makes that allegation he is talking nonsense.

But the hon. member goes further and says that what concerns him so much in regard to this measure for which he wishes to vote is that new buildings are not being excluded. Surely that is not true. New buildings are excluded until such time as exploitation takes place, and then they can be put under control. But he says new buildings are not excluded. Can you see, Sir, what poison he is spreading in the country to frighten off investors? My accusation against the hon. member for Musgrave is that he wants to frighten the investor. He wants there to-be a housing shortage because he wants to make political capital out of it.

Then the hon. member made a third allegation. He alleged that I said in the debate yesterday that whereas Clause 1 provided that there could be a profit of 6 per cent to 8 per cent, I am now changing it to 8 per cent, and I am alleged to have said that this is because in the majority of cases it is already 8 per cent. That is not true. I never said so. What I did say was this. In numerous cases it has already been fixed by the Rent Boards at 8 per cent, but I added, and this is contained in the Bill, that we are inserting a proviso so that people who do not keep their buildings in order are prohibited from obtaining increased rentals. But the hon. member says that I said in the majority of cases it was 8 per cent. He should not quarrel with me; he should quarrel with the hon. member for Jeppes, who said that this provision in the old Rents Act was one of the reasons why the investor did not want to erect buildings. How can the hon. member for Jeppes be right in pleading for increased rentals while the hon. member for Musgrave accuses me of now wanting to make it 8 per cent? Which of the two am I to believe? If the hon. member wants to quarrel with the hon. member for Jeppes, he should do so in his caucus, but he should not quarrel with me.

I wish to conclude. I do not think there are any other points to which I have to reply. I want to tell the hon. member for Point, who is a brave political fighter and who took the lead to-day, this: Stand by your convictions and persuade your party now to vote against the third reading. If they do not have the courage to vote against the third reading to-day, then all this fuss that was made to-day is so much nonsense and political hypocrisy.

Order!

I withdraw that.

In connection with Clause 2 I asked the Minister yesterday whether all the moneys paid into the account would be moneys voted by other bodies and the Minister said “yes”. It is clearly stated in Clause 2 (1) (a) of the Bill that moneys voted by Parliament would be paid into this account and I am sure this side of the House was under the impression that Parliament would definitely vote money for this account. But now the Minister says “no”, whereas he said on another occasion that of all the moneys voted over a period of years by the board—I mentioned the figure yesterday—R800,000 was for housing and equipment and R1,200,000 for bursaries and education. As far as this side of the House is concerned we cannot reconcile at all. Had the Minister come forward with legislation to establish an agricultural research account and envisaged that all the moneys to be paid into that fund would be money not voted by Parliament or the State, but only those sums of moneys contributed by boards or agricultural organizations, etc., this legislation practically becomes a joke as far as we are concerned. I want to put this question directly to the Minister in connection with 2 (1) (a): Is it the intention that Parliament should vote money for this fund or not?

I think there is a measure of misunderstanding.

Misunderstanding?

Yes, the hon. member may perhaps regard it as a serious misunderstanding but I regard it as a slight misunderstanding. As I explained in my second-reading speech, and as I also explained in my reply yesterday, the fact is that we are now for the first time establishing a research account, an account in which all contributions by public bodies and other bodies, except the State, can be paid, because the State votes money for research under my Department’s Vote. Let me just give an example. The State has taken the initiative in respect of the tobacco research account and the wine industry research account, which are completely separate things. The State wanted to make a contribution towards those two industries because the State benefited greatly from them in the form of excise duty and that it could now give something direct to the farmer or to the industry; but the farmer benefits by it. Circumstances may arise where the public or the boards may make specific contributions to such a separate research account but that may not be quite sufficient to carry out that project. We now make provision for an appeal to be made to the State and that the State can also make its contribution. We are only making it possible for the State to contribute by getting Parliament to vote the money. The primary idea, however, is not that it should be a fund to which the State contributes, but that it is really one which is supplemented by the State. That is the only difference. Naturally the State will not hestitate to contribute when the public gives money for important research work and more money is required for that research. I hope that is now clear.

The Minister has referred to tobacco research and research in connection with the wine industry. Will the Minister please devote himself to wool research and leather research, and not only the contributions made by the board but by private concerns and industry. Are those amounts paid into this fund and is the contributory amount voted by Parliament paid into that fund, and is it operated from that fund or does it operate as it did in the past? Where is the line of demarcation when it comes to the question of leather and wool and tobacco and wine?

The hon. member for East London (City) surprises me; he has hold of the working end of the stick. As somebody who has had a great deal to do with the wool-growing industry the hon. member ought to know that the wool research that was done at Grahamstown had absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the Department of Agriculture as such. It was simply secondary research in connection with wool, its industrial value, and it came directly under the Department of Commerce and Industry. The contribution the State has made to that research and is still making is done through the Department of Commerce and Industry and not through the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The research which was done at that institute was done mainly in conjunction with the C.S.I.R. The research which my Department undertakes is more in connection with production and breeding. The hon. member now levels the charge at my Department that the only research it does is to how to cross-breed sheep, but is that so? I can assure the hon. member that the Wool Committee of the S.A. Agricultural Union was also more or less under that impression and during the course of last year, at our request, they made a study tour of all our research institutions concerned with wool and sheep and breeding. The result was that I had an interview with them, at their request, at which they told me that they did not know we were doing so much, not only in regard to the crossbreeding of sheep ether for their meat or for other breeding purposes, but to improve the quality of the wool. I have in mind, for example, the research which we did in connection with the Dohne-merino and the Dormer in the Boland. I do not want to mention the other breeds. The research our Department does is to produce a type of sheep that will be adaptable to the various ecological areas, sheep with which the farmer can farm more profitably without of necessity producing a poorer type of wool. I want to know from the hon. member whether he does not think we have done the farmer a service by having done that?

Order! These matters are not relevant.

The reply in brief is that this account has nothing to do with the Wool Research Institute Account and the contributions made by the Wool Board or whoever it may be, because those do not fall under this Department at all.

I am sorry the Minister saw fit to say that “had I known anything about the research institution”. Perhaps he is unaware of the fact that I was chairman of it for years. When the Minister levels the accusation at me that I ought to know it falls under the Department of Commerce and Industry and that the research which is done here is not purely the biological research which his Department does then both of them —both leather and wool …

Order! I told the hon. the Minister a moment ago that wool research was not relevant.

Very well, in that case I shall say nothing further about wool research. I again put it to the Minister that if any institution, which is subsidized by private concerns and boards, and payments are made into funds, does fundamental, biological research, does he remain of the opinion, of the judgment, that that will never come under this research account, or will it eventually have to fall under it because they are doing fundamental research?

I just want to say this in reply to the hon. member who has just sat down. All research in connection with production aspects and in connection with an agricultural product until it reaches the manufacturing stage, falls under Agricultural Technical Services and will be covered by this fund. I just want to add that this not primary research, but this research in connection with production also entails other basic research as well as other applied research.

That is done here, but research up to the manufacturing stage falls under my Department. When it comes to research in respect of the manufacturing stage this fund will not be used for that.

On two successive occasions, in respect of two successive laws, it happened yesterday that the Opposition supported the Bills vis-à-vis a farmer, a person who represents an agricultural constituency, and that a venomous attack was made on the Oppotion for supporting those Bills. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek), one after the other, launched a venomous attack on the Opposition for supporting a Bill such as this—a minor Bill which makes provision under the State Advances Recoveries Act and the Farmers’ Assistance Act for two or three things. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom did not even talk about those two or three things and the principle of the Bill; he simply went from clause to Clause 1n order to use up his time. This Bill largely provides for additional security when assistance is granted to farmers under the State Advances Recoveries Act and by the Farmers’ Assistance Board, and in terms of Clause 6, where agricultural machinery and equipment and lorries are purchased under the hire-purchase system with the assistance of the Farmers’ Assistance Board, provision is made that those cannot be demanded back from him. That is mostly what is contained in the Bill. But the hon. member for Wakkerstroom comes along—and I am sorry he is not here at the moment—and blames us for having entered into this debate which ought not to be an agricultural debate, because the Agricultural Vote must still come up for discussion, but which is a debate on finances under the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. He holds it against us that urban dwellers and people who do not represent agricultural constituencies have entered the debate. Mr. Speaker, I want to say this: If that is the best contribution the Government can make in the form of members representing agricultural constituencies to this debate, people who want to convert this into an agricultural debate because so far they have not had an opportunity of attacking the Opposition—if the best contribution they can make is the kind of contribution the hon. member for Wakkerstroom made yesterday, I am not surprised that this Government cannot produce anything better for agriculture than the Ministers concerned. I believe the hon. member for Wakkerstroom is also secretary of the farmers’ group in the Government party.

He is the shadow Minister.

Heaven help us if our best speakers on agricultural matters on this side of the House made the sort of contribution the hon. member for Wakkerstroom made yesterday. I have already said that he did not deal with the principle of the Bill. He dealt with the Bill clause by clause. I have already stated broadly what the principles contained in this Bill were, namely, additional security to the State for assistance granted ether vis-à-vis State Advances or vis-à-vis Farmers’ Assistance—it is really a short cut as far as financing is concerned inasmuch as mortgage bonds no longer have to be registered in the way they were in the past. Stamp duty and the like are all being done away with, in other words that financial assistance can be given as quickly as possible to those needy farmers who are assisted under the Farmers’ Assistance Act. We doubt whether that is always the right thing to do but we shall deal with that when we reach the Committee Stage. We doubt whether that is the right way of dealing with this particular matter, but we shall still come to that.

The second point raised was in connection with the acquisition of machinery under the hire-purchase system. Where an agriculturist has applied for assistance the merchant who has provided him with that machinery under a hire-purchase system will not have the right to re-possess it. Even in this connection the question arises whether we should thwart and hamper the suppliers in granting credit facilities by introducing this new clause, but we shall have ample opportunity at the Committee Stage to deal with that as well. I do not want to deal with that now.

