I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I have certain amendments in this clause. The first is for a new sub-section (2). That is necessary because of the change we made in Clause 12. I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

In Clause 3.

I beg to move an amendment on the Order Paper. I indicated when the House was in Committee that it would be necessary to move this amendment in view of the amendments which were made in Section 7. I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 3, the omission of Clause 6, and the new Clauses 6, 7 and 8, the omission of Clause 7 and the new Clause 9, put and agreed to.

In Clause 8,

I move—

I second.

I move—

As the clause now reads it seems to me that if a person has perhaps had a drop of wine or a glass of beer, and he gets into a motor car, he is “under the influence of liquor.” I am therefore moving this amendment because I feel that an injustice may be done to a person who will be compelled to pay if an accident happens and if it is just said that he was “under the influence of liquor.” I appeal to the Minister to accept this. He is not going to lose anything by it, and it removes the possibility of people who were not really so under the influence of liquor that they were responsible for the accident, being punished.

I second.

I must say that I don’t quite see the difficulty of the hon. member. I believe that the words “under the influence of intoxicating liquor,” are clearly understood by the courts, but perhaps cases may occur where there is something wrong with the brakes of a car for instance, and where a man may then be regarded as being “under the influence of intoxicating liquor,” although that was not the cause of the accident. It is very improbable that it will happen, but if the hon. member insists on h’s amendment I am not going to oppose it.

I move—

I second.

I have a small amendment as printed on page 572 The bodies whose names it is proposed to insert are Government bodies well able to carry their own insurance. I move—

I second.

I move—

I second.

I move—

I second.

The resolutions on taxation proposals on excise duties, as reported from Committee of Ways and Means and adopted by the House on the 1st April, have been referred to the Committee.

On Clause 1,

During the second reading debate of this Bill I pointed out that I should like to have the assistance of hon. members and others who were interested in this Bill. I then said that I would give ample time for the consideration of the Bill, before the Committee stage was taken, and I asked hon. members to assist me and wherever they had any amendments, to put those amendments in writing. I am pleased that my request has been complied with. I have had the opportunity of personally going into various points, and my department has also gone into a number of points that have been raised. I particularly want to thank the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) for the assistance he has given. There are a number of amendments of which I myself have given notice, and which are on the Order Paper, and there are also amendments of which the hon. member for Swellendam has given notice. I hope the discussions today will be confined to amendments of which notice has been given, in view of the fact that ample time was given for amendments to be put on the Order Paper. In regard to Clause 1 I move the amendment which will be applicable to various definitions, as printed on the Order Paper. I move—

I want to be as brief as I possibly can; I only want to bring certain matters to the Minister’s notice— matters which were put before the department and before the Parliamentary draftsman, but not before the Minister. There are quite a number of matters which the Parliamentary draftsman did not think necessary, but I feel it my duty to bring these points to the Minister’s notice. If the Minister will look at Chapter 1 he will find that “agricultural distiller” is defined here as any owner or occupier of a farm who owns, or has in his possession a still, and who distils spirits exclusively from the product of the vine. I only want to say that a few years ago this matter was raised when the K.W.V. took legal advice, and according to that legal advice if one uses the term “products of the vine” that includes the leaves, the stems, the roots and everything, and all these things are unnecessary. We thought it should be “grapes,” because they are the product of the vine. I therefore thought that the definition should be amended, and I also believe that that is the definition accepted for the Control Act. I understand that the Parliamentary draftsman said that the definition included everything, and that it was not necessary to amend it. I want to bring this matter to the Minister’s notice, however. Then we get the definition of “distiller.” We felt that this definition included the agricultural distiller and also the man who distils for his own consumption. Those three are only put together in one place in this Bill and it may lead to difficulties. I don’t want to move an alteration now, in the shape of an amendment, but I feel that an injustice may be done to the wine farmers. Then we get the expression “feints,” that is to say, liquor which is not quite good brandy, that is the feint which one gets before the brandy becomes good, and also what comes afterwards, which is not good either. What is usually taken is only what comes in the middle. The Afrikaans term “vooren naloop” describes it clearly, but the English definition “feints,” which is described as “the impure spirit which comes over first and last in the distillation of brandy,” gives a wrong impression. As a rule the term “second constituents” is used. It is not very important but we thought it necessary to bring this matter to the notice of the Parliamentary draftsman. He feels it is unnecessary to introduce the amendment here. Now I come to another definition, namely, “low wines,” which is defined as “weak spirits of the first extraction without separation of the feints.” The word “extraction” is wrong. It should be “distillate.” Then on page 8 of the Bill “wine grower” is defined as a farmer who cultivates vines and who produces wines from grapes grown on such vines. This does not include co-operative societies. There are co-operative societies which get distilling wine and not grapes. There, too, the legal adviser thought that everything was included, but I want to draw attention to the fact that a few cases have already come before the courts where that definition has been used; there was also a case at Middelburg in the Cape Province, and the department lost those cases. I think that the definition is too narrow; it does not include farmers who have farms which they have cultivated for them, nor does it include co-operative societies which do not receive grapes. There are co-operative societies which receive distilling wine—for instance, at Oudtshoorn that is the position. I am sorry to give all this trouble but I feel it my duty to bring this matter to the Minister’s notice.

I move—

I assume the Minister will accept this. If such a person makes an enquiry the farmers should at least have the right to ask the man for his authority in writing to make an enquiry. The department has no objection to it.

I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment. So far as my hon. friend’s other amendments are concerned I can accept some of them, and others, perhaps, in a somewhat amended form. In this instance I think there may be instances where it will impede the practical execution of the law if a delegation has’ to take place in writing. There are instances where speedy action has to be taken, and my hon. friend’s proposal may in such instances handicap the position.

But surely it is always done?

It is our intention always to do it, but there may possibly be cases where it cannot be carried out. So far as the other amendments are concerned I shall in a large measure be able to meet my hon. friend.

If someone is appointed to do this work then surely he gets the written appointment? Otherwise any man can go to a farmer and cause trouble. We know the farmer is not allowed to interfere with an official in the execution of his duty. If he does so he renders himself liable to a heavy fine. If the individual has not got a written authority somebody else may go to the farmer and say that he has been appointed to do the work and it may cause a lot of trouble. It seems to me that it is necessary to insert this amendment. I understand the Department has no objection.

May I ask in connection with this clause whether we shall be able to discuss the schedule mentioned here, when we come to it?

Yes.

I want to impress on the Minister that he should give his attention to the excise on brandy in SouthWest Africa. I want the Minister to realise that South-West Africa puts a special tax on our brandy; they get the benefit of the excise and on top of that they add this further tax. I should like the Minister to talk to those people. I don’t want to take up the time of the House by again discussing this matter but that liquor comes in on trains as far as De Aar, and a sales tax is levied on it.

I shall consider that question when we have discussions again with the Administration of South-West Africa.

I move—

It is unnecessary to include the receiver of revenue here. That is why I have moved that.

I beg to move—

It is proposed to insert this proviso to allow of brewers disposing of their surplus yeast to approved manufacturers for use in the making of non-alcoholic substances.

I beg to move the amendment standing in my name—

The effect of this section is that no person will be granted a licence as an agricultural distiller who has produced in the year for which the licence is required, five leaguers of wine at 25 per cent. proof spirit. I propose altering that to 25 leaguers of wine. My reason for that is that I am told that 1,000 to 1,200 vines can produce five leaguers of wine. Well, a man who produces five leaguers of wine is not a wine farmer. To grow 1,000 or 1,200 vines will require about one-third of a morgen of ground; that means less than an acre of ground to grow sufficient vines to produce five leaguers of wine. So the man who distils five leaguers of wine and only gets one leaguer of brandy therefrom, is definitely not going to keep that for four or five years until it matures. I feel that in view of the reports of the Wine Commission in regard to the amount of illicit traffic in this country, I am justified in asking the Minister to apply the provisions of this section to a genuine wine farmer only, and not to a person who produces merely enough wine in his back yard for illicit liquor purposes.

I want to move the amendment standing in my name reading as follows—

I am prepared to accept that.

Then I need not discuss it any further. The hon. member who spoke last does not really understand all the difficulties there are. The whole position seems very easy to him. I can tell him that I stand back to no one in my desire to do away with the illicit liquor trade. I know that the distilling of small quantities of brandy sometimes leads to illicit liquor dealing. I want the hon. member, however, to listen carefully to what I am going to say. There are many farmers in the Karroo, for instance, in Barriedale, in Namaqualand, and also in districts like Calitzdorp and Oudtshoorn, who have vines. They make raisins, but they have a quantity of grapes over which they don’t turn into raisins, and they have to distil those grapes. They are living in far distant places, and consequently it is very difficult for them to deliver distilling wines, that is why they make brandy. There are hundreds of small farmers distilling small quantities. The Minister now proposes that the minimum shall be five leaguers, which means one leaguer of brandy.

What do you propose?

I have not proposed anything in this connection. Those people then have to deliver their wine. The man who produces five leaguers of must has to make it in a hole. He cannot look after it, because his place is too small. He has to deliver it at once. He cannot sell it to the merchant, or the trader, because there is nobody near him. He has to deliver it to the K.W.V. With the K.W.V. he has to take his turn, and it may mean that though he presses in February, he may only be able to deliver the must in May, with the result that the stuff goes sour, and he gets very little or nothing for it. I also want to point out to the Minister that the farmers are now being deprived of the privilege which they have always had in the past. They were able to distil even if they only produced two leaguers of wine. This provision is now being made because the Minister wants to prevent illicit dealings in liquor. Well, if the privilege is to be taken away from the wine farmers for that reason then it appears to me that it should also be taken away in the Transvaal. There they can do as they like, and they keep outside this arrangement. But here the farmers are deprived of this privilege. Now I feel that the hon. member opposite should realise that these people may suffer damage. There are a lot of people in a place like Barrydale who produce from 5 to 6 leaguers, and the money they get from it means a lot to them. They also have their stock and their cattle; they live on the money which they get for their liquor. If we now deprive those people of their rights so that they lose the sale of their liquor then surely we are doing something unfair to those people. The Minister and the hon. member do not quite understand what the position is. I can tell them that I am just as keen as they are to stop the illicit liquor trade. The wine farmer does not want to see drunkenness in the country, nor does he want to see any illicit liquor trade, because these things only cause trouble for him. On the other hand we have this difficulty which I have brought to the Minister’s notice, that these people may lose a lot. They may lose everything if they do not produce five leaguers, and if they are prevented from converting the liquor which they have into brandy. A leaguer of brandy is a lot, and nobody can hide it away in his home. When a man could distil 27 gallons without paying excise duty it might in the past have happened that he distilled 100 gallons or more. He only showed the excise officer the 27 gallons and the rest he hid, with the object of selling it illegally. But he cannot do it with a whole leaguer of brandy. I again want to point out to the Minister that this provision may hit people in the Karroo and in a district like Barriedale very severely. They have always had those privileges and they are now to be deprived of them.

