May I, in terms of Notice, move the amendment standing in my name to Clause 25? The effect of this is merely to clarify the position in regard to transactions where an agreement of sale was made before the 1st October, but where the actual transfer took place thereafter. This will exempt such cases from the operation of the law as was the intention. And may I, with the leave of the House, move a further amendment in Section 25. The word in the English version is “mainly” and in Afrikaans “hoofsaaklik.” Perhaps it would be better to use the word “substantial” in English. This only affects the English version. I move—

I second.

I should like now to propose the amendment in Clause 27 which deals with the same point that I dealt with in Clause 25, which I have just moved. I move—

I second.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I move—

This is a Bill which every year makes its appearance at this stage of the session and which we have got to know as the Omnibus Bill or the Bill containing provisions of all kinds. The fact that a memorandum has been issued in regard to the various clauses of the Bill makes it unnecessary for me to go into details. Hon. members have had the memorandum before them for a few days and they have therefore had the opportunity of seeing what the effect of the various classes will be. In any case we are dealing here with a series of separate clauses which are not connected with each other, and in connection with which it is therefore not possible to deliver a second reading speech in the ordinary sense of the word. The House will probably be disposed to discuss this Bill principally in the Committee stage. At any rate I only propose at this stage to refer to the principal clauses of the Bill, and it is not my intention to deal with every clause in particular. As I have already said, hon. members have a memorandum before them, and if they require any further information they can get that information either after I have spoken or in Committee. I first of all wish to refer to Clause 1. I said in my Budget speech that for the year ended 31st March we expected a surplus of about £6,250,000, and I said on that occasion that we proposed transferring £6,000,000 of that to Loan Account to use that amount in connection with the redemption of repatriated overseas debt. Revenue has, however, poured into the Exchequer at a particularly good and satisfactory rate during the last few months of the financial year, and it has become clear now, although I have not got the final figures yet, that the surplus will be more than £7,500,000. That being so, we propose paying into Loan Account not £6,000,000 but £7,500,000. That will mean that by using this £7,500,000 we shall be able probably to redeem about £23,000,000 altogether of the £30,000,000 of repatriated overseas debt. I think that this is a very good achievement on which we can congratulate the country. The second clause contains proposals by my colleague, the Minister of Railways and Harbours, in regard to the application of his surplus. This is the first occasion that provision of this nature is made in a finance Bill of this kind. My colleague adduced good reasons to avail himself of this means to be able to apply his surplus in the manner proposed. If necessary he will be able to give further information in this connection. In Clause 3 provision is made for special authority in connection with the work of the Controller of Foodstuffs. Hon. members will notice that on the Loan Vote provision has already been made in that connection for an amount of £200,000. It is quite impossible, however, to say in advance how much will be required by way of advances, and that is why we are asking the House to give us the opportunity in view of the circumstances to provide the funds which may still be required. The next clause of the Bill is a clause which has already had a considerable amount of attention. It concerns the indemnifying of the Reserve Bank against losses in regard to the purchase of rubber. This proposal was originally made in consequence of the quantity of rubber which we had hoped to get from Batavia. As far as we know at the moment, we are not going to get any of that. It is considered desirable, however, to retain the clause in this Bill in view of the possibility of our being able perhaps to get the necessary quantities of rubber from other sources.

Are you no longer able to get it from Java?

So far as we know it is not going to get here. There is a possibility of part of the rubber havingbeen shipped in time, but so far as we know we shall in all probability not get anything of the stocks which we have ordered. Clause 5 is intended to clear up the position in regard to the arrangements made under Clause 3 of the Appropriation Act of 1940 in connection with the war expenditure account. The House on that occasion approved of a provision that if for instance stocks were sold to allied Governments such sales would be accounted for on war expenditure, and if payments were received the accounts would be credited with the amounts so received. In this clause which should be read together with Clauses 21 and 23 the position is further described and further provision is made for the letting and sub-letting to allied Governments. It is perhaps unnecessary to say anything about the subsequent clauses, but I do wish to draw attention to Clause 14, where we deal with the reserve fund of the Post Office Savings Bank. That reserve fund has increased considerably of late. A year ago it stood at £1,600,000, which is a little less than 6½ per cent. of the deposits. It is not necessary to allow the fund to increase to an unlimited amount, and we therefore propose, not in view of the present position, but with a view to the future, that the amount of the reserve fund shall be 7½ per cent. Then we have Clause 15, dealing with the Native Urban Areas Act in respect of smaller municipalities. Arrangements have been made under that Act for the Government to bear the expense of the native census only in the larger municipalities. It is not quite clear why exactly that provision was made. It was probably thought that the cost so far as the smaller municipalities are concerned would be very small. That arrangement, however, is quite unreasonable so far as the smaller municipalities are concerned, and we have decided also to apply the other provision to the smaller municipalities which, of course, means a concession to them. Clause 16 provides for the Budget proposal in regard to the increased grant to the Native Trust Fund. It is proposed there to substitute the word “two-thirds” by the word “five-sixths”. Clause 18 applies to the Free State. In terms of the subsidy provisions the main subsidy of a Province is calculated on the number of school-going children. In the Free State there has been a tendency during the past few years for the number of school-going children to drop. Three years ago Parliament passed a provision entitling the Free State to a minimum subsidy based on the number of school-going children as at that time. We now propose to extend that guarantee for another two years. Clause 19 contains another Budget proposal, namely, that which I gave notice of in my Budget speech in regard to the amendment of the Children’s Protection Act, to render it possible to give grants to mothers as well as to children. I also want to refer to Clause 22, which is one of the results of the handing over of the responsibility for poor relief and charitable institutions to the Union Government. Some of those institutions which have been taken over are in actual fact health institutions. First of all, those institutions were transferred to the Department of Social Welfare, but in such cases where they should come under the Department of Public Health we now want to take steps rendering the transfer to that department possible.

As there has been a change in the procedure in respect of this Finance Bill and the Railway Accounts Bill, I think I should at this stage just say a word in connection with the railway accounts covered by Clause 2. The new procedure is bringing the railway procedure into line with what the Treasury does. In the past we have had a supplementary estimate, but we now follow the same procedure as the Treasury does and we bring the surplus in this Bill. The procedure is strongly recommended by the Auditor-General. It saves a good deal of printing and it probably gives a better opportunity to the House to discuss the matter connected with the accounts, and consequently we have decided to adopt this procedure. So far as the surplus is concerned, the House will recall that in my Budget speech I indicated that we would have a surplus of £5,400,000, and with the accounts we brought forward from the previous year, £6,300,000. In the past we have carried these large sums over from the previous years, so that you have always had a correcting factor in respect of what was carried over from the previous year. This year we are appropriating the whole surplus, so that next year stands on its own legs. The figures were rather better than was anticipated, and we now have a surplus for the year of £6,200,000, which, with the addition of the carry forward, gives us a total nett surplus for the year’s working of £7,054,000. This amount is being appropriated as I indicated in the Budget, but I have decided, in view of the very large increase in our surplus, to appropriate £500,000 to our insurance funds. Owing to the war and the necessity for carrying pretty heavy marine insurance, we have come to the conclusion that this fund should be strengthened, and I am therefore appropriating £500,000 to the insurance funds. The rates equalisation fund, to which I promised not less than £2,400,000, will not be touched insofar as this account is concerned. We will now be appropriating £2,600,000 for the rates equalisation fund. Therefore this £500,000 which I am now appropriating is being appropriated from the surplus funds, which we now find have accrued. I do not think I can say anything further, but if there is any other question, I can deal with it in the Committee stage of the Bill.

This Bill which is known to us as the Omnibus Bill does not lend itself to a fruitful discussion on the second reading, because it contains a variety of provisions dealing with all kinds of subjects. We do not therefore propose to discuss the second reading. We shall avail ourselves of the Committee stage to discuss the various provisions.

This clause refers to an amendment of £200,000 for the purchase of agricultural stocks, and provision is made for a larger amount to be applied for. I also notice that the Minister takes certain powers for the sale of agricultural products to ships. Now, I want to know from him whether it is his intention to prevent ships laying in stores here having to pay high prices for those stores, and whether he wants to prevent competition in regard to the supply of stores to those ships? I want to know whether it is the intention to fix prices for potatoes and such things, so that the ships will be able to buy those commodities at fixed prices. It seems to me that the Government is stepping in here to prevent the farmer from getting a proper price for his products. A few years ago the price of agricultural products was very low—as a matter of fact, there was practically no price for such products. The Government at that time did not interfere to try and assist the farmers to get a better price. People had to be satisfied with what they could get, and the farmers could not even make up their costs of production. Now that they have an opportunity of getting good prices for their products it seems that the Government is going to step in; it seems as though the Government is going to buy goods on behalf of those ships and thus prevent people from getting a higher price. It seems very unreasonable to me, and I should like some explanation.

I want to put the hon. member’s mind at ease so far as I am able to do so. There is no intention to use this money to bring down the prices for the farmers, but rather to secure better prices for them. I cannot say exactly at this stage what is going to happen in regard to ships’ stores.

Are maximum prices going to be fixed?

No, I cannot say that now. We are going into this whole question. One of the things we want to do, for instance, is to buy potatoes on the public market at times when it is necessary to maintain prices. Our idea is to buy when there is a big supply, so that we can keep the prices steady. We shall probably have to go into the market to buy vegetables. There is no intention of cutting out competition, but the intention is in cases where there is not sufficient competition to keep the market steady by the competition of the Government which will make purchases on the market. That is why we are asking for a larger amount here. We cannot determine what the amount is going to be. The hon. member knows that the Food Controller has bought up the whole of the monkey nut crop, for instance, at a reasonable price, a price which satisfied the farmers. We need that very badly. It will give us a chance properly to balance any short crop. An amount of £200,000 is mentioned here, and that money will in all probability soon be spent. The intention is to keep the money in a fund and the revenue of the fund will be used for further purchases. I think it will probably be better to discuss this question when the amount has to be voted on the estimates. But I can assure the hon. member that the object is to secure a higher price for the farmers instead of a lower price. Wherever it becomes necessary for certain purposes to fix a minimum price it is the intention to see to it that the farmer will not suffer, and where necessary a definite price will be fixed.

I want to tell the Minister that the farmers cannot wait. Yesterday I received telegrams from my constituency on the subject of potatoes. Potatoes are sold at 9s. per bag. We cannot carry on like that. The Minister now tells us that he has not yet decided. Yet practically everything is controlled. I notice the Minister scratching his head—he should have done so long ago, because of the seriousness of the matter. We are struggling to get a market and I want to know from the Minister why he does not fix a minimum price. Control is exercised on a large scale, and I want to know why it is not exercised here. We have discussed this matter over and over again, but we have not got beyond talking about it. As the Minister is now Controller of Foodstuffs, we want to know why he is not immediately taking drastic steps. Why must the farmers come here every year and urge that these things should be tackled, yet nothing is done? Why should we have to depend on gifts and favours? The Minister says that he is going to go into the markets in the big towns to compete with the speculator, but what about the small dorps? Nobody competes there. The farmers have put their stuff on the market and they have to give it away for practically nothing. It is high time the Minister and his department took action.

The Minister pretends that it is his object to see to it that the farmer gets a better price for his products. Well, I want to object to what the Minister told us, because it seems to me that the real object with which the Controller of Foodstuffs has been appointed is to bring down prices. Take potatoes, for instance. If prices had not been fixed, potatoes in November and December would have gone up to £2 per bag. After control was established the price dropped and the authorities were not even prepared to fix a minimum price. For the large white beans we got 35s. per bag. After peeling them and dumping the beans on the market, the price dropped to less than production cost. The Minister did not interfere when the farmers were getting those low prices, but as soon as prices went up he stepped in. The Minister must not come and tell this Committee that control has been established with a view to securing better prices for the farmers. No, the object is to stop prices from going up. If there had been no control it is quite possible that the prices of some of our products would have gone up so that it would have paid the farmer to produce. Possibly it might have been desirable to exercise control in some cases, but if you do that you should also give the farmer protection when prices drop beyond a certain level. When potatoes were sold for 7s. and 8s. per bag, as has been happening recently, the Minister did nothing. Why not? Yet when the price went up he immediately fixed a maximum price. As I have said before, the Minister of Agriculture should be the father of the farmers, but it seems to us that he is the father of the consumer and of the speculator. If we go on the way we are doing now, and if we meet again next year—and it is quite likely that we shall not meet—I hope he will make a better showing than he has done in the past.

At the request of the Government itself, we have been telling the farmers from the platforms all over the country that they must produce as rapidly and as much as they can, because we do not want the Government to reproach us at some future time with having failed to produce when we should have done so. Our farmers are producing. Somebody blamed me the other day for having given him this advice, and he was quite right in blaming me. He took my advice and he sent a lot of vegetables to the market, but he could not get any bids for his vegetables. I am prepared to give the Minister the name and address of this individual. Cannot the Minister appoint somebody in the platteland dorps to whom the farmers can take their products to have them conveyed to the market? The Minister cannot expect farmers who perhaps have a bag of beans for sale to send them to the various markets. But if somebody is appointed on the platteland, large quantities of vegetables can be pooled to be sent to the various markets. In a time of war such as we are now going through, I can tell the Minister that during the last season fresh eggs were sold on the platteland at 5d. and 6d. per dozen, and butter was sold at 5d. and 6d. per lb. Farmers cannot possibly carry on under those conditions. Now there is something in connection with this control which seems most peculiar to us. In some cases the Minister has prohibited the farmers from availing themselves of the big demand there is for their products. Now he tells us that he does not know whether he is going to fix a maximum price. But let me tell him that so far as the farmer is concerned, we also want a minimum price to be fixed. If that is done the farmer will know that if he incurs the expense of producing commodities he will be guaranteed a reasonable price and a reasonable compensation for the work he has to do and for the expense he incurs. But if the farmer does not know where he is he cannot be expected to produce on a large scale. If the farmer is to produce on a large scale and he has not got a market for his products, the Government is going to suffer a very severe setback at some future time. Of course, this Government will not be in power when that time comes, but it will make it all the more difficult for those who will have to govern the country after the war is over. That is why I am asking the Minister to follow a policy which takes some heed of the future. We cannot possibly continue with the present agricultural policy which the Government is following. We know that the Minister threw 132,000 cases of oranges overboard into the sea. We know that grapes and other fruit have been buried. We know that 600 loaves of bread have been thrown into the sea at Durban, and we know that 714 bags of wheat have been thrown overboard outside Cape Town. There is something radically wrong with the policy of the Government which can allow things like that to happen. To me a policy like that is incomprehensible. The Minister of Finance may perhaps be able to explain to us why those 400 bags of wheat were thrown into the sea. He has not done so, so far, and that is why we are asking again why it was done—particularly why it was done at a time when we are faced with a famine. There is a great shortage of wheat in South Africa and we may yet find people starving in this country. In spite of all this these things are allowed to take place. The Minister has his Emergency Regulations under which he can prevent these things, and I ask him to take his agricultural policy into review because these things which are happening today are bad.

I do ask the Minister to make a definite declaration of the department’s policy on this matter of minimum prices on this matter of guaranteed minimum prices. We cannot go back to our constituents unless we know where we stand The Minister has fixed the price of potato seed at 35s., and yet today we are getting from 8s. to 12s. for eating potatoes. That is a very sound example. We are being urged by the Minister to grow, grow, and are being told South Africa cannot produce enough food, not only for our own requirements, but for the necessary export to the North. We have to pay all the extra costs incidental to production. Are we to be compelled to throw our produce on the open market, and to take any price which the speculators offer? The Minister must realise the importance of this. If there is to be a maximum price, then the farmer must get a guaranteed minimum price. Look at the Minister of Labour. Will he suffer the wages of those he represents to be fixed on a maximum basis, and then be prepared to take whatever wages are offered at the other end of the scale without being guaranteed a minimum? No, it is the Government’s policy to fix the price for the labourer’s hire; we see it in the Gazette every week. There is not a maximum price on the one hand, and starvation wages on the other hand. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The farmers should get exactly the same benefit as that given to the labourer in every avenue of employment. That is a reasonable request. The position is getting very critical. Prices are rising every day. Take feeding stuffs. I have definite receipts to show that that is the case. I have just got a letter, with regard to groundnut oil cake meal, which reads as follows—

It was £5 10s. not long ago. There is a rise in prices going on the whole time and I do think that we are reaching that stage when prices have risen to such an extent that we must; if the country wants production, have a fixed guaranteed minimum price for what we produce. I ask the Minister to make that statement now. We can either say: “Produce all you can; the country wants it, the Defence Department wants it, and here is the price you are going to get.” Or we have to say: “The Government calls on us to produce but we must take what we can get on the market.”

You will get a fair price.

Is the price on the open market fair today? I can give the Minister many instances where the price is not fair. Would he say that 7s. per bag is a fair price for potatoes, having regard to the fact that production costs have risen, and having regard to the price of potato seed? It is no use my saying to the farmers that the Minister says: “You are getting a fair price.” I ask the Minister to make a definite statement, so that we can know where we stand. This is a matter of life and death to the farmer, and we must know where we stand. Are we going to get a definite promise of a price which will give the farmer a living wage or must we take the price which the speculator is prepared to offer? It is no use saying: “We will see that you get a fair price.” We want to know whether that guaranteed minimum will be paid or will not be paid.

Last Monday morning an official of the Department of Agriculture addressed a meeting attended by a number of farmers at Paarl. I hope I am allowed to refer to this matter now because he said that similar meetings were being held throughout the country so that it should be known all over. One of the matters he brought prominently to the notice of the farmers was that there was hardly a product in South Africa today of which there was not definitely going to be a shortage in the near future, and his main object was to encourage the farmers of Paarl to produce. He said it was essential that it should be done because if it were not the position in South Africa might become extremely serious. He told us that we would have to be rationed in this country unless the farmers went out of their way to produce more than they have been doing so far. His speech was listened to with feelings of goodwill, and I got up and I said: “I am convinced that the farmers in my constituency will do their utmost to see to it that the country does not starve, but on this condition, that the farmers receive proper remuneration for the additional work they do.” In view of the fact that everything the farmer has to produce is costing him so much more, we cannot take the risk of producing more unless the Department of Agriculture, or whoever it may be, guarantees us that the farmer will receive compensation which will make it worth his while to produce more than he is doing today. When we say this we do not mean that the farmer should be enriched as a result of the country’s need or as a result of the needs of the Department of Agriculture. Certainly not, but we want this assurance, that we are not going to lose on the deal. That is the only guarantee we want, and the only way to make sure that we are going to be remunerated for what we are doing is to have a minimum price laid down for the commodities which we produce. We should be guaranteed minimum prices for our potatoes, for our wheat, for our onions— we should be guaranteed that for any commodity we produce we shall not be paid less than a certain definite price. It is as clear as daylight that the Minister of Agriculture cannot expect the farming community to put their shoulders to the wheel unless the department gives them that assurance.

I wish strongly to support what the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has said. He asked the Minister to get up and to make a statement in regard to this question of the guaranteed minimum price. It is not enough to say that we will get fair prices. We want to know what those prices are going to be. Merely to tell us that the price will be fair gives us no indication what the price is going to be. The guaranteed price must be fixed in respect of all products. Another thing I would like the Minister to do is to have a body that will deal with those prices from time to time. I would like him not only to fix prices, but to have a body that can vary the prices from time to time, when necessary, due to a change in circumstances. The Minister is Food Controller, and he must have the power, if the costs of production go up after he has fixed the price, to be able to raise the price. The hon. member for Griqualand mentioned the question of feeding stuffs. Well, our costs of production depend entirely on what we have to feed into our stock to produce the products they are asking us to produce. I would like to ask the Minister to see that these feeding stuffs are graded properly by analysis laid down, because unless they are graded we do not know what we are paying for feeding stuffs that are adulterated by cheap ingredients. I feel that the Minister should fix the price of feeding stuffs too. I see that the Minister has now fixed the price of fresh milk in the Cape Town area, and this is giving general satisfaction here. Now I want to ask him whether he will also fix the price of fresh milk in Natal so that we can be on the same footing as the producers in the Cape Peninsula. At the present time we have no guarantee what the price will be from time to time, and no farmer can go on producing unless he knows what he is going to get for his produce. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that he will see to it that we get a fair price. We want to know what the price is going to be. I do hope he will make a statement in this connection so that we can go back to our constituencies and tell our farmers that the Minister has fixed a price that will enable them to produce at a satisfactory profit. This will also increase production.

I also want to make an appeal to the Minister of Agriculture. He always seemed to land himself into an unfortunate position. We know what he has done in regard to wheat. He refused to meet the farmers until they threatened that they were not going to sow sufficient wheat. He took refuge behind the report of the Wheat Commission, and he declined to take into account the changed conditions. That is the reason why this country was in danger of there being a wheat shortage in the near future, and that is why the Minister had to fix a minimum price for wheat. Minimum prices are fixed in other countries. Australia fixes minimum prices in certain respects and it is also done in England. The price of potatoes is fixed in England. It is also done in America. I can tell the Minister that it is becoming really impossible for the farmer to produce because whatever the farmer needs has gone up so tremendously in price. In my constituency there are tons and tons of lucerne for which there is no baling wire available to bale the stuff. You may perhaps be able to get it, but then you have to pay £3 per bale and then you find that the big produce merchants such as Nurick and Mechanick sell the baling wire on condition that the farmer sells his lucerne to them. Lucerne is put up in stacks today and it is left in stacks. The farmer cannot get it to the market. In Cape Town we find that the milch cows have no fodder and the milk is becoming more expensive. I want to tell the Minister that he has to make some plan, particularly in regard to the production of milk. It is his duty to fix a minimum price for lucerne; he has to fix a price for the baling wire and he also has to fix a minimum price for milk. That is the one aspect of the agricultural industry which the Minister can tackle as a whole and where he can find a solution for the trouble. In Cape Town and in the Western Province there is a shortage of fodder, but in spite of that the farmers do not know what the minimum price of their products is going to be. The lucerne farmers do not know it. The price of milk in this area has been fixed. But what is the position in regard to butter? My information is that there is a surplus of 5,000,000 lbs. of butter in the country today which will take us more or less to the middle of June, whereas in other years we usually have sufficient butter by this time to take us to the end of September. I want to ask the Minister to remember these things, and I want to urge him to fix a minimum price to enable people to produce. Take the position in regard to fertiliser. I asked for information from De Beers the other day, and fertiliser which used to cost me £5 10s. and £6 now costs £9 16s. 6d„ yet I don’t know what I am going to get for the commodities which I am producing on my farm. I can tell the Minister that there are areas in this country which have produced large quantities of vegetables, but they are unable to find markets for those vegetables. If the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) were here he could have told us that he had produced tons of tomatoes on his farm for which he was unable to find a market. There were no trucks to be had to send the tomatoes away by train to the nearest market.

We cannot even send our fat sheep away from the north-western districts.

The Minister said he would see to it that we got reasonable prices. I want to ask the Minister to one morning pay a visit to the Cape Town market. Let his officials go there and see the way rings are being formed. If the stuff comes in in the morning and is put on the Cape Town market the buyers, principally Indians, decide that that day they are going to pay only 10s. or 12s. for potatoes. These uncontrolled markets in our towns are the greatest curse our farmers have to contend with. One often finds that one hardly covers expenses if one sends one’s products to the Cape Town market. I can mention any number of cases in the district of Worcester and Robertson of people who have hardly covered expenses— they have made a very, very poor existence out of producing these commodities. The whole marketing system, particularly in Cape Town, which I know more about, is deplorable, and I therefore ask the Minister to lay down minimum prices so that these rings which are formed today may be done away with. If it is not done the farmers will simply be unable to produce. They are not going to produce vegetables and commodities of that kind, but they will go in for the development of their lands, they will go in for sheep and cattle farming, but they will give up intensive farming, which does not pay them today. Round about Christmas and New Year the Worcester farmers sent thousands of bags of potatoes to the market, and they had to sell them at 7s. and 8s. per bag. I was one of them. That is the price which we got while the price in town was 2½d. and more per lb. I want to appeal to the Minister. There are hon. members on his side who also realise what the position is. The hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) said the other day that we were all helping ourselves but that we should think a little more of the farmers. He pointed out that the farmers were producing the food for the people and that it should be made possible for them to make a living, and the only way to help the farmers was to lay down a minimum price.

