I move—

Mr. Speaker, you will remember that two years ago the Land Bank Act was amended and we introduced radical amendments. These new powers have been used to finance agriculture in South Africa on a much wider basis than in the past. Because the Bank was now entering new terrain, it had to some extent to feel its way in order to determine whether the powers granted to it made effective administration possible or not. We are now in the position to be able to judge whether there are defects in the administration and whether those defects can be remedied. During the past two years certain defects, mostly of a technical nature, came to light, and after the Land Bank Board had reported to it about this matter, the Government decided to make certain amendments to the Act which we hope will facilitate and make more reasonable the functions and administration of the Land Bank.

The first, the most important and the most urgent of the amendments now being made is contained in Clause 1. You will remember, Sir, that the Land Bank in future will have to find its own funds in the open market. With its first issue of long-term loans it received the support of the Public Debt Commissioners, but the Attorney-General directed attention to the fact that as the Act reads at present they, i.e. the Public Debt Commissioners, can invest money in the Land Bank temporarily only, and because these obligations are for a period of 15 years they are strictly speaking not entitled to subscribe to Land Bank issues. That is an anomaly and we want to remedy it immediately so as to give the Public Debt Commissioners the right not only to invest in Land Bank issues on a short-term basis, but also long-term. Because the next issue of the Land Bank will have to take place one of these days, it is very important that this right should be given to them so that they will be enabled to subscribe to this Land Bank issue if they consider it expedient to do so when that loan is floated.

Then it is also provided that this provision will be made retrospective to cover the funds they have already invested in the Land Bank in the previous issue, which to some extent was not done quite legally. That, as I say, is the reason for the urgency. We want them to have the power to subscribe as soon as possible when the Land Bank loan is floated.

The second amendment proposed here is contained in Clauses 2 and 4. Various control boards, including the Wool Board, as hon. members know, deposit funds with the Land Bank, and in the normal course of events they can also get cash credit advances in order to finance their own business. That applies only to the boards established under the National Marketing Council, but the Land Bank does not have the power to grant a loan to the Wool Board or to any other body, even though it is concerned with promoting agriculture, but which was established in terms of some other Act. I am thinking, e.g., of the South African Wool Commission. It may well happen that such a body has funds on deposit in the Land Bank, and it may be that it wants to ask the Land Bank for financial assistance, but the Land Bank has not the power to provide it with credit loans, even though that body has funds on deposit with it, and the only method which can be adopted is the clumsy one that such a body must now withdraw the deposits it has with the Land Bank, because it cannot be assisted in the ordinary way by getting a cash credit advance. We now propose, to facilitate the financing, to grant the Land Bank Board the power to grant a loan to any body established by Act of Parliament with the object of promoting agriculture.

A further amendment is contained in Clause 3 (a) and (b), to provide for the following contingency. After the Land Bank was given power to advance money on the security of the hypothecation of movable property—the loan on hypothec—it was inundated with applications. It is, therefore, obvious that it will have to cope with a variety of types and characters of applicants. Whilst the great majority of these applicants are honest and sincere in regard to their obligations towards the bank, cases unfortunately do arise where ulterior motives also play a rôle; the board has found that after granting a loan on hypothec it grants authority to the applicant on the strength of which he can buy cattle or implements from a third party, and that he then does so and takes possession of these articles, but thereafter neglects to comply with the conditions of the advance, and by neglecting to carry out the terms of the hypothec he does not enable the bank to pay the seller. Now such sellers can justifiably allege that if it were not for the authority issued by the Land Bank they would not have sold their animals or implements to the applicant, or they would not have handed them over, and that they are prejudiced and, in some cases, have to suffer losses through no fault of their own, and merely because they expected the Land Bank to fulfil its undertaking as contained in the letter of authority. But the Land Bank Board, on the other hand, as the Act reads now, can only pay out such a loan after the conditions of the hypothec have been properly carried out. It has no means of forcing the applicant to comply with the requirements other than to withdraw the application of the loan which was handed to it and on which it acted. That, by itself in fact, punishes the applicant, but does not improve the position of the sellers, whilst the applicant enjoys the benefit of possessing the cattle or goods he purchased. For this reason the amending Bill now provides that the board can attach the cattle and movable property which was purchased on its authority, and in regard to which the conditions of the hypothec were not carried out. The board can attach and sell the property, even though this property has not yet been formally hypothecated to the bank by means of the signature of the hypothec. In this way the board will then be able to pay the sellers in cases where it is satisfied that the transactions· were entered into purely on the basis of the letter of authority and the seller complied with all the requirements with which he had to comply. In such a case the applicant can be held responsible for any deficit, and he receives the benefit of any surplus. In order to protect the right of the sellers, it is provided that the cattle or movable property obtained by the applicant in this way cannot be attached by the other creditors of the applicant by virtue of an order of court whilst the property is· still in possession of the applicant.

A further point—and that is in connection with the first part of Clause 3 (a)—is that, whilst in the normal course of events the attachment and sale of hypothecated property takes place through the deputy sheriff, cases occur where it would be to the advantage of the farmer, as well as of the bank, if that matter is rather handled by an official of the bank. There will sometimes not be the same degree of interest from the side of the deputy sheriff as there would be if an official of the Land Bank handled the matter, with the result that much of the property sold in this manner will not be sold to the best advantage, and both the applicant and the Land Bank suffer loss. The Act also provides that after attachment the property hypothecated should be sold by public auction. In far distant areas it is not always possible to transfer the cattle or movable property to suitable central spots for auction. Circumstances may also make it desirable rather to arrange the sale by public tender. For this reason the amending Bill grants the board additional powers. Hon. members will remember that in so far as making use of other officials is concerned, such procedures existed in terms of the earlier legislation dealing with the granting of relief, and in practice that procedure worked very well, whilst the method of selling by tender as opposed to selling by public auction is equally well known. The interests of the applicant or debtor are thoroughly taken into consideration when deciding which will be the better of the two methods to be adopted in any particular case.

Clause 3 (c) contains a further amendment. As I have already said, it is to be expected that there will also be weak characters amongst those who apply, and who thereafter will act irregularly in regard to the security. It is my view that the negligible number of dishonest people should not impede the financing of the large majority of honest persons, which now in fact happens if the board first has to insist on proof that the applicant is a settled farmer of irreproachable character. In fact, this would complicate the chances of the large number of young beginners to receive assistance. As against that, it is essential to establish the necessary machinery to be able to take effective action in the case of dishonest persons, particularly in order to protect the honest ones. As the matter stands now, the onus of proving irregular action rests on the Land Bank, and from the very nature of the matter the Land Bank finds it extremely difficult to prove that the disappearance of its security was due to the irregular action of the debtor. It is, therefore, now being proposed to transfer the onus to the debtor and to provide a sanction in the Act itself for irregular actions. Hon. members will realize that in bona fide cases, where the security dies or gets lost, it will be easy for the debtor to prove that the loss was not due to his irregular actions, and, therefore, there is no danger that innocent persons will land in trouble as a result of this provision. In fact, this provision is based on a similar provision in the regulations promulgated under the State Advances Act of 1935, whilst there is also a similar provision in the Farmers’ Assistance Act of 1931, and the application of the sanctions under these two Acts has never resulted in any trouble with bona fide cases of loss of stock.

Then, finally, there is a further technical difficulty which is now being remedied by means of this amendment contained in Clause 5 of the Bill. It arises from the fact that as the Act reads at present the Land Bank Board is empowered to pay over to the deputy sheriff any surplus from the sale of land— we are not dealing with movable property here —after its own claims have been satisfied, if the property concerned was declared to be executable by a competent court before the Land Bank took possession of it. But if an extraneous creditor obtained judgment against the debtor after the board had already attached the land, the board cannot legally pay over any surplus to the deputy sheriff, nor does the deputy sheriff have the right to receive it, with the result that if such creditors want to safeguard themselves in respect of such a surplus derived from the sale of the farm, they must first apply to court again for an order of attachment—commonly known as a garnishee order—before the money can be paid over. Here we are now providing that even in this case, viz. where an extraneous creditor has obtained a judgment against a debtor after the board attached the land, the board can pay over the surplus to the deputy sheriff, and that the various extraneous creditors should then negotiate with the deputy sheriff, so that the Land Bank Board will not have to go to the trouble of taking up the various garnishee orders. After having satisfied his own claims, it then simply pays over the surplus to the deputy sheriff in the same way as it would do under the present Act in the opposite circumstances.

These are the most important provisions of the Bill. They are mostly intended simply to facilitate and to speed up the operation of the Act and to ensure that the Act is not abused, but the most important provision is to give the Public Debt Commissioners the right to subscribe, if they wish to do so, to a long-term issue of the Land Bank.

As the hon. the Minister has pointed out, the purpose of the Land Bank is to assist in the development of the agricultural industry, and therefore I think that any amendment of the Act which comes before this House should be examined from that point of view, whether or not the amendments are going to improve the machinery for assisting in the development of the agricultural industry. We have examined these proposals and we find that there is nothing in them which can be said to hinder the actions of the Bank, and quite clearly the proposals are intended to facilitate them. We have therefore seen no reason for not giving our support to this Bill.

There are three real points in the Bill. The first one, as the Minister has said, is to clear up the right of the Public Debt Commissioners to invest in issues which may be made by the Land Bank. Of course, this point really is not so much a question of the Land Bank; to my mind it is a question of whether the Public Debt Commissioners can safely invest trustee funds in the Land Bank, and it seems to me that on that point the Government is ultimately the security for the Land Bank and its capital, and indeed the Government is the security for the Public Debt Commissioners as well. I can see no reason therefore why this point should not be conceded and why the Public Debt Commissioners should not be entitled to invest in Land Bank issues in the same way that they can invest in any Government stock, because the security for the Public Debt Commissioners, in both cases in the last resort, is the Government.

The second point with which the Bill deals seems to me to be rectifying an anomaly really. The Land Bank can now lend money to any bodies established under the Marketing Act, but here you have two important bodies, the Wool Board and the Dairy Control Board, both of which were established before the Marketing Act was passed and which function under a separate Act of Parliament. In logic, quite clearly if the Land Bank can advance money to any agricultural body for the advancement of agriculture, it is anomalous that they should not be allowed to do so in respect of two very important bodies such as the Wool Board and the Dairy Control Board, so I can see no objection to that.

The third proposal in the Bill is to improve the administration of the chattel mortgage system, which is now being evaded up to a point in certain cases. Sir, I have never been satisfied that on a long-term basis the chattel mortgage system is really a sound one in the advancement and the development of the agricultural industry, but that is not a subject that we have to debate this afternoon, because we are not discussing that principle. But quite clearly since we have the system of chattel mortgages, the administration of that system should be as tight as possible and there should be as few loopholes as possible for evasion of the responsibilities under that mortgage system, whether they are done through ignorance or whether they are done through plain dishonesty. Therefore the proposals in the Bill to tighten up the administration and to prevent evasions, whether done through ignorance or through dishonesty, seem to me quite proper and right, and therefore we on this side of the House will support this Bill.

On behalf of the farmers on this side of the House, I want to say that we do welcome these amendments. As the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has said these amendments give the Land Bank greater powers in relation to loans to certain agricultural bodies which represent the farmers, that is to say the wool-buying commission under the Wool Board and the Dairy Industry Control Board, but it also facilitates the application of control in the case of farmers who have been granted loans by the Land Bank on the chattel mortgage system. I think that the Land Bank is doing a wonderful job of work in relation to loans to young farmers, because very many loans are made to young farmers, and many of them do not realize just what is required when they get loans without guarantees or bonds other than the implements or the stock that they have purchased with the money loaned to them. I believe that there are some 7,000 or 8,000 such loans being made as individual loans, which shows what a large amount of money is involved. But it does not only facilitate the application of control by the Land Bank in the case of a man getting into financial trouble with other people, enabling the Land Bank to come in and to protect their own assets, but I think this facility to take over the assets of the debtor and to dispose of them to the best advantage, without the necessity for a sheriff to step in on a court order, by just auctioning those goods is a definite advance not only to protect the rights of the Land Bank, but definitely to protect the rights of the farmer concerned, that is to say the debtor, and in many cases even his other creditors. On behalf of the farmers on this side of the House, therefore, I would like to say that we welcome this measure. We feel quite sure that it will facilitate the loans that the Bank makes to these people and give the Bank greater control.

I just want to thank hon. member for the way in which they have received this Bill, which is the result of our experiments over the last few years to put the Land Bank in a position where it can extend help on a wider scale than before. I appreciate the assistance given to us by hon. members in trying to achieve what is our purpose with the Land Bank, that is to say, to make it an effective instrument for carrying out the policy which we all have at heart and that is the promotion of the agricultural industry in this country.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know the last occasion on which the Marketing Act was amended was in 1951 and that was done as a result of the report which the Marketing Act Commission had submitted in 1949. The amendments which were effected to the Marketing Act at that time were mainly based on the recommendations of the said commission.

Nearly ten years have elapsed since then and during that time the marketing of not less than ten classes of products have been placed under control in terms of the Marketing Act. Because the marketing of these products are regulated, eight new control boards have been established over and above the nine which existed in 1951. The new-comers are control boards in respect of the following: potatoes (established in 1951); oil seed (that is to say groundnuts and sunflower seed), 1952; lucerne seeds, 1952; hen’s eggs, 1953; rooibos tea, 1954; Tied beans, 1955; the fresh milk scheme in Cape Town, 1956 and bananas, 1957. In 1957 the marketing of kaffir corn was placed under the control of the Maize Board. It is intended to establish a marketing scheme for the marketing of fresh milk in the Witwatersrand area, Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Cape Town in the near future. The existing fresh milk scheme in Cape Town will be incorporated in this scheme. Consideration is also being given to-day to a scheme in respect of the canning of pineapples. Mr. Speaker, it is to be understood that the marketing problems connected with the various products are different. In order to be as effective as possible the type of control which is exercised over the marketing of any product should be adapted to the marketing problems connected with that particular product. The Marketing Act is consequently very elastic as regards the type of scheme that may be introduced, with the result that it has hitherto been possible to introduce various types of schemes within the framework of the Act, schemes which have been adapted to the problems connected with the marketing of the product concerned. For example, the mealie and wheat schemes are one-channel schemes with fixed prices, in other words, producers can only sell to those boards and at fixed prices. On the other hand, the oil seed, rooibos tea, banana and some other schemes are compulsory one-channel schemes where pooling takes place. In other words, producers may not sell the product concerned other than through the board. The board makes advances, manages the pools for the sale of the product and pays out an “ agterskot ” at a later stage. Other schemes are the so-called “ floor price schemes ” where the ordinary marketing channels are left undisturbed but where the board concerned announces a price which it is prepared to pay. There are other types of scheme as well, but I have mentioned a sufficient number to indicate the measure of elasticity that is required in an Act such as the Marketing Act, which is the measure in terms of which these schemes can be established and which prescribes the powers which may be given to a control board.

From the nature of the Marketing Act, which is an enabling measure, the powers which are given to the various boards by means of the relevant scheme are all derived from the provisions of the Act. Although it is impossible in practice to lay down in the Act in so many words everything that such a board may do, the provisions of the Act nevertheless go into such detail that it can generally be determined with certainty whether any specific action on the part of a board is legal or not. Since 1951, however, more particularly in the case of the additional products for which control boards have been established, problems have arisen which require measures for which the Act does not make provision. These are not problems of a serious nature or problems involving questions of principle, but they are nevertheless troublesome in the effective application of some of the control schemes. Apart from this a number of important problems have arisen during the past few months as to the meaning of a few provisions in the existing Act. It has always been the policy to be very precise in interpreting the Act. That should be the position, having regard to the fact that the Act is very far-reaching. It appears, however, that certain interpretations which have in the past been placed on some provisions will have to be defined specifically in the Act. The object of the Bill which is before the House at the moment is to solve the problems which have arisen. Most of the provisions are concerned with matters of an administrative nature. Those that are concerned with matters of principle do not create any new principles which have not been accepted in the past in the practical application of the Act. In essence, therefore, this Bill is a measure to tidy up the existing Act and to make it more effective. By way of summarizing the Bill I shall now deal with a few of the more important amendments, particularly those of a far-reaching nature.

I now come to the control of fresh milk and fresh cream. Before the Act was amended in 1946 all dairy products which were being controlled, had of necessity to fall under the Dairy Control Board. The functions of this board, however, are specialized in that the board regulates the marketing of only those dairy products which are intended for processing, as well as the processed products. That means that in the case of cream and milk, for instance, the board only controls the flow and the price of cream and milk intended for processing into secondary products such as butter and cheese. When the Act was amended in 1946, provision was made for the establishment of a separate board for milk and cream intended for consumption in an unprocessed state, or as ice cream or as a product other than those mentioned in the Dairy Industry Act of 1918. Such a board has already been established in the Cape Peninsula. The Act is now being amended in this respect that skim milk intended for such purposes can also be controlled by a board like the Cape Town Milk Board.

Control Boards which only deal with the exportation of a product:

As hon. members know, the citrus industry as well as the deciduous fruit industry of the Western Province and Langkloof concentrate mainly on producing for export purposes. That part of the crop which is marketed in the Union is a very small percentage. For many years the Citrus Board has been regulating the internal marketing and the exportation of citrus fruit. Because production and consumption take place over such a wide field, it is practically impossible to have an effective one-channel flow in respect of local sales. In addition to this, the slight improvement that that did bring about, did not compensate for the costs and problems connected with it. The board concluded that it was not worth while continuing with it and relinquished its control over the internal marketing of citrus products. To-day the board concentrates on the export of citrus fruit only. In the case of the Deciduous Fruit Board the board is still controlling both internal and external marketing, except in the case of apples and apricots, where it is also just concerned with the export angle. It is not clear, however, whether a control scheme which deals only with the export of a product falls within the scope of the Act. To remove any doubt which may exist in this regard, the definition in the Act of “ a scheme ” is being amended in such a way that it will also include schemes which are only concerned with regulating exports.

Who may submit new schemes or amendments to schemes:

The existing Act provides that a society of producers may submit a proposed scheme dealing with a product or products which are produced by members of that society. Amongst others the South African Agricultural Union has in the past submitted such proposed schemes. In an application to court recently it was alleged, however, that the South African Agricultural Union could not do that because it was not a society of producers as envisaged by the Act. In practice, schemes submitted by the South African Agricultural Union were considered by the particular commodity committee of the Agricultural Union and the Department had no reason to doubt the right of the Agricultural Union to submit those schemes. It was however, decided not to contest the allegation made in the application to court in view of the fact that it might have taken a long time for the court to come to a decision. In order to remove any measure of doubt which may exist in this regard, we now provide that a proposed scheme or an amendment to an existing scheme, may be submitted by any body which, in the opinion of the Minister, is representative of people active in the agricultural field.

Establishment of more than one scheme for the same product:

It seems that at some time or other it will be necessary to establish two or more separate schemes, each with its own control board, in respect of the one or other product; for example, a scheme in the case of peaches intended for canning and another scheme in the case of peaches intended for consumption in a fresh state, or even a separate scheme on a regional basis. Consideration has been given for some time to the possibility of establishing a separate board in the case of fruit intended for canning, because this industry has its own peculiar problems. It is very doubtful, however, whether more than one scheme in respect of the same product can be established under the Act, and we therefore propose amending the Act in order to make the necessary provision in this regard.

Differentiation in the levy on a product according to the area in which the product is produced or sold:

Because certain products are mainly produced in particular areas, it has already happened that the board concerned (as in the case of kaffir com) has applied a more comprehensive scheme in the most important production regions than in the rest of the Union. In such a case it is sometimes justifiable to impose a higher levy in those areas where the scheme is applied more comprehensively than in the rest of the Union. For example, in the case of the proposed fresh milk scheme for the Rand, Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Cape Town local conditions may demand that the levy should vary from area to area. In terms of the existing Act there may be differentiation between areas in practically every respect concerning control, but the levy is not mentioned in this connection. An amendment is proposed therefore which will also legalize differentiation in the case of a levy.

Co-operation with neighbouring territories in respect of the export of agricultural products:

The law already provides that with the concurrence of a neighbouring state or area, including Walvis Bay, some of the provisions of a scheme may be applied to a product which comes into the Union, en route to a destination outside the Union. In the case of citrus fruit arrangements exist whereby the board incorporates the exports from Swaziland with those of the Union to ensure co-ordinated marketing abroad of the citrus fruit from the Union and from Swaziland, to the advantage of both. The exports from Swaziland, however, do not go via the Union but via Lourenço Marques. Provision is now being made that a board, with the concurrence of the authority concerned, may exercise control over products which arrive at Lourenço Marques from a neighbouring territory en route to a destination beyond the borders of the Union. Apart from co-ordinating marketing, this control includes the application of those standard test in regard to quality which apply in the Union.

Differentiation between the classes of producers and dealers who have to register with a control board:

At the moment a provision may be incorporated in a scheme whereby producers can be prohibited from selling, manufacturing or processing a controlled product unless they are registered with the board concerned, or whereby dealers can be prohibited from dealing in such a product, unless they are registered with the board concerned. Such registration is often granted automatically; for example, where the object of the requirement that he should register with the board, is merely to keep a record of the persons from whom the board may from time to time obtain information or of the persons from whom it has to collect the levies. In the case of the levy it will be readily appreciated that a levy can only be imposed once on the same product. In those cases where the trade has to pay the levy, the practical solution is to collect the levy when the dealer buys the product from the producer. After that the product may pass through the other trade channels without being subject to further levies. So as to ensure that the levy is paid, it is necessary, however, for this particular type of dealer, namely, the one who buys direct from the producer, to register with the board and to submit regular statements as to his purchases from producers. In other words, for this specific purpose, the board is not interested in the numerous other dealers who may also handle this product. The existing Act, however, does not say that only a certain type of dealer should register, and the position is now rectified by way of an amendment. The same is being done in the case of the registration of producers. The effect of this amendment will be that under any scheme only a certain class of producer may be prohibited from selling, manufacturing or processing the product concerned, unless he is registered with the board. For example, only those egg producers who own a certain number of fowls will be required to register. As far as the Egg Board is concerned, this will be of more practical value, because the data in connection with the anticipated production in respect of these producers, for instance, will be sufficient to enable the board to estimate what production to expect. The large number of producers who farm on a small scale will not be bothered with registration, and that will save the board a great deal of expense.