I notice the hon. member for Wakkerstroom has not yet returned; I shall therefore leave him and turn to the hon. member for Waterberg who is here and who in a roaring voice read his paean of praise in such a melancholy way in this House. I heard him say he was going to tell his constituents of the wonderful things this Government have done in connection with farming matters; of the wonderful achievements they have attained in connection with assistance to farmers. Do you know, Sir, to what he referred as the wonderful achievements when he read that heart-stirring speech in regard to the misery the farmers in the Northern Transvaal were experiencing, something of which we are as well aware as he and to which we have already been referring for weeks while that side of the House continually maintained that the farmers were not having such a hard time. Oh no, they are not having a difficult time at all because the wool prices are high. He is not at all concerned whether they produce more wool or whether they do not produce any because the wool prices are high. The farmer is having a more difficult time to-day than he has had for a long time and the hon. member for Waterberg has said so himself. But what did he say further? He talked about research in connection with plants that would be drought-resistant as though that would be the solution to the severe drought which faced Northern Transvaal to-day. He hardly thought of anything new which the Government could do to assist those farmers. I ask you: How hollow can a person’s head be? He can hardly think of anything new which the Government can do! He referred to the rebates on the transportation of stock and fodder during droughts; he referred to loans for the purchase of stock and loans for the purchase of rations and more loans and more loans; he talked about the alms to which the Minister also referred when he introduced this Bill, alms which the farmers do not want. The days of alms and subsidies are past in this century in which we are living and because of the prosperity this country is enjoying. We are not living in a time of alms. Nor do we want loans if we can do without them. Is there a method whereby we can do without loans? I want members of the Government to listen to what they do in another country where they are experiencing a similar drought as we. I quote from the Natal Mercury of 1 April 1964—

“To delay the assessment or to overestimate the carrying capacity of their farms may in the end compel farmers to dispose of more cattle than would have been necessary had the assessment been made in goodtime,” the statement warned.

As far as crops are concerned the Ministry said: “Maize, groundnut, bean and cotton crops on a considerable number of farms in the major cropping areas have suffered so severely from the drought that yields will be extremely low.”

The statement advised farmers to plough their withered maize crops under if they were too dry to be cut and used as silage.

The Minister of Rhodesia also went further. He also advised those farmers whose crops were being ruined by the drought to lease their lands to those farmers whose stock was dying because of the drought.

What is the point?

My point is this that had this Government and the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing had any intention of helping the farmers in the Northern Transvaal out of their difficulty, without lending them money which they have to repay, they would also have followed the policy which the Rhodesian Minister was following by saying that they would make money available through the Farmers’ Assistance Board or through another financial concern, to other farmers who were sufficiently fortunate to have grazing, to go and buy up that cattle.

On what terms?

By lending them money at 4 per cent which the farmers do not pay; in Rhodesia the stock must be resold to the Cold Storage Commission and the purchase price plus the 4 per cent interest is then deducted from the purchase price and the balance goes into the pocket of the farmer.

Is it only the 4 per cent which is deducted? Does the farmer not pay for that stock?

He does not pay when he purchases; he does not pay the capital and he does not pay the 4 per cent. If the Minister does not know that he has never taken the trouble to make a study of agricultural matters outside this country in which case I do not blame him for having made such a mess of it.

[Inaudible.]

The Minister can take my word for it; I have property in Rhodesia. Many young men from the Republic have gone there and purchased farms under the hire-purchase system; they have purchased stock from the Rhodesian Cold Storage Commission without any capital. They can do that as long as it is an approved farm on which there is water and a farm which is fenced in. He returns that stock after the first year when they have grown into big oxen; if they are young oxen he returns them after the second year; if it is stock for breeding purposes he returns them after the third year and he does not pay a cent interest out of his pocket.

May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member says 4 per cent interest is deducted and when the farmer resells that stock to the Commission the original purchase price of that cattle is deducted plus the 4 per cent interest. How can the hon. member maintain the farmer does not pay the original purchase price nor the 4 per cent interest? Surely that is a simple little sum.

I never alleged that the farmer did not pay that. I said it was not necessary for him to disburse a penny when he acquired those cattle. The purchase price is deducted from his account. If he purchased a lean ox, fattened it, but does not make a profit he is as bad a farmer as the Minister is a Minister. I have read what they are doing in Rhodesia at the moment. I read the statement by the Rhodesian Minister in this connection word for word. The hon. member for Waterberg told us yesterday about the wonderful assistance given to farmers in connection with foot-and-mouth disease. The position is different in Rhodesia. Where there has been an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in an area and where the grazing of that farmer has been ruined by drought, as has already happened in our country …

They do not often have droughts.

Mr. Speaker, that is ignorance talking! The cattle are then removed from that area in a sealed vehicle; they are taken to the abattoirs where they are treated as infected slaughter stock but at the same guaranteed price as the price paid by the Cold Storage Commission for other stock. That is what they do in the case of foot-andmouth disease. Then the members of Wakkerstroom and Waterberg revile this side of the House because in an unsignificant measure of this nature which deals with additional financial facilities …

Insignificant?

Insignificant in this sense that the debate on this Bill ought not to be converted into a debate on agricultural matters. We should regard this measure purely as a financial measure and treat it as such. But hon. members on that side want to turn this into an agricultural debate. I repeat that from 1948 to 1953 it went so well with the farmers that they were worried about the high tax they had to pay. In 1958-63, ten years later, they started to wonder how they would make ends meet. What is the position to-day I in 1964? I am not going to confine myself to the maize crop and I am not going to confine myself to the drought. All those are factors, but when the hon. member for Waterberg says, apart from the drought, everything is as rosy in the agricultural garden as it can possibly be, he does not know what he is talking about. As though the drought alone was responsible for the fact that the price and production of dairy products fluctuated to such an extent in the past and that we sometimes had to import dairy products. The drought is not to blame for that. I admit the drought is a contributory factor to the reason farmers are having the hard time in 1964 but that is not the main factor.

What is the main factor?

The bad Government. That is an unfortunate factor which is beyond our control. The fact remains and I emphasize this that the farmers who thought in 1948-53 this Government was strong enough to handle the situation as far as farming matters were concerned are not only sick and tired of this Government but they have lost confidence in this Government’s agricultural policy. At this stage the farmers already know that the Government, particularly the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, has no agricultural policy. He struggles on as best he can with subsidies and rebates to overcome the drought. No new idea has emanated from the grains of the farmer members on that side; they cannot suggest any remedy to save the situation, even if it is only the remedy employed by our neighbouring state. Let us move the stock which is dying in the Northern Transvaal to the Eastern Cape and if the person who wants to buy that stock does not have the money to do so let us assist him because in that case you will be assisting the man who can save those cattle. It is no use assisting the farmer in the drought-stricken area; what can he do with that assistance? Or must he trek 500 miles with his stock to look for grazing? I put this question in all fairness: If the farmer in the Eastern Cape is assisted to purchase the stock in Northern Transvaal and he does not have to pay the purchase price until such time as he resells them, does anybody suggest that the Government will suffer a loss by financing him in that way and does anybody suggest that the best way of saving the farmer in the drought-stricken area is not to enable him to sell his stock at a reasonable price but rather to advance further loans and subsidies, etc. to him? I repeat that we support this Bill because it will mean that financial assistance will be more readily available. We promised to support this measure and to give it our blessing. A bogy was then raised by members on the Government side who accused members on this side of having made a poor contribution to the debate and, in the case of other members, of unwillingness to take part in the debate. We shall take part in this debate and we shall turn it into an agricultural debate but I want to say this to hon. members opposite: If that is the best argument they can advance and if the hon. member for Wakkerstroom, who is the secretary of the farmers’ group, is the best speaker they can put forward to advance those arguments, I can only say: Heaven help the agriculturist.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) has displayed an ignorance in connection with farming conditions in Southern Africa which amazes me. He tried to dictate to us how we should debate this matter. I want to point out that when the Rents Amendment Bill was under discussion an hour or so ago the United Party took a great deal of time to say that they supported that measure. They had a great deal of time in which to discuss the measure and many United Party members participated in that debate although they supported the measure. We have here a measure which deals with the interests of the farmers in South Africa. Although it suited them to devote a great deal of time in discussing the Rents Amendment Bill, it does not suit them to discuss the interests of the farmers of South Africa, particularly those farmers who find themselves in a critical position. Sir, it suits us to discuss farming matters and we will not permit the United Party to dictate to us and to tell us how much time we should devote to this debate.

The hon. member for East London (City) spoke about conditions in Rhodesia. I want to point out to him that that country is still to a large extent undeveloped. There are large areas still untouched and the Government is encouraging people to farm those areas. One has to pay a farmer to farm there because people do not wish to farm. All the land in our country controlled by the Land Board and the Government has already been given out for this purpose. I want to know how the hon. member is going to succeed in selling the stock of the farmers in the Northern Transvaal and finding grazing for that stock in the Eastern Province. He said that the farmers in the Eastern Province, who do not need assistance, must be assisted to buy the cattle of the farmers in the Northern Transvaal. But then the farmers in the Northern Transvaal will have no cattle at all. At some stage they will have to buy back their cattle from the hon. member for East London (City) at his own price.

I think it is to be deprecated that while we are discussing a Bill which is of the most vital importance to a large number of citizens of this country who are experiencing difficult times, the United Party, in the person of the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson), should reveal such light-heartedness and try to make a farce of the whole debate. The reason for his action is obvious. The platteland has rejected the United Party and now the hon. member for Sea Point has to participate in a debate on agriculture. He did so yesterday on no fewer than two occasions.

By doing so he only succeeded in revealing his ignorance in regard to conditions in agriculture. This Bill is of the most vital importance to the farmers who are experiencing difficult drought conditions. We who live in those parts know what we are talking about. This Bill is another attempt on the part of the Government to try to assist those farmers who are the victims of natural disasters. Those who need that assistance welcome this Bill wholeheartedly.

I want to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister and his officials who are entrusted with the task of lightening the load of the farmers.

Another song of praise!