The Port Elizabeth District Farming Association made representations to me about the establishment of an organisation which will be prepared to supply the ships with all their stores. I approached the department about this and the department promised me to send an official there. I hope it will have a good effect. If the proposed organisation can be established it will mean that the ships will pay less for their stores and that the farmers will be able to get better prices for their products. We realise the difficulty of fixing minimum prices for perishable products such as potatoes and fresh vegetables, but the department will have to give its attention to this question. I am convinced that they will find some way out of the difficulty. The farmers are encouraged to produce and to keep on producing, but when they send their potatoes to the Port Elizabeth market they get from 7s. 6d. to 9s. per bag, and at that price they are not encouraged to produce. They cannot make a living on that price, because everything is expensive today—labour, fertilisers, agricultural implements. In the towns, however, the public for the same class of potatoes have to pay 1s. for 5 lbs. It is out of all proportion. I want to urge very strongly that something should be done to come to the assistance of the farmer in regard to potatoes and other products. I have a sample of mealies here produced by a miller and supplied to the farmers in the Port Elizabeth district. I hope the Minister will give this matter his attention because I am convinced that this sample is 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. mealie cobs and even chaff has been milled into it.

We on this side of the House are pleased to notice that at long last voices are also being raised from the other side of the House to plead the interests of the farmers. Only a short while ago the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward), told us that we had no right to complain because all the farmers were flourishing and everything in connection with farming was in good order and condition. I am pleased to notice that at long last we are getting some support from the other side of the House. We on this side have always stood for the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire, that the man who does the work is entitled to a fair and reasonable wage, and whether the labourer works on the roads or whether he works for the railways, or whether he is an official or a salary earner or a farmer, the principle remains the same. We have always stood for that principle. I am glad to notice that the Minister of Labour is listening to me. Perhaps he would use his influence to see to it that the farmers also get a living wage. It has been rightly said here that the farmers are not asking for high and unreasonable prices. All they ask for is a reasonable price, a price at which it will pay them to produce. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) drew attention to the position on the Cape Town vegetable and fruit market. During the previous session I put a question to the Minister—he may perhaps remember it—and asked him if he was not too busy one morning to visit the market in the company of his officials. I told him that he would be surprised at the low prices that were paid there. And then I asked him to go from the market to the fruit stalls on the Cape Town Parade. I asked him to compare the prices which those Indians paid on the Cape Town market with the prices they ask the consumer on the Parade to pay for the goods they sell there. There is something wrong there, and I again want to ask the Minister to give attention to this aspect of the matter. I drew the attention of the department to the flucuation in the prices of onions. I pointed out that a farmer from Tulbagh had given me all his market returns for the whole year and I handed those market returns to the department. That man got as little as 3s. per bag. The bags cost 9d. each and transport to the station works out at 3d. per bag, which means that the man only got 2s. per bag. I want to ask the Minister to see to it that this sort of thing is not allowed to continue, particularly in a time like the present. The Minister now has a large amount of money on the Estimates. If necessary, let him get more, but I want to ask him to see to it that the market is not allowed to collapse, and I want him to pay particular attention to the interests of the onion farmers. They only constitute a small section, but they are hard-working and so far as I know they have never in the past had any assistance from the Government. Costs of production are very high today and we all know that onions cannot be stored. I want to ask the Minister not to leave it at words, but to do something. I want him to give this matter his immediate attention. All we are asking for is that the farmers will get a price at which it will pay them to produce, a price in keeping with the increased cost of production.

It seems to me that hon. members opposite now think that there is only one salvation for the position, and that is minimum prices. They think that if minimum prices are fixed all will be well. We had the same sort of thing at one time in regard to sales through one channel. That would put everything right, that was all they wanted. I want to ask the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), whether, if I fix a minimum price for beans or vegetables it is going to help him one scrap? If I were to fix a minimum price of 20s. for potatoes, for instance, would that help them? It would simply mean that nobody would buy potatoes.

Why not?

If we fail to devise other means of stabilising the market it will not help us very much. The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) said that 2,000 bags of potatoes—very good potatoes— has been offered for sale, but that the farmers had not been able to dispose of them. They could not even get 9s. per bag. I said: “Very well, I shall give special instructions in connection with them, and the potatoes will be sent to some market or other at a reasonable price failing which they will be accumulated.”

What do you call “reasonable”.

What is reasonable? The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson), who is a farmer, and who knows something about these things, now says that I must appoint a Commission to regulate prices from time to time. I do want to ask hon. members to give me a bit of a chance. The hon. member won’t even give me two or three weeks to arrange matters. He should not expect too much from me. We have stepped in wherever it has been necessary, and wherever it becomes necessary minimum prices will be fixed.

But you fixed maximum prices in one day?

I only want to say that I did not fix those maximum prices, nor was I in favour of fixing them. But what I do want to say is this: Wherever a maximum price has been fixed, and wherever it is necessary to fix a minimum price to secure a reasonable price for the producer, it will be done. But can anyone tell me, for instance, what the minimum price should be for potatoes?

But a maximum price was fixed.

But can the hon. member tell me what the minimum price should be?

Well say 15s., for example.

Say 20s. per bag; 5s. is enough for the middleman.

There we are—we already have two or three different opinions from farmers. The hon. member for Weenen, who knows something about these things, says that there is no proper grading. Does he know what it would cost? And where am I to get the man power to do it? It is very easy to put up some clever arguments here in Parliament.

Give us the reins.

If the hon. member had to deal with agriculture, and was given control, Heaven knows what would become of it. I don’t want to lose my temper, but it is very difficult sometimes. Assuming there were a minimum price. Would that remedy the whole position?

It would improve the position.

It is very questionable. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) was one of those who asked for minimum prices. What would happen if the buyers were to stand aside and refuse to buy? The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) has drawn attention to the conditions prevailing on the Municipal Market. Does he realise that I have nothing to do with that? The local markets come under the Provincial Councils, and not under my department. The Cape Town Municipality some time ago asked us to advise them in regard to running the Municipal Market in the proper manner. We have done our best.

Cannot you interfere?

I cannot interfere. The local markets come under the Provincial Councils and the Provincial Administrations are not very keen on our interfering too quickly.

Cannot you do so in your capacity as Controller of Foodstuffs?

I must ask hon. members to refrain from interrupting so continuously.

Hon. members have also spoken of the wheat farmers. The hon. member for Gordonia was not here, but the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) was here when I explained the wheat position and he nodded his head and said “Here you have acted sensibly, and there you have acted sensibly”. The hon. member for Gordonia cannot expect me to discuss the whole of the wheat question anew, but let me tell him that a number of farmers from the Western Province have approached me and have asked me not to fix the price for oats and barley—they have asked me not to control the price. That proves how much difference of opinion there is in this country on that subject. They all agree that they are getting good prices today and they are afraid that if a price is fixed they may be detrimentally affected. All I ask is to be given a chance. Wherever it has been necessary to fix prices we have done so. The hon. member for Weenen knows what we have done here in Cape Town in regard to milk. We have brought the consumers as well as the distributors and the producers together, and a price has been fixed. At any rate I want to tell the hon. member over there that we cannot do anything in a hurry. Durban has also approached us. They wanted control to be established over milk. There is a Board; they came to us and said: “Give us a milk scheme”. As the hon. member should know, there is a milk scheme to deal with over-production and to make the necessary provision in the event of a surplus of fresh milk. I have already said that as Food Controller I have the right to fix minimum prices and the Price Controller has the right to fix maximum prices for products. We asked Durban why they wanted the milk scheme. The Board asked them what their reasons were. The people in Cape Town, as I have already said, said this to us: “Fix the price and we shall be satisfied”. We are quite willing to do the same thing for Durban. I have already invited them. They were in Pretoria. They came to see the Board and the Board told them what I had told them. And then they said: “Give us a milk scheme”.

†Then I come to the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson). The hon. member talks. I would like him to tell me which article I should have fixed since I have become Food Controller. I have told him already that it requires a certain amount of investigation to fix a thing. If he can fix it at once, well, then, I must say he is a better man than I am.

He is that.

He may think so. I don’t know whether everyone thinks so. The prices that can be fixed have been fixed. We have given a fixed price where we can. We have fixed the price for cheese milk, which the hon. member was very satisfied with. If matters alter has he any reason to think that either the Dairy Board or I will not be induced to give better prices? He has no reason to think so. The price for butter fat has been satisfactorily fixed to the farmers.

What about the price of feeding stuff?

I am coming to that. The price of butter fat has been fixed for the winter months, when we expect a scarcity much greater than has ever been dreamt of. I have already explained that the farmers who grow the stuff come to me and say: “Please don’t fix the price of oats, rye and barley at present.”

Not the maximum price.

They have not asked for any price at all. If you fix a price at all it must be a definite price. People have asked us to fix maximum prices, but the farmers would not like that. I want to say that what we have done is to fix definite prices. I have given Parliament the assurance that where a maximum price is fixed and it does not work satisfactorily to the producer I shall see to it that a minimum price is fixed. Surely hon. members will give my department a chance to conduct the necessary investigations.

We have given you two and a half years.

It would be worse if we fixed wrong prices.

You could always change them again.

I can only say to hon. members that I have given them that assurance. I have told them that where it is necessary to have a fixed price we shall fix it—and it is coming to that—every article will have its fixed price, so it seems to me—certainly for farmers’ products. It will come to that. But I do ask them to have a little patience and give me the chance to investigate things properly. I have not had the chance to attend to that part of my business. I ask hon. members to give me a chance to get our administration in order. I have given them an assurance and I have gone further; I have said to farmers: “You produce and you will get a fair deal”. I cannot do more at this stage. If hon. members are not satisfied with that, I am sorry; I cannot do more. If hon. members want to insist on minimum prices now—well, they can go on insisting.

†*An hon. member also spoke about our surplus of butter. Now, let me tell the hon. member where the difficulty comes in. If you exercise control in that respect you also have to control farm butter. Will hon. members be willing to allow us to put the levy on farm butter as well? I can imagine the uproar there would have been on the other side if we had said that a woman who brought in 5 lbs. or 6 lbs. of butter to sell for the purpose of buying groceries, had to pay the levy. That is why we have too much butter during certain seasons of the year in our small towns, and perhaps too little in the big towns. But if hon. members want us also to put farm butter under the control scheme, I am prepared to consider it. In regard to eggs, we have the same position. Hon. members should realise what it means. We are doing our best, but the position is not an easy one so far as perishable products are concerned. We are at the moment considering the question whether it would be feasible to fix a minimum price at such times when supplies are plentiful, but if we do that we first of all have to take into consideration what the cost of cold storage is going to be. We are considering all these points. In regard to the position of people who produce eggs—at certain times of the year they have to be content with about 9d. or even 6d. or 7d. per dozen, while at other times of the year they get 2s. 6d. Every egg producer knows that … We are trying to arrange matters, and we are trying to secure a better price for the producers, and I see no reason why it cannot be done. But we are not going to achieve our object by merely fixing a minimum price in this country. It will simply mean that people will not buy eggs, that is the position. We want to determine what the costs of production are, and what is a reasonable price, and perhaps we shall be able to bring in the big egg dealers, so that they will also be satisfied. It may perhaps be possible to lay down some fixed price.

†The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) has also asked me to fix the price of feeding stuff. Supposing we fix it. Are you going to get more feeding stuff? Your trouble is to be able to get it, to get enough feeding stuff. If I am going to fix the price of lucerne is the hon. member for Weenen going to get more? It is not all a question of fixing prices, it is very much more a question of trying to organise the industry, and we are trying to effect that. I shall give another example. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward), says that they want the farmers to undertake the supplying of ships. The hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood), has just told me—if I understood him rightly—“For goodness sake, keep out of that, don’t spoil that market for us; have nothing to do with ships’ stores. Leave it to open competition.” No, I do want to call upon hon. members in a difficult time like this, not to make propaganda in this House in this manner.

†*The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) shakes his head; he is a first-class farmer—perhaps he is one of the ten best farmers in the country, but if he asks me whether he is a good politician then I have to shake my head. The hon. member says: “You appointed a controller to bring down the farmers’ prices.” Does he expect the public to accept that statement? Does he expect anyone with common-sense to swallow that? The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) referred to 614 bags of wheat which he said had been thrown overboard into the sea. I must admit that he knows more than I do. We get wheat from the Argentine and from Australia, and it is possible that a consignment of wheat arrived from those countries so full of weavils that it had to be thrown overboard, but how does the hon. member know which wheat it was? The hon. member for Gordonia says that we must fix the price of baling wire.

One has to pay £3 for it now.

I got a bale of wire the other day and I had to pay £3 10s. and I was glad to get it. There is no wire in the country.

The speculators are profiteering.

How many of them have got any wire? My information is that all the dealers between them in this country have not got 1,000 rolls of wire.

Then why is it that they are making contracts and that they say: “We are prepared to supply you with wire if you sell us your lucerne”?

I can only say that that is my information. For the last three months we have been trying to get wire in from outside. We are busy with the steel factory and a process has been developed to manufacture baling wire out of the old wire ropes used on the mines. Last year a satisfactory process was discovered and we are taking all possible steps to get hold of all the old wire rope from the mines, with a view to turning it into baling wire which we shall be able to sell at a reasonable price. Meanwhile we have every hope of getting a certain quantity of baling wire from that source which will help us for a time until we expect to be able to get a small consignment from overseas. I am referring to this to show that it is no use saying that baling wire has to be sold at £1 per roll. One cannot get it at that price.

Cannot it be manufactured here?

I have already said that I have been busy with Iscor and that they are not able under present conditions to manufacture baling wire here, but that in spite of that we shall be able to get a certain quantity by turning the old rope wire from the mines into baling wire. The hon. member also referred to the question of fertiliser, and he asked the Government to fix the price, but the hon. member should know that we have a great deal of trouble to get sufficient quantities of fertiliser. Just as much as we are trying to encourage the farmers to produce more, just as much are we trying to encourage the factories to supply more fertiliser. The Government is assisting them in every possible way, and it is not going to be any use merely to fix prices. The Government has gone so far as to pay a subsidy on every ton of fertiliser that is sold, and I don’t know what more we can do. With the aid of the Department of Mines we are making investigations on every possible farm where we hear of the existence of phosphates or other fertilisers, with a view to developing those resources. At the moment we are dealing with these matters. We are considering the question of fixing prices, but simply to lay down a fixed price in regard to the cases which have been mentioned would not get us any further. I again want to appeal to hon. members and ask them to give us a chance to do our work and to organise matters.

But how much longer is it going to take you?

It may perhaps take another month; it is hard to say. I can only say that we are trying our best to get our organisation into working order as quickly as possible. As soon as I am able to determine where minimum prices should be fixed and where maximum prices should be fixed those prices will be fixed, wherever it is necessary to ensure the farmer of a reasonable price, and where it will meet its purpose minimum prices will be fixed. I hope this statement will satisfy hon. members.

I want to bring a matter of great importance to the Minister’s notice. As a result of the severe drought and also as a result of the damage done by the commando worm, there is a possibility of numbers of farmers not being able to produce a crop this year, in consequence of which they will not be in a position to pay their fuel accounts. That will mean that they will have to be given more time to do so. The oil companies will not be prepared to make any concessions to them. During the past year the department has supplied tractors together with fuel for the use of farmers to do their ploughing. Those tractors were let to the farmers, and I should now like to know from the Minister whether in cases where the farmers have their own tractors the department will help them with fuel.

The hon. member is now discussing a question which does not come under this clause.

But surely it is a question of importance in regard to the subject of production?

Yes, but we are not considering the agricultural vote now.

I am only putting that question, and I am sorry I am not in order in putting it.

I must say that I largely agree with the Minister on the question of the difficulties he is experiencing in regard to agricultural matters. A matter which struck me particularly is the fact that people are told that they must produce and keep on producing, and then hon. members come here and ask for prices to be fixed. I think it advisable that the Department of Agriculture should consider not sending people round the country and telling farmers just to produce anything. The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) has already told us that some people send beans to the market which they were unable to sell. There are certain areas where it is hopeless to produce certain things, and if the department proclaims everywhere that people should produce anything it is making a serious mistake. The papers take up these things in the wrong light, but it appears to me that the farmers are being told that they must produce anything, even if they cannot find a market for what they produce. It is impossible, of course, to expect to find a market for all those products in the small places. It is just as impossible to expect a price to be fixed for all these goods. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this matter. There is one important point so far as I am concerned, and that is the question of fodder for our stock. We know what the difficulty is in regard to baling wire. Cannot the Minister consider the question of assisting the farmers who are far away from the markets by having this fodder milled? Lucerne meal is very much better than ordinary lucerne, and the cost of transport and handling is very much less. The machinery used for that purpose is an ordinary hammer mill, and if the Department of Agriculture could supply such a mill it could go from farm to farm. Lucerne meal is packed in bags, and even if no bags are available it can be put on the trucks in boxes and off-loaded in boxes again. There are great potentialities in regard to getting lucerne meal transported and brought to the towns in that way to feed the milch cows, and I hope the Minister will give this matter his attention. Even if the hammer mill has to be imported, it will take up much less shipping space than a large quantity of baling wire would do. I only want to say this, that I hope that whatever we may do in regard to our agricultural policy, and whatever criticism we may have to bring against the agricultural vote, that we shall not ask for prices to be fixed irrespective of the quality of the products. The quality of the products must be taken into consideration, and the distance of the market must also be considered. It would be hopeless to imagine that the Minister can exercise control in all the small dorps. For that reason it would be advisable if the department were to determine in which areas certain products can best be produced. For instance, we should not try to produce green beans in the Karroo, and we should not try to send tomatoes from Vryburg to the coast. All these, things have to be taken into consideration. I therefore contend that simply to say that everybody has to produce without taking notice of where commodities are produced, and what commodities are produced, is not the right policy to follow. Then there is another question, namely, the fixing of the prices of fertiliser, and also the prices of baling wire and such things. It is difficult as it is to control the goods which we produce here, but if we have to import things, then surely it is going too far to ask the Department of Agriculture to fix the prices of those goods. We know what the Government is doing in that connection. Let us try to keep our industry clean, and let us try and get assistance to carry on our industry, but do not let us interfere in matters which do not concern us. We cannot fix the price of baling wire and fertiliser. It is hopeless to try and do so. Who is going to import it at a loss? Or is the Government to get it for nothing? It is just as ridiculous to expect that all these things should have been anticipated before the war. Allegations are made that all these difficulties are attributable to the position in which the country is today. And then hon. members point to the difference between the price that products fetch on the market and the price at which they are sold again to the public. There is nothing new in that. We have had that position right through our lives. I agree it is high time the Union Government took a hand in the control of our markets, and it is a question of the control of the markets, and the sooner the Government realises that it is essential to establish proper control the better it will be for the whole country.

The Minister said just now that he had bought baling wire at £3 10s. per roll, and he was quite satisfied with it. Was he also satisfied with the price he got for his lucerne hay? If he paid £3 10s. for his baling wire he should have got 6s. or 7s. per 100 lbs. for his lucerne hay, but that is not the case. The highest price is 4s. 2d. That is why it is so necessary in times like the present to fix minimum prices. I have been told that the Minister intends fixing maximum prices. If the Minister does so, then I don’t know what he is going to do, because he will also be compelled to fix minimum prices. There are very few kinds of products for which we cannot get a fairly good price today. I think people can go on producing, but there are times when prices drop. Take potatoes. At the beginning of this year people practically had to give away their summer crop—they had to sell it for practically nothing. It is essential that our markets should be properly controlled.

I would like to raise a point which I think is germane to the subject of food production. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that tractors play an enormous part in the mass production of food in South Africa. I do not know whether the Minister knows how many tractors are used in this country in the production of food, but I was wondering whether the Minister could assure the House that we have an adequate supply of power paraffin in this country for the next twelve months. I would like to know whether he has approached the oil companies with a view to ensuring that we have a sufficient supply of power paraffin in this country for the next twelve months.

I am a big potato farmer. If there is a good price the farmers produce potatoes in large quantities. Personally I feel very uneasy at the possible prospect of there being a surplus of a million or two million bags next year which the market will not be able to absorb. Is the Minister prepared to take over the overproduction which the market cannot absorb? If he cannot do so, then I personally am uneasy about planting large quantities of potatoes in October or November of this year. All the farmers will be willing to plant, but if we know how much we are going to get for our potatoes we know where we stand. I am sorry to have to detain the House, but I want to mention an instance. I have no tractor, but last year I hired a tractor and I paid 17s. 6d. per morgen for ploughing because I thought that mealies would be more expensive; 17s. 6d. per morgen, however, is a very high price, and I got nervous afterwards and I told the man to stop. If I had known then that the price of mealies was going to be 12s. 6d. I could have sold more. We have the same position today. It is no use telling the farmers that they must produce more, and leaving them between Heaven and earth, because they don’t know what the price of the product is going to be. Tell them that potatoes will not drop below 8s. per bag, they will then know that they can invest money in potatoes, because they will know that they will not get less than 8s. per bag.

I do not want to hold the Minister up. We are thoroughly satisfied with the prices of the articles where he has tackled price control, but we say that he must not stop at that. The Minister has adopted this system on behalf of the Government, and we say, “Go on and control all the prices”. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) is absolutely correct; the farmer is afraid to embark on certain lines of production unless he is assured of a reasonable price. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) mentioned the question of grading; the allusion was to the analysis of foodstuffs. We have hominy chop, meal of various sorts, and they are being sold to the farmer in an adulterated form. We want to ask the Minister to lay down an analysis to which these products must conform. Today there is definitely a certain amount of profiteering in the country. I have a letter here which reads as follows—

And there is our quarrel, when the demand forces up the price over and above what should be a fair price. When I came here this session I went to the department and asked them whether they would not induce the Wheat Control Board to see that supplies of seed are available against a possible shortage. This matter was put up to the Wheat Control Board, and they said they could not do it, but that they were now embarking on a scheme whereby seed could be bought from the various centres. I have received frantic wires from agents to the effect that seed wheat of certain classes is not available. I have been making enquiries in the Western Province, and I find that there is any amount of this class of seed wheat, that is, Union 52, available, and yet the Board said that they only knew of one place where it was available. The Board is telling the people that they cannot get it, and then I find that there is any amount of it available here. The same applies to Spring Early.

They do not grow it any longer. It is antediluvian.

I think it is wrong that the Board should inform the farmers that a certain type is not available when there is plenty of it available in actual fact. I think it is vitally necessary to give the farmers what they want. I think it is all wrong for the Board to tell the farmers that they cannot get Union 52 when it is available in the Western Province, for example. I am not blaming the department or the Minister. Here we have a regular muddle. I hope the Minister will see to it that if this seed is available in the Western Province, it shall be supplied to the farmers, even against the regulations of the Board, if necessary. A lot of trouble is being caused by the Board not being able to keep pace with the rate at which production is moving. I would like the Minister to look into this matter of seed wheat, because there are thousands of acres which will not be planted if the seed is not available.

I wish to appeal to hon. members to finish this discussion now if it is at all possible. We are dealing here with a clause, the effect of which merely is that it enables the Government to give special authority where it may perhaps be necessary to supply additional funds for this purpose. It is quite possible on this clause to have a general discussion on the question of control of foodstuffs, but it seems to me that it is unnecessary to have a general agricultural debate here. We have already been discussing this matter for more than an hour and a half. I made arrangements last night at the request of hon. members opposite that we would have this afternoon available for the discussion of the Justice vote, and that we would have the evening for the discussion of the Base Minerals Bill. If we want to carry out that scheme it will be necessary to dispose of this Bill this morning. I feel that we have adequately to dispose of this Bill this morning. I feel that we have adequately discussed this matter now. I am not going to say that all hon. members are satisfied with the Minister’s reply, but it is unnecessary to go into all those points again, and I hope my hon. friends will now allow this clause to pass.