Powers of Advisory Committee which include non-members:

At the moment the Act provides that the board may establish advisory committees in certain areas in respect of certain products which are controlled by the board. These committees may consist of people who are not members of the board. The composition of such a committee must either be laid down in the scheme or be determined by the board with the approval of the Minister. The Maize Board, for instance, has a Kaffir Corn Advisory Committee, and should a fresh milk scheme be introduced in respect of more than one area, there will of necessity have to be such a committee for each separate area. The Act also provides that the control board concerned can delegate any of its power to such a committee, on any condition which the board may lay down. Lawyers are of the opinion that this means that such a committee may even receive executive powers from the control board concerned. In this case, however, I feel that, in view of the fact that these committees may also consist of non-members of the board, it is highly desirable that the powers that may be delegated to such a committee, as well as the conditions under which that is done, should be subject to the approval of the Minister and, as such, automatically subject to a report and the recommendations of the National Marketing Council. By controlling the powers of such committees, we will prevent a position arising in which a body, other than the control board concerned which has come into existence, a body which, furthermore, consists of non-board members, becoming too independent in respect of matters of policy.

Ministerial control over the prices at which controlled products can be purchased and sold:

Price fixation generally is subject to the approval of the Minister, and the Act requires that resolutions passed by a board in connection with price fixation, together with any minority proposals, should be referred to the National Marketing Council, which, in turn, has to submit the resolution and minority proposal (if any), together with its report and recommendations, to the Minister. However, the law does not require this approval where a board passes a resolution in connection with the prices at which it buys and sells the very product in respect of which it has been established. The difference between the two cases is that, in the case of general price fixation, a maximum or minimum or absolute price can legally be forced on to the person concerned, whereas the prices at which boards buy and sell are more or less their own domestic affair. It is obvious, however, that the price at which a control board buys and sells a product determines to a large extent the general price level of that product. The price at which the board purchases is automatically the floor price, and the price at which it sells will generally be the ceiling price to the producers of that product as long as it has adequate supplies to meet the demand. It is considered that a resolution passed by a control board in regard to these matters is as important as a resolution in connection with price fixation which is of general application and should, consequently, also be subject to a report and recommendations by the National Marketing Council and the approval of the Minister. The control boards realize this and regularly submit to the Minister, as part of their normal procedure, resolutions in connection with their purchase and selling prices for his approval. The Act is now being amended so that in future a board will only be able to sell and buy the product in respect of which it has been established, subject to conditions approved of by the Minister. The amendment is couched in these terms for administrative reasons, because it is not always possible to fix a specific price in advance, as, for example, where products are sold by auction. Wherever it is possible in practice, however, a specific price should be laid down in one of the conditions. This amendment, therefore, amounts to a ratification of a policy which, for practical reasons, has been followed in the past.

Purchase and sale and letting by control board of packing material and containers:

Both the Citrus Board and the Deciduous Fruit Board find it necessary to buy and sell the necessary packing material and containers which producers require on a large scale. The Banana Board and the Deciduous Fruit Board also let containers to producers. Doubt exists, however, whether a control board may carry out such a function and we are now making the necessary provision for that. The conditions under which the boards will be able to fulfil this function will be subject to the approval of the Minister. The general policy is that wherever possible ordinary trading channels should be used and the proposed powers in respect of packing material and containers will in practice be limited to cases where a strong case can be made out for it.

Exemption from a board’s order that producers may only market through certain channels:

The reason why a control board imposes a prohibition which prohibits producers from selling their products other than to or through the board concerned, or the persons designated by the board, is to obtain control over the supply of that product and to regulate its further flow. Nothing is detracted from the effectiveness of this control when a board gives exemption from such a prohibition in special cases, as for example, when a farmer is given exemption in respect of the quantity of a product that he wishes to sell as seed. In other cases it may facilitate the administration of the scheme if exemption from such a prohibition is granted to producers who sell very small quantities of such a product or who sell it in an area where it will be difficult for the board itself to do so. For example, when the Citrus Board still controlled the local market, it imposed this prohibition only on producers who owned more than 300 citrus trees. In order to remove a certain amount of doubt which exists as to the right of a control board to grant such exemption, this right is now being incorporated in the Act.

Prohibition on bringing in products of poor quality into an area:

The Act already prohibits producers from selling potatoes, for example, which are below standard in a controlled area, such as, for instance, the Witwatersrand and Pretoria. This power was exercised when the market was flooded with potatoes. This prohibition, however, does not prohibit traders from buying potatoes of an inferior quality outside the abovementioned areas and selling them in those areas. It is also legal for the producer to sell to such traders. In order to close this loophole, the sale of a product of a poor quality can be prohibited completely in the areas referred to, but that will be too drastic in those cases where the product deteriorates in quality after it has been brought into that area but before the trader concerned sells it. It is the intention, therefore, to take the power to prohibit all persons from bringing any product of a poor quality into a specific area. The deterioration of the quality of that product after it has been brought into the area, will therefore not affect the right to sell it.

Notice to producers to give notice of deliveries and penalties to be imposed on producers who neglect to give such notice or who deliver a quantity short or in excess of the quantity specified in their notice:

Provision is made to empower a board which operates a one-channel scheme and where the proceeds of the sales are pooled, to demand with the approval of the Minister that producers give notice beforehand of the quantity of the product which they will supply to the board over a definite period, and to impose a financial penalty on those producers who neglect to give such notice or who deliver more or less than the quantity specified in their notice. The object of this amendment is to strengthen the hand of the board which handles a highly perishable product such as bananas, for instance, in its attempts to co-ordinate the receipt and immediate disposal of the product. The Banana Board already requires producers to give notice every week as to the quantity they will deliver the succeeding week and in spite of the short notice which is given to-day, the board succeeds in arranging for the immediate disposal of those bananas, because it is impossible for the board to store the product. Considerable dislocation is caused by producers who deliver without prior notice, or who deliver considerable quantities short or in excess of the quantity stipulated in their notice. The result is that some markets are over-supplied, with a consequent drop in the price because of the higher percentage of deterioration, while other markets experience shortages. The Citrus Board also finds it necessary to have reliable data as to future deliveries seeing that shipping space has to be arranged for in advance. I realize that the power to impose financial penalties on producers for having neglected to give notice or timeous notice, must be exercised with the greatest circumspection possible. For this reason a provision will be inserted in the Act to the effect, firstly, that the amount of the penalty should be more or less equal to the loss sustained by the pool concerned; secondly, that the amount of the penalty that the Board decides on should be approved of by the Minister and, thirdly, that it should never exceed an amount which will have to be prescribed in the scheme itself. The law will, inter alia, also demand that the resolution passed by the board as to the amount of the penalty, which will be subject to the approval of the Minister as I have already said, should first be submitted to the National Marketing Council together with any minority proposals, and that the National Marketing Council should in turn submit the resolution and the minority proposals together with its report and recommendation to the Minister. In view of these precautionary measures we should be able to ensure that any penalty that may be imposed will be reasonable and that it will only be imposed in cases where the producer concerned was deliberately negligent or grossly negligent.

Refusal to register because of over-trading and registration of conditions limiting capacity:

In terms of some control schemes people may only process or manufacture products which are controlled, or trade in the product if they are registered with the control board. Control boards such as the Wheat Board, the Maize Board, Dairy Board and the Meat Board have the additional power to refuse such applications for registration. It has always been accepted that such refusal can also be based on the ground that there is over-trading, in other words that the capacity of the industry is sufficiently large. According to a recent judgment of the Appeal Court in a case against the Meat Board, control boards do not have the power to refuse registration on the ground of over-trading. The Act does not lay down the grounds on which registration may be refused, and provision is now being made by saying, in so many words, that a control board may, apart from any other legal reason, refuse registration on the ground of over-trading. The provision is also made more elastic so as to provide that where registration is granted, one of the conditions on which it is granted may be the imposition of a limit on the extent to which the product may be traded in, manufactured or processed. It has always been accepted that in this connection too limiting conditions as to registration were justifiable, but in view of the court decision to which I have referred, it is necessary to mention it specifically in the Act. Up to the present six of the seven control boards have been empowered to refuse to register traders or people who want to process a product, and they are concerned with manufacturers of dairy products, millers, bakers, meat purveyors, manufacturers of meat products, curers of hides and skins, and hide and skin dealers, packers of dried fruit and fresh milk distributors in Cape Town. The restriction which is placed on the registration of these undertakings is aimed at combating unnecessary expansion of the industries concerned, promoting the turnover and thus retaining the costs per unit within reasonable limits. Particularly in the case of the milling and baking industries, where there was a great deal of over-trading, great success has been achieved by restricting registration. This has, inter alia, given rise to amalgamations which have resulted in an appreciable reduction in costs. The Dairy Control Board controls the erection of new factories, but allows it according to the extent to which dairy production increases in newly established or existing areas. In the case of factories which produce dairy products the costs per unit decrease sharply as turnover increases.

The control boards as well as my Department are aware of the dangers of restrictive registration as recommended at the time by the Marketing Act Commission—the dangers inherent in less competition as far as efficiency is concerned, stifling initiative and the existence of a combination of interests that become so powerful that it is difficult to control them. Consequently the policy has always been applied with great circumspection and not before exhaustive investigation has been carried out. Apart from this, anybody who is dissatisfied with the decision of a board on his application for registration, has the right to appeal to the Minister. The amendment to the Act provides that the right of a control board to refuse registration on the ground of over-trading, cannot be exercised in the case of a farmer who wishes to produce a primary product or who wishes to sell the primary products which he produces. The amendment is of retrospective effect to 1951, the year when the right to refuse was specifically inserted in the Act. Since the Appeal Court decision of 14 November 1960, the control boards have no alternative but to grant registration, except of course where there are grounds for refusal other than over-trading. Consequently another provision is being inserted in the Act in terms of which all registrations that took place between 13 November 1960 and the date on which this Bill becomes law, will be cancelled, except those that were granted pursuant to a successful appeal to the Minister. In order to prevent people who will be affected by this, from having to incur unnecessary expense as regards their businesses, they were warned in December of last year that Parliament would be asked to make this legislation of retrospective effect. The cancellation of their registration certificates will, of course, not prevent them from applying afresh and in cases where there is no reason to refuse, the applications will be granted.

Introduction of a scheme without further voting where voting has taken place on a previous occasion and where the necessary majority was not obtained:

Hitherto it was found impracticable to ask producers to vote whether a scheme should be introduced or not, because a reliable list of bona fide producers with data regarding their production over the previous three years could not be compiled. The law provides, however, that the Governor-General may, by proclamation in the Gazette, give exemption from the voting requirements of the law, which means that a scheme may be introduced without taking a vote, provided the Minister is convinced that its introduction will be in the interests of the producers of the product in respect of which the scheme is being introduced. A vote was taken in the case of the proposed fresh milk scheme for the Rand, Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Cape Town. The result of the voting, however, was a fraction short of the requirements of the law, with the result that the scheme could not be introduced. The vote that was taken was defective in many respects, so much so, that it could not be regarded as a true reflection of the wishes of the producers. Since then producers have made fresh representations for the introduction of a scheme. It may again be possible in future to demand compliance with the voting requirements as contained in the Act, with the result that we are retaining them. On the strength of our experience in the case of the proposed fresh milk scheme, however, it is necessary to provide that where a vote has been in the past a scheme may be introduced without taking a further vote. The Bill makes the necessary provision for that.

Presumption in regard to the area in which a product is produced:

Some schemes relate only to a product which is produced in a specific area. In a case where it is suspected that an offence has been committed it is usually difficult to prove that the product in respect of which the alleged offence was committed, was produced in the area concerned. Consequently it is now proposed to insert a provision in which a presumption is created in favour of the prosecution in so far as the area in which the product is alleged to be grown. The onus will therefore rest on the accused to prove that the product comes from another area, something which ought to be easy if that is the case.

Producing proof in court in connection with certain contraventions:

At the moment some of the officials at the headquarters of the control boards spend a great deal of their time on travelling in connection with court cases where they often only appear in the witness box for a few minutes to testify that the accused did not furnish the board with certain information or did not make returns or did not pay a levy due to the board, or did not register with the board, or was not an agent of the board. The principle involved in this provision is similar to the principle contained in Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, and is not foreign to our legislation.

The Wheat Board has the peculiar experience that some people who have been prosecuted repeatedly for baking without registering with the board, simply carry on doing so. Light fines are imposed on every occasion but they do not deter the people concerned. Consequently we propose amending the law to the effect that where a producer or trader is found guilty for the third time or subsequently of not having complied with the requirement to register with the board, the court may rule that the equipment which he used in connection with the offence be forfeited to the State.

Primary producers, that is to say farmers, need have no fear of this provision, because they cannot be refused registration on the ground of over-trading.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other amendments which are not defined in the Bill but which I will move in the Committee Stage. They are in respect of the National Marketing Council. As far as the composition of the Marketing Council is concerned, the law provides, inter alia, that there shall be a chairman and a vice-chairman, one of which should be an official of my Department, and in the absence of the chairman, the vice-chairman should take the chair. With the increase in the work of the Marketing Council it has become necessary always to have a chairman and a vice-chairman available if at all possible. This means that a chairman will have to be appointed without delay as soon as this position becomes vacant. It has been found convenient in the past, for domestic reasons, as happened very recently, to appoint an acting chairman, until such time as a permanent chairman is appointed.

This Bill, as it stands at the moment, makes no provision in this respect. I think it is advisable to make provision for this and I intend moving an amendment in the Committee Stage in respect of the chairmanship of the Marketing Council.

The other amendments which I have not mentioned are of an administrative and in most cases purely technical nature. The Bill was drafted after consultation with the National Marketing Council, the control boards and organized agriculture. This is a well-considered measure to tidy up the Marketing Act as a result of the problems which we have encountered over the years and to legalize things that have been done for a long time but in respect of which there has been some doubt as to whether they were permissible under the Marketing Act. I am therefore placing this Bill before the House without any reservation and I hope it will have a quick passage.

The hon. the Minister certainly spread himself this afternoon on the Marketing Act, and if I may say so at the outset, I think he has made out a very good case for this Amending Bill to go before a Select Committee before the second reading. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I appreciate all the things he has touched upon this afternoon, but if those are all to be embodied in this amendment then I certainly think this Bill should be submitted to a Select Committee before the second reading, and I intend to ask the Minister to do so. However, I want to deal with the various clauses to be found in the Bill.

First of all, this Bill proposes to amend what has popularly been known as “ the Farmers’ Charter” from the time it went on to the Statute Book. The original Bill was thoroughly examined. It went throughout the country and was accepted by the farmers of the country as something that would bring about some stability and security, that would regulate the products they were marketing. It was then accepted and put on the Statute Book, in the late 1940s, owing to dissatisfaction that then existed, the matter was submitted to what was known as the Marketing Commission. That Commission brought in a comprehensive report, the recommendations of which, unfortunately, were ignored by this Government when it took over. I think the Marketing Act would be the better to-day had that report been adopted and many of its recommendations embodied in the Bill. However, before discussing the details I want to assure the hon. the Minister—and I think he will agree with me—that one thing stands out above all others: this Bill must be consolidated at the first opportunity so that those interested in it and who are most concerned with it should at least be able to understand its contents. Let me refer the hon. the Minister to the side notes in Clause 6. Let me refer him to Clause 13. I am not going to weary the House by reading these clauses. May I refer him to the Marketing Act itself—that is almost a spiderweb in red ink.

Can the hon. the Minister appreciate the difficulties that are encountered by those people who are trying to understand what is going on with regard to the control of their products? I want to assure the Minister that this Bill is a radical change from what was originally accepted when the Marketing Act was put on the Statute Book. And for that reason alone, if for no other, I think it should be submitted to a Select Committee.

I am doubtful whether the amendments in this Bill have been put to the people, nor have come from the people. But what is extremely important is that if this Bill is accepted this afternoon with these far-reaching clauses, the people most concerned with the Marketing Act need never to be consulted. Let me deal with just one of the definitions mentioned by the Minister when outlining the Bill, and that is in Clause 1 where it says “ scheme means a set of rules ”. I will not take it beyond that. Then it goes on to say that this set of rules affects (a) the marketing of any product in the Union; that is a point I have raised from time to time in this hon. House. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied with what is taking place in the marketing of farmers’ products on what is known generally as the morning markets? I mention this because many controlled products are coming on to the market. Are those markets reasonably located so that the public and most people concerned have easy access? Is he satisfied that the locations of those markets, far flung from the consumer centres, is in the best interests of the consumers and is not seriously going to affect the cost of living? Thirdly, is the hon. the Minister satisfied that the conduct of those markets is in the best interests of the producers? I say not. I make it my duty to attend many of those markets to see what goes on, and I want to assure the Minister that those markets are conducted in a manner that is distinctly prejudicial in the first place to the producer and, secondly, to the consumer. I think it is high time the hon. the Minister took a hand in this and tried to establish something that would be of greater benefit to the producers than the present morning market system.

I now want to deal with the amendment to this original section. It says in the original section that—-

Those are the people who, up to the present, have been able to submit schemes. It is true that the Marketing Council may also submit schemes. But in Clause 2 of this Bill we find a distinct departure from what was originally intended in the Act. It is a departure that cannot be lightly accepted without examination. I am going to read it to the hon. the Minister. It says—

1. (a) by the insertion in sub-section (1) after the word “ council ” of the words “ or any body which, in the opinion of the Minister, is representative of persons engaged in agricultural pursuits
2. (b) by the substitution in the sub-section (2) for the words “ or board ” of the words “ board or body ”

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that that is quite foreign and is not in keeping with the original intention of the people who promoted the original Marketing Act, nor is it in keeping with the wishes of the people to-day. It is one of their safeguards that they should be able to promote schemes and submit them. Previously producers did that, but the Minister now wants to substitute a body. The future position, if accepted, will be that any group or body, not necessarily producers, nor necessarily people interested in the product, can submit schemes. It may be anybody at all. It may be the South African Agricultural Union, and I am going to suggest that that is what the hon. the Minister intends to accept. If he intends to accept that, may I suggest that the milk scheme he wants to promote, if it comes from the S.A.A.U., will not be acceptable. How many of the S.A.A.U. executive are to be found amongst the milk producers of South Africa? And will they speak on behalf of the milk producers of South Africa? Certainly not. It is true that the Minister may approve a body submitting a scheme. It is true that the Marketing Council may examine it, but the council need not bother itself any further after it has examined the scheme, and it cannot turn down the scheme. That is the position with which we are faced. And a “ body ” as far as this scheme is concerned, whatever it might be, is now to be given the same facilities as the Marketing Council and may submit schemes to the Minister at any time.

Mr. Speaker, there is only one way of dealing with the products of the farmers of South Africa, and that is to give them the opportunity of submitting schemes and allowing them to vote on them. There are some serious departures from that principle in the further clauses of this Bill. In terms of this Bill you have the Governor-General who is the Minister, able to proclaim in a Gazette that a vote is quite unnecessary. Why? I want to ask the hon. the Minister, why is he going to deprive the people most concerned of their right to vote on a scheme? The provisions I have mentioned are all against the original provisions of the Act and I ask the hon. the Minister to take due regard of that. It is quite obvious that the early application of these amendments, is designed to accept the S.A.A.U. as the body recommending a scheme, and the Minister wants to justify that by certain amendments found in this Bill. Further, by an amendment to Section 21 the Minister can accept a scheme from that body even if there is no vote on it.

Clause 10 indicates the extent to which the hon. the Minister proposes to go, and I propose to read that to this House—

Does that not deprive all of the producers of their rights? I maintain that this legislation is fascist in its approach and, what is more, it will make these boards the untouchables from both the producers’ and the consumers’ point of view.

Clause 4 is also important. That provides that the Minister, subject to this Act, may have separate schemes. Now, nobody wants to deny anybody the right to have separate schemes should there be overlapping or should there be an urgent necessity for them. But for the schemes that are already in existence to be divided is a proposition which I feel should be approached with a certain amount of reservation. We have to-day a number of schemes. Each board is collecting hundreds of thousands of pounds and the cost per annum must run into something between £7,000,000 and £10,000,000 for the existing schemes. Many of those boards are going much further than they have a right to do. They are collecting huge sums of money, not as stabilization funds but for investment. Have they any right to resort to that sort of thing? If the Minister wants separate schemes for the same product then, I say, he must do so with due care because the farming community of South Africa can no longer face up to the enormous financial drain that is imposed upon them in the way of levies and other means of financing.

The hon. the Minister dealt with Clause 7 and with the dairy and butter side of it. I think the time is opportune for me to tell the hon. Minister just what is going on. The Minister knows full well that there is a distribution of a product in South Africa that does not stand up to the standards of the best qualities of that product. Those people producing it have a free and unfettered quota throughout the country. They are selling that product as a first-class product, and it is not, while the Minister is penalizing those people who are producing a superior quality article. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that he is now forcing producers of the first-grade article to cold store it in their own cold storage. And when that is filled he demands that they should hire another cold store and store that product for lengthy periods of time. But he knows full well that butter is a highly perishable product and is subject to tainting. It deteriorates very easily. Yet the Minister still demands that it shall be cold stored for any length of time, until such time as he is satisfied that he country has enough butter to carry it through a lean period.