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to sing a song of praise, no matter what the hon. member for East London (City) may say. It is necessary for us to do so. The officials of the Department are acting in the interests of the farmers who are in difficulty. They have done a very great deal in this connection. Various forms of assistance are being given to-day. This assistance is mostly in the form of loans, rebates and subsidies. These are sources of assistance which have already been mentioned by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek). The question always arises as to whether assistance to these farmers is justified and to what extent that assistance is justified. I believe that we are all in agreement that that assistance is indeed justified and that it is absolutely necessary for us to have a strong farming population in the country. Assistance must be given at all times to those who need it. I want to point out that the farmers who are being assisted in terms of the Farmers’ Assistance Act are usually those who can no longer command credit at other institutions. When we consider this fact, it is pleasing to be able to say that, according to statistics, it is clear that since the introduction of aid schemes, the State has lost very little. Up to 31 March 1963, of a total recoverable amount of R142,500,000, only 3.65 per cent was written off. This speaks volumes for the integrity and the honesty of those farmers who are in a critical position. The percentage written off in respect of advances for farming purposes, is only 3.17 per cent while in the case of the demobilization scheme it amounted to 6.47 per cent. The total amount outstanding on about 42,000 loans amounted to about R37,500,000 as at 31 March 1963. An amount of R7,700,000 had already been paid on a capital amount of R30,000,000 advanced for farming purposes which was outstanding on 31 March 1963 while an amount of R1,900,000 in interest was outstanding.

When we consider these statistics, Mr. Speaker, we arrive at certain conclusions. The first is that the farmers who have been assisted in terms of these aid schemes have fulfilled their obligations faithfully. On the other hand, when we look at the large outstanding amount and when we consider the continued serious and threatening drought conditions, we can understand that these farmers are filled with unease and concern. It is only the endurance and the toughness and the strong willpower of these farmers which enables them to survive these conditions. I think that this compels our respect. I have already said that statistics prove that these farmers have fulfilled their obligations faithfully. This is to no small extent due to the fact that the farmers living in the drought-stricken areas have altered and adjusted their way of life to the lean years in which they have been earning a smaller income. I think that their determination and consistency compels our greatest respect and admiration. Farmers affected by natural disasters merit special attention. Their problems must be kept apart from the ordinary agricultural problems and difficulties. It is for this reason that the Farmers’ Assistance Board was set up and it is for this reason that we have this Bill before us to-day.

Certain additional concessions are being made in this Bill. We think of the registration of bonds and the reduced fees in this connection; we think of the control which will now be exercised over those who sell agricultural machinery such as tractors to farmers under hire-purchase agreements and who then repossess that machinery when the farmer needs it most. When we think of solutions, then I say that there are many remedies existing to-day. It is very difficult for one to imagine any further assistance that can be made available. There are people who have a poor knowledge of agricultural problems and who raise farmers’ hopes, hopes which are perhaps unrealistic. But the Government has given careful consideration to this problem and many means of assistance have been made available. These means of assistance have saved many thousands of farmers from ruin during periods of drought over the past 60 years. I believe that with the sympathetic assistance of the present Government and because of the toughness and the determination of the farmers, they will be able to survive this difficult period.

But I do think that there are other remedies to which the Government should give its serious attention and I want to mention a few of them. I think that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing should frame plans jointly. As far as the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is concerned I think that the number of experimental farms, for example, should be increased. I am pleased that an investigation has recently been made in connection with experimental farms in the Northern Transvaal because the Department realizes that it is necessary to make special efforts in order to assist those stricken farmers. If the services at the Mara station cannot be expanded, I think consideration ought to be given to the establishment of a special experimental farm which will give particular attention to experiments in connection with the growing of crops and the control of grazing in the areas of the country prone to drought. I think that it has been a generally accepted fact in the past that crop-raising should actually be discouraged in certain parts of the Northern Transvaal. The fact is, however, that because the farms in that area are small, crop-raising has increased and has to-day become the most important facet of farming operations there. That is why it is necessary for experiments in connection with crop-raising to be made in the Northern Transvaal, particularly with a view to producing cattle-feed for the stock which do very well in those parts. We need far more extension officers for that purpose. I think of the question of the dissemination of more information in connection with soil conservation; I think of the building of more dams in those areas where it is so dry. Consideration should possibly be given to the making available of larger subsidies for water-works, such as the building of earth dams. Even though the topography may not always lend itself to this, the water can always be conserved. Because of the climate in the Northern Transvaal the pumping of water is a very important factor and many farmers are able to keep going in this way. I think too of an extension of the services rendered by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing.

Mr. Speaker, farming has become a very involved business undertaking. It is necessary for us to have the services of agricultural economists. We must increase the number of agricultural economists whom we have to-day. It is necessary for a farmer to make a thorough study of cost-price estimating, of book-keeping and of advanced planning in connection with his farming operations. I also feel that because of the assistance which it is necessary to give in these drought-stricken areas, consideration should also be given, for example, to the establishment of agricultural centres at central points in those areas from which all the information in connection with agricultural financing and in connection with agricultural technical information can be supplied to the farmers.

These few suggestions that I have made will provide the farmers with indirect services but services which I believe are justified and which I also believe will contribute towards assisting the farmers during these difficult times. It will be of assistance to them if they are made to feel that the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services are showing more interest in them and doing more in order to combat this problem of drought.

I regret that I could not be here last night. I regret that the debate on this Bill has taken a turn which in my opinion is unnecessary. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Niemand) launched an attack on the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) which was completely wrong.

Did you hear the hon. member for Sea Point last night?

The hon. member for Pietersburg said that the hon. member for Sea Point spoke twice yesterday about agricultural matters. Why should he not do so? Hé is just as entitled as any other hon. member to discuss agricultural matters, because he knows just as much about it …

The point is that he did not discuss agricultural matters.

He is just as au fait with agricultural matters as any other hon. member opposite. He is just as capable of catering for the interests of the farmers in this House as any other hon. member opposite. It is absolutely correct that he should speak in an agricultural debate on every possible occasion.

We on this side of the House support this Bill.

You supported the Rents Act also.

Yes, we also supported the Rents Act. If we raised objections to certain points in the Rents Act, we were quite entitled to do so. We support this Bill wholeheartedly. There may be points here and there which we can perhaps discuss. I am very grateful for the manner in which this side of the House every time looks after the interests of the farmers.

Did you listen to the hon. member for Sea Point?

I was not here when the hon. member for Sea Point spoke, but I cannot believe that the hon. member for Sea Point would not look after the interests of the farmers in this House. I believe that this Bill has been introduced mainly as the result of the continual representations made by hon. members on this side. It is we on this side who know precisely what the position of the farmers in the country is. It is we on this side who continually bring it to the notice of the Minister that the position of the farmers to-day is not an enviable one. We did so again this year by way of a motion. We told the Government precisely what their position was. When that motion was discussed hon. members opposite wished to intimate that the position of the farmers was sound. Sir, the position of the farmer is not sound; that is the reason for our constantly having to introduce this kind of legislation. [Interjections.] There may be other people also with whom things are not going well, but when we discuss agriculture we discuss the farmers. Nor am I saying that things are not going well with all the farmers. I have never said so, but a large section of the farmers in this country are having a difficult time to-day, with the result that we have this type of legislation. We welcome it, because we want to assist those people.

This legislation, however, gives too little and it comes too late. It comes too late, and 28,000 farmers have already left the land, and we are told that every year 2,400 of them are leaving the land. This is not the type of assistance which puts the farmer on a sound basis. This is temporary assistance. The hon. member for Groblersdal (Mr. M. J. H. Bekker) made a speech about a fortnight ago in which he pleaded that agriculture should be placed on a sound basis. That is the right thing. We must place agriculture on a sound basis and then we will not need this type of legislation all the time.

Finally, I just want to say that we approve of this legislation. But I repeat that I think this side of the House is to a large extent responsible for the fact that our farmers are receiving assistance, because we are constantly advocating their case here and bringing it to the notice of the Government.

We have just listened to the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan), the leader of the farming group on the Opposition side. He told us quite frankly that his side of the House supported this legislation. We are grateful for that. Listening to previous speakers on that side, Mr. Speaker, we heard each one of them say that they supported this Bill but … They then proceeded to hurl a number of accusations at the Government. For example, we started last night with the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren). He is an hon. member for whom we all have a great deal of respect. We also have respect for his knowledge in regard to agricultural matters. But that hon. member also made the accusation that this legislation was being introduced too late. Then we had the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson), of whom I can unfortunately not say what I have said of the hon. member for King William’s Town. The hon. member for Sea Point took exception to what was said by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek). He tried to ridicule him because he thanked the hon. the Minister and the Department for what they have done for the farmers up to the present.

We listened this afternoon to the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman). He delivered a tirade here and he said that the hon. the Minister has not been successful in his efforts to control agriculture in South Africa. He referred derisively and accusingly to the efforts that have been made in this regard but eventually he said that his side of the House supported this legislation. The hon. member for Gardens has also just told us that it is unfortunate that the legislation has been introduced at such a late stage. Not one of those hon. members is at present in the House to listen to our counter-arguments. This makes me think of a bird which we have in the Bosveld. It notices where other birds build their nests and as soon as a nest is finished, it lays its egg in that nest and then flies away and the owner of that nest has to hatch out that egg. That is what is happening in the United Party. They lay certain things in our midst but they do not have the responsibility to give effect to those matters; they raise certain hopes throughout the country, expectations which they are not prepared or which they are unable to carry out. It is a pity that a political debate should have been made of a debate such as this, a debate which is full of good intentions, a debate on legislation which we all believe will have a salutary effect on the farmers who are struggling, and that hon. members opposite should make use of this opportunity to make light of a vitally important matter, the survival of those farmers who are struggling. I think that this is action of which we must record our disapproval.

