I move—

I second.

The Bill as it appears before us now is a consolidating measure and no objection can be raised to it because it brings our Act up to date on two points and it definitely simplifies our law in regard to the constitution of the House of Assembly and the delimitation of constituencies connected with that, and then also in regard to the provisions about the Census. I only want to say to the House that this Bill was dealt with by the Select Committee in unusual circumstances. As a result of those unusual circumstances the report of that Select Committee cannot be discussed in this House. I only want to comment on the way the majority of the Select Committee restricted the Committee’s activities to documentary evidence on this important measure referred to it to decide whether it was a consolidating measure or not. We had documentary evidence from three people and when the minority of the Select Committee requested that at least one of those people be called so that he could be questioned on the viewpoints expressed in the documentary evidence, the Chairman put the matter to a vote and the majority of the Select Committee decided that we were not to call the Parliamentary draftsman to give evidence. The minority particularly wanted to call him to give evidence about his views because in the memorandum which he had submitted to the Select Committee he said that the Bill, as it read at that time, did definitely amend the existing Act. He said that it amended the Act in theory and not in practice. It sounds somewhat like splitting hairs. If an Act is amended, it is amended, whether it is in theory or in practice. The Bill now before the House is not the Bill that was referred to the Select Committee and it is now a consolidating measure.

I am sorry having to interrupt the hon. member, but he cannot discuss that aspect of the matter now. If the hon. member did not agree with the views of the Select Committee he could have said in what respects he considered the Bill to be an amendment of the existing law and that might have assisted the Chairman in coming to a decision. It is no use going into that aspect of the matter now.

We did not avail ourselves of our rights because we were anxious to have the evidence of the Parliamentary draftsman. We were anxious to question him because he had said in his documentary evidence that the Bill theoretically amended the existing law.

What benefit can there be in discussing that question here now?

It can have this benefit, that it will be a warning to the Government in future not to come along in this way with a Bill which is intended to be a consolidating Bill and which turns out not to be a consolidating measure. Our impression was that the Government had introduced an amending Bill, but when the Government saw the amendments the Opposition was moving, it suddenly changed its attitude and decided to convert the Bill into a consolidating measure. I don’t want to go into that aspect any further. As the Bill stands now we will still have the marginal note on Clause 3 which says that that clause is an amendment of Clause 3 (1) (a) of the South Africa Act of 1910. I do not propose saying any more about the matter, but I want to ask the Minister of the Interior a few questions. The Delimitation Commission will have to be appointed one of these days to give effect to the Act. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government has decided who are to be on that Commission, and when the Commission will start its labours? Secondly, I should like to know from the Minister whether he can tell us when the Census figures will be announced so that we may find out how many constituencies each province will be entitled to. The Minister knows that time is getting very short. The Delimitation Commission will have only a few months to complete its labours. If the Census figures are not finally available for publication, I want to know from the Minister whether he will not give all the parties concerned the preliminary figures. It will take some time before the final figures are known. The department, however, has the preliminary figures, and those figures will more or less enable us to arrive at a calculation of the number of seats which every province will have. All political parties have the same difficulties to contend with. As we understand that the final figures will only be known towards the end of April, I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot supply the different political parties with the preliminary figures.

I do not think that in view of the remarks which you, Mr. Speaker, have made, it is necessary for me to deal with the first part of the observations of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). As I understand the position, the Select Committee has handled this matter in accordance with your ruling and, having given its decision on the question whether this Bill is an amending Bill or a Consolidating one, the Select Committee is functus officio. In regard to the question of the preliminary Census figures I want to tell the House that the latest information is that the Census figures in their latest form will probably be available towards the end of May. I understand no preliminary figures are available, but I can give the assurance that at the first available opportunity when the figures are available, they will be available to all parties and all members of the House.

Can they get the provisional figures?

I shall ask my department to make the figures available to any interested party who applies for them. The personnel of the Commission is a matter for the Minister of Justice. That question is at present under consideration, and I understand that the Minister of Justice will be able to appoint a Commission within the next few weeks.

When do you expect them to start?

They naturally have to wait for the Census figures, but I expect they will be able to start towards the end of May or beginning of June.

Is not it the Governor-General who appoints the Commission?

The hon. member should not quibble. The recommendation will be made shortly. Whatever figures will be available will be made available to all sections of the House.

I move—

This is a Bill which sets out to introduce a fairly considerable body of minor amendments in the present Building Societies Act. The Bill raises no question of principle, and therefore it does not lend itself to a second reading speech in our ordinary conception of what a second reading speech is. I could, of course, deal with each of the clauses individually, but that would be very burdensome for the House, and I have therefore made available a memorandum containing notes on each of these clauses which I think will facilitate the consideration of the Bill by hon. members. I propose, if the Bill is read a second time today, to allow at least a week before the Committee stage. I do that in the hope that hon. members who wish to raise specific points on amendments will put those amendments on the Order Paper. I shall give them ample time to do so. I feel that wherever possible that should be done and wherever possible we should, in Committee, only have to deal with amendments that have appeared on the Order Paper. I shall therefore give at least a week for the Committee stage if the Bill is adopted today. May I just make one or two general remarks first? The first point is that we have had eight years’ experience of the working of the Building Societies’ Act. It was passed in 1934. We have since then introduced minor amending Bills, but this Bill represents the results of the first complete overhaul. Then I want to say that we have had a good deal of consultation with building societies in regard to the terms of the Bill. We have had to deal both with the permanent and the terminating buildingsocieties, and this Bill is the result of those discussions. I also want to point to the fact that in a great many cases in this amending Bill we have adopted the course of re-enacting the whole clause in preference to amending by reference.

You should always do that.

That makes the Bill a good deal longer than it need be, but also much easier to follow, and I think hon. members will appreciate that way of dealing with the matter. For the reasons I have given I do not propose dealing with the Bill clause by clause. I would only, apart from just referring to the memorandum, deal with the more important clauses. There is, for instance, Clause 4 which amends Section 18 of the Act under which the Registrar of Building Societies is allowed to refuse to register any amendment of the rules of a society, but it is now proposed to be laid down that such a decision shall be subject to appeal to the Minister and ultimately to the Court. Clause 6 amends one of the chief clauses in the Act, namely, Clause 23. That clause in the principal law provides that there should be 25 per cent. liquid cover in respect of deposits held by societies. We propose extending that provision so as to embrace within the scope of that cover accrued interest on deposits and dividends due but not paid on paid-up shares. We also propose to lay down in this clause the way in which the securities held as cover should be valued. Clause 7 again amends an important clause, namely, Clause 24. That clause lays it down that the amount advanced on mortgage may not exceed 75 per cent. of the value in respect of a fixed term mortgage, and 60 per cent. of the value in the case of a reduceable mortgage. Provision is also made for additional advances over and above those percentages in respect of collateral security. This clause is designed to deal more satisfactorily with the position than it is dealt with in the existing law. It is now proposed that the additional amount may be to the full amount of the collateral security, but special provisions are made in paragraph (c) of this clause embodying a new sub-section (5) for the determination of the value of the collateral security to the extent to which additional advances may be made. Clause 12 deals with the annual accounts of the societies. The aim of this new clause is to work with a certain reasonable amount of flexibility towards a uniform financial year for all the Building Societies. That is obviously desirable for statistical and other purposes. Clause 14 is designed to get over a difficulty which has arisen in connection with the amalgamation of societies. The present clause as it stands works very hardly in regard to such amalgamations where you have large bodies of shareholders to be consulted, perhaps scattered over the whole world. The percentages in the present law are too rigid, and it is therefore proposed to introduce a certain amount of flexibility. Clause 18 lays down that in future, if it is adopted, the societies will have to submit monthly instead of halfyearly returns, and that we shall have to publish a summary in the Gazette. At present we do get monthly returns and in some cases even weekly returns, but that is purely by arrangement, and this will make it necessary as a matter of obligation to submit these returns monthly. Clause 21 tightens up the power of the Registrar in regard to imposing penalties for contraventions of the law. It closes up certain loopholes which there are today. The decision of the Registrar will, of course, be subject to appeal to the Minister. These are the main clauses in the Bill, and I think what I have said about them will give a general indication of the nature of the measure. It is for the main part mostly of an administrative character, and it does not lend itself to discussion at this stage; I hope the House will agree to the second reading, and then I hope that if there are amendments, which it is desired to discuss, the House will, in consideration of the fact that I am giving ample time for the Committee stage, assist me by putting these amendments on the Order Paper.

I only want to make a few observations on this Bill. I want to thank the Minister very heartily for the introduction of this measure, because, though it affects no vital principle, it is one of the most useful amending Bills brought before the House. And one appreciates the desire to bring about closer association to the Registrar, to give the Registrar in reality more power than he has hitherto had. Some small difficulties will be removed—small difficulties that have accumulated during all these years. I thank the Minister also for the memorandum which he has provided. There are just one or two little features which I want to draw attention to at this stage. In the first place, a very onerous duty seems to have been placed on the Building Societies, and one would like to know whether there is any real advantage to be gained. Hitherto there has been a six monthly complete statement so far as these organisations are concerned—that statement has had to be supplied to the Registrar. That has been changed to monthly returns. Now, there is no real difficulty, and there is no real objection to that, beyond the fact that this is really an extensive work, and developed and increased by the Bill before us. If hon. members will read in the amended Bill what it means, I think they will feel that there must be some strong reason on the part of the Minister to bring about this change. I am not raising objections, but I should think that as the present position has prevailed for a number of years, a change to a quarterly return might have filled the Bill very well. I just put that up for consideration. The most important part of this amended measure is the question dealing with collateral securities. The collateral security, as the Minister knows, is a very important factor to the owner of the security who has secured it probably in previous years by savings, and who has secured it partly with the object of giving collateral security when he wants to become the owner of a property in years to come. That collateral security may be of various kinds. It may be deposits in the banks, it may be Treasuery certificates, shares or insurance policies. The value placed on these is of great importance. Now, the Bill talks of three types of collateral security. All these are very good. There are A, B and C—perfectly good. Now there is provision for life insurance policies to be taken as collateral security. Every man or woman who is saving up for a home has a perfect right to put his or her havings away as and how he or she likes, and this saving becomes a collateral security; it becomes part of the means of providing security for the property the individual is going to secure. It is a very important time in most persons’ lives, and it is a very important factor that this collateral security which is returned at 20s. in the £ should be recognised as such. Now, when you come to an insurance policy a person may have £500, £600 or £700 invested in an insurance policy. The money is really there—that is, the amount which is paid up in premiums, but they are not able to get the amount of money they have put in. The surrender value as we all know, means so much below the original amount put in. Some people prefer to put their money into insurance policies, others put it away somewhere else. Now, to say in this Bill that we must accept not the full amount which they have put in, but the surrender value of a policy which is something in the vicinity of 3 to 3½ to 5, is all wrong. I am going to move an amendment which I hope the Minister will accept, so that greater justice shall be done to people who have invested their savings in insurance policies. After all, it is a very good form of investment. It would seem to me to be more just if they could get the amount of money which they have paid in recognised as collateral security. It is not only the surrender value. After all, we know that the surrender value is put low in order to encourage people hot to take their money out, not’ to surrender their policy: Consequently, the surrender value is not the real value of the assets. The surrender value is merely put so low in order to induce people to keep their money where it is. I suggest that that is not a fair or equitable manner of dealing with the matter. That is all I have to say on the Bill. I appreciate the Bill, and I thank the Minister for the memorandum, and I am sure the Bill will not only have an easy passage, but will be very beneficial, and will tend to the smooth acting of the whole Act.

May I just say in thanking the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) for his remarks, in the first place that we are not imposing a very great harship on the Societies in calling for monthly instead of half yearly returns. At present they are giving us their returns weekly. It is in their own interests that they should get out these returns. From our point of view it is important that we should have these returns to see that they are carrying out their obliations in terms of the Act. At present, by arrangement, on a voluntary basis, we are getting the returns weekly, so that the labour involved is not as great as my friend thinks, having regard to the desirability of these returns being made more frequently. The hon. member has raised the point of the value of the collateral security so far as insurance policies are concerned. He has indicated that he wishes to move and amendment. I think he had better put it on the Order Paper before I express an opinion. In the meantime it appears to me that for the purpose of taking account of collateral securities, for the purpose of determining the amount of advances, it is right that we should accept the negotiable value of such securities and that in the case of an Insurance Policy is the surrender value. However, if he will put it on the Order Paper I shall see what the position is.

As usual hon. members have again received from State Advances Recoveries Office, a concise summary of the total amounts advanced to farmers under the various relief schemes. Two things become clear when we study these returns. The first is that it is very palpable that the advances made or the relief grants given to farmers, which are so often spoken about as if they were free gifts or subsidies, are nothing but loans to farmers. The second point which strikes one is that the farmers have been repaying these loans very satisfactorily, and I think these two points should be emphasised. If we study these returns we find that these sums of money which have been paid out to farmers, although they are large, are nothing but loans. The only amount which has been paid directly to farmers is that for interest subsidy on farm mortgages under the Act: That is the only real relief given to farmers, that is the only amount paid out and out to the farmers, but as I have said on previous occasions, the title of that Act is a misnomer. Those payments which are made in actual fact don’t go to the farmer, they go to the people who have bonds over the farms and if we take this away from what is paid in direct relief to farmers the fact remains that practically the only assistance given to farmers is assistance by way of loans, and if we note the fact that the farmers are repaying their loans systematically and in a way which is almost incredible and are actually redeeming their liabilities, we unquestionably have cause for recoicing. Here we have the total advances administered by the office for the recovery of State advances, and under this heading an amount of £16,725,000 has been paid out. Most of those amounts have been advanced since 1935 and yet we find that of that £16,725,000 an amount of nearly £5,000,000 has already been repaid by the farmers. Under Section 20 of the Land Bank Act, a further £11,000,000 has been paid out. Of that almost £1,500,000 has already been repaid. Altogether under this relief and loan scheme an amount of nearly £28,000,000 has been advanced to farmers, of which more than £6,250,000 has already been repaid. I think it is a good thing that these figures should be mentioned to make the country realise that this assistance which is given by way of loans to agriculturists in South Africa is money well spent and money which comes back to the State, so that in future we may have a little less talk about the great help that has been given to the farmers by way of cash assistance. The fact is that it is largely assistance to the farmers by way of loans and that those loans are being repaid very satisfactorily. Now I want to ask the Minister a question about these schemes under which certain loans are made to the farmers, and as the farmers are doing their utmost to repay, I want to ask the Minister to consider whether some of those loans should not be reviewed with a view to concessions being made to the farrmers. There are for instance, the loans under the 1931 relief scheme. When that scheme came into operation I had serious misgivings about that type of assistance, because I felt that it would not be much use assisting the farmers when the burdens they were bearing were already too large, unless some further agreement was come to. I suggested that—as was done afterwards under the Farmers’ Relief Act—an attempt should first be made before the farmer was assisted to come to an understanding with the creditors so that the burden of debt which the farmer would have to bear would not be too heavy, and the liability would not be unduly severe. That provision did not yet exist in 1931 and the large amounts which were lent to the farmers at the time and which they are paying off, are today weighing them down, and I think those loans should be reviewed. This also applies to those of the agricultural credit societies’ loans. The position in regard to these agricultural credit societies is that a new attempt was made there to assist the farmers. I contend that that attempt was a failure, but large amounts are outstanding under that particular relief scheme, and I think it is no more than fair that the position of the people who came under that scheme should be considered. I am particularly referring to the position of those people who made themselves responsible for others. I think the whole position in regard to those loans should be reviewed. This also applies to the advances for drought distress relief. I believe that there, too, a great need should be considered. In many cases these loans for drought distress relief were intended to relieve a class of poor farmer who would otherwise not have been able to carry on. Often the drought did not last just one year but continued for several years. These people are burdened by heavy liabilities and heavy demands are made on many of those farmers. It would be a great relief if the Minister would consider the question of reviewing some of those loans with a view to meeting these people’s needs. The Minister has so far not seen his way to promise the agricultural population of South Africa that he would take steps to institute a general rehabilitation scheme for the farmers. In the absence of such a general scheme I feel that all I can do is to ask the Minister to relieve these people of some of their liabilities from the loans which I have referred to. The Minister will perhaps reply that where it is necessary the loans will be placed to suspension account. That is so, but even where the loans are placed to suspension account, the farmers still have to meet their commitments and the suspension account worries them. It hangs like a dark cloud over them. The fact that the amount has been placed to suspension account proves that the burden is an uneconomic one, and I therefore think we should urge the Minister to review such loans so that the farmers may be placed on a sound fotting again. As the Minister himself has told us, and the figures show it, the farmers are not asking for charity, but they try to meet their commitments and they try to pay what they owe whenever they possibly can. They go out of their way to meet their commitments, and I therefore feel that the Minister has all the more reason today to reconsider these uneconomic debts.

I think there is one point that should be made clearer than has been done before. We know that so far as advances are concerned no fixed policy has been laid down under the law, but changes may come about from time to time in regard to the way advances are dealt with. All I want is that when changes are made the Minister should let the fact be known throughout the country. Just before he came into office, before the previous Minister of Finance (Mr. Havenga) resigned, a change was made, and it was laid down that debts incurred after 1935 could also be settled under the Farmers’ Relief Act. That was done by way of compromise. Although it could not be done under the old scheme, in terms of the new arrangement, the creditors can be called together by the Board and a compromise can be arranged even in respect of debts incurred after 1935. I know of instances of farmers who had incurred debts after 1935 and who had got into trouble, but who knew nothing about this arrangement. I should like the Minister to state clearly— and it should be made public throughout the country—that before a man goes bankrupt he can go to the Farmers’ Relief Board and that an attempt can be made to arrive at a compromise. Instances have been brought to my notice of people who have been pressed for debt, perfectly good farmers, and those people should know that it is possible to arrange such a compromise. I should like the Minister to remove any misunderstanding in that regard.

I can assure my hon. friend that there has been no change in our policy in that regard. The machinery of the Farmers’ Relief Act is at anyone’s disposal, even for debts incurred after 1935. It is still our policy to make use of that system. The hon. member said that there were people who did not know anything about it. We shall do whatever we can to make the position clear. There has been no change in our policy, and we want people to avail themselves of that machinery rather than go bankrupt, so that they can get out of their trouble. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) quite rightly expressed his appreciation of the manner farmers are paying their debts, and he also pointed to the fact that the assistance rendered to farmers, particularly by this office, which we are now dealing with, is not given by way of subsidy, but in the form of loans. I have already expressed my appreciation of the way farmers are paying off their debts. I referred to it in my Budget speech, and I am pleased to be able to say that, according to the latest figures of the Land Bank at my disposal, it appears that for January and February of this year, in spite of the drought and other difficulties, more money was repaid by the farmers than in January and February of last year. In spite of all their difficulties, the farmers are still doing their best to meet their commitments. I cannot, however, go as far as the hon. member and say that because most of the farmers do their best to pay off, we must now assist those who do not do their best to pay their debts—I cannot agree that we should write off those people’s debts. That to all intents and purposes is what the hon. member is pleading for; because the major portion of the farmers are doing their duty the others who are not able to meet their commitments, or who do not want to meet their commitments, are to be assisted by means of a policy of writing off.

Only those who cannot meet their commitments.

Some of them can meet their commitments. In regard to those who cannot meet their commitments, their debts can be placed to suspension account. Take, for instance, the position under the Special Relief Act of 1931. There we have this situation, that while there were 10,300 debtors in 1936 under that Relief Act, at the end of last year there were fewer than 8,000 debtors. In other words, almost one-quarter of the debtors had met all their obligations. I think it will be admitted that where a large proportion of those people have met their commitments it would be unfair to make special concessions to those who have not met their commitments. It would be unfair to those who have met their commitments.

The Farmers’ Relief Board can find out who can meet his commitments and who can not.

Wherever necessary, a case of that kind is put on suspension account. Then the hon. member also spoke about the debts of credit societies. This matter, as hon. members will remember, was discussed in this House last year, and I then gave an undertaking to have the whole question enquired into by a special committee. I added that if the Committee recommended that we should come to the assistance of those people I would do so, but I said that so far as I was concerned the whole matter must from that stage onwards be regarded as final. That Committee’s report has been presented, it has been laid on the Table, and it is clearly stated that in that report that no further writings off should be made in regard to these debts. In view of that, I am sorry that I cannot comply with the hon. member’s request.