I want to put this to the hon. the Minister: at whose expense are those manufacturers storing their products? Entirely their own expense. Because, being a perishable product it deteriorates Very easily and in hired cold storage it is subject to tainting and when it reaches the stage for re-examination for export lots of that butter is culled back and has to be reworked and degraded. And that loss has to be borne by those factories producing that high-quality article. And now that we have reached the stage of surpluses, can the hon. the Minister give me an assurance that he is going to spread those quotas for the free distribution of butter throughout the Union among those people who also produce the first-grade article? I think it is essential that that should be done.

I do not know whether the hon. the Minister realizes it, but there are clauses in this Bill which establish monopolies first against the producers and completely against the consumers. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will take due note of that because it is important. No producer in South Africa wants to create a monopoly, and I shall deal with that more fully at a later stage. There is one clause here that is going to cause us a great deal of worry and that is Clause 8 on page 10. I intend to read portion of it because it is very important—

1. (e) by the insertion after sub-section (2) of the following sub-section:

First of all we have the establishment of pools. I am not going to deny that there are certain products that might fit into a scheme for the establishment of pools, but this is what I am afraid of—

Now, Sir, in a country like South Africa with its droughts and its floods and its varying climatic conditions, can the hon. the Minister visualize how one can forecast with any degree of accuracy what the state of affairs is going to be in three months’ time at the ripening period or the slaughtering period of the particular product? It cannot be done with any degree of accuracy. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that one week will decide whether a man will get 90 per cent of his crop or 45 per cent of his crop.

Or nothing.

My hon. friend here says “ nothing ”, and that is what has happened in many instances. Then we come to paragraph (b), which is equally important and which says that the board may—

Supposing that that particular farmer went to great pains to assess what he thought was the correct estimate and he got a rainfall which increased his product by, say, 75 per cent. What does he do with that? In this clause he is completely barred from doing anything with it. But under the same clause if he has a shortfall, if his supplies are short weight or short quantity, then he is penalized. The hon. the Minister in this clause is saying: “ Heads I win, tails you lose.”

Then we get sub-paragraph (c) dealing with the penalties, which says that the board may—recover for the benefit of the pool from any producer who has delivered to the board a quantity of the product—

1. (i) which differs from the quantity of which such producers so gave notice; or
2. (ii) in respect of which such producer failed to give notice.

Then it goes on to say the board may recover an amount equivalent to the amount at which the board assesses its loss. I am going to put it to the hon. the Minister that this may not include meat, but I know he is going to tell me that it does not include meat. But surely the Minister is well aware that over the years the Meat Board has tried time and time again to include meat in a pooling system. And I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it was not his predecessor who stopped these pooling schemes from taking place. He may also tell me that he would never do such a thing. But may I remind him of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) making a speech in this House before the acceptance by the Minister of the principle of auctions on the hook. That hon. gentleman addressed this House and told us that he had addressed many of the platteland organized agricultural bodies, and told them that auctions on the hook were quite impractical and that it was impossible for that scheme to be introduced, and he told them that the Minister would never do a thing like that. But that is precisely what the Minister did. So that while the Minister may tell me that meat may not be included in this, he has to remember that he will not always be the Minister and when some other Minister of Agriculture comes along he may say I am going to include meat in the pool. And I say that the inclusion of meat in the pool when these penalties apply will be a very sorry lookout for the producers of this country.

Mr. Speaker, we have had the fluctuations resulting from that, and we have paid the penalty. We had a state of chaos when we first went into the scheme. I have reminded the Minister time and again of what happened when we had these fluctuations in that particular commodity over a period of hours, let alone days. Does the hon. the Minister think that the farmers of South Africa will continue under that system? And now we have had the removal of permits, and may I say that while the removal of permits may not have affected the larger controlled markets, it has produced confusion worse confounded in the smaller markets. They have not recovered from it yet. What worries me as much as anything else about this Bill is that the hon. the Minister has now established that there are going to be monopolies under the Marketing Act. The Minister cannot deny that. He removes the right from every producer to do anything with his surplus. Can the hon. the Minister tell me what a producer has to do with his product? I want to assure the hon. the Minister that I am quite sincere about this because as a producer I am very conscious of the fact that producers cannot exist without the consumers and the distributors. I say that the creation of a monopoly against producers in the first instance and against any other section of the community as will be done in terms of this Bill is something that we are not prepared to tolerate.

Sir, we have had some experience of the monopolies in South Africa and I would like to remind the hon. the Minister of one about which he knows quite a lot, between the years 1954 and 1956. Does he remember when the Rustenburg canning factories were bought out, when the Mauerbergers were brought out, when the Germiston factory and the Wolseley factory and Standard Canners and all their subsidiaries were bought out? That cost the fruit farmers millions of pounds. We do not want anything like that again. Who is paying the penalty to-day for that recklessness? It is the fruit farmers of South Africa. There are no canning factories in Rustenburg. And where are the farmers who were producing fruit for those factories and making a good living out of it? Some of them went insolvent. Others had to uproot thousands of their trees because they had nowhere to send their fruit as it was impossible to export it from there to Cape Town. What are the farmers who were involved in that organization doing today? They are paying their debts to the land banks and to the commercial banks, debts that were involved in the purchase and the closing of those factories. Is it any wonder that those unfortunate people who are committed under the compulsory clause of the Co-operative Societies Act to supply to those factories are receiving £6 and £8 and £10 a ton less for their products than those who are selling to private enterprise? And that is because they have to pay for an attempted monopoly in that particular industry.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that notwithstanding the fact that he has given us a fairly lengthy explanation of what has taken place, he must submit this Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading. I can assure the hon. the Minister that the request he made at the end of his speech will be complied with in a great measure if he does that. But there are some extremely contentious clauses in this Bill that must be adjusted before we can accept it. I want to say that if he is going to move an amendment at a later stage he should remember that we want more common sense in the application of control over the products of the farmers of South Africa. I want to move the following amendment—

I move this amendment in all sincerity because if this Bill can be adjusted to meet the requirements of both sides—-and we are equally interested with that side in trying to give the farmers something which will fit the Bill, I can assure the Minister that the Bill will have a much easier passage than it will if he does not accept my amendment.

I second the amendment moved by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren). Before I get down to the Bill itself, I would like to ask the Minister whether this is the same Bill which he submitted to the various farmers’ organizations and control boards to whom he submitted a Bill for their concurrence and comment. It is my information that this Bill before us to-day differs very materially from the proposed Bill which was submitted to the farmers’ organizations. I would ask the Minister to give us a categorical answer to that question when he replies to the debate. We know that some of the control boards which have been organized under the Marketing Act have been very unhappy for the last few years under the various Ministers of Agriculture of this Government, firstly because many of their recommendations both as to the scheme itself, but more especially in regard to producers’ prices, have not been accepted by the Minister.

Do you want us to accept all the recommendations made by the control boards? You will be surprised when you hear what they are.

The hon. the Minister can make his own speech, but I want to tell him this, that if a control board after due consideration and after their recommendations have been accepted by the Marketing Council submits recommendations the Minister should accept those prices. I agree that the Minister should not be required to accept the prices suggested by the control boards without thorough examination, but when their recommendations have been accepted and endorsed by the Marketing Council—and he has the right to nominate people to that Marketing Council—then he ought to accept the prices recommended by the control boards. Sir, one cannot deal with all the repercussions that this amending Bill will have on marketing schemes in a matter of 40 minutes. There are many details of the schemes and the repercussions of this amending Bill, which is very far-reaching, and what those repercussions will be should be examined in Select Committee, where the men who are affected by the recommendations and the amendments proposed can get around a table and ask for evidence and have representations made by the people vitally concerned in the production of primary products, to see their point of view. This amending Bill can have very wide repercussions on the livelihood of many thousands of farmers in South Africa. The Marketing Act originally was an enabling Act. It was called the Farmers’ Charter, because it enabled the primary producers to get together and make provision for the establishment of a marketing scheme under a control board for that product where two-thirds of the farmers producing that product commercially would vote and ask for the marketing scheme. But this amending Bill brings in new and wide variations of the original principles enshrined in the Marketing Act. I think it is essential that we should look at the reasons for the original Act and see that the producer himself should have the right to vote on any scheme and on any question of the control of the product which he is producing and from which he makes his living. The producer concerned has not only got his livelihood to earn from it, but he has a big investment which can be vitally affected. The whole of his farming methods and his life can be affected by the application of the details of a scheme which are to his detriment, and he should be the one to have the say in the schemes which control that product. There were in that enabling Act safeguards for the other sections of the community. There were safeguards for the distributor where it was necessary, and in most agricultural products it is essential to have proper distribution to ensure that there is no waste and that the distribution dovetails in not only with the production, but to see that the largest amount of consumption of the product will take place. The consumers were also brought into it by the representation given to them, so that they could have a say on the Marketing Council and see that the consumer was not penalized in any way. But we must remember that one of the largest consumers of agricultural products is the primary producer himself. There was a time when the Maize Control Board went out of its way to make special provision and reductions in the price of maize supplied to the mines, because it looked upon the mines as a big consumer, but what did it turn out to be when the whole matter was fully investigated? The poultry breeders consumed much more maize than the mines, and they are only one small portion of the farmers. Look at what the dairy industry consumes. The proper and reasonable control and marketing of agricultural produce is not only in the interests of the producer of that product, but it is also very vital to the consumer, and here I have pointed out that in most instances the primary producer himself is a very large consumer.

This Bill before us has gone very far from the original Act which was envisaged as protecting the rights of the producer. Firstly it gives the Minister much greater powers. He can enforce schemes which the producers have not asked for and may not want and which they may actually vote against. Under this amending Bill the Minister can recognize any body as a body interested in a particular product, not necessarily the producers of that product, and he can recognize a body such as the S.A.A.U. when the producers themselves have actually voted against the scheme. He can say by proclamation that no voting is to take place on the scheme. I think he is going very far and I think it is giving the Minister much too wide powers in controlling a scheme for which the producers have not even asked. The S.A.A.U. is a body representing all farming interests, and you can get a committee together which may ask for control and they may have representatives on the control board, whereas the producers of that product have only one or two representatives on that committee, and they may ask for it or they may not, but the actual section of agriculture which that scheme will control may be definitely against their product coming under control. I will deal with one or two of those schemes where control was turned down by the producers and I will ask the Minister in due course whether he intends to enforce control on those producers. The Marketing Council may also present a scheme in relation to any product, under the Act. To this is now added any body which in the opinion of the Minister is representative of the persons engaged in agricultural pursuits. That is my point in regard to the S.A.A.U. They may be interested in agricultural pursuits, but will the Minister agree to some scheme put forward by agriculturalists who are consumers but not producers of that product?

Have you visualized that?

Well, judging by the powers asked for by the Minister and the things this Government has done, I would not put anything beyond the Minister or the Government. This is a very serious departure from the principles of the original Act. Whereas previously the producers of the product had to submit the scheme, in terms of this amending Bill anybody, not necessarily engaged in the production of the product and presumably not even living in the area where the product is produced, can submit a scheme. It may be any body of farmers such as the S.A.A.U. or a provincial or a district union. They can submit a scheme which will apply anywhere in the Union and in relation to a product in which they are not vitally interested as producers. They may even submit a scheme to which the farmers in a particular area are opposed. It is true that the Minister has to approve of the body submitting the scheme, and the scheme has also to be examined by the Marketing Council, but the Council can only act in terms of the Act and they cannot turn down a scheme merely because the body submitting the scheme is not engaged in producing the product concerned, and they will not be required to take part in the board subsequently appointed by the Minister who administers such a scheme. This body is being given the same facilities as the Marketing Council to consider a scheme relating to any agricultural product. Now that is a very big and important principle which is being introduced into the Marketing Act and which the ordinary primary producer does not want. He does not want to give the Minister that power and he does not want any other body than himself to deal with that product. The only way in which it can be determined whether the majority of producers in an area falling under a scheme are in favour thereof is to require them to vote on it. In the past all our schemes had to be submitted to all the people producing that product, and also to the distributors, and the consumers also had a right to some representation on the Marketing Council, but here the Minister can even do away with the voting. In terms of Section 21 (1)bis, the Governor-General, which in fact is the Minister, may by proclamation in the Gazette declare voting not to be necessary on any proposed scheme. I think that is a shocking thing to insert in this amending Bill.

But that is not an amendment; it is in the Act already.

In terms of the Act, you cannot bring a proposed scheme into being without the producer voting in favour of it.

Of course you can. It is in the 1951 Act.

Then why do you ask for it in this amending Bill?

I will explain it to you later.

Yes, I know we will get explanations which go all around the country, but I would like to get evidence on that point before a Select Committee, where all these points can be carefully examined, so that we can discover the true position.

Well, there are these points on which we are not happy. For instance, if the Minister has this power, why has he not already enforced this milk scheme on the Rand and in Durban and Pietermaritzburg? The producers there voted against any control scheme for milk in those areas because they thought that they were doing better under voluntary control. In Durban and Pietermaritzburg we feel the cost of the scheme and the producers—and I was present at the meeting which took some days—went into the matter thoroughly and they felt that the cost of such a scheme would be detrimental to the producers. At that time I was a producer and I represented the producers at that meeting. The bulk of the fresh milk producers were against the application of a scheme because we were doing much better with a voluntary scheme which was working very well. I want to know from the Minister when he replies whether he intends to accept the S.A.A.U. as a body which can submit schemes, and will he bring schemes into being when they propose a scheme such as a milk scheme for the Rand or Natal? At the moment there is a scheme in Cape Town and there is some talk of enforcing schemes elsewhere, even though the producers themselves do not want them. I would like to ask the Minister whether he intends taking that line so that the producer will know where he stands. In Clause 10 (c) the Minister seeks to take power whereby he will be able to override the decision of the majority of producers, and he knows that is true. We have the retrospective provisions of Clause 5 (2) and Clause 8 (2). We have said repeatedly in this House that if the Minister wants to validate something he has done, let him do so and validate that particular action if it is in the interest of the people concerned, but do not put in an overriding, retrospective clause which can have much wider repercussions than were originally intended, or that people can be penalized after having invested money and having gone into business while they were within the law and they were acting bona fide. Is this Clause 5 (2) intended to deal with the Cape Town scheme? If so, will the Minister make an amendment? That is one of the reasons why I think it is important that this amending Bill should go to a Select Committee where we can see exactly where these retrospective clauses lead to. I think the Minister must give us some guarantee as to how these retrospective clauses will be used.

In Clause 8 (2) there are provisions which affect certain registrations which are being granted under the Meat Control Board. Here again I ask the Minister for greater detail as to the necessity for these retrospective provisions. I do not like retrospective provisions. It is not fair to the people concerned, men who obey the law scrupulously at the time when they make investments or develop a business. If they act within the law, surely they should not be penalized by a law made retrospective some years afterwards. I think that, generally speaking, retrospective provisions in a law are bad, and it is a bad principle which is entering into the life of the country. That is the main point I want to make on that provision, that people invest money and go into business, within the law, and then the law is made retrospective and they are penalized. That is all wrong. There are other provisions in Clause 8 which are objectionable, such as the producers being obliged to submit forecasts of their production of certain products for the season ahead. The hon. member for King William’s Town stressed that in this country of floods, droughts and hail, how can the producer forecast anything like correctly the amount of produce or the animals he will have ready for marketing in a given time? There is a very heavy penalty imposed on the producer if his forecast is incorrect and he cannot deliver the goods. Whether it is crops or livestock, heavy penalties can be applied and the man can be made to pay the difference if the product has to be purchased from other sources·. The control board in question under the scheme can enforce penalties and not only fine him but under this system he can be penalized very heavily by having to pay the difference between what he delivers and what he does not deliver. Sir, if you will just look at our weather forecast—I think weather forecasting is easier to do than crop forecasting. Heaven knows how far out they are, and crop forecasting is not a matter of a week or two but of months. With meat you have droughts and floods affecting production. When you are a milk producer you may have an outbreak of mastitis or venereal disease or lumpy skin disease, and what happens when you deliver short of your contract in a time of short supply? Crops not only suffer from drought and floods but also from hail, and the same applies to fruit. I ask you, Sir, how can any farmer forecast what his crops will be in the coming year? But those provisions are definitely here. I do not know whether the hon. members opposite who represent farmers will support the Minister or speak up for the farmers for a change and see that this goes to a Select Committee where these things can be hammered out, and where a different Bill could be drafted. In the circumstances any schemes to be enforced on the producer under this amending Bill would be unfair where the producers voted against it. I think it is essential that we put that right, that only the producer who produces that product should say whether a control scheme and a marketing scheme should be brought into being to deal with his product. The producers have everything at stake. The marketing of his product is, after all, the final stage. He has increased costs in production, and he has had all the worries and troubles, and if he is not going to market his products successfully from the financial angle he is the loser. But surely he is the one to judge whether a scheme should be applied to him, and he must not be made to toe the line in regard to a scheme which he has opposed from the beginning. I say that the primary producer of a product is the man who should have the final say in the enforcement of any such scheme. Why does the Minister want all these extra powers which he is taking unto himself in this Bill?

Which extra powers?

If you cannot read the Bill, you should not be here and say you are representing farmers. You may be the chairman of the farmers’ group opposite, but I notice that the interest of the Nationalist Party in this matter is very thin. When I look around the House it is clear that we have more members sitting on this side representing farmers than there are on those thin benches opposite. When the hon. member for Cradock asks where are those powers, he either does not understand the Bill, or else he has not read it, or he has no interest in the farmers having a say in the marketing of their own products under their own schemes. I ask the Minister once again why he wants to give the power to control boards to be able to inflict heavy penalties upon producers who do not deliver to the control boards the quantities that they have estimated they will reap, whether it be fruit, grain or livestock. This amending Bill makes the Minister a dictator and it is to the detriment of the primary producer. This Bill should go to a Select Committee before the second reading. That is the only way to deal with this Bill and to see that the primary producer gets something that he himself wants. Let it go to a Select Committee where we can argue all the points fully, not as we have to do in this House where you speak once and you are then unable to reply to points raised by subsequent speakers. Let this Bill go to a Select Committee where the repercussions that a Bill of this kind will have on the livelihood of so many primary producers can be gone into fully.

I very much regret that my hon. friend, the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren), has moved this amendment. I know that he is always very anxious to be of assistance in agricultural debates. Seeing that he does not agree with the provisions of this Bill, he could have moved many of his minor amendments in the Committee Stage. In my view, it is unreasonable to move to-day that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee before the second reading.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Capt. Henwood) has told us here how he feeds his pigs and that he was a milk producer, but he did not tell us how the Act should be improved. I want to ask my hon. friend, the member for King William’s Town, to withdraw that amendment of his, and I will tell him why. The suggestions we have heard here amount to destroying the Marketing Act, and that Act has always been the Magna Charta of the farmers. Much criticism of the agricultural unions has been expressed here. The Marketing Act, which was passed in 1946, was a compromise Act; we fully realize that, but at least the Marketing Act brought stability to the agricultural industry. If we did not have that Marketing Act there would have been chaos, and if we do not have it in future there will also be chaos. I remember how the farmer had to come and plead for a decent price before the Marketing Act was there. He had to be satisfied with any price which the speculator offered him. We cannot revert to a position where the farmers all went insolvent. The South African Agricultural Union was also criticized to-day. We on this side of the House believe in the Marketing Act and in organized agriculture, and seeing that the South African Agricultural Union was criticized here I want to ask my hon. friends what would have happened to the country if we did not have organized agriculture. The Minister has already explained that all these amendments were discussed with the agricultural unions and that they generally approved of them. Here I also include the great National Wool Growers’ Association, a body representing 30,000 people and which forms part of the South African Agricultural Union. I therefore feel that the South African Agricultural Union is the spokesman for the farmers of South Africa, and it passes my understanding that hon. members want to intimate that the South African Agricultural Union does not reflect the feelings of the farmers as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has said that we on this side do not represent the farmers, but it seems to me that he is quite out of touch with the farmers because he is criticizing his own agricultural union and his own bodies. He has now made a plea here in regard to milk. The Minister has explained the whole position in regard to milk. We know that there was still, to some extent, a state of chaos in the past, and it is high time for the Minister now to step in and to see that there is uniformity throughout the country. The Minister has done his best and he is now making suggestions to improve the position. He has told us how skimmed milk and fresh milk should be controlled. There will now be two boards to control milk, and I really cannot understand what objection hon. members opposite have for this form of control. We on this side stand by the Marketing Act and by our agricultural unions. As hon. members know, the Minister is asking for certain powers in this Bill. During the last few months, as hon. members ought to know, certain judgments were given against his decision, and when people do not want to toe the line I think it is quite right that the Minister should use his authority. He has the power to intervene; he has that power in terms of the principal Act. All that the Minister is asking for here is that he should be given certain powers in that direction. The agricultural unions approve of it and I cannot see why we should have a long debate and why a whole number of minor points should be raised which have nothing to do with the matter. If hon. members want to criticize the Minister for mistakes made by him or by the control boards one can understand it. As we all know, the marketing boards are there and they make recommendations to the Minister. What would we have done without the Mealie Control Board, the Wheat Control Board and the many other boards which were of such value to us and which gave agriculture stability? We would not have been able to do anything without those boards. When there are not enough farmers in a certain group and the agricultural unions ask the Minister to control a certain product, why cannot we grant him that power? If hon. members do not want to agree to it they have no loyalty towards their own agricultural unions. The Minister is only asking for certain improvements to the Act to enable him and the agricultural unions to take action more speedily in the past; that is all the Minister asks for, and I just cannot understand why all these various matters are mentioned here. The hon. member for King William’s Town referred to meat He knows what my attitude has always been in regard to meat, viz. that one should have physical control. I have never yet changed my opinion in regard to the control of meat, and for that reason I did not want to discuss the matter here. I have always said that if one wants to implement the Marketing Act as it stands, then one must have physical control and one must have the necessary facilities. I have always said so and I really do not know why the hon. member criticizes me in this respect. I do not want to intimate that the marketing of meat is perfect. As hon. members know, the Minister appointed a fact finding commission, and it takes a long time to gather all the facts in order to make a proper survey. But after the Minister has received the report of the fact-finding commission he will of course take further action and appoint a broader commission. The Minister has in fact sent three persons overseas to study marketing methods there, and when those people return and the Minister appoints his broader commission he may even appoint my hon. friend over there to it, and then we can evolve a scheme which really falls under the Marketing Act. We on this side are opposed to anything which derogates from the Marketing Act. I think it was the former Minister and Mr. Andries Steyn and I who served on the 1946 Commission. I think we did a very sound bit of work. I do not want to intimate that further improvements cannot be effected but that Act gave us wonderful stability in the country. We built up all our organizations in terms of that Act, together with the agricultural unions, and nobody can deny that. I do not want to say more at this stage. I think I have said enough to prove that all the attacks emanating from that side of the House are simply based on frustration. Nobody supports those hon. members; they are speaking merely as individuals. They did not consult their organizations.