I rise, however, to exchange a few ideas with you, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the effect of this legislation on, and what it means to the agricultural industry. The Republic of South Africa is a young country with tremendous possibilities. Recently it has shown a rate of growth which compares well with the best in the world. We can testify that the oldest industry in South Africa—the agricultural industry—has also contributed its share, together with other industries, in bringing about this tremendous economic prosperity. The agricultural industry has once again added a new record amount to our national income this year—R882,000,000. This is indeed an achievement for our farmers. Notwithstanding the difficult times that they have experienced and notwithstanding all the criticism and accusations that have been levelled at us from the other side, our farmers have succeeded in making this achievement.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with amending legislation which seeks to co-ordinate the State assistance given to this industry in the proper way. Just as we in this House have from time to time to introduce legislation to overcome certain problems and to meet the demands of the time in regard to various industries, so it is also necessary for us to introduce legislation in regard to the agricultural industry from time to time in order to keep pace with progress and to establish the necessary machinery to keep the industry on a sound basis and to ensure the necessary future expansion. This Bill amends the Farmers’ Assistance Act and the State Advances Recoveries Act. As we know, those Acts were placed on the Statute Book after a thorough inquiry into the financial position of farmers after the 1933 drought. This inquiry was instituted in 1933 and in 1935 the aforementioned Acts were passed by this House. Sir, this amending Bill is the result of the experience and the requests of our agricultural industry, with all its recognized organizations, and of our Departments of Agriculture and our Ministers up to the present. That is why it is obvious that during this long period, from 1935 to 1960, during which 69 various aid schemes were made available to farmers, certain problems and difficulties should have been experienced. And so we are grateful that this legislation is before the House to-day because it will remove those stumbling-blocks and problems and ensure that State assistance can be made available to deserving farmers more swiftly and more efficiently.

The policy of this Government, as well as that of all previous Governments, has been that aid schemes should be set up from time to time in terms of the aforementioned legislation in order to combat certain specific circumstances and problems. It is true, as I have just indicated, that it has sometimes been necessary to set up the various aid schemes required by way of special legislation, other than simply by way of Cabinet instructions. We are very grateful for this because many of our farmers have been assisted to stay on their farms in this way. From our experience it has also appeared to be necessary not only to set up these schemes from time to time but to make some of them of a permanent nature. Since 1960 the Government has put continuous crop production loan schemes into operation of which all farmers can under certain circumstances and certain conditions make use. Special loans are also allocated under specific circumstances in drought-stricken areas; we also have special loans that are granted under extraordinary circumstances, such as conditions which can be disastrous to a particular area, which is what we are experiencing at present in the Northern Transvaal.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East London (City) said that the hon. the Minister should follow the example set by Southern Rhodesia in its agricultural policy and that we should arrange matters here according to what is being done there. As I have already said, it is a pity that that hon. member is so ignorant and that he has to display that ignorance here. He is not even in the House now. He is not here to hear his arguments being replied to. Members of Parliament who know those conditions and who are surrounded by those problems from day to day, who eat, sleep and drink with those problems, are satisfied that the Government and particularly the hon. the Minister and his Department, are making a special effort to give relief where it is at all possible to do so and in this way are enabling many of our farmers to remain on their farms. I do not want to go into detail; this has been done in a very capable manner by my colleagues, the hon. members for Waterberg and Pietersburg. But it is untrue and it is unjust of the hon. member for East London (City) to accuse the Government of not acting positively and to say that this Government is responsible for the fact that things are going so badly with the farmers in the Northern Transvaal.

Mr. Speaker, if we examine our agricultural industry as such a little more closely we will find that there are three special financial sec tors which have invested money in our agricultural industry. In the first instance, there is the farmer himself. The savings of the farmer are invested in the soil of South Africa because the farmer loves his soil. In, the second place, we have the private financial sector which makes certain investments in agriculture with a profit motive. In the third place, we have the investments made by the State. Having mentioned those investments, for which certain security exists under normal circumstances, I want to point out what the Government of the day and former Governments—I do not want to do an injustice to any former Governments—have done to keep agriculture in the Republic on a sound footing. In the first place I want to mention the tremendous amounts of money and the number of staff used to do research in agriculture. We can mention the development of special projects; we think of the emergency aid schemes that have been set up to comply with certain specific requirements. We think of subsidies on agricultural products; limited forms of financing under specific circumstances; information to farmers, particularly in order to enable them to overcome these drought problems and other agricultural problems. We think of the marketing facilities that have been set up and are being maintained both in this country and on the export market; we think of our soil conservation projects which, as the hon. member for Pietersburg told us here, are so necessary in order to enable our farmers to weather the difficult periods which are dealt with in this Bill. We also think of very special services that are rendered to our farmers from time to time by way of farmers’ days and so forth in order to educate our farmers and to enable them to overcome the difficult times that are sometimes forthcoming. The Government has made phenomenal contributions to agriculture. But notwithstanding these large investments by the State, the Government has continued to play a small part in the general financing of agriculture. This being so, I want to say that the Government’s share has been small with the specific purpose of preventing the investment of the private sector from being impeded in any way. It is the policy of the Government to continue to encourage the private sector to invest money where it can be invested most advantageously and that is why the Government has deliberately not played as large a role in the financing of agriculture as many of us would have liked to have seen it play. But the importance of our agricultural industry viewed from a national point of view and the importance of the people in that industry has changed and increased tremendously. This has resulted in the fact that we are living in changed circumstances to-day and we have to approach the question of the financing of agriculture from a completely different angle. In my view it is vitally necessary for us to review the whole question of the position of our agricultural industry in our entire national economy. Changed national and international circumstances therefore make a new approach to our agricultural finance problem absolutely necessary as well. The national prosperity which our country is experiencing to-day is providing our private investors with more comprehensive and more profitable investment fields in which these investments can earn more money in greater safety and with less risk. Because of this it is obvious that the private investor is hesitant to invest in the agricultural industry. His investment is exposed to a greater risk because of the uncertain factors in the agricultural industry. It is possible that we may experience a financial recession simply because we have so much scope for investment and we want to point out the danger in time that our agricultural industry may run out of sources of finance in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, the tendency is also noticeable, or so it is said, that about 2,000 farmers leave the industry annually. The Opposition like saying that these 2,000 farmers leave because they become bankrupt, and blame the Nationalist Government for it; but we want to point out immediately that a large percentage of these farmers leave for other reasons. We admit that there are some of them who leave for financial reasons. I am convinced that if it is true that 2,000 farmers are leaving the industry annually, then this tempo is too swift. I do not think that it can be healthy for our agricultural industry to lose farmers at that rate. This can have a disruptive effect upon the industry, and, if it is true, then I do believe that we must take the necessary steps in time to prevent that tempo continuing or even increasing. When we talk about the financial interests and economic aspects of agriculture, the question arises as to whether this important and delicate problem of agricultural finance should be seen from a purely economic point of view or whether we should give more consideration to other factors connected with it. If we consider it from a purely economic point of view and we leave our farmers to the mercy of the economic laws of the day, then I predict that the law of the jungle will ensure that the weaker farmers make way for the stronger ones. There is already, I am sorry to say, a noticeable tendency in that direction. That is why we say that if this erosion in the ranks of our farmers continues, it will be an evil day for agriculture. We know that certain people will have to leave the industry because they can no longer carry on and because they may possibly be able to do better in other industries, but we are also convinced of the fact that large numbers of the people who leave the industry will be a great asset to us if they can be assisted to continue farming. In the light of the important role of the agricultural industry in our national economy as a whole, and the gigantic role which the State has played over the years in assisting to build up the agricultural industry to what it is to-day, it is my well-considered opinion that it should be accepted Government policy to accept responsibility for the financing of the farmers who are unable to obtain assistance through the usual financial channels.

All farmers?

No, only deserving farmers. We do not want to stand in the way of any private financial investors who wish to be of assistance in this regard; we welcome their assistance because these private investors have rendered valuable services to the farmers in the past. But we must accept the fact that the State should not only provide emergency assistance under special circumstances; the farmer must have the opportunity of approaching the State under special circumstances without having to be referred to the private investor. Let us be grateful to the men and women in the agricultural industry who are prepared to endure privations and make sacrifices. Let us issue a warning to those people who refer airily and sneeringly to the fact that “everything is done for the farmers”, because there are certain farmers who may at present not be sharing in the prosperity of the country to the same extent. Let us tell those people who say these things that those farmers on the platteland form an absolutely necessary and indispensable part of our population. Those people are to a large extent the ones who introduce the enduring, the conservative way of life into our national life, and maintain it, and it is my conviction that if we permit a large percentage of those people to disappear from our platteland and to be absorbed amongst the larger masses in our cities with their more liberal approach to life, this will be damaging to our nation as a whole and will result in national erosion which will upset the balance of our population to the detriment of our South African nation.

Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that this Bill before us creates new possibilities and opportunities for the farmers and enables the hon. the Minister and his Department to make new means of assistance available, we want to thank the hon. the Minister and his Department for what they have done up to the present; we want to wish them every success in connection with the implementation of the provisions of this Bill and we fervently trust that this will be the beginning of a new era for our agriculture and for our farmers.

In reply to the opening remarks of the hon. member who has just sat down about certain hon. members on this side of the House, I would ask him to look at certain seats on his side where two hon. members last night made an attack on members on this side, namely the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentrel) and the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) and I would ask him where they are.

I am here all right.