I should perhaps say at once that I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren)—that is, the amendment of which he gave notice and which appears on page 582 of the Afrikaans text of the Order Paper. In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. van Coller) I may say that I have much sympathy with what he aims at, but I think that we shall make the passage of this Bill, and particularly of this clause, very much more difficult than it should be if we accept his amendment. I am anxious to see his object being achieved, but I do not think it is possible to go further than what is proposed here now, and I cannot therefore accept his amendment.

I feel that we cannot but resent the way in which legislation, such as that now before us, which seriously interferes with the rights of the citizens of this country, is being passed. The Minister comes before us with an Excise Bill of which nobody outside knows a great deal, and he takes away rights which citizens of this country have always enjoyed so far. Yet those rights are being taken away without their having received any notice that it was the Government’s intention to do so. That is why I want to ask him to abandon this Clause 13 which he has introduced for reasons which he may think adequate, but which seriously interferes with vested rights. I ask him to abandon this clause, so that we may first of all take notice of it, and bring it pertinently to the notice of the people concerned. Let them tell the Minister exactly how this clause is going to affect them and how the clause is going to deprive them of rights which they have hitherto possessed. They have had the right to distil a certain quantity of wine, and that right is now to be taken away from them, without most of the people concerned knowing anything about what is being done here. Is it fair and honest to take such action against them? I cannot describe the Minister’s attitude as anything but a mysterious way of depriving people of rights which the citizens of the country have always enjoyed hitherto, and I ask the Minister not to allow himself to be a party to that sort of thing. If it is done what guarantee have we that the citizens of the country will at some future date not again be treated in a similar way by being deprived of other rights? I ask the Minister to delete this clause, or to amend it in such a way that this interference with vested rights shall not take place. I want to ask him this question: Has he ever consulted those parts of the country which will be mostly affected by this clause? Are they aware of what he is doing here? No. Why then is he doing it? If the Minister is so concerned over the illicit liquor trade why then does he not make this provision of general application? If he is going to prevent the wine farmers why does he not also prevent the man who distils peaches and other fruit? It is not honest. It only shows that the Minister is now selecting a certain number of farmers to do a great injustice against them, without their ever being properly aware of the fact that he is doing so. As the representative of those people whose rights, I can almost say, are being taken away in an underhand manner, I protest against this clause. I want to ask the Minister to reconsider this matter, and I beg of him not to commit this injustice. If a strong case can be made out from the Minister’s point of view, then why does he not meet those people and discuss the matter with them? No, he is busy here in a mysterious way depriving those people of their rights. There is no excuse for it, and I can do nothing but protest in the strongest terms possible against this unfair and unnecessary action against a section of the community which hitherto has always enjoyed these rights.

I would certainly not be able to show my face in my constituency if I silently allowed Clause 13 of this Bill to be passed. I am not going to accuse the Minister of deliberately wanting to force this clause through. He is not a farmer himself and he may perhaps have been misinformed. I do not know whether the K.W.V. have misinformed him, but I can tell him that he is doing one’ of the most drastic things here. There are people in my constituency, and also in Oudtshoorn, and in nearly all the constituencies in that area—small farmers—who have less than 5 leaguers of wine. A man perhaps has 50,000 or 60,000 vines, but the frost kills his grapes and he makes less than 5 leaguers of must, and then he is not allowed to distil.

Or he makes raisins.

Yes, he makes his raisins and a certain quantity of grapes is left over which he has to distil or otherwise they are lost. He cannot do anything else; he has to distil. Those people have been accustomed to do so for years. It is practically a servitude which they have— is the Minister going to take away that servitude now? I am not speaking for myself, although it all also affects me. I have a small vine from which raisins are made. If I am not allowed to distil and I have a few leaguers of must, then I have to transport them 25 miles to distil it. The Minister perhaps dose not know what the conditions are, but that is the position of many of those farmers, and it may cause them serious losses. I have never done any illicit liquor dealing, I am strongly opposed to illicit dealing in liquor, but if we want to stop this sort of thing we must not pass legislation which will deprive the people of their rights. The Prime Minister is here now and he can tell the Minister of Finance that we have old people there who have small stills where they distil half a leaguer of brandy. They have distilled in the past and they have produced their liquor, so what nonsense is it to come along with all these things now? The Minister now wants to provide that a man who has less than 5 leaguers of must shall not be allowed to do any distilling himself. These people are not all close to distilleries. I really feel the Minister is committing an injustice, and I hope he will not insist on it. Why not warn the police that they must try and stop people who are engaged in the illicit liquor trade? Any decent farmer will help the police to stop illicit liquor dealing, but the Minister must not do this kind of thing. It robs people of rights which they have enjoyed for years, and a provision of this kind is going to do them serious harm.

The hon. members opposite spoke as though we were trying to do something in a mysterious manner. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) spoke of depriving people of their rights without those concerned being notified, and he said that the course we were following was not fair and not honest, but we have been open and above board in regard to this Bill. This Bill has been before the House for a long time. I moved the second reading four weeks ago, and when I moved the second reading I emphasised this particular provision. Consequently, there is no reason why any hon. member, or anybody outside, should not be aware of what is proposed here. So there can be no question of unfair or dishonest action. We have made it very clear what the Bill’s intentions are in this connection. Ample notice was given to members to place their amendments on the Order Paper and to make representations on this particular point.

My contention is that when we seriously interfere with the rights of individuals then it is our duty to see to it that those individuals, or the organisations of those individuals, are consulted. Now I want to know from the Minister whether he has consulted any of the agricultural organisations of those people? Has he consulted the Agricultural Societies, and do they know about this proposal? Do the people in the constituencies know what is implied? Do they know about the Minister’s proposals? The fact that this Bill is introduced during the last stages of the session …

It was introduced as long as a month ago.

Even that did not give those people the opportunity of becoming conversant with everything that is proposed in this Bill. They have not had the opportunity on the platteland of reading the Bill and of getting to know exactly what it contains, but in spite of that I say that this Bill constitutes a serious interference with the rights of a large number of people and I want to know from the Minister why the small wine farmers of the Cape Provinces are to be picked out for treatment of this kind? We have many small farmers like that in the districts of Barridale, Van Wyksdorp, Ladismith, Calitzdorp and Oudtshoorn. These people have been severely hit by setbacks which they have had. They have had a very bad setback in connection with their principal industry, and I want to know from the Minister what he has done to acquaint these people with this interference of their rights, and what he is going to do to compensate them for the harm he is causing them? In those areas we have many small farmers who are finding it very difficult to make a living, and the distilling of a little brandy is an important factor in their daily life. The Minister has not got the right to interfere with them in this way, to deprive them of their rights; and as apparently I cannot persuade the Minister to be fair to those people I shall make another proposal later on, but I still hope that he will meet those people and will make an exception so that if they are prevented by drought or other causes from making raisins, or if they have not enough must to enable them to distil it, their position may be considered. I want the Minister to make special concessions for such conditions. If he does not do so it simply means that these small farmers are going to be hit and severely affected in the future. And they are going to be hit doubly hard if they are struck by a period of drought. They have no central distilleries; there are no receiving depots of the K.W.V. near them, and this provision simply means that they will be cut out, and while the Minister is taking such drastic action against those people he allows the people in the Free State and the Transvaal to carry on with their distilling business; they are allowed to distil brandy from fruit, whereas the farmer who has vines is being deprived of his rights. What excuse can the Minister offer for this differentiation which he is now proposing to make? It is unfair. The Minister has not answered us on that point, and that is why I am asking him again why this injustice is being done? He should not detrimentally affect these people. On the other hand, we know that this Government will never pass as a Government which has looked after the poorer classes. It will never be known as a Government which has looked after the small type of farmer, and they are the people who are going to be hit first by these taxation proposals of the Government. That being so, I almost despair of ever being able to persuade the Minister. I want to ask the Minister, however, to meet those people to a certain extent, and instead of putting his restriction on 5 leaguers, I want to move and amendment to the effect that it will be 2 leaguers. I hope the Minister will realise the harm he is doing these people, and I hope he will meet their position. I move—

I second this amendment, but I do so very much against my own wishes, because I want the Minister to drop the whole of this clause. By this clause we are going to cause a lot of unpleasantness, and we are going to do a great injustice in many of the districts that I am acquainted with. I cannot say that I was not aware of the Minister’s intention to put Clause No. 13 into the Bill. So far as I can remember, this was proposed by the Wine Commission. It is an unjust thing. I discussed this matter with my people at the time, and they are all opposed to it. How can we restrict people in the quantity of leaguers of must they are to produce? Most of those small farmers produce less than five leaguers, and now the Minister wants to deprive those people of the right to distil that must. If the Minister puts his back against the wall and refuses definitely to drop this clause, well, then we should at least accept the amendment of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux), so that we can reduce it to two leaguers. That would not be such a great handicap to those people as if we put it at five leaguers. It will still mean that those people will perhaps have to throw away two leaguers of their must if they have no more. I beg the Minister for the sake of these small farmers, to accept this amendment if he is not prepared to abandon his original motion entirely. The Minister has the police at his disposal to deal with the illicit liquor trade, so why should he come here with a proposal of this kind to lead poor people into temptation, to contravene the law, and to distil their must, in spite of the law? No, the Minister should abandon this proposal altogether; it will never work properly. I further notice under Clause 13 that the farmer will not have the right to use his own liquor on the farm without paying excise duty. We used to have the right to retain 32 gallons on the farm for our own consumption, without paying excise duty. That right is now taken away, and I contend that it is absolutely wrong to do so. I have never availed myself of that right, but there are hundreds of farmers who do avail themselves of it. They distil a small quantity of brandy for consumption on the farm, and then they do not have to pay excise duty on it. The Minister now proposes depriving us of that privilege, but by doing so he is going to promote the illicit trade on a large scale. If people have once got accustomed to a thing, and the privilege is taken away from them, they are disposed afterwards to steal. I think the Minister should carefully reconsider the whole matter before taking that step.

I want to know from the Minister why he is reducing the quantity of brandy, which a man is allowed to distil for his own consumption, from 27 distilling gallons to 15? In this instance again the Minister is interfering with the rights of the wine farmers.

It comes under the Schedule.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has moved an amendment, and I wish to move as an amendment to the amendment—

If we do that we maintain the position as it was under the existing law.

I do not think that this amendment is necessary. In any case, it is in conflict with the law as provided in item 31 of Schedule 2. This proposal of 15 gallons is based on what was accepted in the law of 1940, Law No. 23 of 1940. I think we should adhere to that.