[Inaudible.]

Did the hon. member consult the South African Agricultural Union? No, the hon. member saw an isolated group of people in his neighbourhood. I do not blame him for speaking, but on whose behalf is he speaking? On whose behalf is the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) speaking? He speaks only for a small group in his neighbourhood. We believe that the bodies to be consulted are that mighty organization, the South African Agricultural Union, plus the control boards. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) referred sneeringly to farmers on this side of the House. I just want to tell him that there are many farmers on this side who have occupied important posts in agricultural organizations and who have had much to do with the organization of agriculture. He probably does not even know about that. The hon. member lives in a small spot in Natal and the people there remain as English as ever before and they do not come into contact with other people in South Africa. They are completely isolated.

I wish to say a few words about the Bill from this corner of the House, and I do so, quite understandably, from the point of view of the consumer. In saying that, may I say that I do not believe essentially that the interests of the consumer and the producer are really very much different. I think there should be no spirit of antagonism between the consumer and producer, but that in legislation of this kind, we should rather try to make the measure important both to the consumer and to the producer. In other words, I do not feel that it is the right attitude that farmers should feel that this particular legislation is their exclusive preserve and that the consumer is not really interested in it: On the contrary, I think the consumer has a very big stake, and the important thing is that there should be a bond of sympathy in a matter of this kind between the consumer and the farmer. I do not think that there is such a bond of sympathy. Sir, in the remarks that I wish to put forward, mostly from the angle of the consumer, I shall do so in what I hope is a constructive spirit and with, I think, a full understanding of the problems of the producer. May I also say that I believe that the consumers whom I represent—and I come from one of the biggest areas of consumption in this country and an area where a great deal of specialized interest is taken in problems of this kind, naturally from the consumer’s angle— the consumers have a very strong understanding of the problems of the farming community. I do not think for a moment that the average consumer, for whom I feel I can speak this afternoon, feels any antagonism whatsoever to the principle of the farmer getting a fair price for his produce. I think the average businessman, for example, who has to run a business, is extremely sympathetic to the farmer.

You are wrong there.

No, I am not wrong. I can assure the hon. member that in organized commerce, for example, there is a great deal of sympathy for and understanding of many of the problems of the producer. The businessman in particular appreciates the difficulty that the farmer has to contend with in not knowing his prices, in not being able to budget his costs because of weather conditions and so on. Many a businessman and many an industrialist would find it very difficult to operate if he were placed in a similar predicament, not knowing from season to season either the extent of his production or the price that he is likely to get. Before I conclude on this particular note, may I say that my plea is that a marketing Bill of this kind should be regarded as a measure that not only affects the consumer as much as the producer, but the consumer should have a sympathetic understanding of the Bill just as much as the producer should have. There is, of course, a third element in the picture, and that is the most difficult of all. I refer to the distributor, the middleman between the producer and the consumer. The much-maligned, but I think essential, middleman, is also a factor in the picture. He is the third leg of the triangle.

This brings me to the Bill itself. Sir, this is the most important piece of bread-and-butter legislation to come before the House this Session, if not the most important to have come before the House for many sessions. This is essentially a bread-and-butter, practical measure, and a very important measure. It deals with, I think, one of the most vexed, most difficult economic problems that has had to be faced by any community in any country in the world. Firstly, there is the problem of a fair and continuous price for the producer, there is the problem of a reasonable price to be paid by the consumer, and of protecting the consumer from exploitation, and the problem of keeping distribution efficient and economical. To reconcile these three factors presents a problem which I do not think anybody has solved in the world. Some countries have come fairly close to it, but no government in the world is entirely satisfied with the situation. In South Africa there are particular conditions which make this problem all the more difficult, and I must say that if the Minister can make any headway towards finding a solution, he deserves the praise and thanks of everybody. Here we have an extremely difficult problem and we have to be very sympathetic and understanding when we consider attempts to deal with it.

Now I come to this particular Bill. Obviously this measure introduces some very important alterations to the Marketing Act, and indeed I contend, with respect to my old friend, the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), that there are a few new principles introduced, and also some very important provisions that require the most careful consideration. The hon. the Minister has told us that he has consulted the Marketing Council, the control boards and agriculture.

The Agricultural Union.

I think he said “ agriculture possibly he meant the Agricultural Union. But the point I want to make is that I feel there is a gap here. Why was commerce not consulted? I feel that the sympathy and support of all interested parties should be obtained for a measure of this kind. I know that commerce is represented on the Marketing Council and that the Agricultural Union is also represented, and they are specially consulted, but I feel that the Associated Chamber of Commerce was not consulted specifically as a chamber. They have presented the hon. the Minister with a memorandum on this matter, which the Minister has no doubt read, and I think he will agree with me when I say that it is a memorandum couched in very objective and fair terms. I think the points raised in the memorandum are valid and worthy of consideration. I do not intend to go through these points in detail, because I think a better opportunity will arise when we come to the Committee Stage, when we can discuss the objections raised by commerce, clause by clause. It is very interesting to me that quite a number of the points raised by the Association of Chambers of Commerce coincide with points that have come from agricultural sources as well. I want to say—and here again, with great respect I differ from the hon. member for Cradock—that I do think that sufficiently important innovations have been introduced into the measure to warrant further study, and from that point of view I do not think that a case has been made out for this measure to go to a Select Committee. The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has moved an amendment that the measure should go to a Select Committee before the second reading, and I think he was wise to do so, because I believe that if the Bill went to a Select Committee after the second reading, the Select Committee would be in difficulty because principles would have been accepted which it would be difficult to alter in the Select Committee. It would be much safer, therefore, to have the measure considered by a Select Committee before the second reading. It may be argued that many bodies have considered the problems which are involved in this amending legislation and that sufficient information is available to make it unnecessary for this Bill to go to a Select Committee, but with respect I would say that that is not so. I say that that is not so from one angle—and there are many angles—and that is that it is quite obvious that commerce and the consumer have some very decided views upon this matter, views which I think are valid and require very careful consideration. My second contention is that it is a good thing to have the whole question of marketing under the provisions of the Marketing Act looked at very frequently—they cannot be looked at too often—because conditions in our country change very rapidly. Not only do conditions change, but this is a fluid situation in which we are groping, to a very great extent. As I have said, this is one of the most vexed questions that any country has had to contend with, and that no nation in the world has really solved—this problem of adequate and efficient marketing of primary produce. To that extent, a good deal of what we are doing is experimental. May I say at once that I believe that the Marketing Act has been a magnificent experiment, basically and broadly. It has been a magnificent piece of legislation, and we strongly support the broad concept of the Act. I go so far as to say that l believe that commerce supports it and that, generally speaking, there is national support for the Marketing Act. Sir, I am not speaking now on a party-political basis. I think in this matter we must base our comments on a broader basis than that, and I think it would be a great pity if discussions of this kind took place on a party-political basis. I am certainly not approaching this matter from any party-political point of view, but I support, and we are going to support the plea for an investigation by a Select Committee before the second reading, because we believe that it will be in the national interests to do so—not in a spirit of opposition to this amending legislation or to the Marketing Act, but simply because we do feel that some of the provisions do require impartial scrutiny by a body such as a Select Committee of this House, before the second reading. That scrutiny could take place in an entirely non-party spirit, and some very useful results might come from it.

In that connection I just want to refer to one or two of the provisions of the Bill. The hon. member for King William’s Town made a special plea for further consideration to be given to marketing in the towns. May I just in passing make this contribution from the towns? I think he is quite right there, and we in the towns feel the same thing too; we do think that there are avenues which the Minister could explore which would very greatly improve the marketing of primary products in the towns. We know, of course, that this is largely a problem of the municipalities, but many of the municipalities require a lead and a little bit of prompting from the Minister. Just by way of illustration, in Johannesburg, for example, which is a very big consuming centre, the need for suburban marketing has been discussed for some time past. This suburban marketing could be carried out in a very simple way. It could be carried out by providing special sites in all suitable suburbs, either for produce dealers or for the farmer himself to put up a stall or for stalls to be operated by the market department. To have suburban markets of that kind scattered about in the main concentrated areas of the towns, would be a very healthy development, because nowadays the cities are developing in an interesting way; there is a trend to decentralize; there is a great trend to form shopping centres away from the centre of the city; for the centre of the city to be the place for specialized shopping and shopping of a kind which it is not healthy to decentralize. Today we are getting very important shopping centres in many of the suburban centres, and if markets could be attached to such centres— and it can be done—we feel that very much better marketing facilities, would arise. This is simply one of the directions which require investigation, and I merely mention this to support what the hon. member for King William’s Town said when he pleaded for attention to be given to urban marketing.

Then I want to say something about the question of restrictions, particularly as applied to the baking industry. The hon. the Minister in the course of his speech, talking about the baking industry which, as you know, Sir, is affected by a clause in this amending legislation, said this—

There is another special clause in the Bill dealing with the question of seizing machinery, and in this connection the Minister said—

That is the amendment to which I referred—

In other words, if a baker is baking bread not in terms of the Marketing Act and the regulations framed thereunder and continues to disobey orders not to bake, then the State can seize the machinery. Well, Commerce queries the advisability of this provision and it does so because it does introduce a new principle. It is suggested that it requires examination whether this particular clause might not only affect people like the baking industry but kick back on the producers as well. In any case, it is an extraordinary provision to introduce into an Act—and a dangerous one—that you can seize equipment for an offence of this kind. But what I really wanted to say about the baking industry was this: I do feel that the Government should not be satisfied that because of the regulations under the Marketing Act and the operation of the control board, the baking industry is operating to the satisfaction of the consumer, because in many respects it is not. I myself, Sir, get complaints, very many complaints, particularly from my own constituency on the Witwatersrand, about the poor quality of South Africa bread. I speak from experience, having travelled about the world quite a good bit, and there is no doubt about it that in South Africa we have about as poor overall quality of bread as there is to be had in any country in the world that I have been to. It is very poor bread.

In other words, poor bakers?

In Johannesburg it is particularly the case. It is interesting enough that there is much better bread available down here in the Western Province, in Cape Town, and I believe the main cause is this very thing: The hon. Minister congratulated himself on the degree of rationalization. _ What does this rationalization really mean? It means that there has been a process of elimination of the small bakers. That is exactly what has happened on the Rand. The small bakers have practically disappeared. A few here and there are able to come in under particular conditions, but by and large this process of rationalization has gone very far. Down in the Cape Province it has not proceeded so far. What is the result? The result is that you get better bread in the Cape than you do on the Rand. I know that there is another factor which I did not mention, and that is the quality of flour, the use of hard wheat and so on. I only quote this instance, because I want to make the point that there are dangers in over-rationalization; there are dangers in pushing too far some of the provisions contained in the Marketing Act, and particularly in one or two of the amendments that are before the House at the present time. Then we know that there has been a great deal of difficulty in connection with another commodity which used to be a very great favourite to the consumers on the Witwatersrand, and that is bananas. We know that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in regard to bananas. I do not want to be particularly hard on the Banana Control Board; it had very serious teething troubles and has tried hard to deal with a difficult problem, but the net result of the activities of the Banana Board has been a scarcity of bananas and extremely high prices so far as the consumers are concerned. One hopes that ultimately this Board will get on to a rational basis. I say again that the consumer is perfectly happy that the producer should get a fair price for his commodity and a regular price, but he does feel that as things have gone under the control of the Banana Board, the consumer has had rather a raw deal, and it is about time that that situation was remedied, as I believe it could be remedied. This is also bound up with the provision of the Bill which I believe is particularly applicable to bananas and that is the provision which requires the producers to give advance advice of their crops. I must say that I think this is a provision which must be adopted with great caution. It is a provision which contains considerable dangers for the producers, and obviously also for the consumers. Those dangers perhaps we can dilate upon when we come to the Committee Stage.

I conclude now by saying that we shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for King William’s Town, asking for a Select Committee before the second reading. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept this proposal in the interests of the Marketing Act and of the Bill he has in mind, because I do believe that many of these provisions do require scrutiny by such a body. I think such scrutiny could assist the Minister and could improve the measure before the House. I also think it is important to give bodies like commerce and the consumers an opportunity of putting their point of view and appearing before the committee so that they can identify themselves with the Bill. I put my plea on the basis that this measure is as important for the consumer as it is for the producer, and there should be no antagonism against a measure of this kind on the part of the consumer. Moreover I feel that there is no great element of urgency. If there is, the hon. Minister has not told us what the element of urgency is. He has said nothing about the extreme urgency of placing this measure on the Statute Book. I am quite sure it could stand over for a few months, if not until the next session of Parliament. I believe that then we will get a much better measure. I am not so sure that out of such a Select Committee there could not come an agreed measure which might go through with very little difficulty indeed. So I support this plea very strongly, not on a party-political basis, but because I think it would be a wise step for the hon. Minister to take.

I think that what the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) has said about the producer and the consumer is what we all feel. I think the original idea was that the Act should not only aim at protecting the producer, although this was the main object, but that the consumer should also be taken into full account, while the existing trading channels should also be protected. Here I think the hon. member for Parktown made his main mistake in his later criticisms. The hon. member knows that all the organizations are represented on the various boards, that is to say, the trade as well as the consumers and producers. Now the hon. member is objecting to the poor quality bread being supplied, and at the same time the hon. member criticizes the powers for which the hon. the Minister is now asking to impose penalties after repeated offences. If the hon. member would go into the matter, he would realize that it is difficult in the case of bread to judge the quality of the flour and the quality of the mealie meal and to establish whether the bakers are adding the necessary fat and bran or whether they are adding excessive quantities during the milling process. Once such a person has been caught, it is difficult to catch him again and again because of the processes which must be examined. It is a long process and it is difficult to examine all the aspects. And if the hon. member appreciated that, he would realize that when a person has been caught for a first, a second and a third time, then it is absolutely necessary that we should take severe action to remove such a person from the industry. That is why the public is complaining about poor quality bread. Unsatisfactory mealie meal is often produced and also used. It is therefore necessary in the interest of the consumers that such activities should be regarded as being of a serious nature and that serious steps should be taken to remove such unsatisfactory conditions.

But it is interesting that a Select Committee should be requested at this stage. We know that in the case of the original Act there was a long-drawn-out investigation. That was correct because important steps were being taken, because the basic laws of supply and demand were being disturbed. When one interferes with natural processes by means of legislation it is a serious matter and one must take all the necessary steps to protect the various elements. At that time part of the United Party, who to a large extent are now sitting on the benches opposite, were very strongly opposed to the legislation, so much so that they did not want to vote for the legislation, despite the fact that it had been introduced by the United Party. It is also for that reason that Ministers of Agriculture over the years have been very loth to amend this original Act because the prospect was that such amendment would give rise to a general discussion and that unanimity would not be achieved, and that all sorts of proposals would come from all sides. But what I find interesting is that it is precisely members of our farming community who are moving at this stage that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee where the whole question could be reopened and the whole dispute between the producer, the consumer and the trade would be reopened. What I also find interesting is that the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) now says that he has certain objections in principle. But what are in reality the objections in principle which he advances as reasons for referring the measure to a Select Committee? In my opinion he has only raised one matter of principle, namely the method which the Minister will be able to use in establishing a new scheme. The hon. member asks whether this should be done on the basis of a vote or whether we can take other steps. This was the only objection in principle which the hon. member has raised. I wonder whether the hon. member has seen how difficult it has been in the past when schemes have been submitted to persuade all the producers to vote and to find those producers. Has the hon. member examined one of these schemes and considered how difficult it is to persuade the producers to vote. In reality, if we apply most strictly the provision that all producers should vote, then I want to ask who all the producers are. In the case of the dairy industry is every man who milks a cow a producer? Should every one of them vote? That is an impossible proposal. Nor do I think that the hon. member himself wants to go that far. We know how difficult it has been in the past to implement that part of the legislation. Now the hon. the Minister has submitted a proposal and I am sorry that the hon. members has criticized the Agricultural Union in the way in which he has done, and the same applies to his colleagues, particularly the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood). The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is familiar with the organization of the Agricultural Union and he knows that the Agricultural Union is divided into various divisions, that it has various commodity committees, and that those commodity committees are the bodies which will be consulted and which will have control over the various products. Is the hon. member going to tell me that the milk industry, that is to say the fresh milk industry as well as the dairy industry, is not representative enough to be able to make such representations to the Minister? He will not dare to say that. But, seeing that this is apparently the only objection in principle, what is more interesting is that, hon. members must admit that it is in effect practically impossible to carry out the letter of the law under existing circumstances. There is another point which has been raised and about which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has had a great deal to say, namely that the Minister is now taking the power to control products by means of a pool scheme or by some other method. I wonder whether the hon. member realizes that if we were to allow a producer to withdraw from a pool scheme or a one-channel scheme, and if we were to remove the powers for which the Minister is now asking in this regard, the whole scheme would be a failure? Take the kaffir-corn scheme as an example. If we were to allow a person to sell outside, then we could just as well abandon the whole scheme. If the hon. member would examine one of these schemes which operates under a pool system or a one-channel system, he would realize that it could make the position impossible if the Minister did not have those powers. But this is interesting: One hon. member has complained about the extensive powers which the Minister is acquiring and another hon. member has complained about the extensive powers which these boards have in respect of their stabilization funds and the building up of funds in general. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has also complained about the price determinations, about the fact that the Minister has recently on many occasions fixed prices without following the recommendations made by the boards, or that he has circumvented the recommendations of the boards. I ask myself whether the hon. member knows that the Minister cannot fix a price without the co-operation and the consent of the board concerned and that the board and the Minister fix the price for a certain commodity which falls under such a board, and that the Minister cannot fix the price by himself.

And, furthermore, that the Minister fixes prices together with the board and in consultation with the Marketing Council. Those are the two bodies which are concerned in the matter. Does the hon. member have objections to that? Does he want to give this power to the Minister alone, or is the hon. member for King William’s Town correct when he says that the boards are going too far with the various powers which they have? Which of the two hon. members is correct; the one who says that the Minister should act on his own or the other who says that the boards are going too far? They are in effect contradicting one another. The Marketing Act has worked well over the years and when an Act is of such a drastic nature, it is clear that over the years sources of friction will make themselves evident, and the longer the Act is in operation, the more serious these sources of friction become. It is surprising that so few amendments have been proposed to the Act and that the Minister has not made any changes in principle except, as far as I can see, in respect of the question of whether there should be a vote or whether the Minister should have the power to establish a new scheme provided he has the consent of some responsible body. I therefore repeat that it is surprising that over the years that the Act has worked so well and that such great success has been achieved. If this Act were to disappear to-day we would have chaos as far as the entire marketing system is concerned. But I accept that neither of the parties favour such action. Then we must be careful not to take unwise steps at this stage. The hon. member for Parktown has spoken about protection, not of the producers or the consumers, but of the trade. That is one of the difficulties. When one has a fixed price or one lays down a maximum price, we know that we must also have competition because otherwise they would cut one another’s throats to such an extent that no one could make a living out of the trade. Just take the milling industry, in respect of which there are difficulties. If we lay down a maximum price for mealie meal or for the ordinary flour, for bread flour, it is necessary that we should not throw the industry open and allow everyone who mills simply to enter the industry, when the profit margin of the milling industry is fixed so that a miller cannot charge more than a certain fixed price. If there is competition as well, well and good. Then the only protective measure is supply and demand. Then we must allow competition. But in this case where we have a fixed price, we cannot allow competition because the cost accountants calculate the absolute minimum possible price, the lowest profit margin, at which a miller can make a living. The moment it is divided into various sections, that man can no longer make a living. For that reason this is one of the most important points against which objections are now being raised, namely the retrospective effect. This is, however, entirely in the interests of the trade and not of the producer or the consumer as such. And the traders who are being given protection know that it is essential that the Minister should get the legislation through as quickly as possible because the whole machinery will be hampered by any delay in passing this measure.

I think that, seen from this point of view, the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) has made a reasonable speech in defence of the Bill now before us. On the other hand I too want to try to adopt a reasonable standpoint in justifying our attitude that in all reasonableness this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

In adopting this standpoint, I am not doing so because I consider that there are incorrect provisions in the Bill. It may be that if this Bill is referred to a Select Committee, the Select Committee will adopt the provisions of the Bill unanimously and that we shall be given a unanimous recommendation. My standpoint is, and this is why I support the hon. member for King William’s Town and his amendment, that we are dealing here with a multiplicity of provisions. I agree with the hon. member for Christiana that the Bill does not embody many changes in principle, but in implementing the various schemes under the Marketing Act it is not only necessary that principles should be changed to make the efficient administration of the Marketing Act possible. It is details especially, and minor details, which sometimes cause the failure and sometimes the success of the administration of a scheme under the Marketing Act. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter) who is chairman of one of the boards will know what I am referring to when I say that.

But the hon. member for Christiana has said that if we have control we cannot allow competition.

No, do not misinterpret me; I said: When there is a fixed price.