I do not want to pursue that argument at all. It does not help us in this debate. I would rather come to the question of helping farmers who are in trouble. This is important because when I address myself particularly to the Minister, I want to say that this Bill which has been welcomed by members on both sides of the House, is a Bill to help individuals in a crisis—but how did that crisis come about? I think to just help them at this stage and do nothing more, so that the first small drought that comes along throws them back into a similar position, is not sufficient. This hon. Minister is the Minister in the Cabinet who is responsible for prices of farm produce, and we have asked him time and again to see that the economics of farming, that is the whole question of economics and marketing, are such that the farmer is in a position to meet his financial obligations from his returns on his farming activities. The ordinary man in business, the ordinary man in industry, or in mining, or any other form of commerce, gets a return on his work which enables him to build up a reserve so that when there is a bit of trouble in his marketing of his particular product, or when perhaps he strikes a snag in his mining, he is in a position to call on his reserves to tide him over. But the farmer in the last few years, with the low prices he has received in relation to his cost of production, has not been able to build up any reserve whatsoever, and in fact in many instances has not only been running his farm on a marginal basis, but in many instances the production of many of his products has been on a marginal loss basis. We have pointed out to the hon. Minister over and over again that in the dairy industry, and in other sections of the farming industry, there are no guarantees of prices, but this Minister controls the marketing. When the wattle-bark producers had troubles with the marketing overseas and were put on quotas, on very short quotas, the prices were affected a bit, but to save his price the wattle-bark farmer had to agree to reduced quotas. Of course the hon. Minister will come back and say: “Ah, the wattle industry has now its own board, and they have their own quotas self-imposed,” but, Mr. Speaker, they had to do that to save their price and save what little they could out of what they had invested in that industry. But many of those people had commitments in machinery, in capital expenditure and such-like that they are in the position that their quota is so small that their return of profit on that quota is not sufficient to meet their annual commitments of capital redemption and interest. Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Minister really wants to help the farmers he should overhaul the whole question of marketing and get down to doing something on a long-term basis. One of the Members on this side referred to Rhodesia. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman), and he referred to the Rhodesian scheme to overcome drought difficulties. But we do know that their cattle scheme is one under which prices are guaranteed over a number of years. A producer there knows what he is going to get for some years to come. Is there any such guarantee in this country? What happens when there is a very slight overproduction in one good summer and when the dairy production is at its peak? Immediately the Minister keeps down the price and says: “We have to deal with the question of supply and demand.” The whole idea of the Marketing Act was to protect the primary producer against that very situation and to see that he got a reasonable return. I and other members on this side of the House pleaded with the Minister to look after the interests of the farmers, and that is when he could have really assisted the good farmers of this country to remain on the land, enabling them to go in for proper farming methods, not being forced to mine their soil, thereby creating difficulties of soil erosion and therefore more costs in soil and water conservation, and the enforced application of the Soil Conservation Act in many districts where it had not been found necessary to do so before. If there are any farmers this hon. Minister ought to protect and keep on the land it is those very farmers who are trying to go in for good farming methods but cannot do so at the present prices prevailing for primary produce. I do appeal to this hon. Minister to give them this help. I welcome any financial aid to help keep men on the land who are good farmers, and we know that it is this Minister’s policy and the policy of the Government to keep the prices of food low. They follow a cheap food policy, because the cost of food is low in this country compared to the salaries of artisans, professional men, the men employed in mining or any other part of commerce and industry. The farmer to-day is getting a lower return on his investment and his work than anybody else in this country and I put it at the door of the present Minister, as the Minister responsible for economics and marketing, for not looking after these farmers and for not making it the responsibility of the Cabinet to look after them to ensure that their economy is placed on a sound basis. Because unless our farming community is placed on a sound basis, we may, because we are going to have more droughts, find more and more farmers being driven off the land. That in turn has an effect on the community as a whole.

I want to say that when we welcome this assistance to farmers, we are not assisting farmers to get money to put in their pockets because every rand they are going to receive will go into the pocket of somebody else. These funds will land in the pockets of the farmers’ creditors. The money will consequently not be for their own use but will serve the object only of keeping them on their land and to pay their creditors. It is given with the object of assisting them to stay on their land. Every cent will, thus, be paid out and the community at large will in the end profit from it. This, I think, is something which should be brought home to the country at large. It is often thought, when publicity is given to assistance to farmers, that such assistance is being given to them simply as a bonus for their own retention. In fact, every cent thereof is being paid out to the public at large. There it circulates and creates avenues of employment. Furthermore, it will do away with bad debts. These debts can, if assistance is not given, make themselves felt on the community concerned. So that this money is money well spent. I say this advisedly because we know the record of the farmers of our country. In fact one can be proud if one looks at this record if one keeps in mind what assistance has been given to them by the various. Governments over the years. The greatest proportion of all this has been repaid. In fact, it is amazing, keeping in mind the extent of the assistance given, to find what small percentage has ended up as bad debts. In fact, this percentage is no larger than in the case of the ordinary financial institution dealing with large sums of money. At the same time a service was rendered to the community at large because by assisting the farmers, they could produce cheap food. There is in addition those primary products which are exported and those which are processed by industries in this country.

I say again that this assistance is money well spent. At the same time, however, I want to say that it is incumbent on this Minister as well as on the Government to get down and do a real job of work for a change to see that the economic side of farming is properly developed instead of it being handled in this haphazard way of handing out sums of money at certain periods. This often has the effect of not keeping the right man on the land which could have been achieved if the whole matter was effectively planned and handled properly.

The hon. member who has just sat down said in the course of his speech that the assistance which the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Government would be able to grant to the farmers in terms of this measure was supported by the United Party. But at the same time he said that this sort of assistance was not the right type of assistance and is not the kind of assistance which the farmers actually needed. He would prefer the Government rather to assist the farmer by means of long-term planning and by paying him higher prices for his agricultural products. The hon. member is a farmer and as such he is a member of the agricultural union of a farmers’ association. As such he knows that we have the system of marketing boards and that the representatives of the farmers are in the majority on these boards. These representatives, together with the various agricultural unions, discuss the prices for the various agricultural products and thereafter they make a recommendation. In this connection I want to point out to the hon. member that all the recommendations made by the various marketing boards in recent times have been accepted by the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has always referred to the Marketing Act as the Magna Charta of the farmer. Indeed, this system gives the farmer every opportunity on the various boards to make his own decision as to the prices to be fixed for the various agricultural products.

But there is another matter to which I want to draw the attention of the hon. member. Let us assume that the hon. the Minister fixed the price of wheat at RIO per bag, not simply 23 cents higher than last year’s price, and that we then had a drought as a result of which the farmers are unable to harvest a single bag of wheat. How then would that increased price help the farmers? It would not help them at all. That is why I feel that this is not the time or the place to make a speech such as that made by the hon. member here to-day. On occasions such as these we think of the farmers in our country who have been hit by abnormal natural disasters and who are threatened with ruin. The Farmers’ Assistance Board can help them by providing them with loans to help them to overcome those circumstances over which they have no control. These natural disasters are the main reason really why farmers in certain parts of our country find themselves in financial difficulties. In 1958 I tried to describe to the House the plight of the farmers in the North-eastern Free State. At that time they were struggling to overcome a natural disaster which nearly ruined large numbers of farmers. On that occasion, however, these conditions were not caused by drought but by torrential rain. For example, at Bethlehem, where the average rainfall is between 30 and 35 inches a year, it was 62 inches during that year. The result was that the wheat crops were practically completely destroyed by rust and the potato and maize crops were ruined. All those crops failed. During the period 1959-60 when the Government put the farmers’ assistance scheme into operation, there were no fewer than 234 farmers in my constituency who applied for a consolidation of debts, all as a result of the natural disaster to which I have referred. In order to show that the statement made by the hon. member is not entirely correct, I want to point out that according to the report of the State Advances Recoveries Office for 1962-3, only 11 farmers from that constituency applied for State assistance. This proves that those farmers have fared reasonably well in recent years, they have had good wheat and maize crops. Even this year conditions are fairly normal in the North-eastern Free State although other parts of the country are very dry. In any case they do not experience the same problems as the farmers of the Northern Transvaal, for example.

I do not think there is anyone in this House who does not view with sympathy the position in which the farmers in the Northern Transvaal find themselves—in the districts of Pietersburg, Brits, Lataba, Potgietersrust, Rustenburg and Soutpansberg. Last year there were only four applications for State assistance at Bethlehem in comparison with 22 at Brits, 26 at Letaba, 12 at Pietersburg, 30 at Potgietersrust, 16 at Rustenburg and 18 at Soutpansberg. Those areas also experienced drought conditions in 1933 but over the past 30 years there has been a normal rainfall in that area, the farmers have been able to harvest normal crops and they have fared well over this period. But over the past four or five years, because of a freak of nature, because something has gone wrong with our climatic conditions in those parts, things have not been going well with them, but I do not doubt that conditions will again become normal. Whereas previously crop loans were limited to R600 per annum, the Government has now stated that the maximum crop loan throughout the whole of the Republic will be R4,000. The application of every farmer, of course, is treated on its merits as far as the granting of these loans is concerned. A small farmer farming on only 200 morgen of land cannot of course expect a loan of R4,000. But there are others who in the normal course of events harvest between 10,000 and 20,000 bags of maize and who this year expect to have no harvest at all. These farmers cannot make ends meet on R600. As far as they are concerned, that is only a drop in the ocean. That is why the Government has agreed to increase the maximum loan to R4,000.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the amendments which this Bill seeks to effect to the existing Act. At the present time the State Advances Recoveries Office can declare a moratorium for a certain period in order to protect the farmer against his creditors. This moratorium can now also be extended to include companies which sell goods to the farmers under hire-purchase areements. I have heard the question posed whether it is fair towards a business concern which has sold a tractor under a hire-purchase agreement if it is unable to repossess that article. It is argued that if the State Advances Recoveries Office undertakes to keep a watchful eye on the tractor to ensure that it is not neglected, then it will not be unfair. But that is not a fair argument. A firm sells a tractor to a farmer under a hire-purchase agreement extending over three years. The farmer pays his deposit and he has three years in which to pay off that article. But during that period of three years that firm does not keep a watchful eye on that tractor on the farm. That is not an argument which one can use. We must not lose sight of the fact that this system of hire-purchase agreements in terms of which farmers buy implements—in my opinion at any rate—is one of the greatest evils, particularly in the case of the small farmer. The financially strong farmer does not buy an implement on hire purchase because he has to pay 12½ per cent interest and if he falls into arrears with his instalments, the interest may be as high as 20 per cent. I think business firms make enough money and it is no more than right, in those cases where the State Advances Recoveries Office wants to assist the farmer, that those firms should wait for at least two months because it does not usually take longer than two months before an applicant’s case is disposed of. If the State Advances Recoveries Office does not assist that farmer, the firm can always repossess that implement. But what has happened in the past? The firms do not repossess the tractors during the dry period; they do so as soon as it rains and the farmer wants to start ploughing. That tractor is repossessed and the farmer is powerless; he is unable to plant.

There are many matters troubling me which I would very much like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. When a farmer applies for State assistance, for the consolidation of his debts, the first thing that the State Advances Recoveries Office should do is to find out whether that farmer farms on an economic unit because I know of numbers of cases where State Advances have assisted a farmer although he has been farming on a farm which is too small and quite uneconomic. It simply means that such a farmer is only postponing the evil day. I want to ask that in such cases State Advances should not only assist the farmer to consolidate his debts but also help him to obtain an economic unit so that he can make a reasonable living.