I am very pleased the hon. the Minister of Finance has put the position so clearly, and I am gratified at the appreciative manner in which he referred to the way the farmers are meeting their commitments. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact, however, that the position of the farmers is by no means a rosy one. We admire it that the farmers do their utmost to meet their commitments and to pay their debts, but I am convinced that there are difficulties ahead. During the past year a large proportion of the country has been passing through times unparalleled in our history, and I want to urge the Minister, when people have to meet their commitments this year, to take into account the special conditions which have prevailed during the past year. The country has passed through a terrific drought, and in those areas where it was possible to sow mealies and wheat late in the season, caterpillars got in and destroyed most of the crop, with the result that many of the farmers are in a very precarious position, and will not be able to meet their commitments. Sheaves of letters have been comingin from all sides, in which farmers state that they cannot possibly meet their obligations this year. If we take into account the fact that a large part of the country only got rain this month, and that together with the rains, the caterpillars put in their appearance, it must be clear that the farmers are suffering severe hardships. They have not been able to sell their cattle; they have had practically no crops, and they cannot pay their debts. I hope the Minister will take those special circumstances into account. I was glad the Minister spoke about the willingness of the farmers to meet their commitments. It makes us feel that we can plead with the Minister in view of the abnormal circumstances not to press the farmers this year, but to treat every case on its merits, and to give concessions wherever necessary.

I only want to draw the Minister’s attention to this, that the fact of the farmers paying their debts does not prove that they have made money to pay those debts, but in many cases those farmers have been able to borrow money from private concerns and they have paid off their commitments to the Government.

No.

The fact of the matter is that the farming community is not in a better position to pay their debts than they were before, but there is a lot of money in the country at the moment, and the farmers often can more easily get loans elsewhere than from the Land Bank. They can get a larger percentage of the value of their property in the form of a loan, particularly from private investors, and that is why many of them turn to private investors. I don’t want the Minister to get the idea that because the farmers are paying off their debts that proves that they are in a very good position. I notice that the Minister has appointed a special inspector in connection with district committees. What sort of a position is that? Is it a temporary post? I notice that the salary scale is £2 10s. per day. Are these inspectors working under the department? Why do they get £2 10s. per day? Don’t they come under the ordinary arrangements of the Government so far as employees are concerned? And this other £10 which is put on the Vote, is that an allowance to members of the District Committee?

Yes.

But why are these special inspectors appointed? Are they only temporarily employed?

I just want to bring this to the notice of the Minister, that he must not imagine that because the farmers are paying their debts to the Land Bank things are going so wonderfully well with them.

I did not say so.

I said that the Minister should not get that idea into his mind. As the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has said, the farmers pay their debts to the Land Bank, not because they have made the money but simply because they have taken up the money somewhere else. There are two reasons why people go to other financial institutions and to private money lenders for loans, and the first reason is that they can get a larger loan, more than 60 per cent. on the value of their farms. The Land Bank restricts the loans to 60 per cent. of the value. If they do not go to the Land Bank they can get a higher percentage loan. But there is another reason, too, why the farmers pay off their debt to the Land Bank, and that is because if they take up a loan with the Land Bank they have to pay interest not only on the loan but they also have to pay compulsory redemption. I am in favour of their doing so. I should be glad if similar provisions existed in regard to all our bonds, but human nature being wat it is, if an individual can get a loan from a company and he only has to pay 5 per cent. interest, while he has to pay the Land Bank an additional 2 per cent. for redemption, he prefers to go to the company which will lend him the money at 5 per cent. without his being compelled to pay 2 per cent. redemption. That is the reason why so many loans are being paid off. I don’t want the Minister to think that the farmers are in a flourishing position, and I want to ask him again to give careful consideration to the suggestions I have made. In regard to credit societies the Minister still adopts the same attitude which he did in the past. The Minister says that the report is not favourable. Unfortunately I have not seen it yet, but I am surprised to hear that. I am convinced, however, that so far as droughts relief loans and other relief loans are concerned a very strong case can be made out for relief being granted. The Minister will remember that a large proportion of the loans were taken up in 1931 and 1932 in the heart of the depression, and those loans in many instances were entirely uneconomic. When the creditors noticed that the Government was helping people in that way they came along and demanded the payment of debts which had been practically written off, and those burdens are today like a millstone around those people’s necks. I very earnestly want to ask the Minister to come to the aid of those people. If a debt has been placed to suspension account it proves to me that it is an uneconomic burden which is resting on the farmer, and why should we not at a time like the present proceed to write off uneconomic debts so that the farmers may once again have some hope for the future? Surely we should take steps to place the farmers on a sound economic basis.

Otherwise they lose courage.

Yes, I have had quite a number of cases like that and I hope the Minister will not take up such a cold and indifferent attitude towards my request.

I should like to make it clear that my reference to repayment to the Land Bank was not made with a view to contending that the farmers were doing so particularly well. I only said so in support of what the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) had said, namely that the farmers were doing their best to repay their debts. That was the only object I had in view. I did not analyse the reasons for their repaying their debts but I can only say that I have figures which go to prove that repayments are principally made from the farmers’ own funds, and if the hon. member is interested I shall be pleased to show him the last information of the Land Bank, so that he can go info the matter himself. I do not think, however, that this is the time to discuss the matter. In regard to the representations by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) I can assure him that we are not pressing the farmers. Where there are special circumstances, and where difficulties have arisen they can make their representations to the local committees and we shall act with the greatest possible reasonableness. I think the hon. member knows that. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) spoke of the inspectors. These are special inspectors who were appointed by my predecessor. We have about half a dozen of them whose services we are still using. They are not fully in our service but they are used for special inspections at a rate of pay laid down here.

I think you should get rid of them.

The number is getting steadily less. Now I also want to say this, that if a loan is put to suspension account, that does not go to prove yet that it is uneconomic. There are many instances, there are hundreds of instances of people whose loans were put to Suspension Account in the past, but who are meeting their obligations today. There may be temporary reasons for a loan to be put to Suspension Account, while there is no proof of the man’s position being permanently uneconomic.

I must say that to my mind this Suspension business is an institution of the Devil. If a man cannot pay his debt it should be written off. Ordinary business people have to do it and the State should do the same, but if a debt is put to Suspension Account the man has to pay it and it hangs over him like a dark cloud and in the end he loses courage. I know of cases where that has happened. The man feels that he cannot get ahead, because as soon as he goes ahead a little bit, he has to pay the State. In ordinary business if a man is unable to carry on he goes bankrupt. The debt does not keep on hanging over his head all the time, but where the farmer is concerned it is put to Suspension Account. I feel that where the burden is uneconomic it should be written off. If that is done the people are given fresh hope to go ahead again. I do not know if the Minister realises what it means to a farmer to see light ahead to have a chance of going ahead again. He is a totally different man. I say that when the burdens are uneconomic and the people cannot meet them, the Government should come to their assistance and write off those uneconomic burdens so that the farmer has a chance again of going ahead.

I want to ask the Minister to have an enquiry made into this matter. A year or two ago one of our universities sent an Ethnological expedition to the Northern Transvaal. There are some ruins there, very much like those at Zimbabwe. I don’t exactly remember the name, but, at any rate, that expedition dug up some very interesting stuff; among other things, a lot of valuable golden jars and other objects. These golden objects are of tremendous Ethnological value. They link up these ruins with Zimbabwe, and, as hon. members will realise, this is most interesting work, and it casts an interesting light on the developments which have taken place there; and it will assist us to determine what was the origin of the Zimbabwe Ruins and of the ruins in the Northern Transvaal. When the expedition returned, their expenses were fairly heavy, and to cover their costs they handed some of those golden objects, valued at about £1,000, to the Mint in exchange for the money they needed. It would be an act of vandalism if those golden objects were melted down, because they are of great Ethnological value. I hope the Minister will have an investigation made, and if it is not too late, I hope he will see to it that those things are preserved, and put into the care of people who will look after them properly.

It sounds very strange to me. The hon. member must be referring to an expedition sent out by the University of Pretoria. I know that they made some important finds, and these were sent to the Museum, but I do not know of any golden objects supposed to have been sold to the Mint. I shall make enquiries, but I strongly doubt it. But I do think that I can give the hon. member the assurance that the Mint is the last place in the world where they are likely to melt down anything valuable. The Mint takes a great interest in coins and so on. We have a valuable collection of coins there, and I don’t think the hon. member need be afraid of any vandalism on the part of the Mint. Anyhow, I shall look into it.

I was given this information by somebody who was with the expedition, and he told me that their expenses were covered in that way.

May I just say that the Government provided a sum of money to cover these expenses? It comes under the Vote “Interior”. I fail to understand why it should have been necessary for the University to sell these things to cover the expenses of the expedition. Anyhow, I shall look into the matter.

I notice that an amount of £49,553 is asked for for the University of Pretoria. As the hon. the Minister knows, Pretoria has been agitating for many years to get a medical faculty. We now find that the other universities are turning people away because they have not got the necessary accommodation to admit more students. I think the time has arrived when we should get an Afrikaans medical faculty, and I think the Government should give its support, so that our young men can be trained in medicine in sufficient numbers, and young Afrikaners may also be given a fair chance. Pretoria has been struggling for years. The Minister said that a Commission had enquired into the matter, and had made certain recommendations, and that for that reason he could not discuss the matter. I notice that Professor Botha made a statement a few weeks ago in Pretoria at the opening of the university, and that he said that it had been his privilege to serve as chairman of that commission, and that they had been able to recommend that the time had arrived for a medical faculty to be established in Pretoria. I therefore hope that the Minister will give his attention to this matter, because Pretoria is the centre of the Transvaal, and the Afrikaans speaking students do not get their rights at the other universities, and that is why it has become a burning question to have such a faculty established in Pretoria. I hope the Minister will meet us and give us the necessary support to get a medical faculty in Pretoria.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister on behalf of hospitals which are large teaching institutions, really medical institutions in which medical students are trained. Without these hospitals, medical students could not get the full training which they ought to have. We get no refund in any way from the State, and we find it is very difficult indeed to finance these hospitals, because when we have a medical school attached, it becomes a more difficult and more expensive concern to run. I know the Minister will say that there is also a rebate, and we get the services from specialists for nothing. But I think we get their services in any case. Take Groote Schuur, for instance: the extra cost there is several thousand pounds to run the medical school in conjunction with the hospital. Another point is the hospitals where we have to train nurses. These training institutions are virtually technical schools, and although you may say that probationer nurses are employed at very low salaries, a good deal of the work which they perform is of a menial character and work which could be done by natives or coloured people, equally as well and at a lower cost, because we have to provide extra quarters for these probationer nurses. They belong to a highly qualified and very honourable profession, and they have to be treated properly. At the same time they are a big expense, and I would appeal to the Minister to see whether something cannot be done to put these institutions more or less on the same footing as technical schools and give them some help from the State.

Order! The hon. member must not pursue that too far. I don’t see that it comes under this Vote at all.

I am talking of education.

It does not fall under any of the items under the Vote.

In regard to requests which have already been made to the Minister on the subject of a medical school at the University of Pretoria, I want to put another aspect of the matter to the Minister for his consideration. I understand that the Government’s attitude on this matter is that the University of Pretoria must first of all put up a certain amount of money and that the Government will then, if necessary, contribute on the £ for £ basis. Is that correct?

It is not quite correct.

The Minister will realise what the difficulty is. He wants Pretoria to deal with matters on the same basis as Cape Town and the Witwatersrand have done; he wants Pretoria, out of resources at its disposal, such as donations and certain specific amounts, to put up money for this purpose before the Government comes to its assistance on the £ for £ basis. The Minister will realise from that from the very nature of things the University of Pretoria finds itself in a much more difficult position than the other two universities did. The Minister knows quite well that large amounts of money were presented to the University of Cape Town and also to the University of the Witwatersrand.

Where did that money come from?

It came from private sources. Apart from the WernerBeit donations, the Minister knows perfectly well that the people who are ready to help the University of Cape Town and also the University of the Witwatersrand with donations are generally rich people, which cannot be said of the people from whom the Pretoria University can reasonably expect to receive donations. If the Government maintains this attitude it may, in the circumstances, take years and years before the Pretoria University can get sufficient funds together for this purpose. I assume the Minister will concede that point. The Minister surely also realises that there is actually a great demand for a medical school. We have to face the fact that the two existing medical schools cannot take up the number of students who have applied for admission this year, with the result that those two universities have had to turn down a large number of the applicants for admission to the medical faculty. On the other hand the Minister also knows how great a demand there is for more medical practitioners in South Africa. There are large numbers of places on the platteland where a doctor is badly needed, and where a medical practitioner is simply not available, and what is more, we have the increasing tendency in this country, too, a tendency which is making itself felt in public, to demand that the State must work more and more in the direction of a State medical service to provide for the needs of the citizens of the country. That being so we can take it that more and more medical practitioners will be needed, that the numbers of doctors wanted will not decrease, but that the needs will steadily become greater and greater, and if no provision is made for the training of those additional medical practitioners who are required to provide for the increasing needs, we can easily imagine the extremely precarious position which may arise in this country. It is the duty of the State where the needs for medical practitioners are increasing more and more, to meet that want. It is no use our saying that a certain policy has been laid down and that we are going to tie ourselves down to a policy which has been laid down. We cannot take up the attitude that we are going to adhere to that policy irrespective of what the consequences may be to this country. Circumstances in the country change, and changing circumstances also require new measures to be taken. Circumstances in South Africa, so far as medical services are concerned, have certainly altered to such an extent that the time has arrived for the Government to follow a different course and to lay down a different policy. If the Government refuses in any way to depart from the attitude it has already adopted, namely, that it is only prepared to contribute on on the £ for £ system, then I want to ask the Minister to consider assisting the University of Pretoria by means of a loan. I ask him to reconsider this matter and if he does not want to assist the Pretoria University outright, then I ask him to consider the question of lending the University of Pretoria the necessary money for the time being, possibly free of interest, to establish this medical faculty. I say free of interest, because if that is done and the University of Pretoria provides for an additional medical faculty it will be rendering the country a great service and it will be meeting a very great need. That is entirely irrespective of the other aspect of the matter which concerns the Afrikaans speaking section of the population. That aspect can also be emphasised, although I have not mentioned that particular question here on this occasion, but we have this aspect of the matter as well so far as the Medical Faculty at Pretoria is concerned, that an attempt must be made to give the Afrikaans speaking people in South Africa the opportunity of being trained through the medium of Afrikaans. I understand that an attempt is being made at the University of Cape Town, but that attempt after all is only a very poor one.

That does not go very far.

It means nothing.

I would not say that.

It means nothing. What is the use of giving a few lessons in Afrikaans during the first and second years? The Afrikaans speaking student cannot get his training through the medium of Afrikaans. During the first and the second years he can study a few subjects through the medium of Afrikaans, but nothing beyond that, and then he has to change over and take everything in English. Consequently we also have the other aspect of the matter, that the Afrikaans speaking student in South Africa as a result of these conditions prevailing in the country, is deprived of the opportunity of getting his training through his mother tongue, a privilege which the English student and the Jewish student do enjoy. I say that the Afrikaans speaking student has every right to expect to be placed in the same position, but I again want to emphasise the general need which exists for another medical faculty in the country, and it is only because it is so necessary to provide for that need that the Government can step in and supply necessary funds for the establishment of a medical school. At one time the Minister could have said that the Universities of Cape Town and the Witwatersrand met all their requirements. Today he can no longer say so because the number of students presenting themselves for medical training is far too large to be trained in those two institutions. We have had evidence of that. The question is whether those two institutions with the funds at their disposal today will be able at this stage further to extend their medical faculties beyond their present size. Another consideration is whether the hospital facilities available to those two institutions are such that those two medical schools can be today extended on a larger scale than is the case at present, and then I also ask whether, even if the hospital facilities are there, those two medical schools have the necessary financial means to enable them to extend further and to train a larger number of students than they are doing at the moment. If they have to train more medical students than they are doing now, it means this, that those medical schools will have to extend on a large scale and large funds will be needed for that purpose. The Government will in any case have to take steps to provide the necessary assistance to meet the country’s requirements. If the Government has to take steps, then why in heaven’s name don’t they do so so that the Afrikaans speaking section of the population may be given what it is entitled to. Before I sit down I again want to put up a strong plea for the University of Pretoria to be assisted in this matter, and if the Government cannot do it on another basis, let it then undertake to lend the money to the University at Pretoria free of interest so that that University may establish the medical faculty required.

It may perhaps save time if I reply at once to the question about the medical faculty which has again been raised here. This matter has been raised here year after year. It was brought up when my predecessor was Minister of Education—that is when the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan) was occupying this seat. He then adopted the attitude which my hon. friend described as the foundation of the Government’s policy. He was the man who laid down that policy. He emphasised when this matter was discussed in Parliament that it was necessary to point out that the two existing medical schools, namely, those of Cape Town and Johannesburg, had never received a special grant from the Government apart from that which they were entitled to under the general system of grants and allowances in force at that time. He said, inter alia, that there could be no question of what he called an Afrikaans Medical State school. In other words, a medical faculty paid for by the State, but that if any steps were taken in Pretoria, they had to be taken on the basis which applied to the other universities. He said, however, that he was prepared further to discuss the matter with representatives of the University of Pretoria. During that same year, namely, 1939, I again became Minister of Education. A deputation from the University of Pretoria called on me; they had called on the hon. member for Stellenbosch before when he was Minister of Education, and they asked me whether I was prepared to follow the same policy as my predecessor had followed. The policy he had followed was that he had told them—

That was the policy laid down by my predecessor. That policy was subscribed to by me at that time. I replied in the affirmative to the requests that were made to me.

But have we to stop at that now?

Even then I went a little further than my predecessor and I pointed out that such a faculty need not necessarily be established at once in its entirety. As a matter of fact it cannot be established in its entirety. It takes at least six years to develop such a faculty and usually it even takes longer. The existing faculties at the Universities of Cape Town and Johannesburg took a good deal longer and I told those people who came to see me at the end of 1939 that they should consider the question of gradual development. I pointed out to them that the University of Stellenbosch had also approached me with a similar request at about the same time. They wanted to work towards the establishment of a faculty principally with Afrikaans as medium, for the training of engineers. They told me that they did not ask for anything special, they did not ask the Government to establish a faculty: they only wanted to know whether it would have the Government’s approval if they took steps gradually to develop a faculty within the four corners of the Government’s general financial arrangements. I told them: “Yes, carry on.” They did carry on and I think they made a good start with their faculty without asking for any special financial concession. I now understand that, having made a good start, they now want to come and discuss the matter with me again. They are going to call on me shortly, but I am convinced that they are not going to ask for any special concession from the Government, but only for the ordinary application of our policy. The ordinary policy which we apply to our universities is first of all to pay a subsidy for current expenses which are calculated on a fixed formula.

What is that basis?

It is rather complicated and it would take me rather far out of my course if I had to explain it to the hon. member now. Secondly, we have the policy in regard to the erection of buildings to assist the university on the £ for £ basis. That is the general policy. I discussed this question at the time with the Pretoria University. I said that I associated myself with what my predecessor had said. He laid down that policy and not I, but I added to that that I suggested for their consideration that if they could not find sufficient funds for a complete faculty they should follow the same procedure as Stellenbosch proposed to follow in regard to their engineering faculty. In other words, that for the first and second years they should start courses with the funds they had, and that after that they could extend. The first year’s course has existed for a long time in Pretoria and I suggested for their consideration that they should make a start with a second year’s course. I said that even if they could not obtain sufficient funds for the full faculty they could take this as their first step and then afterwards they could go further. Well, I also said that we could discuss the matter again at some later stage. Nothing further has happened, however; the initiative now rests with them and not with me. Apparently they have not made any further progress in regard to the collection of funds but I want to add this. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) made the suggestion that we should assist the University of Pretoria in regard to this matter by means of a loan. Now, that is a question which I am actually already considering. At the moment we are not making any loans to universities. The policy we follow in regard to the erection of buildings is, as I have said, that we assist on the £ for £ basis. They have to find half and then we add the other half. It has become clear to me lately that there apparently is a need for the extension of the Medical Faculties at our existing universities, and that in this regard we may perhaps have to go back to the loan system and that we may perhaps—I don’t want to tie myself down at this stage because the matter is still under consideration—but that so far as our medical faculties are concerned we may perhaps have to be prepared again to assist our university institutions by granting them loans. Not, of course, free of interest. That we shall not do, but we can give them loans so that it will not be necessary for them to collect comparatively large capital amounts for that purpose. That question is now being considered. That will also apply to the university of Pretoria it wants to establish a New Medical Faculty, as well as to the universities of Cape Town and the Witwatersrand with their existing faculties. When this question has been further considered I shall be prepared to discuss it again with Pretoria. I left the opening two years ago and apparently the Pretoria University has not yet seen its way to avail itself of my suggestion.