That is a submission which I have never yet heard any responsible person make in connection with the Marketing Act or the implementation of one of these schemes. If that is the spirit in which the schemes are being administered under the Marketing Act, namely that all competition must be eliminated, we shall reach a position in this country which will be intolerable. We shall then have monopolies developing in our country and we shall be protecting certain people in our country and making them wealthy.

On a point of explanation I said that when we had a fixed price, competition was valueless in such a case.

Even if there is a fixed price—I do not know what the hon. member means by a fixed price. Does he mean a fixed price to the producer, or does he main a fixed price like that which applies in the case of mealies?

To the trade.

Does he mean the margin which the miller receives or the margin which the dealer receives?

I pointed out that a miller may not go above a certain price.

If that were to be the position, we would be creating monopolies in this country. I therefore say that the powers which the Minister is now taking under Clause 8 (f) of the Bill are far-reaching. It deals with the right to refuse to register producers, etc. I do not say that there are not sound reasons why such an application should on occasion be refused, in respect of a mill or anything else. I have served on boards myself and I know that it happens. But before any board refuses an application under the Marketing Act because of over-production, one has to be careful because one is then entering into the sphere of monopolies. What is the Government’s policy? Two years ago they introduced this legislation against monopolies which is perhaps a sound measure, but by the amendment of the Marketing Act which is contained in Clause 8 a position is being created which could result in monopolies being established in a certain sector of our economy. What is the Government’s policy to-day? If the Government is opposed to the establishment of monopolies, then the hon. the Minister should not blame us for being careful. I do not say it is wrong, but I do say that we should be careful and that the Bill should be carefully analysed to establish whether certain sub-sections of Clause 8 may not promote the establishment of monopolies in respect of certain of our primary products, i.e. monopolies in the case of producers and the eventual consumers. That is why we are cautious and that is why I agree with what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has said, namely that whenever we amend the Marketing Act of 1937, which was a drastic piece of legislation and which has stood the test of time for more than 20 years, we should act with the utmost caution. When legislation amending the principal Act is introduced, we should take care that we do not amend it in such a way that we further the introduction of certain drastic principles which this House certainly does not favour and which this country has adopted laws to prevent, and that we do not come into conflict with legislation which is already on the Statute Book for the very purpose of combating those evils. For that reason we cannot be blamed if we approach this legislation with caution and ask that it should be referred to a Select Committee.

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has said that this legislation should be passed and should not be referred to a Select Committee because the South African Agricultural Union has approved of it.

Yes.

I am surprised at that type of argument. Who is the highest legislative authority in our country? Is it the South African Agricultural Union or the Parliament of South Africa?

Which is the best organization?

I do not stand back for anyone as regards my respect for the South African Agricultural Union. I have been connected with it for many years. But I want to point out that South Africa is not yet a corporate state which must accept legislation if it carries the approval of a section of the population. And to say that this is fine legislation and that it should be accepted because a certain organization, the South African Agricultural Union, has recommended it, seems to me to be rather ridiculous. I do not think that argument holds water. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cradock has also said that we on this side of the House, by the arguments which the hon. members for King William’s Town and Pietermaritzburg (District) have submitted, have shown that we are opposed to the Marketing Act. Those were his words. I have known the hon. member for Cradock for many years, and I am really accustomed to hearing better arguments from him. Because no one on this side of the House has criticized the Marketing Act. I do not like to turn these matters into political issues, but the Marketing Act was adopted in 1937 with the blessing of all sides of the House. It enjoyed the cooperation of all sides of the House, and if a farmer in particular and I would also say a consumer, should criticize the principle of the Marketing Act, then I would almost feel inclined to say that that person does not know that the economic set-up in the trade and the distribution of primary products in South Africa would be disrupted if we should destroy the principle of the Marketing Act. The Marketing Act is not only an Act which was introduced to serve the farmers. That is the idea which has taken hold generally in the country, namely that the Marketing Act was introduced to protect the farmers. That is not so. The Act was introduced to enable any productive sector which wished to make use of its enabling provisions—the Marketing Act is an enabling Act—to control all aspects of the particular product and to do so by means of a certain method. Mr. Speaker, I make bold to say that to date and since 1937 the Marketing Act has done just as much for the consumer, if not more, as it has for the farmer. Why? Because when the principle of control was applied for the first time under the Marketing Act of 1937, we were faced with a rising price structure throughout the world, and at that time it was a question of protecting the consumers against the high world prices. I remember the years when the price of mealies on the world market was £3 per bag and that of wheat £3 10s. and more. But the farmers of South Africa had to be satisfied with £1 2s. and £1 3s. per bag. We did not object because we realized that when a measure which aimed at the stabilization of a certain sector of the economy was applied, it would sometimes protect the consumer and sometimes protect the producer. Mr. Speaker, as I see the matter, I think that hitherto the Marketing Act—if one were to undertake an overall survey of the operation of the Act since its inception and all the schemes which fall under the Act—has operated more in the interests of the consumer than in the interests of the farmer. The real testing period for the farmers is coming now that the world prices for agricultural products and primary products are tending to fall. Now for the first time the Marketing Act will be tested to see whether it is a good Act as far as the farmers are concerned. It is for that reason that we are so cautious when amendments are proposed to the principal Act. We want such amendments to be considered from all angles and these amendments should not be adopted hastily. I therefore think that it is a reasonable request which this side of the House and the hon. member for King William’s Town have made, namely that we as members of this, the highest authority in the country, now that other lesser authorities have given their blessing to this legislation—namely the South African Agricultural Union, the South African Marketing Council and the various control boards—should also be allowed time to make use of the machinery which is at the disposal of this House. Select Committees constitute one of the most important pieces of machinery in the legislative set-up of this House, and it is a reasonable request that we should also have the opportunity to use that machinery to satisfy ourselves that this Bill does not contain provisions which conflict with the original concept underlying the Marketing Act.

Although the Bill does not embody many changes in principle, there are nevertheless many changes. In Clause 2 the Minister is widening the provision which lays down who may submit schemes. I understand fully that these people cannot proclaim schemes. They are only being given the right to submit schemes to the Minister, and then the Minister decided whether or not he will accept the scheme on behalf of the Cabinet. He is now widening the definition of who may submit schemes. If it had been provided that the commodity committee of the South African Agricultural Union which is charged with organizing the particular product was to be brought into the picture in this way, then I personally would not have had much objection to this provision. Then I would have known that these were people in the South African Agricultural Union who were dealing with the product in respect of which they were submitting a scheme. But I think it is rather dangerous to lay down this general definition in the Bill, and, Sir, hon. members must not blame the farmers on this side when we object to this provision. We may not always have such a sympathetic Minister of Agriculture as this Minister. He knows the farmers and he is a farmer himself. And if we regard these wide definitions with a little suspicion, then I do not think that we can be blamed for doing so. This other provision that there can now be separate schemes for the same product is a principle which is now being embodied in the Bill. This is also a matter which calls for further investigation. The other point is that the Minister must now give his consent when a control board wants to delegate its powers to a committee of the board. In other words, the question of a board within a board, is also of importance. If I am correct, a control board has hitherto had the right to delegate powers to an executive committee without the consent of the Minister. It seems to me that the Minister wants to avoid this. If a board wants to delegate some of its drastic powers, then it will now have to obtain the consent of the Minister.

If it wishes to appoint a committee which does not consist of members of the board.

Yes, I understand that. That may be a good thing but I have also served in the past on the executive committees of control boards, and I think that before control boards are deprived of this power to appoint executive committees to which they can delegate certain powers, we should go into the matter carefully. As a matter of fact there are control boards which delegate all their powers to an executive committee when they are not in session—the board themselves only sit once every two or three months.

That power is not being taken away, but they must have the consent of the Minister.

I understand that and it may be a good provision. If a board appoints such a sub-committee and the hon. the Minister is not satisfied with certain of the members of that committee, will he be able to veto them?

I must already approve to-day.

These are all questions which could be settled on a Select Committee. If a control board can appoint an executive committee to which it delegates certain of its powers and on occasion all its powers, I have no objection to the hon. the Minister having to give his consent, but I should certainly object if the Minister was to have any say over the nomination of the membership of the committee.

The executive committee must have the Minister’s approval to-day.

Why then is the hon. the Minister asking for this power if he already has it?

I am not asking for the right to approve the committee …

The hon. the Minister can reply presently. I now come to the question of over-production. I have already discussed that aspect, in referring to the possible establishment of monopolies. I think that the hon. the Minister must admit that this is a real danger. It has already happened in South Africa that while a monopoly has not actually been established, we have had the position under the Marketing Act and in respect of products which were controlled by the Act, such as wheat, the milling quotas have been laid down which have forced up mill prices, and that definitely caused unsatisfactory conditions in the country. These milling quotas were also subject to control, and they were used in an attempt to prevent over-production, but the value of the milling quotas eventually became so great that mills which had cost £20,000 and £30,000, were sold for prices ranging from £260,000 to £300,000. This was the result of the creation of a monopoly in the case of a certain product which was administered under the Marketing Act. That was not a sound position. The Minister probably does not remember the export certificates under the mealie scheme. Those certificates were thrown on the open market and fluctuated in price. It is all these things which make one suspicious when we find legislation proposing that overproduction should be adopted as a reason for refusing registration. I say that the hon. the Minister may have sound reasons for this provision and his Department may have sound reasons. But Mr. Speaker, allow the machinery of this House to be used to investigate this legislation as closely as is necessary. Perhaps an agreed measure will then be submitted to us. But if that is not done, the hon. the Minister must not blame us if we regard certain aspects of this Marketing Amendment Bill with a certain amount of suspicion and he must not blame us for discussing these points.

I agree that the Marketing Act of 1937 was certainly one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed in South Africa, not only as regards the farmer, the primary producer, but also as regards the consumer, and not only as regards the consumer, but also the distributor of primary products. This was an attempt to achieve stabilization and nothing else. It was not intended to benefit the farmer on the one hand or to benefit the consumer. But it was introduced because we had a position prior to 1937 which forced everyone with common sense to the conclusion that the primary producer could not produce successfully under an economy which was subject to the laws of free supply and demand; that the primary product could not be successfully distributed and that it was very difficult to supply those products to the consumer on such a basis that the producer of the product would also benefit. This represented an attempt to achieve stabilization. That is why the Marketing Act was made an enabling Act, whereby various schemes could be established.

Prior to the enactment of the Marketing Act, the farmers tried to achieve stabilization by means of co-operative societies. Those of us who were concerned with the co-operative movement prior to 1937 know that it was not a complete success. The farmers tried by means of their co-operative societies to sell through one channel, but they could not control the price. They made advances, and then we found that at the end of the year the members had to pay in instead of getting an “ agterskot ”. As a result the Marketing Act was introduced, as I have explained. I think we can all say that the Marketing Act and the administration of that Act by various Departments under the various Ministers and by the control boards have hitherto achieved a reasonable measure of success. The producer has been protected, and I think the consumer as well. I have also stated already that I consider that the Marketing Act will only be tested now as far as the producer is concerned. There may also have been failures under the Act in the case of certain schemes. I do not think that anyone can justifiably argue that the meat scheme has been a very great success. It seems to me that meat is one of the primary products which is extremely difficult to administer under a control scheme under the Marketing Act. If this Minister can succeed in establishing a scheme by which meat can be successfully controlled, then he will certainly be known in South Africa’s future history as the greatest Minister of Agriculture which South Africa has ever had. I wish him success in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to show that we on this side of the House are not opposed to the principals of the Marketing Act. Nor are we opposed to most of the amendments proposed in this long amending Bill. But I have shown that there are certain aspects regarding which we have our doubts, and we are therefore asking that the machinery of this Parliament should be utilized to give us the opportunity also to examine this legislation in all its aspects before we place it on the Statute Book. Then it may be possible to submit an agreed amending Bill to the House.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope) is not here. He said that before amendments are made to the Marketing Act he would like commerce to be consulted also. As far as commerce is concerned, we know that commerce is given representation on all the boards and has an opportunity of stating its case on those boards. The commercial aspect of the matter is fully considered and in many respects concessions are made to commerce when they state their case on the boards. This is all done within the scope of the Act if the Chamber of Commerce is to be consulted separately, then I want to ask the hon. member this: Is the South African Agricultural Union consulted by commerce before they go to the Minister to have the prices of their commodities increased, or is the position that the matter is only discussed with the Minister and that by the time the South African Agricultural Union hears about it, the prices have already been fixed?

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. H. G. Swart) is perturbed about legislation in connection with over-trading, because he is afraid that it will bring about a monopoly. Where the price of any commodity is fixed by a control board, we find that the price fixation takes place after the price has been broken down. A margin of profit is then allowed to the milling industry for example, or to whatever industry processes the product. If you adopt the attitude that restrictions cannot be imposed on the milling industry, that everyone who wishes to do so should be allowed to put up a mill, you will find that the turnover of existing mills is prejudically affected. That is what would happen, and in point of fact, the existing mills already have a surplus milling capacity. In some cases the capacity is two or three times as much as the country requires. Since that is the position, is it in the interest of the country that even more capital, which is not required, should be invested in that industry? It is local capital that is invested in it, and is it desirable to invest further capital in this industry? If that is done we will find that the turnover of the existing mills will be reduced, and they will therefore be unable to make ends meet on the margin of profit allowed to them. They will then ask for a bigger margin of profit because their milling turnover will be reduced as a result of the fact that there are more mills. Eventually it will be the consumer then who will have to pay a higher price for the product. This question of over-trading is in my opinion a very important factor in this whole question of restrictions. When legislation is enacted with regard to over-trading it is in the interest of the country as a whole, because that capital which many members want to allow people to invest in some industry or other, would be lost eventually. That capital could be used to much better advantage in other directions. We would not like to see people investing large capital sums that will eventually ruin them financially and result in that capital being lost to the country.

The hon. member for Florida has practically tried to create distrust in the minds of the producers by suggesting that the Marketing Act has always been an Act which has only benefited the consumer and never the producer.

I did not put it that way.

The hon. member says that since the beginning of the boom period the Marketing Act has always ensured that the price of the product has remained low while the overseas price has been high.

You know that that is so.

They want to make the producer believe that the Marketing Act has prevented the producer from getting a high price and that the consumer has reaped the benefit of that. I want to point out to the hon. member for Florida that even before World War II when the control Boards existed already, the producer received 8s. for maize in 1938, 1939 and 1940 or thereabouts. We know that the Marketing Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1937. The boards were appointed under that Act. The producer received 8s. and the consumer paid 4s. so as to permit of the farmer getting 8s. under the control scheme. At that time our maize was also being exported. The farmer then had the benefit of the Marketing Act because the Act ensured that he received 8s. We know about the subsidy of 1s. 6d. per bag for the first 500 bags, etc. The position therefore is not that the Marketing Act has only benefitted the consumer.

Then the hon. member says that the Minister should not have the right to exercise control over the advisory committees appointed by the boards. There is a kaffir corn advisory committee and that committee consists of members of the Maize Board, as well as members who do not serve on the Maize Board, and it is when the board wants to delegate powers to that advisory committee that the Minister must have a say, if I understand the position correctly. If the Minister does not retain those powers and if the Board is able to delegate its powers to the advisory committee, then we are going to have two boards later on. These two boards would clash and the Minister would not know where he stood with the advisory board and with the full board.

The hon. member says that the test for the Marketing Act will only come now. Mr. Speaker, the Marketing Act has been tested for years. Over the past eight or ten years there have been surpluses in the cases of some commodities and if it had not been for Marketing Act and for the control boards, the prices for agricultural products would have fallen to rock bottom. Thanks to the Marketing Act and the authorities which exist to-day for controlling the farmer’s product, for arranging orderly marketing and for exporting the surplus, we have been able to maintain a degree of stability.

Mr. Speaker, as has been said here already, there are no important basic changes in the amendments that we have before us, and I think the sooner those amendments are made, the better it will be for the farming community in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the difficulties in regard to the administration of the Marketing Act. There are so many conflicting interests to be reconciled that the job is almost impossible. As a business man, I am obviously in favour of reasonable control of marketing, but there is at least one drastic amendment in this Bill which, I think, requires discussion and consideration and the views of other sections in the country. That is why I am suggesting that the Minister should accept the motion that this matter should be considered by a Select Committee before the second reading. As part of this Bill follows the case of Garda v. the Meat Control Board, I would like to read from a memorandum which I have in regard to this matter—

This obviously caused consternation in the mind of the Minister, and almost panic, because the Minister announced that the Marketing Act was to be amended, giving all boards specific power to refuse licences on the ground that there were sufficient businesses of that type in the area in which registration was sought. I feel that this hits at the root of all private enterprise, and we are in the main committed to private enterprise in this country. I accept without argument the necessity for orderly marketing, but this is extremely drastic, and it hits at the root of our private enterprise system. We are getting more boards established every day, each with a right to refuse licences to trade. I do not know whether that will help the producer in the long run. It is a very sobering thought. I do not think enough consideration has been given to these rights, which will be so lavishly distributed. It will certainly lay a heavy burden on private enterprise, and we will need all the new good businesses that we can find in the next few years. That is why I feel very strongly that this is a snap decision on the part of the Minister, and I think it requires much more consideration by him and much more thought and listening to the views of other people who might be affected. After all, this Act has been in existence since 1937 and it has in the main served its purpose as far as the interest of the producer is concerned. If it can be tightened up to benefit the producer, I would be happy to vote for it, but not if it prejudices private enterprise. I know it is the Minister’s duty to reconcile conflicting interests, and there are conflicting interests in regard to this matter, and it is a matter of letting it go to a Select Committee. Both sides of the story must be heard—in fact, there are three sides, the producers’, the distributors’ and the consumers’. I do not think all that has been considered. This Bill is bound to have the effect of entrenching existing interests and prejudicing those who desire to start new businesses, and it could quite conceivably lead to monopolistic tendencies. There is only one way in which this matter can be dealt with properly, and that is by referring it to a Select Committee. It is much too complicated to be brought forward as an amendment to the Marketing Act. Commerce and industries have their views, which have been given by previous speakers. The primary producer is entitled to protection, but this amendment seems to ignore the interests of everyone except the consumer, and I do not believe it is in his interest simply to give every board the right to refuse a licence simply on the grounds that there are enough people trading in that product in a certain area. Surely some competition must be allowed, and this Bill will bring us to the stage where there will be no competition at all. Competition plays a large rôle in our economic set-up, and on this ground alone I suggest that the Minister should agree to send the Bill to a Select Committee. This could easily be the thin edge of the wedge, and it may cause a lot of consternation and difficulty in the country.

I want to support this Bill and express my surprise that that side of the House has asked for it to be referred to a Select Committee. It looks as though they are greatly interested in the welfare of the primary producer, but past experience has taught us that when it suits them they take no interest whatsoever in the progress of the producer. I want to prove that by reminding hon. members that during the period 1939 to 1945, when the Marketing Act had been in operation for years already, the producer in South Africa was obliged to market his beef at less than 1s. per lb., when the world price was often 4s. 6d. or more per lb. The fact that the producers had to sell at such a loss in those years is one of the reasons why some of them are still suffering to this day.

Then I also want to support this Bill because in the northern Free State the fresh milk producers have not been able hitherto to get a board to represent them as a result of the fact that they have been unable to get a majority vote for the establishment of a fresh milk board. The Minister together with the Governor-General—I just want to correct that because I think it will now be the State President —will now have the power to institute a board in the interests of the fresh milk producers. Since there is no control to-day over that product, we find that producers’ prices are fixed at an unremunerative level and that they may suffer losses as a result of the production of possible surpluses. Under this Bill the Minister now has the power to institute a board without the matter having been put to the vote. I cannot see how the Opposition can object to the powers for which the Minister asks. The Minister always acts on the advice of the interested parties. He would not act autocratically in conflict with the interests of those groups. The action taken by him has shown that he keeps in close touch with farmers’ organizations, and I cannot see therefore what justification they have for saying that the Minister will have autocratic powers that he is going to misuse.

But I should like to touch upon a small matter in connection with the production of meat. I have a case here that I got from the Meat Board. It concerns this question of the high cost to the producer in sending his meat to the controlled markets. The one difficulty is that apart from the high cost of marketing in the controlled areas, the producer pays a 3 per cent commission to the agent on his gross income, and I regard that as very unfair. If the producer has to pay 3 per cent, it would be fair if he paid it on his net income, but to-day he has to pay 3 per cent on the gross income, and I just want to point out how high the cost of marketing is. As far as cattle are concerned, I have a complete list here from Newtown, Bloemfontein, Wynberg, Pretoria and Cape Town, and as far as slaughter fees are concerned, they vary from cents to 45 cents in Pietermaritzburg, where they are the lowest. In the case of calves, the slaughter fee alone is 35 cents. In the case of sheep it is 17 cents. I am quoting the fees at the Newtown market. Taking the slaughter fee and the abattoir fee together, it works out at R1.17Í per head of cattle. If one adds the levy monies which amount to R1.40, then the total cost of marketing at Newtown is R2.57½ per head of cattle. If in addition to that the railage has to be deducted, which also appears on the agent’s statement of account, one sees on what a large amount the producer has to pay this 3 per cent commission. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to use his influence in this respect too to see that this 3 per cent is only payable on the net income to the producer.

Another matter that I want to mention is this. Since the Minister is being given power under this Bill to prevent overtrading, I want to urge that as far as dairy products are concerned he should not regard the existence of various branches, such as a butter factory, for example, and a condensed milk factory and a cheese factory in a certain area, as overtrading. I want to plead that where you have a butter factory as well as a condensed milk factory, the establishment of other dairy factories in the area should also be permitted. We often hear of monopolies, but I believe that if the Minister allowed a variety of dairy factories in a certain area, the producer would have the benefit of reasonable competition. I want to urge upon the Opposition not to delay the passing of this Bill, because there are urgent problems, particularly as far as fresh milk producers are concerned, which call for a solution.