It is all very well for the Minister of Finance to say that this question should not be discussed any further, but so far it is only the farmers who have spoken, and we who represent the consumers in the towns and dorps have not yet said a single word about it. If the Minister of Agriculture fixes prices he must do so in such a manner that we in the towns also have the chance to live, and the people who have to live on small salaries, and the people who only get small cost of living allowances, should also be given a chance to come out on what they earn. The Minister should remember the people who have to live on their pensions, and who are very near the bread line. He should remember not to fix the prices of products so high that people cannot come out. What I cannot understand is that bread and other articles of food are being thrown away. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) told the House that grapes and other fruit have been buried, that bread has been thrown into the sea at Durban, and wheat here in Cape Town. I myself, with my own eyes, have seen wagon loads of oranges being thrown into the sea. How can the Government allow these things when we know that there are people in this country actually in want of food? When we were small we were always told not even to throw away a crust of bread; we were told not to waste any food. If that is how we waste the country’s food, how can we expect to be able to supply the necessary products if at a time of famine should ever come? The Prime Minister has asked us to produce sufficient in this country so that we may be able to supply the passing ships. When we have fed our own people we can start thinking of supplying the ships, but we shall never be able to do so if we carry on in the way we are doing at present. We cannot allow food to be thrown away. We cannot allow fruit and other commodities which our people want to be destroyed. The Minister of Railways could surely allow these commodities to be carried by the Railways free of charge, so that they could be taken to those parts of the country where they are wanted. Take grapes and oranges, for instance. They could be taken to those areas where the children never get things of that kind. All the fruit that is being destroyed can be taken to that section of the population which hardly ever sees fruit. I know many schools on the Rand, for instance, where the children arrive in the morning without having had any fruit at all. They go to school without even having had a piece of bread to eat— leave alone fruit. Why cannot the fruit and the vegetables which are now being destroyed be sent to those parts, so that they may be given to those children? Surely we must admit, to use an English phrase, that there is something rotten in the State of Denmark. There must be something wrong with South Africa’s marketing conditions if we have to behold such a crying injustice of food supplies being destroyed, while sections of the population are starving. Institutions like the Rand Aid and the Children’s Aid, can use this food; they can use the fruit which is today being destroyed, and they will see to it that it reaches the people who need it. I go to the Wellington Fruit Store here and I have to pay 5d. per lb. for grapes, and that is what I have to pay in the Cape, where the grapes are grown. It is a scandal. I have never in all my life eaten such few grapes as I have eaten this year, because the price is so high that I feel it is disgraceful. We have to pay 3s. for a dozen apples, and yet we hear of fruit being thrown away. Why have we to pay these high prices? The poor people cannot afford it; perhaps the middle-classes can afford it, but the poor people cannot. The poor man’s child does not get fruit, so why should we allow these things to go on? There is definitely something wrong, and I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to see to it that the position is rectified by means of the fixation of prices.

I don’t know whether I shall be in order in talking about the rubber position under this clause. There is a shortage of rubber in the country, and I want to know whether a plan cannot be made to use the old rubber again.

We are doing our best.

I put that question on the Select Committee of Public Accounts and I was told it was impossible. Still, we find they are doing it in America.

The question is being investigated.

I consider we should devise some scheme. We should remember that farming requires rubber to carry on producing. In the second place, we have this fact, that thousands of people are employed in our garages and a terrible position will be created if that industry is brought to a standstill through motor cars being prevented from running. I want the Minister to tackle this matter seriously because the country will find itself in a very serious and difficult position if we have no more rubber.

I should like to know from the Minister whether any obligations have already been assumed by the Reserve Bank. The Minister told us that it was possible or that it was likely that we would not get this rubber. Have any obligations been assumed by the Reserve Bank, and will we suffer any losses as a result of those obligations, losses which we will have to make good to the Reserve Bank under’ this provision?

I think the position is clear. If we do not get the rubber we have no obligations.

It seems to me that an unsound position is created here. As I read this clause and also Clauses 21 and 23, it means that the Union Government is acting as the agent of the Governments of other countries, when they have to buy requirements in this country. In his explanatory memorandum the Minister also emphasises the fact that it is the object to eliminate undesirable competition amongst the Governments. Here is a case which was mentioned under the third clause. Here it was possible for the farmers to dispose of their produce. If there had been an open market, they would have received good prices for their produce. But now the Government intervenes and makes use of its powers under the war legislation to keep the prices low, not only with regard to its own requirements, but also in the interests of otherGovernments. The Minister is empowered to act as agent for other Governments. That is very far-reaching. With regard to our own needs, there is perhaps a certain amount of justification for him to exercise these powers, but why should he try to get favourable terms for other Governments? That is how I understand it. If that is not correct, I shall be glad to hear so. With regard to the services which are rendered, machinery must surely be created to a certain extent; officials must be appointed. Do we do that without compensation?

A commission of 9 per cent. is paid.

Nine per cent. on purchases? Then I should like to know whether steps have been taken to ensure that we receive payment—not after the war.

Up to the present we have been paid. Last month we still received a large amount.

That was already applicable; is the Minister now approaching Parliament for the first time for approval for this procedure?

The payments which we received were in connection with other similar transactions which were valid under the Act of 1940.

And is the system now being extended?

Yes.

And what are the “services” which are mentioned here?

Services of contractors or architects, for example.

It is therefore not only applicable to delivered goods, but also to services. Since the Government makes use of its powers practically to demand the services of its subjects on behalf of a foreign State, it is a far-reaching principle which may cause one difficulties. I should like to have more information. How far does this go? What are the obligations which rest upon us?

We are dealing here principally with the manufacture of war material, which we also manufacture to a certain extent on behalf of other Governments. In connection with the manufacture of such war material, the question of services also come into play, of course, and also in certain cases in connection with the lease of land. No new principle is involved here. This principle has been applicable since 1940. We now circumscribe it somewhat in order to include the other matter also. Let me give the hon. member the assurance that we are not using these powers in order to compete with the interests of our own people. That is certainly not our intention.

I am glad that the Government has eventually got so far as to relieve the shareholders of the South African Ostrich Farmers’ Co-operative Society of the burdens and obligations which rested upon them towards the co-operative society. This co-operative society was established when the ostrich feathers went out of fashion, and when the ostrich farmers were in a quandary. Then the old Nationalist Party Government stepped into the breach, and lent £115,000 to the co-operative society, so that advances could be given on ostrich feathers. We know that the ostrich feathers never came into fashion again. Women started wearing short dresses and silk stockings and small hats, and the result was that the co-operative society was never in the position to meet its obligations towards the Government. For that reason I am glad about this step. It is not in my nature, and it is also against my principles, to thank the Government for what it did. But I am glad. I do not thank them; it was their duty to do this.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I would not like to repeat what has already been said in regard to this vote concerning people who were arrested on suspicion, and who were suspected of having committed sabotage.

I know that the Minister now realises that no innocent person ought to remain in gaol unnecessarily long. I trust that in future he will take steps more quickly. But there is another urgent matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) put a question concerning dog racing in Johannesburg, which takes place four times per week on the Rand. For the greater part Afrikaans speaking people support dog racing, and this results in much misery and poverty. It has become a scandal. I notice that the City Council of Johannesburg asked the Government that drastic steps be taken to put an end to this malpractice.

When business was suspended, I had nearly finished talking about the dog racing in Johannesburg which takes place four times per week, and in connection with which we find that no less than £2,312,559 went through the totalisator during the years 1940—’41. Just imagine that in these times in which we live, poor people—for the greater part these are Afrikaans speaking, and poor people who work hard, and who spend their money there—that in two years’ time no less than £2,000,000 went through the totalisator. I think that this is a matter which ought to receive the Minister’s attention immediately. The City Council of Johannesburg asked him to do so. The Minister dare not put this matter off; he must not tell us that it must wait; this is a mater which must be tackled now, especially since there is a war in progress. Take the other Provinces. In the other Provinces this is not allowed. It is only to be found in the Transvaal. There are three such race tracks in Johannesburg, and one in Benoni, and just look at the misery which is caused in homes as a result of this. Since I raised the matter on a previous occasion, I have received quite a number of letters from women who complain that they have to take their children out of school. Their husbands are weaklings, they go to the dog races and spend all their wages. When they come home they have not sufficent money left to take care of the family. These are the things which take place. I am glad that the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) is here. I understand that he takes special interest in the matter, and that he raised it on a previous occasion. I hope that I will get his support, and also the support of other hon. members of the Transvaal, especially that of the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon). I know that she will support me. We must not wait any longer and postpone this matter, as Ministers are fond of doing. Procrastination is the thief of time. The Government must immediately prohibit dog racing, because that will bring happiness to many homes. The mothers and children will be grateful to this House if we put a stop to these dog races. I know that the Minister will be sympathetic, and that he will give his serious attention to this matter. But he must please not delay. If he wants to do a good thing during this recess, he must immediately prohibit dog racing. If he does that, he will render a good service not only to the Transvaal, but to the whole country.

The hon. member who has just spoken (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) has appealed to me directly to support his plea for the abolition of dog races. Well, I am certainly prepared to do so, but I have got on my feet on another matter and I hope the hon. member will equally support me. I take this opportunity, and I am glad the Prime Minister is here, for raising with the Minister a matter of the utmost importance, and I want to begin by asking the Prime Minister a direct question: Is the Prime Minister really prepared to allow the women of this country to face the post-war world still shackled by the mediaeval law of the sixteenth century? Because that is what will happen unless the Minister and the Government do something to implement the promise made to the women as far back as 1937 to investigate the position. I know that this is wartime. I know that I shall be met with a statement that this is not the time to do these things. But I want to remind the Minister again of the fact that a Commission was promised as long ago as 1937. The Commission I refer to is the Commission to investigate the disabilities under which women still labour, and I want to point out that the causes making this enquiry necessary will become even more imperative as time goes on. I want to point out that the matter is becoming more and more urgent as time goes on, and if you would not rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman, then I would suggest to the Minister that he should introduce a simple Bill and send it to a Select Committee. The object of that Bill should be to do away with the legal disability under which the women are labouring.

What has that to do with this vote?

But if the Minister will not do that then I suggest that he should either appoint a Commission as promised or otherwise follow the precedent set by the British House of Commons in 1917. And here I want to quote a few words from the speech of the late Lord Oxford and also from the speech of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George. I want to remind the Minister of Justice that before the Great War of 1914 there had been great controversies about the rights of women.

Does that come under this vote?

Yet the Prime Minister in 1917 at the height of the war appointed a conference of both sides of the House, presided over by Mr. Speaker, and it was as a result of that conference that votes for women were granted in England in 1919, and in speaking on that matter Mr. Asquith said—

And then he goes on—

What has that to do with this vote?

Does not the hon. member realise that I am drawing the analogy from what was done in the British House of Commons in the last war with what I am wanting the Minister to do in this war, to investigate the disabilities under which women are still suffering, disabilities which are more threatening than ever.

Will not that require legislation?

No; I am asking for a Commission.

It seems to me that that is merely preliminary to legislation.

That may be.

Then the hon. member cannot discuss it in Committee of Supply.

Surely one may discuss on the Estimates the matter of asking the Minister to implement a promise which he has already made.

No; we have to discuss merely the voting of a certain sum of money to carry on the department.

Then I shall put my remarks in the form of a question and ask the Minister how he is going to deal with this particular matter. Recently I was in Johannesburg and in the courts I saw two women presenting applications for leave to enter into ante-nuptial contract —to sign ante-nuptial contracts on behalf of their daughters because their husbands were up North. How does the Minister propose to meet that situation in the case of poor women who cannot afford to go to court to get leave of the court? How is he going to deal with a case which I know of where a woman was run down by a motor car in the streets of Cape Town and she cannot sue because her husband is up North? And she has no power of attorney signed by him to sue. What is the Minister going to do in cases like that? What is the Minister going to do in cases where women who are allowed to make munitions and take part in every section of our war work are not allowed even to sign their name to simple documents of transfer?

That requires legislation.

I am asking the Minister …

The hon. member cannot continue in that strain now.

Then may I say this, that I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to these disabilities. They are disabilities of considerable consequence.

The hon. member is continuing now to advocate legislation. I am sorry I cannot allow it now.

That is a Budget speech.

I do realise the point which the Chairman is making.

The Chairman has ruled, I am afraid.

I do realise that, but there is no other vote.

I am sorry, I cannot allow the hon. member to continue.

Would I be in order to ask the Minister to reply to a deliberate question?

If the hon. member will proceed I shall decide when I have heard her case.

The question I want to put to the Minister is this—is there any chance of his implementing the promise he made us so long ago? And I ask in the name of the women of South Africa.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) was not given an opportunity to show what injustices are committed against women. We have become very tired of all the disabilities we have to contend with in comparison with men. But since we are not allowed to talk about it, I should like to talk about something else. In the first place, I want to support the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). We feel that the time has arrived to put a stop to dog racing. If you know what takes place on the Rand, if you hear the heartrending stories which we daily hear from women who have no food for their children, you will understand why we talk about this subject. A man receives his wages on Friday evening. He is paid weekly. He takes his money and does not go home, but instead he goes to the dog races. There he gambles away every penny, with the result that when he has to buy food for his family on Saturday, he has not a penny left to take care of his wife and children. In many cases these women complain to us that this was the cause of the position in which they found themselves. If one goes to those dog races, one sees avaricious people there. You can see it on their faces. We see young people there in whom that lust has been instilled. Boys under 21 are not allowed to go there, but boys of 17 and 18 simply say that they are 21, and no birth certificate is required of them to prove that they are 21. They are brought up in all those evils and taught to spend their money in this manner. It is not so easy for them to go to the horse races. But at these dog races they spend all their money instead of keeping it in order to build a happy home in the future. I shall be very glad if the Minister of Justice will be prepared to do away with this evil. I know that the Provincial Council of the Transvaal gets £80,000 per annum out of it. As an ex-Provincial Council member, I know what their income from dog racing is, and that its abolition would mean a loss in income to the Province. But there are so many other ways of collecting this money. We should rather take more from the rich than further to ruin our poor people. I hope the Minister of Justice will accede to this request on the part of the hon. member for Aliwal.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter which I think should be considered, namely, the large increase in the serious crime during last year. I have some details here and some figures. The number of cases of serious crime was 53,059, an increase of over 6,000 in one year, which is the highest figure for the last twelve years. There is a possibility that there is a reason for this large increase of crime, and it is this, that a large number of our uniformed police are away on active service fighting for their country at the moment.

I thought you said the police were disloyal?

I also see in this report of the Commissioner of Police that he pays a very high tribute to the C.P.S. and other organisations which have assisted in carrying out police duties during the last year. But I want to draw the Minister’s attention to this very serious aspect of the matter— that in many cases where a man has carried on police duties he has come home to find his house burnt down or looted—and that has happened not once but several times. The reason I have got up and raised this matter is to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that large numbers of uniformed police are being used in Johannesburg to serve car-parking summonses on people in the town. I see in the report which I have here that in Johannesburg there are supposed to be 59,006 cars, and there are no less than 49,926 traffic prosecutions in one year. I know from what I have heard in Johannesburg that this thing has been overdone; one can realise the feelings of people who have been doing police duty at night to help the police if next day a uniformed policeman, who has been spending a few hours to find their address, serves a summons on them because they have left their car for a few moments longer than they should in a prohibited area. I have had this sort of thing happen to myself and I know that it happens to many others. My hon. friend here tells me that this is a municipal matter, but it is no longer a municipal matter when these summonses are signed by the magistrates—whose salaries we are voting here—and are served by the policemen whose salaries we are also voting here.

There are two separate votes for Magistrates’ Courts and Police.

Can I raise the matter on the Police Vote? I understood the Police Vote was included in this vote.

No, it is a separate vote.

I personally had an interview with the Minister of Justice in connection with the case of certain people who were arrested in Bloemfontein. In the case of one of those persons, I came into touch with a relation from whom I got first-hand information. The Minister knows very well that Mr. Pretorius, the individual who gave me this information, is a trustworthy man. In previous years he was a good supporter of the Minister, and I think that the Minister will accept his word. Mr. Pretorius’ son was arrested, and, in the presence of Lt. Du Plooy, this boy stated that on that particular morning his meal consisted of a mug of black coffee and yellow mealie porridge. Later on Mr. Pretorius went to the gaol and spoke to the warder, and he confirmed that this was the food they received. At that moment this was the food which they were allowed to give. The Minister knows that under the emergency regulations people are now being arrested on a large scale. Four hundred policemen were arrested on the Rand, and more than two hundred of them have already been released, which proves that those people were innocent. We have proof, therefore, that people who were innocent were arrested and thrown into gaol; as the Minister says, they are detained for questioning. The Minister adopts the attitude that any person against whom a false statement is made can be arrested and thrown into gaol for questioning. He is detained for an indefinite period, and if no information at all can be obtained against him, he may eventually be released. I want to tell the Minister that he is overdoing those things, and the fact that he is overdoing things, is shown by the fact that up to the present he has had to release hundreds of people after having been detained. I can understand that a person may be arrested on suspicion and later released again, but when that happens in the case of hundreds of people, then there is something radically wrong. But we now have the tragedy that innocent people who did no wrong can be thrown into gaol, and then their food consists of yellow mealie porridge and black coffee; after a few months they are released and simply told that they may go. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) mentioned the case of a detective who received distinction in his work, and who was detained for an indefinite period. Eventually representations were made and he was released. Today he is back in the Criminal Investigation Department. What methods are practised against the Afrikaners? It seems that any person who does not follow the Minister’s policy and who is not prepared to support this war effort—it seems that everyone who does not want to do that enthusiastically is exposed to the danger of being summarily thrown into gaol, and being treated worse than a criminal. It is a disgrace to the judicial system of South Africa. It is so unreasonable, that in these days we can have a state of affairs where innocent people are treated in that way. What right has the Minister and his Government to point a finger at Germany with its Gestapo and to Russia with its Ogpu, if the identical methods are applied in South Africa, where they can throw innocent people into gaol as criminals, and later simply open the prison doors again and say that they may go? If this happens in the case of one or two persons, one can still understand it. But when it takes place on a large scale in the case of citizens of this country, and all the people are Afrikaans speaking, people who speak the same language as the Minister, people who stood by him through thick and thin in Bloemfontein, people whose opinion he shared during the last war, when he was opposed to the war—what right has the Minister, now that those people do not fully agree with him in regard to this war, to treat them as he is doing at the moment, to treat them worse than criminals? I say that this is no credit to the Department of Justice, and that it is a disgrace to the good name of South Africa that such things should happen here. I further want to point out that these people are not only arrested, but that they are also warned and threatened. I want to mention the case of Mr. Brummer. The Minister knows him well. He belongs to the same political party as I do. Mr. Brummer is a person against whom nothing can be said, and I challenge the Minister of Justice to furnish proof on the floor of this House that anything can be said against Mr. Brummer that he is disloyal, or that he was concerned in subversive activities. I challenge him to do that. Mr. Brummer was called by the magistrate and warned that he could not attend political meetings. If I were to address meetings in my constituency to report on the Parliamentary session, Mr. Brummer would not be allowed to attend that meeting. What moral right has the Minister of Justice or his magistrate to prevent this citizen of the country from attending a political meeting in Bloemfontein? If the Minister wants to allege that it is unsafe to allow this individual to attend a meeting, I say that it is untrue and that that is not the case, and I challenge the Minister to advance any proof in support of his attitude. Not only may this person not attend a political meeting, but he is not allowed to attend a cultural meeting either. He is not allowed to attend any gathering at all. What right has the Minister of Justice and his department to issue such a warning to a free citizen of this country who does his duty towards the State, and to deprive him of this right, and to prevent him from attending gatherings of Afrikaners? Where do they get the right to do this, since there is no evidence of subversive activity on the part of this person? Has there ever been a single case where an Englishman was compelled to stay away from meetings of the Caledonian Society or of the Sons of England? No, in those cases it is not done, but in this case an Afrikaans speaking person is prevented by the magistrate from attending any political meeting, and he is even prevented from attending gatherings of Afrikaners. I would like the Minister to tell us why this person is kept under such control. Is it because he belongs to this party and refused to become a Fusionist? Is that the reason? I should like to know from the Minister what the position is. People were not only arrested in Bloemfontein, but others were conveyed to Johannesburg to stand their trial there. Their wives have to go there from Bloemfontein in order to see them. There they found the same conditions, namely, that the food given to these people is not sufficient to live on. Those people were treated like criminals. Surely the position is that every man is innocent until he is proved guilty. The Department of Justice has no right to treat those people like barbarians. I say that there are cases on record to show that false statements are continually made against people. We had one case where a system manager of the railways testified to the fact that a person, because a certain house-father would not buy from him, accused the house-father concerned of subversive activities. [Time limit.]

I should like to ask the Minister of Justice what his policy is in regard to the police officials who are retained in the service today. We must admit, before I go any further, that we agree with the Minister’s policy that it is necessary owing to the manpower which is away at the front, to retain certain policemen in the police reserve after the expiry of their period of service. But I should like to know, since highly-placed officials are retained, what is going to become of the promotion of subordinates in the service. Some of these people are in the army in the North and others are here. Since the younger policemen would now get an opportunity to be promoted, it has a detrimental effect on their future prospects if the older officers are retained in the service after the expiry of their term of service. I do not think it is right to allow the retention of those older men in the service. It is our duty to see to it that people who are younger will not suffer as a result of the policy which we have to follow now, namely, to keep the older persons in the service—especially not at this stage when the public owes so much | to the police in respect of the services which they render to the country.

The hon. member must wait until the Police Vote is reached.

When we talk about the Justice Vote, we usually think of right and justice; but in South Africa we unfortunately have this position that when we talk about justice we are compelled not to think of right and justice, but to think and talk of injustice, and the unfair acts committed against a certain section of the community, and especially the injustice towards one particular section of the community in South Africa, namely, the Afrikaans speaking section. In this House a name was mentioned which is very highly thought of, especially by the Afrikaans speaking people, but also by the English speaking section of the population. I refer to Johannes van der Walt, and I want to make a charge here, not against the Minister of Justice personally, but he is the responsible person and we must hold him responsible for anything that takes place under his administration—that methodical steps were taken against Johannes van der Walt simply because he was an Afrikaner and for no other reason.

Nonsense.

I want to give my reasons for saying that, and if the hon. member can convince me that I am wrong, I shall be very glad, because that will show that he has something else in his head apart from the nonsense with which he overflows. Before there was any charge against Johannes van der Walt, his aeroplane was taken over by the Government. I want to show what methodical steps were taken against this great Afrikaner.

Great Afrikaner!

If he had not been ill you would not have said that. When I put a question in this House as to whether the Government had paid for that aeroplane, the reply was—not a direct reply— that there was no registration of any aeroplane which had not yet been paid for. Johannes van der Walt had a gymnasium in Johannesburg, and I asked the Minister of Justice whether that gymnasium had been closed by the police, and if so, on what date and why? Just listen to the reply which the Minister gave. It is just a case of playing on words again. He simply did not reply to the question which was put, but he said this—

The Minister evaded the one question. He refers to the proclamation, together with a long explanation, but he does not tell us why the permit was not issued. In regard to that he is silent. I want to say again, because up to the present the Minister has not been prepared to give a reply, that we want to know why that permit was not issued. We asked for that information in this House, and surely it is not anything which can be harmful to the country in wartime, in that it will give information to the enemy. It can be of no advantage to the enemy. We ask for this information concerning a citizen of the country, and the Minister replies at length, but he refuses to tell us what reason there was for not granting this permit. I further asked the Minister whether he received compensation in respect of the consequential financial loss, and, if not, whether the Government was going to take steps in that direction, and, if not, why not? The Minister gives no reason, and he says that Nos. 2 and 3 fall away. And if we want to see an S.A.P. on the other side laugh, then the Minister must reply that a question falls away. That is the biggest joke of which they are capable. That is the method which was adopted against Johannes van der Walt. We could get no reason as to why his aeroplane had not been paid for. We could get no reason why a permit was not issued for his gymnasium, and then, in addition to that, we had that fatal shooting episode which is not only remarkable, but al so tragic. I am not going to talk about the merits of this case, I am not going to talk about what this man did. On a previous occasion I spoke of the first shooting episode, namely, when Erasmus was shot, and I asked the Minister of Justice who was present on that occasion. The Minister mentioned the name of Liebenberg and amongst other names, the name of Fourie. I further asked where Erasmus had been shot. The reply was that the first shot had just gone over his head, and that the second shot went through his head. I only mention where he was shot because I want to deal with this point. I asked the Minister, when the police fire at anyone, whether they do not first warn him? They warn him, and I further asked whether it was not a fact that they then shoot over the head of such a person in order to warn him, and if they shoot again, then they shoot at his legs. Such a person must be warned. In both cases Fourie was involved. The first person who was shot, namely, Erasmus, was shot through the head by Fourie. I allege that the same sergeant Fourie who shot Johannes van der Walt also shot Erasmus. He shot him through the head. Now we come to the case of Johannes van der Walt. Again we find this same individual present, and in this case the Minister of Justice was the first, before we had said anything in regard to the matter, to state that Johannes van der Walt was shot by Sergeant Fourie. We asked the Minister to appoint a Commission to enquire into this shooting. We further asked the Minister whether Sergeant Fourie had received instructions to shoot Van der Walt in the event of his attempting to escape arrest. The Minister replied “No, he received no instructions”. Well, if he received no instructions, then he was subject to the regulations of the police relating to shooting. The Minister did not give instructions. We then further asked, if no instructions were given, whether it was the policy to treat people who are taken into custody for minor criminal contraventions, in this manner; and if so, what instructions were given as to how and when the police may shoot. The reply of the Minister was that no instructions had been given, but he referred to Section 44 of Act No. 31 of 1907, and the police regulations. I wish the Minister would read out that section. It relates to the use of firearms by the police. That is correct. How is it, then, that in this case where Fourie shoots, he does not shoot at the legs but wounds the person in another part of his body? How is it that in the case of Erasmus a shot was not first fired at his legs, but that he was immediately shot through the head? If we are wrong, the Minister has an opportunity of denying this, but when we make charges and give the Minister an opportunity of replying to us, we do not get a proper reply. We asked the Minister whether he was prepared to appoint a Judicial Commission to make investigations in connection with the shooting of Van der Walt, and if not, why not? That is a simple question for anyone who understands Afrikaans, to reply to. Why was this Commission not appointed? His reply was “No”. He was not prepared to appoint such a Commission. I say that is unreasonable. Complaints were made by every member of the Opposition. We make the charge that the shooting at Johannes van der Walt was unjustified. We go further any say that the shooting of this person was not in accordance with the regulations under which the police must shoot. We ask for a Judicial Commission of Enquiry, because we do not want anyone who is guilty to be held innocent. What was the reply of the Minister of “Right and Justice”? His reply was “No”. He does not say why he does not want to appoint such a Commission, and since he does not say it, we are entitled to draw our own conclusions.