I don’t think the Minister is quite right there. The “15 gallons” is laid down in the Control Act for wine and brandy together, but permission is given for the farmer to take so much from his 27 gallons as he gets from the K.W.V. Consequently the farmer has retained the right to 27 gallons. Fifteen gallons is all a member can get from the K.W.V. There are many wine farmers who are not members of the K.W.V., and they cannot get any from us.

May I know from the Minister whether he is willing to accept my amendment?

I am not prepared to accept it, as I have already explained.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

Question put: That the word “five” in line 15, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—58:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. v. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—34:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Brits, G. P.

Conroy, E. A.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Naudé, S. W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by Mr. Van Coller and Mr. Le Roux dropped.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Loubser was put and negatived, and the amendment proposed by Mr. S. E. Warren put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—57:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Friedlander. A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Stuttaford, R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—33:

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Brits, G. P.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Naudé, S. W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob

Wilkens, Jan.

Tellers: J. F T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

I move—

I move—

I move the amendment appearing in my name—

I agree with the hon. member that we should amend the clause, but after consultation with the legal advisers I am not quite satisfied with the way the hon. member wants to amend it. He proposes that the Minister can authorise the Commissioner to cancel a licence if the licensee concerned is not a fit person to hold such a licence. Somebody will in the first place have to show that the licensee is not a fit and proper person, and I therefore feel that the following words should be added: “In the opinion of the Commissioner.” The Commissioner must make a statement that the individual is not fit to hold the licence.

Will that not be the ordinary procedure?

The legal advisers are of opinion that it is necessary to insert those words, so that there shall be somebody who in the first instance has to intimate that a particular person is not fit to hold the licence. I therefore want to move an amended amendment as follows—

According to the definition of “premises”, premises include the whole of a farmer’s farm. People may come to investigate and they can go over the whole farm. It does not seem to me to be quite fair. Where a business man is concerned they can only examine a small portion of his premises, but the whole farm seems to be open to those people. It appears to me that they are taking very great powers unto themselves, and it will affect anyone who is concerned in the distilling business.

We can go into that at the Report stage.

I move—

We are looking ahead. We have to foresee the possibility of excise goods being conveyed by aircraft. The second amendment is proposed to bring this into line with Clause 85.

I move—

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I am prepared to accept that.

It seems to me that this clause is very drastic. We read here that any official or police officer has the right to lock up, seal, mark, fasten or otherwise secure any excisable goods. That is too drastic. Why should such drastic steps be taken against the farmers—why should an Excise officer have such drastic powers to be able to lock up and seal everything? The farmer should first of all be notified of what it is intended to do, failing which the rights of the individual will be interfered with. One sometimes gets members of the police who take up an impertinent and discourteous attitude and who do things they should not do. On one occasion my wife was alone on the farm and a little brandy leaked out of the barrels; the police took up an impertinent attitude towards my wife and told her that they wanted the key to the warehouse. It was merely a case of a few barrels leaking a little, and it shows how careful we have to be.

We are not taking any powers which we have not got today. I do not think the hon. member can say that the Act is not being administered fairly.

I wish to draw the attention of the hon. member to this clause, namely, the taking of samples. If one takes a sample at a cement hole the liquid will have to be very well stirred to get a true sample. The right is given here to stir up the liquid but the farmer does not always have the necessary implements to do so, and consequently it is difficult to get a true sample of what is in the hole. Now it is assumed that a man takes a sample of the article after it has been properly stirred, otherwise he has to take a sample right through from the very bottom. I can tell the Minister what I have seen happen in the taking of samples of milk. The milk was standing with the cream on top. They gave the sample of the cream to the farmer and they took the sample of the milk themselves. A case was taken to court and I was able to prove to the magistrate that half of the sample I had was butter. We had to send it away and have it analysed, and the farmer had to pay £3 3s., which the State was not prepared to refund to him. The case was thrown out, but the State refused to pay the costs. A sample is taken here and there. Here a sample is taken from the cement hole. It is a big thing, and if we have to stir the liquid with a stick it cannot be done properly. Unless the necessary machinery is available to do it, it cannot be properly stirred up. In the distilleries the people have the necessary machinery, but the trouble is on the farms. I intended moving an amendment, but the department has assured me that they will make provision in the regulations. I should like the Minister to give me a promise that he will do so.

Yes, I shall give that promise.

I wish to move the following amendment—

I am prepared to accept that.

Has not the Minister got an amendment to this clause?

No, my hon. friend is thinking about a matter which we have already discussed.

You are going so fast, Mr. Chairman, that I do not know where we are. I wanted to say something on Clause 40.

You can give notice of an amendment for the Report stage.

Something very drastic is being done in Clause 40. The farmers’ distilling installation is being interfered with. Can we not revert to that clause?

Rather put an amendment on the Order Paper; I will give an opportunity for it.

Very well; thank you.

I understand that a Committee was appointed to go into this matter, namely that the Brandy Board had asked for the right, in cases where they had not approved of the distilling wine but where they found afterwards that they could pass the brandy, to approve of that brandy as rebate brandy. The Committee has reported and it seems that the Department is of opinion that special legislation will have to be introduced. I believe that it can be done here by inserting an amendment, in which case no special legislation will be required. The Minister should understand what the position is. The Brandy Board sometimes does not approve of must. Brandy is distilled from such must and if that brandy is stored away it improves more than the Brandy Board thought possible. In the past they used to approve of such brandy but it is not strictly within the rules. The Brandy Board now has to put matters right. I don’t see why fresh legislation should be introduced, it can be done here.

That report appeared recently, the Committee is dealing with further recommendations and the time has not yet arrived for us to take the matter up. Consequently, we cannot insert it in this Bill.

It is provided here that the wine farmer is to have a warehouse for his brandy while the farmers who produce peach brandy are not required to have a warehouse. I want to point out to the Minister that it is not fair to make such a distinction, and that is why I cannot allow this clause to pass without commenting on it.

I move—

I have a small amendment to move here. I am moving this in view of the provisions of Clause 71. I move—

I want to move an amendment. The term “verdamping” is generally used for the industry. The word which is used in this Bill I have never yet heard in this industry.

It appears in the Technical Dictionary.

The word “verdamping” is used every day of the week.

But the erodite people use the other word, which is mentioned in the Afrikaans text. They use the word “uitwaseming”.

I can assure the hon. the Minister that that word is wrong. I think “verdamping” is right; I have never heard the other word before.

Well, if my hon. friend insists, I am prepared to accept the other word.

I move—

I move the amendment appearing on the Votes and Proceedings. It is not necessary to mention the K.W.V., as they come under the provisions of “wholesalers”. And then another paragraph is added. I therefore move the following amendment—

I move—

I have an amendment here which I am moving at the request of the K.W.V. It reads as follows: I move—

I move—

I wish to move the following amendment printed on the Order Paper. I move—

I move—

I move—

I wish to move an amendment—

I move—

I move—

I move—

I move—

That the following be a new clause to follow Clause 96:

1. 97. (1) If any person admits to the Commissioner that he has committed an offence against any provision of this Act, the Commissioner may, with the written consent of that person, determine the matter and may without legal proceedings require that person to pay such penalty as he may deem proper, but not exceeding the amount prescribed in this Act as a fine or penalty or both fine and penalty for such an offence.
2. (2) Any unpaid fine or penalty imposed under Sub-section (1) may be recovered upon criminal prosecution in any Court of competent jurisdiction.

People often will commit a small offence without knowing the provisions of the Act— they will commit an offence without any malicious intentions. The officials concerned are compelled then to take these people to court and a small fine is imposed. The object of my amendment is to allow the officials, where there is an admission of guilt, to impose the fines themselves.

Generally speaking I am prepared to agree with my hon. friend, but I do think his amendment is somewhat too general. I think that we should give the Commissioner the power asked for only in certain cases, only in regard to certain contraventions, and I therefore want to move his amendment in an amended form. I do not know whether my hon. friend has had an opportunity of seeing my amendment.

I have only just seen it now.

If he will withdraw his amendment and mine is agreed to he will have the opportunity of considering it and we shall be able to discuss the matter further on the report stage. I have the same object in view as my hon. friend has except that my amendment is more restricted and the wording has been somewhat improved. I therefore move the following amendment—

1. 97. (1) If any person admits in writing to the Commissioner that he has committed an offence referred to in Section 94 or sub-Section (1) of Section 95 or the regulations, the Commissioner may, with the written consent of that person determine the matter and may without legal proceedings require that person to pay such fine as the Commissioner may deem proper but not exceeding the maximum amount prescribed as a punishment for such an offence.
2. (2) The provisions of Sections 90, 91 92 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the recovery of any fine imposed under sub-Section (1).
3. (3) Nothing in this section contained shall derogate from the provisions of this Act with regard to forfeiture and penalties.
4. (4) An admission of guilt under subSection (1) shall be deemed for all purposes to be a conviction of the relevant offence.

In the circumstances I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. I am not very keen on this kind of thing but I understand it is necessary. I therefore withdraw my amendment.

In regard to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance it struck me that he used the word “poena” (in the Afrikaans text). Why is that word put in here?

That is the word which the legal advisers use and the Prime Minister says that it is really the correct term.

Whether it is right or not the public generally will understand the word “boete” very much better.

As we are dealing with the meaning of words I should like to know the meaning of the word “worts”? I know many kinds of “wors” (sausage) but I don’t know what this word means.

It is an ingredient used for the manufacture of beer.

With the leave of the Committee Mr. S. E. Warren’s proposed new clause was withdrawn.

New clause proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

On Clause 98.

I move—

1. (d) the fruits which may be used by an own-use distiller for the distillation of spirits;
2. (e) the payment of supervision fees and transport expenses for attendance of officers;

and in line 24, after “of” to insert “blenders and”.

I have an amendment here—

I have an amendment here—

I noice that there is reference here to a Customs duty and to an excise duty on cigarettes. The Customs duty on imported cigarettes is the same as the excise duty on cigarettes of local manufacture. The result is that the relative difference in price does not remain the same, because it is only increased by the same amount in each case. There should be a difference made between the excise duty on local cigarettes and the Customs duty on imported cigarettes. The latter should be higher to maintain the correct ratio.

We are not differentiating. What we are proposing here is a super tax, and the same super tax is added to the Customs duty on imported cigarettes. This Bill only deals with excise duties. Local cigarettes are not liable to Customs duty. The other cigarettes are liable to both. While I am on my feet I want to move my next amendment. It appears on pages 517 and 518 of the Afrikaans text of the Votes and Proceedings, and it amounts to this, that another schedule is inserted in place of Schedule No. 1 to make it accord with the resolution passed by this House in Committee of Ways and Means.

The Minister did not follow what I meant to convey. There is no difference made between the imported and the local cigarettes. The Excise duty on the local cigarettes is added to the Customs duty on the imported cigarettes, but as a result the same ratio in the price has not been maintained. The Customs duty on imported cigarettes should have been made higher so that the relationship of the prices should have been maintained.