I suppose they did not need you.

That is their business. So far as I am concerned, if that policy is changed, I shall discuss the whole matter with them again on the lines of the changed basis.

†May I just refer to the point raised by the hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare)? He has raised the special question of the two training hospitals at Cape Town and Johannesburg at which medical students receive part of their medical training. Well, sir, the arrangement in accordance with which these hospitals were made available for the training of medical students were arrangements made with the universities concerned, they were not arrangements made with the Education Department or the Union Government, they were arrangements made between the universities on the one side, and the hospital authorities or the Provincial authorities on the other, and in both cases in consideration of certain things which the universities undertook to do, certain amounts which the universities undertook to pay and certain considerations which were to come from the universities, these authorities undertook to provide training facilities. I believe the universities have carried out their bargain, both in Cape Town and in Johannesburg. I don’t think that that is disputed.

No, it is not disputed.

Well, then, the universities have carried out their bargain. But now we are told from the other side that the hospitals are not satisfied, and the Union Government is called upon to supplement what the universities have done in fulfilment of their bargain.

We did not foresee how costly it would be.

I am sorry about that, but, after all, if the question is to be raised at all, it seems to me that it will have to be raised as part of the general question of the financial relations between the Government and the Provinces, and that general question will have to be considered when the Fact Finding Commission, which is presided over by Mr. Corbett, submits its report, as I hope it will in the next few months.

The Minister has informed us that the Government’s policy in regard to the support which the universities receive from the State has been laid down. I know that that is so, but circumstances alter, and consequently even if a policy has once been laid down it need not stand for ever. Circumstances having changed, and there being a great need for medical assistance in this country, we cannot simply adhere to our old policy—we have to carry on and fit in our policy with the needs of the people. If we provide for a medical faculty so far as the University of Pretoria is concerned, we shall not only meet the requirements of the people in the Transvaal; we shall not only be helping the Afrikaans speaking section of the public by having this faculty, a faculty which will provide for the needs of the Afrikaans speaking section of the population, but we shall be meeting the needs of the country as a whole. I am glad the Minister, said that he was prepared to discuss the matter again with the Pretoria University, and to consider the question of a loan. It would be a good thing if Pretoria could be helped by a loan. A medical faculty is a pretty expensive business, and if the Minister can assist the University with a loan it will be a good thing. The Minister says he cannot give a loan free of interest. Well, if interest has to be paid, then I want to put up a plea with the Minister to make that interest as low as possible. We find now that here in Cape Town 70 students have been turned away because there is no accommodation for them. We feel therefore that it is absolutely essential for an Afrikaans medical faculty to be established, so that those people may be given the opportunity of getting medical training; because we need medical men who understand their own people, who can talk the language of their people, and surely it speaks for itself that our people must have greater faith in men like that. I told the Minister that the Rector of the University of Pretoria had said that he was Chairman of the Commission of Enquiry, and that that commission had made a strong recommendation in favour of assistance being given to Pretoria. Professor Botha, at the opening of the Pretoria University, said that he was glad he had served on that commission as chairman. The Minister tells us so often about a commission or a committee having put up a certain report; he tells us so often that he has to keep to the recommendations of a commission, but this commission has made a special report that Pretoria should be assisted by having an Afrikaans medium faculty, and I hope the Minister will carry out that commission’s report.

I have read out to the House what the position is.

As the commission has made this recommendation, I hope the Minister will concede our request, so that we may hear ere long that Pretoria has made a start with this matter. The Minister said that it took six years to develop such a faculty, and if we cannot make a start now, how much longer will our students have to suffer through there being no faculty for the Afrikaans speaking section of the population? I am pleading in all earnestness with the Minister, and I am asking him to soften his heart on this matter, and to come to the aid of the University of Pretoria here.

I merely want to put a very brief question to the Minister of Education in regard to Item “M”, Contribution towards completion of Afrikaans Dictionary. The amount now is £1,500 instead of £2,000. Does that mean that that dictionary will be completed in three years’ time? I heard two teachers discuss the dictionary the other day. The one asked the other when we were likely to get the dictionary, and the answer was, “We shall get it when the moon turns to green cheese.” It really looks as if we shall have to wait for ever. We have been patiently waiting for many years and we should like the Minister to tell us how much longer we shall have to wait.

I don’t want to add anything to what has already been said about the University of Pretoria. I only want hon. members to remember this, that we are dealing here with a national need, and when we are in a state of national need the Minister ought to change his ordinary course somewhat. The fact is that we have a shortage of medical doctors today and that the universities are actually turning away medical students. The result must be that the public as a whole are going to suffer. We are dealing here with a national emergency and in such circumstances the Minister must go out of his way and he should not wait until a lead is given by the universities. It is the Minister who should give the lead and he should tell them that a medical faculty is wanted and that it must be established. Now in regard to the turning away of students from the medical faculty, here and also in Johannesburg, I want to ask whether the Minister has made any enquiries into the position? How many of those people are non-Europeans and how many of the aspirant students who have been turned away are Jews and how many are Christians?

That is difficult to say.

I want to know whether it true that not one coloured person and not one Jew has been turned away.

But I have put the list of names on the table.

I have not seen it, but we have been told that only people coming from the platteland have been turned away.

No, that is not so.

That is what is being said. We feel that an injustice is being done and that the platteland is being discriminated against, and the Minister should prevent that sort of thing.

May I just reply to that point? The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) put a question to me on the 13th March on the subject of the admission of medical students in Cape Town. I replied to that question and I also laid on the Table of the House a list of the names of those who were turned down. The number that was turned down was 69 so far as the University of Cape Town is concerned. Of those there were 18 students who had been struggling for two years at the University to pass their first year’s exam. The University said: “We have done enough for you, and we cannot give you another chance for a third year.” I think the University was correct in taking up that attitude. Then 51 newcomers were refused, and I laid the list of their names on the Table. I cannot analyse that list. So far as one can see, it appears that one-third of the students on that list are Afrikaans speaking, about onethird have Jewish names, and perhaps two or three are coloured. But one cannot say anything definite just from the names. So far as the Witwatersrand University is concerned, I believe that about ten or eleven non-Europeans were turned down among the total number that were turned down, and they were told that there was provision for them at the native college at Fort Hare and that they could go there. I do not think, therefore, that there is any reason to assume there has been any improper discrimination in regard to the refusal of students. The hon. member can scrutinise the list if he wants to, and I think that will convince him.

I want to associate myself with those hon. members who have been urging the establishment of a medical faculty in Pretoria, and I am glad to notice the attitude adopted by the Minister and his willingness to help. There is a great need for such a faculty, and I hope it will soon be achieved. May I just ask the Minister what the policy is in regard to trade, commercial and domestic science schools? Are any new institutions of that kind being put up? As the Minister knows, we in the Northern Transvaal have been agitating for a long time for such an institution, and I should like to know whether any further institutions of that kind are being established at the moment?

I wish very briefly, indeed, to express our outlook and to address a word of pleading to the Minister with regard to Section J, “Grants and Bursaries to Students, £19,900”. We object to the bursary as such. The element of charity that is therein contained is very objectionable, indeed, to the party I represent; the very word “bursary” suggests that this is an amount taken out of someone else’s purse and handed over as largess to the recipient. I dislike that element of patronage, and propose to show how it can be obviated. Secondly, the bursary system is fundamentally unfair, because the standard upon which a bursary can be gained of necessity varies from year to year. If you come up against a brilliant group of students you may, for example, have to get 90 per cent. on your papers to qualify for one of the bursaries, whereas if you happen to be in a lucky year and 75 per cent. is the top limit, you can win without trying. Obviously the result must be that the better student is sometimes excluded, and the worse included, merely as a matter of time and not ability at all. The bursary system, moreover, lends support to the too-prevalent tendency to give a small section of people privileges at the direct and personal expense of the great mass of the nation. All must pay taxes, but only some favoured ones shall enjoy the fruits thereof. And I suggest that the time has come when everyone who is capable of proceeding with a course of study at a university should be allowed so to do, that there should be a test—not merely a test of intellect, but a test of all-round ability and of character—and all who can satisfy these requirements shall thereby become entitled to take courses for a degree. I don’t care what form it actually takes, or how difficult the test is made, but that test should be open to all, and once passed the university should be open to all. That is my point. And I suggest it could be done without any beyond temporary advance by the State, because I certainly would support the idea that this grant should be repaid by the man who is thus for the moment helped, after his degree has been taken, and he is in receipt of the higher salary which that better qualification would win for him. I suggest to the Minister that the time has come when, instead of giving a sort of academic charity to a few, more or less on the catch-as-catch-can system, that it be made possible for every suitable person to go to a university, and that each of these persons should afterwards repay what he has received from the State.

I want to say a few words about the procedure which is being followed in regard to the turning down of students at the Cape Town University. After all, it is a fact that these young people were allowed to come to Cape Town and to register, but a few days later they were notified that their registration could unfortunately not be confirmed to students in the medical faculty of the Cape Town University owing to lack of accommodation. When they were notified to that effect they were told that the provisional registration had therefore been cancelled and they were asked to return their registration cards. It is very unfair to young fellows who, for instance, have to come from the Eastern Province to Cape Town to be registered here, to be suddenly informed that they cannot be accommodated.

They had only been registered provisionally.

But they were not told anything before. I can mention the case of a young fellow who was also turned away. He did not have a chance to do anything else, so he looked about Cape Town to find work and the first question put to him was: “Are you medically unfit to join the army?” That unfortunately is the position one has to contend with. A grave injustice is done to the young fellows from the platteland in comparison with the young fellows from Cape Town living near the university. Those young fellows come long distances and incur considerable expense and then they are to be told afterwards that they cannot be accommodated.

I should like to have a little information. On page 58 I see an item “Exchange of Scholars between South Africa and the Netherlands, £100.” I should like to know whether that only refers to travelling expenses, and then I also want to know whether the exchange is confined to South Africa and Holland, or is there a similar arrangement with other countries in Europe? Is it only in regard to visits that are paid and will a larger amount be available in future for that purpose? I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) said. I am also beginning to think that I shall not live to see the publication of the Afrikaans dictionary. It is interesting to note that the ordinary amount voted every year has been reduced this year to £1,500. We are not annoyed at the reduction, but what is the reason for it? Then there is something else I would like to know, and that is in regard to F. and G., also on page 58. We have two votes there, the one reading “State Aided Schools” and the other “State Aided Special Schools.” The amount for the first item is £11,000 and for the second £50,869. Will the Minister please give us a little information about that?

Year after year I have been drawing attention to the fact that the vote “Union Education” provides funds for universities and technical colleges which, with a few exceptions, are all situated in the large towns. I have pointed out that it is extremely important that the platteland should get its rightful share, and that proper provision should be made, not on a small scale, but on a large scale, so that the benefits connected with technical colleges and universities should be made available to an equal extent, in accordance with the numbers of population of all parts of the country. That has never been done yet and no steps have been taken to improve the position. Now, on the contrary we find that an even greater injustice is being done, namely, in regard to admission to the universities where those living in the large centres are given preference. I should like the Minister to tell us whether the universities have the right to give preference to those living in the neighbourhood of the University of Cape Town or Johannesburg, say, within the municipal area, because of the fact that Cape Town, for instance, makes a grant to the university. I cannot see any injustice or fair play in that. The amount which Cape Town grants the university is about £6,000. If we only take the medical faculty then that part of the £6,000 relating to medical students is at the utmost one quarter of the £6,000, or £1,500. That, then, is the amount which the Cape Town Municipality gives the university for the medical faculty. The amount which we are asked to vote for the Cape Town University is one hundred times as much as that. With what right can the Cape Town University say that they are going to give preference to those who live close to Cape Town. That is an injustice. It goes still further in the direction of the neglect of the interest of the platteland. It strengthens our protest that the necessary provision is not made for those who live farther away. There are other authorities in South Africa which have a somewhat more South African outlook and who say that the platteland should also be given benefits and that the platteland must also be catered for. It has been proposed in the Transvaal in connection with a new scheme for medical services for the population. There they go so far as to say that they will try to provide bursaries for those who want to study medicine. I am mentioning that as an example. There they have an authority who very much better realise the difficulties with which the people of the platteland have to contend, and it is suggested there that special provision should be made for the training of young people from the platteland. The medical course has become the most expensive of all the courses which can be taken at the university. If one wants to study medicine today one requires not less than £1,000. When I speak of £1,000 I only want to point out that for the natives who study medicine in Johannesburg it is no longer £900, but £1,200 which must be set aside for the six years’ course. I am therefore entitled to say that we must calculate the expense at £1,000. That is what it costs students who do not live near the university, who must pay board all the year round, and also have to pay high class fees. It is clear to me that unless we take a real interest in this matter and induce the Government itself to take an interest, too, we shall get no further. One feels it is futile to come to the Government with representations about university training. You feel you are up against a stone wall; you are not dealing with flesh and blood; you can get no further. No, instead of making progress, the platteland feels that its difficulty in regard to university education has become worse than ever. I want to make a serious appeal to the Government—and this is not the first time I have done so—this is the third or fourth time; I want them to realise the great difficulties of the platteland. I have before today drawn attention to what it costs people from the platteland to attend technical colleges. The training there is only a short one for a vocation, but to some young fellows it provides a future, and at those colleges they can qualify for some calling. I feel therefore that the time has now arrived for definite steps to be taken to provide benefits for the platteland, too, in accordance with population figures, by means of bursaries and loans, or in some other way, so that the children from the platteland can also have the benefits of the training which is given at our technical colleges and at our universities. I don’t want to sit down without saying that I realise the necessity of imposing certain restrictions for admission to our medical schools, because I was one of the signatories to a report which a few years ago already clearly stated that the number of people trained should be limited to the number who could be provided for in the laboratories and clinics connected with the universities. There must be certain restrictions. But to that I want to add this, that it is essential to have an adequate number of young fellows trained. It is highly essential that a third faculty of medicine should be established in Pretoria. The need to-day is even greater than a year ago, when that commission’s report was issued, because this year the universities which have medical faculties are obliged to turn away many students, especially from the platteland. Let us enquire into the actual number of medical men required because we know from information at our disposal that large numbers are needed, more than are being trained at the moment.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Education to a reply he gave to a question about the admission of aspirant students to our universities. I feel that the policy laid down by the Minister in his reply is quite wrong —I mean the reply in which he gave us to understand that if he did give any answer to a question dealing with the university he was making something in the nature of a concession, and it seems as if the Registrar or the Principal of a university, if he supplies us with any information, is conferring a favour on us, but if we look at the fact that we have to vote £100,000 for an institution like the Cape Town University, then we are entitled to know what the position is and how many, and what kind of students, are trained every year. The Minister’s reply to a question by the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) on the 13th March was—

I consider that we, as members of Parliament, have the right to know everything that goes on in any of the institutions for which we vote money. I consider that the attitude adopted by the universities is too conceited altogether because they have to be subsidised by the State, and we have to vote £100,000 for the Cape Town University, yet if we want some information we have to get it as a favour. In regard to the adminission of medical students to the Cape Town University I just want to say this. Sixty-nine students who wanted to join the medical faculty were turned away this year. Most of those were first year students, and there was discrimination against the platteland. Platteland students in the matriculation examination have to obtain an average of 52 marks before they are admitted as students, but students who live in the neighbourhood of Cape Town only have to have 40 per cent. to be admitted. I even hear that in Cape Town itself students have been admitted to the medical faculty who did not pass in all their subjects in the matric examination in December; students who had to write a supplementary examination in February: yet they were admitted to the university after having passed in February, but the young fellow from the platteland has to get 52 marks in his matric before he can be admitted I am pleased to notice from the Minister’s reply that there has been no racial discrimination, but there is discrimination against the platteland. There already is a shortage of doctors on the platteland, but the students who have to come from the platteland to study here are refused. I hope the Minister will seriously consider this matter and will make representations to the University Council and tell them that if they have not got sufficient accommodation at the university to admit everybody, then at any rate the standard of admission must be the same for everybody throughout the country, so that there is no discrimination. We cannot allow conditions to continue as they are today. Mr. Carter made a statement to one of the papers in which he pointed out that they had to turn away students. He said they could go to other university colleges for the first year’s training and that they could come to Cape Town after that. What guarantee is there that they will be admitted if they come here for their second year? He was asked whether their policy was not going to result in a greater shortage of medical men on the platteland in a few years’ time, and the reply was that the attitude adopted by the university this year need not, ipso facto, also be their policy for future years. We feel that this is the thin edge of the wedge. Discrimination is indulged in this year and next year there will be discrimination in regard to the second year, and so it will continue until eventually the position will be that platteland students, unless they are specially gifted, will not be admitted to the medical faculty of the two universities. That is why we are urging all the more strongly for the establishment of an Afrikaans medical faculty to be attached to the Pretoria University. I feel the position was very clearly put by Mr. Carter, and I do not think we can take it for granted that this year’s refusal of students for admission will not happen again next year. Then there are other cases too. I understand— and I shall be pleased to hear whether my information is correct—that people have been admitted to the University of Cape Town, to the medical faculty, who have not got Union nationality, who are children of foreigners. I should like the Minister to tell us whether that is the case. If discrimination has to be exercised in future, that discrimination should be of such a character that preference is given to the children of South Africa, to Union nationals. The universities have been established with our own people’s money, and at those universities our own people should receive preference over foreigners. I also want to ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to have boarding bursaries instituted at the universities. We who represent platteland constituencies are from time to time asked to assist in regard to applications by students who want to come here and one of the great difficulties is that they cannot find the money to afford a six years’ course, especially because of the high boarding and lodging fees. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot do something to meet such cases by providing boarding and lodging bursaries for students from the platteland until such time as the University of Pretoria gets its medical faculty where students can be trained—I ask him to have provision made for those students for the time when they are compelled to come here from those distant parts, and if he cannot do so himself then I hope he will ask the university to do so. Now I want to put a few more questions to the Minister in regard to the dictionary. A Professor Smith started about 1926 with the dictionary of the Nasionale Pers, and at that time a circular was sent out by the Press to get the co-operation of people from outside, and after that it was announced that they hoped that the dictionary would make its appearance in two or three years’ time. Subsequently, Professor Smith was appointed by the Government to complete the dictionary at the Stellenbosch University. I understand that the university pays his full salary and that he does not give any lectures. I do not know whether the university receives any Government support for this.

Yes, it appears on the Vote.

Now that means that a start was made in 1926. It is now 1942 and there is no indication whatsoever yet as to how far the dictionary has progressed. I have been told that Professor Smith is doing his work with only one permanent assistant and that there are other people assisting him with technical terms. Other large dictionaries are usually compiled with the aid of a large staff under the direction of experts. Professor Smith is working practically on his own, so I wonder how he will ever get the dictionary completed. I also understand that he wants to issue the dictionary in the form of Van Dale. [Time limit.]

I also want to put a question to the Minister. I notice here on page 75 that there are certain grants to colleges, and I notice that the Free State is the only province where a reduction has been introduced. The grant to the Free State is being reduced by £2,000 this year as compared with last year. I think it is very unfair that the Free State should be fobbed off in this way.

This is a special grant which they got in the past.

Then why could that special grant not be continued with? I also want to associate myself with the hon. member for Gordonia in his request that the Minister consider the question of providing boarding bursaries for students. One’s most gifted people are to be found among the poor, people who are not able to continue their education beyond standard VI in many intances, and then they are simply left to their own devices. We find our best talents and our best characters among those people. I want to ask the Minister seriously to consider the question of providing for the needs of that section of our people who are labouring under those difficulties today.