Mr. Speaker, farmers are jealous and suspicious in regard to any readjustment of the provisions of the Marketing Act, and we on this side of the House, in supporting the amendment that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee, are expressing the opinion of the great majority of producers and consumers in the country.

How do you know that?

We know because we are in touch with the public. I do not know whether the hon. member has any evidence to prove that this Bill is wanted by the majority of producers in this country. There is a great fear in the country to-day of a measure of this nature creating monopolistic interests.

Order! I hope the hon. member will not go too widely into that aspect It has already been dealt with.

Perhaps you will give me a little scope because I want to give an example of this fear of monopolistic control, but I will abide by your ruling, Sir. We know that the Marketing Act of 1937 was among the most important legislations ever passed in this country. It controls the production of food, which is essential. The original Act was designed to protect both the producer and the consumer. It was contradictory to the old laws of supply and demand. Perhaps we were following the example of Egypt which saved during the seven plentiful years for the seven years of scarcity. But this Act was a democratic measure, with all the weaknesses of our democratic system. We realize that the Minister finds that the Act in a way hinders the administration of his policy and he wants to introduce regimentary measures which enable him to carry out a certain amount of regimentation, in contradiction to the object of the principal Act. On that account, and because of the delicate nature of this Bill, and also the inadequacy of these amendments—even when this amending Bill is passed the Marketing Act will be far from a perfect measure; it will not provide for the difficulties with which we are faced to-day in regard to surpluses of maize and the inferior maize foisted on the consumer. These amendments will not make it a perfect Act. People do want certain liberties. When a serious change is made in legislation as anticipated in this Bill, it gives general satisfaction if the matter is investigated by a Select Committee first, because there the opportunity is given for evidence to be taken from all sections of the community and from all interests. Much will come to light before the Select Committee which the Minister will never hear about through the agricultural organizations with which he is in touch. Many of us claim that our agricultural interests to-day, with all the farmers’ organizations and the commodity committees and advisory committees, is a clumsy organization.

Order! The hon. member is covering too wide a field now.

I wanted to speak more on monopolies.

The hon. member has gone very far already.

We in the Eastern Province fear a monopoly being established to control our ice cream production. Ice cream from Cape Town is being delivered as far north as Umtata.

That has nothing to do with the Marketing Act. It is free enterprise.

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Then I find it very difficult to continue my speech. Many farmers have been ruined by monopolies, which the Minister now seeks to establish in terms of this Bill, where control can be brought into operation without the consent of the majority as laid down in the principal Act. I am afraid that in the Committee Stage the Minister will have to satisfy the House of the wisdom of many of the clauses in the Bill. I will not delay the House any longer now, but await the Committee Stage.

I have found it very interesting to listen to the debate on this Bill. I have come to the conclusion that there are some members who read things into the Marketing Act which have never been provided for in the Act and who believe that the Act is responsible for monopolies in commodities which have never been controlled under the Act.

I want to say at the outset that I think that if hon. members really saw this Bill in its right perspective, they would realize that it is absolutely unnecessary to refer it to a Select Committee to go more fully into the amendments, for the simple reason that most of the amendments made here refer to practices which are already in vogue under the Act and in respect of which the various control boards have always been under the impression that these powers were vested in them under the Act. There are some amendments which are being made just to put this matter beyond any doubt where the law advisers are in some doubt as to whether the powers which are being exercised are in fact provided, for in the Act. We are just putting it more clearly now as I have already explained. The same applies to schemes under which certain products are exported and where there is uncertainty as to whether the Act makes provision for the control of the product only where it is exported and where it is not also controlled on the internal market. That is the practice. Then there is also the registration policy. Since 1951, when the Marketing Act was amended, it has been the custom to give powers of registration to boards, and it has always been accepted by the boards and by the law advisers that the powers are provided for in the Act, and since 1951 the Act has been implemented as though these powers are in fact provided for in the Act. It is essential that those powers should be provided for in the Act, and that is why it was interpreted in that way. The reason why it is essential is to be able to apply a policy of rationalization in certain industries in order to keep down costs. In the milk processing industry particularly where cheese and butter are produced as well as tinned milk, it is necessary to have control over the establishment of such factories. Our experience is that the greater the turnover of a factory the more remunerative it is. If one allowed various small competitive factories to come into existence, they would all be unremunerative and increase the costs. But very often it also happens that there is a big surplus in one branch of the dairy industry, as in the case of cheese last year, while there is a shortage in another branch such as butter, for example. The result is that it is desirable that one should be able by mutual arrangement to regulate the production of the factory so that overtrading can be eliminated by means of registration. In other words, it is not a new principle that is being accepted here but a principle which has always been accepted by everybody who has had anything to do with the Marketing Act. Both the boards and the law advisers have always accepted that the boards have that power. But last year registration was refused to a person who applied for a butcher’s licence. I want to say at once that it has not yet been finally settled whether the registration of butcheries is necessary. There is a difference of opinion between the Marketing Council and the control boards on the question as to whether the whole system of registration of butcheries should not be scrapped. But there are also people who feel that if one were to allow butcheries to be established without any restrictions whatsoever, it would lead to an increase in prices to the consumer, because many of them would be uneconomic, with the result that they would be forced to increase prices. Then we had the court judgment which stated that while the Marketing Act conferred the power upon boards to register and to refuse registration, it did not make provision for boards to refuse on the ground of overtrading in some industry or other. Surely hon. members will readily appreciate that if a board has to make all the arrangements in connection with the marketing of, say, dairy products or wheat, where we have had enormous overtrading by mills in certain areas in the Cape, with a resultant increase in costs, and where it has been recommended by various commissions and even by the Marketing Commission that in those industries a certain amount of rationalization should be introduced, it is essential that the board should have the power to refuse registration in cases of overtrading, otherwise it would not be possible to bring about rationalization. Take an industry like the wheat milling industry. Where rationalization has been applied, it has brought down the cost of various mills because the turnover has been greater and competition has not been so keen. But when it comes to a monopoly, the board is not there to create monopolies but to grant registration upon application when there is a danger that a monopoly may come into existence.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

When business was suspended I was explaining why provision was being made in this Amendment Bill for limited registration. I was explaining that that was the practice in the past and that it was always accepted in that way. I just want to explain now why it is being made retrospective to 1951. In 1951 the Act was amended so as to give the boards under the Marketing Act the power to refuse registration. It was always accepted that one of the reasons why they could refuse registration was to avoid over-trading. From time to time registration was refused in certain industries. To make sure now that those persons will not institute claims against the boards, this provision is being introduced with retrospective effect to 1951 when the principal Act was amended in this respect. Furthermore, the Act itself is being made retrospective up to and including the date of the court judgment. If we did not do so it would mean that where cheese factories or other factories have obtained registration in the meantime, such registrations may upset the whole policy of the board.

Hon. members have raised a second objection and that is that a body of producers recognized by the Minister as a body representative of farmers, may submit a scheme. It was also generally accepted that the various bodies which had the right to submit a scheme included the South African Agricultural Union. Hon. members now object to the fact that the South African Agricultural Union or a body which the Minister recognizes as a producers’ body may also submit a scheme. I want to show hon. members how unfounded their objection is. As the scheme works at the moment any co-operative society of producers producing a certain product may submit a scheme. In other words, if there is a co-operative society of 25 members representing dairy producers—let us assume they are in the Free State—they can submit a milk scheme under the Marketing Act, as the Act reads to-day. Any other co-operative society may also do so, and a co-operative society may be established with seven members. In other words, any co-operative society that is established and that consists of seven members and that produces a particular product, may submit such a scheme. Hon. members have not objected to the right of a co-operative society to submit a scheme which can be made applicable throughout the whole country, but the South African Agricultural Union which is representative of the whole of organized agriculture, is allegedly not competent to submit such a scheme. Sir, we must study the set-up of the South African Agricultural Union. Various commodities are represented on the South African Agricultural Union by committees. In the first instance one cannot imagine the South African Agricultural Union submitting a scheme which is not desired by the relevant committee. I want to point out to hon. members that the submission of a scheme does not necessarily mean that such a scheme will be introduced. When the Marketing Council or any other body of producers or the South African Agricultural Union submits a scheme, there is a certain procedure that has to be followed before that scheme can be introduced. In other words, the Minister must refer the scheme to the Marketing Council and the Marketing Council must investigate that scheme. It goes without saying that no scheme will be introduced in respect of a particular product unless the majority of the producers are in favour of such a scheme. It has never been done in the past and it is inconceivable that it will be done in the future. It is not the intention of the Marketing Act, which is an enabling Act, to force schemes down the throats of people; it is to enable them, when they want a scheme, to introduce it. I cannot see what objection hon. members can have to the submission of a scheme by a body such as the South African Agricultural Union, for example. Amendments to be made to a scheme may even be proposed by a consumers’ committee. Anybody which is recognized by the Minister as a producers’ body may submit a scheme; that is the position according to the amendment that we are introducing here. As I have already shown the hon. member, any small co-operative society, as the Act now reads, may submit a scheme, but the hon. member has no objection to that. Even a consumers’ committee may submit amendments to a scheme but the hon. member objects to the South African Agricultural Union having the right to propose amendments to a scheme. I just want to mention here that no scheme will ever be introduced unless the majority of the producers producing that particular product are in favour of the introduction of such a scheme.

The Marketing Act provides that there must always be consultation. When a scheme is introduced or when action of any kind is taken under the Marketing Act, there are three elements present. The one is the board as such, the other is the Marketing Council, and the third is the Minister. They always act jointly; the decision must always be taken by the three jointly. Therein lies the value of the whole of the Marketing Act as an enabling measure.

Another objection raised by hon. members is that a scheme which has already been put to the vote in the past and rejected, may now be instituted by the Minister if he is convinced that it is in the interests of the industry and that the majority of the producers want it. Hon. members object to that and they say that this amendment now does away with the voting provisions in the Act. Mr. Speaker, this amendment has nothing to do with the voting provisions in the Act. The voting provisions were amended as far back as 1951. They were amended as the result of a report by a commission which inquired at that time into the operation of the Marketing Act. I want to read out what their recommendation was. In paragraph 128 the commission recommends the following—

That means that a board could only get these powers to fix prices, etc., after having been in operation for five years. That was the position under the old Act—

That is how the old Act read. The Commission now recommends the following—

That is to say, the producers’ vote—

That is what the Marketing Commission recommended at that time. In 1951 the Act was accordingly amended to read that the Minister, if he is convinced that it is in the interests of the industry and if he is convinced that the producers want it, may dispense with the voting provisions under the Act and introduce a scheme without a producers’ vote, with the Section 20 powers. This amendment was introduced as far back as 1951. In the past no scheme has ever been voted upon, except in one case and that was in connection with a scheme for the control of fresh milk. Because we felt at that time that the fresh milk industry was spread over the whole country and that it would not be possible to introduce the scheme throughout the whole country, that it would only be possible to introduce it in certain areas, we asked the producers to vote on the question as to whether they wanted this scheme or not. In the first instance it is very difficult to decide who should be able to vote. The Act provides that a producer before being entitled to vote must have produced milk for the preceding three years and that he must have produced a certain quantity. The Act goes on to provide that two-thirds of the producers producing at least 50 per cent of the product are able to vote. If one went to a court of law with such a provision it would be very difficult to establish whether those producers were in fact producing that particular quantity during the preceding three years. In the second instance it would mean that the record of every individual member for the preceding three years would have to be submitted to the court in order to be able to prove it. When that voting took place, on the available figures which were still subject to a court judgment, 66 per cent of the producers did vote in favour of the scheme, but they were only producing 49.7 per cent of the milk that the scheme required. The only thing that this amendment now provides for is that a scheme which has already been rejected by way of a producers’ vote, may be re-instituted if the Minister is convinced that the majority of the producers want it and that it is in the interests of the industry. That is all this amendment does. It does not amend the voting provisions. That amendment was introduced in 1951 already. This merely provides that a scheme on which the producers have voted already may be introduced without the necessity of further voting.

There is another objection, Mr. Speaker, and that is in connection with the introduction of separate schemes for the same product. When the Act was amended in 1951 it was laid down that in the case of milk two schemes could be introduced because fresh milk and industrial milk could not be dealt with on the same basis under one board. That amendment was therefore introduced as far back as 1951. In the course of time various representations were made to us to bring other products under the control of the Marketing Act too, products like canned peaches or apricots or pineapples, for example. Those products can be classified in two groups. They can be classified as canned products or they can be classified as peaches or apricots and pineapples. The object of this amendment is simply that if the producers want it, a scheme can be introduced for canned fruits and a separate scheme for fresh fruit. That is all it amounts to and it is essential to do this, otherwise it would not be possible to introduce the scheme for canned fruit if there is an existing scheme already for these varieties of fruit in their fresh form.

Hon. members have a further misgiving—I agree that this is a fairly drastic provision— and that is that in those cases where producers have to give notice of the delivery of a particular product and where they deliver less or more than the quantity of which they gave notice, they are subject to a fine. This amendment is definitely intended only for products which are controlled under a pool scheme. It is particularly in the case of highly perishable products that it is necessary for the boards to exercise control. Take a product like bananas. The boards have to make provision for the sale of those bananas and their distribution on the various markets. If a producer gives notice that he is going to send 100 crates of bananas and he sends 150, then clearly it is going to be very difficult for the board to deal with the unexpected surplus. The boards must be informed a few days beforehand—not months, just a few days beforehand. Or if the producer sends much less than the quantity of which he gave notice, it means that that product will be in short supply on the market on that particular day. The Act clearly provides that it cannot be extended to any product, as hon. members will see if they look at the section concerned. Sub-section 2bis says that—

In other words, these powers of the board must also be laid down in the scheme. It is not a power which is given to just any board. It specifically says that it must be laid down in the scheme that the board has this power. In other words, this power will only be exercised in exceptional cases where one deals with a perishable product and where notice has to be given within a few days.

Can any scheme accept it?

Any scheme can accept it with the approval of the Minister or on recommendation of the Marketing Council. Let me ask the hon. member whether he thinks that in the case of maize, for example, the farmer can be expected to give six months’ prior notice that he is going to produce so many bags of maize, and that if he does not do so he is liable to be fined? Surely that is unthinkable. But in the case of a highly perishable product like bananas the producer may perhaps give notice that he is going to send 100 crates and he then sends substantially more or less· than the 100 crates; he then places the board in a difficult position. If, however, he gives timeous notice that he can no longer deliver the quantity of which he gave notice, he will not be fined. All he has to do is give timeous notice. This is simply to prevent producers from sending greater or smaller quantities of goods to the market than the quantity of which they gave the board notice.

May I put a question?

Can one appeal against the decision of any scheme or board?

Yes, the Minister has to give his approval to these fines. The maximum fine is also laid down in the scheme. Those provisions are all subject to the Marketing Act and to the approval of the Minister. If a board wants to submit a scheme and lay down certain provisions, the Minister must approve of the scheme, otherwise it cannot be introduced. The position here is the same as in the case of all other boards. If you want to amend such a scheme—for example, if it exceeds, certain powers— then it can be amended. As I say, these are not powers that one likes giving to a board, but if we want orderly handling of a highly perishable product like bananas, for example, then the producers must deliver their product to the board in an orderly way. Unless that is done, it wrecks the whole scheme.

I think I have dealt with most of the objections raised by hon. members, except, of course, those things, which have nothing to do with this legislation. These were the important points in my opinion, in connection with which hon. members expressed certain misgivings. I just want to assure hon. members that no Minister or no Department would want to force schemes under the Marketing Act down the throats of producers if the producers do not want them. No Minister is going to introduce a scheme if the producers are against it. Such a scheme would simply not work. The Marketing Act is an enabling Act and the amendments which are being effected here are being introduced as the result of the experience of the various boards throughout the years. Hon. members have also said that we should give the control boards the opportunity to put forward their cases as they see fit, and that the Minister must not interfere. Hon. members have referred to price fixation. They say that when a board submits a price fixation the Minister must accept it. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) said so. He also says that when a board submits a scheme to the Minister, the Minister ought to accept it. But I want to tell hon. members that if all the demands made by the various boards were incorporated in this legislation, they would never have approved of it. There are some boards that made demands to which we could not possibly agree. The hon. member says that the Minister must not act autocratically and veto the boards’ decisions. These amendments are being made in the light of experience gained over the years and after discussions with the various boards, in consultation with the Marketing Council, and after discussions with the South African Agricultural Union and their various commodity committees, and at the request of people who want to introduce schemes for which the Act as it reads at the moment does not make provision. I think hon. members will agree that in the past the Marketing Act has been implemented with the greatest degree of circumspection, and that will continue to be done in the future.

I just want to reply to one other point raised by hon. members. When a board appoints a committee, that board cannot delegate its power to that committee without the approval of the Minister. Let me tell hon. members what the reason for that is. The composition of a committee (whether it be an advisory committee or not) that is appointed by a board, is subject to the approval of the Minister. The Act now says that the board may delegate its own functions to that committee. There is no objection to that if the members of the committee are members of the board. But take the case of the fresh milk scheme. There we have a Union board of fresh milk producers, and that board will have to appoint advisory committees all over the country, wherever the scheme operates, in Bloemfontein or any other centre, in order to advise the board in connection with the operation of the scheme in the various areas. On those advisory committees the board may appoint members who are not members of the board. If the board has the power to delegate its powers to those committees, one may reach the position where there are seven or eight small committees that have the same powers as the board and the members of which are not even members of the board. All we say here is that if the board establishes such advisory committees and delegates powers to them, the Minister must approve of that delegation of power. That is gjl. This is simply to ensure that the board does not delegate its powers to committees without the approval of the Minister. That is all this provision implies.

When we come to the Committee Stage, hon. members will have a further opportunity of going into these matters.

Question put: That all the words after “ That ”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—58: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; du Pisanie, J.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and J. von S. von Moltke.

NOES—37: Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Butcher, R. R.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Eaton, N. G.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Graaff, de V.; Henwod, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Horak, J. L.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, J.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Shearer, O. L.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steytler, J. van A.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and the Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to be reasonable. I think he fully realizes that we intend moving certain amendments during the Committee Stage and I want to ask him whether he is not prepared to extend this period.

We won’t take the Committee Stage to-morrow.

Motion put and agreed to.

Order of the Day No. IV to stand over until Order of the Day No. V has been disposed of.

Mr. Chairman, when the Pensions Vote was discussed last year I did not participate in the debate. I went to the hon. the Minister personally and handed him a complete table. That table gave a comparison of the pensions paid to Whites, Coloureds and Indians. I discussed the matter with the hon. the Minister in view of the unfavourable comparison between the pensions paid to Whites and those paid to Coloureds and Indians. I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the way in which he considered the matter and for the way in which he received me and discussed the matter. I think I speak on behalf of everybody in the House when I refer to the very difficult circumstances under which he worked this year in view of the sad bereavement he suffered after so many years of happy married life.

The hon. the Minister of Finance said in his Budget Speech that the improvement in the pensions of Coloureds is an attempt to restore the original proportion, namely, 12:6:5 for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, respectively. This represents an increase of £1 2s. 6d. per month which is an improvement and which is appreciated. But the fact remains that with a proportion of 12:6:5 for the three racial groups the Coloured pensioner receives half of what the White pensioner gets. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, hon. members should take note of what I am saying because one of these days they will have to go on pension themselves.

As I was saying, the proportion of 12:6 in the case of the Whites and the Coloureds amounts to one-half. The bread that a Coloured pensioner buys costs just as much as that which a White pensioner buys. The clothes they buy cost the same. If he wants to ride in a bus he has to pay the same as a White old age pensioner does, and there are very few instances in everyday life where the cost of living for the Coloured old age pensioner is any cheaper than that of the White, while his pension is half that of the White.

One finds that throughout the country, and particularly in Cape Town where there are many old age pensioners among the Coloureds, housing has been provided on a large scale for White old age pensioners and the aged in general during the past few decades. I do not want to go into all the details but in respect of the class of Coloureds who are in need of it there is not only a big gap but as far as Coloured housing in general is concerned there is still a big backlog to be made up. A few months ago it was estimated that in Cape Town alone the shortage amounted to about 20,000. If we take into consideration that there is no special sub-economic housing on a large scale for Coloured old age pensioners, then one finds in contrast that in general their cost of living is the same as that of the Whites and, as I have said, in connection with housing they experience greater difficulty in getting a house and when they do get one they pay even more for it than a White old age pensioner does. I can assure the hon. the Deputy Minister that as far as the old age pension and the veterans’ pension group among the Coloureds are concerned they suffer extreme hardships. The pension could almost be described by the old adage of “ too much to die from, but hopelessly too little to live on ”. I think it is the duty of the State, particularly in the times in which we live, to make better provision for the old age pensioners among the Coloured population.

There is another aspect of pensions, namely, that there is practically no such thing as a veterans’ pension for Coloureds. There is a difference of quite a few pounds per month between the old age pension and a veterans’ pension for Whites. The State was therefore very generous in respect of veterans’ pensions. White veterans of the South African War, of the Rebellion, etc., can on production of a sworn statement, if they cannot produce a discharge certificate (which did not really exist among the Republican forces) obtain their pensions. I assisted personally in many cases. It is generally far more difficult for Coloureds to obtain such certificates or sworn statements, and then it is found that a Coloured veterans’ pension is the same as the old age pension. He receives no more than the Coloureds’ old age pension. The only way in which a Coloured is privileged and where it can be said that he receives a veterans’ pension is when he is unfit for work before the stipulated age; then he can, on production of a medical certificate, get the same pension before reaching the fixed age as he would get when he qualifies for an old age pension. The Coloureds do not receive an old age pension in the sense that the Whites receive it. The only concession is where he is unfit for work before reaching the age limit and on production of proof. If special provision is made for White veterans who have performed a service to South Africa, then I feel the same concession should be made to Coloured veterans.