I should like to know from the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that there is particular activity today on the part of the Communists; whether he is aware of the fact that these activities are not confined to the large cities but that they also extend to the platteland, and whether he is aware of the fact that Communistic propaganda is made especially amongst the coloured population of the platteland? We on this side do not really believe that there is a yellow peril, but hon. members on the other side tell us that there is a yellow peril. If they honestly mean it, do they think that at this stage especially it is wise to allow Communistic propaganda amongst the coloured people? Hon. members on the other side always say that they are so fond of the coloured people. I do not know how well they are acquainted with the feelings of the non-European population, but let me tell them that there is a strong feeling amongst the non-European people in favour of the yellow races. For that reason I want to ask the Minister what he is doing in connection with the matter. I want to tell the Minister that this propaganda which is made amongst the coloured people has a very detrimental effect, that it creates a feeling of dissatisfaction amongst the coloured people without there being any reason for it. There is no reason for dissatisfaction, but in the platteland they are incited against the Europeans, and in particular against the farmers, and I want to ask the Minister whether he does not know that there is a shortage of farm labour and whether he is aware of the fact that this propaganda is instrumental in promoting this shortage of farm labour. I should like to refer the Minister to a report which appeared in the Press on the 8th of this month. If the Minister doubts what I am saying, namely, that Communistic propaganda is made amongst the natives in the platteland, then I want to read to him a report of a meeting which was held at Genadendal by the Communist Party on Thursday, the 26th March. This report reads as follows—

I want to ask whether the Minister approves of that? Let him tell the House whether he is prepared to put up with such propaganda amongst the coloured people in this country, especially on the platteland. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he proposes to take any steps in connection with this matter, or whether he will allow this type of propaganda amongst the natives to continue without restraint? It was noticeable that we read that there was trouble during Easter, which led to a court case. I quote—

I just want to say that Greyton is a little town a few miles away from Genadendal. Now, I want to ask the Minister whether he will make investigations or cause investigation to be made in order to establish whether these disturbances on Easter Monday were the indirect consequences of the Communistic meeting which was held at Genadendal a few days earlier? I may say in connection with this case that the European population feels very strongly about the Communistic propaganda which is made amongst the coloured people. I may tell the Minister that the feeling amongst the Europeans in the Western Province is very strong in connection with this matter. I further want to give him the assurance that if he talks to hon. members on his own side, and they are honest and frank with him, as they sometimes are with us in the lobbies, the Minister will discover that they are also aware of the fact that this propaganda which is today made amongst the non-Europeans, creates a bad spirit towards the Europeans. I want to tell the Minister that we expect a clear statement from him with regard to this matter. We are entitled to know whether he is satisfied with this type of propaganda; whether he is so in love with his new ally, Josef Stalin, that he is prepared to embrace Stalin, and for that reason take no steps to prevent this propaganda. In all seriousness, I want to say that we feel that in connection with this matter there can be no further dawdling. Now, I also want to tell the Minister that when we authorised the Emergency Regulations in this House, we told him that he was assuming rights which no dictator had even assumed. He then gave us the assurance that they would only resort to these Emergency Regulations in the event of emergency. What do we find today?

The Minister is in distress.

The Minister is throwing hundreds of people into gaol, keeping them there, without these people knowing what the charge against them is, and without telling them who the informants are. This is a right which this side of the House is not prepared to deny even natives or coloured people, namely, that when they are arrested they have a right to know who informed against them. The kaffir who is charged ascertains what the charge against him is, and he has an opportunity of crossexamining his accusers. [Time limit.]

It seems to me that latterly people have not only been arrested arbitrarily and detained for months before being tried, but that people have been shot at recklessly. I am thinking especially of a case which occurred in my district, and I just want to read out the report which appeared in the newspapers—

If this state of affairs occurs on our public roads, what on earth will happen next? We know what the circumstances are. We know what the position is if you are stopped at night by people in plain clothes. There are many people who will stop in such a case. In this case shots were fired by people in plain clothes, and later it appeared that they were detectives. They raced past these people—in other words, past the detectives— which everyone in this House would try to do in the circumstances, and then these people were shot at arbitrarily. Surely you cannot play about like that with human life. It seems to me that some of our police become practically hysterical these days. We have the greatest esteem for the good work which is done by the police, but when one sees things of this nature it seems that some of them become hysterical. Without reason they shoot at people who are well known throughout the country, people who enjoy the highest respect in the area in which they live. I want to object most strongly against it. The other evening a few women were walking in Cape Town in a little side street. They wanted to go to the bioscope. They did not hear anyone shouting, and then all of a sudden someone pointed a rifle and said: “I shall shoot at you.” These women got the fright of their lives. Are these conditions which we can tolerate? I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister to put a stop to this type of thing. It can be no good. It will only cause bad blood. If we carry on in this way the feeling between the different sections in our country will become worse and worse, and the result will also be that gradually the population will become prejudiced against the police. We can only maintain law and order if the right feeling exists, but if things go on in this way the public will become prejudiced against the police. What can we expect in this country in that case? The police are there to protect the public, but if this type of thing goes on there will be serious trouble. I make an appeal to the Minister of Justice. We know that today Russia is one of the allies in the war, the Government’s ally, but today the position is that there is communistic propaganda amongst our coloured people in the country. We live in this country, we know the mentality of the native, and we know to what extent bad feeling is aroused in the natives against the Europeans, and since there is already so much turmoil these days, we cannot allow communistic propaganda to be made against the natives. You will get an untenable position. I believe that even Russia does not, for a single moment, expect this type of propaganda amongst the natives to be permitted in our country. Communistic meetings are held everywhere, and the natives are told that they must not work for the wages that they receive; that they must leave their work. If this propaganda were to go on, you would get an impossible position, and the farmers would not be able to carry on with their production. We make a serious appeal to the Minister to see to it that a stop is put to this state of affairs.

The hon. Minister will recollect that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) proposed a motion in which a judicial investigation was asked for with reference to the treatment of prisoners in the gaols. The Minister replied that there was not an iota of truth in it, that all the charges were false. The hon. member for Gezina said, inter alia, that people were detained without any charge being brought against them, without their knowing with what crime they are charged, and that they are then treated like criminals. In the morning they get a plate of dry porridge with bitter coffee; sometimes soup in which there are worms, and in other cases the soup contains small pieces of cattle hide to which the hairs still adhere. That charge was made and was denied by the Minister. I do not know whether the Minister made further investigations, but I can give him the assurance that that is the absolute truth. This treatment was meted out to none other than Dr. Marais, of Klerksdorp, one of the leading sons of our nation. He told me that this was the truth, and nothing less than the truth. I shall tell you what happened to him. He was arrested and taken to the charge office. Thereafter he was placed in a small cell out of which a drunk man had just come. In the cell he was pestered by vermin. In the middle of the night he was taken away and, handcuffed to five other men like a prisoner, he was brought to the Black Maria. They were put in the Black Maria, guarded by armed police. There were armed police both in front and at the back. They were then taken to the gaol in Pretoria, and there Dr. Marais was thrown into a small cell 12ft. by 16ft. That night he had to sleep on the cement floor. With regard to the food which was given to him, this consisted of dry porridge, bitter coffee and soup in which there were worms and also cattle hide with hairs still adhering to it. Later he was permitted to buy food. Fortunately he could afford it; other people cannot. He was kept in a dark cell for 34 days. He sat there for 23 hours out of every 24, and was only permitted to stretch his limbs for one hour. To this very day he does not know what sin he committed. No charge was served on him, but he was nevertheless detained. He tells me that he is a Stormjaer. He is an officer of the Stormjaers, but he never committed a crime or had anything to do with sabotage. He did attend a military council meeting of the Stormjaers in order to decide a domestic quarrel which had arisen between officers. He does not know anything about sabotage. I should like to ask the Minister what his feelings would be if he, as a son of Marthinus Steyn, were to be treated like Oelof Marais. His mother’s heart is broken. Can the Minister imagine the feeling of bitterness which must be caused by these things? Here we have a son of the people who worked himself up from the bottom of the ladder, who had ambition and a clean record in the past, as clean as anyone in this House, and he is treated like a criminal. Can you hold it against me if I am bitter, if I no longer believe in the Minister? Can you hold it against me if I have no good word for this Government? I want to know whether the Minister can reply to this charge. Here is a boy against whose character nothing can be said, and he was handcuffed with other criminals and treated like a criminal. How can we expect a feeling of goodwill to prevail in this country? How can you expect a feeling of goodwill towards the English speaking people to exist in the future? I joined the United Party that time with the object of promoting goodwill. I was twice knocked down by Nationalists, because I defended the English speaking people. Today you must not hold it against me if I no longer have a good word for them. I am bitter. I am indignant at this type of treatment under the administration of one of our Afrikaner sons, whose fathers’ memory is still dear to us.

I should like to say a few words in connection with the matter which was touched upon by the previous speaker, namely, in connection with the arrests which have taken place on such a large scale. I have here two sworn declarations. I do not want to refer to what I read in the newspapers or to what I heard, but I want to say something with reference to the sworn declarations which I have here. I first want to refer to one case without reading the statement. A young Afrikaner, coming from an extremely respectable family, was arrested early in the morning close to Potchefstroom. He is a dairy farmer. He was arrested and taken to the gaol in Potchefstroom. He was detained for a whole day, or nearly an whole day, without getting any food. I shall not give his name, but this person was detained in gaol without getting food. Thereafter he was placed in a cell, out of which kaffir girls had just been removed, as was discovered later. I cannot understand why a young Afrikaner should be thrown into a cell where kaffirs are usually kept. Another person, of whom I also have a sworn declaration, was thrown into the cell with him. It was during summer, and the cell was so stuffy that one of them fainted in the cell. They were compelled to disrobe, because otherwise they could not bear it. I shall say nothing about the food. A good deal has been said in regard to this subject. The food was such that the one person of whom I have a sworn declaration could not live on it. He had to have food bought for him. He is not a strong man. These people slept on the cement floor, on a mat without a pillow. I believe that this type of treatment is meted out to criminals who have been convicted once. But why should this treatment be meted out to an honourable Afrikaner who has not even been charged? Why should these things be done to honourable Afrikaners, who, to this very day, do not know why they were arrested? They did not remain there as long as other people, but they were there for a considerable time without any charge being served against them. I understand that there is only one small window in the cell. There is no proper ventilation. With regard to the sanitary conditions which prevailed there and which are described in the sworn declaration, I cannot quote from, nor repeat to the public, what is stated in this sworn declaration. The conditions were such that I do not think that we would want to treat animals like that. The hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) referred to the fact that Dr. Marais was permitted to leave the cell for one hour per day, but those two persons to whom I refer could only leave the cell for a quarterof-an-hour in 24 hours. Then they had to wash themselves, but there was not even a proper place to wash; there was only a tap with a trough, where the kaffirs usually wash. They had to wash there. As I have said, I cannot read in public what the conditions were. But I think that it is time for the people of South Africa to know what conditions prevail there. I am inclined to think that one should read this out, but I simply cannot do so. It is disgraceful. This is the treatment which fell to the lot of honourable Afrikaners, who did not even know what the charge against them was. They were released again, because apparently they were arrested on false statements. Why do these things take place? I cannot imagine that the Minister of Justice would give instructions that his own people should deliberately be treated in this manner. As far as I know the Minister, that is not his nature; he is not a butcher. Where does this come from? I want to ask him, if there is genuine suspicion against people, if there is reason to think that they committed some contravention or other—treason or whatever it may be—whether these people cannot be arrested in a proper way and treated decently, and a charge laid against them as soon as possible, so that their guilt can be proved, or so that they can be found guilty or not guilty by a court? Why should people be punished even before they are found guilty, and in many cases punished more severely than criminals? In many cases these people are innocent, and are subsequently released. Is there any other section in the country, Indians or natives or coloured people or Jews or Swiss, or people of whatever nationality, who are treated in this way in South Africa? Have we not always seen that Justitia is represented as a blindfolded woman with a scale in her hand? Justice—the law—has no regard for persons; it must see justice done. Is justice meted out to the Afrikaans speaking people? No, in all seriousness I make an appeal to the Minister of Justice, and I say to him, “Put a stop to this sort of thing immediately in the interests of the whole of South Africa; not only in the interests of the Afrikaans speaking nation, not in the interests of the suffering Afrikaner, but in the interests of that feeling of goodwill which we should like to have in our country. What is the state of mind of the relations of those people? What feelings do we arouse in the hearts of those people, and why should we do it? Surely it is not necessary. Even from the point of view of the Government, we cannot see any good in it. These are things which will be exploited against the Government, in many cases unjustly perhaps. No, I hope that the Minister will get up and tell us that those things will not be permitted to continue, but that he will put a stop to them. In the name of right and justice I make an appeal to the Minister to be impartial and to see to it that a stop is put to these things in the interests of South Africa.

In supplementing what I said in this House on a previous occasion, I want to add a few words to my remarks about the detention of people without trial and without being charged. I wish to deal with a few concrete instances of this kind. I have here in my hand a whole lot of letters from the parents and wives of these people who have written to me to tell me of the conditions in which they find themselves, and I really do feel that the Minister should now listen to these things, because they are getting too bad. I mentioned the case of Michael Bester, of Ficksburg, a young fellow who was arrested and put in gaol. For 17 days he had to wear the same clothes. His parents were only allowed to see him on the eleventh day. He has now been in gaol for two months and no charge has yet been brought against him. I also mentioned the case of Mr. Hofmeyr, a close relation of the Minister of Finance, of Marquard. He and his foreman were arrested. This man’s wife stated that he had not been away from home for a single evening during all the time when these wires were being cut there. But he was arrested and he is in gaol today and no charge has been lodged against him. His wife is in a serious condition. I have the doctor’s certificate here; it has been sent to the authorities and the certificate clearly states that the woman is in a very serious condition. The certificate is a technical one, but it shows that she is in a serious state of health. I am not going to read the whole of the certificate, but this is how it concludes—

The woman is in a state of despair on the farm, and the authorities know all about it. Her husband is in gaol at Senekal and she is allowed to see him once a week, on a Friday morning, for fifteen minutes. It means that she has to travel 74 miles there and back to see her husband for a quarter of an hour. We discussed the question of the treatment of internees in regard to visits during the debate on the Minister of the Interior. He realised that these people were being treated in a scandalous manner, and he is now investigating the whole position, and we have every hope that better provision will be made for visits to these people. They are being detained without any charge having been lodged, and this man’s wife is allowed to see him once a week for a quarter of an hour. Have the Minister and his officials no mercy, then? We also have the case of Mr. C. J. van Niekerk, of Rosendal. The wife writes that the cell in which the man is locked up is infested with bugs and lice, and as she says, “It seems that they have to suck the last drop of blood out of him”. She further asks in her letter whether the Minister of Public Health cannot give instructions for these cells to be examined. She is allowed to visit her husband once a week for five minutes. She wants to consult him about the farm, but she is only allowed five minutes to do so. I also have a letter from a certain Mrs. Myburgh, of Ficksburg. She writes about her son who has been in gaol for three months now, and she says this: “Twenty-three days after he had been arrested I was allowed for the first time to take him clean clothes”. She, his mother, is allowed to go and see him once a week and she is allowed to talk to him through a window, where he is behind bars, and then she is only allowed ten minutes. His father is not admitted at all. His mother has to talk to him through bars, and that once a week for ten minutes.

Are we in Russia now?

No, that is happening in the Free State, which once used to be a model State. That is what is happening in the year 1942 under Colin Fraser Steyn. I have another letter here in which a wife writes about her husband. He was arrested in December. He was locked in a cell with a cement floor and she says that he is eaten up by vermin. His face is red as a result of the way he is bitten by bugs and fleas. She also says that her brother is a chaplain of that gaol because he is the parson in that particular locality. He asked to be allowed to say prayers with her husband but was bluntly refused. When he asked why he was refused he was told shortly by a highly placed officer, “Because I don’t want you to”. It was very hot and when this man asked for permission to go and have a drink of water at a tap outside the cell door was shut in his face. A few hours later a dirty tin of water was put inside and handed to him. I can speak very feelingly about what is going on because I myself was in that gaol in 1914. I had the good fortune, however, of being tried within an hour of being arrested. I was arrested at 9 o’clock in the morning, and at 10 o’clock I was before a court martial, and I was informed what charge had been made against me. I also had to sleep on a cement floor in a cell, but still my friends were allowed to bring me food. I had to sit in a dirty kaffir cell, but at any rate I knew what I was being charged with.

And you heard it very quickly.

Yes, I was informed within an hour after being arrested. I was arrested at 9 o’clock, and the court martial was specially convened. After that I was put back into gaol, but here we have instances of people who are arrested, and who are kept in gaol for months without trial and without any charge being lodged against them. They are put into cells, where they are eaten up by bugs and fleas, and where the sanitary arrangements are very bad. What is going on, and why is the Minister doing these things? I want to ask again, does he want to break these people physically and mentally? Does he intend to injure them to such an extent that he thinks he will induce them to make any kind of confession? I say again that the Minister has no evidence against these people. If he has no evidence he should release them. If he thinks they are guilty he should bring them to court. We dare not in this country allow people to be treated in this fashion. And what must the parents and the relatives of these people feel? I mentioned the case of Mrs. Hofmeyr, and I said that she was a relative of the Minister of Finance. I did so in order to prove that these were not just low class people whom we are dealing with. I know what that woman’s state of health is as a result of what is going on; she is all on her own on the farm, and her husband and his foreman are in gaol. She cannot discuss matters properly with her husband, because she is allowed to only see him once a week for a quarter of an hour. We want to ask the Minister to get up here and tell us that his heart has been softened, and that he will give instructions to put an end to treatment of this kind. Imagine the mental condition of that woman; imagine the mental condition of these men who are in gaol. We come here and we complain about these things, and we are pleading with the Minister, and we tell the Minister what we know because the relatives of these people have written to us and begged us to do something for them. We are in touch with these people, and we cannot help feeling the position very deeply and very seriously. We get letters every day. These people who are being treated like that are honourable citizens and prominent men of this country. I earnestly appeal to the Minister of Justice to consider the matter and to do something. He is an old friend of mine; he is an old political colleague, and he used to be a colleague of mine at the Bar. I appeal to him to put an end to this state of affairs, and to have right and justice done, and not to allow this condition of cruelty and vindictiveness to continue. You will do no harm by allowing justice to be done; you will only do harm by allowing this condition to prevail. If you put an end to it you will do a good thing by this country. I am making this appeal, and I hope the Minister will see to it that these things are not allowed to continue, but that right and justice are restored in South Africa.

I should be glad if the Minister will return, because I have a few matters here which I want to discuss direct with him. I am convinced that he is not satisfied with the actions of his department in regard to certain people who were arrested two months ago. With his sense of right and justice as a lawyer he cannot approve for one moment of these methods being applied in this country, and he will have to admit that if a crime is committed at any time, no matter what the nature of that crime may be, the police and the detectives who fall under his department have to try and find evidence against the people responsible for that crime, and they have to look for that evidence in the proper manner. They have to get whatever evidence they can, and when they have the evidence it is their duty to bring the individual who is alleged to have committed the crime to court. But here we find under the administration of the Minister that he simply takes a whole crowd of people, just like a digger takes a shovelful of sand mixed up with diamonds and throws it into this sieve—and it takes months before he finds the individual he is looking for, but meanwhile all these people are detained. That is not the way to administer justice in this country. I have a sworn statement here in which the treatment meted out to an individual who was scooped in together with a whole lot of other people in the way I have described. This man was afterwards released. I want to bring certain points appearing in this statement to the Minister’s notice. This man says that he was in gaol for some considerable time—I am not going to say how long for reasons which the Minister will appreciate—he was in gaol for some considerable time, and during that period—it was round about fourteen days, he was kept in a cell. During that time he was not given the opportunity of washing or shaving himself. He was not allowed to do so for more than a week. It was between a week and fourteen days. We were told by the hon. member for Marico (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) what these cells are like. Here we have a young Afrikaner cast in a cell of that type— he is not allowed to shave or wash himself for more than a week. This man is not an Indian, or a person of that type—he is one of our own people, yet that is how he is treated. This young man continues his sworn statement, and he says that he was often awakened during the night for the purpose of being interrogated, and to make statements in connection with evidence which they wanted against other people. He further states under oath that he was threatened by the police. They said to him, “You know that there are Emergency Regulations and we can have you shot”, or “Or you may be sent to gaol for seven years”. All these threats were used against him to get him to make a statement. He goes on to say that a friend of his was also arrested. He was put in one cell and his friend in another cell. He also says that the people who urged him to make a statement afterwards said this to him: “Look here, pal, your pal who is in the other cell has already been put out”. In other words they told him that he had been shot. Those are the methods that are applied. Imagine! This man is kept in a cell by himself. He knows that his pal is in another cell, and he is told that his pal has been shot. If the Minister knows anything about psychology he cannot be surprised at people making statements in circumstances of that kind. They feel they are compelled to make statements, no matter what the nature of those statements may be. This man further says that his statement was made under duress because he felt that his life was in danger. He says that he believed that his pal had been shot and he made the statement to protect himself. He says that they gave him to understand that if he made the statement he would be treated more leniently. I am convinced that the Minister does not want this sort of thing done, and I want to appeal to him to put a stop to treatment of this kind. We talk of Bolshevism and Communism here sometimes, and of Communistic methods. I don’t know whether they still do things of this kind in Russia. Ten years ago they used to do these things, but I am sure they do not do them today, but that is the sort of thing that is going on in Africa, and the Minister of Justice should put an end to it. I make an earnest appeal to him. I also want to ask him why these people are being removed to other gaols? We know that the usual custom is under these circumstances to detain these people in the gaol of the area where the offence has been committed. Why are these people taken to other areas? Why are they to be sent to Potchefstroom and such places? Is it because they can be better protected there? Is it because the soldiers can deal with them there? No, we should follow the ordinary methods of our judicial system. When the Emergency Regulations were proclaimed the Prime Minister himself gave us the assurance that those Emergency Regulations would not be unnecessarily applied. Have we such abnormal conditions today that our ordinary methods of justice can no longer be applied? Surely the Minister of Justice in his capacity of Minister of Justice is not going to follow the same system as that which is being followed in regard to the internment of people? It is so despotic a way of treating people, simply to lock them up in cells, that I cannot conceive of the Minister approving of it. Right and justice should be done where cases of this kind are concerned.