We do not increase the tariff on cigarettes.

I had hoped it would be done. It is not being done, and the result is that the ratio of the price between imported cigarettes and Union cigarettes is now more favourable towards imported cigarettes. The difference in price is made less, with the result that the inhabitants of the Union will in future smoke more imported cigarettes in comparison with local cigarettes.

Schedule No. 1 put and negatived.

I move—

That the following be a new Schedule No. 1:

SCHEDULE No. 1.

EXCISE DUTIES.

Agreed to.

On Schedule No. 2 put and negatived.

I move—

SCHEDULE No. 2.

REBATES AND REFUNDS.

In this regard I am considering to move an amendment in respect of the rebate of 5s. on spirits manufactured in Natal (item No. 25). I feel that this is an opportunity to give Natal their spirit. The coolies buy this spirit there, and one can even get it on the trains. It is a disgrace to allow this spirit to be drunk, and on top of it a rebate of 5s. is given. In other words, they are encouraged to drink poison instead of drinking a proper article. I have no objection if they want to drink it. Any man is free to drink what he likes, but it is not right to allow a 5s. rebate on that spirit. Originally, when the 5s. rebate was granted, our definition of brandy was different from what it is today. Provision was then made for grape brandy, dop brandy, etc., but that fell away, and the rebate should also have been done away with at that time. I feel I am entitled to ask that, in view of the fact that the wine farmers in the Cape have had to give up certain privileges which the people in the Transvaal still have, we should have a concession made to us now, and it would be a good thing because then those people will get a decent article.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the arguments of the hon. member, but I do not think it will be fair to accept his proposal and simply, by way of an amendment, impose a fresh tax. It is also a question whether we are able to do it. It is for the Chairman to decide. But assuming we can do it, it would mean that the tax to the people who pay a smaller tax today on spirits would be increased.

This is only a rebate.

It amounts to this, that they will have to pay more tax, and it will mean that a few thousand pounds of additional taxation will be imposed and I do not think it is fair, simply by way of an amendment, to make such a change here. We shall, if we want to do anything in regard to this rebate, have to tackle it in a different way.

I want to move again—

I am sorry, but I cannot accept that; I have already given my reasons.

So far as this matter is concerned a report was made by the Commission and it was proposed that a rebate would be granted on brandy for five years instead of for three years. We get a rebate of 1s. per gallon. That is 3s. per gallon for the full period of three years, but in order to enable us to produce first-class brandy we feel that the rebate should be given for at least five years. I understand from the Minister or from the department that they do not want to propose it now, but that they will bring it up next year in connection with other legislation, and that it will then have retrospective effect. In other words, if we store brandy from this year onwards, the rebate will be given also for the five years’ period. May I ask the Minister to tell us whether that is the position?

I agree with the hon. member that we should do all we can to improve the quality of our brandy. We have not yet had a proper chance of studying the Commission’s report, and we are also still awaiting a further report from the Commission, but we shall consider the point, and I can assure the hon. member that if it is decided, as a result of the Commission’s recommendation, to extend the period, we shall take steps to make it retrospective.

Question put: That the figures “15”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the item.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—49:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and A. E. Trollip.

Noes—24:

Boltman, F. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

I move—

That the following be a new Schedule No. 3:

SCHEDULE No. 3.

Excise Licences.

Agreed to.

On Schedule No. 6.

I move—

During the second reading I put forward a prospect of moving an amendment to Clause 1 of the Bill to give it a wider application. The Minister proposes in this Bill that only in cases of other violence committed by organised groups of persons motivated by feelings caused as a result of war conditions, can there also be insurance against damage. I suggested the following amendment to that which appears on page 557 of the Afrikaans text—

Before I speak in support of this amendment I just want to say this, that I have been informed that in order to be able to move this amendment special approval has to be obtained from the Governor General because this will involve an increase of expenditure. I do not know whether that is so. I assume that the Minister of Finance also had to obtain the consent of the Governor-General for his amendment, and now I should like to know, before I go into the matter any further, whether the Minister of Finance has been kind enough, as he knew of my amendment which was on the Order Paper, and as he knew that I was not in the position of being able to approach the Governor-General for his consent, to obtain the necessary consent for the consideration of my amendment?

I have certainly given consideration to the possibility of making such a request to His Excellency, to make a recommendation to the House, but in view of the fact, as I have already explained on the second reading, I personally cannot accept the amendment, it was not possible for me to make that recommendation. I could not do it.

May I just ask what the actual position is? Can I proceed with my amendment in view of the fact that the Governor-General’s consent has not been obtained?

No, the hon. member cannot.

Is the amendment ruled out of order?

Yes, as this amendment would involve an increase of money to be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, I am unable to put it to the Committee without the Governor-General’s recommendation.

I move—

The main object of this Bill is to permit of a further increase in capital for the Iron and Steel Corporation, to provide money for the extensions at present in hand in Pretoria, and further extensions that are contemplated. Hon. members will remember that when the works were originally planned they were planned for a capacity of 180,000 tons of raw steel per annum. Today’s capacity is between 300,000 and 350,000 tons per annum, and it is hoped in the next stage to increase the capacity of 420,000 tons per annum by the addition of the Bessemer Duplex installation, and when the plant envisaged under the present Bill is erected, the capacity should be about 650,000 tons of raw steel per annum, which roughly means an amount equivalent to about two-thirds of the pre-war requirements of steel in South Africa.

Why not finish it altogether? Make it the full requirements.

The position today is that the share capital of the Corporation is £6,000,000, of which the Government holds £5,877,980. Now, under this Bill leave is granted to the Corporation to increase their share capital by a further £6,500,000. Now, this does not mean that the Corporation will issue this capital in a lump sum, the capital will be issued from time to time as the work of development proceeds. And hon. members will see that a further provision is made so that an alternative system of financing can be used if necessary by the issue of debentures. There are several advantages in the issue of debentures, and it will be up to the directorate to decide which is the most advantageous at any given time, whether to issue further share capital or to issue debentures. Hon. members will note that the Government as the holder of practically all the A and B shares in the Corporation, has the first option on any new shares that are issued. That is, the Corporation will have to offer those to the Government, in the first place, so that the Government, if they like, can put up the money, or leave it for the general public to go into the concern. Those hon. members who were in the House at the time will remember that originally the Government never intended to have any shareholding in the Corporation other than the 500,000 A shares, which gave them the control of the Corporation. The position now under the Articles of Association is that the holders of the A shares, the half million A shares, have one more vote than any number of votes of shareholders holding B shares, so that the Government have complete control of the Corporation, and can outvote any other shareholders.

Are they keeping that control under this new arrangement?

Under the new Act the Government are keeping the entire control, and in order to make it even more assured the Government are insisting that in the case of any further issue of shares the Government have the first option of taking up those shares, so the Government is absolutely secure in controlling the Corporation.

What is the Government going to do? Are they going to take those shares or not?

I don’t know whether the Government need to decide. It all depends on when they want to issue the shares and the price they can get for them. But if the Government took no shares—first of all, the Government already holds 5,877,980—and even if they took no shares at any time and sold the whole of their B shares, the Government still has complete control of the Corporation, because their 500,000 A shares have one more vote than the whole of the others put together. So, to put it that way, the security is doubly secure. That is the main object of the Bill, giving the Corporation the right to issue this new capital. The first clause of the Bill, hon. members will notice, is to make it quite clear that the directors are entitled to provide certain amenities for their staff. I may say that the Corporation is very modern in their treatment of their staff. They have a delightful club for them there, with swimming baths, and all kinds of amenities. They also have a golf course quite close at hand, and they have all such things as sick funds and other amenities which make the employees a very contended body of men. But the lawyers, as usual, are not quite certain whether the Corporation has the right to do these things for their staff. Under modern conditions today every company of any affluence always looks after its staff. It is one of the best investments they can make, and they see that their staff are comfortable and protected. And in the case of the Steel Corporation, they have a very big housing scheme, providing houses for their staff. We want to make it perfectly clear under the law that the Corporation can do these things, that they are within their rights in doing so. The last clause is simply a protection. It is rather an immaterial clause—it is a protection of the name of “Iscor”. “Iscor”, if I may put it that way, is an invented name for the Iron and Steel Corporation of South Africa. No one ever talks of the Iron and Steel Corporation now-a-days—everybody talks of Iscor, and certain people are now using that name, I would not say for nefarious purposes, but for purposes which may be misleading. For instance, you can go somewhere near the works and you may find a chemist called “The Iscor Pharmacy,” or a butchery called “Iscor Butchery,” and it may mislead employees into the belief that these businesses are run by the Corporation. And so the Corporation want to protect themselves from anything of that kind, and they therefore wish for the name Iscor to be protected just in the same way as under my “Merchandise Marks Act” we protect many other names. But this is not a full name—it is an invented name, and seemingly they did not get the protection they should get. I can commend this Bill to the House. When one appreciates the enormous value this Corporation has been to the country during the war—in fact, it is difficult to know how we should have been able to carry on our war effort without Iscor …

They are leaving the farmers in the lurch, they are not making any wire.

I shall deal with that.

Don’t forget there is a war on.

I should like to point out the enormous value this Corporation is to the State.

You were against it in 1925.

For instance in the last twelve months they consumed coal to the extent of 508,826 tons. They produced iron ore to the extent of 480,462 tons and dolomite and lime stone to the extent of 192,304 tons. And to do this they employ 3,437 Europeans and 6,400 natives. Now the hon. member asked me about wire for the wine farmers.

Not for the wine farmers, for the farmers.

Being a wine farmer myself, I cannot see much future for the wine farmers unless we win the war. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) is very near a wine district—he is not really in the holy of holies so far as wine is concerned, but his neighbour on his left is, and he knows how we people stick together. I think I should give the House some idea as to what we are going to use this money for. This is roughly what they will require their new money for. First of all there is mining development, to provide the necessary additional ore, £800,000. Then a third Blast Furnace which will cost £1,000,000. That, blast furnace is nearly completed. A cogging mill, £1,600,000.

What is that?

Surely everyone knows what a cogging mill is. And then plant for the manufacture of approximately 40,000 tons per annum of fencing, baling and other wire, of various kinds, £500,000.

It does not seem to be very much.

Then the erection of a plate mill, £1,250,000. And then a new site at Vereeniging on the Vaal River—that has been purchased—£650,000. That includes the Railway tracks and everything. And various other items connected with these works such as hospitals, offices, workshops etc., £835. That gives the House a fairly good idea of the value of this industry to the country, and I may say that I see no hope in the future of any real development of our industrial life in this country unless it is based on a very strong steel industry in the Transvaal.

And that from a man who opposed the steel industry.