I have one last point to make. When I think of the farmers in Northern Transvaal, I want to assure the House that as a farmer myself my heart goes out to them. I think of the farmers there who have had no harvest for five successive years although each year they have been given a crop loan. They plough and plant and fertilize and as soon as the maize starts growing nicely, a drought comes along and destroys everything. Certain parts of Northern Transvaal have had good rains over the past >ear and the farmers there have planted maize. But it has not rained since December and everything there is very dry. There are cases where the farmer’s debts, his bond on his farm, his loans from State Advances, his indebtedness to the commercial banks and other businesses, exceed the value of his assets. His liabilities exceed his assets. Such a person may perhaps be one of the best farmers in the country but he is powerless under those circumstances because he cannot fight nature. I want to suggest that in such cases the hon. the Minister should give serious consideration not to giving charity to those people but to writing off part of that debt in order to enable them to continue farming because otherwise they will leave the land and their loss will be a great loss to the country. Sir, our country is developing and our population is growing rapidly. Our agricultural land is not increasing and there is a great need for good farmers. I am not speaking about the man who is incapable of farming, the man who spends his time on the road or in the ba; I am speaking about the farmer who is a real asset to the country. I want to ask that in the case of such a farmer we should do everything we can to prevent his leaving the land.

The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) said a few things with which I think the House can agree, particularly towards the end of his speech when he asked that the man whom we regard as a good farmer should be assisted to remain on the land. But the hon. member made a statement earlier on in his speech with which I cannot agree. He quoted from the report of the State Advances Recoveries Office and he contended that the difficulties experienced by the farmers in his district were simply due to climatic conditions. I stay in a part of the country which is probably most affected by climatic conditions. What are the facts of the situation there? The farmers in the Karoo who have experienced extreme drought conditions in the past have made very little use of the assistance available to them under the Farmers’ Assistance Act or from the Land Bank. Why? They have also had to contend with unnatural climatic conditions, just like the farmers at Bethlehem, but why have they been able to keep their heads above water? They have been able to do so for one reason and that is because the wool farmer is experiencing a certain amount of prosperity to-day in comparison with other farmers in South Africa. If he receives a good price for his product he will also be in a position to build up his reserves to such an extent that he will be able to cope with unnatural climatic conditions which would otherwise compel him to apply for assistance from time to time. Who are the people who most often apply for assistance to-day? It is those people who own small farms or who farm on settlements. They are experiencing extremely difficult conditions not only as a result of climatic conditions—I do not want to ignore climatic conditions because we know that they play an important part— but as a result of the fact that the people in those areas have to be prepared to make do with less as far as the prices for their products are concerned. It is for that reason that they find themselves in difficulties and it is for that reason that the people in the constituency of the hon. member for Bethlehem found themselves in difficulties when the prices of their products were reduced a year or two ago.

Why then are other farmers who produce the same product not in difficulties? I am speaking now of the Western Transvaal.

Those people find themselves in difficulties when there is the slightest change in climatic conditions simply because they are not paid a reasonable price for their products and they are unable to build up reserves therefore.

What products?

I have said that fortunately we in the Karoo are still a little better off than those people.

Which people?

The farmers who do not raise crops and who do not find it necessary to mechanize on a large scale. They are able to control their production costs to a certain extent. But the wool farmers are not the only farmers in the country. The agricultural industry produces products worth R882,000,000 annually and only about R90,000,000 of that amount is produced by the wool farmers. The other farmers are the crop farmers, the fruit farmers and so forth. They find it difficult to control their production costs and they are not in a position to control the price of their products. But we welcome this legislation before the House. Hon. members opposite say that a great deal of assistance can now be given to farmers in terms of this Bill but with the exception of Clause 6 which deals with the hire-purchase system and which provides that any article purchased in this way cannot summarily be repossessed by the dealer, I cannot see any other provision which provides for large amounts of money to be voted. Of course, every possible assistance is welcomed, but what does Clause 8 prove? It proves only one thing and that is that more and more farmers are finding it difficult to keep going, farmers who are unable to meet their commitments to the Farmers’ Assistance Board. Action is now being taken in their case which is further proof that this is not merely a measure to assist the farmers; it simply proves how many more farmers are finding themselves in difficulties. I want to tell the hon. the Minister who is handling this sort of legislation for the first time—it was handled previously by the hon. the Minister of Finance—that we will have to introduce this type of legislation year in and year out unless we can find a longterm solution to the problems of the farmers. If we cannot do so, we will have to approach Parliament each year to ask for more and more assistance and opportunities to prevent creditors from taking action against farmers. A day or two ago the report of the Land Bank was tabled and in the Press this morning—not the United Party Press but the Nationalist Press—I noticed the following headline: “Great increase in debts of farmers”.

But that does not mean to say that they are uneconomic debts.

That is exactly the point. I know of course that there are many people who incur debt with the Land Bank in order to consolidate and make new purchases, but to what extent are the debts which those people have had to incur attributable to the fact that they have found themselves in a more and more difficult position, not as result of climatic conditions but as a result of economic conditions? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs told us last year that 2,400 farmers would have to leave the land annually and what reason did he give for saying so? He said that the reason was chiefly an economic one; that these people were not in a position to keep their heads above water. That was why they would have to leave the land. [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon. member for Nelspruit (Mr. Faurie) read what Dr. Frikkie Tomlinson had to say a few days ago—that 14 years ago there were 147,000 farmers in our country and that to-day we only have 105,000. Those farmers were not all driven out of agriculture because they became too old to farm; many of them were forced off the land as a result of economic circumstances.

Precisely; that is a universal occurrence.

The hon. member is quite correct when he says that it is a universal occurrence, but in other countries in which this is happening do the powers that be simply sit back and do nothing about it? Does the hon. member know what amount is being spent in West Germany on food subsidies in order to keep these farmers on the land? Does the hon. member know what is taking place in America; does he know what is being done in America to try to keep these people on the land? Does the hon. member know that £1,000,000 is being spent in Britain every day in respect of subsidies in order to keep farmers on the land? An amount of £365,000,000 is spent annually in this regard. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Niemand) suggested certain things that could be done, and I want to thank him for having done so. He is the only hon. member on that side who has dared to make any positive suggestions in regard to what can be done. The others are afraid to say anything. They know how they are being criticized by farmers throughout the country. They know that the farmers are seeking a solution to this problem but those hon. members are not prepared to give us that solution. The hon. member for Groblersdal (Mr. M. J. H. Bekker) wants the farmers to remain on the land. Are they not disappearing from the land? That is exactly what is happening and what are they doing to prevent it? I want to say again that under the circumstances that we have here in South Africa this legislation will mean absolutely nothing. It will only serve to assist us temporarily; we must follow a long-term policy otherwise agriculture in this country is heading for a catastrophe. It will not only be the small farmer who will have to leave the platteland; the big farmer will also be faced with ever-increasing economic problems. But the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing has also not given us a solution. He has been seeking excuses to explain away the difficulties of the farmers. The hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services does the same thing. A year or two ago he said in the Free State that he wondered whether the farmers were not living too extravagantly.

Order! The hon. member is now going too far.

Sir, you are quite right in saying that I am taking the matter a little too far but I do want to thank you for having allowed us this afternoon to review the whole question of agricultural planning because I think the fundamental problem is the economic difficulties facing the farmers, and no solution has been offered to them. The hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing has told them that stable prices and even increased prices will not help them at all. What then will help them?

When did I say that?

According to the Land-bouweekblad the hon. the Minister made that remark on 3 September last year on the occasion of the Nationalist Party Congress in the Transvaal. He said (translation)—

That report of the hon. the Minister’s speech appeared not only in the Landbouweekblad but also in other newspapers, and the reports all agree. The hon. the Minister asks what is wrong with that. He says that it is wrong for the farmer to be paid stable prices. He does not like that idea.

Nonsense!

I shall read it again (translation)—

Far-reaching consequences!

What is wrong with that?

The hon. the Minister also had this to say (translation)—

[Interjections.] The hon. the Minister says that this may have far-reaching consequences. I want to know whether it is going to have bad results or good results. What does he mean?

You have the speech before you. Just read it. Perhaps you will learn something. [Interjections.]

Hon. members are trying to waste the time of the House. The hon. the Minister went on to say (translation)—

I say that as long as we have a Government and a Minister whose approach to this matter is the approach that I have quoted here from what the hon. the Minister had to say at that congress we will never be able to save the farmers in this country. Each year we can provide our drop in the ocean by introducing amending legislation but unless we take a broad view of our agricultural problems, more and more farmers will leave the land.

I hope you will allow me to make a few remarks in regard to what hon. members opposite have said in connection with this very important legislation. In Clause 1 (a) of this amending Bill we find the following provision—

This is agricultural financing and the making available for capital for agriculture. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) made a remark here and I am very sorry that he used the language which he did use because I do not think it becomes an English or Afrikaans-speaking person to murder a language in the way he did in this House. He said: “the Government cannot throw up anything better through this Minister than this Bill”. I hope that he will not murder the Afrikaans language in this way in the future. I deprecate the fact that language of this nature should be used in this House. I also want to make a remark in connection with what was said by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood). He said that the farmers were unable to build up reserves because of the policy followed by the hon. the Minister and the Government. He did not enlarge upon it and tell us which commodity prices he wanted increased and to what extent they should be increased. He also very cleverly omitted to tell us what the reaction of the consumers would be to such increased prices. If he cannot tell us clearly to what extent the prices of agricultural products should be increased, then his argument falls away. The hollowness and emptiness of that argument of the United Party is quite obvious. It is simply intended to catch a few votes. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) continued in the same vein. He told us about a long-term solution to the problem but he did not give us any details in order to show us precisely what he meant by a long-term solution. He told us here about the increase in the liabilities of our farmers but he failed to tell the House how those liabilities had been increased—whether they had been increased productively or unproductively. No, this sort of argument is one which a farmer despises. The farmer does not like this sort of honeyed political speech; the farmer wants the facts. The hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing has often said in this House and outside of this House that he is in favour of the highest possible price for any agricultural commodity, provided that price is determined by supply and demand and provided it is in the interests of the industry. I challenge the United Party to deny that an artificial increase in prices with the idea of keeping the farmer on the land will eventually harm the agricultural industry.