I just want to make an appeal to the hon. minister. Quite a few years ago he promised me in this House that the first industrial trade school to be built in the future, would be built in the North-Western parts, and that he would pay a visit to that area of mine at the Orange River. As I told him at the time, there are a large number of children, I think approximately 800, who leave school at the sixth standard. There are many poor children who deserve assistance. Now one finds that some of those children go to high schools, but the others have to leave school at standard VI. And it practically amounts to this, that those children are placed in the position that they will have no good prospects in the future, not unless we do something for them. They are really poor children, and there are many deserving cases amongst them. I want to tell the hon. minister that if ever there were deserving cases where children should be helped, then it is in the case of these children. As has already been said, there are many talented children amongst the poor people, but unfortunately, circumstances do not permit of their receiving further education and qualifying themselves for the future. Those children cannot remain with their parents for longer than a certain period, because after a certain period the children have to leave home in order to work somewhere else. The child cannot equip himself for the future. I know that the hon. minister is sympathetic towards that type of child. He promised me at the time that he would try to find time to go to those parts. Unfortunately, as we know, his time is fully taken up and he could not go; but he told me at the time that if he could not go, he would ask the then Secretary for Education to go. I am very sorry to say that the previous Secretary for Education, as well as his successor, have not yet gone there, and I hope that a special effort will now be made by the Education Department of the Union Government to send someone there so that he can personally judge what the position is. It is a pity that those children are treated in this way. If they were helped, they would be an asset to the State in the future, but if you do not enable them to qualify themselves for their future life, they will be placed in this position that in the future they will barely be able to make a living. The Minister made this promise at the time, that the first industrial trade school or domestic school which is built will be built in that area. I suggest that there should be a school which gives instruction in both spheres, industrial as well as domestic. The girl students there are in the same position. There are many openings where they could be absorbed in the future if they could get proper training. The industrial schools are established in large centres, and there they receive certain privileges. I just want to remind the hon. Minister that these children cannot remain under the supervision of their parents; at some time or other they make application to go to Worcester or other places, where there are schools of the same kind, and then one finds that they are not in a position to go there because they have not the money. Many of these children, after having passed standard VI, are still very young, and one cannot send them away from their parents, and it is therefore essential that they be given an opportunity to complete their education at home and that they be assisted in this respect. At the Orange River there are a large number of children in a small area, and one cannot find a better place for the establishment of such a school than at the Orange River. I particularly want to plead with the Minister today to do something in order to come to the assistance of those children. If they are not assisted now they will be lost in the future, and then their careers will also be at an end. The Minister might say that there is a shortage of money; I admit that. But it is no use letting that child become lost to the State; he ought to be assisted. I agree with the hon. member for Graaff Reinet (Dr. Bremer) that these schools are in many cases established in more privileged centres, and that something ought to be done in order to lend assistance to the distant parts. When I compare the school facilities in the constituency of that hon. member with those in my constituency, I must say that the people in my constituency are not only being sadly neglected, but they are altogether overlooked. I hope the hon. Minister will again give me the assurance today that he will visit that area in order personally to make investigations, and to convince himself of the necessity for such a trade school. I make a special appeal to him because I know that he has a soft place in his heart for the poor child. I want to ask him to see to it that the poor children are given a chance to develop their talents. We should not only take care of the rich man’s child. I want to give the Minister the assurance that if he establishes that school, and if he helps these children, he will do a great deal towards ensuring a proper living for them in the future. I should like him to visit the place personally, if he can possibly do so, and to convince himself of the necessity for the establishment of such a school. If one does not give these children an opportunity they will become lost, not only from their own point of view, but they will also become lost as an asset to the State. We should like to enable poor children in this country to receive education of such a nature that in the future they will be able to take care of themselves. I hope the hon. Minister will fulfil his promise and personally visit the place, or otherwise send a representative there. I want to give him the assurance that if he goes there I shall personally accompany him, if only he lets me know when he will come. I should like him to pay a personal visit in order to convince himself of the desirability of such a school.

I would like to say a little more in connection with the compilation of the dictionary. From time to time enquiries were made in the Public Accounts Committee which was appointed by this House as to what progress had been made with this book. We practically do not know what the position is. Now I want to ask the hon. Minister whether the time has not arrived for him to put that report on the Table of the House. At the time that committee also recommended that an amount of £2,000 should be made available for five years for the compilation of that dictionary. I understand that five years will have elapsed next year. Now I would like to know from the hon. Minister what he is going to do when the five years have elapsed. Is he again going to make available an amount of £2,000 for a period of five years, or 100 years? It is a matter of very great importance to the Afrikaner cause that the dictionary should be completed. Then I want to point this out, too, that the spelling rules of Professor Smith clashed with the spelling rules of the academy. He did not want to accept the spelling rules of the academy. Now, however, he accepts them and he is going to allow two forms in his dictionary, i.e. the academy form and his own spelling. At the beginning there were a whole number of organisations, educational institutions, etc., which followed his spelling, but after a short while they abandoned the spelling. His own university decided last year not to use his spelling any longer, and I understand that there is a local newspaper for which he writes, and that even that newspaper no longer follows his spelling. What is the position going to be when the dictionary is published one day? Are you going to have a dictionary with two forms of spelling, one of which is altogether obsolete? I want to ask that the hon. Minister should give his attention to this matter. I think that the day has arrived, especially since the period of five years has nearly elapsed, for the Minister to enter into an altogether new contract, and to get literary experts to complete the dictionary, because if things go on in this way, it will not be finished within the next 40 or 50 years. Then I would also like the hon. Minister to tell us today, if he can, how far the dictionary has really progressed, whether sections of it are ready to go to the press, and whether it will not be possible to complete the dictionary within two or three years and to publish it? The amendments which are then made as a result of the growth of the Afrikaans language, can be published in a supplementary edition. Then there is another matter which we should like to touch upon. We find today that the minister of the Groote Kerk in Cape Town cannot serve on the University Council.

I have nothing to do with that matter.

You could appoint the minister of the Groote Kerk on that Council as one of the nominees of the Government. The Minister of the Groote Kerk was a professor in Nederlands at the university for a long time, and after the death of Dr. J. P. van Heerden they tried to have him appointed. We would like to see the first minister of the Groote Kerk appointed to that Council. The church does a great deal for education in this Province. The Church Council of Cape Town does a very great deal in the sphere of education. It makes bursaries available, and then we find that the minister of the Groote Kerk cannot be appointed to that Council. We know that the Minister of Education cannot help it if the Minister falls out an election, but we hope that on the next occasion the minister will bear in mind these facts which I have mentioned.

I do not intend speaking about the medical faculty at the Pretoria University again. I have already dealt with that. Nor do I intend saying much about the question of refusing admittance to the students at the University of Cape Town. That question, too, I have already dealt with, and unfortunately the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) was not here when I spoke about it previously. The hon. member asked whether the university had the right to give preference to certain students. I said very clearly to the authorities of the university that I thought that the question of denying matriculated students admittance to the university was a legal question; and I expressed the opinion that if they denied anyone admittance on adequate grounds, for example, on the ground that there is no accommodation, that then there should be no discrimination in connection with the exercise of that discretion.

What do you mean “no discrimination”?

I am talking generally.

Do you mean on racial grounds?

No, there is no discrimination with regard to race.

But the position today is that our people are refused admittance, while Rhodesians are allowed. We are paying for the university, but the Rhodesians are admitted, and our people are denied admittance.

As I have already said, that is really a legal question, and the universities will possibly have to justify their attitudes before the courts. I cannot go any further.

Is there no discrimination with regard to the standard attained by students?

I have already expressed my opinion that there should be no discrimination, and eventually the universities will perhaps have to satisfy the court on that point. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) advocated the appointment to the University Council of the minister of the Groote Kerk. The position is that I personally only appoint five of those members. With regard to Dr. Van der Merwe, I am quite prepared to consider his name in conjunction with the names of others. He himself was a student of mine, and for that reason he ought to be a good man. But I do not lightly want to debar a person who rendered good services from nomination in order to make room for someone else. I remember that that happened in connection with another policy during the term of office of my predecessor, the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan), and even today there is still trouble as a result of it. This question is something with regard to which one has to be extremely careful. I am quite prepared to consider that suggestion on the part of the hon. member, but I am not prepared to promise that anyone else should be removed in order to make room for the person referred to. A great deal has been said about the question of the Afrikaans dictionary. Here we go back to the days when the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) was Minister of Education. These contracts were made during his term of office. They extend over a long period of years. To deal with the last point, which my hon. friend made, according to those contracts the Minister has no say in regard to the spelling. That is clear. I am one of those who is of opinion that the spelling question will adjust itself in the course of years. I think that it will not help to say much about it now. It will not be of much use unnecessarily to press that question now. In the course of years, it will adjust itself automatically. With regard to the completion of the dictionary itself, I agree with my hon. friends, and I personally would like to have seen the dictionary completed long ago. But hon. members must remember that it is a huge task, and it is being done thoroughly.

Give us the report so that we can see what progress has been made in the matter.

Four years ago I appointed a committee specially to go into that question. The committee then recommended that we should again give special assistance to the University of Stellenbosch, especially in connection with technical words; and their recommendation was the expenditure of £2,000 for a period of five years. I also want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that during the past few years the University of Stellenbosch did not find it possible to spend the full £2,000, and for that reason we are now reducing it to £1,500. But the money is available in the event of their requiring it. As a result of the recommendation of the committee, we appointed a permanent committee consisting of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer), the Chancellor of the University, I think the Rector of the University, and at that time the President of the Senate was also a member of it. I think that Professor M. C. Botha has now been appointed in his place. I asked the committee to go into the question of the completion of the dictionary, and I am now awaiting that report. In any event, the period in respect of which we gave the special allowance is now nearing completion, and we shall then have an opportunity to go into the whole question again. But I think my hon. friends must not lose sight of the fact that this is a big task.

Why should one person do it, then?

With the very object of enabling him to call in assistance, we made available this £2,000 per annum. We are negotiating with the University of Stellenbosch, and they are, of course, as anxious as hon. members to have the work completed. They are paying the salary of Professor Smith, and not we, and they would therefore like to see the dictionary completed as soon as possible.

But they cannot hurry him.

They are doing their best; but it is a huge task, and my hon. friends must not underestimate the work connected with the compilation of the dictionary.

But Professor Smith does other work, too, does he not?

No, he wears through the seat of his trousers.

No, he does nothing else.

He goes to Rhodesia to conduct examinations there.

He went on one occasion on behalf of the Matriculation Board, but my hon. friends must remember that anyone can take a little leave now and then, anyone excepting a Minister of the State! The university would naturally not have allowed him to leave his work for a long period. They are paying his salary, and in that way we have adequate control. They are paying his salary and not we. We have again brought the matter to the notice of the university, and I hope my hon. friends will await the result of it. The hon. member for Potgietersrust (Rev. S. W. Naudé) asked whether we were going to establish more domestic schools. At the moment, we are not establishing any more. We have done so latterly, and the new schools are not altogether filled, and for that reason we are not going to establish any more at this stage. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) said that I promised that the first trade school to be established would be in the North-Western parts. I cannot remember having made such a promise, and I should like the hon. member to show me where I said that. What I did say was that I regarded that part of our country as one of the areas for which provision would have to be made when we were in a position to do so. The question of university bursaries has also been touched upon. It is not our policy to grant bursaries to the universities. The greater majority of the universities have their own bursaries and loan funds, if not all of them. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet spoke of technical instruction in the platteland. Now I want to tell him this. In the first place the technical colleges are now extending to the platteland. Recently a branch was established at Worcester; there are branches at Witbank and Klerksdorp and other places. Furthermore, we have departmental trade schools in the platteland. The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo) spoke about the exchange of scholars between South Africa and the Netherlands. That was done by virtue of an arrangement entered into between our Government and the Government of the Netherlands, whereby they were to send scholars to us annually and we to them. At the moment the whole scheme has, of course, fallen through, but we have a nominal amount on the estimates in order to show that insofar as we are concerned the scheme will be revived again. The hon. member also asked what the position is in connection with items F and G. Item F concerns certain institutions which are subsidised by the State. They are trade schools, such as those at Langlaagte and also the Salesian Institute. Special schools such as those for blind and deaf and dumb people and epileptics, fall under G.

I hope the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) will realise that what the Minister said here today about the dictionary was correct, and I hope he is not going to assist on an enquiry being made which may cause trouble in connection with this matter. I can assure him that the Stellenbosch University very definitely keeps its eye on the progress that is being made with the dictionary and reports are made from time to time to the University Council about the progress that is being made. The hon. member will recollect that there are special difficulties in connection with the compilation of an Afrikaans dictionary. When the compilation of dictionaries such as the Oxford Dictionary, and the great Hollands Dictionary, the subject had already been pretty thoroughly studied and there were other dictionaries in existence which could be used. Here we are dealing with a new language, with a language which to a large extent is still in being, and that fact involves many difficulties being experienced in regard to the compilation of the dictionary, difficulties which were not experienced in those other cases. In regard to the assistance which is being given to Professor Smith I can give hon. members the assurance that the person who is assisting him is very competent. It is difficult to get people to do this class of work. One cannot take just any trained person simply because he has academic qualifications for that type of work. It is specialised work and we require people with special qualifications. Let the hon. member just take one word and try to get a definition of that word, and he will very quickly realise the difficulties he will get into. The question of getting somebody suitable to assist Professor Smith has been considered for a long time, with the idea that that person would undertake the work when Professor Smith would no longer be able to do it himself. We don’t want a second rate dictionary. A second rate dictionary can be completed in two years. We want a proper dictionary worthy of Afrikaans, a dictionary which for Afrikaans will be what the Oxford Dictionary, or Webster’s dictionary is for the English language, and the great Hollands Dictionary for Hollands. We can only achieve that object if we do not hurry those people and let them carry on and have ample time at their disposal. The complaint that Professor Smith went to Rhodesia to assist in certain examinations is not a complaint at all. The University knows that he does not simply work during office hours, but that he and his staff work during office hours and almost every night as well. If they had to be paid overtime the expense would be much greater than it has been so far. In regard to the admission of medical students to the universities the minister has given an explanation, and he has given us a list in reply to a question. I assume it is perfectly correct that we cannot judge from the list, or say by looking at the list, that there has been discrimination against any particular section in the Union. The Minister says he has given instructions to the universities that there is not to be any discrimination. That is what he feels about the matter. He is quite correct in saying that there is to be no discrimination against the young men and young women of the Union of South Africa, but there should definitely be discrimination in this case against people who come from beyond the boundaries of the Union. We have this position, that the Cape Town University like our other universities, are assisted to a large extent by public funds emanating from the taxpayers of the Union of South Africa. They are our institutions, and we pay for them. We have established them and we now have this position, that the sons and daughters of taxpayers of the Union of South Africa, of citizens of South Africa, are refused admission to the University, while foreigners, people coming from other countries, are admitted. I have no objection to students coming to our universities from other parts of the world. I welcome it, it is a very good thing, but when we arrive at a stage when we have to put restrictions on the numbers of our own students because our Medical Faculties are overloaded, and our own students are turned away, then T say it is no more than right that our own students should receive preference, because it is our university and we pay for it. If we do not do that we commit an injustice to those sons and daughters of South Africa who cannot be trained as doctors while we are busy training foreigners from other countries. That is our complaint, and where the Minister says that there is to be no discrimination I am prepared to support him in that so far as Union citizens are concerned, but where restrictions have to be applied discrimination must definitely be exercised against those young people who come from outside the Union, whose parents do not contribute to the funds which the taxpayers of the Union have to provide to keep those universities going, people who have had no hand in the establishment of those universities.

I want to say only a few words about the dictionary. I think it is time we realised that the study of words, irrespective of the immediate issue of the dictionary, is such an important matter for the Afrikaans language that we should not hesitate when we find that it is practically a permanent institution, and will continue to be so. I think that an amount of £2,000 per year —that is more or less what the Government is now providing—is not too much for such a service. I think it will only be provided for another year or two.

The arrangement was for five years.

The time will be up next year. There is a feeling of indignation outside, that it is taking so long and costing so much money, but £2,000 per year is only a very small amount to put down for this particular study, and that only for a few years, while it should be a permanent service. That is only the expense of one professor’s chair, and as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has explained, where we are dealing with a language which is in being, it should be a permanent institution. I feel that the criticism which is being indulged in has this in mind, that those people want a dictionary of comparatively small size which will be of practical value for all sections of the community. They feel that there is a great gap because the dictionaries which have already been published by private individuals are too concise, or otherwise have not got the authority which they would have if they came from the source which is now employed on the compilation of the big dictionary. I think those people should realise that an amount of £2,000 per year is wanted for a life-time for the completion of such a labour. It should not be a question of providing the money. The question is whether within the framework of the investigation which is now being made another organisation should not perhaps be established to issue a preliminary dictionary of a smaller size than what the big dictionary will be.

That is a matter for your Committee to go into.

Perhaps we should give advice in that case. I only want to point out that £2,000 is not a very large amount for such an important work. Because of the fact that the language is still in being, we not only have a very difficult task to perform here, but important research work is necessitated by an undertaking of this kind. I hope we shall get both dictionaries. We want a permanent institution, and also a dictionary of a moderate size, which the people will be able to use.

I also wish to say a few words about the dictionary. Not one of us will not be pleased to have a comprehensive dictionary for Afrikaans, but the Minister has given us a wrong impression in regard to Professor Smith’s work. He did not intend doing so, but his information is wrong. This dictionary was started in 1926; it is not a question of it having been started only a few months ago. At the time it was started people who had taken a prominent part in language questions were willing to help Professor Smith, but Professor Smith refused. He gave the people the impression that he would finish his work within three years, and now we have already reached the year 1943—a good deal more than three years since 1926—and not only have we not got the dictionary yet, but we have no idea when the dictionary will be completed. Now, to come forward with the excuse that the Afrikaans language is still changing, and that the dictionary for that reason cannot be completed is no excuse at all, because if we have to accept that excuse we shall never in all eternity get a dictionary, Every language is continually changing; even a language like English is continually changing, and the argument is not used about English that no dictionary can be published because of changes that take place. I want to tell the people who are members of that Committee that there is one way in which the work can be greatly curtailed. The academy has given us a lead in regard to literary matters, and there are people in the academy who are nervous of the way the work is being done. Even at Stellenbosch there is an impression that Professor Smith is not working as fast as possible. We do not want him to do any work that is not thorough, but why did he create the impression in the public mind that he would finish his work in three years when he has not even completed his labours yet? In this connection I want to quote a question which I put to the Minister on the 27th February. My question was as follows—

The Minister of Education replied to this—

Now I want to put this question to the Minister as a man of common sense: If all the universities, if all the schools, if this Parliament and the newspapers only use the Academy spelling, why is it necessary then for Professor Smith to carry on with that spelling which even he himself did not use and which only bears his name. I do not think he himself uses it. It would save a lot of time if he simply followed the Academy spelling. We are anxious to have an Afrikaans dictionary which will be as thorough as possible, but we also want it as soon as possible, and I want to appeal to Professor Smith to abandon that spelling which nobody uses and which nobody will use. If that dictionary uses that spelling which nobody else in the country uses, or will use, the only result will be that that dictionary will cause confusion and that they will have to get another dictionary to remove that confusion. If that happens then this dictionary is not going to be a good thing at all, but it will do a lot of harm to Afrikaans. Now I want to discuss another matter on which a lot has already been said, namely, the medical faculty of the Cape Town University. I don’t want to raise the same points again which have been discussed, but I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it is not only newcomers who have been turned away, as he gave us to understand.

I did not say that.