When we listened to the Minister pleading for an expansion of Iscor we could not help casting our minds back unconsciously to the year 1924, when the Nationalist Party Government introduced a Bill for the establishment of an iron and steel industry. It is very refreshing to see the extent to which members opposite, and especially the Minister of Commerce and Industries, have progressed since those days.

When we make a mistake we admit it, but you never do.

Consequently, as Iscor stands there as a monument to the industrial policy of the previous Nationalist Party Government, it is natural that as this Bill is introduced for the purpose of expanding that industry, it will have the support of this side of the House, but there is one point on which we would like to have a little more information from the Minister. The Minister was not too clear in his explanation. At the end of his speech he gave us certain figures. We want a little more certainty when an amount of £9,000,000 is asked for for the expansion of capital, how far that is related to the supply of iron and steel as war material. It sounds somewhat peculiar that at a time like the present, when other supplies for the Empire are closed and become more and more shut off every day, the Minister should come here and ask for an expansion of capital for the production of iron and steel in South Africa. As I have said, we are at all times in favour of the expansion of the iron and steel industry, but we want a little more assurance than we have had so far, that this is not connected with the use of those factories for the expansion of production for war purposes. In regard to the question of capital, I notice that a special provision is made in Clause 2 (2) of the Bill. There is mention here of the 9,000,000 additional B shares. Those B shares are issued, and then there is a proviso in the clause, which reads as follows—

Now, I do not know whether this is a general provision which is always inserted in such cases. It appears to me that it may perhaps be wise, where such an opportunity is given for the extension of the capital by 9,000,000 B shares, to leave this out, so that the general public will have a better opportunity of securing those shares. A question was also raised by way of an interjection by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). The Minister said that of the fresh capital, £500,000 would be used for the manufacture of wire. This has been one of our complaints, that, although we have a steel industry in the country, and the importation of wire has been restricted and even cut off, our farming population has not been given the opportunity of securing the necessary supplies from our own factories. We want to epress the hope that as the Minister is now getting the power for the Corporation to extend its capital in this manner, proper provision will be made for the manufacture of wire and other farming requirements. We expect that the manufacture of wire and such requirements will be kept in mind in the interests of South Africa, and that not only the requirements of the mines and the Railways which will be looked after, and especially that it will not only be the production of raw materials which will be attended to, but that the reasonable needs of the farming population in South Africa will very definitely be taken into account. Now I come to Clause 1, paragraph (j). Here the right is asked for Iscor to tackle all sorts of things. Insofar as the right is asked for to enable them to make provision for such things as recreation societies, sports clubs, housing and all the rest of it, and also for social services, such as pensions and so on, to those provisions we have not the slightest objection; we have no objection to those powers being given to Iscor, but now, under the paragraph which I have just mentioned, Iscor is also to be given the power to start farms and hotels. It seems to me that we are now going to get in connection with Iscor what we have already had in connection with other large Corporations, especially in a place like De Troit. I only hope the Hon. the Prime Minister is not going to make a remark again about the expert on America, but I do have some knowledge of this. Henry Ford with his large motor company obtained similar powers, with the result that everything there is controlled by the Ford Company, which means by Henry Ford and his son. I was there myself, and I can testify to the fact that I received information that Henry Ford, because he wanted to get everything under his control, had certainly not made himself popular in De Troit. What does the Minister mean by Iscor having the power to start farms? Is it the intention that they should buy farms and run them, for instance, to produce their own vegetables? Is that the object which the Minister has in mind?

Where do you get that?

Perhaps the Minister does not quite follow me. I shall read it to him—

We should like to have a little more information about this. Is Iscor now going to start a farming concern or what is the object? Is Iscor, for instance, going to start cattle farming, or vegetable farming, to meet the requirements of its employees? If it does that, it will to that extent be competing with the farmers in the vicinity, and to that extent those farmers will suffer. It may be that that is not the position, and I would therefore like the Minister to tell us what the intention is in regard to these farms? Then we also find that powers are to be given to Iscor to set up shops. That also is a matter with which we should be very careful. This is a thing which can easily be abused. If Iscor is going to sell its officials all they require it means that these officials will get things very much cheaper; and if all their relations in the families, can also get their needs through Iscor, it is going to be detrimental to the shops which will have to compete with Iscor. Then there is the question of hotels. I can quite appreciate the necessity for boarding houses and hostels being established, but it is very difficult to realise what object Iscor can have in wanting to establish a hotel. Is it the intention to have a hotel there, so that when the Minister visits the place he and other officials will be able to get a drink, or what is the intention? Hostels I can understand, for the unmarried men and the girls, but it is very difficult to understand what the object is in regard to the establishment of a hotel. We shall be very pleased if the Minister will give us a little more information on this point. For the rest, we support this Bill where it is intended to provide for the expansion of the industry which was established by the previous Nationalist Party Government, but we also want an assurance from the Minister that this expansion is not connected with the war and with the situation which has been created in connection with the war during the last few months, which has led to the difficulty of obtaining steel from other parts of the world. Is that the reason why this step in South Africa is considered necessary by the Government? If that is the reason we say no, we are not in favour of an expansion which in the circumstances will be of a purely temporary nature, and which only takes place with a view to the supplying of the necessary war material.

We can congratulate the Minister on this step in the direction of expansion, but beyond that we cannot go. In regard to this matter the Government is guilty of a serious neglect of duty towards the people. The same charge which can be made in connection with this matter, namely, that the Government has neglected its duty in seeing that adequate provision is made for the needs of the country. In the case of petrol the Government has been asleep, and has not provided the necessary storage arrangements for petrol. There is a rumour that ships have had to be turned away because we did not have storage accommodation for petrol. The Government has been asleep since September, 1939. It did not appeal to the iron and steel industry to manufacture adequate petrol tanks. The Minister can tell me whether this is so or not. If it is so, the Government is guilty of a neglect of duty towards the country, because it shows then that the Government has simply been playing with the life-blood of the people—because that is what petrol has come to be. We can now make the same charge against the Government in regard to the manufacture of wire. I well remember that when there was a discussion in this House about the establishment of an iron and steel industry one of the things that was held up to the people was that provision would be made for the manufacture of farming implements, especially for requirements such as wind pumps, sink plates and spares for machinery of various kinds, and particularly wire. Wire was one of the things which was not left out, and it was particularly because of that that the farming section of the population gave its support to that measure, and supported it heart and soul. They still support that undertaking, but today we have to behold that the Government has neglected its duty, and particularly so in regard to the manufacture of wire. We have now to find that in time of war wire is not being manufactured here, and that particularly baling wire is not to be obtained. This neglect of duty would have been serious enough in other countries to bring about the Government’s defeat. In September, 1939, we declared war. All that time has passed and the Minister of Commerce and Industries has never taken steps to see to it that the necessary machinery is available in the country for the manufacture of all kinds of wire and farming implements. The Minister knew that shipping space was being curtailed, and that with the development of the war the importation of wire would become quite impossible—and apparently it has become impossible to a very large extent, but what has the Minister done? In past months the farmers have been experiencing the greatest trouble; they have been short of many things, especially baling wire. Prices have gone up so that they have had to pay very high rates for these things, and eventually the wheat and lucerne farmers were landed in this position, that they could not obtain any wire, and it was then that the Government told us that the iron and steel industry did not have the necessary machinery to manufacture this wire. I am speaking subject to correction, but I believe that that was the case. Now, in the year 1942, we have to find out that the iron and steel industry is not equipped for the manufacture of wire; we knew that, or rather the Government knew it, on the 4th September, 1939. It knew that the iron and steel industry was not equipped to manufacture the things which the country needed. The Government and the Minister have neglected their duty to the people, and if the Minister does not make the necessary provision so far as these requirements are concerned, the country is going to be landed in a very difficult position. When is he going to get the machinery that is required for that purpose? The whole position in regard to wire has placed the farming community in an extremely difficult position, especially so far as baling wire is concerned. So acute has the position become that I want to ask the Minister to take special steps to find out whether the necessary machinery can be obtained in America, and if so, to secure it as soon as possible. The hon. the Minister himself knows that the position in regard to baling wire is such that the farmers are stuck with their lucerne and other products and are unable to bale the stuff. If the machinery has to be obtained from America or from some other country, let the Minister incur the necessary expense and make special efforts to secure that machinery, so that the iron and steel industry does not have to wait for the sale of extra shares before that machinery can be secured. Let an attempt be made to provide these needs at once. If the Minister does not do so he will be guilty of even further neglect of duty.

In regard to the extension of the Corporation’s share capital I shall be very glad if the Minister will give us a little information, which he did not give us in his speech, namely how many B shares have already been taken up by the public? Under the existing legislation the Company can increase its B shares to 2,500,000. Originally the figure for B shares was fixed at 3,000,000 and afterwards the Company was given the right to issue a further 500,000 B shares. After that legislation was passed to issue a further 1,000,000, and in 1935 the company obtained the right to extend the B share capital by a total of £2,500,000. What I would like to know from the Minister is to what extent the powers given to the company have already been used to extend its capital by an extra £2,500,000 over and above the original £3,500,000? Now the Minister comes and asks this House for authority, so far as B shares are concerned, further to extend the capital to an amount of £9,000,000, and as the hon. Minister now asks the House to allow the company to give preference to the holders of B shares in regard to the taking up of the new B shares, one would like to know from the Minister who are the holders at the moment of the existing B shares? Did the Government itself take up most of the B shares?

Nearly all of them.