Emergency regulations are not law, just as little as martial law is law. Nor are the emergency regulations like the laws of the Medes and Persians. This is a case of might being right, and here the Minister of Justice is master. He has all the might. He has the might and he can do as he likes. We are all dependant on him, but I know him as a good man although I am not going to thank him for the things he is doing. A good man and a strong man does not use his powers. But now we find the Minister of Justice using all his strength, all his powers. He has our people, his own people, put in gaol and in internment camps. A strong man does not use his power and his rights, but the Minister of Justice is doing it. He is putting his own people in gaol, not because he has the right to do so but simply because he happens to be strong enough to do so. The Minister first of all showed himself to be a good man and for a long time he did not put people in gaol, but now he suddenly comes here and he has people arrested on a large scale and he puts them in gaol without first giving them a trial. I must say that I am dissatisfied with the Minister because of that. He should rectify this position. There is one matter which I discussed with him personally on a previous occasion and the Minister then gave me the information which I required. The Minister’s secretary gave me certain information, but he did not give me all the information I needed. A young fellow from my constituency has been put in the police camp or gaol in Pretoria. I really do not know whether he is in the internment camp. Anyhow, he has been detained. He is a detective-sergeant, and he writes to his parents that he does not know why he has been arrested. He tells them that he has done nothing wrong. The Minister’s secretary tells me that a charge has been lodged against him but he is unable to tell me what the charge is, nor can he tell me whether it is a serious charge or whether he has been charged together with a number of others. The man’s parents are decent people, and they are very worried about him. I am speaking about Detective-Sergeant de Wet, and I shall be really pleased if the Minister will tell me what the charge against him is, if there is any charge against him. If he cannot do so then I should like to know whether it is a serious charge, and if it is not a serious charge let the man be brought to court so that his case may be finished. If there is no charge against him release him. I don’t want to tell the Minister to release him if I don’t know what the charge against him is, because I know the Minister has certain responsibilities. If the charge against him is a serious one, let the Minister tell his parents so that they may be prepared. Now there is another matter I wish to raise. It is in regard to the magistrate’s court. I have for years been speaking about the magistrate’s offices at Ladismith.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

Very well, then I shall raise it on the vote “Magistrates’ Courts”. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. I have known him for years as a friend of mine, and as a fellow-Afrikaner, and I want him to soften his heart for the sake of those people. Can he tell me what has come over him, what is the reason why he has suddenly turned round and used all his powers against those people? Why has he suddenly become annoyed? He always used to be a good man. He never used his powers for the internment of people on a large scale, but now he has suddenly turned and he has had large numbers of people arrested just for the sake of doing so.

I have not the slightest doubt that the pleas put up by this side of the House must have made an impression on the Minister, nor have I the slightest doubt that the Minister of Justice must feel bitterly ashamed of what is going on. But he is in the hands of his English and Jewish friends and he is afraid of what has been happening during the past eighteen months since the internment policy has been taken out of his control because he was more just and more fair in those days than he is today. If the Minister is allowing himself to be led by that section of people in the country who do nothing but shout for war, if he is afraid of that section of the population, then we can quite understand why he is carrying on in the way he is doing and we can quite understand why he treats that section of the population of whom he should be one, that section which he springs from, namely, the Afrikaans section, in the way he is doing. The Minister can tell us that the statements that are being made by those people are genuine. We have repeatedly had instances of false statements having been made against people to get them interned. I have personal experience of false statements having been made. The statement made against me was nothing but an infamous lie. And if that was the case in regard to the statement made against me how many of my fellow-Afrikaners may not have had similar false statements made against them? How many of them are not in gaol today where they have to wait until a charge can be framed against them? And when it comes to framing a charge it is found that the statements are false, so the people who have been detained have to be discharged. Let me tell the Minister that some people are in a very awkward position. I particularly want to put up a plea on behalf of one class of the people who are under arrest today, namely, the teachers. We find that there is one section of the teachers who are being particularly watched by the khaki knights who are paid to get people into trouble, and I am now referring to the teachers of History and German. The mere fact that a teacher teaches German creates a strong prejudice against him, and the same thing applies to the teacher who teaches History. With the best will in the world, one may try and use the best possible methods to teach a class and tell them what are the genuine facts in the history of this country, whatever one does one finds false statements made against the teachers to get them into trouble. Teachers have been arrested here in the Cape Province. I have approached the Minister of the Interior on this subject, and I have asked him to let us know what statements have been made against those teachers, so that we may ascertain whether those statements are genuine or not. Has the Minister had any enquiry made to ascertain whether the statements on which those people have been arrested are genuine or not? Will the Minister approach the Department of Education to find out whether those people have or have not been interned on false pretences? The Minister should realise that by treating these people in the way they are doing we are destroying many a home. If the statements made against those teachers are genuine let the law take its course, but we know that very many false statements are made. It’s no use indulging in wishful thinking, but I really would like the Minister to be kept awake one night; I would really like his conscience to worry him to such an extent that he would feel himself compelled to release those people who have been placed in this hellish position, and do justice to them … once he has done that he will be able to enjoy his untroubled sleep again. The position is a difficult one. There are parts of this country which are suffering from a severe drought, and a number of the farmers coming from those areas are in gaol today. Their business as farmers or as business men has gone. If they are guilty it is a different thing, but many of them are not guilty. Is the Minister at last going to take steps to have these people released who have been spending months in gaol, although they are quite innocent of any offence. And are those innocent people who are being detained going to be compensated for the losses they have suffered as a result of the actions of the Minister’s department? Those people should be treated better. I have also had the privilege of being allowed to see one of those people who have been arrested and who was detained in gaol. After a lot of trouble I was allowed to visit him. Can hon. members imagine the bitter feelings among those people? After pleading for a long time I was allowed to speak a few words with the man I had come to see, but what was the position? The man in the office, the little gentleman who was sitting there called Witbooi—or whatever his name was—and said: “Unlock the gaol and bring the Boss here.” That is the sort of thing people have to put up with. A coloured man or a native had to let the man out and take him to me. When we had finished talking the coloured man was instructed to lock him up again, and these are facts, but these are the things which cause bitterness in the hearts of the Afrikaners against the English speaking people, because, whether we are right or wrong, we look upon the Government sitting over there as being pro-English, and we say so because of the treatment meted out to our fellow-Afrikaners today. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister. We are only asking for right and justice. The Afrikaner people today feel that they are bywoners in their own country. They no longer feel at home here. They no longer feel at home in the country which they have cleaned up for civilisation. Others have come to this country, and those others wield all the influence today. They owe their influence to the Government which is in power today. To a very large extent they are English speaking; there are others as well, and all they are out for is to oppress the Afrikaner people. Let the Minister get up here today and give us an assurance that he will change these conditions of which we complain. The Minister is addressing a meeting at Riversdale on Tuesday night. How he can have the courage to face the Afrikaner people when events like these are allowed to take place, passes my comprehension. How he has the courage to face the Afrikaners when large numbers of people are in the deepest misery, are kept in solitude, away from everyone dear to them, is something I cannot understand. Let the Minister get up and tell us that he will have an investigation made, and that he will put an end to the torture these people are subjected to. Let him get up and say that he will see to it that right and justice shall be done in future.

I want to ask the Minister of Justice how much longer this defiance, oppression and torture of the Afrikaner people is to continue? Large numbers of Afrikaners are in our gaols today, and while we on this side are discussing their lot, members opposite are keeping perfectly quiet, perfectly silent—as a matter of fact, one is even struck by a certain amount of frivolity on their part. We have to get up here to plead and to object to the obnoxious methods that are being applied to our fellow Afrikaners, most of whom have done no wrong. The Minister himself has admitted that most of these people are innocent. They are put in gaol and subjected to disgraceful and cruel treatment as stated by speaker after speaker. Why should these things be? Innocent people are put in gaol by a group of persons who carry information or who are spiteful, or who for business reasons want to get these others out of their way, and the Minister and his department are only too keen to get any information so long as they can lay hands on an Afrikaner. When Afrikaners are put in gaol there is great rejoicing on the other side. I only want to draw attention to the instance quoted by the hon. member for Smithfied (Mr. Fouche) to show what is going on. I don’t know whether the Minister has taken the case of Mr. Cronje, of Rouxville, seriously, but where is it going to end if detectives in private clothes have the right to fire at a motor car which refuses to stop? I should like the Minister to reply to this. Have his detectives got the right to shoot at a car which refuses to stop? The Minister knows that people are nervous and scared to stop on our roads when they are challenged. How can they know that the people stopping them are detectives and not criminals? What right did the police have to shoot? When Gen. Delarey was shot, when he was in a car with Gen. Beyers, in 1914, the position was similar to what is going on now. If people are killed in a case of that kind it is nothing but murder on the part of the police —murder of innocent citizens. I want to know whether the detectives had the right to fire and who gave them that right? I want to know from the Minister whether he will have a proper enquiry made, and whether he will give us an assurance that the people who did fire will be punished. No citizen of this country will feel safe if the police can come at any time and shoot at motor cars. The methods applied in other cases are entirely different. Take the events at Vereeniging, where members of the police were murdered by natives. The police were not allowed to shoot to protect their own lives. There the police were attacked by natives, but were not allowed to shoot. There is the case of a policeman on record who was attacked by a native; he was, first of all, assaulted by the native, and he only fired afterwards. He shot at the native’s legs, but that policeman was dismissed from the Police Service. In other instances policemen have been suspended where they have fired at natives or coloured people in self-defence, but today it seems to be regarded as something plucky if anyone attacks and ill-treats and shoots an Afrikaner. We have had these riots here in Cape Town among coloured people who marched past Parliament House and destroyed motor cars, and assaulted a woman and her child in the street, and who committed all kinds of acts of hooliganism. The police were not allowed to shoot. If the police had shot the English Press would have set up a roar of indignation. But when the police fired on Van der Walt, or on a motor car containing a number of innocent people one hears nothing but approval from the Minister and his supporters. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not realise that the people who are being treated in this way are his own flesh and blood. Does he not realise, as an Afrikaner, that the very least he can do is to stand up for the interests of his fellow-Afrikaners? Let me instance the case of a coloured sergeant who caused a minor riot here in Cape Town some time ago because the police did not want to salute him. That coloured sergeant caused a minor riot, and after that he saw to it that he was sent up North, so that the case should not be heard in court. All these things are happening. The greatest tolerance and generosity is shown to coloured people, to non-Europeans, but if white Afrikaners happen to do something very different, action is taken. Take Vari der Walt’s case. How did the Government act towards him? He was arrested for being in possession of an unlicensed revolver and he was threatened with internment. The result was that he ran away and then he had to be shot before he was arrested again. The Minister made the excuse that Van der Walt had threatened to shoot first. That is not so. I have discussed the matter with people who know something about this case. If the Minister wants this matter cleared up he should have a judicial Commission appointed and have a proper investigation made. Does the Minister know what the people feel about these things? Our Afrikaners are beginning to resent the way they are treated. A feeling of vindictiveness is born in the hearts of the Afrikaners. The Afrikaners cannot leave things as they are today. They cannot allow themselves to be trampled on and oppressed in this way. The day of reckoning is coming. Is it the Government’s policy, because it has the power today by a conglomerate small Parliamentary majority, to use that power to trample on the Afrikaner, to degrade the Afrikaner and to oppress him? Does the Government imagine that feelings of vindictiveness are not going to arise in the minds of the Afrikaners? When Ministers appear on public platforms they adopt an attitude of innocence and they talk about co-operation between the two races. How can they expect co-operation if this is the sort of treatment the Afrikaner has to endure in his own mother country. Simply because he is not enthusiastic about the Government’s war policy? That is the difference—that we do not feel enthusiastic about the Government’s war policy. What right then has the Government to take up this attitude towards our people? The Government has never secured a mandate from the country; it has used its conglomerate small majority to plunge the country into war. The Prime Minister made a statement in this House that we would not take an active part in the war; yet we find today that the Government is using its majority.

Order, order; the hon. member must not stray too far from the subject matter before the Committee.

I am saying this because the Minister has no mandate from the country to act in the way he is doing. Compare the position in 1914, when there was a rebellion, with the condition of affairs prevailing today. In those days the Afrikaners who were put in prison were allowed to get food supplied to them from outside. In those days we did not hear any talk of the danger of things being smuggled into the gaols together with the food. Why are we hearing of these things today? In those days the wives and children of internees were allowed to visit their husbands in the gaols and talk to them. But today? You can do your utmost but it is no use. I had the case of a woman from Bloemfontein who went to Pretoria to see her husband for a moment. She had to put up with the most serious insults. They are not even allowed to see their own husbands. [Time limit].

I don’t want to detain the House with a long speech on the subject but I do think that this is a very serious matter. I only want to tell the Minister that the people of this country are getting very nervous about the arrests of so many people who are not being brought before our courts. They don’t know what they are charged with and we were told this afternoon of the way they are treated. After a while most of them are released again but they are never told why they were arrested in the first instance. I want to bring to the Minister’s notice the instance of a man who did a very brave thing. He is a man in the Police Service and last year at the risk of his life, and after a lot of difficulty he arrested a very bad criminal on the Witwatersrand. I am speaking of detective Roux. He jumped on the front bumper of a motor car and climbed over the bonnet until he got on to the running board while the man in the car was all the time trying to throw him off. With his hand he smashed the window and he arrested the man who had stolen jewels to a value of more than £1,000.

Does not that come under the Police Vote?

I am only mentioning it to show how well that man had behaved. But some time ago he was arrested and put in gaol and he was kept there for some considerable time. Eventually he was released. Now what was the charge against that man, and why was he released again? Apparently he was not guilty of anything. I would have said that the Department of Justice should have been so proud of that Afrikaner that they should have promoted him the very same day. Instead of that he is put in gaol, but now he has been released again. I don’t know whether he himself knows what he was charged with. But no charge was lodged against him, and he was not punished for anything. The Commissioner of Police may perhaps remember his case, and the Minister may perhaps know all about it too. Then there is another case where a policeman was shot dead. We had a report in the papers that other members of the police wanted to arrest him and that he shot a constable with his revolver through his hand, after which he was shot dead on the spot. But a newspaper report stated that after enquiry it was found that that man had never fired a shot. Yet he was killed. We have not yet heard what the investigation brought to light about this man Steyn who was shot dead. Why was he shot? Who shot him? Did he resist to such an extent that he had to be shot? All these are things which scare us at a time like the present. Somebody said a bit earlier on that it seemed that the police were getting hysterical. To me it seems that the trouble is that the police are being called upon to do a class of work which they do not want to do, and it may be that as a result of that they are becoming hysterical. They have to put fellow Afrikaners in gaol. I again want to appeal to the Minister to bring these people who are in gaol to court as soon as possible. If they are guilty, the laws are there and they can be punished. If they are not guilty let them be released, because you are breaking their self respect otherwise, and by committing acts of injustice of this kind you are only going to cause greater trouble for the future.

Several hon. members have raised a number of matters of a general character—those matters I shall deal with later on in my general remarks. I want to start off by saying a few words about certain particular cases which have been raised here. Let me start with the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard) who discussed the question of the shooting of Mr. Steyn. In his case as well as in other cases where hon. members have criticised the Department, I want to say that that criticism has been levelled in an irresponsible manner. I realise that on this Justice vote quite a number of strong and irresponsible allegations have been made, but I propose dealing with these matters dispassionately and on their merits. Because although many members exaggerate things very badly I feel it incumbent on me to make the position quite clear. In regard to the shooting of Sarel Steyn, this happened after bombs had been discovered in a policeman’s possession, and when that policeman had been arrested. Steyn rang up and said that he stood by the man, “I am with him in this thing,” he said. He was sent for, to be detained for questioning. What did he do then? When the police came to him he immediately threatened them that he would shoot and he pulled out a revolver and aimed at them. Well, we are getting tired of this sort of thing; we are going to protect the police if they do their duty and nobody has the right to draw a revolver against the police.

What about the Chinese?

They did not draw any revolvers, and no members of the police were killed on that occasion. I just want to say that, generally speaking, the police always act most tactfully. They are often injured, but if revolvers are drawn against them I am certainly going to see that they are protected. Do hon. members object to that? Judging from hon. members’ speeches they want the police to wait and not shoot until they themselves have been shot.

What about Vereeniging?

I shall come back to that point. Steyn drew a revolver, and he was shot. The police had instructions to arrest him; they warned him, and when he drew a revolver and threatened them, they shot before he did. Are the police to wait until they are shot at? That’s the sort of irresponsible criticism one gets in this House. Hon. members opposite used to be very keen and very anxious to defend our police, but to-day all sorts of unreasonable and unfair attacks are made on them.

May I just tell the Minister that I made no accusation; I merely asked for an explanation because so far we have had nothing in the newspapers about this matter. We only knew that shooting had occurred.

The hon. member has often called on me and he has never asked me for an explanation. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) in a dispassionate and quiet manner raised another incident here and I shall answer’ him. The position is that there were five masked men and that petrol was stolen. They arrived armed and the police were on their tracks. Mr. Cronje’s motor car happened to pass and the police called on him to stop. He did not stop, but at the same time there was a back fire from the car. The police did not fire at the people in the car, but they fired at the tyres. Mr. Cronje knows what happened and he is quite satisfied, and he has been compensated for the damage done to his car. Mr. Cronje has not raised any of the objections which were raised in this House, and this incident does not provide any grounds for this general attack which has been made here on the police. The police at the time were after people who had been stealing things. The hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Du Plessis) also mentioned a certain incident. I want to say here, and I also want to say this to the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) that I am not going to deal with particular cases in detail. I am only going to deal with them in general and let me tell hon. members why. Cases have been mentioned of innocent people having been arrested. In those cases people have confessed their guilt. But there are other cases where people have been released after they had made a complete statement to the Government of everything that had happened. They themselves were guilty, but the nature of their statement was such that the Government gave them an indemnity. It is palpable that the Government protects the people who have helped it in that way. It would be unfair to give these people’s names. Some very reckless statements have been made here as I shall show afterwards. I assume that the hon. member for Vryburg believes the story of intimidation which he told us about. I must say that that case was never brought to my notice, and I cannot say definitely that it is not so, but I am certain that it is not so.

There is an affidavit.

I am prepared to have the matter specially enquired into and I shall let the hon. member have the facts. This matter has not been brought to my notice. Now in regard to the people in gaol; let us take the position as it was. Sabotage was taking place—and I shall deal with that afterwards —sabotage had become a serious menace to the safety of the State. Unfortunately hundreds and hundreds of people had to be arrested suddenly. In some of the small gaols it was difficult to accommodate them all at the time and even some of his big gaols were chock a block full. Hon. members now complain that some of these people were taken out of the gaols and sent to the internment camps for questioning. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) asks why in some cases people are put in gaol, kept there, while others are sent to camps. As far as possible those against whom there is no direct serious charge of sabotage are sent to a camp so as not to make the delay more trying than is necessary for them. Hon. members should bear in mind that the gaols were suddenly full up. We had to arrest a number of the prison guards. The position was a difficult one and we should remember that our prisons reconstructed during the regime of the Nationalist Party Government that separate cells had been put up for people to be kept separate. Now hon. members ask why these people were removed from the smaller gaols. It was done for the simple reason that those gaols were not able to accommodate such large number of people, so we had to take them to places where we could properly protect and look after them. That is why they were removed from the small to the big gaols. Complaints have also been made about their treatment. These people, as I said on a previous occasion, were treated in accordance with the regulations drafted by the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) when Dr. Van Rensburg was Secretary for Justice. They are treated in accordance with the rules laid down in those regulations. Let me assume for argument’s sake—although I don’t admit it—that the regulations were occasionally broken. The law provides how such breaches are to be dealt with. What is the danger? The magistrate goes round and anyone can lodge a complaint with him so that immediate action can be taken. But the complaints which I have had to listen to here were not brought to my notice before. The hon. member for Winburg quoted from a whole bunch of letters. This is the first time I have heard of these things.

Don’t you know anything about your own department?

Yes, I know what goes on in my Department, but I don’t know of those alleged complaints which should have been submitted to the magistrates. Hon. members will recollect the fuss that was made about the treatment of people in the gaol at Bloemfontein. The hon. member for Bloemfontein District (Mr. Haywood) raised the matter again today. When we investigated the complaint that they did not get proper food we found that at Bloemfontein private individuals had been allowed to supply them with food. They preferred to get food from their friends rather than from us.

Of course.

But when we put a stop to it, they were dissatisfied.

Now you are talking nonsense.

Complaints were made here about our having put a stop to their being supplied with food by their friends. It was stopped as a result of an investigation which was made because of an allegation by the hon. member for Winburg.

You are saying something which is absolutely untrue; I did not say anything of the kind.

We then found that they had been allowed to buy food, but it had to be done through the gaol officials. The reason was that it was necessary to prevent things being smuggled into prison. We have to be careful because in Johannesburg one one occasion a revolver was smuggled into prison hidden in a cake. But if there was anything wrong, it was the duty of the person concerned to make a report so that the matter might be enquired into. As these allegations were made I asked the magistrate for a report, and this is what he says:—

This was enquired into. I just want to refer to the kind of complaint we have had to deal with. The other day a, complaint was made here that there were only two conveniences in the exercise yard for 150 people. And then we were told again that they were locked up all day long. How does one reconcile those two complaints? If they are locked up all day long how can they be in the exercise yard? Then we are also told that one moment they are in the light and the next they are in the dark. These complaints are in conflict with each other— they cannot all be true. If the one is true then the other must be untrue. I made further investigations into the complaints of the hon. member for Winburg in regard to the case of Mr. Fourie where the hon. member said that we had actedharshly. That statement was made here in all seriousness. Now let hon. members listen to what the report says:—

But that is true.

I am going to satisfy my hon. friend on every point. Now let me continue—

Was he released the same afternoon?

Four days after he was released. Now here is one case which has been mentioned.

Whose report is that?

The charge I made was that you refused to allow him to see his legal advisers.

I shall deal with that. It has been alleged that they are not allowed to see anybody. This man was arrested on an allegation of sabotage.

You don’t know what you are talking about.

We are dealing here with a serious condition of affairs. No man can be detained for questioning unless it is on an allegation of sabotage. The regulations make it clear that it only relates to sabotage. It does not refer to the other cases. We have passed through a serious condition in this country and it was necessary for the Government to take drastic action. The Government did take drastic action but none the less it acted fairly. Just to mention an instance. At Potchefstroom there have been nine dynamite explosions. There have been dynamite explosions in Johannesburg, in Bloemfontein and in Pretoria. The position was so serious that the Leader of the Opposition felt it incumbent upon himself to utter a warning against what was going on. I don’t want to make any political capital out of it because I think he did no more than his duty. The hon. member for Winburg knows just as well as I do that every word the Leader of the Opposition said on that occasion was true.

Will you read what I said?

I am prepared to accept it if you will tell us what you said.

But the Government should not have to go and find out afterwards; it should have known it all to start with.

I accept what the Leader of the Opposition said on that occasion.

What did he say?

Read it.

No, I accept it. I am not denying it

Then you should not make any insinuations.

I have no intention of making any insinuations whatsoever; I don’t want to make any political capital out of it.

You are not making any political capital out of it, but you are distorting it.

I am prepared to accept blindly what you say that you said there.

You came into this world distorted.

I am dealing with the question of the hon. member for Winburg having warned against sabotage and having disapproved of it. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) disapproved of it; the Leader of the Afrikaner Party disapproved of it, and every section in the country expressed its disapproval of sabotage.

Of course

They disapproved of sabotage: I admit it, but what is the good of disapproving of sabotage and not giving any active assistance in suppressing it?

Why cannot these people be brought to court and punished if they are guilty?

Now my hon. friend says that these people should be brought to court and punished. Very well. Is that the policy which hon. members opposite want to be carried out?

You have no evidence against them.

We realise that there are many people who technically may be guilty but who practically are perhaps not guilty. In those cases we have dealt leniently with them. But in regard to the man who uses dynamite and who commits acts of violence—so far as he is concerned we are going to accept the advice hon. members have given us and we shall take them to court.

You cannot do so, you have no evidence.

We have had to arrest 700 people and we cannot take a single one to court unless we are pretty certain that he is guilty. We must have ample evidence before we can take a man to court.

But now you first torture him.

We cannot take anybody to court unless we have adequate evidence to do so. It is nonsensical to say that we should take them all to court at once.

We say „Let the courts judge.”