What happened was this: Some of these young fellows come from a long distance. They were accepted as students; some of them came from the North, from the Transvaal and the Free State, and they were actually here when they were notified that they could not take the course. On the other hand we find that people from outside the Union are admitted. In that connection I can speak from personal knowledge, for instance, of an institution like Guy’s Hospital, where they keep a certain number of vacancies for the British Isles only. If one makes application from South Africa for admission to the medical faculty and if they are unable to admit one and one goes to the Rector and tells him that there are so many vacant places left he says: “Yes, that is so, but those places are kept for the British Isles.” We do not blame them for that, it is their duty to provide for the British Isles, but what do we find here in South Africa now? Here we find that our universities exclude our own students, and then take in students from surrounding areas, students who come from outside. I believe that the Minister as a fair minded person will agree with us that that sort of thing is most unjust. I ask the Minister, as Minister of Education, particularly to pay attention to this matter. He will agree that it is a reasonable request on our part that in those circumstances preference should be given to our own students from South Africa. I admit that according to the list of names we are unable to say whether there has been any discrimination against Afrikaans or English speaking people, but I want to ask the Minister to answer this question. Will he tell us how many students have been admitted from Cape Town and the surroundings of Cape Town, and how many students come from the platteland? We would be surprised at the relative numbers from Cape Town and surroundings and the platteland. I am not talking now of the people who have been turned away. A definite preference has been given to students from the Cape Peninsula—preference has even been given to students who have failed in one subject and who have had to write a supplementary examination, while students from the platteland who have been at the university for a year already, who have already taken those subjects for a year, have been practically removed from the universities. On the other hand, students who have not even passed their matric have been allowed to come in. The Minister will realise that if a student devotes himself to certain subjects and he is thrown out it is very difficult for him to find employment. I want to ask the Minister as Minister of Education to see to it that those students, especially the children of parents from the platteland who have incurred heavy expenses to get their children to the universities, will not be turned away, and that they will be admitted. The Minister said that he had nothing more to say about this matter. In spite of that I want to make an appeal to him, because it is such an important matter that he should not leave it to a discussion in this House. What is the use, if we bring matters to the notice of the Minister here—and knowing the Minister as we do I am sure he will be sympathetically disposed to what we are saying here—and if the Minister simply takes up the attitude that the matter has been discussed and that nothing can be done about it? If ever a matter has been discussed on its merits in this House it is this matter. I have personally tried to leave points and matters which I am conversant with in regard to this question, and which we have to approve of, out of the discussion, because I wanted the Minister to go into the merits of the case. The Minister is the only person who can help us in regard to this matter, and we are making an appeal to him as Minister of Education in the Union to see to it that an injustice is not done to the students of South Africa.

I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) has said. The Minister’s attitude is that these students have been turned away because of lack of accommodation, and that it has nothing to do with the Government’s policy. The Minister further has the promise from the head of that institution that there will be no discrimination. I want to ask the Minister whether Mr. Carter, who gave an interview to the newspapers and who said that the platteland students have to obtain a minimum of 52 per cent. in their matric in order to be admitted to the university, while students from the Cape Town area can have 40 per cent. in their matric—I want to ask him whether that is evidence of the promise that there will be no discrimination?

I did not say that they promised that; I said that my view was that there should be no discrimination.

Then I want to ask the Minister whether he regards that as discrimination?

I cannot answer that, because that really is a legal question.

I look upon it as discrimination. Our experience of the Minister is that he is a man with a sense of justice, and I want to point out to him that it is not merely his duty to tell the Universities that he does not want to see discrimination, but that it is also his duty to step in and to see that there is no (discrimination. In that respect an injustice is being done to the child from the platteland. The Minister now says that this step has nothing to do with the war policy, and that it is merely a question of lack of accommodation. How did it all start? We saw that Col. Werdmuller stated in certain Witwatersrand newspapers that they considered it a disgrace that there were young students at the university, while their comrades and friends were shedding their blood for South Africa. After that we found that Mr. Raikes, the Rector of the Witwatersrand University, in his opening speech, said that the students who stopped behind should work twice as hard, or realise that honour and duty call on them to go up North. We find that some of the students at the Witwatersrand University who had to work there … at least, we find that one of them made a statement in “Die Transvaler” that after he had been two weeks at the Cape Town University he was asked to sign a document to the effect that he would join one of the Home Front Movements. When he said he would not do so, he was told that they could not admit him. One does not like bringing in personal questions.

Give we the details of that particular case.

I shall give the Minister the details privately, but I do want to mention the name of one man at the University of Cape Town. A certain Mr. Pugh, chief of the chemical division, privately told students who had already been studying for two years that they could still attend their courses this year, but that if the war went on they would not be able to continue their studies next year. He put the matter very elastically. He did not tell them direct that they had to go and fight, but if a student is told in the middle of his course that he can only remain until the end of the year, and that he cannot come back next year, when he has to finish his studies, then we know what it means. The Minister of Education used to be a student at the university himself, and he knows what it means. I am talking now of people who are not well off who approached me and who told me of the sacrifices which they had to make in order to send their children to the universities—and now those children will not be allowed to return next year. I ask the Minister whether we can allow such a condition of affairs to continue. Unfortunately these people take subjects which make it impossible for them to go to other universities. For instance, they cannot go to Stellenbosch; they can only go to Cape Town. I am saying these things because I am afraid that further compulsion may be brought to bear later on, and that those students will not pass at the end of the year. I say this with a certain amount of reservation, but I feel that these things should be shown up because the parents of these children have to put up a hard fight to keep the children at the university. Some of them have told me that they have spent the last bit of money they had in order to enable their children to continue their studies. Next year those children have to take their final examination, and then they will not be allowed to return. As the Minister has told us that there should be no discrimination, I really feel that the Minister should take this matter up with the university authorities, and that he should go into the whole question, so that if a student has half completed his studies he should not be prevented from continuing. Rather stop those who have not come to the university yet, but don’t interfere with those who are already there.

I know, of course, what the attitude of the Minister is in regard to coloured people and natives. He has shown us that over and over in this House, but I do not want to discuss that now. Perhaps we differ somewhat as to the methods which are applied at the Tokai Reformatory. The farmers in that neighbourhood are very dissatisfied, and they are very upset at the system which is in vogue there in regard to coloured criminals, whose numbers have increased to such an extent that there are about 400 of them there now. It is perhaps still a question whether we should follow that policy in trying to get coloured criminals on to the right road, or whether we should try some other policy. I am perhaps one of the old school who think that one should apply different methods, and I think that in dealing with coloured people like that they should get a good hiding with the sjambok sometimes, and they should be made to do hard labour to save their souls from perdition. That is the advice given by one of the most astute men that ever lived—that is the advice which King Solomon gave us when he told us not to spare the rod on our children. At the Reformatory those coloured criminals are treated like kings, they get butter, cheese, jam, meat and the finest of bread. They are not given very much work to do at that institution either. I should like the Minister to visit that place, although I am afraid that he would perhaps approve of the picnic and recreation methods that are in force there. I cannot associate myself with those methods. I feel that if they left Tokai to me I would follow very different methods. Hand them over to the farmers to work from sunrise to sunset, in the same way as our natives and farmers’ sons have to work on the platteland. Then you will save their souls, but you will not do so by applying those lenient methods, and by giving them the right royal treatment which they are accustomed to today. By those methods you will not improve them—you will only make them worse.

I think the hon. Minister will expect me to say exactly the opposite of what has been said by the hon. member who has just spoken.

I should say the opposite myself.

I know that. I believe that even members of the Opposition have been taken aback at the barbaric views expressed by the hon. member. Certainly they looked it; although from all we know of the hon. gentleman, I suppose we should have expected this sort of thing from him. Well, by contrast, I want to begin by saying that those of us who have had any experience of this subject recognise the enormous improvement that has taken place in the reformatory system since the reformatories were transferred from the Department of Prisons to the Department of Education. I think we owe a debt of gratitude for the work that is being done, not only at Tokai, but in other institutions of a similar kind, and I would urge the Minister to encourage and expand that work on the lines that are being followed as rapidly and widely as circumstances will allow. Now I want to turn to another aspect of the case. Some two years ago, the Minister informed us that he had a committee investigating the possibility of developing industrial schools for coloured juveniles, and he agreed to consider the possibility of extending the terms of reference of that committee to include native juvenile delinquents with a view to developing the industrial school system for natives also. I would be glad to hear from the Minister whether that very constructive proposition has been allowed to fade out of the picture or not. It is possible and it would be understandable if the outbreak of the war had led to the suspension of activities of this kind. At the same time, I feel that the time has gone by when we can allow the problem of non-European juvenile delinquents to drift. Already it has assumed such proportions, particularly in its native aspect, that it is a matter of grave concern to all those who are in contact with problems of native administration. I am particularly concerned about this, because, as the hon. Minister probably knows, the Native Affairs Commission has made certain recommendations to the Native Affairs Department in this regard. These recommendations are based on the findings of a Conference called by the Municipality of Johannesburg. I am not concerned about the findings of the Conference so far as the urban areas are involved; in that field, the Conference found a fairly straight line through the problem. But I am very much concerned about the recommendations in respect of juveniles who come from rural areas. Here they make the suggestion that where these juveniles come from reserves, they should be returned thereto. I have not challenged that proposal as the member for Tembuland seemed to think when this matter was raised a few days ago. But the further suggestion was made that children coming from farming areas should be apprenticed to the farmers from whom they have presumably run away. That is the sort of thing the hon. member for Potgietersrust (Rev. S. W. Naudé) wants, and it is what I do not want. It is a proposition without any constructive quality whatsoever. Indeed I feel it is a very bad proposition from every point of view. It is a bad proposition from the point of view of the child; I feel it is a very bad proposition from the point of view of the farmer; and it is a worse proposition from the point of view of the national economy. Apprenticeship to those farmers whose employ they have already left is not likely to develop or induce any stability in the children. Te control of forced labour has never yet improved employers. Finally, so far as the national economy is concerned, I want to call the Minister’s attention to the findings of the Commission on Agricultural and Industrial Requirements, of which the Government thinks so much that it is prepared to implement its recommendations and appoint a Social and Planning Council. That Commission has pointed out, amongst other things that the problem of farm labour shortage is linked up closely with the uneconomic use of labour. It was pointed out that that labour generally is hopelessly inefficient; it is untrained and it has to be used in bulk because it is so inefficient. Now I feel it is incumbent upon us to develop greater efficiency in our rural labour force, and I am sure that the Government might make a start in this direction by establishing industrial schools in rural areas, to which these juveniles who are wandering into the towns can be returned, and in which they could really learn something which would be of use to themselves and the farming community—that would be something in the nature of a constructive move towards the solution of the problem of farm labour shortage. The farmer cannot really do with entirely untrained labour. The labourer is much more useful to the farmer if he can turn his hand to a variety of the jobs that arise on a farm; and in the future we are going to be obliged to employ our labour far more efficiently than we have done. I venture to press this matter on the minister, although we are in the middle of a war. This is a position which we should be considering, because it will help us to meet present needs, and plan a constructive basis for the future.

I don’t want to interfere in the battle between the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) and the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). I only want to say that the hon. member for Potgietersrust should not forget that this House has decided by law that reformatories are no longer to be penal institutions, but educational institutions.

The system is wrong.

I am acting in the spirit of the law passed in this House.

†The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has asked about industrial schools for coloureds and natives. I may say quite frankly that that matter has been allowed to lapse for the time being at least, but I would like to say that our reformatories for coloured and natives have come virtually to approximate to industrial schools. That, of course, does pot meet the main point which my hon. friend has raised, and I agree with her that even though we are engaged in a war we should give more attention to this matter, and I am prepared to do so in the light of these reports which she has referred to.

May I avail myself of the half-hour rule? I would like to say a few words concerning the general economic policy of the Government, or perhaps it would be better to say the lack of economic policy on the part of the Government. We know that there are two essentials which we expect and seek from the Government in this connection. In the first place, we expect a general policy on matters of principle. In the second place, one expects a strong central co-ordinating economic council to see to it that the general policy is worked out in detail and carried out in practice and systematically adapted to the circumstances of the country, especially having regard to the co-ordination of various factors which are contained in our economic fabric as a whole. It is not a matter which can be disposed of in water-tight compartments. Each one influences the other, and for that reason I say that that is the second essential which is necessary and which one seeks from the Government in connection with its economic policy. With regard to the first requirement, I do not want to go into details. I do not want to go into details in regard to what the general policy of the Government really is. In regard to a portion of the economic scene, the Prime Minister not long ago at a congress gave us a picture of an industrial Utopia, which will come into existence after the war; but he did not give us any fundamental principles. In regard to that he gave no information. He did not say whether the economic Utopia would be based on the present system or on new principles. He did not say whether we should carry on with the old principles of liberal and democratic economy. One had to infer that from his words, because he did not mention any material changes. I do not want to talk about the general policy. I do not want to deal with the question as to how far State intervention in the matter is necessary. I do not want to deal with the socialistic or any other ideology. I want to confine myself more particularly to what I referred to as the second essential, and that is that one should systematically view the economic position as a whole. One should take into consideration the whole economic fabric, the national economy of the country. With regard to that, I just want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that this side of the House has endeavoured for many years to bring about the establishment of a central economic board. I need only recall the opening speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan), I think on the occasion of the congress of his party at Kimberley, where he spoke of the creation of an economic board of this nature in order to act as a co-ordinating body; I need only refer to the amendment which was moved by this side five or six years ago to the budget, and wherein we also asked for the establishment of such an economic board, and finally I refer the Minister to the programme of action of the re-United Nationalist Party. Section 5 of the programme asks that “with a view, at all times, safeguarding the legitimate interests of producers, distributors, employees and consumers respectively, and with a view to protecting all classes against exploitation of any nature, the party insists on the establishment of a central economic board.” It is said in our programme of action, furthermore, that that economic board should apply itself to systematic development in the economic sphere, and that it should advise the Government. We notice, therefore, that in so far as this side of the House is concerned, we have devoted ourselves for years to the establishment of a central economic board with such functions. Now it seems that the labour of all these years has not been in vain, and we find that in the Third Preliminary Report of the Commission in connection with Industrial and Agricultural requirements, a recommendation of this nature is made. I do not want to deal with the other recommendations of the Commission, but I want to refer to this recommendation, which is practically the argument which has continually been used by this side of the House, namely—

That is what we felt, and that is what we recommended, and for that reason we on this side welcome the recommendation of the commission in respect of the establishment of an economic planning and advisory board. You will notice that in dealing with the recommendations themselves, the commission expresses itself as follows—

In so far as that is concerned, our Government has hitherto always followed the policy of “muddling through.” Everyone goes his own way; every department takes its own steps. There is perhaps some measure of mutual consultation, but there has never been an effort to co-ordinate the economic activities of the various State departments and the economic activities in connection with national economy generally. There is no integrated economic policy which is systematically carried out step by step. There has always been a lack of policy, and things have been done without regard to the effect on the position in general. The activities to be entrusted to such a board are of course very comprehensive. They can be set out as follows: Determination of the policy with regard to our finances, industrial policy (both primary and secondary), labour policy, transport policy and our distribution policy. These are all matters which are dealt with by independent departments, without proper co-ordination, with the result that we create inconsistencies. I do not want to deal with all the details today, but rather confine myself to the policy with reference to industries, and to say a few words in that connection more particularly. The details of the policy which we will have to follow in respect of industries will largely depend on facts, and before you can carry out any particular policy you will have to determine what the facts are on which the policy will have to be fixed. For that reason it is necessary, in the first place, that there shall be an allembracing survey of industrial development possibilities in the Union. We should try to get a long view of the position which is based on the long term interests of the country. We should not only plan for today or for this year, but we should let our imagination stretch into the future. We have heard of five-year and ten-year plans. I think that we should look even further into the future than five years or ten years, but we should try to see the picture as a whole, and we should try to base the long view plan on what can be regarded not as the needs of the moment, but on what can be regarded as the long term needs of the people as a whole. With regard to the economic survey for industrial purposes, the natural resources which we have should be investigated, the power which can be made available for our industries, the transport problems, marketing possibilities, inland as well as overseas. When all the facts have been investigated, and there are sufficient facts available, then, in connection with industrial questions, one will have certain fundamental questions which will have to be faced, and the first will be the classification of the industries which we have or can have in the country. We know that there are certain industries in the country which are State industries or State controlled industries. There are various grades of State control which one might have in industries. This is one great class and the classification is based on the fact that certain industries are regarded as being of vital importance to the people and the State. They are of such a nature that one can call them key industries. There are other industries which are too large to be developed by private initiative. We know what the position was with regard to the iron and steel industry. It was simply too big a proposition to be coped with by private iniative. The Government had to intervene. Probably there are other industries of this nature. I am thinking of the wool industry, for example. Apparently it is too big to be coped with in its entirety by private initiative, and in that case it can be regarded as one of the industries which falls under the first class of State industries or State controlled industries. Then it can be tackled in that spirit. But then there should be a second class of industries open to private initiative, and I would like to suggest that with a view to the development possibilities which we have in the industries sphere, a system of licensing of industries should be instituted, so that we do not leave an opening for any industry to be established; because then we shall have too many industries of one kind and too few of another in a short space of time. The State should intervene and control the type of industry to be established by granting licences only in respect of approved industries, for example. In determining what industries can be approved of in this manner, the Minister and the Government of the day will necessarily have to consider, in the first place, whether an industry possesses vitality, whether in course of time it can become self-supporting, and whether it fits into the general framework, having regard to the facts which the Government then has in its possession with regard to available materials, marketing possibilities, etc. Those facts will help in determining what sort of industries the State should allow in our country. The list of admissible industries will be compiled according to the necessity for such industries. The assistance which the Government lends in the establishment of industries will also depend on the necessity which there is of establishing such industries. We know that in the past we followed a policy of protection of industries to a certain extent, but it will have to be laid down that if there is an industry, which, according to the opinion of this House and the Government of the day, should be established, because it is important to have the industry, then such an industry will have to be encouraged by the Government. That assistance can be given by means of Customs tariffs or dumping duties or transport tariffs. But if an industry gets assistance from the State in this or in any other manner, then it ought to be part of the policy that the assistance will be conditional, that there will be certain conditions attached to the assistance given by the State. Conditions with regard to the provision of work can be imposed, for example. A quota of European and non-European workers in a factory could be fixed, for example, as was advocated by this side of the House the other day. That can be a condition imposed by the Government in return for the assistance to such an industry. The whole question of differentiation can in this way be made conditional on the assistance which is lent by the Government. A second condition which can be imposed in connection with the assistance which is given, with a view to obtaining co-ordination in the economic and industrial spheres, can be that the industry should allow itself to be advised in connection with its policy. When such assistance is given by the State, the industry concerned cannot be allowed to do as it pleases. And yet a further condition can be imposed, and that is that the Government will have the right of intervention in certain circumstances. In other words, we will have the position that this Central Board, if it is established, will have the power to place its advice and experience at the disposal of the industry which is established, and which will receive a certain measure of State support, whether it be by means of dumping duties or Customs tariffs. Another condition which can be imposed in connection with the lending of assistance by the State, is that a reasonable share of the profits of the industry shall go to the workers; in other words, the assistance given by the State can be used as a means—I might almost say—to bring about reforms in this sphere.