That is what I want to know. How many of those shares are in the hands of the public, and I should like to know who more or less are the members of the public who own those shares? I am putting that question because so far as this side of the House is concerned we may perhaps be willing to agree to the Government taking up the £9,000,000, if the public is not prepared to invest in this concern, but if there are already members of the public who have taken up shares, and if those members of the public are what we usually call capitalists, then we have to be careful. In that case we are not keen on further shares being issued which may get into the hands of a certain coterie of people in South Africa. In other words, one does not want the interests of Iscor, apart from the Government control, to get into the hands of a few capitalists in South Africa. That danger may perhaps arise if preference is given to a small number of people who today have B shares in their possession. Assuming they have a small number of B shares and they avail themselves of the preference to obtain the new B shares, it may mean that the whole of the additional capital, that is to say the shares, will get into the hands of a small crowd of people, a capitalistic group. That is what we want to avoid at all costs, because we on this side of the House have always so far taken up the attitude that a large enterprise of this kind, a key industry, if it should not be directly in the hands of the Government, should at any rate be in the form of a utility company. To that we have no objection, but we very definitely object to preference which might lead to the financial interests, apart from the Government share, getting into the hands of a crowd of capitalists. Consequently, we want the Minister to satisfy us on this point, otherwise we shall be compelled to vote against this preference provision. Now I want to come back to the point which has already been raised by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), namely that the Corporation is to be given the power to take up other matters apart from the manufacture of iron and steel. I am referring to the various powers which are to be given under Clause 1 (b), and I particularly want to draw attention to the power which is to be given to the Corporation also to take up farming. One can quite understand, as has already been said, that such a large Corporation wants to be able to provide for all kinds of amenities for its employees. That is quite right. There is, for instance, the question of housing, the providing of sports facilities, the building of hostels, and more particularly when we come to farming, we want to know where it is all going to end. If one goes to Thaba Zimbe, the Corporation’s big mine, one finds that even though they did not have that power yet the Corporation has gone in for farming there. A fairly large concern has been started there which grows vegetables and so on. The answer will probably be that the people there cannot get their vegetables regularly and that in order to make sure that the employees do get vegetables it was found necessary to take this step. But that mine is in a locality which is particularly suitable not only for the growing of tropical fruit, but also for all kinds of vegetables. As in the Low Veld of the Transvaal, one can grow beans, tomatoes, etc., there practically throughout the winter. The Corporation has already started its own vegetable farms and as a result the farmers in the district have been deprived of an excellent chance of securing a local market for their products in their own district. The Corporation grows its own vegetables, and the expectations of the small farmers in those areas, that the big iron mine would offer them a local market, have been completely dashed to the ground. They have been deprived of that opportunity owing to Iscor growing its own vegetables there. I therefore want the Minister to give us an assurance that this power will only be used under most unusual circumstances, that is, at places where the Corporation cannot secure vegetables at all, where no vegetables and other kinds of food are grown at all, because if the Corporation starts growing vegetables everywhere it will mean that the local market which would otherwise be created for our farmers will not be available, and as a result the farmers will derive no benefits in regard to the sale of their products from the industrial development taking place there. The extension to £9,000,000 is now proposed, and I feel that we shall gradually have to expand still further to a capital of £20,000,000 or £30,000,000. That will have to happen. There are enormous opportunities in South Africa to manufacture steel and iron, not ony for the temporary purposes of today for the war, but with a view to the expansion of the country’s industries. The capital of the iron and steel industry will have to be enlarged in days to come on a tremendous scale, and many other factories will have to be established by the Corporation. But what will this enormous industrial development mean to our agriculture, or, at least, to our farmers, if the Corporation produces everything it needs itself? On a previous occasion I drew attention to the fact that the farmers in South Africa were facing a very difficult time, not merely because they could not get wire, but also because farming implements and farming machinery have gone up in price tremendously, and besides, not only can we not get new implements and machinery, except perhaps in exceptional cases at terrifically high prices, but if any parts break we cannot get spares to put our machinery in order again. The Minister will realise what the position in South Africa is going to be, apart altogether from the Government’s needs to see its war through, if the farmers, through lack of spares, will later on be unable to produce the food which South Africa requires. Is this expansion of the iron and steel industry going to result in a start being made with the manufacture of the most essential machinery and implements, and particularly the manufacture of spare parts for already existing machinery and implements in South Africa? I hope that that part of manufacturing will receive first consideration. We need ploughs, plough shears, and especially machinery operated by power, paraffin and petrol, machinery which is indispensible today to almost any branch of farming, and particularly dairy farming. I want to warn the Minister, and I want to ask him to give this matter his attention. We must insist on the Corporation not only manufacturing iron and steel in the ordinary way for war purposes, but if necessary subsidiary enterprises must be established to provide for the needs of the farmers, so that the most essential machinery, implements, and spare parts can be produced.

The iron and steel industry is one of those industrial enterprises which have developed in this country from a small start until it has reached its present colossal dimensions, and today it has become of such importance that if it had to be cut out of our industrial life there would be a great dislocation in South Africa, and a great disservice would be rendered to South Africa. It is satisfactory, therefore, to find the Minister proposing to widen the limits imposed on Iscor under the existing Act. It is satisfactory to know that Iscor has already reached the stage where further expansion is necessary. What I particularly appreciate in regard to the building up of Iscor is that it has fitted in so easily into sometimes difficult conditions. Dr. Van der Bijl, whom we all regard as the soul of the enterprise— honour to whom honour is due—in his evidence before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, stated that in regard to the war, the State was faced with the position that steel of a certain quality had to be produced. Iscor did not have the necessary provision made in that regard. A short while after, however, Iscor succeeded in manufacturing the special steel required for armaments. To me that was a very welcome sign. The Government should realise, however, that so far as the farming community is concerned, the position is that efforts must be made at once to make possible the epansion which is required for the increase of our production. There is a need for expansion in regard to matters agricultural, there is a need for production on a large scale, and Iscor will have to fit in at once with this new expansion in the agricultural industry, failing which the activity of the State would be neutralised in regard to economic matters. I cannot for a moment see why steps should not be taken immediately by the Minister also to make Iscor fit in with the needs not only of the agricultural industry, but also defence requirements in regard to large numbers of articles which are urgently required in both undertakings. The Department of Defence today uses wire and steel poles and deflectors on a large scale for its armament programme, and I fail to see why a branch of Iscor cannot be established immediately to provide for the urgent needs of the farming community in regard to these articles. So far as the Bill is concerned, I want to put a question. Clause. 1 (b) refers to the building of hotels and the securing of farms. Should not some limit be placed perhaps on Iscor’s ambitions? All of us want to see our industries expand, but we do not want the farming industry to be interfered with. I do not know whether farms are required for further development purposes, or whether those farms are to be used to produce commodities in competition with the agricultural industry. If the latter is the case, then it is an unsound principle which we cannot allow to come in at this stage. I want to conclude by saying that I hope that as Iscor s capital strength is being increased here, the aspects I have mentioned will be very thoroughly considered by the Government and the authorities who have the interests of Iscor at heart. Iscor is more and more becoming a monument in our industrial development, and I want to ask the Government to take care that that industry is not eventually taken out of the hands of the public of South Africa.

In regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) on the question of the manufacture of agricultural implements it is perhaps necessary to explain that a special request was addressed by the Prime Minister to the industry at Vereeniging, which is now manufacturing agricultural implements, to go in for expansion so that it may become possible to provide all necessary implements for the farmers such as ploughs, harrows, cultivators, and so on. In that connection the undertaking is now negotiating with the department concerned and it is going into the question. Negotiations are in progress to obtain the necessary shipping space, if it should be required, for the importation of further machinery. In addition, it will, of course, also be necessary to secure the necessary technical staff for the factory, and in that regard, too, negotiations are proceeding. There is a third essential, and I hope the Opposition will help us there, and that is that the farmers should standardise their needs as much as possible so that one district does not use ten or fifteen different types of ploughs. It is very desirable that one or two types of ploughs are concentrated on. They can then be supplied more cheaply and it will also be easier to supply the necessary spare parts. This is a matter of the greatest importance to the farmers. In regard to Iscor, I can assure hon. members that Dr. Van der Bijl from the very start said that such an industry should be developed and that it should be supplied with all its needs in regard to steel. Iscor was not intended to manufacture all these articles, but only has to supply the steel which is required to make the implements in subsidiary undertakings.

But surely they can make plough shears?

†*Hon. members should realise that if we build up new industries we need technical people and in war time especially it is difficult to get such people. I can tell the hon. member who interjected, however, that it is possible now to manufacture plough shears of a good quality. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn asked some time ago why I was not here on the 4th September, 1939. Let me tell him that I had the honour that year of accompanying Dr. Van der Bijl when he was trying to secure the necessary machinery for the manufacture of wire, and so on. The war caused those plans to collapse. Hon. members should remember that there is a war on and that Iscor cannot manufacture everything it wants to manufacture, because it cannot obtain all the necessary machinery. Anyhow, I want to assure the House that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, to my own knowledge, has given instructions that attempts must be made to meet the country’s requirements in regard to agricultural implements required.

The Minister speaks here of the £9,000,000 expansion for Iscor. I well remember the day when we were establishing this industry, and when this self-same Minister protested and criticised and said that it would never pay. We had terrible opposition from hon. members opposite; today they realise it is one of the best industries in the country. Now they want to extend the capital, but how do they want to do it? The Minister now wants to build hotels and he wants to compete with the farmers. That we cannot allow. Let this industry supply the country’s requirements in regard to steel. That is what it has been established for. It was expected that the farming population, as a result of the development of the industry, would be able to secure markets, and it was certainly never imagined that Iscor was going to compete with the farmers. That we cannot allow. Let them produce what we need. We are unable to get ploughs, we cannot get shovels and we cannot get picks. About a month ago I needed a lot of implements and I searched all through Cape Town, from one end to the other, but I could not get what I wanted. I could not get poles, I could not get picks or shovels. Let Iscor manufacture those things, but do not let it build hotels and compete with the farmers. We have no baling wire today. The farmers at Ladismith and Oudtshoorn depend greatly on lucerne farming. The stacks of lucerne are on the lands today. Fortunately it is not raining just now, but when the rainy season comes the lucerne will rot owing to the farmers having no baling wire to bale their lucerne. Why cannot Iscor manufacture baling wire, why cannot they manufacture barbed wire and spanning wire? We cannot get anything. The war has exhausted our supplies and we cannot import. The Government should have anticipated this happening long ago. Why is no wire being manufactured today for the farmers? We cannot vote £9,000,000 to allow the industry to build hotels and to compete with the farmers, but we are quite prepared to vote this money if the Iron and Steel Corporation will manufacture wire and other farming requirements.

I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) but it was not very clear to me whether the hon. member made his speech to support the Bill before the House or to put up a bit of a plea on behalf of the business in which he is interested. The business which he referred to and which also manufactures agricultural implements, is, so far as I understand, still a private concern. I understand from the hon. member that the Prime Minister has said that it should be expanded considerably but none the less it still remains a private concern. We on this side of the House support this Bill but on one condition, and that is that the money which is to be contributed by the State, in other words in this case the additional £9,000,000, will be used exclusively for South Africa and in the interests of South Africa.

It is £6,500,000 and not £9,000,000.