Do you want lower prices?

I think we in South Africa can be very thankful to-day that under these specific circumstances we have a Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing who has the interests of agriculture as much at heart as the present Minister has. This Bill which we have the privilege of discussing here this afternoon has been introduced for very specific reasons and I want to mention a few of the reasons why I think the hon. the Minister felt compelled to introduce this Bill and to pilot it through the House. In the first place, it is because he adopts an extremely sympathetic attitude towards the farmers, not because the farmers need sympathy for any particular reason but because of climatic conditions, and particularly, conditions in parts of the Free State and the Northern Transvaal which have been struck by dreadful droughts. These conditions have already been outlined to us in a masterly fashion by previous speakers on this side. It is for that reason that Act No. 48 of 1935 has to be amended in such a way that further assistance can be given to those farmers who need it. This is a further attempt to keep our farmers on the land by providing them with financial assistance where necessary. The United Party has tried to tell us that the hon. the Minister will be pleased if certain farmers leave the platteland. This Bill proves that the hon. the Minister wants to keep the farmer on the land. We have production and emergency loans and those loans too are intended not to remove the farmer from the platteland but to keep him on the platteland so that when climatic conditions improve, the farmers who are at present struggling under drought conditions can look forward to a brighter future.

The farmer is being given further protection in terms of Clause 6 which ensures that he will not be deprived of the agricultural implements which he purchases under a hire-purchase agreement when steps are taken against him in this regard. He will be able to retain his irrigation machines, his tractors, his lorries and so forth. In this connection I would like the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that once the farmer has planted his crop he will be given the time to enjoy the fruits of his labours because, if he is deprived of those agricultural implements after he has used them to plant his crop but before he can enjoy the fruits of his labour, then I fear that the assistance given to him will not serve its purpose. I want to ask therefore that special steps be taken to enable the farmer not only to retain his farming equipment but also to reap the fruits of his labours. The amendments contained in this measure, seen in the light of the increase in the prices of maize, wheat, wool, rye and barley, and the sympathetic attitude of the hon. the Minister and of the officials in the State Advances Recoveries Office, will be heartily welcomed by our farmers. I want in passing to pay special tribute to the officials of the State Advances Recoveries Office for what they have done over the past few years to keep the farmers on the platteland. We are very grateful for the sympathetic treatment received from those officials. If it were not for the fact that they have faithfully carried out the policy of this Government, the percentage of farmers leaving the land would have been far greater. We want to pay tribute to those officials for their sympathetic treatment of the farmers.

It has been said here by hon. members of the United Party that things are going very badly with the farmers. In this connection I just want to quote a brief paragraph from the Annual Report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Merketing for the period 1 July 1962 to 30 June 1963 (translation)—

But this is not the only agricultural product in connection with which there has been an increase in price. This is not the only proof that I can adduce to show that we are entering an era of higher prices. Let me quote a paragraph from the Report of the State Advances Recoveries Office for the year 1962-3. I am sure hon. members will agree that the picture for the year 1963-4 will be even more attractive than for the period 1962-3. Amongst other things, the Secretary to the State Advances Recoveries Office has this to say (translation)—

This gives the lie to the statement made by hon. members on that side of the House that things are going so badly with the farmers. I accept that the persons who drew up these two reports based their statements on the actual position. We readily admit that problems are being experienced in certain sections of the agricultural industry but in the light of the increase in prices and in the light of the improved conditions we are hopeful that this position, as reflected in the report of the Secretary to the State Advances Recoveries Office, will improve in the near future. I refer to page 9 of that report and the heading “Recovery of Loans”. It appears from this report that there were 42,271 loans outstanding as at 31 March 1960 representing an amount of R23,557,452. As at 31 March 1963 there were 41,829 loans outstanding representing an amount of about R37,000,000, an increase, therefore, of about R14,000,000. But these debts cannot be regarded as unproductive debts. A large amount of this capital has been invested in stock and improvements and implements for the improvement of agriculture. The Opposition have failed hopelessly in their attempt to make the public suspicious of the efforts of the National Party and its Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. If hon. members on that side consider all the facts they must agree with us that South Africa is in a very fortunate position notwithstanding the problems that we have to face.

The hon. member who has just sat down has told the House that the farmers are in a “gelukkige posisie” and he says the Opposition will have to agree that that is so. Sir, I have never seen so much gloom on the faces of Government members as I have seen here to-day while this measure has been under discussion. Sir, you should have seen the smiles of relief when you stopped the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) from going further into the hardships which the farmers are suffering to-day.

Last night we gave our blessing to this Bill. We do support this Bill because it gives relief to the farmer. Sir, it is only a palliative but we support it because we come to the assistance of the farmers on every possible occasion; we are the only people who can assist the farmers.

How?

By giving approval to the little that the Government does do. Sir, I think back to the days of 1945, 1946 and 1947. What was the position of the farmers in those days? Everybody was rushing to buy farms; everybody was happy; the farmers were the lucky people. The Ministers were buying farms. They could not get enough farms in this country so the Minister of Agriculture himself went to Rhodesia to buy a farm. What has happened now? Under this Minister the Prime Minister has sold his farm. The Minister of Transport has sold his farm and the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is selling his farm. I think he cannot sell his farm; he cannot find a buyer. They are giving up farming to-day. [Interjection.] Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister says that he sold his stock. He did it before he had to come to the Government for relief. The only member on the other side who looked at ease and quite happy during this debate was the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Having listened to the debates here he realizes why the farmers have asked the Prime Minister to make him Minister of Agriculture instead of the present Minister of Agriculture. The farmers want a Minister who will do something for them.

Sir, when we gave our blessings to this Bill yesterday afternoon Government members thought that we would have nothing to say. We did not intend to embarrass the Government any further on this issue. We made short speeches giving our blessing to this Bill, realizing that the farmers needed assistance and that this measure must be passed as quickly as possible to try to keep the farmers on the land. But then the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) thought he would play a little politics; he thought that we would not take part in the debate and he said that we had no farmers here who could take part in the debate. Sir, when we criticize other measures in this House we are accused of putting the outside world against South Africa; a little while ago when we criticized the shortage of housing the Minister of Housing said that we were putting immigrants off; that we are always trying to influence the outside world against South Africa. And when we give our blessing to this Bill we are attacked because we do not attack the Government. When we do come into this debate to-day and tell the Government why the farmers are in trouble, we are asked whether we are going to support this Bill. Sir, we have no alternative; we have to support this Bill because nothing else is being done for the farmers. If the Minister would come along with some long-term plan to help the farmers we would also give our approval to it. No matter what hon. members on the other side say they know as well as we do that the farmers are dissatisfied and that the farmers are demanding that some action be taken. They do not want these palliatives; they do not want this sort of assistance. The hon. member who has just sat down thanked the civil servants for their sympathy and for their loyalty to the Government.

And the Minister.

If it had not been for the civil servant I wonder what would have happened to the farmers, so hon. members are quite entitled to thank the civil servants for their sympathy. That is all the farmers are getting from this Government to-day—sympathy. When this Government took over the farmers thought that they would get “kragdadigheid”; what has happened to that so-called “kragdadigheid”?

As I have said we support the principle of giving assistance to the farmers. But I want to deal with another principle in this Bill and that is the principle of giving security to the State for the loans made by it to the farmers. It is well known and accepted that if a farmer or anybody else is lent money the lender expects some security, and the normal way of giving security is by giving a mortgage bond over landed property. Those mortgage bonds are registered in our Deeds Office. Our system of deeds registry is the envy of the rest of the world; it is a system that we have worked out over the years, and the lawyers and the Deeds Office officials themselves are very jealous of the efficiency of the system that we have developed. But we find that inroads are continually being made into our system. A further inroad is being made into that system in this Bill. The normal method of getting security by way of a mortgage bond is for the borrower, the mortgagor, to execute a power of attorney authorizing his conveyancer to execute a deed before a registrar who then registers it; that is the normal procedure. In terms of Clause 8 of this Bill at will not be necessary for that to be done. The farmer will merely appear before the Magistrate and there he will sign a legal document in the form of a bond; this will be sent to the Registrar of Deeds where it will be registered. The point I want to make is that it is not executed, and under our law a bond which is registered in the Deeds Office is of no effect if it was not in fact executed by a conveyancer. I know that there are precedents for the method now proposed; I know that in terms of the Land Bank Act a conveyancer does not necessarily have to execute the deed. But I will say this as far as the Land Bank is concerned that they do follow the normal procedure; the bond is executed by an official of the Land Bank although he is not a conveyancer. When this system was first developed the Land Bank happened to have conveyancers in their employ who did the registration of the bonds. I know too that this system is adopted under the soil conservation laws and I know that relief was also given to soldiers by a war measure during the war. But the legal profession and the Deeds Registry officials have always objected to these inroads. They have quite rightly pointed out that once you allow one exception, that exception is used as a precedent and then further inroads are made. Sir, the law societies were not consulted by the Minister when this Bill was prepared. I think the least he could have done was to have consulted with the law societies, as the law societies were in fact consulted when previous Acts were put through …

Are you talking now for the farmers?

I will tell the hon. member in a moment why I am talking for the farmers. The law societies opposed these inroads and they are also opposed to this inroad into the system, because not only are we interfering here with the Deeds Office procedure but in the next clause we deal with the question of execution. It is the right of every citizen to go to court; borrowers are protected. Normally the lender cannot take the law into his own hands and execute against his bond if the borrower does not fulfil his obligations. The normal thing, of course, is for the lender to go to the court and sue the borrower and if the borrower has any defence he will appear before the court. Under Clause liter the State is now given the power to execute without going to court. The Sheriff will merely be notified that the borrower is in arrear, that he has not fulfilled his obligations for a period of 30 days and then the Sheriff can execute without any writ of execution; he then behaves as if he had received a writ. The Minister of Finance must be shocked when he hears what is happening in other Departments; he is a lawyer and he ought to know how wrong this is. Sir, I know that under the Land Bank Act the Land Bank also takes action without getting an order of court. The Land Bank is even worse because they do not even go to the Sheriff; they do it on their own. I will say this for this Minister’s Department— and I do not thank the Minister for this because I do not think he knows what is happening—that they have not gone as far as the Land Bank. I say it is quite wrong for us to ignore the normal judicial procedure in this way. I suppose the excuse will be given that there are unnecessary delays; that the farmer leaves the land when he is in trouble and before they can execute against him the stock has depreciated in value and the implements have depreciated in value, and therefore they want to be able to act as soon as possible.