When the House adjourned I was dealing with certain problems which ought to come under the notice of such an economic board of the Government; and, inter alia, I mentioned that there should be a classification of industries, of industries which will be Statecontrolled industries, and other approved industries, which will be able to function under a grant or licence by the State. It is only in this manner that the Minister will be able to get any systematic national industrial development. Now there is another problem, and that is in connection with the question of centralisation or the spreading of industries. It is a serious question whether it is in the interests of the country that all the industries of the country should be concentrated in certain areas or whether they should be spread out. At the moment there is a big concentration on the Rand, and in a few other places in the country; but we also had a platteland industrial committee which made certain recommendations and which investigated the question as to whether it was not desirable that sections of our industries should also be established in the platteland. This is a problem which one will have to face at an early date, and in respect of which the Minister will have to lay down a definite policy. And if it is the policy that there should be a spreading of industries, then the question will have to be considered by a board of this nature, as to what steps should be taken so that a spreading of industries will take place. Then there is the problem of the provision of capital. We know that an industrial corporation has now been established, and it is still a question whether that industrial corporation—we know very little of its activities—whether that industrial corporation can fulfil the existing needs in an effective manner. And in connection with the question of the provision of capital, there is also the problem as to whether there should not be a limitation in regard to the earning capacity of capital. In that way the great speculation in shares which can take place if there were no limits to the earning capacity of capital, could be eliminated. These are a few of the problems in respect of only one aspect. It is impossible within the space of time at my disposal to say anything about the other aspects, but this shows how necessary it is that there should be coordination, so that these problems of industry can be viewed in the light of the economic background of the country as a whole. At this time especially it is very important that an effort should be made by the Government to introduce a scheme, a fiveyear plan or a ten-year plan, so that we can know in which direction we are working, so that we can work according to schedule. This is war time, and it stands to reason that when the war is over many of the war industries which exist today will have to be converted into peace time industries, and it is very important, before that conversion takes place, that such a definite policy on the part of the Government should be made known, so that those people who have to start practically from scratch will know what the policy of the Government is, and what is expected of them. We are on the threshold of perhaps an unprecedented industrial development in this country, and that is a further reason why we should systematically prepare for the future. We know that another factor which makes it desirable that we should lay down our industrial policy at this time especially, is the fact that war circumstances have to a great extent brought about nationalisation of industries or State control in some measure or other, and people have become used or will become used to the Government having a say in matters. And it is therefore a particularly opportune time to make a start with a system under which the State can give guidance, so that we can get the maximum results in the sphere of industry. We would like to see a national policy in the broadest sense of the word, one which is not intended for the present period only, but which will look into the future, so that we can then allow our industrial development to continue on fixed lines so as to yield the maximum results. As I have said, we are very glad that the struggle which has been waged on this side of the House for so many years to establish such a central economic board has now been crowned, to a certain extent, by the recommendation of this Commission, and we hope that the Minister will accept the recommendation immediately and wholeheartedly, and not only accept it but immediately put it into effect. This is an opportune time for a scheme of that nature, the determination of a national policy, and it is the honour and the opportunity of the Minister to tackle that scheme now, and to give us that policy. I understand the probability is that the Minister will accept the recommendations of that committee, and we shall be glad is the Minister will give us more particulars in that respect this evening.

I think I had better answer the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) right away, as it may clear a certain amount of repetition from the debate. The hon. member has referred to this report of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission. I look upon this report as one of the most valuable reports that we have had, at any rate, since I have been a member of Parliament. It is a report made by men who have gone most thoroughly into all the aspects of our economic and social position, and they have come to certain definite conclusions at the end of the report, which the hon. member referred to. The statement which I propose giving to the House deals with this matter, and it is as follows—

As was intimated by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to hon. members on March 6th, 1942, the Government have had under consideration the creation of suitable machinery to deal adequately with matters of social and economic reconstruction in the Union. The Government have now, with this purpose in mind, decided to create a body, to be known as the Social and Economic Planning Council, the terms of reference of which will be—

1. (1) To investigate and make recommendations as to the best ways of promoting the balanced development of the resources of the Union and its internal and external trade, as well as the prosperity and well-being of its population as a whole.
2. (2) To examine and make recommendations as to schemes and suggestions made from time to time for the improvement of the social and economic standards of the various sections of the people.
3. (3) To review the policies and programmes of the various departments and boards which have an economic or social bearing, with a view to advising the Government as to steps which should be taken to secure their better co-ordination.
4. (4) From time to time to nominate with the concurrence of Government consultative sub-committees for special investigation and advice.
5. (5) Generally to advise the Government in regard to social and economic policy.

The Council will report direct to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and its reports will be laid on the Table of the House. The following persons have been approached to serve on the Council—

• Dr. H. J. van Eck (Chairman),
• Dr. Hans Pirow,
• Dr. Bernard Price, O.B.E.,
• Dr. I. B. Pole Evans,
• Mr. Ivan H. B. King,
• Senator the Hon. Dr. E. H. Brookes,
• Mr. J. G. Carinus,
• Mr. H. G. Swart,
• Mr. J. R. Liesk,
• Mr. A. C. Payne,
• Mrs. Karl Spilhaus, M.P.C.,
• Miss Gladys Steyn.

With the exception of Dr. Hans Pirow, all have signified their acceptance. Dr. Pirow, as hon. members may be aware, has had a breakdown in health, and is not at present in a fit condition to consider his membership. The Government is particularly anxious to obtain his services on the Council and have decided therefore that his nomination should be left open until such time as he has recovered sufficiently to consider the invitation.

Any more jobs for pals?

Unfortunately for the hon. member, there are no jobs for pals in anything I have anything to do with.

They wanted a doctor to deal with blowflies.

I think this Council will be such a Council as the hon. member for Fauresmith envisaged when he was speaking just now.

But you will never carry out their recommendations.

It will be noticed particularly that the composition of the Council is non-political.

There is not one that is not an S.A.P.

And it is intended that the Council shall take a scientific view of the policies of the Government—entirely independent of the Government itself. Hon. members will see from the terms of reference that it is intended that they shall co-ordinate the work of the various departments so as to see that one department’s policy does not hinder the policy of another department. Today one section of the Government machine may be taking action which will militate against the success of the work of one of the other departments. It will also be noticed that the Council is entirely independent, and it will fearlessly criticise all Government action, and its reports will be placed on the Table of the House, for the information of members and of the public. That, I think, is one of the most valuable features of this Council, that they have direct access to this House and their reports will be laid on the Table and be available for the information of members and of the public. I feel that such a Council will give the country an assurance that their judgments are based entirely independently and in the best interests of the country, irrespective of whatever Government happens to be in power. I think that more or less deals with the remarks of the hon. member for Fauresmith, and I am very glad, indeed, that he, speaking on behalf of his side of the House, accepts the policy that we should have such a Council to co-ordinate all the work of the various departments of Government.

It is our policy which you have taken over.

Under this vote I want to refer to the fishing industry in the Union. Some years ago a sum of money was voted for the improvement of our fishing harbours. I understand that all the work has been completed with the exception of two. Have these been abandoned, and have these harbours justified the expenditure? What is the position today? There is a strong opinion in commercial circles that the question of canned fish should receive attention. I know that in past years a very considerable trade with Mauritius was done in cured fish from the Cape. This has fallen off to a large extent, perhaps due to the increased consumption locally. It is the staple food of the coloured people, and this may account for the decreased exports. I was surprised when I saw the figures of imports and exports for 1939. They are illuminating. Fish exports for 1939 were, dried and cured, 3,466,923 lbs., valued at £59,498. Other fish including crayfish, over 7 million lbs., making a grand total of 11,506,133 lbs. valued at £353,227. Now I come to imports: Dried and cured, 4,740,100 lbs. valued at £77,333. Other fish approximately 13,000,000 lbs. The total value of imports being £480,958. These figures speak for themselves. Surely the fishing industry is worthy of the serious consideration of the Minister. I want to refer to the protection of oysters. Some years ago they were plentiful on the rocks of the south-east coast, as far as Natal. Owing to some cause they have practically disappeared from the Natal coast. May I suggest that measures be taken to protect the oysters, and if necessary to proclaim a close season? We might cultivate oysters; we might try the English oyster in our sheltered bays. This is worth the experiment. During certain seasons of the year our coast teems with fish and these are of a size suitable for canning. The smallest of these fish go by the name of sardines, and we have them off our coast in millions from April to June. It has been said that it is difficult to use a net. I think a lucrative trade could be established. Years ago the Cape was looked at as a place to obtain a suitable edible fish, and which was caught by means of a net. An enterprising American some years ago visited the Cape with a schooner and brought nets for the express purpose of procuring a fish which is appreciated at its true value in America. Great quantities were procured, but the native fishermen made such strong representations as to the damage caused, especially to the spawn of fish, that in the absence of better information the legislature was induced to pass a law forbidding the use of these nets. None of the smaller migratory fish, such as the herring, the sardine and the anchovy are put on the South African market, which is flooded with tinned sardines, smoked herring and haddock, and other European fish. The subject is worthy of the serious consideration of the Minister and his experts.

I should like to have some information from the Minister. I notice that a new vote is put down on page 71 of the Estimates, namely, that for the South African Purchasing Commission, £33,200. I should like to know why this new item is put on the Estimates and what the object of it is. Then on page 77 we get an increase of £20,000 on item K for price control, including the Board of Control for supplies for the country. The Minister who is responsible for price control in this country is here. Last year there was an amount of £5,000 on the Estimates; there is an increase of £20,000 because this year we are asked to vote £25,000 for price control. We have lately also noticed that the Minister of Agriculture has been appointed as food controller. I don’t know whether that item of his vote falls under the Minister of Commerce and Industries, but I should like to know from the Minister, who is the chairman of this Price Control Board, and who are the people who give him advice? I know that in December that Board fixed the price of potatoes. I should like to know from the responsible Minister under whose direction that Board is serving and where he obtained the information he required to fix that maximum price of potatoes. I want to know from the Minister whether the chairman of the committee obtained any information from the Agricultural Department. I want to know, and my farmers want to know, whether he consulted any Control Board. I further want to know whether he consulted the Marketing Council before fixing the price. According to my information he did not consult a single one of those Boards, he did not even consult the Marketing Council. I want the officials over there to listen because the Minister is getting old.

Order!

This is the position which we have now. I want to know from the Minister of Commerce and Industries what the price was at which seed potatoes could be imported in December last year. He is the man who knows a lot about trade. He knows that if there is a surplus in the country of any particular commodity, so that there has to be export, the local price of the particular commodity depends on the price at which the commodity has to be exported, but as soon as a commodity becomes scarce and the country depends on import, then the price in the country is stabilised according to the prices at which these commodities can be imported. Does the Minister agree with me? He does not say anything, so he either does not understand me or he does not know anything about farming. Surely this is a general question of trade. As soon as there is a surplus the price depends on the export value, and we get the same price as the export price. As soon as there is a shortage the local price depends on the price at which it can be imported. Now I should like to know what the import price of seed potatoes was in December? I know what I myself have paid for seed potatoes, but I want the Minister to tell me what the price was. I want to know from him what the farmer had to pay for imported seed potatoes in December last year? If that price was more than the price fixed for seed potatoes grown here, then I want to know from him whether it is fair that foreign countries should be looked after better than our own growers in South Africa.

But surely you know that imported seed potatoes are invariably more expensive?

That hon. member perhaps plants five bags for his own consumption. I know him. He cannot talk about this, but assuming the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) is right.

He is right.

He is usually wrong. He was wrong in the War for Independence and he may be right now. If that is the policy of the Government opposite, then it is a wrong policy. My policy is that we should in every respect first of all look after our own home and then after other people’s homes. First my own country, and then your country. Is that the policy of that honourable Minister? I want to go further. Our farmers want a reply to the question which I have put here. The Minister has now taken control over agricultural products. He has laid down a policy and I am putting these questions, and I hope his interpreter will tell him what I am saying. He has laid down a maximum price for the consumer. I have no objection to that. I do believe that in the abnormal times through which we are passing we should lay down a maximum price for the consumer in order to protect him. I have no objection to that, but now I want to ask the Minister of Commerce and Industries whether he has given any protection to the producers, by means of a minimum price? I have my children, Dick, Tom and Harry, or whatever their names may be, and I have to treat every one of them fairly and justly, and I am sure the Minister wants to do the same thing. I must first of all look after my own family, then after my farm, and then after my country and my people, and I can only serve my family honestly and fairly if I treat them all alike. Why has the Minister, as a member of the Price Control Board, as the Chairman of that Committee—and it is that Committee which governs the country and not this House of Parliament—why has the Minister only provided for protection for the consumer? Why has he protected only one child, and why does he not protect all of us? [Time limit.]

I want a word or two with the Minister about tyre control. First let me say I realise the difficulties the department is labouring under, and I want to express my appreciation of the courtesy which is meted out to us all whenever representations are made in regard to matters of control. At the present, under the system of tyre control, you cannot buy a tyre, no matter what it is for, and we have certain essential service run by motor vehicles which it is absolutely vital to maintain. I have been to the Tyre Controller and he has told me, “It is no good your making application, you cannot buy a tyre this month.” Now the second point I want to mention is priority. I understand the rubber position is very very serious, and that the amount of rubber in the country is very small. Now there is no priority of supply, because anybody can put in an application for a tyre—my information comes from the Provincial Tyre Controller—there is no provision made whereby those who want tyres for what I may call essential purposes, can get priority. I do want to suggest to the Minister that he should adopt a policy of priority under which the sale of tyres will be controlled. You have producers in this country, and they have to get their products to the nearest consuming centre, or to the ports to supply convoys, and I think that these production and distribution services should receive the first consideration before what I would call the joy rider. I would suggest that if the sale of tyres is to be prohibited, essential services should be excluded, and secondly, there should be a system of priority of supply so long as the supply of tyres lasts. I want to support my hon. friend opposite with regard to this board which the Minister has set up. Apparently it has very wide powers, and is going to act as an advisory body on very many matters. You cannot divorce industry from production, and I do suggest that the Minister should see to it that the agricultural industry is fairly represented on a body of that nature. I suppose this board will have a good deal to say in regard to the development of industry and distribution, and I think agriculture should have greater representation. I hope the Minister will give that very serious consideration, because after all we do feel that agricultural representation is sadly deficient on all these controlling bodies. It should not be left to officials to represent agriculture, or to those whom I would describe as being more or less appointed for political reasons. Some of the names given I would be inclined to think were appointed for political reasons, and I say again that agriculture must be more fully represented. On these two points I would like a very full statement from the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to be too critical at this stage, but I do feel that the rural industries, agriculture and raw material producers should be more represented on that board than at present. I am surprised the Minister has not approached our agricultural bodies to get decent representation from them. I do not wish to say that Mr. Carinus is not a good representative, but after all, he lives in the Western Province and is not au fait with agricultural problems in the Midlands. If you want to extend your rural industries you should get men who are really knowledgable and efficient in the rural districts, and men who can tell you how to use materials and where to get them. There are many industries just now which you can extend on the platteland. For instance, there are shortages of certain foodstuffs in the country, and now is the time to go into this matter fully and supplement your foodstuffs. For instance the country is short of cheese. In Belgium they made a cheese of milk with a very small proportion of fat, they even made cheese out of separated milk, where there was no fat. This was of very good quality, not of course as good or as expensive as the whole cheese, but thousands of workers were fed in Belgium on a low priced product. You have a coloured community here, and if the farmers could make use of separated milk in this way it would certainly be an income to them, and help us to feed the coloured people and the poorer people with cheese st a very much lower price than you are doing today. Then there is another industry which should be developed to a greater extent, I mean the dried milk industry. Factories here have already provided quite a number of articles for the Army in the North, and which have also been sold locally, and I think in the rural areas you want to develop these dried milk factories, and that would be an excellent thing. There is also a great shortage of soap, and this is an article which can be manufactured in the rural areas. Many farmers have fats on their farms which they cannot send to existing factories, but if there were factories in the neighbourhood, I am sure the farmers could make something out of these fats. Now there is something which I feel is very wrong. My friend over there spoke about potatoes. This fixing of a maximum price has certainly helped the middle man, but it has not helped the producers and it has exploited the consumer. The consumer has had to pay 25s. for potatoes which in many cases were sold by the producer for from 6s. to 10s. Now why should the consumer be exploited in that way? If the farmer could get a price of 20s. for A grade potatoes, then at any rate the consumer would know when he pays 25s. that he is getting A grade potatoes. This was really a bit of a scandal that the consumer was exploited to the extent that be was, and the middle man was making in some instances, 200 per cent. profit. I hope the Minister will see that these things do not happen again. I can assure him if he appeals to the agricultural unions for advice in these matters, he will be assisted in a different way to what he has been assisted by the Price Controller. I understand it was not the fault of the board that the potato price was fixed at 25s., I believe the price controller did not consult the board. I only hope the Minister of Agriculture put this point very strongly, and tried at any rate to protect the potato grower, I hope he did not neglect his duty in that respect. The method adopted simply meant that two sections were exploited, the producer on the one hand and the consumer on the other, and we wish the Minister to remember that. There are a few other points I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister, and one is the wheat position. I believe it costs about 29s. on the average to import wheat. Perhaps, however, this matter should be left over for the Minister of Agriculture, and I will pass on to another matter, and that is war supplies. I have had information, and very sound information too, that there has been a tremendous amount of profiteering among maufacturers, who have been selling army blankets manufactured out of rubbish. Seeing that the Minister is so concerned about his soldiers, he should look after the health of those soldiers. It has been brought to my notice that although these factories have had tariff protection which we all have to pay for, they have manufactured blankets out of the biggest rubbish that anybody could find, for instance, old native clothes have been bought up and torn to pieces, and even material has been picked out of ash heaps and used in these blankets. I wish the Minister would go into these matters. These blankets cost about 3s. 2d. to make and have been sold at exhorbitant prices to the Union Government. I am just as proud of these soldiers as he is, at any rate they have not been cowardly enough to sit on benches and do nothing but preach. I want to say also that the housewife in this country should be protected against blankets of this type. There is no doubt that tremendous profiteering has been going on, and I hope the Minister will accept the advice given to him by the Wool Council, and that in future standardised articles will be insisted on for military purposes, made of virgin wool and karakul wool on a fifty-fifty per cent. basis, and not made out of rubbish. The poorer people should have a blanket made out of 25 per cent. angora hair and 75 per cent. virgin wool which could be sold round about 15s., and for the richer people, a blanket made out of raw South African wool, which would cost about £1. I hope that the Minister will see that this profiteering which has been going on will be stopped, and you can only stop that by having a standardised article. If the Minister would start this standardisation, everybody in the country would gain by it. Why should these manufacturers receive protection which they are not worth of receiving? It is high time the Minister should see that they do not exploit everybody as they have been doing.

May I express my gratitude, Mr. Chairman, that you have been able to see as far as this. I want a word with the Minister of Commerce and Industries about a matter of considerable importance to the footwear industry. On March 17th, I asked the Minister how many pairs of footwear had been imported into the Union since the introduction of the licensing system, and the answer I received was that it had been decided in the national interest that during the period of hostilities no statistics concerning import into and export from the Union and South-West Africa will be made public; this to apply to 1940 and onwards. In reply to my question as to whether any restrictions had been placed upon future imports of manufactured footwear, I was told that no direct restrictions had been imposed. I may be very dull, and it may possibly be considered by the Union Cabinet that any information with regard to imports into this country would be information useful to the enemy, and would not be in the interests of shipping. I cannot for the life of me understand what information it would give the enemy if the Minister told me how many pairs of boots and shoes had been imported into the Union under the licencing system, say, up to the end of December last year. If that will convey any information to the enemy with regard to the movement of shipping, I have nothing more to say on that subject, because it is beyond me to understand how that can possibly be. It is quite possible that the Minister and his department feel that they are serving the best interests of the people by retaining that information, but he must not expect industrialists to be satisfied when this information is withheld from them, whilst they know that manufactured articles are coming into this country and that restrictions are being placed upon raw materials which would benefit our manufacturers and also their employees. It is only recently we have seen advertisements in the local Press of retailers advertising that shipments have now arrived, and customers can obtain certain types of footwear. That is a clear indication, sir, that manufactured goods are coming into the country. Now, the footwear industry has not suffered any particular loss of time or restriction of output as the result of not being able to obtain material, but I warn the Minister and his department that in the near future that State of affairs is going to come about, and I want to tell him that it is absolutely unfair that manufactured products which can be made in this country should be allowed to come in at the expense of raw materials, the making of which will find employment for our own people. I want to point out to him that the manufactured product takes up more shipping space than the raw materials. The raw materials are more compact, and if you import 1,000 pairs of shoes, the amount of space they would take up would be two or three times in excess of what the raw materials which would manufacture these 1,000 pairs of shoes would take up. I notice in the Estimates that in the department there is an industrial adviser and technical adviser, and I would suggest that these advisers should give consideration to matters of this kind. I also want to draw attention to the fact that raw materials for the footwear industry come under the priority rating. Leather has been rated at priority 5. In the manufacture of footwear there are many sundries which are used, which are just as essential as the leather itself, and I want to say that the technical advisers and the industrial advisers are not performing their duties efficiently if they do not pay attention and obtain the necessary information in regard to the sundries that are required to complete the manufactured footwear which the leather is intended to be used for. It is useless to bring leather into the factory store rooms which has to lie idle on a priority 5 while heels, which have a priority 9, are needed all the time. Now, I want to say that attention should be paid to the different articles which are required for the manufacture of any industrial product in this country, whether it be footwear or anything else, and it should receive the same priority rating to ensure that the goods are able to be manufactured as soon as they arrive in the country. And I hope that the Minister and his advisers will pay attention to these suggestions of mine, because they are not made with a view to criticising adversely the Minister or his department; they are made with the idea of showing the Minister and his advisers the necessity of paying attention to matters of this kind, which are of such great importance to industries in this country. There is one other point I want the Minister to consider. He must not come and tell me that it is all dependent on shipping space. I know what the shipping position is, not perhaps as well as the Minister, but almost as well, and I know that raw materials for the war industry and for our railways must have first consideration. Industrialists in this country know that, and they are prepared to accept that position, but when it comes to a question of the manufacture of products which can be made in this country equally as good as can be made overseas, then I say our own people and our own factories have to receive first consideration at the hands of the department.