However much it may be. I only want to point out to the Minister what the position is today. The Minister knows that Iscor is able for instance to manufacture corrugated iron. There is not the slightest difficulty about that. It has been produced there and it can be produced there. Yet we find this position in South Africa today, that the price of corrugated iron has gone up tremendously. We have invested money belonging to the country in Iscor and yet no corrugated iron is being manufactured there. The Government has even been compelled to put a stop to building activities in South Africa. I want to ask the Minister to give his attention to this, and to see to it that Iscor manufactures those things which it was originally intended it should manufacture for the people of South Africa. Nor do I want the manufacture of farming implements in South Africa always to remain in private hands. An appeal is now being made to us by the Government to produce more. We are in this position today, that we do not know whether there is going to be sufficient food in the country for our people. The Government urges greater production without helping the producer to produce more. Why has the production been curtailed? Because it has become impossible to secure farming implements, and where farming implements can still be obtained they are so expensive that we cannot afford them. If the Government appeals to the farmers to produce more Iscor must be there to supply the necessary machinery and particularly the necessary spare parts. So far as the manufacture of wire in concerned, that also is an essential. Any practical farmer will be able to tell one that the first thing one requires to produce is wire. Which farmer can produce today without fencing off the new lands which he has to use for production purposes? The first investment the farmer makes is fencing wire. Wire is quite unobtainable today and even if one can obtain it one cannot afford to pay the prices charged. This matter should therefore have the Minister’s attention. I must say that I was surprised to hear from the speech by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) that Iscor has not yet got the necessary appliances to make wire. To South Africa, as an agricultural country, it is one of the first essentials, and provision should have been made for it from the very start. Now we are to be told that Iscor is not yet able to manufacture wire. Any visitor to Iscor—I have had the privilege of visiting the institution—will be surprised at the class of machinery which can already be manufactured in this country. Machinery is being manufactured there for the production of murderous weapons of all kinds for war purposes. Additional factories have been established in a very short space of time, and the most complicated machinery is already being produced for the manufacture of war implements. Why then cannot wire be manufactured? There is not only a shortage of wire and corrugated iron in South Africa. I can mention a simple article which I have not been able to obtain in the whole of Cape Town, an ordinary towing chain. The dealers tell one that it has gone off the market. It is a very simple matter. We have the best steel in the world. We have the best opportunity, so why cannot Iscor manufacture these things? Take the position of the dairy farmers. You can go to any sale and if a few milk pails or buckets are put up for auction people bid up against each other and the prices go up to the sky, because it is impossible to secure these goods. These are all matters to which the Government should give its attention. There is an impression today that Iscor is being largely used by the Government as a war machine. They can do anything provided the things they are asked to make are intended to carry on the war. If it is for the war effort then there is no trouble; then there is no shortage of money or machinery. I want to put up the same kind of plea that I have put up’ before—if all those things can be made for war purposes, then do not let us use all our raw materials in an institution like Iscor exclusively for the process of destruction. Do not use it exclusively to keep the process of destruction going, but also give attention to those things which are needed during this period of war, but which we need with a view to the peace which will come after the war. The question one puts to oneself is this: these things are being manufactured in South Africa, and if we ask the Government why these things were not made here before, why the machinery was not put up before, why the industries were not developed before to create living room for our sons and daughters of the country, then we get the answer that it is the war which taught us these things. If there is one lesson we should learn from the war, and which I hope the Government will learn, it is that if we want to be a self respecting country we must see to it that we are self sufficient and self maintaining in every possible respect. We are told time after time that we are unable to import this or that urgent requirement. That being the case it is our duty to learn that lesson, even if we have to learn it in the war. We must learn to become self supporting and self sufficient in every possible way. We are going to support this Bill because we favour the expansion of industry, but we make the condition that the expansion shall only be for the people of South Africa and within South Africa, and not for the purpose of supporting the Government’s war effort. We are going to give our support to expansion which is aimed merely at the production of heaps and heaps of stuff, and then to send out that stuff to other parts of the world without oven knowing what South Africa is going to get for it. We must see to it that all South Africa’s raw materials and all its industrial machinery are used for the development of its own resources, but let it be done above all in the interest of South Africa and in the interest of South Africa alone.

I heartily support this Bill, but I still have one objection. I am somewhat concerned about the expansion in regard to the purchase of farms if that purchase of farms is intended to practise farming. I agree with the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) about the iron mine at Thaba Zimbe. When the work was started there the farmers thought that it would provide a golden opportunity to them to sell their products to the mine. The policy of the mine is to provide for its own requirements. We cannot raise any objections to that, but when the farming enterprise of the Corporation is extended to compete with the farmers’ industry then I object. I should like to have a statement from the Minister in regard to this expansion, and I want him to make it clear that there is no intention of competing with the farmers in their farming enterprise. I cannot refrain either from making an appeal to the Minister to see to it that farming implements are manufactured, and not only farming implements, but also spare parts for farming implements, and that he will also give his serious attention to the manufacturing of wire, which is almost unobtainable at the moment.

I have only got up because I am the representative of a farmers’ constituency, and because I notice that this Bill is going to introduce a dangerous principle, whereby the State intends competing with the farmers. I believe that everybody realises that the gold mines in South Africa are a vanishing asset, and that in the place of a vanishing asset, such as the gold mines, we should establish industries in the country. One day when our industries are developed it will be the business of those industries to process our own metals, and at the same time to manufacture agricultural requirements and other requirements. The second object of industry is to provide employment for the people of the country, spheres of employment to which we can send our people to make a living by means of their labour. The third point is this. If the gold mines are a vanishing asset, then we want industries to supply a market for our farming products, a market which so far the mines have always provided for the farming industry. Now I come to the point which I want to protest against. The Minister comes here today, and while the farmers are looking forward to the industry to supply them with a market for the future, the State steps in and itself supplies the vegetables to the people engaged in those industries. I have got up to lodge my protest against that. I don’t want to see us start with that sort of thing. In this connection I also want to say that my attention has been drawn to what is happening at Pongola at the moment. From what I am told there is not a single settlement left at Pongola. The State has stepped in, and is itself growing potatoes there on a large scale. I think it is our duty, as representatives of the farmers, to draw attention to this dangerous principle which is included in this Bill and to contest it as hard as we can. I don’t want to detain the House. I have only got up to protest against this. And as this objection has been raised from both sides of the House I do hope the Minister of Commerce and Industries will give us the assurance that he does not intend in future allowing the industries of the country to carry on on the basis of having to compete with the farmers.

I will reply to hon. members in the order in which they spoke. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) congratulated me on having changed my mind with regard to the Government’s undertakings in industry. He pointed out that in 1928 I had been a critic of the Government in starting this steel industry. Well, Mr. Speaker, I agree.

So Hansard tells us.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am still unrepentant. I do not believe it is in the interests of the country for Governments to constantly interfere in industry or commerce, because I think in the long run you will have trouble. In this particular case we have been very fortunate, we found a very excellent man to take charge of the work and various historical happenings have helped a great deal in the development of this industry.

That is what we predicted at the time.

But as a general policy I do not believe in Governments taking part in industry.

Are you prepared to change it in this case; of course not.

Incidentally I would like to mention that the present Prime Minister was the person to whom the porspects of an iron and steel industry first appealed, and when he went out of office in 1924 he was then negotiating for an industry of this kind.

Yes, and your party fought us over it.

The hon. member for Beaufort West suggested that the new capital might possibly be used for producing war material. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the new machinery is put in in time, there is not much doubt that it will be used for producing war material, because we look upon the protection of the country as the first thing that is necessary, and the first thing the Government should do if it wants to look after the welfare of the country. The hon. member seemed to be rather undecided about the option clause, and one hon. member seemed to think that we were going to give leave to the Corporation to increase its capital by £9,000,000. That is not so; it is going to be increased by £6,500,000. Today it is £2,500,000, and so that brings it down to £6,500,000 new capital. Then the hon. member for Beaufort West suggested that we should not use our iron industry for mining or the Railways or in regard to the war effort. Of course the hon. member is very hot on this idea that we should ever produce a shell to protect ourselves from, say, Japan, if some farmer could not get a bale of binding wire. Well, I am Catholic in my opinion; I believe in using our iron industry for mining, and Railways, and for the farmers. Now we come to the real bone of contention, Mr. Speaker, because I think all the members who have spoken on the other side, have fallen on this one point, that under Clause 1 it is possible in the interests of the staff of Iscor for the Corporation to buy a farm, even if it is only going to be used for a golf course. The Corporation is not to be allowed to buy a farm, because Iscor will then be competing with the farmer. Well, Mr. Speaker, for the last thirteen years under Clause 2, sub-section 2 (a) of the original Bill, the Corporation could buy as many farms as they wanted, and they have not bought any farms for farming purposes as far as I know, and there is no reason why they should. Clause 1 of this Bill is simply drafted in wide terms, so that there shall be no difficulty in buying the land if it is wanted.

It is not a question of buying land, but of establishing and carrying on farming.

This has nothing to do with the Corporation in its ordinary work; it is only to enable the Corporation to help its employees.

Then why use the word “farm”? Why not say “landed property”?

I am quite willing to alter the word. In the original Act; as I say, the Corporation could purchase land, hire land, or exchange land or any other movable or immovable property. If hon. members would rather we make it immovable property, I am willing to do that.

In this particular section you give them the power to establish and carry on farms; you give them the right to engage in farming operations, and they are doing that today.

Where?

At Thaba Zimbe.

In what why? Do you mean to say they are not allowed to grow anything for their own people?

They ought to allow the farmers in the vicinity to produce the vegetables that they require. The Minister has apparently not read the Bill.

Oh, yes, I have; but I am not prepared to say they are not allowed to carry on farms if you interpret that to me that if a man grows a half-dozen cabbages he is farming; or, if he has an acre or so of potatoes, that he is doing a dreadful thing.

At Thaba Zimbe they are growing vegetables on an extensive scale.

What I want to point out is that in the original Bill thirteen years ago, the Corporation was allowed to purchase farms.

Not for the purpose of farming, but for industrial purposes.

There is no stipulation as to what the purpose is.

Now, you are actually giving them wider powers to carry on farming operations.

If the gold mines start that sort of thing, where are the farmers going to get their market?

It is ridiculous to suppose that the farmers cannot compete with the gold mines, as I have already said: for thirteen years the Corporation has been able to buy farms and develop them, and they have never done so. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) seems to think that the steel industry should do everything down to making pots and pans, but that is not the way the industry is organised. The job of Iscor is to produce the steel, and the steel is then used as raw material for the subsidiary industries to produce the other things. As the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) has told us, they are producing various agricultural implements, and the more they can produce, the better for this country. I don’t think I am being pessimistic when I say that they will have to produce a great many more, because in the present condition of the world there will be many agricultural implements coming out here from America. The criticism appears to be that I ought to have known all these things in 1939.

Hear, hear!

Well, unfortunately it is rather a pity, Mr. Speaker, that these patriots on the other side never mentioned to me in March or April of 1940 that I had overlooked the necessity for this. None of them seemed to have thought that in the interests of the country they should have told me that I ought to have impressed on the directors of Iscor the necessity for these things being done. However I appreciate the fact that they kept all the good things to themselves, and they never advised me. Perhaps there is something else I ought to have done. However, I plead guilty; if I had been a genius I should have said to Dr. Van der Bijl: “For goodness’ sake, put down wire-making machinery as quickly as ever you can, and anything else that will help the farming industry.”

You knew the markets were being cut off one by one.