If an individual does not give the State a lot of trouble in proving his guilt, and if he confesses his guilt, it is taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance. Now I want to deal with the case of Senator van Schalkwyk. This question was raised by the hon. member for Winburg. Senator van Schalkwyk does not belong to this party; in the dark days of the past he did his duty to the bitter end; he cannot be said not to be a good Afrikaner.

He is a good Afrikaner, but you are not.

The hon. member said that I had sent him to Ficksburg for some purpose or other. The position, however, is that Senator van Schalkwyk told me that he wanted to go there to relieve these peoples’ sufferings. I knew that if he gave me his word he would not abuse the privilege to go and discuss matters with those people. I gave him carte blanche.

Will you allow me to go there to see my clients?

Yes, certainly—later on.

Christmas also comes later on.

If the hon. member for Winburg gives me his word, I shall trust him. But I am sorry to say that there are others whom I do not trust and whom I shall not allow to go there. Senator van Schalkwyk saw those people and as a result of his intervention they will now be treated more leniently. Eleven out of the twelve who are there have already confessed their guilt. Most of the people we have arrested so far have already confessed their guilt. I believe that 60 percent. of them have already done so. And in regard to those who have not yet confessed, we believe that in 99 cases out of every hundred we shall be able to prove their guilt. It is only in exceptional cases that an innocent man is interned. Now let me give the Committee an instance to show where there is a possibility of an innocent man being arrested. There are two people in a motorcar. They cut a wire at a certain spot. They go on and a little distance further along they pick up two other men who go on with them. The car is seen with four people in it. So all four are under suspicion. In such an instance the onus rests on the two innocent people to prove their innocence. But wherever people have been sent to the internment camps we have had evidence of sabotage against them. We shall investigate those cases thoroughly, and when they are brought to court we shall see that they get a fair trial and that their guilt is properly and thoroughly proved, if they are found guilty. The position in regard to sabotage had become a very serious one in this country, and if it had not been stopped it might have led to unheard of evils in this country. That is why the State had to take every possible step to suppress it at once and the State did so, and the State will continue to do so in future. I think hon. members opposite will admit that the Government is acting impartially.

You will never do anything impartially.

We had to surpress these acts of sabotage because they were directed against the well-being of the State. They were directed against the Government’s war effort; they would have brought about discord in this country. This is a free country; we are an independent State; we are a democracy and the law must apply to everybody. Whoever contravenes the law must be punished. As I have already said, in regard to those people who have been arrested, 60 per cent. of them have already confessed that they are guilty. Now, hon. members opposite say that they have been locked up because they are Afrikaners. I am now speaking of those who have confessed that they are guilty.

You scare them and then they make a confession.

If an Afrikaner at a time like this contravenes the law, I as the Minister of Justice, because I am also an Afrikaner, and because I am proud of that fact, must intervene—or do hon. members want me to take up the attitude that because the man is an Afrikaner he must be allowed to break the law. What will the consequences be? We are dealing with serious conditions here. I cannot, simply because I am an Afrikaner, let a man go unpunished because he is also an Afrikaner. Now let me refer to the statement made by Johannes van der Walt which was read out in this House by the Leader of the Opposition. What does Johannes van der Walt say? I am going to prove that we do not take action on any statement before the facts contained in that statement have been thoroughly investigated. All sorts of allegations are sent to us. We are accused of accepting every statement made to us and of acting on every statement. If we acted on every statement without making a thorough investigation we would have had to charge advocate Jerling with attempted murder. Johannes van der Walt stated under oath that he had been asked to murder a certain individual.

That is not so.

There must be some reason why Johannes van der Walt broke with the Ossewa-Brandwag, and I think it was because he was not prepared to carry out his oath. I don’t want to argue here, I don’t want to argue about what I know or do not know or what my friends opposite know. Johannes van der Walt would not do it.

He said that you and Jerling were hand in glove.

The other case against Jerling has also been withdrawn.

I am now talking about Johannes van der Walt; he said that he had to commit a murder and he refused to do it.

No, he was not asked to do it.

The point I want to make is this—that we did not just take action on Johannes van der Walt’s sworn statement; we did not do so. We very definitely make a thorough investigation before we take action on any statement. But it is the Government’s duty to suppress sabotage. No Government is worthy of the name of Government if it allows sabotage to go on. Say Van der Walt had been a weakling and he had listened to Jerling. Should we then have allowed him, because he was an Afrikaner, to go unpunished if he had shot the other man?

But who asked him to do so?

My hon. friends know that the man who asked him to commit murder is a man who is not a supporter of the Ossewa-Brandwag but a supporter of the Leader of the Opposition.

Who is that man?

Hon. members opposite know that Dr. Van Rensburg has been threatened. Advocate Jerling has been threatened. If the State had not stepped in, there would have been a terrible mess up in this country. The State took drastic action but at the same time it acted with moderation. All these questions were enquired into and those people were not arrested until such time as it was clear that there was evidence against them. I say that the argument that I am not to arrest these people because I am an Afrikaner is a bad one.

When did we say that? We never used that argument.

We said that you are the son of an Afrikaner. We never said that you were an Afrikaner.

I only want to mention a few other cases. In one instance fifty nine sticks of dynamite were placed under a railway line. Fortunately the train passed over the dynamite without there being an explosion, but if that dynamite had exploded people would have been killed and injured, and the people who would have been killed and injured would not only have been Government supporters, but innocent women and children. Are we to allow things like that? Are we to allow the mineworkers in Johannesburg to be killed and mained through the destruction of power stations?

We did not say that.

I know hon. members opposite have not said so, but if we take steps to stop these things we are told that the English and the Jews are trampling on the Afrikaners, and that we are identifying ourselves with the English and the Jews.

Who has said so?

I believe the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) said so, and it hurt me to hear a remark like that. Statements have been made on the platteland that we Afrikaners on this side of the House are hand in glove with the Jews and the English to trampel on the Afrikaners.

Well, that’s quite right.

Yes, there we have it again. Now let us analyse that story. How long ago is it since the last election when all the hon. members opposite accepted the votes of the Jews and English to be returned to this House. In those days they told the country that they stood for a United South Africa where all sections could co-operate.

You are getting completely away from the vote, please get back to the vote.

I am answering what has been said by hon. members opposite, it refers to my vote. It has been said that I am abusing my position as Minister of Justice because I am trampling on the Afrikaner and am helping the English and the Jews. Who are those Jews and those English people whom these complaints are being made against? They are Mr. Madeley, Mr. Kentridge and Mr. Allen. They were with us in the Pact Government. Without the assistance of those three the old Nationalist Government would never have got into power. In those days we did hot hear so much about Englishmen and Jews. I don’t want to rouse any feelings here, I want to deal with this matter dispassionately, but I mention this fact because the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) also spoke of trampling people underfoot and of defying people. Now let me put this question to hon. members opposite. Is it not a fact that for every word of defiance for very word of agitation that has come from this side of the House we have had ten such words, ten such expressions from the other side of the House? No, the very same co-operation between all sections in the country which we used to have under the Pact Government, which we used to have under the Fusion Government, is today to be found in this Government, and we are going to stand by those principles, irrespective of individuals—irrespective of the language the individual speaks. It is essential to maintain that principle in order to have peace and quiet in this country. I am sorry if English speaking or Afrikaans speaking people contravene the laws but if they do so the Government’s duty is a clear one.

They must first of all prove it.

My hon. friends opposite have found it necessary to warn people not to allow themselves to be persauded into committing acts of sabotage. That’s all very well, but instead of attacking this Government hon. members opposite should have assisted us. They should not have indulged in political propaganda against us. They should have brought these complaints to my notice and I would have gone into them at once. No, we have only one duty in this country. We have been put here by the free vote of Parliament which represents the people. We are not going to allow this country’s war effort to be undermined by saboteurs—we are certainly not going to allow it. We shall act with moderation and we shall act fairly and justly, but we are not going to allow anyone, just because he is Afrikaans or English speaking, to go unpunished if he does anything to undermine the Government’s war effort.

But who has asked you to do so?

My hon. friend said that only Afrikaners were arrested for acts of sabotage. Let me assure hon. members that if they produce the evidence to show that any other section is committing acts of sabotage, the evidence will be investigated and proper steps will be taken.

But our objection is that false statements are made against Afrikaners.

If I had not been a member of Parliament I would have been interned.

I want hon. members opposite to understand that we do not act immediately on every statement that we get. An investigation is first made—we first of all have to get corroborative evidence. I am sorry that Johannes van der Walt’s statement has been referred to again in this House.

It is a disgrace.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) also referred to that statement, but the statement which he referred to and which he read out is entirely different from that read out by the Leader of the Opposition.

Can you deny that what Johannes van der Walt has said is the truth?

You are too scared to enquire into it.

I say that Johannes van der Walt had a revolver in his hand and that he wanted to scare the police with his revolver. Do hon. members admit that he wanted to scare them with a revolver?

You are quite wrong.

Johannes van der Walt not only had a revolver in his hand, but I go further and I say that he aimed at the police.

But why don’t you have an investigation made, are you afraid?

All sorts of reckless statements have been made in this House.

And you are making just as reckless statements.

A statement was made here by the Leader of the Opposition which was supported by the hon. member for Winburg and also by the hon. member for Mossel Bay. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Winburg know more about Parliamentary procedure than the hon. member for Mossel Bay does—and I am prepared to forgive him, but I cannot forgive them. It was stated here that the man who shot Van der Walt was the man who had also shot Erasmus— that they were one and the same man. That statement was made purely because of the fact that those two people had the same name, and the conclusion was immediately drawn that they must be the same person.

You are talking nonsense.

Order, order!

I did not say that.

The hon. member did not say it, but he supported that contention. Now I want to give the House the assurance that the two Fouries are not one and the same person. I say that this is a reckless statement, and I say that reckless propaganda is being made by the use of this name. Hon. members opposite also say: “Suppress sabotage.”

Did you not give us the names here of the people who did the shooting?

I did give the names, but I did not say that it was one and the same man. The two have nothing to do with each other. But all this is used for the purpose of political propaganda throughout the country. The individual who commits sabotage for the sake of political propaganda commits a crime against the safety of the country. The question has been asked here what the name of the individual was. I have given his name. Now in conclusion I want to deal with this subject of the police because a great deal has been made of that too. At one time hon. members opposite used to accuse me of not defending the police when I should have done so. Now that I defend the police they are also dissatisfied. It was a most unfortunate thing that we had to arrest all those policemen. I can only say so much in this House as is possible without injuring the interests of the State. As far as I possibly can do so I want to say everything. As a result of the arrest of certain individuals the Government got possession of a complete list of the Stormjaers among the police. The position was a serious one. Hon. members must take it from me that the position was serious. We found that members of the police were in possession of bombs. We found members of the police prepared to resort to acts of violence which could only have led to a most terrible condition of affairs in this country. We knew from the list that there were names on it which should not be there; we know that there were names of people there who themselves did not know that their names were there. We also knew that there were a number of names on that list of people who did know that their names were there, but who did not know that violence was contemplated and who had nothing to do with it, and who would not have stood for acts of violence for one moment, but we also knew that there were names on that list of people who were guilty and that terrible things might result from the actions of those people. The Government had to take immediate steps. We could not make enquiries first to find out who was guilty and who not. That is why we simply arrested everybody, whose name was on the list, for questioning. We sent them to the camp at Potchefstroom and some of them were kept in Johannesburg. We then found out that many names had no right whatsoever to be on that list. Others had been placed on the list on false pretences. We know that if a Stormjaer brought in ten names he was promoted to a corporal. If he brought twenty names he was made a sergeant. Well, those who were not guilty were eventually released. But we also know that by taking this step we succeeded in catching every guilty man among the police in Johannesburg. The police know what their duties are. They knew of the difficult position which existed and they realised that we could not have acted any differently from what we did. There are no bad feelings over the action we have taken, because they know that we could not have acted any differently. We had to make sure of getting hold of all those who were guilty. If people are in a position of trust and there is treachery and we find them in possession of bombs and dynamite which might have endangered hundreds of lives, we have to take action and we have to do our duty to the country and to these people who do not agree with these things. We had to make sure that we were going to arrest those people who were prepared to commit acts of violence, and we had to do so before this hellish work with all its terrible consequences went any further. Many of those who are in trouble today realise how badly they have been misled. Many people today want us to release those members of the police who were found in possession of bombs. At Lydenburg, Potchefstroom, Pretoria, Bloemfontein and Kimberley and everywhere we found bomb factories. Bombs were manufactured there. Can we allow conditions like that in this country? And can we in that connection talk of holding the scales evenly? We had to face those conditions and deal with them and we did our best to maintain law and order, and not only to protect the State but also to protect members on this side of the House and on that side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, have we ever in this House heard such a serious matter discussed in such a frivolous fashion; have we ever heard such a lot of casual and fivolous arguments as we heard from the Minister of Justice th s afternoon? He got up here and he put forward a whole lot of astute lawyer’s arguments, and treated us to a lot of untruths and distortions. But to the most important part of the matter raised by us he did not reply at all. I want to say a few words just to show how absolutely untrue and unworthy the statements made by the Minister of Justice are. He told us that I had complained of the food which the people in the prison at Bloemfontein were getting, and he said that it was found out later that what the people there were getting was the food which their friends were giving them. I say straight out to the Minister of Justice that he has made an untrue statement in this House. I read out a sworn statement in the House in regard to the food given to those people, and in that sworn statement it was said among other things that those people got a tin of coarse porridge, a chunk of bread and a cup of water. I also quoted from that letter to show that for their midday meal they were given meat, carrots cooked in water, and a chunk of bread. And I said that for their evening meal they got a plate of soup, bread, and a cup of water. I read out all those things, and now the Minister comes here and tells us that I complained about the food and that he subsequently found out that it was the friends of those people who supplied them with food. Is that the kind of food which those people’s friends would give them? And the Minister went further and said that for that reason he had prevented those people from being supplied with food from outside.

I made no accusation against the hon. member. I said that complaints had been made that the food at Bloemfontein was not good, and that it was thereupon found that the food had come in from outside.

The Minister said that I complained of the food, and that he thereupon found out that the food had come in from outside. Now he is trying to get out of it. And then we come to Fourie’s case at Ficksburg. The Minister wants to tell us that I misrepresented the position. I did not complain of the way he was treated in gaol. The Minister says that he was not in gaol for sabotage but because he had stolen petrol. I spoke the absolute truth in everything I said about his case.

I said that your information was wrong.

I am prepared to sit down if the Minister will tell me on what point I was wrong.

You said that these people did not get proper food in the Bloemfontein prison, but that it came from their friends.

That is an untruth, but what has that to do with Fourie’s case? It again shows that the Minister is trying to run away because he has made untrue statements here. What I said about that case was the absolute truth. I again challenge the Minister to tell me in regard to Fourie’s case on what point I have tried to give the House wrong information. The Minister cannot do it and that is why he is trying to get on to some other point. The hon. Minister is trying to hide behind the fact that the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) and Dr. Van Rensburg issued certain regulations in regard to the question of food in our prisons. I don’t know whether they made those regulations or not, but what is the use of the Minister trying to hide behind those regulations? No, the Minister is simply putting up skittles about sabotage to try and create the impression that we do not want to set our faces against sabotage. We have time and again clearly told the country that we are opposed to any acts of violence, and the Minister is simply trying to detract attention because he is unable to answer the main point of our charges. He never even touched our main charge. We asked him why he was detaining people in gaol for three months without bringing a charge against them and without giving them a trial. We asked him again in an interjection why he did not do so, and he replied that he would deal with that point afterwards, but he never did. He entirely avoided the gravaman of our charge. We have no objection to guilty people being punished, but why keep people in gaol for three months without lodging a charge against them, and without giving them a trial? Why prevent those people from receiving visits from their relatives? We are told that the wife is allowed to see her husband once a week. The Minister has not answered those charges. He puts up a long argument here, and a lot of “slim” talk, and a lot of lawyer’s tricks; but he does not pay any attention to the gravaman of our charge. What is one to think of such a Minister of Justice. I don’t want to reply to everything the Minister of Justice has said. It would be a waste of time. Our charge against the Government is that innocent people are arrested, that they are put in gaol, and that they are kept there for months without a trial or without any charge being made against them. Our charge is that the Minister knows that some of these people in gaol are innocent, but he simply keeps them there to see whether they cannot be induced to make statements. His aim and object is to get confessions. If he has any evidence against those people, why does he not charge them? A special court has been in existence for a long time. I tell the Minister again that he has no evidence, and he is trying to secure evidence by means of confessions. We tell the Minister again that he is putting people in gaol without evidence, in the hope that they will become so desperate that they will confess to something or other. These things are scandalous, and the whole procedure is a scandal, but the Minister has at last let the cat out of the bag. The Minister has told us that the only thing he has in view by doing what he is doing is to induce these people to confess. He tells us that 60 per cent. have confessed, so they still have the other forty per cent. now, and they are trying to get confessions by playing some dirty game and by getting those people to commit acts of treachery. The whole object with which these people have been kept in gaol for three months is to break their spirit, and to get them to make statements which will get others into trouble. Those are the disgusting methods which are being applied, and that is what we object to. The Minister has no justification whatsoever for the detention of these people. He has dragged in all sorts of other issues, but he has evaded the main point of our criticism. In this House we have people with long experience of the Government of the country. We have a man here like the Prime Minister—and he allows the Minister of Justice to commit these acts against the population of South Africa. We have had unrest, risings, rebellion, and revolution in this country before. On one occasion people were deported, but never before in our history have people been arrested arbitrarily in the way they are being done now, put in gaol and kept there for months. In reply to a question, the number of people detained in this way has been given as thirty-eight. Five of them were arrested in January, 28 in February, and five in March; 90 per cent. of them have been there for two months and longer. They are in gaol, and they are not even able to tell their parents what charges have been made against them; they do not know. Among them are innocent people; the Minister has been unable to get confessions from them, and only if their spirit is so broken that they can do nothing else, only then will they perhaps, as used to be the case in Russia, be induced to make confessions which are untrue.

The Minister of Justice tells us that 60 per cent. of the people who were in gaol and who had been arrested for sabotage had signed a confession of guilt, and that in 99 cases out of every 100 cases in regard to the other 40 per cent. he could prove their guilt. It is a most painful thing to us to have to think that such a large number of our fellow Afrikaners are in gaol, and that is why I have got up here to ask the Minister of Justice to make a personal investigation and to ask him if he comes across any cases which are not of a serious nature to try and let these people go. We know that a special court has been set up. If I think that those young fellows who, perhaps animated or induced by over enthusiasm, have made themselves guilty of certain offences, have to be brought before this special court, then I want to ask the Minister to show that he is merciful, and to let them go if it is at all possible. And I am convinced that if he does so he will find in the long run that it will pay him better. He will find out that instead of turning those young men into criminals he will, particularly where young men are conerned who in a moment of over enthusiasm have committed these acts, by showing himself merciful, make these men into useful citizens of the State who we shall be able to look upon with pride. I take up the attitude that we shall often find that these people regret the things they have done, and I am convinced that if these people who have committed acts of sabotage—which we certainly do not approve of—can find mercy at the hands of the Minister—and he has the power to be merciful—it will be very much better for the country. I am afraid that if these young fellows have to be brought before the special court they may be very drastically dealt with. I want to make a final appeal to the Minister of Justice. Some people have been arrested and locked up, and I want to ask the Minister why, if he knows that there is no case against them, he does not release them? Why does he not have a thorough investigation made and if there is no charge against a man, why does he not release him, The Minister will find that a feeling of vindictiveness already prevails among a section of the public, and if he would only act in the way I have suggested he would contribute a great deal towards relieving that feeling of hatred and vindictiveness.

I have not yet heard anyone on the Opposition Benches express sympathy with the people who have suffered damages or losses as a result of these acts of sabotage—not one of them has said a word about that. All of them say that they are opposed to sabotage, but I wonder whether the public can take them at their word, and whether we on this side can take them at their word. In my constituency a great deal of sabotage has been committed. In the past, hon. members opposite used to say that they were in favour of the suppression of sabotage, but are they prepared to co-operate with us, are they prepared to assist us in guarding premises and to protect people against sabotage? Has any single one of them come along and said that he was willing to assist in the protection of any business concern? No, we have not had any offer of assistance from the other side whatsoever for the purpose of counteracting and preventing sabotage and of suppressing it. If those hon. members are in earnest in what they tell us, they should come forward and give us their assistance. Take the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart). He made a long speech here and indulged in violent gestures. He made violent charges against the Government about people having been kept in gaol for three months without trial. And at the same time he told us that he was opposed to sabotage. He also complained of the Government detaining 40 per cent. of those who had been arrested who had not confessed their guilt, and he alleged that the Government was detaining these people in order to secure evidence by means of a “dirty game and by means of treachery”. Does the hon. member want to tell us now that to give evidence against a guilty person is “a dirty game and is treachery”?

I said that it was a matter of treachery to give one’s friends away.

How can the hon. member say that he is opposed to sabotage and that he wants to suppress sabotage if he calls it treachery to obtain evidence against saboteurs? That shows the ideas in the hon. member’s mind. Whether those people had committed sabotage or not, he wanted them to be found not guilty, and he wanted to do anything to get them released. That is the position he wants to achieve, and he tries to stigmatise those people who give evidence against saboteurs as traitors. It shows how much in earnest they are when they say that they want to counteract sabotage. No, their attitude encourages those people, and all they are out to do is to show that they are against the Government. Why don’t they offer to assist us in guarding against sabotage, and do street duty together with us? That would show that they want to do their utmost to counteract and prevent sabotage. I cannot accept what they tell us here. I have seen too much to accept their statement as to what is being done. They have had a lot to say about people who are detained in gaol for three months. I only want to tell them that if the Government and the Minister of Justice had not taken the steps they have taken this country would be in a very, very sorry plight. In those areas where I come from people realise that it was necessary for the Minister to take the steps which he did take, and the public are grateful to the Government for putting a stop to sabotage. Have we ever heard of a thing like it—members come and tell us that they are opposed to sabotage, and yet they fail to support the Government in the punishing of saboteurs. They don’t want the Government to punish those people. Have we ever heard of a thing like it? Can anyone with common sense deduce from the steps taken by the Government that the only thing the Government wants to do is to throw its fellow-Afrikaners into gaol. That is what hon. members opposite want us to believe. Hon. members opposite say: “Punish those who are guilty.” Let me reply and tell hon. members opposite that I support the Minister of Justice one hundred per cent. I shall give him my full support. If there is any chance of a man being released from gaol without having to be tried, the Minister gives him that chance. Hundreds of those people—and let me tell the Opposition that those people do not agree with hon. members opposite—have been released. Do hon. members want every one of those people to be brought to court and to be charged? Those people do not want to be dragged to court if it can possibly be avoided. A great many of them are ashamed of what they have done, and they certainly do not want to appear in court. The hon. member for Swartruggens (Mr. Verster) said that there were some very honourable men among those who had been arrested. I agree with him that many of those people in future may still turn out to become useful citizens of this country, but if a man is guilty of a crime he should naturally be punished. No, I hope the Minister will not take too much notice of all this talk indulged in by hon. members opposite. They are trying to play a double game in this House. If they want to do the right thing to stop sabotage, let them help us, and only then shall I believe that they do not favour the kind of things that have happened in this country.