Now we come to a very big category. During the last war alone there were 45,000 in South Africa who actually took up arms or who placed themselves at the service of South Africa when the country was at war. In every war before that South Africa could always rely on the services and the devotion to South Africa of large numbers of the Coloured population, and I feel that the least we can do is to show the same recognition towards the Coloured veterans that is shown towards the White veterans. If it is accepted that the difference between the two pensions of the Whites and the Coloureds should not be put on an equal level immediately, but that it should perhaps be done gradually, then it will be appreciated if a start could be made in that direction. It is appreciated that there are many complications and that many things have to be considered and that if the hon. the Minister approves of it he must then still get past the hon. the Minister of Finance. It will be appreciated, however, if a start could be made and the proportion of 12:6:5 be thrown overboard and their pensions be adjusted in accordance with the cost of living as it exists to-day, while also taking into consideration that special recognition should be given to the Coloured veterans. I express the hope that this plea will be conveyed to the hon. the Minister by the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is an important matter and the persons from that racial group who performed a service to South Africa have set an example to others, and we may shortly need them more than ever before to take up arms in the service of South Africa and to fight for South Africa.

I also want to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Government for the way in which they have tried during past years to help the aged to live a better life. I am particularly grateful for a few concessions which are again made to the aged this year. The type of aged for whom I have particular sympathy is the old chronically ill, the aged who are bed-ridden. There is no place for these old people in the provincial hospitals because they are not ill and therefore they are refused and there are no hospitals where they can be treated and the existing institutions are hopelessly inadequate to cater for their needs. Now that the hon. the Minister has increased the furniture allowance from £15 to £45 per month and the subsidy for the bed-ridden from R8 to RIO per month I feel that the welfare organizations in the different centres will now be able to establish more of these homes for the aged because the furniture burden which rested on the public will now be eased to a great extent. I hope that the existing institutions and those due to be established will make provision for this bed-ridden group. Their fate is particularly hard. At home they are cared for with great difficulty by their children; even if the children want to help they cannot always do it for various reasons, and there are not sufficient institutions to accommodate them. I hope that the welfare organizations will avail themselves of these concessions in order to continue their good work. I hope that the hon. the Minister will encourage the public as much as possible to make use of this State assistance in order to assist their own people more in future.

I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Committee the peculiar hardship that is unnecessarily endured, I feel, by a section of the population who qualify for the old-age pension as a result of the application of the means test. I said “ those that qualify ”, and the group that I have in mind are those who not only qualify for the pension but who also have some credit to their account in the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The hardship which I referred to is the delay in payments being effected either from the pension authorities or from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Because there are adjustments every six months in the payment of claims in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Fund Act, there is always a time lag between the time that the applicant obtains his unemployment insurance benefit, or when he re-applies for his benefits in terms of the Pensions Act at the completion of the six months period of benefits from the Unemployment Fund. So there is this time lag on both occasions, and bearing in mind that in many instances the only income the pensioner has is what he receives by way of pension, any time lag, any delay of a month or two creates considerable embarrassment to the pensioner concerned. I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister which I feel will go a long way to overcome this difficulty and that is that the pension authority should assume the responsibility for the payment and that the credit due to such a pensioner from the Unemployment Insurance Fund should be calculated on the annual basis and such credits paid over to the Pensions Department for transfer to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The point is that any adjustment which has to take place could then take place departmentally, and would not affect the pensioner at all. In other words, he would either be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund by way of pension, or he would be receiving his benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. There would not be any time lag and the adjustment could be made either annually, or whatever period is suitable, in terms of the respective Acts. I put it to the hon. the Minister because I do feel that unnecessary hardship is suffered here. The applicants are entitled to their benefits in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act and also qualify in terms of the means test and they should not go without benefits for a period of one month or two months just because of administrative difficulties in the administration of these two funds. I might point out to the hon. the Minister that he may find that because of this difficulty, many who qualify for benefits in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Fund do not apply for them because of this upheaval that is created in the payment of their old-age pension. The net result is that instead of the Unemployment Insurance Fund paying out certain moneys, these moneys are paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, thus adding an additional and unnecessary burden to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I put it to the hon. the Minister, and I hope he will give this suggestion his consideration.

The two concessions announced by the hon. the Deputy Minister, namely that where an inheritance accrues, the pensioner will continue to enjoy the pension until the end of that particular month, and the second that where a property is occupied and where one spouse dies, the remaining spouse will continue to enjoy his or her pension, are concessions which I am certain will be appreciated, but frankly I do not feel that they go far enough, because the pension in as far as property is concerned, in limited in that the ceiling in respect of property is £1,200. In the light of property to-day that figure of £1,200 is a very small amount indeed, and I would point out to the hon. the Minister that property valuations—I refer specifically to municipal valuations, not the saleable value of property to-day—are constantly rising and, in addition, the value of money is decreasing, and it is therefore that the pensioner suffers a distinct hardship, since the local authority, that is the municipality, when faced with a deficit finds that the easiest way out of its difficulties is either to impose a direct increase in the rates, or alternatively to get out of their difficulty by having a revaluation of properties, which, of course, brings them in increased revenue. That means obviously that pensioners who occupy a house, and particularly those who have occupied a house for many, many years, are experiencing very great hardships indeed. I would appeal to the hon. Deputy Minister to go into this matter and to endeavour, if at all practicable financially to assist such pensioners who suffer distinct hardships. I would point out that that arbitrary amount, that ceiling amount of £1,200, was assessed as a figure as far back as 1953, that is eight years ago, and during those eight years property valuations have increased tremendously and money has become less in actual value. I feel on their account that there is a good case for sympathetic consideration for a re-assessment of the ceiling figure of £1,200, I trust the hon. Deputy Minister will give his earnest consideration to this, and perhaps this Session, or if it is not practicable, next session, will come with a concession which those people occupying houses will certainly appreciate.

First of all I wish to thank the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. J. Lewis) for the spirit in which he has initiated this debate, and as far as that goes, Sir, all members on both sides of the House for the spirit in which they have discussed this Vote. The hon. member for Durban (North) has asked me a number of questions, and I wish to reply to them in the order in which the hon. member put the questions to me. He first of all raised the question of the concessions made in this year’s Budget as well as the concessions which we are prepared to make under this particular Vote. For the benefit of hon. members I wish to tabulate them—

1. (1) As from I April 1961, all old age pensions and other pensions and disability grants will be paid as from the first of the month in which application has been made and will only cease at the end of the month in which the recipient dies or becomes ineligible for a pension or grant.

Pensioners will benefit, according to the Estimates, to the tune of R300,000. This will naturally also facilitate the work of the department concerned considerably.

1. (2) As from I April 1961, residential qualifications for old age pensioners will be as follows—

But let me first add that previously an applicant had to be a South African citizen for five years or a citizen of a Commonwealth country or of the Republic of Ireland and in addition had to be resident in South Africa for 15 out of 20 years prior to the date of application before he could qualify for a pension. The new qualifications will now be as follows—

1. (a) As far as South African citizens are concerned, it will now be five out of ten years. As far as Commonwealth countries are concerned, including Irish citizens, it remains at 15 out of 20 years, and in respect of citizens of other countries it remains at 25 out of 30 years.

As far as blind pensioners are concerned, the position is that the applicant must be a South African citizen or must have been resident in the Union for ten out of the last 15 years. These qualifications remain, but in the case of invalidity grants the period is also reduced for 15 out of 20 years., to ten out of 15 years, to conform with the position of blind pensioners. It is estimated that this concession will cost R5,000.

1. (3) The attendant’s allowance will be increased. As hon. members know, apart from old-age pensions and disability grants that are being paid, an additional attendant’s grant can be paid to those who are in constant need of an attendant. This amount will be increased as follows: Europeans from R36 to R48; Coloureds from R24 to R30; Indians from R18 to R24.

This increase will be automatic, and it will not be necessary to make a fresh application for the increased attendant’s grant. It is estimated that this will cost R10,000.

1. (4) It has always been accepted that the ratio between the pensions of Europeans, Coloureds and Asiatics should be 12:6:5. It so happens that this ratio was disturbed because European bonuses have in the past been increased more than bonuses to Coloureds and Indians. This ratio is now again brought back to the original by increasing Coloured pensions by R2.25 per month and Indian pensions by R1.33 per month, at an estimated cost of R1,997,000.

Then, as already announced, as from I April 1961, as a result of a different method of calculation, the surviving spouse of the pensioner will not lose his or her pension in the case of death of one of the spouses if they resided in a house which was their sole asset. This will apply, not only to the old-age pensions, but also to the maintenance grants in general, and will be of tremendous assistance.

In this connection, and here I am also dealing with the question put to me by the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser), I should add what I have already mentioned in regard to legacies in respect of the provision regarding the date from which a pensioner is entitled to a legacy. Whilst I am dealing with this subject, it is perhaps just as well, and it may perhaps shorten the discussion in regard to the remaining part of this Vote, viz. the Social Welfare part, if I were to say a few words about the care of the aged. We all know that to an increasing extent we have to face the problem of the old people in South Africa. This problem has particularly come to the fore during recent years. Immediately when we think of the aged there are, of course, four classes of old people which come to mind. Firstly, there are the ordinary aged, secondly the aged who are ill, thirdly the chronically ill, to whom the hon. member for Geduld referred, and fourthly there are the old people who have contracted an acute disease whilst living with their relatives or in institutions. It is not always easy to ascertain where the responsibilities of the Department of Social Welfare begin and where the responsibility of the provincial authority begins. My Minister and I in fact had consultations in connection with this matter a fortnight ago with all the administrators and their executive committee members, and further consultation will still be held in this regard. But whatever the position is, the fact is that the care of the ordinary old people, as well as those who are still able to help themselves, and, as well as those weak old people who, unfortunately, due to their age, are no longer in a position to help themselves, is undeniably the responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare, and we do not intend evading that responsibility in any way. However, the question, of course, arises as to what we are now doing in regard to the care of that type of old person. Apart from the ordinary, normal pension paid to such old people—and at the moment there are 86,000 of those old people on our books to whom pensions are paid—the question may be asked as to what we are doing further to care for these aged people. I say that, apart from the ordinary pensions we pay to them, we pay an additional amount of R3.50 a month to an approved institution which cares for such old people. The institution receives that amount over and above the amount it receives from the old people themselves. But, as the result of the fact—and that has already been referred to in passing—that we do not want these institutions just to make provision for those old people who can help themselves, but that we also like these institutions, as far as possible, to make provision for the time when these old people can no longer help themselves, and when they become weak, we pay an additional subsidy of R10 per month to institutions which provide for such weak old people. In order to encourage further organizations to establish institutions for the care of our aged, we pay a furniture subsidy to such institutions because it costs quite a lot of money to furnish such an institution. In this regard I just want to point out to hon. members in passing that this subsidy has for all these years been a maximum of £15. We realize that it was very difficult to furnish a room with that sum of money, and consequently, since I April, we increased the subsidy from £15 to £45 per individual when an organization establishes such a home for the aged, In this regard I want to pay tribute to the Department of Social Welfare for the policy they have been following in recent years to encourage institutions to establish homes for the aged. It has certainly borne fruit, as appears from the fact that in South Africa today we have over 76 subsidized homes in which these old people can be accommodated. Ten years ago, before this policy of encouragement was applied intensively, there were only 32 such homes. In other words, 44 such institutions were established just in the past ten years. I would like to take this opportunity to appeal, not only to the public outside, but also to hon. members in this House, to use their influence as far as possible to encourage communities where such a need exists for the housing and care of the aged, to establish such homes. In this connection I feel that such an institution should not be too big, because where this need exists the institution should be such that it can accommodate the aged of that vicinity, because old people (and nobody blames them for it) do not like to be transplanted from one neighbourhood to another. That is only human, and one understands that they like to stay in the neighbourhood where they have spent the whole of their lives and where they know the people and the environment is familiar to them. Furthermore, I feel that one does not want the institution to be too big because one wants the public to adopt this institution as their own, and, as long as it is small and manageable, the public can do so, and gladly does so. But immediately the institution becomes too big, it seems that the public interest flags. I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks, to the National Council for the Aged for the valuable work they have done in this regard, not only here in Cape Town, but all over South Africa. Without their assistance and active interest and support, one would hardly have been able to tackle this problem. I am glad to be able to say that the co-operation between the Ministry, the Department and the National Council is very hearty, and that it has borne very good fruit, and will continue to do so in future.

In this connection the problem also existed in the past that not only was the Department of Social Welfare concerned with this matter, but also the Housing Commission. The Department applied one means test and the Housing Commission in its turn applied another means test in regard to the admission of persons to institutions. We entered into negotiations with the Housing Commission, and although those negotiations have not been finally completed I can hold out the prospect that in future there will be only one Department dealing with this matter and that will be the Department of Social Welfare, which will be exclusively responsible for the control and planning of these services. Whereas in the past we had two means tests—that of the Department was R28 per month before a person could be admitted—that means test has now been raised, at the request of and on consultation with the National Council, to R30 a month. As the result of this step many of the difficulties which existed in the past will be eliminated. An amendment of the basis on which loans are granted by the Housing Commission has also been considered, and I be-live that it will perhaps be possible, after further consultation with the Housing Commission, to increase the loans in future from £500 to £550 per individual, where such loans are granted to private organizations to establish such institutions. I make this statement because I feel that the course we have now adopted is the one by which this problem of the care of our aged can be solved and that to an increasing extent provision can be made for the increasing number of old people we have.

I then want to come to another point raised by the hon. member for Durban (North). He touched on the matter of a contributory pension scheme. After having made a serious study again of the matter after it had been raised last year, I am still of the same opinion, and I would like to refer the hon. member to the reply given to him last year in this connection. It is my earnest conviction that our solution and salvation lies in private pension schemes. Once we have canvassed the whole field and have introduced private pension schemes wherever possible then, and only then can the State consider the introduction of a scheme for those who, for obvious reasons, cannot be included in any private scheme. It is my personal and earnest conviction that to act otherwise will destroy the very good work that has been done by employers and employees who have called pension schemes into being either by way of insurance or by way of contributions. I want, again, to make an appeal, and a very strong appeal at that, to employers, in their own interests and in the interests of the employees, to institute such schemes where they do not exist at the moment.

With regard to the specific case quoted by the hon. member, I am informed that the allocation in that case was only made after the death of the applicant. According to the Act the allocation, of course, then becomes null and void. If the allocation was made before the death of the applicant the amount allocated would have been paid to the estate, but because the allocation was only made subsequent to the death of the applicant it could not be paid, according to the existing legislation.

In regard to the question of the valuation of property raised by the hon. member, as well as by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood), my reply is that the same valuation placed on the property before death and at the time of the application will be placed on the property in the case of the surviving spouse, even though a higher valuation is reflected in the estate. The surviving spouse will not be penalized by the fact that a higher valuation was subsequently placed on the property.

*I have already discussed the valuable suggestions made by the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser).

I then come to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) who raised the matter of a general increase in all pensions and grants. My attitude and the attitude of the Government is well known. Wherever we can we will do it. For the purposes of the record, however, you will allow me to tabulate the overall increases made during the last ten years. In 1952-3 we had an increase—and this is not in rand but in pounds—of £2,250,000. 1953-4, £2,275,000. 1954-5, £1,350,000. 1955-6, £2,910,000. 1956-7, £2,700,000. 1959-60, £2,000,000. 1960-1, £1,658,000. And for this year 1961-2, R2,249,200. I think that goes to show that as far as we are concerned it is our endeavour to increase these pensions wherever we can.

*The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) quite correctly pointed out that an increase of the attendants allowance is essential and that very good services are being rendered. I heartily agree with the hon. member, and it also appears from these Estimates that an amount of R1,000 has been set aside for that purpose. I also want to agree with the hon. member where he referred to the group insurance schemes and to the benefit to be derived by the people who take part in such schemes. I want to join the hon. member in recommending this type of scheme to our people.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) made a very interesting suggestion regarding old age pensioners and Union Loan Certificates. I think it is a suggestion with substance and I will certainly look into this matter during the recess and see whether it is a practical scheme and whether it is at all possible to adopt such a scheme. The hon. member also asked me about the Cape Widows Pension Fund. There the position is, as the hon. member knows, that the Cape Widows’ Pension Fund is a dying fund. No new members are admitted and the expenditure of the fund exceeds its income. The deficit was R74,000 for the year ending 30 April 1960. The amount of the fund decreased from R1,899,352 as at 31 March 1955, to R1,585,532 as at 31 March 1960. The assets and the liabilities of the fund are valued by an actuary every five years, and as a result of these investigations the pensions payable from the fund have been increased from time to time to absorb any available surplus. Following the last quinquennial valuation of the fund the bonus additional to the pensions has been increased from 100 per cent to 110 per cent as from I January 1961.

There seems to be an impression abroad that when the last widowed pensioner dies a substantial amount will remain in the fund. This impression is entirely erroneous. I am informed that the latest report of the actuary clearly indicates that the amount in the fund is barely sufficient to meet its liabilities for pensions payable in the future.

*The hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) referred to the sick old people, particularly at the Sonop Settlement, who have to receive treatment in the Provincial hospitals and who in the past were charged a fee for it. The hon. member made certain recommendations to me in this regard, and acting on those recommendations I made representations to the Transvaal Provincial Administration. I have pleasure in telling the hon. member that this matter has now been cleared up and that the fees charged in the past in the cases which were brought to my notice will no longer be charged in future. I trust that this problem the hon. member has will now be solved for good. A circular to this effect has also been sent to the various hospitals by the Director of Hospitals in the Transvaal to cover these and other cases referred to by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Durban (North) asked me whether the applications of people rejected on account of residential qualifications would be reviewed as a matter of course. Unfortunately it is impossible. These applications can only be reviewed on an application by the particular applicant. The hon. member will appreciate that it is impossible for the Department to search out these various applications unless the person concerned brings it to the notice of the Department.

That, I take it, can be done merely by way of a letter quoting the reference number?

That is so, and if additional information is then required the Department will get in touch with the applicant concerned.

The hon. member also pleaded for an increase in the maximum pension. As I have tried to explain, that is what we have been trying to do throughout the years. Taking 1947 as the basis we find that the index figure shows that cost of living has risen by 61 per cent whereas the pensions have risen by 130 per cent. That goes to show that as far as the Government is concerned we are fully alive to the question raised by the hon. member.

The hon. member also raised the question of reciprocity. The position is the same as last year. If the hon. member will refer to my reply of last year he will see what the position is, and I have nothing further to add to it.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this point: Will he bear that in mind for the future in any case, because perhaps at some other time I will point out the benefits that there will be for potential pensioners if something like that could come about.

I can readily give the hon. member the assurance that we will bear this in mind. All suggestions made by all hon. members are always borne in mind, and if we can do something about those suggestions we readily do so.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) raised the same question this year as he did last year, namely, the disparity between pensions paid to Europeans and Coloureds. The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) has raised the same matter. I have explained the question of the ratio, and that ratio is still the same as it was under previous Governments in South Africa. Here, too, the pension as far as the Coloureds are concerned has been increased by 130 per cent whereas the cost of living has only increased by 61 per cent, taking 1947 as the basis.

*I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop), and in passing I just want to point out to the hon. member that we are already making the provision he pleaded for in regard to deserving children. I take pleasure in subscribing to the standpoint adopted by the hon. member, and I want to point out that apart from the provision made by the Department of Education, Arts and Science, the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions also thoroughly appreciates the possibility mentioned by him, that assistance should be given in deserving cases, and therefore an allowance is paid to the deserving children up to the age of 18 instead of 16. The hon. member referred to the false statements made by some applicants in order to receive a pension. Unfortunately a small percentage of applicants give the wrong information in order to obtain pensions. This is very often brought to the notice of hon. members because it is said: “ I only possess so much, but my neighbour possesses more than I do and he receives a pension.” The Departments are aware that this in fact happens. But what the person concerned does not know, and what the person furnishing the wrong information does not know either, is that the day arrives when the Department discovers it, and that is the day somebody dies and leaves an estate, and then the amount which was obtained as the result of giving wrong information is simply recovered from the estate. But of course if we do not know the circumstances we cannot do anything about it, but in the long run such a person does not get away with it, because it is recovered from his estate if it appears that wrong information was given.

The hon. member also referred to the abuse of liquor. Of course I heartily agree with the hon. member. I also agree that the institution belonging to the Salvation Army, and to which he referred, does particularly good work. In regard to this matter of alcoholism, I may say in passing, whilst referring to what was said by the hon. member, that a departmental committee has been appointed to investigate the question of alocholism, and we definitely intend, as soon as we receive the report of this committee, tackling this problem on a much larger scale than in the past. We realize what a serious problem it is and that we should take more active steps in this regard than we have done in the past.

The hon. member for Maitland (Dr. de Beer) made an interesting contribution to the debate and I want to assure him that I shall seriously consider what he said. In passing, I just want to point out to him that we have already made concessions to these civil pensioners by giving an increase of 10 per cent plus the temporary allowance of £147 paid to pensioners falling in the category he mentioned.

I also thank the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) for his contribution to the debate. Ever since entering this House the hon. member has pleaded for the pensioners who only have a house in which they live and who are then particularly adversely affected if one of the spouses dies and the pension of the surviving spouse is affected. Together with the hon. member, I am grateful for the fact that we have solved that problem in the way already indicated by me.

Then the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland), on behalf of his voters—and I do not in the least blame him for it—asked that pensions for Coloureds should be paid on the same scale as those for Whites; and I take it also the pensions to Indians. The hon. member is of course aware that this ration of 10: 6: 5 is not one which was evolved by this Government.

12: 6: 5.

Yes, 12: 6: 5. That is a ratio which has always been maintained by all previous Governments. I stick to that ratio and continue working on it.

It is the wrong basis.