I should like to know from the Minister—this is a matter affecting us all on the platteland — what knowledge the chairman on the Price Control Board has of agricultural products in South Africa. As I have said before, he is not even South African born, and I do not know whether he has even been on a farm, and who are the members of this Price Control Committee or Board? Let us have their names. We want to know. Our policy on this side of the House has been set out by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). We stand for expansion of industries and factories, but let me tell hon. members that they can only expand our industries if the producers are protected so that they can get payable prices—not only maximum prices but minimum prices too. If maximum prices only are fixed and if minimum prices are not fixed, the producers are wiped out, and if the producers are destroyed our industries in South Africa must go to the wall. I want to know from the Minister why he has only fixed maximum prices, and why he has not fixed minimum prices. I know the Minister as a very impartial man, but under the policy which he has now introduced he only protects the consumer by fixing maximum prices, and he does not protect the producer. Why does he not also fix a minimum price? Mr. Chairman, you know me a little, I am going to insist on putting my question, and asking for a reply, until the steam-roller squashes me, because this is a matter which affects the whole of our agricultural industry. It is not only the potato farmers who are suffering from the present position, but all the producers suffer from it if only a maximum price is laid down. I want to ask the Minister now whether he is in favour of minimum prices for our farmers. I want to know, or rather the farmers whom I represent want to know. I represent a constituency where 98 per cent. of the farmers make their living out of farming, and their whole existence depends on it. That is why this question should be answered here. I ask the Minister what the position is. I tell you beforehand that the Minister will evade the answer. I know he won’t answer, but I want to ask him what the gap is between the maximum price and the minimum price. If I enter into an agreement with my people on the farm, the people I hire, and if we are nothing but the Minister’s hirelings, as a result of his having fixed maximum prices, then I lay down a minimum price on my farm—but I have never yet fixed a maximum price for my labourers. But the Minister is following a different policy. He first of all fixes a maximum price for our producers, but he does not give us a minimum price. Let me tell the Minister that he is going to have trouble if he carries on in this way. The producers must be protected and I appeal to him on behalf of my farmers to do what is right and fair to the producers as well as to the consumers. Did he see that justice was done in the past? Since November or December he has chosen only one side, he has protected only one side, and in that way he is going to be faced with greater troubles than he ever imagines. We are threatened with famine in this country, and if the Minister does us an injustice it will affect production, it cannot do anything else, and we shall produce less, and there will be a great famine.

The farmers will never do it.

If you feel that you are being unjustly treated you will apply any means to get justice done, and to get justice to triumph. I say this very definitely, that the injustice which is being done to us is having a serious effect on us. This year there is a shortage of mealies. Now I ask the Minister what he is going to do about mealies. I don’t know whether this perhaps comes under the Minister of Agriculture. They turn somersaults sometimes. What is the policy? Is the Minister going to lay down a maximum price as well as a minimum price for mealies? And if he does so is he going to consult the Mealie Board? Yes or no? Is he going to consult the Marketing Council? Yes or no? He never did so in the past—that is my opinion, but I hope he will do it in future. There is a great meat shortage in the world today. Yet the Minister wants to fix prices in such a manner that the consumer will be protected in every possible way, to the detriment of the producer. If he does that he will have a greater shortage of meat than ever in South Africa. Let hon. members bear in mind that we have had a terrible drought here, and that the caterpillars caused a lot of trouble, that we have lost a lot of stock during the drought and that we have no grazing. Some of our farmers have been ruined, some had seventy head of cattle, of which fifty have died, and now they come with their maximum prices. If the Minister wants to take those measures, then let him compensate the people who have lost their stock, not as a result of their own neglect but as a result of circumstances over which they had no control.

I have nothing to do with that.

But surely we are voting £20,000 here for price control. Now the Minister is looking through his records. He should have it all in his head. If I had to run my farm like that and write down everything in books I would go bankrupt, just as the Government will go bankrupt. We farmers do not want to have everything but we want a fair price. [Time limit.]

May I be allowed to have the privilege of speaking for half an hour? Listening to my friend who has just sat down I felt a thrill of pity for the Minister in charge of this Portfolio. But I want to say this, that I would join the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) in expressing appreciation of the work of this department, and in congratulating it. Not because of any particular services rendered, but because this is probably the most difficult time in history for any Minister to control a department of this character, or for any department to give the satisfaction which I understand this department generally has given. I want to be permitted to review the commerce and the industries of the country as I have done on previous occasions. I shall be as brief as possible. I am one of those who think that we have been more or less unfortunate and that we have had some sad experiences in the want of development of our industries, or rather in getting more countries for our trade. I look back to 1915 when our Trade Commissioner came from the East. We had a Trades Commissioner who covered all the Northern Territories. He came down and interviewed the Government and many prominent people and told us of the great amount of trade that could be done there, and how the development of our industries could extend to those countries. He gave us the numbers of the natives who were advancing and who at least required boots in those areas. He gave us the numbers of the white people there who, since that time, have increased by 50 per cent. It was clear that we could develop our trade in those countries very considerably. What happened in the Great War? We were able to supply those countries with our manufactures, not only boots from Port Eliabeth but goods from all other centres. But that is no credit to us—you could supply any place during that war. You could supply any goods just as you can today if you can find the means of getting the goods there, so what we should have done was to have built up our trade for the future, but our trade disappeared, partly as a result of competition and partly as a result of our inability to compete in price. In 1924 I took the occasion to travel through these countries, beginning with Kenya, and I saw the remains of South African manufactures there, and I came to the conclusion that the goods manufactured in the Union and delivered in those countries were suitable and of a satisfactory nature. Now, why did we not continue that trade? First of all, the British trade was pushed out of all these countries, and then we were pushed out ourselves. There was nothing wrong but price, and that is what I want to deal with largely—we have to overcome that difficulty and enlarge our boundaries for our trade, because if we don’t do that we may rest assured that we shall be in the same position as we were before this war. It is no use saying to the men at the front, “We have developed our industries for you when you come back”—we are not trying to do so. There will be no increased work at all, no more than there was before unless we develop our external trade. If we remain as we are we shall have the same people and the same territory, and we shall go on supplying in the same way as today, and without any question the great buildings which we have put up will be empty. I am not speaking of heavy industries, but of light industries—of what the people wear, and eat—articles of ornament and use, that are manufactured in the Union. Let us look into the causes. Here is the report of the Customs Tariff Commission, a very valuable document which I am afraid the Government have lost sight of. In this document you will find a strong recommendation that the Board of Trade shall exercise its functions in examining prices and seeing that profits are not too great. It is admitted that it had not been done up to then, and I am informed that it has not been done since. One essential thing is to keep down the cost of production. There is no other reason why our trade has not developed all over the various sections of Africa. The only reason is the price. Now that question is also dealt with very well in this Tariff Commission’s report—this cost of production. It is no use shutting our eyes to facts. Our costs of production are too high, and when we come into the field of competition we cannot compete. It will be interesting to compare the value of production per head of employees in the Western world with the same values in South Africa. The value of production per head in the Union is £538. In New Zealand £1,111 per head. Australia produces £892 per head. Canada produces £1,128 per head. It shows at once our great difficulty to compete at all. I want to sound a note of warning that you cannot go on in that way raising your cost of production, no matter how desirous you are of doing well for the people engaged in the industries. In reality you are not helping them. In the end you will have no work for them; in the meantime you are limiting it. Now, let us take the output per head of employee. During the last few years there has been a tendency to decrease instead of to increase, which shows that we are not getting into a better position for competing. Our output per head in the Union was £250. In New Zealand £358, Canada £469. And this is borne out by the amount of wages paid. It gives the suggestion that the wage paid is too high, and the total wages paid seems to bear out that conclusion. There are two factors; the first factor is this: that it should be the duty of the Government of the day, with the Board of Trade, to see that profits are not so great that you are not able to compete from that angle, and the second is to examine and endeavour in every possible way to keep your cost of production as low as possible. We have territories all round us which should be outlets for our trade and our industries. There is nothing wrong with our industries except the prices. In 1935 one of the largest manufacturers in the world had come to an agreement to establish a boot factory in Kenya and part of that agreement was that his output for the first year was to be 40,000,000 pairs of boots. That is not even a pair of boots for every native. Now, that did not come off. Can hon. members see what risks we would have run had that factory been established? Our factories at Port Elizabeth would have closed up, they would have gone out of existence.

Why don’t you put the boots on the feet of the natives?

Well, that is more the duty of my hon. friend, but there is something in that, too. Anyhow, we have lost a great market—we have lost the market of Rhodesia—practically lost it, and it is just as great a loss to Rhodesia as it is to us. The productions of Rhodesia today are marvellous. I am told the productions of the Mazoe Valley alone is more than that of the Union. Now, we have our Customs Houses on the borders of Rhodesia. What did we put them there for? To protect the farmers—to protect cattle and tobacco. We could only take a limited quantity of cattle and tobacco, but there is no cattle or tobacco available in Rhodesia to come here. The cause for these Customs Houses has disappeared. It was suggested that efforts should be made to negotiate. The Ottawa preferences were offered to Rhodesia. They accepted them, and because of this you have a Customs House on the border which must be a curse for all time until it is removed by agreement. I would humbly suggest that it is the duty of our Government to attempt to open up negotiations with these countries to the North. Rhodesia has developed her own industries since we did away with the Customs Union, and there should be no division between countries like this. The loss is not alone to this country, but the loss is to Rhodesia as well, and only the free flow of trade between us can retain our prosperity. The very same year that we broke off the Customs Union we maintained our Customs Union with Northern Rhodesia, and our export to that country was increased by 100 per cent., while that to Southern Rhodesia was increased very little, indeed. Now, I believe we have the opportunity of a lifetime, to put matters right. No matter what anybody says, competition will come back again when the war is over, whether anything comes out of the Atlantic Charter or not, and there will unquestionably be a freer flow of raw material to all the manufacturing countries of the world. From a casual examination of the position, it will be seen that most of the goods which countries to the North export we can use here in the Union, and they can take our manufactured articles, and it does seem to me that there should be an agreement between these countries and ourselves, so that we can take their products, and they can take what we produce, in turn. I remember during the Empire Exhibition, these Northern countries came with delightful exhibits, stuff that one knew perfectly well would be suitable for this country. I did my small endeavours to have these products considered, and to have a return of exports of our local manufactures. Nothing came of that, but is there any reason at all why we should not give preference to these countries, such as Kenya, Nyasaland, and the other countries to the North of us? Unless we have some such agreement, bringing about an exchange of goods, you will find that these countries will disappear from us altogether, and our difficulties will be very great, indeed. There is, of course, the difficulty of the cost of getting this exchange of goods that is a very important factor. During the time Mr. Fourie was Minister of Railways, he appointed ah interdepartmental commission to find out how we could land our manufactured goods in these other territories in competition with the goods from overseas. The competition was mostly from Japan, and the enquiry resulted in finding out that in order to compete we had to sell the goods at the price they were produced at at Port Elizabeth, Cape Town, Johannesburg, and elsewhere. In reality we want complete free rail, free shipping, and free delivery. That is a very serious position, because it is a tremendously serious matter if you are not able to expand your industries and sell beyond the borders of the Union. If we are going to do our share in this great work of expanding our manufactures, we have got to get our Government to adopt a new policy, and we have got to bring our railways into it as well. We have got to have our own ships, carrying our goods round the Union, east and west; c.i.f. prices have beaten us in the past. Let us win by it in future; quote the price of all our productions, not at the seat of manufacture, but delivered—price on the spot of sale— Union manufactures, including c.i.f., made in South Africa, may and ought to be seen at an early date in Africa, North, South, East and West.

I notice that the hon. the Minister does not keep a bodyguard. As a matter of fact I don’t think he needs a bodyguard either in this House or in these surroundings, but let me tell him where he would need a bodyguard, and that is if he ever visits our fishing harbours. I feel that the fishermen in this country have such a feeling of grievance against the Minister that if he ever were to appear among them without a bodyguard he would need protection.

Surely it is not as bad as that.

Yes, it is bad. I feel that they have such a strong grievance against the Minister that he should make some arrangement to satisfy them. The Minister has neglected his duty towards them. We are continually told of the possibility of a food shortage in the country, yet here we have potential food supplies at our coasts. We have been making war since the 4th September, 1939, and the Minister has not stirred a hand to exploit those food supplies. The amount of money voted last year for the fisheries division was £8,550. This year it has been reduced to £7,560. Then one notices that the amount to be voted for trade commissioners in London is £10,000. It is inexplicable. For fisheries this small amount is being voted, and yet £10,000 is set down for trade commissioners in London. We have a period of food shortage ahead of us. The Government appointed a food controller the other day, and in spite of that the Minister comes here with a trivial amount of £7,560 for fisheries. Has one ever seen anything like it in one’s life? The newspapers say that the Minister intends resigning one of these days. I want to tell him that I hope he will not resign before the fishermen have had an opportunity of settling with him. The Minister went so far as to appoint a Select Commttiee to draft a Bill for him, and to go into the question of our fishing industry. Well, we did so. The Bill was introduced into Parliament and in 1940 it was passed with a big fuss by this House, and the world said: “Now we have a Government which will tackle the problems of the fishing industry, and which will improve conditions.” The country imported fish to a value of £500,000 sterling. When this Bill was passed we said that if would no longer be necessary to spend that huge amount on the importation of fish. We thought that thousands of people would now be able to get employment in the fishing industry and we felt that we now had a Government which would provide for better marketing conditions and for better cold storage conditions, but all these expectations have come to nought. The mountain has produced a mouse. And now the Minister comes here with an amount of £7,560! Is it not a disgrace that in a country which has such large supplies of food the people should be told that there is a possibility of a food shortage. The Bill was passed by this House and the Minister has the Act which he can apply, but he is so slack that he does not stir a hand to give effect to the Act. Does the Minister not owe it to the country to tell us why he has neglected his duty in the way he has done?

Perhaps he is too old.

I do not want to adduce that as a reason, but the Minister is so busy paying attention to the war that he has never had an opportunity yet of giving his attention to these matters. I say that he neglects his duty. The fishing industry by the passage of this Bill in 1940 was given the impression that something would be done to place the industry on a better basis and to develop it. The Bill provides for the better marketing of fish and that is what we need. We have often drawn the Government’s attention to the fact that we should have better marketing conditions for our agricultural products. We must admit that we have obtained better methods, although a lot of improvement can be made. But round about our coasts we have just as great a potential value for the country as we have in agriculture, but that potential value if not exploited. We no longer import the quantities of fish that we used to import and probably we shall not be able to import any fish at all. It is now the Government’s duty to place a large amount of money on the Estimates for the development of our own fisheries. I want to ask the Minister now, when the Additional Estimates are put before the House, to put £500,000 or £1,000,000 on those Estimates with a view to tackling the difficulties of the fishing industry in an effective manner and with a view to exploiting that industry in the way it should be exploited. The Minister has the power under the Act to make regulations and to control the whole of the fishing industry. I want to ask him whether he has made one single regulation yet. He should establish cold storage accommodation for us throughout the country so that the marketing of our fish in future can be placed on a better basis. Then there is the question of nets. It is a disgrace to find the poor way in which the fishermen have to look after themselves with their small boats and their small nets.

That cannot be dealt with.

But surely some plan should be made. It is no use saying it cannot be done. The manufacture of nets and boats should have had the Government’s attention long ago. The position today is that the fish cannot get to the market although we have a large market for it. Johannesburg, and all those big towns in the interior, are waiting for fish, but there are no transport facilities, there are no cold storage trucks. I should like to hear from the Minister, seeing that he has waited for such a long time, whether he can make any suggestions, and I want to tell him that I expect him to place a large amount of money on the additional estimates. If it is true that there is a food shortage in the country, the Government should give its immediate attention to this very serious matter. I don’t want to criticise the hon. the Minister too much, but I do say to him in front of this House tonight that he has neglected his duty to one of the most important industries in the country.

I want to ask the Minister what the policy of the Price Controller is with regard to agricultural products. The Price Controller has fixed the price of bacon at 1s. 3d. per lb. and I understand that price was fixed on a basis of 6d. per lb. live weight for baconers. If this price of 1s. 3d. per lb. for bacon is maintained and there is no control over the price of baconers which is now rising in many markets to 9d. per lb. live weight the Minister, through the Price Controller, is likely to shut up some of our co-operative bacon factories. These are serving the farmers in a very valuable way. I have a bacon factory in my constituency at Estcourt; it is a co-operative concern and they inform me that if the price of bacon is maintained at 1s. 3d. per lb. they cannot secure baconers except at a price which means a big loss to them on every pound of bacon they produce. These co-operative factories are not big financial institutions and I do not think it will take long before that factory I speak of will have to shut up shop. I ask if it is the policy to maintain the price of bacon at that figure while the price of baconers is what it is today because if that is the policy I think the Price Controller will come into conflict with the Minister of Agriculture who has now been appointed food controller. You cannot fix the price of the manufactured article unless the price of raw material is also fixed because, if there is a fluctuation, either the manufactured article is going to make either a profit or a loss. I would ask the Minister to investigate this matter and try and arrive at a solution without penalising the factory or depressing the price of the farmer’s products in the way of baconers. Unless something is done either to raise the price of bacon or fix it in relation to the price of baconers we are going to have an impossible position. The very lowest price at which you can produce bacon with the present price of baconers is 1s. 6d. per lb. on a basis of 7d. a lb. live weight so that means the factories are losing 3d. per lb. on every pound of bacon they produce. You must have a proper relationship between the price of baconers and the price of bacon. We have discussed this matter with the Price Controller and I think we have convinced him that under present conditions these factories cannot continue to function, the price of bacon must be raised. I am not referring to big concerns like the Imperial Cold Storage and perhaps some of the other big interests who have big financial backing and can perhaps stand a loss to be made up later on. But if the present position as regards the relative prices of bacon and baconers continues it will without any doubt close down these co-operative factories. The Nel’s Rust factory is in the same position. I hope the Minister will take this matter seriously because it is not only going to affect the factories but the farmers as well, the farmers who produce pigs and depend on the factories for a market. If these factories go out of existence we are handing over a monopoly to the big interests who I think are responsible for the high price of pigs at the present time with the idea of raising the price of bacon in future to recoup themselves. I appeal to the Minister to safeguard the interests of the farmers and those co-operative factories. With regard to the consumer I contend that bacon is a luxury article. It is not the poor man on a low wage who eats bacon today but the well-to-do people who can afford to pay a fair price for an article of that sort. I hope the Minister will not think he is penalising the poor man who is not the bacon eater in this country by increasing the price of bacon. On the contrary by fixing the price of bacon at a low price he is assisting the man who is well able to afford to pay the small extra price necessary to put these factories and the farmers on a proper footing. The present high price of baconers is justified by the increased costs of feeding stuffs, which have risen over 50 per cent. in the last year.

I think I may join the Minister in saying that this report of the Industrialist and Agricultural Requirements Commission is a very important report, and the most important recommendation in it is that in regard to the establishment of an economic Advisory and Planning Council, and, because I feel this so strongly, I am the more disappointed at the information that the Minister has given us tonight. I make bold to say that in all essential matters the statement of the Minister departs from the recommendations of the commission. The Council, the Minister has suggested here, is that to be a permanent Council of full-time officials.

No, not full-time.