We are not going to reply to what the Minister of Justice said here, because he did not reply to the charges levelled against him by this side. He himself put up certain statements which we are supposed to have made, and tried to deal with them. He did not reply to our charges. I said here that the Minister was differentiating between Afrikaners and others in this country. We advanced evidence in support of that contention. We shall adduce further evidence to show that the differentiates between Afrikaners and people belonging to other races. The hon. member for Malmesburg (Mr. Loubser) spoke of communism, and I put certain questions to the Minister in regard to a communistic pamphlet which was distributed in the country. We also asked the Minister whether he had prohibited a single communistic meeting. The Minister knows that these people held meetings in Port Elizabeth. There was a mixture of Europeans and coloured people, and they called each other brother and sister. Those pamphlets were issued in order to incite the coloured people against the Europeans. The Minister did not see anything wrong in that, but the Afrikaner is arrested in respect of things of which he does not even know. I asked the Minister whether the circulation of this pamphlet was being prohibited. The only reply which I received was that the police were making investigations. Here I have a little newspaper issued by the communists, and I notice that the headline is “Give us guns; away with passes.” That is what the communists spread amongst the coloured people and the natives. I want to ask the Minister to investigate this matter which was raised by the hon. member for Malmesbury. But I want to go further and say that there is discrimination —I definitely make that charge—between Afrikaners and English speaking people. I put a question to the Minister with regard to the prosecution of two young Afrikaners who refused to stand up in the bioscope when “God Save the King” was played. I want to bring this question and reply to the notice of the House in order to show how the Minister plays on words in an endeavour to get away from the root of the matter. I asked the Minister whether, in view of the fact that Union citizens were prosecuted because they refused to stand up when “God Save the King” was played, he would issue instructions to prevent such people from being prosecuted if they refuse to stand up when a song is played which is not the national anthem of the Union. The Prime Minister, when he was a member of the Cabinet of Gen. Hertzog, stated in this House that at the moment South Africa had no national anthem. But nevertheless, in reply to my question, the Minister said that this question was based on a wrong foundation. The Prime Minister said that the Union had no national anthem, but nevertheless we find that Union citizens are persecuted, because “God Save the King” is played. I asked the Minister whether he would see to it that Union citizens are not persecuted because they remain seated when that song is played. His reply was that this question was based on a wrong foundation.

Precisely.

Even if this question was based on a wrong foundation, the Minister could still have said that he did not regard it as a sin if anyone failed to stand up whilst that song was being played. Upon my word, I shall not stand up when “God Save the King” is played in the bioscope. Are we doing something wrong in not standing up? But if an Afrikaner does not want to stand up he is prosecuted. Those people are prosecuted in court if they do not want to stand up. Now we go further. In Bloemfontein detectives visited the Reddingsdaad office. Why was the Reddingsdaad office singled out for this. I want to give the facts in connection with this case, and I hope that the Minister will tell me why the Reddingsdaad office was singled out. It is an Afrikaans non-political body, and it has now been visited by detectives. Again we find discrimination. There are a number of Jingo bodies in South Africa and not one of them has been visited by the detectives. The Minister’s reply was that these detectives went to fetch certain papers at the office. Why should detectives search this place; why did they not ask for these papers? If these papers had been refused, then they could have searched the place. No, there has to be discrimination between Afrikaner and other bodies. We go further. Any person, to whatever political party he may belong, who leaves in the evening after the Parliamentary sitting, can see what takes place on our streets, when there are a large number of soldiers of other countries in the city. That is something which fills us with loathing. We notice in the newspapers what charges are made in the courts of law. We see what takes place in the streets of Cape Town, judging by the cases which come before the courts. When we bring this subject before the House, it is said that we make reflections on the soldiers who come here. Let them say it. I do not care, because I plead for the interests of South Africa. I went to the Minister and told him beforehand that I was putting this question not with a view to finding fault or making any reflection on the soldiers, but in order to put a stop to the untenable conditions which we see in the streets of Cape Town. My question was whether, in view of the scenes enacted in the streets of Cape Town at night, the Minister would take steps to have the canteens closed, or to have liquor supplied by means of coupons when there are a large number of soldiers from other parts in the city. I mentioned two cases to the Minister, which I saw about 200 yards from the Houses of Parliament. The Minister’s reply was that only two cases were known to the police. It is remarkable that the police only know of two cases, whilst I personally saw two cases. What happened there? A soldier stood talking on the sidewalk. There was nothing wrong with him. Another soldier with a bottle of brandy came from the other side, and knocked him on the head with the bottle, with the result that an ambulance had to come and take him away. But the police in Cape Town know of only two cases? Let us take it that that is the case, and that the police are not aware of further cases. We know that when troops are in Cape Town special military police are appointed from the ranks of the soldiers and sailors who sojourn here. Some of the soldiers and sailors told me that if they report one of their friends to the officers of the ship they are regarded as bad sportsmen. They dare not lay charges with the senior officers. I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot alter his regulations so that we shall not be left to the mercy of people who are afraid to lodge complaints against their fellow-soldiers. I wish the Minister would walk about in the neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament for one evening only in order to see how the special police try to disappear when anything happens. [Time limit.]

The Minister did not deny the charges which were made here in connection with the treatment of people who were arrested and against whom no charges were served. He cannot deny them either. I have sworn declarations here with regard to the food. The Minister cannot deny it, nor did he try to deny it. He tried to justify his own conduct and the conduct of his department, but he cannot deny the specific charges that these people are miserably fed. He relied upon the existing regulations. They were intended for criminals and surely not to have honourable Afrikaners treated in this manner, people against whom no charge was made. I said here this afternoon that what was contained in the sworn declarations with regard to the sanitary conditions in the gaols was of such a nature that I dared not read it out. If one treats a criminal like that, he may have deserved it. But to treat people in this way who were never convicted and who do not even know what the charge against them is—to say the least of it—is scandalous. The Minister’s excuses are very poor. I want to give the Minister the assurance that by means of this treatment he is engendering a feeling of bitterness in the country which he and his Government will never be able to eradicate. Honourable citizens and innocent people are treated in a scandalous way. That is our complaint. I am not speaking to raise jeremiads about what happened, but because I want the Minister to do everything in his power to prevent these things in the future and to have justice done. We must not forget that these things which happened are all the result of the war which is being waged. This war is being waged in opposition to the views of a large section of the population of the country, and for that reason the Government ought to be particularly careful. The Minister cannot say that sabotage is taking place and that for that reason he has to throw hundreds of innocent people into gaol. I take it that sabotage was committed, but if that is the case, then arrest ten or a hundred people who are guilty and punish them severely, if it is necessary. But there is no justification to punish innocent people before they have even been tried. I would like the Minister to get up and say that in future he will see to it that people are not treated so unfairly. It seems to me that the Minister became somewhat annoyed when I spoke of Justitia in the form of a woman who is blindfolded and who holds the scales in her hands. That is how justice should be administered, but it is not administered like that to the Afrikaners in South Africa. There is no administration of justice for them. They never come before the court. Now I should like the Minister to give the assurance that he will see to it, when people are arrested, that that is only done when there is a prima facie case against them, and that otherwise they will be left unmolested. Today many innocent people are detained, and this engenders grievances and hatred in the hearts of people. The Minister, who is a sensible person, ought to use his brains today, and he ought not to make conditions even more difficult than they are at present. The Minister is creating bitterness amongst the people. Why should the Afrikaners, who are against the war, be treated in this way? The Minister tried to justify himself. Perhaps he succeeded in doing so insofar as his Party associates are concerned, but he did not succeed insofar as others are concerned. I make an appeal to the Minister to be tolerant and to see that justice is done in our country.

After discussion, the amendment was put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—23:

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J H.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Fouche, J. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Rooth E. A.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and J. F. T. Naudé.

Noes—48:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Klopper, L. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 41.—“Jusice”, as printed, put and agreed to.

I move—

In view of the fact that as the result of discussions in Committee yesterday, I have given notice of various amendments and obtained His Excellency’s recommendation for those amendments in so far as they would have the effect of increasing expenditure, it is necessary for me to move that these amendments may be considered, that this order be discharged and the Bill recommitted under Standing Order 174 for the purpose of considering certain proposed amendments to Clauses 2, 26, 33 and 34. I move—

I second.

The Bill has been recommitted for the purpose of considering certain proposed amendments to Clauses 2, 26, 33 and 34 involving increases of expenditure.

I move—

I move—

I move—

I move—

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I move—

I second.

Since this matter was discussed last. I have been reconsidering the sections in view of the criticisms which have been made, and, with a view to clearing up as much as possible the doubts which have been expressed, I propose to move an amendment to this clause. Although it does not go the whole length of the objections and proposals made by hon. members opposite, I think it will be recognised that I am making an endeavour to meet those criticisms as far as I possibly can. The amendment that I propose to make is one which will make quite clear and definite that the amount of the compensation which is to be awarded is not confined merely to the substance of the earth, but it does extend to the crops and improvements. I move—

Before the adjournment, I was moving an amendment to Clause 2 in the terms which I read out, and which I hope my hon. friends on the other side followed. I shall read it again. It is as follows: —

That, I think, clarifies the position in regard to a good many of the amendments which were mentioned when this clause was last under discussion. I want to meet my hon. friends wherever I can, bearing in mind that this is a Bill to enable base metals to be mined, and that this is a Bill which has been cast in its present form and put in the language expressed here not only by me, but by me and the Select Committee representing all the parties in this House; and therefore I am entitled to assume that the considered opinion of the representatives of the parties all over the House is agreed upon these features.

I am very thankful to the Minister that he has at last given in a little way. I am going to accept his amendment and withdraw mine, but I want him to understand that he has not yet given what we desire. The other and consequential damage we have no remedy for, but I am prepared to withdraw my amendment because the Government undertakes this. He calls it investigation, but he will see that later on in the Bill where they deal with the lessee, the prospector, the investigator of the Government, has the same rights, so that there is no difference between the investigator and the prospector so far as the owner of the land is concerned. I take it that if the Government were to do damage to my land or cause damage to my land through this investigation which is not covered in this amendment, I would still have the right to go to the Government and tell them: “This is damage which has been done to me through no fault of mine, and I think it should be paid for”. I still have some right of redress. But if you have the private prospector, he will say: “I need only pay what the law makes me liable for”. That is the difference between the Government and the private prospector. You have some sort of hold on the Government because no Government would want to see you suffer damage needlessly. I want the Minister to understand that position. It is not in a spirit of trying to thwart the passage of this Bill that I am raising these matters, but I withdraw my amendment with the leave of the House.

I appreciate that.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. Warren was withdrawn.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of Mines was put and agreed to.

I wish to move a similar amendment in this clause. I move—

May I just say in connection with this that hon. members will see that I have in respect of this gone a step further than I did in the case of investigation by the department, and I have done that, too, in order to meet the criticisms that have been brought forward, and I think that by introducing the words here that the prospector shall be liable to make compensation for any act or omission incidental to his work, that that carries it a good deal further. I hope hon. members will see that in doing this I am acting in the spirit I suggested.

I am glad the Minister has made this amendment. Of course that has been our objection right throughout. We felt that damage could be caused to the land, other than the damage to the surface, and therefore we have raised it from time to time. As the Minister has moved this amendment I am prepared to accept it. I do not quite know what “any act or omission incidental thereto” would amount to. I do riot know whether it would cover acts by people employed by the prospector, but rather than hold up the House we accept it.

I move again the following corresponding amendment—

I move the following amendment—

I want to ask the Minister whether in this instance he could not make it just any damage due to the exercise of the rights. You see, when you limit it just to crops and improvements and the surface there may be other damage, and I take it the Minister does not want to see the farmers suffer damage. The Minister is afraid that the farmer might come along with excess damage and that there may be trouble in connection with it. I feel that the farmer is making very large sacrifices when he gives up his rights to land for which he has paid. He is entitled to these base minerals or metals. The Government says: “You must work these minerals or I shall have to work them.” “Of course you will get compensation for the minerals that are taken away.” But you don’t want a man to get £100 or £1,000 and suffer inconvenience and other damage probably in excess of what he gets for the minerals. Take a case like lime stone. The value is not in the value of the stone but in the materials. Now if a company wanted these minerals they bought them; if the farmer was unreasonable they left them until he came to his senses. There is more than one way of doing business with people. But here the State intervenes and says: “Whether you want it or not it is in the interest of the country that these metals should be worked.” I think the Minister should meet the farmer in every respect and just pay any damage. I am leaving out the question of the farmer being able to go to arbitration. Today he has to go to court. I think arbitration would be the cheaper procedure. But still I hope the Minister will accept my suggestion. Of course the damage must be in connection with the work.

I think the hon. member will appreciate that in this clause we are dealing with the payments which are to be made for the benefit of certain persons and we are describing the particular persons to whom this damage is to be paid. The payment has to be made to the Minister for the benefit of the persons referred to in sub-section (c) and sub-section (e). The amendment I have moved is for the purpose of bringing this clause into harmony with the other five clauses which: have just been adopted by the Committee. If the hon. member appreciates that I am sure he will see that this clause should go through in the form I have drawn the amendment. I entirely appreciate the hon. member’s desire to see the farmers protected against all damage, and I have done my best in the drafting of these words to meet his objection.

I beg to move—

I think that the amendment is quite clear. The Minister has met the objections of the members of this House who speak for the farming interests as to surface damage, and I think that he was quite correct in meeting these objections. Now I am speaking for another class of person, the persons who if the base mineral industry is to be developed, will actually do the work. Now, as this clause stands, before the Minister grants a mining lease, he has to be satisfied as to the financial standing of the person concerned. I want to add to that that he must be satisfied of something else as well, and that is that the person, or company, also proposes to pay a rate of wages which he (the Minister) considers fair, and otherwise provides satisfactory labour conditions. And I think this for this very cogent reason. This Bill I take it is an attempt or is a first step to carry out the recommendations of the third interim report of the Agricultural and Industrial Requirements Commission. One thing that Commission emphasised was this, that co-incidental with the industrialisation of this country, which involves the development of base mineral resources, should go a steady rise in the standard of living of the people working these industries, including the majority of the people in this country, who are those I represent. All I want to introduce into this clause is that the Minister before granting a mining lease should, besides considering the financial standing of the person to whom he grants the lease, also considers the labour conditions which that concern or person proposes to offer. It is a perfectly reasonable amendment. I personally don’t see how you can decide whether financial arrangements are adequate unless you take into account that very important element in cost, which is the wage rate that is going to be paid. Under the Wage Act of this country one of the statutory criteria is the ability of industry to pay, and on the other hand the cost of living of the workers. Often these criteria are in conflict. In so far as this Bill proposes to start a new industry I want to stop that conflict ever arising. It must be decided before a particular concern operates that it can pay a rate of wages such as is conventionally regarded as providing a fair standard of living, and I want the Minister to take that into consideration. As I said, to my mind the financial standing or the financial requirements means nothing unless the standard of wages, the most important element in cost, which the concern proposes to pay, is taken into consideration. If the Minister is going to take into consideration the amount of capital required, then it makes a very great difference whether the rate of pay is 5s. or 10s. per day. I suggest that I have laid down a wholesome principle and have also clarified this particular paragraph of the clause. My second amendment is as obvious, I think, it is simply consequential on the first. Obviously if the Minister has to take into account what the wages are going to be and what the labour conditions are going to be before granting a mining lease, he must have this information before him. In other words, that information must be included in the return which is laid down as necessary in regard to the financial position of the applicants for the lease. I hope I have made the implications in my amendment clear. Let me say this, I hope the Minister will show no less consideration to the working class than he has shown to the landowners in connection with the amendment which he has already moved.

I have no objection at all to the adoption of the principle that in leases of this kind there shall be a provision for the payment of satisfactory wages, and for satisfactory labour conditions. I have no objection to that; indeed machinery for doing that is provided in this Bill by the fact that the Mining Leases Board is there to determine the conditions of the lease, the machinery is there for this purpose amongst other things. I am sorry the hon. member did not give me his amendment before coming here, because then I would have tried to have fitted it in or got the draftsman to do it with exactness. I think, however, this will have to be considered further. I would like some little time to examine the exact wording of this, and perhaps we could let the clause stand over and revert to it.

I also have an amendment to this clause, which I take it I can move when the clause is reverted to.

I would like all the amendments at once.

I move my amendment to Clause 6—

I feel this about the matter, that if we allow the clause to stand over, the Minister will have time to consider it, although it has been on the Order Paper for some days. What I am afraid of is this, that if you don’t fix the scale according to the value of the mineral you are taking out, there may be a preference given to one person as against another. You must have a scale which fixes the value of the metal, and the royalty which is to be given or the rental which is to be paid. You must have such a scale, otherwise you will be doing injustice to some people, because some will get more and others less. The scale should be fixed by the Board; I don’t claim that Parliament should have the right to do it. I think that is not unreasonable, and I think I am entitled to move that, and the Minister, I hope, will accept it. There is another thing, the farmer has no say at all in the fixing of the rent. He can make representations, I understand that, but there is nothing as far as the Minister or the Board is concerned; they need not accept the representations, they can do as they please. There is another feature in the section which I want to draw attention to, and that is that after the Minister has fixed the rental and after he has received that rental from the lessee, he pays it over to the farmer or the owner of the land. Now, the farmer has no say in selecting the lessee. The Minister does this after looking into the man’s financial position, but there is no responsibility on the Government to pay the rent to the farmer if it is not paid by the lessee. I thought at one time to move an amendment making the Government guarantee the amount of the rent, otherwise the owner of the land has no security at all, and that does not seem to me to be reasonable. I am quite prepared to accept that the Government should get the base minerals worked if it is for the good of the country, whether the owner of the land wants it or not. But at least I have a right to claim that the owner of the mineral rights should be properly protected. If he has no say in the selection of the lessee, he should have some guarantee that he will get his rent. It is unbusinesslike for the Government to say to the owner: “You have no voice in the disposal of your own asset, but we take no responsibility about the payment of the rent.” Then there is another point. The man may be perfectly solvent at the outset, but his financial position may deteriorate, and you may get all sorts of complications. If the Government guaranteed the payment, they would insist upon cash being paid in advance, but I appreciate that these leases may run for a very long period. But what I feel is that some sort of security should be given to the farmer, so that he will not lose his rent. If the Minister is asking for the section to stand over, he can think over the matter.

Mr. Chair-Chairman, I cannot help thinking that the hon. member and myself cannot be quite ad idem. In line 63 it sets out what the lease is to contain, it says that any such lease, any mining lease, shall provide for the payment by the lessee to the Minister for the benefit of the holder of the base mineral rights, royalty, share or profits, or such other consideration as may be recommended by the Board after considering the report. I cannot see how the Board or the farmer is going to be assisted by a provision that this must be according to a fixed scale. You do not want a fixed scale when the actual remuneration is fixed, the share and the profit is fixed, and the royalty is fixed. I cannot understand what fixed scale could possibly be required. I know the hon. member is not responsible for this amendment, but if he were I think he would agree with me at once that the introduction of a fixed scale in this section is completely out of place. The whole of the share, profits or royalty has been fixed and settled in the lease, so why do you want to introduce a scale? It will not be on a scale at all, but a fixed amount; it may be 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. or 30 per cent., or anything else. Then with regard to this arbitration, Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that we had said enough upon the subject of arbitration. It has been deleted in the clause which preceded this, and for very good reason, and to introduce it here again would really be something which is an excrescence upon the Bill. What arbitration could possibly be an improvement upon what you have here? You have here a Mining Leases Board which is entirely independent and beyond the reach of any approach, that is, in the postion of a judge. Let me ask the hon. member, who has no doubt had experience of arbitrations, what would happen. He would say, “Well, let the farmer nominate one, and let the applicant or the Government nominate another, and let them choose an umpire or referee”.

The Act makes provision for that.

That is what the Transvaal Act provides. What happens is this: if you have a nominee on one side and one on the other, in nearly every case which I have come across the one cancels out the other, and it remains only for the umpire to decide. Here you have got not merely one man as umpire, but an absolutely independent Mining Leases Board, whose business it is and whose experience it is, to do this. No, Mr. Chairman, it would not be in the interests of the farmer, the landowner, the lessee, the Government or the country or anybody else, to introduce this cumbrous and very largely antiquated system of arbitration which is here suggested.

I understood the Minister to move that this clause should stand over. Is that the position? I wanted to explain my amendment, since the Minister says he is not satisfied with the wording. If it is to stand over, however, I will leave it; otherwise I want to explain my amendment.

I move—

That the further consideration of this clause stand over.

I move—

Mr. Chairman, the wording here is the same, and I want to take the opportunity to elucidate my amendment. I am not wedded to the wording of my amendment, but it is the best I can see, and I apologise for not having put it on the Order Paper. That was due to pressure of time in other directions. I want to move on page 12, line 29, exactly the same amendment as I did in the previous clause, in order to secure that the proposed scheme of mining shall provide for the payment to all employees of wages at satisfactory rates, and in all other respects, satisfactory labour conditions. Both these clauses provide for schemes and how the prospector or lessee is going to work the mineral. He has to satisfy the Minister about his financial resources, and all I want is that such scheme shall provide for the payment of satisfactory wage rates and shall ensure, in all other respects, satisfactory labour conditions. I do not want to argue the merits of that, because the Minister has said he has no objection to the principle of it. As I said before, I am not wedded to that wording, and if the Minister can provide a better wording at the report stage, I shall be satisfied. It is the principle that I want. I move—

I also have an amendment on page 679, but only the latter portion of it, because the Minister has moved an amendment which meets us in the other section. A diagram has to be registered, but there is no provision made in the whole Act for the owner of the land to be provided with a copy of the lease or a copy of the diagram. I take it the Minister decides upon all the conditions, he makes the lease with the lessee, and the duty is cast upon the lessee under subclause 9 to have the land surveyed and a diagram prepared. That diagram has to be registered. I want that clause amended, so that a copy of the diagram shall be supplied to the owner, so that there can be no dispute as to the extent of the land either for mining or prospecting. I think that is reasonable.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot accept that. It would be quite easy for the owner, if he wishes to obtain a copy, to go to the Deeds Office and get it in the ordinary way. There is no reason to burden every applicant with the expense of making a duplicate copy and furnishing it to the owner. It can be obtained in the ordinary course by application to the Deeds Office.

After all, there are lawyers on the other side. An hon. member here says this is done in every case. So it is. Unfortunately there is no provision in the Act, and I am asking that provision should be made. Surely the lessor and the lessee should both have a copy of the diagram? They are the people mostly concerned. The lessee has all the say, and the lessor has no say. A diagram has to be made, and surely the lessee should supply the lessor with a copy of it? If it is not attached to the lease he should have a copy. Why should he have the trouble of going to the Deeds Office and getting a copy? Why should he have the trouble of going to the Registrar of Deeds? All these things cost money. You have to go to your lawyer, and that costs money. It is so elementary that I need not explain it.

I am afraid I cannot meet my hon. friend on this point. I would if I could. All I can say is that we want to make it as cheap as possible to extract these minerals and we want to see to it that the person who wants to be engaged in mining is not put to undue expense over the preliminaries. I therefore cannot accept this amendment. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), I have had time to consider this, and as this matter is raised again in the same terms in a subsequent clause, I may give my answer to the hon. member and the Committee now. I am afraid on consideration that there are the gravest difficulties in introducing these provisions into this Bill. I have already told the hon. member for Cape Western that my own view is that we should always get good and sound labour conditions, and I have no objection in principle to good and sound labour conditions being introduced under any lease, but to impose upon the officials of the Mining Leases Board the necessity of having regard to labour conditions and satisfying themselves what the proper labour conditions are, is to put them into a position of having to administer a branch of the Government which is committed to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Social Welfare, and I can see the gravest difficulty in drafting anything which not only would satisfy the hon. member and myself, but would also avoid the pitfalls which are laid open. I must ask the hon. member therefore not to press this. I cannot see my way to accept it for the reason that the machinery and the knowledge do not exist—the officials comprising this Board are not chosen for the purpose of administering and deciding on labour conditions, and it would be something quite outside the ordinary run of mining leases and mining administration to make the officials of my department butt in over labour conditions. I must therefore with regret, I confess, inform the hon. member that I cannot accept it.

There is one section which worries me a bit. I mentioned it on the second reading. I am referring to (1) III, “The establishment of a State mine”. I am not going to propose an amendment, but I would like the Minister to console me; the position might be this; Here is a man, an owner, who has certain minerals on his farm. If a private individual or a company starts developing that, there is the department to look after the owner. The department is there as the fatherly adviser and the helper. But now the interested party will be the State itself. The Minister says, “Yes, Parliament has to approve of it first”. That is so, and I have the greatest respect for Parliament, otherwise I would have no self-respect. But I also know that the Minister would see that his caucus would approve of it first, otherwise he would not get it through the House. Therefore the assistance of Parliament would not be of much assistance to the owner of the ground, so the owner of the ground has no one to go to, no one to look after him. The interests of the State is to get as much out of that man as possible. I hope the Minister will see my point.

That is in the case of a State mine.

Yes. I am not going to propose an amendment because I know that if you want to establish machinery to improve this, it will have to be very elaborate, but I should like the Minister to consider this and try to improve on it if only for the reason to protect the poor owner who has no protection whatever.