In regard to the complaint of the hon. member in connection with the pensions for Coloured ex-servicemen, that is a matter one can consider. In this regard, and from the very nature of the matter. I do not want to make any promises. But I just want to point out to the hon. member in passing that the legislation dealing with this matter was passed during the time when his party was still in power. On behalf of my Minister I want to thank the hon. member for the nice words he addressed to the Minister, and I shall convey his remarks to him.

The hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) referred to chronic diseases. I have already in this connection mentioned what we are doing and the negotiations we entered into, and the consultations we still have in future.

As far as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) is concerned, I want to say that I appreciate the hardships caused by the circumstances that he mentioned. The hon. member has made an interesting suggestion and I will certainly consider that, and if there are not insurmountable administrative difficulties I will investigate the matter and let the hon. member know, as is my practice, in the recess, as to whether something can be done about it. The same applies to the matter raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Col. Shearer) with regard to property valuations. I am well aware of the difficulties mentioned by the hon. member.

*This completes my reply to the suggestions made by hon. members. I want to give hon. members this assurance, that any suggestion made by any hon. member is not simply ignored by the Department. Notes are taken and investigation is made as to whether these suggestions have any substance or not. On this occasion I would like to say that I think the hon. the Prime Minister did the correct thing when he merged the Departments of Pensions and Social Welfare. As the result of that fusion we are much more able to-day to determine what the present-day needs are of the people requiring assistance, now that these two Departments have merged. I can also tell hon. members that in spite of the huge task it was to join two such big Departments, thanks to the good spirit exhibited by the senior officials and particularly by the Secretary for Social Welfare, matters went smoothly. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I think this is the only fusion which has ever had good results as far as I know. I want to assure hon. members that all suggestions made by them will be considered, and if it is in any way possible to implement them that will be done, because in this Department it is our only object to relieve the lot of the people entrusted to our care as far as possible and to bring as much light and happiness into their lives as we possibly can.

The hon. the Deputy Minister, in the course of replying to various points that have been raised by hon. members who have participated in this debate so far, made an important statement in regard to alleviating the position of the aged and the in-put would like to say that we on this side of the House always welcome any concessions and improvements to conditions and any other provisions that will assist the aged in any way whatsoever. I am sure that the statement the hon. the Deputy Minister made in regard to the assistance to be rendered to welfare organizations caring for the aged will be most welcome by those organizations. By subsidizing these organizations we are underlining the fundamental principle in welfare work whereby the people do the work for the other people. “ By the people for the people ” is a fundamental principle in welfare work, and by subsidizing organizations in this manner it encourages those organizations to adopt a programme whereby they can develop a system of assisting those who require it, in the most suitable manner. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s suggestion of keeping such institutions as small as possible is excellent and one that has been followed by numerous welfare organizations caring for a variety of cases that come under their jurisdiction, by adopting the cottage system and thereby creating a more homely atmosphere.

This debate has been mainly in connection with the aged—and quite rightly so, because I think every hon. member of this House is deeply concerned with the plight of a number of aged persons who, in the twilight of their lives, find they are faced with a reducing standard of living due to ever increasing costs of living. As this debate has been mainly in connection with the aged I shall not say anymore about that problem except to say that the concessions made by the hon. the Deputy Minister are most welcome. However, as I say I do not wish to pursue this matter any further because there are certain aspects of this Vote concerning other matters which I wish to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister.

You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that last year we had in this House the Childrens’ Act of 1960, which was looked upon as the charter in regard to child welfare. Í feel it would be appropriate at this stage to make certain comments in regard to the effects of the provisions of that Act, without putting forward any suggestions which would require legislation, as you, Mr. Chairman, would no doubt rule me out of order. One of the important effects of this Act—and I may say one of the pleasing effects is to see that the number of parents who have had children taken away from them as being in need of care in terms of the Children’s Court, have shown concern at the possibility of losing parental control of their child if, after a period of two years, they have not made any attempts to rehabilitate themselves by having the child returned to their custody. That is one of the most pleasing features. A large number of parents who have children committed to institutions are now taking an increasing interest in those children. However, there are certain aspects which are not quite as pleasing and one which I wish to deal with is causing a great deal of concern and difficulty. I refer to the question of places of safety and detention.

We find that in these places of safety and detention, although the Act provides that children should remain there for a period of 14 days only, in many cases they are staying far longer. I know of some instances where they have staged there for as long as three months. Therefore the administration of these places does seem to require the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. The position is that in these places of safety and detention they are unable, due to certain difficulties, to have any classification in regard to the delinquent child and the criminally inclined child as against the child who is destitute, ill-treated and needy. These children are all kept under the same roof which is not a desirable state of affairs. I realize that there are certain capital difficulties in the cost of establishing separate institutions in which to keep the children. The whole question of having these children altogether under one roof makes the administration of such a place most difficult. In addition to that, provision was made in the Children’s Act of 1960, that observation centres should be established at these places of safety and detention. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should give his attention to this very important aspect, because I believe that to have these observation centres established with the least possible delay is a matter of considerable urgency. The question of having young persons, some of them young innocent children who are being held in such a place of safety and detention, coming into contact with the undesirable elements who are also held in that place has been brought to my notice on a number of occasions. A case that comes to mind is that of a young girl of six years of age who was placed in a place of safety and detention pending an inquiry in the Children’s Court. She was placed in the same dormitory as teenage prostitutes who used a great deal of foul language and, after a short stay this child had certainly learnt a great deal which was undesirable, particularly for a child of that tender age. There are these difficulties of keeping these children at these places for a considerable period of time, and, while they are there, not attending school, which may seriously jeopardize their future education. As I say, this is sometimes for a period of three or four months, instead of their being kept there for as short a period as possible.

One of the difficulties appears to be that there is a shortage of industrial schools and accommodation in a number of the institutions where these children are being held in transit to other institutions. It appears that this is another matter that requires attention. Although the Industrial Schools Vote is not now under discussion this is a matter which affects the length of stay in these places of safety and detention, and possibly the hon. the Deputy Minister can take the matter up at a later date.

We are in fact making the necessary provision.

I am pleased to hear that, Mr. Chairman.

The other matter which I wish to raise is the difficulty in regard to probation officers. If one visits probation offices and sees the enormous amount of work carried out by these men, one realizes that they are vital and important links in the work and administration of social welfare. They have a large variety of functions to perform and a large variety of duties, which are also defined in the Children’s Act, in Section 58. But we find that with the establishment of attendance centres which, we hope, will come in the not too distant future, additional duties will fall to the probation officers. I therefore ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give consideration to increasing the number of probation officers so that a large amount of their vital work, particularly in regard to the prevention of delinquency, can be given more attention.

During the course of the discussion of the vote of the hon. the Minister of Justice, he mentioned that there was a sub-committee of the Cabinet discussing the problem of young persons who refused to work, who did not actually commit crimes but who are creating disturbances in certain instances. Here I would like to put forward a suggestion, and that is that in terms of the Work Colonies Act of 1949, under Section 8, provision is made for separate work colonies to be classified in certain instances. I think that one of our difficulties could be solved by the implementation of that section of the Work Colonies Act by the establishment of work colonies for young persons between the ages of 18 and 23. Those who are under the age of 18 can be dealt with in terms of the Children’s Act, because the age limit was reduced from 19 to 18 last year. As a result we find that some persons who should still be attending school at the age of 18, refuse to attend school and become quite uncontrollable, but due to the fact that they cannot be dealt with in terms of the Children’s Act, become wasted manpower and lead an idle life which could ultimately lead to criminal and delinquent lives. This is due to lack of provision to deal with this type of person. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to the question of establishing a small work colony where these young idle persons can be committed on similar terms as other persons committed to work colonies, but a special type of work colony, because when we study the reports from the work colonies we find that the vast majority of the inmates there are alcoholics. [Time limit.]

I would like to know something from the hon. the Minister. Supposing interested persons intend establishing an institution and receive a subsidy, is it repayable, and if such an establishment ceases to function is the subsidy recoverable from those persons?

Then I also want to ask the hon. the Minister something in connection with aid-age pensions. While being very grateful for what is being done the values of properties are determined at too low a level, when a person applies for a pension. If he has a property valued at £1,400 he does not qualify. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether a person who owns a property valued at £2,500 or £3,000 and which is paid for could be considered?

They qualify up to £3,750.

But in most cases they are refused and then they have no other income except for this property from which they cannot live. I personally had cases where people who possess property of a certain value, even with a bond on it, have been refused. Is it perhaps left to the discretion of the official to decide what value is permitted? I want clarity on this point because there are many such cases where persons possess property but have no other income and then do not qualify for the pension.

Then there is another group of persons that I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. They cannot be accommodated in any existing institution. They do not qualify for a mental institution nor do they qualify for an old-age home. They are between the two groups. What is the intention now? Has the hon. the Minister got anything in mind also to provide for those people in future?

I do not quite understand what people you are referring to.

They are also mentally retarded but not enough to be placed in a mental institution or in an old-age home. There are quite a few of them in the country who do not fit in anywhere. I just want to know whether there is an institution for them, and if not, whether the hon. the Minister intends establishing something like that in future.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister the question of the Government’s decision to abandon the State-aided milk, butter and margarine scheme which took effect from 31 October last year. The reasons were given by the Department at the time in a circular and they were repeated in reply to a question I put to the hon. the Deputy Minister last February, in 1961. The reasons given were that as the result of investigations, several irregularities were revealed such as defective bookkeeping and inadequate control. Incomes were such that they should be able to be self-supporting and in many cases the subsidization of these schemes led to a double subsidization with other State and Provincial schemes; and it was found that these schemes no longer served the purpose for which they were originally intended and the Department therefore decided to withdraw these schemes from 31 October 1960, and no further schemes would be considered after that date, but where in exceptional cases assistance is required they would be considered on their merits under the Department’s public assistance scheme. Those were the reasons given by the Department at the time for discontinuing this State-aided scheme for butter, milk and margarine. In the interim many comments were made by experts on this decision of the Government, by medical officers of health, child welfare societies, the T.B. Association and the South African Medical Journal, and all these comments were without exception absolutely unfavourable to the decision and pointed out the shortsightedness of this policy. I want to summarize it by saying that the comments showed quite clearly that all these experts con sider the abandonment of the State-aided scheme for butter, milk and margarine as being cent-wise and rand-foolish. I would like to give the comments of these experts to the House, e.g. the Medical Officer of Health of Cape Town made the point that he is of the opinion that the only milk that the majority of children receive (i.e. the children his Department deals with) is that supplied under the scheme, and he had little doubt that its withdrawal would result in hardship to them and a general deterioration of their health. Other comments were made by the Secretary of the Durban Child Welfare Society, by Mr. Bond, the Secretary of the Durban Community Chest, and by the South African Tuberculosis Association, which stated quite clearly that they thought it was an extremely bad decision that the Government had come to. The South African Medical Journal was particularly scathing in an article which reported last year to the effect that it pleaded for the re-issue of the widespread distribution of milk and other foods to infants and pre-school children. It is quite clear that despite any administrative failings in the scheme, and no doubt there were some which could obviously have been put right after investigations and proper reorganization, there is absolutely no good medical or nutritional reason for abandoning the scheme. Indeed, all the indications are that the scheme should be broadened. There is no doubt that the wide-spread incidence of malnutrition in this country could be combated by reinstituting the scheme. I want to point out that in a paper read to the Nutrition Society on 7 November last year the President of the Society stated the following—-

A doctor from the King Edward VIII Hospital in Durban said that during the last five years about 5,500 cases of severe malnutrition had been dealt with at that hospital. Half those infants had died. According to Dr. Mitchell, the M.O.H. of the Cape Divisional Council, 10,000 children in the South African urban areas are known to die every year from gastro-enteritis, and he went on to say that the tragedy is that children who die from gastroenteritis did so because they were weak as the result of malnutrition, and this could easily be prevented. Now the position is obviously much worse with non-White children than with White children, and if one examines the mortality rate one finds that the mortality of children between the ages of one and four, mainly from malnutrition, is five times greater amongst Indians, 15 times greater amongst Coloureds, and 32 times greater in the case of the Bantu children than it is in the case of White children. But the most important thing is that all the experts pointed to the fact that the shocking wastage of lives could easily be prevented and that much money could be saved to the community if preventive measures were taken. The doctor at the King Edward VIII Hospital stated that the amount of money spent on treating the surviving patients of the numbers admitted with severe malnutrition could have fed 27,500 children for a whole year, and that milk with its life-giving properties, which was in plentiful supply in South Africa, should be given to malnourished children to prevent malnutrition. Dr. Quass, the Director of the National Nutritional Research Council of the C.S.I.R., said in November last year that kwashiokor could easily be prevented by providing milk for children. He said that if the State looked after the pre-school child this would lead to more healthy adults who could maintain a higher standard of productivity. Dr. Mitchell, the M.O.H. of Cape Town, said that if the 10,000 children who died each year of gastroenteritis were given a tablespoonful of powdered skim milk every day, the disease would be reduced to negligible proportions, despite bad hygiene, because he said, the disease was mainly due to protein deficiency. Similarly, Dr. Cooper and other experts in this field estimated that supplying children with powdered milk would reduce the death rate by 95 per cent. Now all the experts in the country, nutritional experts, medical officers of health and the T.B. Association, are all at one in condemning the abandonment of the State-aided milk, butter and margarine scheme, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will reconsider the decision taken last year to stop the scheme.

Under the Social Welfare Vote it stands to reason that we think of marriage, the happy marriage and the one which is not so happy. Now it so happens that this is Family Year, and we are again deeply conscious of the fact that the happy and united family forms the basis of a happy and united state. We have again become aware of our high divorce rate and the fact that divorce is the canker gnawing at the soul and the root of our national existence. For that reason we cannot just talk or philosophize about this Family Year. We dare not allow it to pass without deriving some permanent benefit from it. The State and the Church should be prepared to make sacrifices and to pay a high price for the preservation and maintenance of sound family life in our country. In the long run that will be much cheaper than the high price we have to pay for families disrupted by divorce, both in terms of money and of human misery. We should just think of what it costs us to maintain the children of such disrupted marriages, and just think of what the children have to pay in terms of sorrow. The rule that prevention is better than cure applies here more than anywhere else. We must do everything in our power to ensure that this important trinity of husband, wife and child functions effectively in our State. What I want to plead for to-night with all the earnestness at my disposal is marriage guidance, with the emphasis more on prevention than on cure. Call it marriage guidance, if you like. Call it what you like, but it should be designed to prevent marriages which as a rule start off so happily so often coming to a miserable end; and what is so tragic is that very often it is as the result of a slight misunderstanding or a minor difference of opinion that most marriages go on the rocks. But it is this very fact which gives me hope. I am convinced that if speedy and timeous action is taken when the first signs of estrangement appear, such marriages can be saved. There should be a place in every community to which such married couples, either one or the other of the couple, can seek refuge in order to discuss their problems frankly and freely before they assume serious proportions. And it is important that the public should know about the existence of such marriage guidance bureaux. Now I know that there is a Marriage Guidance Council in South Africa, and we are grateful for the work it does, but I do not think that as yet it complies with the requirements which we would like to expect of such a body. An organization of this kind should be composed of psychologists and sociologists in every community, like the clergy, educationists, magistrates and other voluntary welfare workers. It is also important that they should be people of influence and standing in the community, people who instill confidence. It is even more important that such marriage guidance bureaux should be, if not under the control of, then at least subject to the guidance of the Department of Social Welfare. They should regularly receive guidance from the psychologists and sociologists of the Department in regard to the implementation of their task, e.g. at regular regional conferences and by means of publications issued to them. The work should be done voluntarily and only essential expenses which are incurred should be repaid. Their main task should be to remove the earliest signs of estrangement in a marriage, or to put it more positively, to give those who feel that their marriage is being threatened advice and perspective, viz. that the preservation of the marriage for the sake of the children is more important than any personal grievance which the parents might have against one another. These, in broad lines, are the few suggestions I want to submit. The details can be worked out later.

A second suggestion I want to make in this regard is really more closely connected with pre-marital guidance. What I want to advocate is the introduction of marriage guidance as a subject, in the same way that we have vocational guidance in our schools. I hope that the hon. the Minister and the Government will use their influence with the Provincial Councils to introduce this as a subject in our high schools. A matter which is basic and fundamental to a happy marriage is the choice of the right partner, and in this regard the subconscious conception of what is really manly and womanly plays—it serves as the unconscious norm—the decisive rôle in determining the choice. This is a matter which should definitely be included in the curriculum of such a marriage guidance course, together with many other matters such as the marriage as a sacred institution, the marriage and the Church, the marriage and the child, etc. There is nothing which contributes so much to a happy marriage as the choice of the right mate, and there is nothing which subconsciously influences this choice so much as the conception of manliness and womanliness in the mind of the person making the choice. Now it so happens that one of the most remarkable social and ethical phenomena in our times is the change which has come about in the conception of true manliness and womanliness. This has been almost imperceptible. It was a gradual revolution which took place between the two world wars. It is, however, one of those changes which are definitely not an improvement. It is the result of the adulteration of values in so many spheres of life The man who wants to live a morally clean life is regarded as a “sissy”; the one who drifts with the tide as a hero! [Time limit.]

In the few minutes left I firstly want to congratulate the Department of Social Welfare on the excellent work they did during the floods which took place in the north-west Cape recently. I think that this side of the House and all the people here tonight, together with the people affected, are deeply grateful to those who at such short notice did so much for those who really needed the help they received from the Minister’s Department. We are very grateful for what was done there and we hope that the organization which was established during the floods will be kept at a high pitch of efficiency so that if it is ever needed again it will be ready to assist at the shortest notice.

We on this side of the House also welcome heartily those concessions and improvements which the Department has given both to the needy aged and to the pensioner. These increases which homes for the aged will receive will, I am sure, stimulate greater interest to be taken in these homes, and more homes will now be able to be built for the needy aged. I agree with the Minister that the homes should be small ones, but he must realize that if these small homes are successful the demands on the accommodation available will become greater and greater and the tendency to extend these small homes will always be there; so that he must bear in mind that extensions will be necessary. At the same time I want to ask him to bear in mind the necessity for erecting sick-bays in these homes and to give the necessary funds for such sick-bays. I would also ask him, whilst giving more money to the old-age homes, to see whether or not it is possible for him to assist the homes for the unmarried mother and the baby homes which result therefrom. Often babies have to be kept for many weeks in these homes before they are adopted. Many of these homes depend entirely on the charity and generosity of the public, and I hope the Minister will see his way clear to help them as well. There are many aspects, as the Minister knows, of the Social Welfare Vote which we on this side of the House want to deal with, but because of the shortage of time we are unable to do so. I hope the Minister will give us an opportunity to meet him outside the Chamber, and perhaps we can discuss certain aspects of the Vote and then give the assistance where we think it is most needed.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the last argument advanced by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher), he asked whether I would give him and other members an opportunity to bring matters to my notice. I will welcome it, and the Department welcomes it at all times if hon. members come to us with their problems, and the hon. member is very welcome to do so.

With reference to what the hon. member said in regard to the assistance given during the floods, I appreciate what he said and will convey it to the Department. We gained much experience in Natal and also during the present floods, and the framework of this organization will always be there, and with the experience gained by us the Department is able to cope with such catastrophes, which we hope will not soon occur again. I also take note of what the hon. member said in regard to a sick-bay in old-age homes, and I agree that provision should be made for weak old people, and for that reason we are paying the increased subsidy.

The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) raised a very important matter, and if one takes into consideration that from 1913 to 1956 there have been 85,985 divorces in South Africa, it is time that we should all realize what the position is, particularly if one considers that an estimated 4,621 children annually become the victims of these divorces and broken homes; then one realizes that a catastrophe is hitting the country. If one further considers that the biggest number of divorces took place in 1954, when there were 4,011 in that one year, one realizes the importance of the matter raised by the hon. member, and that we all have a duty in that regard.

The hon. member for Houghton asked whether we would consider the reinstitution of the milk and butter scheme again. We did not take this step lightly, but only after thorough consultation and a study of the matter. I am sorry, but in view of all the circumstances and for the reasons I have already given and which I am prepared to give the hon. member again, we do not intend again instituting this scheme. If assistance has to be given, the Department feels that for many good reasons this is not the best way of doing so, but that use should be made of other channels and machinery which exist to help families where the breadwinner does not earn enough. Therefore we had to take this step with the fullest sense of responsibility, but I want to tell the hon. member in all fairness that a large part of her speech should not have been made under the Social Welfare Vote but under Health, which is not my responsibility and over which this Department has no jurisdiction.

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) mentioned the case of people possessing a house worth £2,500 who cannot receive a pension. Of course, that is not so. It is very clear, and there can be no misconception, nor have the officials any discretion in that regard. It has been laid down that any person or a married couple, and as the result of a concession I have just made, also an unmarried person, can qualify for a pension if the only asset those people have is a house in which they live, even though the value of the house is £3,750. But what often happens in practice is that these people say it is their only asset, whereas in fact they have other sources of income which have to be considered. The hon. member may take it from me, and I shall be glad if he would bring such cases to my notice where applicants have been refused, because then they were definitely wrongly refused, and I have no knowledge of any case where the Department has not done justice to any person. On the contrary, the Department is at pains to do justice to all persons, and that is also done in practice. In regard to the type of person mentioned by the hon. member, there is of course no rule or legal provision which prevents a person who is not completely normal mentally from being accepted in certain institutions. If the person is abnormal to such an extent that he requires medical care, it is of course not our responsibility but that of the Department of Public Health, and his case should be brought to the notice of the Minister of Health.

In conclusion, I just want to say this. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) of course always makes a thorough study of these matters we have just discussed, and I thank him for his contribution to the debate. I want to assure him that all the matters he mentioned will receive our serious consideration and that everything he said will be considered.

Vote put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Vote No. 24 (Transport).

It being 10.25 o’clock p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.