A very good reason.

Yes, I agree that it is a good reason. All I say is that if the Department had approached the legal profession and said, “We are having this trouble; we cannot go through the courts quickly enough; we want to be able to act more quickly in order to protect our interests”, the law societies would have worked out some scheme for the Department. We could have got together and we could have adhered to our Rule of Law and the normal judicial procedure, and we could still have given the Government protection. But, as I have said, the legal profession was ignored. We were not consulted at all on this matter. I appeal to the Minister and to other Ministers that in the future, before we make further inroads into our judicial system or into our system of deeds registration, the legal profession should be consulted and that an endeavour should be made to get the legal profession to help the Department to adhere to our normal judicial procedure and to our normal method of registering deeds.

I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their support of this Bill. Some of them have shown their support in strange ways. Every member had his own way of saying that he supported this Bill. I said at the outset that the idea of this Bill was more specifically to facilitate the giving of assistance under the State Advances Recoveries Act and the Farmers’ Assistance Act. Over the past day or two we have had a long discussion on what has actually been done for the farmers in terms of the Farmers’ Assistance Act and the State Advances Recoveries Act. Mr. Speaker, we have had some strange speeches here. As far as the Opposition are concerned, the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) said that he would support this Bill. He asked one question to which I would like to reply. He asked whether immigrants entering the country could also be assisted under the Farmers’ Assistance Act and the State Advances Recoveries Act. I just want to give him the assurance that any bona fide farmer farming in South Africa can be given assistance under those two Acts even though he is an immigrant. Immigrants have often been assisted under these two Acts in the past. I think the hon. member was trying to find out whether immigrants can be assisted in terms of these Acts as far as the purchase of land is concerned. In the first place, that is not the function of the Farmers’ Assistance Board; it is more specifically the function of the Land Bank. The Farmers’ Assistance Board is there to provide assistance in those cases where farmers who are already on the land experience financial difficulties.

Will the assistance which is made available to immigrants also be made available to Coloured farmers?

Yes. On many occasions in the past assistance has been given to non-Europeans by the State Advances Recoveries Office.

I do not think that is true.

If you doubt the word of the hon. the Minister, why ask the question? You ought to apologize.

The discussion on this Bill has covered a very wide field; it has covered a far wider field than the contents of this Bill. I want to reply briefly to the remarks made by hon. members opposite in connection with the way in which the Farmers’ Assistance Act and the State Advances Recoveries Act are being administered and the way in which funds are being made available. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) contended that the drought conditions were not responsible for the difficulties of the farmers; he said that there were other economic circumstances which caused the farmers to find themselves in trouble.

Of course.

There are always economic conditions, of course, which cause the farmers to find themselves in difficulties, and there are many reasons for that. Unfortunately, the hon. member used a very poor example. He said that the sheep farmers, for example, were not experiencing difficulties because the price of wool was high but that the farmers in the Free State and in other parts were experiencing difficulties. Sir, the hon. member does not know what he is talking about if he makes an allegation of that kind. During the financial year 1962-3, 780 monthly fodder loans to an amount of R393,000 were made available to farmers in the Karoo. In the Transvaal, where drought conditions also prevailed, the amount made available to 284 farmers was R64,000 over the same period.

How many of those farmers were ruined?

That is not the point; the argument which the hon. member used was that assistance should be given because wheat prices were low. He said that it was not necessary to assist the wool farmer because wool prices were high. He drew a distinction between prices, not between farmers, and I want to give him some figures in this regard. During 1962-3, 95 loans amounting to R899,000 were granted in the Karoo alone under the special assistance scheme. The main reason for this was the drought. The hon. member tried to prove that grain prices were too low and that it was because of this fact that those people found themselves in difficulty. He added that the wool farmers were not experiencing the same difficulty because wool prices were high.

Which farmers are continually in difficulty—the wool farmers or the grain farmers?

I want to mention a few figures to prove that in the first instance our farmers find themselves in difficulties as a result of climatic conditions. That is the main reason. There are also other factors. In many cases incompetence on the part of the farmer is also a factor but economic factors also play their part. If hon. members make an analysis of the areas in which this assistance is given, they will see that it is given chiefly in those areas which are subject to periodical droughts. Obviously, the grain producer is hit far harder than the person farming with stock because the grain farmer incurs great expense in producing his crop whereas the stock farmer does not have the same expenditure. If the grain farmer has a poor harvest or no harvest at all he not only loses his income or a portion of it but he also loses the money which he has spent in trying to obtain that income, with the result that in times of drought he finds himself in difficulty far sooner than the stock farmer does.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) that rudeness has never been a characteristic to be proud of; still less is meanness a characteristic to be proud of. I just want to tell the hon. member that I think his remark here this afternoon that this Government could not “throw up anything better than this Minister”, was a reprehensible one. I am quite prepared to leave it to the farmers of South Africa to decide whether I am fulfilling my function as Minister satisfactorily or otherwise. I am quite prepared to leave it to the farmers of South Africa to judge the hon. member for East London (City) who served them for a long period. They have already reacted in his case; they have already made their decision.

That is why he sits over there!

I did not want to take any notice of him this afternoon because of his mean remark but I find myself in this difficult position that it is sometimes difficult for one not to take notice of certain remarks. I find myself in the position to-day of being compelled to take notice of the hon. member. The hon. member for East London (City) said that nothing was being done in this country for the farmers who were in difficulties or who were suffering under drought conditions. He drew a comparison between what we were doing here and what was being done in Rhodesia, our neighbouring state. Apparently the hon. member has two kinds of farming in mind. He apparently has only cattle farming and sheep farming in mind, but we do not farm only with cattle and sheep in South Africa. Wheat is also produced in the areas to which the hon. member referred and loans are available to the farmers in those areas. I should like now to analyse the solution suggested by the hon. member. He says that in Rhodesia the farmers do not pay for the oxen which they buy, nor do they pay any interest on the purchase price. He says that the original purchase price and interest are deducted when they deliver oxen to the commission to be sold, and that the farmers therefore do not pay back the capital or the interest. But that is precisely what we are doing through the medium of the State Advances Recoveries Office. We give the farmer a loan to produce maize. If he has a crop for sale at the end of the year, we deduct the amount of the loan and the interest and then pay him the balance. That is precisely the same principle. I cannot understand therefore how the hon. member makes such a comparison. But he went very much further. When foot-andmouth disease broke out during the drought in the Transvaal we gave loans to the farmers in order to enable them to keep their stock alive. When they eventually sold their stock, we deducted the purchase price. Because they had to contend with both a drought and foot-and-mouth disease, we went even further; we wrote off 20 per cent of that loan. The hon. member makes these accusations which he simply sucks out of his thumb. What is the solution offered by the hon. member? He says that we must not give these people money to buy fodder. We must not give them money to feed their stock or to transport their stock; we must lend money to the farmers in the areas in which they are doing well to enable them to buy the stock of the farmers in the drought-stricken areas. Let us assume that the hon. member is a sheep farmer in the Karoo, that there is a drought in that area, and that he has built up a fine herd which is dying because of the drought. What will he do if we come along and say to him: “You have a drought on your farm; we will lend money to somebody else to enable him to buy your stock so that you will have no stock left on your farm”? That would be a short-sighted policy. We must help the farmers to keep their stock on their farms; we must help them to obtain stock so that at a later stage they will not be compelled to purchase stock at very high prices. The hon. member wanted to know why I had not done this long ago.

Our country cannot be compared with Rhodesia. We have our own marketing system. Most of our beef is consumed locally and the local market price is a guaranteed price.

The floor price.

Very well. If the farmers think that a drought is imminent and they want to sell their stock, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. Nor is there anything to prevent a farmer from buying stock in a drought-stricken area, fattening the stock and then marketing them. That is done every day. That is the stupid kind of solution which the hon. member suggests and the stupid kind of criticism that he puts forward. I want to point out to the hon. member that in the first instance the farmers in the drought-stricken areas, both sheep and cattle farmers want to be able to retain their stock and they want assistance to enable them to do so. But it does not help to tell a man who is producing wheat in a drought-stricken area that he should sell his wheat to somebody else living in an area with a good rainfall! That farmer has to be assisted to enable him to produce wheat again in the future and that is what is being done on a very large scale. This assistance has been placed on a permament basis whereas that was not the case previously. Loans have been increased, not only loans for the purchase of stock but also stock-feed loans. The loans for production purposes have also been increased because we realize that many parts of our country are experiencing very difficult conditions indeed. It will not help to exploit those conditions and to try to make political capital out of them. It will not help to do so because our farmers have sufficient common sense to realize that the assistance which they are receiving from the Government to-day is superior to any other assistance that they have ever received, except that given to them after the 1933 drought.

I want to come now to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). The hon. member referred to the arrangement which we are now making whereby the Farmers’ Assistance Board will be able to register bonds. Of course it still has to be done in terms of the Deeds Act and most of the cases dealt with by the Farmers’ Assistance Board are cases of people who are not financially strong. They are people who are unable to obtain credit elsewhere; in most cases they are no longer in a position to raise credit through the usual channels. The hon. member has told us how sorry the United Party is for the farmers in the drought-stricken areas. But in spite of all his sympathy he still wants those few cents that he can make out of them as an attorney! These amendments that we are proposing will make it possible for us not only to take action more quickly and more easily but will also save the farmer who is in need of financial assistance the expense of having his bond registered.

Hon. members have covered a very wide field in the debate on this Bill and I want once again to express my thanks to those who have given their support to this measure. At the same time I want to express the hope that the efforts that we are making here to streamline and facilitate the operation of the Farmers’ Assistance Act will be to the advantage of our farmers, particularly that group of farmers who are not able to obtain credit through the usual channels. We hope to be able not only to give better protection to the taxpayer’s money which is invested by the State in these loans but also to assist the farmer more effectively in the future.