I must admit that the Minister’s refusal for the Government to bear the cost of the diagram has left a nasty taste in my mouth. Probably the Minister has not looked at Sub-section (9), line 73. If the Minister looks at that he will see what I mean. Even then it seems wrong that you deny the State giving the owner of the land a copy of the diagram. It is a State mine—not even a private mine. It is an elementary principle—in practice it crops up every day. When a deed is drawn up a copy of the diagram is given to the lessor. In fact, if there is only one diagram the lessor gets it, but here he gets nothing. Here it is a State mine and the State has to pay for it. And what will it cost the State? The State has officials who, I take it, will make a survey. The State has a copy but the owner has nothing. The owner has to go to the Commissioner and get a copy. It would cost the State a matter of 5s. or 10s., but it would cost the lessor a great deal more if he has to get these things himself. It seems that a grave injustice is being done. I don’t want to take up the time of this Committee because we still have the water clauses ahead of us which will take a long time to dispose of, but I must ask the Minister to put right this injustice. It is such a small thing. The other part I understand. The State has these diagrams made. If there is not a diagram then the State has to make it. I suppose the State has to make it at its own expense.

Do I understand that the hon. member will be satisfied with just inserting the words “and a duplicate of the diagram shall be handed to the owner of the land”?

That is all I am asking for.

If the hon. member will confine his amendment to this, “and a duplicate of the diagram shall be handed over to the owner of the land”, and drop the rest of his amendment, then I am prepared to accept that.

I thought his only objection was to the expense of the diagram, because he has raised no difficulty to the rest. Why should the rest be left out? After all, the Government cannot take my whole farm.

That is provided for in the other part of the Bill. If the hon. member will look at 12 (2) (a) he will see that provision is made that only so much surface is used as is in the opinion of the Government Mining Engineer reasonably necessary for the purpose incidental to mining. I did not know the hon. member was pressing that so much. I have provided only for the reasonable use of the surface—only for what is necessary in the opinion of the Government Mining Engineer. The Government Mining Engineer is the only person who can decide what is necessary. I cannot accept the rest of the amendments, but I am prepared to accept the insertion of the words—

I move—

I have another amendment here in line 77—instead of “authority” to insert the word “commissioner”. I move—

The Minister has said that he will not accept the amendment I have proposed either in this or the preceding clause. I have no doubt that for the time being his decision is final, but I hope he will consider this amendment at a later stage. I shall tell the Minister why I am pressing this matter. The Minister gave me a most disquieting reason for refusing my amendment. He said he agreed with the principle, but said that under the machinery of this section the Mining Leases Board would not be able to determine what was a reasonable wage, and so on. Actually, the onus would be thrown, not on the Board, but on the Minister. But what disquiets me is this, there is provision here for State mines, and there is no provision for the intervention of any other department. I assume that if a State mine were established the Minister would have the same advice open to him as would be open to anyone else running a mine—as to what wages should be paid, etc.—he would have the same advice open to him as he would have if he were granting a lease. And therefore if his advisers who would normally advise him are not competent to advise him as to what are satisfactory labour conditions—adequate labour conditions—in regard to a lease, then I must say that they cannot advise him either on these matters in regard to the running of a State mine. This Bill does not do what it should do—it does not provide for an ad hoc Board to run a State mine. It leaves it to the Government, which means the Minister of Mines. That is the first point; and, secondly—this also arises out of the Minister’s reply—I cannot see how the Mining Leases Board can adequately consider whether a man’s financial resources are adequate to enable him to start mining if they are unable to form any opinion as to his labour costs. They must know what wages he is going to pay before they can decide whether his financial resources are adequate. And therefore I submit that the question of wages would have to be gone into. The Minister says he cannot accept this amendment. I have only given these reasons in order to support my appeal to him that at a later stage of this Bill he will see whether he cannot accept my amendment in the light of what I have said.

I would like to know from the Minister whether he will reply to the question by the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost).

I am sorry; in the subsequent discussion I forgot to reply. In reply to the hon. member I would say this: the provision for the State mining is left open without very much to define it in order that in each case a separate scheme may be prepared to submitted for the approval of Parliament, and Parliament itself will have to pronounce the final word on it. The hon. member says who is to check Parliament, if they put forward an inadequate scheme? Well, there is no one above Parliament.

I move—

This clause makes provisions for the payment of any expenses that have been caused by prospectors and the Government in their investigations. If subsequently any developer of the scheme has use of the information which has been acquired from the prospector then a certain amount has to be paid back to the prospector in regard to his expenses, and also to the Government for their expenses. The weakness of this clause is— and we find that same thing right through the Bill—that the Government has all the say. They say how much he has to pay and what portion of the expenses. Now, presuming there has been a survey and after seven or eight years I acquire the property and I want to develop it, then I should have knowledge of what they have found. So what I ask is to insert the words “and who has prior knowledge of such investigation”.

No, I cannot accept that. It would be very easy for anyone who was unscrupulous to say: “I had no knowledge of these investigations having been carried out” and in that case it would be practically impossible to prove that they had the knowledge. It would be an easy way out of it, and this would be open to grave abuse. The provision set out in that section as drafted is a very valuable one, because otherwise people would be able to take advantage of the work from which they have derived benefit and pay nothing for it. That is contrary to the principle of the Common Law.

That would be the fault of the Government.

Well, it would be the fault of the Government if they did not see that the law was drafted in a proper way—which is just what I am doing, and that is why I must adhere to the draft as it stands.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name. I move—

In support of this amendment I feel that the least protection that could be given to the farmer would be the deletion of this proviso. I think it speaks for itself and it does not require any further argument.

No, I don’t think so.

I have an amendment on the Order Paper which I want to move in a slightly altered form. I move—

A great deal of controversy has turned in the debate on this Bill as to the use of water. Water is either private water or water from a public stream. I had desired, as I said, to meet the objections as far as I possibly can and to give to the farmer, the farm owner or anyone who holds the right, the utmost use of his land for the purposes of agriculture, provided only that it does not prevent the user of that portion of the land which is required for exploitation of base minerals, and for that purpose I have now agreed to delete from the water which may be taken all private water. I have cut that out. But, of course, the lessee of the mining rights may still sink a borehole at his own expense for his own purpose. He may erect a dam and collect surface water if he has obtained the surface rights to that effect. If the mining is unsuccessful, or when the mine is worked out, all these improvements go to the landowner free, gratis and for nothing. With regard to public streams, I thought it would be quite fair and reasonable to allow Clause 137 of the Irrigation Act to have full scope of this Bill, and to permit the mining lessee to use water from a public stream. It has been stressed very strongly to me from various quarters of the House, particularly by the hon. members for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) and others, that they are not satisfied with this, and I therefore drafted the amendment which stands upon the Order Paper, and that provides that as far as land is concerned on which the mining lease is granted, no right to use water shall be given, and the Minister shall not use the powers of granting such a right at all, unless and until the necessary amount of water is retained for all domestic purposes, for watering stock, for irrigating land which is irrigated and land which is prepared for irrigation. Now that gives complete protection to the owner of the land, but it has been pointed out quite correctly that that would leave the lower riparian owners comparatively unprotected. I have admitted that, and therefore I have drawn this extra amendment in order to meet that case. It now provides that water from a public stream shall not be used, water rights shall not be granted, the Minister shall not use his power until all riparian owners who have responded to the notice which is to be published calling on them to lodge their objections, have had the same reservation made in respect of them. That is to say, their share is reserved for them. That, I think, should meet completely all the objections and criticisms which hon. members opposite have made.

I regret very much, although I appreciate the concession that has been made, I am unable to accept the Minister’s amendment. I do not think the Minister really appreciates what the position is in connection with water. When the Act of 1912 was made law, there was a common law in existence, and that Act has been based on the principle of the common law that has not been altered, except with regard to normal flow and surplus water. If they do not fall under the operation of that Act, they fall under the common law, and then they are even worse off than they would be under the Act, because the Act makes provision for dividing the water in the stream, which is not the case under the common law. Under the common law the riparian owners were entitled to all the water in the stream, floods, surplus and normal flow. I know the owners had no right of property in the water, the right pertained to the land, and was only a right of user. Some people thought that these principles were not correct because they were not based upon the Roman Dutch Law. In Holland it is not a question of getting water on to the land, but of keeping the water off, and so in framing the law they took certain of the Roman Law principles and certain of the American principles, and by a long series of judgments those principles were accepted, and eventually they were brought before this House and passed into law. It is an injustice you are doing to the owner to say to him: “Since you have only been irrigating 10 morgen, although you have 1,000 you could irrigate, I am going to take away all the water, except that which is necessary for the 10 morgen you are irrigating.” The Act of 1912 makes provision for the division of the water of the normal flow of a public stream. It is not all rivers that have a normal flow it is only those whose source is derived from seepage of melting snow and fountains. There are parts of the country where water means more to the farmer than his ground, because the ground is quite useless without the water, and may be worth £1 a morgen or nothing, whereas with the water it may be worth £1,000 a morgen. If you take away the water you are killing the farm. Now, it is no good mining these base metals if you are going to kill those parts of the country that have been most stable in the past. In the dry parts the farmer can only live by irrigation. Not all the rivers have sufficient water to satisfy the needs of irrigation. The Minister only provides for protection of the rights of those farmers who have irrigated a certain amount.

And prepared for irrigation.

The Minister need not have added that, because land prepared for irrigation must have the furrows all there, and that land must be regarded as under irrigation; so there is no concession there whatever. I am quite prepared to have base minerals developed, but the normal flow of public streams must be protected, as they are more important than the development of base metals. A gentleman over there seems to think I am not right, but I know what I am talking about. The base metal value is not always equal to the value of the water. Where you can irrigate at all you can irrigate for all time, but base metals can be worked out.

[Inaudible.]

I can understand those people who think that gold mining is everything. Personally, I think it has brought us nothing but trouble.

The farmers have had about £30,000,000 out of gold mining.

It is no good having base metal mining if you can’t farm. I am warning the Minister, because I know that with the majority that he has on his side, he is going to pass this, but I am not going to leave it there; I am going to organise the irrigation farmers, I am going to make it clear to them what the Minister intends doing, and I am not going to leave the matter there. All I ask him is to protect the normal flow of the public rivers. If he is prepared to do that I have no objection to him taking the surplus water. The normal flow is life or death to the farmer, and if the Minister is not prepared to protect that, there is going to be trouble. He says he wishes to give everybody the right of objection, and they can come along and say what they require, but I would point out to him that so far as irrigation is concerned, it is only just starting in this country, and by this Bill he is going to stop all further developments, that is what it amounts to. I appeal to the Minister to protect the normal flow of water in the public streams. When we come to surplus water, that becomes the property of the first owner who takes it, and the only obligation upon him is not to use it wastefully. I have no objection if the Government desire to take this water for base metal mining; they can do so because they will not injure the established right which has been there for hundreds of years.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted in lines 61 and 62, stand a part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided;

Ayes—16:

Bekker, S.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Fouche, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Loubser, S. M.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and J. F. T. Naudé.

Noes—41:

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Collins, W. R.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hooper, E. C.

Klopper, L. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A, B.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

I move—

I just want to ask the Minister why this Government, when introducing legislation in this House which affects a crime committed by a farmer, always adds imprisonment? But in dealing with a townsman, provision is made for a fine. We had this in the Rents Act today, where the punishment provided for is a fine. If the person concerned does not pay the fine, he can be imprisoned. But why should the farmer always suffer the humiliation of being subject to a fine or imprisonment? Why must the farmer always be trampled upon? Let him also pay a fine and be subject to the statutory law. In the Rents Act a fine is provided for; in the case of the farmer it is a fine or imprisonment—£5 or one month. Why should the farmer always have to suffer this humiliation?

I hope the hon. member will not draw inviduous distinctions between my drafting and my colleague’s. I can only answer for the present draft and for the Bill now before the House. I think it is necessary to have an alternative, generally speaking, and certainly in a Bill of this kind, where it is necessary to have work carried through without obstruction; if a fine cannot be paid or is not paid there should be an alternative punishment.

The Statutes make provision for it. If you don’t pay your fine the Statutes lay down that you have to go to prison. The reason for it is this. If a fine is imposed, and that is the only penalty, and the person has not got the money …

No, the Statutes do not do that. The position would be impossible. If a fine is imposed, and the person fined does not pay, what would it mean? He would get off scot free.

The Statutes make provision that if he does not pay the fine, he goes to gaol.

I don’t know that that applies under this Bill. But if it is already provided for that the man goes to prison if he does not pay a fine, what is the hon. member complaining of?

Well, I have spoken in Afrikaans, and, however much I deplore the necessity, I had better explain it in English. If a man is found guilty under this Act and the sentence is £5 or a month, or whatever it is, if he doesn’t pay, the Statutes provide for his incarceration. Under the Rents Bill, for instance, you only provide for a fine. You are not put into this humiliating position that there is a sentence against you of imprisonment. The sentence is only one of a fine. If you cannot pay or refuse to pay you go to gaol for a certain period, but the actual sentence is a fine of £5. The outcome of it may be the same, but it has not the degrading effect, people are not humiliated in the same way. Whereas if you have the alternative laid down, of £5 fine or a month’s imprisonment, there is the stigma. There is no need for putting in the alternative. To me it seems that every time farming interests are affected these things are put in. Farmers are to be subject to these degrading provisions. They do not do it in the Rents Bill. Why should it be done here?

I move the following amendment—

We have segregation in this country, and there is a scheduled part of the country which may belong to the natives, and another portion to which they have no right. Well, there are still natives in between land which is occupied by Europeans, and which has not yet been bought up. That land in between the Europeans is not subject to the terms of the Act so that it can be expropriated. The Act relates to the land of the European, but not to the native land in between the Europeans. Why is that distinction made? I can understand that the matter is arranged differently where lands fall under the Native Trust. I do not think that it is fair, but there may be justification for it, because there are other interests, namely, the interests of the Trust, which must be taken into consideration. But where land is situated in between the Europeans, it ought to be subject to this Act. Why should the natives be treated differently from the Afrikaners, whose land is made subject to the provisions of this Bill? We say that the native is a minor child, but, at the same time, we give him the rights of a grown-up. I say that it is not fair, where these native lands are situated outside the areas which are kept aside for the natives, that those lands should not be subject to the same conditions as the lands of the Europeans.

There is a good deal to be said for the hon. member, but the difficulty I have is, I am afraid, an insuperable one and I shall explain why It is this: that under the Native Land and Trust Act it is specifically provided that not only land in the scheduled and released areas, but all land which belongs to natives, shall be subject to the provision that nobody can prospect on it no one can go to it, or do anything with it without the consent of the Minister of Native Affairs. That is the existing law, and that law was a law which was passed under rather exceptional circumstances, as the hon. member will remember. It was something like an agreement on the subject matter of that Bill between the native races as a whole and the white people. We were giving the native people as a whole certain benefits and this clause is one of them. Whether that was intended, or whether the consequences were entirely appreciated, is open to argument, and I can see there is an argument on it. But there is a very great danger, indeed, I think, if a measure of that kind with the solemnity attaching to its subject matter, could be altered in any respect in a measure of this kind. If that law is to be altered, it should be done deliberately and the native races be given an opportunity of considering it, and through their representatives in this House and in the Senate, express their opinion on it. I do not think it would be right to alter that law by an amendment to a measure of this kind, which is primarily concerned with the explotation of base minerals And that is why I must ask the Committee not to adopt this amendment, which I think would be open to very grave misconstruction indeed.

I think the Minister has taken a very wise course in refusing this amendment. It is difficult quite to see what implication it would have, but it would enable the Mines Department taking native areas under this Bill, without the intervention of the Minister of Native Affairs, which I think would be unwise at the present moment. Under this clause it is clear that the provisions of the Act will apply to the native areas provided the Minister of Native Affairs has given his consent. I dealt with the legal position on the second reading, and my recollection is that the Minister agreed on the interpretation I placed on this clause read in conjunction with the relative clause of the Land Act. What I am concerned with is this: that where mining ventures under this Bill, as applied to the native areas, by this clause, are embarked upon, that the Mines and Works Amendment Act of 1926 shall not apply. That Act has always been referred to as the Colour Bar Act. It is an infamous Act, it is an Act which was condemned root and branch by today’s Prime Minister when it was brought before the House by Gen. Hertzog’s Government. And it provides that the Governor-General may make any regulations—or rather, that the regulations which the Governor-General may make under the Mines and Works Act of 1911—may restrict the grant of certificates of competency for skilled workers to certain races. Those regulations may restrict such certificates to Europeans, to coloured persons, to Cape Malays and to a number of other classes of people known as Mauritians, Creoles, etc. I have not any hesitation in commending to the Minister the proposition that where mines are opened up in native areas, natives should be allowed to do any types of work that Europeans or Mauritians of Creoles—to use the language of the Act— are entitled to do. I do not like the principle of the Act, but all I ask is to exclude its operation from the mines and works established under this section. Therefore I move to add the following proviso at the end of the clause. I move—

This matter was one upon which the Select Committee heard evidence and they had before them the evidence of the Secretary for Native Affairs.

May I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman? May I ask whether this particular amendment is in order? As the time is getting on, perhaps the hon. member will forgive me for asking now whether it is in order.

I am moving to add a proviso to this effect, “that the provisions of the Mines and Works Act No. 25 of 1926 shall not apply in respect of any mining operations carried on or works established on such land”—such land referring, of course, to native-owned or trust land.

I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that that falls outside the principle of this Bill. We are concerned here with a base mineral mining Bill, and this is an amendment which seeks to alter the application of the colour bar to all mining within native scheduled areas or released areas. It seems to me to fall completely outside the principle of this Bill.

It seems to me at first glance merely to restrict the operation of the Bill. The hon. member may proceed.

It was considered by the Select Committee and it was put to the Secretary for Native Affairs. I am quoting him as an expert witness who gave evidence before the Select Committee. This is what he said—

I am not talking of who develops these areas, I am talking of people who are employed. Now I want the Committee to consider this. The Secretary for Native Affairs says that the application of this provision to the native areas would in his opinion be a breach of faith. It should be a question of skill and not race. Now the introduction of the Colour Bar Act in 1926 was a shock to a great many people in this country and overseas. It was roundly condemned by the Prime Minister who was then Leader of the Opposition in its application to mines and works in European areas. Now, surely a Government of which the present Prime Minister is the head, should accept the exclusion of this provision from native areas. My amendment simply says that if a base mineral mine is established in a native area the native people who live there where the areas are to be developed in trust for them should be able to participate in the work if they are competent. That is not asking very much. We have had solemn assurances time and again that the native areas are to be developed in the interest of, and for the benefit of, the native people who live there, and that in native areas, native interests are to be paramount, and this is an opportunity for us to realise just what the implications of these promises are. I therefore feel certain that the Minister will accept this amendment. The position will then be that where with the consent of the Minister of Native Affairs base mineral mines are established in native areas, native people will be allowed in these mines and works to be employed in any capacity for which they are fitted. That is all I ask for.

I am certainly not prepared to accept the responsibility for introducing legislation of this kind into this Bill where I think it would be quite out of place.

I want to congratulate the Minister on making a very wise decision.

I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). The Minister of Mines gave no reason why he could not accept that amendment. He says that he does not want to interfere with the rights of the natives. But this whole Bill interferes with the rights of landowners, and why should there be differentiation between Europeans and natives? We must not forget that the European bought his land. He received transfer, and he got the mineral rights together with his land. This Bill infringes upon those rights, but nevertheless it is laid down that similar rights of the natives cannot be infringed. The Minister said that the native must be consulted before any such thing is done. The representatives of the natives sit in this House and in the Senate, and they therefore have a say in this legislation. What is more, the native representatives interfered with the rights of the European, and since they assume that right they cannot deny us, who represent the Europeans, the right to interfere with the rights of natives in connection with these matters. For that reason I most strongly support the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam.

I am very sorry indeed that this amendment cannot be accepted. I attach importance to this amendment because of the constant declarations which have been made that in native areas native interests will be paramount. When I ask in this House that in a native area a native who is properly skilled shall have the same right as a European, Malay or Creole, that right is refused. The Minister tells me that he is not prepared to accept it in this Bill. I must say that I feel very heavy at heart that an amendment of that kind cannot be accepted.

On reconsideration I find that as this amendment introduces a new and important principle (viz. the employment of natives on native trust land without a certificate of competency) which was not contemplated by the Bill as read a second time, I am unable to put it to the Committee.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I move—

The Bill which is now before the House, follows naturally on the Bill which has been considered in Committee. The principle on which it is based is different, but largely the provisions for carrying it out in detail will be the same. The principle is different for this reason, that whereas the mining of base minerals very often and very largely depends upon the activities of individuals, and is very suitable for exploitation by individuals, the exploitation as well as the prospecting for natural oil is one for which a monopoly must be held. In the evidence that was taken before the Select Committee, it was shown that there is a possibility of natural oil being found in the Union of South Africa, and I think the House will agree with me, without any argument at all, that such a possibility opens such a wonderful vista for prosperity if the possibility can be realised that we should spare no pains in testing out the possibility and endeavouring, by every means within our power, to find out whether there is natural oil in our country or not. Now, first of all, as to the methods of prospecting. Prospecting for natural oil has to take place over various areas. It is not an undertaking that can be shouldered by an individual who is not a very, very rich individual, and prepared to spend very large sums of money. I understand from my technical officers that to conduct a prospecting enquiry into this matter will require not only expensive plant and a very highly trained and a very considerable technical staff, but it will also involve the expenditure of very considerable sums of money. We have to face the position that it may be necessary to put down a series of boreholes to very considerable depths, and that we must be prepared for drawing blanks in quite a large number before we can say that it is not worth while putting down another, but I think we have now arrived at a stage of knowledge which makes it desirable that this should be done. The geological survey has proceeded on scientific lines for many years, and the accumulated knowledge we have is sufficient, provisionally at any rate, to exclude very large areas from further investigation, and to concentrate our efforts within certain other areas. This has got to be done, not only on scientific lines, but with very expensive scientific instruments, and with a considerable staff, and I think the House will agree that under those circumstances and under those conditions it is desirable that the State itself should conduct this investigation. If the investigation is successful, how is natural oil to be exploited? And here, again, I think the case is an overwhelming one for a monopoly. If we consider the circumstances under which natural oil is being exploited in the United States of America and in other places in the South, we are informed that one of the difficulties, one of the drawbacks to their system of exploitation has often been a multiplicity of owners, and you find that a great deal of expenditure has been made, and costs involved, which, had there been a monopolistic method of exploitation, would have been unnecessary. Oil, if it exists, exists in large areas over the ground, and there is no telling from the surface what the ramifications of the underground oil are. You cannot tell where it may be found, or where it may be cut off. In other words, the ownership of a specified piece of land with surface such as we are accustomed to describe as farms —there is no relation at all to the area that may be oil-bearing. In those circumstances the Select Committee, after considering the matter, came to the conclusion that the right position was to give the State the monopoly, the sole right of winning oil; and the Bill proposes to do this, to give the sole right of winning oil to the State to enable it to make all the preparations necessary for exploiting it. But it does not necessarily follow that this right will be exercised by the State itself. The establishment of a State mine for the actual work is possible, and is provided for, but there is also a possibility that having regard to the very wide knowledge which individual firms and individual persons have over the winning of oil in other countries, it is possible that it may as well to invoke their assistance, to permit them to do it under the strict regulations which this Bill will allow, and so the possibility is open for both under the Bill as drafted. It will permit the State to exploit the oil itself, or it will permit the State to grant the right to do so on given terms to anybody which it chooses, and it can be given to one or more. Of course, it is possible that we may find more than one field of oil. One may be cut off from the other, and in those circumstances we cannot tell which will be the best way of exploiting; whether it will be better to work this as two propositions or to work it as one proposition, and under the Bill we may do one or other, as we think most advantageous, and if it is found that there is a mistake, there will be ample opportunity for correcting the position. So the House will see that under this Bill the principles are that the State has got the sole right of winning, the full power to exploit in any way it sees fit, and the Bill makes detailed provision for carrying out this in all its respects, and certain of the provisions of the Base Metals Bill are applied by quotation, to the exploitation of natural oil. Well, I do not think it is necessary at this stage to say anything more. Hon. members will not only have read the Bill itself, but will have read the report of the Select Committee which considered this Bill and made the recommendation that Bill should be cast in its present form, which I now move.

Unfortunately, we did not know that this Bill would be dealt with, and I therefore want to ask the Minister to adjourn the debate.

If you do not take up too much time with this Bill tomorrow.

I do not think we shall be long. I am almost certain. I move—

I second.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.