For how long are they appointed, or is it only to carry out particular terms of reference? I take it, although it is sailing under the colours of a Council, it is nothing more than another commission, with settled and fixed terms of reference, beyond which it cannot go. We know what happens to these commissions; you take your seat, a report is issued, and then the matter drops. That is what usually happens, but that was not what was envisaged by this commission. They had an entirely different conception of the functions and constitution of this Council. In para. 221 of their report they say—

Instead of a Council with that general function, we now have a commission with certain terms of reference composed of people who are not on a full-time basis, and people who are not appointed on any fixed tenure. The commission was very clear on this. It said that it envisaged this Council as a body of experts. In para. 223 they say they conceive the proposed Council as an expert an impartial body, assisted by a competent staff. Then the report goes on to point out that the commission has considered the various forms which such an Advisory Council could take, and declared itself in favour of a small body, consisting of experts doing investigational work and acting in an advisory capacity on economic and financial matters. Then in the next paragraph the report goes on to say that the Council should be on a full-time basis. That is what they had in mind, and not a commission to deal with other commissions’ reports, but a permanent body of experts, people who could devote their whole life to important matters of this sort, people whom the State will have to pay an adequate amount for taking them away from their ordinary activities. And then it says that these people must be persons who can give their full time, and persons of outstanding ability. That means that they are to be compensated if they are to serve on a Council of this nature. But I don’t think the Minister in appointing these people has had any regard to the recommendations of this commission. If he had he would not have given us a half-baked thing, such as he has suggested.

It is nothing but a smoke screen.

I don’t know whether he wants to prevent the establishment of a real Council which can be of some use. We have pleaded consistently for a fixed body of this nature. It is no use having a temporary body. If you have a part-time body they will not be able to deal with matters. They will be associated with other businesses, and these other businesses will not give them free insight into their books and their policies. They will say: “You will turn round tomorrow and make use of this information.” The commission had that in mind when it said that it was imperative for these people to be appointed on a full-time basis. It is misleading for the Minister to call this a Council. It is nothing of the kind; it is nothing but another commission, and he has departed in the main from the most important recommendations of this commission which he himself says is one of the best commissions that has ever presented a report to this country. If that is so, why has he not carried out the report of that commission? The commission suggested that the chairman should be a judge of the Supreme Court, assisted by six people competent and of proved ability. What have we here? I don’t think one can congratulate the Minister on the personnel of the commissioner if one must judge it from the criterion set by this commission. If you take away the last nine, then this Council would not lose in effectiveness— the ability and the brain are concentrated in the first three.

You like the first three, but you do not like the others?

If you followed the recommendations of this commission you would not have had twelve people, you would have had a small body of six or seven, and you would not have had parttime people, but permanent people, and you would not have had people with such strong political flavour as some of the names mentioned. The Minister has said this is a non-political body. I am amazed at the Minister getting up and saying that this is a non-political body when there are two members of the Provincial Council on it. [Time limit.]

I am sorry the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) is not satisfied with the arrangements which the Government has made in regard to this Council. It was quite evident that in order to get the men of standing that we required on this Council it would be impossible to get fulltime men. You cannot expect a man of the standard of Dr. Hans Pirow, for instance, to take on a job like this as a full-time man. You cannot expect Dr. Bernard Price to take up a job like this full time.

Well, if you pay them enough.

The whole point was that it was necessary to get what one might call some of the biggest men in the country so far as knowledge and training were concerned to take on this job, and therefore we decided to reverse the order suggested in this report. This report suggested that there should be six men who should be permanetly on the Council and that there should be an additional body of men, parttime men, who should act as advisers. Instead of that we swung the thing round and had the Council themselves as the main body and they will be supported by a secretariat who will be full-time men, and who will do the work. As regards the question as to how long their appointment was for, at the present time we have not dealt with that, but we shall deal with it, and the appointments will be for a definite number of years, so the hon. member need not worry about that. Then the hon. member complains that this report suggests that the Chairman should be a judge of the Supreme Court and that we have not carried out that suggestion. Well, I am sorry, but I cannot for the life of me see what particular advantage there is in having a judge of the Supreme Court on this Council, and the hon. member wants him as a full-time man. We have to appoint another judge to be the Chairman of this Council. I have great respect for the law, but I don’t think they are the only people in this country who can deal with all the various social and economic aspects of the life of this country. If the hon. member looks at this report he will see that the report recognises that it would be impossible to get certain men who would be required for this purpose—it would be impossible to get them as members of a full-time Council. I may say the Chairman will act as the Chief Executive Officer and he will be the liaison between the secretariat and the Council itself. So much for that. Now I shall deal with some of the other matters that have been raised. The hon. member for East London (Mr. Christopher) raised the question of our fisheries, and seemingly he was very dissatisfied with what we are doing in regard to our fisheries. I may say, so am I; but simply because it has been impossible to deal with it. As regards the fishing harbours, the harbours are doing their work and they have been very valuable for our inshore fishermen; as regards the oysters which the hon. member was worrying about —oysters are protected in Bredasdorp, Swellendam, Transkei and Heidelberg. So there is no need for worry—I have never known of any shortage of oysters. The hon. member suggests that we should lay down oyster beds and go in for the cultivation of oysters. In the first place we have plenty of natural oysters.

And stout as well.

And I think we can leave the question of laying down oyster beds for some future generation. The hon. member was very regretful about the fish we import. Largely, our imports consist of salmon and sardines. I may say as a matter of interest—I don’t know whether those gentlemen who are so interested in fisheries may get some satisfaction out of it—we have just in the last few days arranged for the export of canned snoek to the United Kingdom. The Ministry of Food has taken violently to our tinned snoek and I hope we shall establish a very big trade in that commodity. We may seem to be asleep, but we are really not entirely asleep. We have also concluded a very satisfactory contract with the British Government for all our surplus crawfish. Now I come to the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens). He attacked me almost as if I was a criminal.

Well, it is a criminal matter.

And the hon. member is not certain that I am not a criminal. He first of all wanted to know why I was spending this large sum of money on the South African Purchasing Commission. Well, that Commission is a body of men that we had to send to America in order to arrange for the purchase of all the essential stuff that we require for various purposes for war supplies, for the mines, etc… .

Nail polish and lipsticks.

For every purpose. The only way we can get our steel and all these essential commodities is by having this Commission on the spot, and they arrange all these contracts, and there is a large amount of money spent in the United States today, and we are only sorry that we are unable to spend more. The difficulty is to get the goods. The difficulty these men have is not that the suppliers come round and want to sell the stuff; our Purchasing Commission has to go hat in hand practically to the American Control Board and ask them to allow us to have the stuff, so this is a very essential amount of money which we are spending, and it will continue during the war.

Will you have the shipping?

The shipping is also a very important thing. We are spending all our lives trying to get ships. I don’t know whether the hon. member has noticed it, but there are a tremendous number of ships being sunk now, and the result is that there is a very great shortage of ships. I have a Committee spending a great deal of time finding ships, and if the hon. member can tell us where we can get some we shall be very thankful. Then the hon. member had something to say about the price controller. And what was the burden of his complaint?

I spoke about the maximum price and not the minimum—we want a minimum price too.

Oh, yes, potatoes. Well, the question of who fixed the price of potatoes at 25s. is a complicated one. I think the best thing for me is to take entire responsibility for having fixed the price of potatoes at 25s.

You will be hanged for it.

All right, I am quite agreeable.

So are we.

The hon. member thinks that I have never grown a bag of potatoes. Well, I have, but the only thing I can tell him is that I have never got 25s. for a bag of potatoes—if I had got 25s. for every bag of potatoes I have grown I would have been a very wealthy man indeed.

Did the farmer get it?

I certainly have never got 25s. for a bag of potatoes—never in my life.

Are you prepared to make it a guarantee price?

No, I am out to prevent the consumer from paying a ridiculous price for any commodity. And as the hon. member for Ventersdorp knows, potatoes just before I fixed them at 25s. went up to 37s. 6d., and as a grower of potatoes myself I say that 37s. 6d. is an absolute robbery.

Did you refuse to accept 37s. 6d.?

I don’t know whether the hon. member would have refused—I have certainly never had a chance of getting it. Now I want to say another thing. I fixed the price of seed potatoes at 35s. per bag and not at 25s. per bag as the hon. member said, but if it is any satisfaction to the hon. member I may say that now that a food controller in the person of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, has been appointed, I shall not be expected to fix the price of produce to the farmer.

Now it may even be worse.

So I think the hon. member has got the criminal out of the way.

Only exchanging him for another one.

On the question of a minimum price, I am only allowed under the Emergency Regulations to fix a maximum price, and let me tell the hon. member that I have no wish to have the job of fixing a minimum price. I have had something to do with minimum prices also on farms, and I find that the man will say: “Look here, I have to pay you a certain minimum price for the stuff, but I expect you after you have delivered the stuff to return so many shillings per bag or per cask, or whatever it is.” That is the sort of thing you get.

Oh, no, a farmer would never do a thing like that. It is only the middlemen who do that.

It is not so easy, but that is the sort of thing that happens.

You are a bad example, a farmer would not do it.

The farmer is not an innocent babe. I have great respect for the farmer. I am one myself.

No, you are not, you are a cheque book farmer.

The farmer is not a child and he knows how to get round all these things. But I am sure that now that the Minister of Agriculture will be the only person to deal with these matters the hon. member for Ventersdorp will find things much easier next year—he can criticise my colleague next year if he wants to. In regard to what the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) has said, I shall get my department to go into the question of tyre control. It is a very serious business, and I agree with the hon. member in regard to everything he said, but the hon. member is wrong when he says that he cannot get a tyre.

Only re-treads.

If he applies to the District Controller and he shows that it is necessary for him to have tyres for essential purposes he will get what he needs.

During March? It is shut down entirely.

Well, he only has a few days to go, and if he gets moving he will get it. The hon. member did not get the point about the social and economic Council. It is not going to deal with details of prices. The Food Controller is the man who will deal with these matters.

The farmer enters into the economic life of the country, and he should be consulted.

The hon. member for Fauresmith complained that I have too big a Committee, and now the hon. member here suggests that I should have a thing as big as this House of Parliament. You cannot have every person represented on this Council—you will never get any business done at all. Now, on the question of the shortage of foodstuffs which the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) raised —that all comes under the Minister of Agriculture now, he is the Food Controller. In regard to dried milk factories, the Industrial Development Corporation has gone into one or two of these schemes. I don’t know how far they have got. Then there is the question of blankets—blankets made out of rubbish. I wish the hon. member, instead of making these general statements, would let us have one case.

I shall let you have it. I shall tell you all about it.

It is the Director-General of War Supplies who deals with that, not me.

You ask Mushet; he’ll tell you.

Well, the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) is responsible to see to it that these blankets are of decent quality and good for our soldiers.

He only makes shirts, not blankets.

So it is rather a slur on the name of the hon. member to suggest that he is allowing blankets made out of rubbish to be sent to the soldiers.

I have seen them myself; I know it.

Yes, more general statements. Now, in regard to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, North (Mr. Johnson), on the question of footwear. The hon. member seems to complain that we have stopped the publication of figures regarding the imports and exports of footwear. I want to point out to the hon. member that we cannot go into every item. The only thing we say is that during the war you will not get statistics of imports and exports, and that covers footwear and everything else. The hon. member then said that while we allow footwear to come in—which is quite true—we have stopped certain raw materials. Can he give us some particulars of what these raw materials are, so that I can look into it.

I shall give you all the particulars you want.

He said we allowed certain raw materials in under priority 5, and others came in under priority 9. I recognise that priority 9 has a pood chance of getting shipping, as compared with priority 5. But the only thing the hon. member seems to complain of its that wooden heels for ladies’ shoes came under priority 9 and that people could not get them. Well, I am afraid I cannot shed tears over women not getting their wooden heels when there is a war on. Anyhow, I see the hon. member’s point. He says if you allow certain raw materials X to come in and they must be used together with raw material Y, then X and Y should come in at the same time. If the hon. member will give me the details of where our import licences have gone wrong I shall take the matter up.

On a point of order, may I explain that I have already handed the information to the Secretary …

What is the hon. member’s point of order?

Perhaps if the hon. member would give me the facts instead of the Secretary I may possibly get the Board to take more interest in it. Now the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) made some very interesting remarks, and I think he has put his finger on the spot. He says that the reason why we cannot do trade with the African territories is because our costs are too high. Yes, I quite agree with him. I must say that if our costs are too high it is almost impossible. I personally would never do trade with another country whose costs are too high for me. And the reason why our costs are too high is because our price structure is too high. My hon. friend over there, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) and his friends are responsible for that. Your labour costs in South Africa are extremely high and that is caused by these high rates that are laid down. We are saddled with these high rates. It means that our costs of production as compared with the costs of production of other countries that have a much lower price structure are out of all proportion. And that is why we cannot compete. The hon. member for Hospital says that the price in Tanganyika is about the same as that in Port Elizabeth. Therefore you have to carry your goods free. Well, I am astonished to think that a fellow businessman should make such a suggestion. Of course the Government would not dream of doing that. Then the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) brought up the question of fishing. We have gone into this several times, and I would like very badly to do something with regard to fisheries, but my department is now double the size it was two years ago, and it is almost impossible to get a staff to do any further work. We have lately in the last week or two investigated the question of these fisheries again, and we have decided that we shall have to provide certain money for the inshore fishermen not as gifts but as loans. They are a poor lot of men, and we shall probably have to provide them with money to buy fishing tackle, boats, etc.

A sort of lease and lend.

We shall only lend them this money and they will have to pay it back. I may say that the Food Controller is very concerned about the present food position, and we have only today agreed to let him have Dr. Van Bonde as an adviser in order to see if we cannot increase the catch of fish. I think we shall do something, but we are very much handicapped by the fact that most of our trawlers are being used as minesweepers, so that there shall be no danger to the coasts of our country. Hon. members will appreciate that, because it is in their interests that we have done that.

Is an extra amount to be put on the Estimates?

Not on these; we can do it later on. Then I have to deal with the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson). I know the difficulty about these baconers. As a matter of fact, only a few months ago their price was 6d. a lb.; the hardly treated farmer was content to get 6d. a lb., and now the price has gone up suddenly from 6d. to 9d. Well, I have got no complaint; I am very glad he is getting it, but I think it is a bit of a ramp. I don’t know if the farmer is really getting it, and I am not at all satisfied in my own mind that the speculator is not getting it, and probably he will let the price go down as soon as he has got rid of the stuff he has bought. In the meantime I understand that the Price Controller is raising the present price of bacon, so that will put the matter right. He has been forced to do it. Now I think I have answered all the hon. members’ questions.

I should like to have some information from the Minister about the steps he has taken, or is still taking, in order to regulate imports into this country in such a way that although unrestricted imports cannot take place, preference cannot take place, preference will be given to commodities and goods which are really needed, as compared with goods which are not required. I assume that the Minister during the past few days has also noticed the reports in the newspapers that there is a complete shortage of baling wire, with the result that the lucerne farmers and others who need this wire to make up their bales are in the greatest trouble. As against that I hear that large quantities of luxury articles are being imported, whisky and things which our good wives use to make themselves more beautiful than they are. However necessary those things may be from their point of view the Minister will surely agree with me that the real necessaries of life are of greater importance than those luxury articles. I hope the Minister will realise what may happen if these very necessary things which the farmers need for their production cannot be obtained. If for instance there is no baling wire the dairy farmers in many parts of the country, who are to a large extent dependent on lucerne to keep their milk production at a certain level, will be in such a position that they will not be able to obtain their bales of lucerne, and as a result the milk production may drop and be curtailed to a very large extent. The Minister can imagine what that would mean. I want to know from the Minister whether, with all the Boards he has, and all the powers he has, he cannot take effective steps, apart from the importation of wire, to see to it that the necessary quantities of wire are produced in South Africa itself. Is it not possible to manufacture various kinds of baling wire here? To me as a layman it seems that it should be possible. Now, there is another difficulty which I myself experienced recently, which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. Farmers have a lot of trouble in securing spare parts for various types of machinery and agricultural implements. The other day I could not obtain spare parts for an agricultural implement which is very largely used in South Africa. That spare part was unobtainable in the whole of South Africa.

What is it?

A spare part for a cultivator. The spare part was unobtainable in South Africa. These things often get worn out and if no steps are taken to obtain spare parts for this kind of machinery, and also for machinery used in industries, then I anticipate the greatest difficulties in regard to the production of foodstuffs in the near future. This is a very serious matter and I should like an assurance from the Minister that he and his department have taken steps to prevent a condition arising so that the farmers may not have the necessary implements to produce the food which the people need.

I cannot answer right away. Every import licence has a priority number on it, and that priority number is put on according to the degree of essentiality, and preference is always given to necessities. It is not much good giving a preference of No. 9, because there are so many prior references that they are not likely to get shipped. The hon. member says the big people are getting in luxuries.

Whisky.

I don’t look upon whisky as a luxury, I look upon it as a curse.

No, a necessity.

But the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) must remember that when you are loading a ship you cannot load it with steel rails and nothing else, and that is the reason why a certain amount of the higher priorities get a chance of coming in. Take the case of binding wire, that is a very heavy thing, and if they fill a ship with binding wire up to the plimsoll mark you still have room on top of the holds for something else.

Apparently no binding wire has come in for some time.

I don’t think the question of binding wire has anything to do with the shipping, because I think the difficulty is production. On the question of manufacturing it in South Africa, Iscor is laying down a plant for manufacturing wire, but unfortunately we have not got it yet, and even then we shall have difficulty in getting raw material. I will look into the question of these spare parts, and I have been wondering whether the factory at Vereeniging could not make these spare parts of machines in large demand. The factory in Vereeniging is today manufacturing several of the machines in more frequent use.

I gave that as an instance, it applies to all kinds of farm implements.

The difficulty is not in shipping, but the factories have been put on war work, and it is going to be very difficult to get these things. If we can get the factory at Vereeniging to make some, good will result. I will see what can be done.

I was dealing with the question of this so-called council and I want to ask the Minister to return to the recommendations of the Commission. I want to make an appeal to him on the lines of the recommendation of this Commission which he regards so very highly. They have made it very explicit that a part-time council will be no use. May I read to the House what the Commission has said in paragraph 227—

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister says “Yes, but you cannot get these men; you won’t be able to attract them from their present positions.” But here we have a Commission, and three of the members of that Commission are now on this council. Does the Minister suggest that they would make a recommendation of this nature if they thought it was not practicable? They must have thought that it was a practical proposal, and they not only present this idea, but extend it very explicitly. They say in paragraph 228—

It stands to reason if you want men of the desired type, you will have to pay them adequately. I venture to suggest that a council composed of experts of that type, even if you have to pay them a salary equal to that of the judges, would be a much cheaper proposition to this country than twelve part-time men on whatever salary the Minister is going to pay them, because they would have no continuity and no guarantee that they are giving their full time and attention to this most important function. If the Minister agrees that this is a good report, and the establishment of this economic and planning council is a most important recommendation, then the Minister should show his conviction by carrying out the recommendation. He has said he does not see why a judge should be appointed as chairman. Well, the Commission recommended it. I may say that I do not feel very strongly on that point, but I do feel that the Commission thought it desirable that the council should be presided over by a judge, and it is not difficult to understand their reasons for it. They say the work will be largely investigational, and one knows that judges have had great experience in sifting evidence and getting essential facts brought out. I take it that a judge, with his experience, will be able to shorten the work of the Council. One knows that these economic and social questions involve most intricate and nice points of law, and it would be very desirable to have at the head of the council a man trained in the law who could bring his knowledge and experience to bear on the intricate questions which will arise. Above all, in a judge you have somebody whose whole career has been one of judgment, he can bring to bear on every point a trained judgment, and I think these were the considerations which prompted the commission to make this recommendation. I want to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to carry out this other recommendation in Paragraph 230, which reads—

Is the Minister prepared to give us the assurance that these two members of the Provincial Council and the member of the Senate will now resign, because I take it that membership of the Provincial Council or the Senate is a political activity? And will he give us the assurance that members of this council will in future abstain from all political activities?

No.

The Minister is not prepared to follow the recommendations of his own commission. He calls it a good report, and an excellent commission, and yet in every essential he departs from its recommendations. I move—