The hon. members seem to think that there will be some financial hitch regarding this machinery. I can assure the hon. member that there will not be any financial hitch, but there may be a more serious hitch; you may not be able to get the machinery from overseas. Then the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) seemed to worry about the shareholders. There are 6,000,000 shares, and the Government hold 5,877,980 shares. If you deduct that from 6,000,000 you will find that there are 122,020 other shareholders. The hon. member fears that these new shares may get into the hands of capitalists. Well, everyone who can buy 100 shares is to that extent a capitalist, so, of course, the shares are bound to get into the hands of capitalists of some kind. Personally, I hope they will not get into the hands of what you may call combines; that is what he is worrying about, cartels and that sort of thing. The people who hold the 122,020 shares, have the same option as the Government to subscribe their proportion of the new issue. They have exactly the same rights as the Government. After all, this talk about the farmers is unimportant, because the development of industry, every development of secondary industries, helps the farmer; it broadens his market, and provides the necessary money to buy his products. It is very much better for the farmer to get his development from a wider market of that kind than it is to get it by such means as not allowing people to grow a few potatoes or cabbages. One or two people have mentioned this question of baling wire, which seems to be a troublesome matter. In the last week or two Iscor has taken some of the old wire ropes used on the mines for haulage purposes, and have been unravelling them. They believe that they can get quite a lot of baling wire by that method. I am trying to get all the baling wire I can from the United States or England, but I recognise that there are great difficulties in getting that from overseas, and I am hoping that some of our shortage can be met if we can unravel all this disused wire rope and make it into wire for baling purposes. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) complained that he could not get a trek chain, and I think he has worn out his shoes going round Cape Town to find one.

I said there is a scarcity of trek chains.

If the hon. member tells me that he cannot get one, I will make enquiries and see whether they can be got, but I should think a trek chain is not a very difficult thing to manufacture. I will ask the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood).

Can I get a trek chain from Stuttafords?

I should not think so, nor a reaper and binder either. All these points show the necessity of making this country more self-supporting. Well, what is this Bill being put before the House for, if not to make this country still more selfsupporting? So hon. members on the other side, instead of being critical, ought to be very jubilant.

We are trying to be helpful.

I might suggest to hon. members that the war is not going to last for ever, and when it is over this will be used for developing industries which no doubt will provide a market for the farmers. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) suggested that the gold mining industry is moribund. Well, I think it is a fairly lively industry for a moribund industry, but, accepting his argument, that is all the more reason to get on with this other development to provide other secondary industries. I deprecate all this talk about the farmer; the farmer can look after himself, and he is going to do a great deal better through this development of industries in the country.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 7th April.

I move—

This other little Bill of mine is a more simple one. It only contains two clauses of any importance. The object in the first place is to make certain technical amendments in the objects of the Corporation. Hon. members if they refer to the Act of 1940 will notice that the wording of the Act is not clear—it is not clear in this, that if the Corporation wished to conduct and establish an undertaking—it is not clear whether the Corporation has the right to conduct and establish an undertaking. Well, in the course of their work it has been found necessary from time to time by the Corporation to conduct certain industrial ventures—to put down what one might call a Pilot Plant to see what prospects there are in an industry of a definite character before proceeding to the next stage of putting up a considerable amount of money for the foundation of quite a big enterprise. And therefore Clause 3 (a) makes that point quite clear. It was not quite clear in the original Act whether they could do this, and they thought it best to clarify the position and get this point made amply clear. The rest of the clause is simply a copy of those in the present Act. There is no alteration there. Then the next clause of any importance is Section 3, which alters the wording of the clause in the original Act which deals with the final payment of the £5,000,000. Under the original Act the whole balance of £5,000,000 had to be paid on or before the 31st March, 1943. Well, it has been found that owing to the war and the various impediments caused by the war, it is not likely, or shall I put it the other way, it is entirely unlikely that the Corporation will require this £5,000,000 by anything like the date of the 31st March, 1943. As a matter of fact, at the outside they will require another £1,000,000 which, with the £500,000 they have already got, means £1,500,000, and therefore, so that the Government should not have to put up the rest of the money, that is, £4,500,000 more money, it is now suggested that the clause be worded that the balance of the £5,000,000 should be payable six months after the date which the Governor-General may, by proclamation, declare to be the date on which the Union ceased to be at war. The essence of the clause is to obviate the necessity of the Treasury putting up £4,500,000 unnecessarily.

As we have a Bill here for the expansion of the activities of the Industrial Corporation, I am sorry the Minister has not availed himself of the opportunity to give us a little more information. I think it would not have been out of place if he had done so. What has been achieved so far by the Industrial Corporation which was established under the Act of 1940? I hope the Minister, when he replies to the debate, will avail himself of the opportunity to tell us what has already been done, particularly in view of the fact that he is asking for an extension of powers here. As regards the Bill itself, the Minister is conversant with the attitude of this side of the House. We shall always be in favour of measures which will lead to industrial development in South Africa. The Minister is asking here for powers which, according to him, were not clearly set out in the original Act, namely, that the Corporation shall also have the power itself to establish industries in this country. That, also, is in accordance with the principle which we on this side of the House have always stood for, but we have always made one condition,’ namely, that such industries must be established as key industries. We understand key industries to mean industries in respect of which the necessary private initiative is lacking to establish them, or where the amount of money required for the establishment of such an industry is too large to be undertaken by private initiative. We feel that the Government should act in regard to such industries. I assume that where the Minister is asking for the extension of the powers, it is also the intention to obtain powers for the establishment of industries which are key industries, and that it is not the Minister’s intention, or the Government’s intention, that the Corporation should undertake small industries such as factories for the manufacture of shirts. With these few words I just want to say that we approve of the extension of those powers and that we shall give the Bill the necessary support. I hope the Minister in his reply will give us more information as to what the Industrial Corporation has done so far.

I think that the Minister has tended to belittle his own Bill and its ramification in his presentation of it to the House. My own impression is that it does in fact introduce a number of new principles of the very first importance. The one he has mentioned, which has been given the blessing of the Opposition by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) enabling the Government to carry on industry itself, I should have thought was a definite extension of the powers of the Act which we passed in 1940. In fact the question of the ability of the Government to establish industries was raised in connection with the 1940 Bill and some of us would have been glad to see these powers taken at the time. I am therefore not going to challenge the new clause, but we should not be blinded to the fact that the Government is taking these powers now.

What powers?

The power to establish industries itself. The power to enable the Corporation to establish industries in addition to assisting others to do so. The Minister says that no change is being introduced by this Bill; but that is a large change. And there is another to which I want to draw the attention of the House. The addendum to Clause 3 introduces a new phrase. I am referring to the new Clause 3 as proposed in the Bill now before the House. Where the old Act says—

And explains as the purpose—

The Bill before us reads—

I should like to know why the Minister has introduced that new sentence into this particular clause. I ask for this reason, that I feel that there is a possibility of a conflict between those two things that have been laid down in this clause, as the purpose or the intention of the Corporation. I can foresee circumstances in which the provision of the economic requirements of the Union could not be conducted, could not be carried on on what the Minister would interpret as “sound business principles.” I can imagine that the provision of the economic requirements of the Union might have a purely social purpose as distinct from a purely commercial purpose, and I feel we should not introduce into our legislation a possible confusion of ideas, particularly in the sort of clause that can have no real weight in a court of law. This general explanation of the purpose of the Corporation would be extremely difficult for any court of law to interpret, but in the juxtaposition of these two purposes, any court of law would find itself in extremely great difficulty. Actually I would prefer to see that whole clause dropped out altogether. I feel it has a general application which is not suitable to the legislation. In any case the economic argument, the economic purpose is already dealt with in the present Act in Clause 5, which says “that it shall be the duty of the Corporation so to exercise its powers that every application or proposal dealt with by it is considered strictly on its economic merits, irrespective of all other considerations whatsoever.” Now, if the Minister is not prepared to delete the whole of that clause which I shall propose in Committee, I shall be very glad to see him delete the second part of the clause which I disliked in the original Act and dislike still more after more than two years’ experience of industrial development in South Africa. I should like him to drop out the clause which says “to the end that industrial development within the Union may be planned, expedited and conducted on sound business principles.” In the ears of anyone who is concerned with the lot of the workers those words “sound business principles” are always ominous. I do not feel that we would be safe ever in committing ourselves to the development of industry with that as our foundation. So in general I should be opposed to these terms. But I claim that they do not apply to South African industry, that they have in fact never applied to South African industry. Ever since the last war when we embarked upon a policy of encouraging secondary industry in this country, we have consistently given a social direction, a social purpose to our industrial development. We have consistently undertaken the development of industry with certain social purposes in view—we have laid down that industry would be encouraged where it gave employment on certain terms to certain sections of the community. And since the end of that war and since the present war we have been encouraging industry for another purpose, which is that we shall be as far as possible self-sufficing. Thus we are in fact encouraging industry for social rather than for economic purposes, and I maintain that these words do not apply and have never applied to our industry. And they apply less to our industry today and should progressively apply less to our industry as our social conscience awakens. Today we have abandoned the laissez faire principle. We are directing and controlling industrial life for specific purposes, and I feel we should face that position squarely and decide what our social purpose is, and that we should not mislead anyone by suggesting that our primary intention is to build industries on “sound business principles.” In any case, I think the suggestion of building industries on the traditional interpretation of “sound business principles” is from our point of view unsound. If ever there was a country in which the development of secondary industry was dependent on the consuming capacity of the community, it is South Africa. Now, to suggest that our industry is going to be built on its ability to pay dividdends to those who sponsor it, is to create the idea of a conflict between the producer and the consumer—a conflict which is going to destroy industry in South Africa. We cannot build secondary industries in South Africa on any secure foundation unless we can build up our consuming market here. In this regard I speak with all the authority of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission, which the Government has decided to follow, behind me, or rather, the authority of Dr. Van der Bijl’s report as chairman of the Industrial Corporation itself. Dr. Van der Bijl says—

That note should be turned the other way round—Dr. Van der Bijl should have said: “The producers will also be the consumers”, and therefore should be able to consume if these industries are to be able to be maintained. As I said, the two further years of experience of development of industry which have elapsed since the passing of the original Act, this Industrial Development Act of 1940, have only strengthened my belief that we must tackle our industrial development from the foundation and decide its purpose and its direction. In these two years, the Wage Board has been extending its activities to the regulation as far as it can of the conditions of employment in industry; and what has happened? They have consistently established wage levels for the people on the bottom of the economic scale, wages that are not remotely within range of being living wages. Industry in these two years has not even maintained the level of commerce, and the level established in commerce was not a living wage. Yet the worker for whom these wage rates are being established are the consumers of the product of our secondary industry. Now, unless we can control the pattern of our secondary industries in such a way that the workers will provide the foundation of a consumer’s market, all the money which will be pumped into industry out of our national revenues is going to be so much loss in the long run, and I feel it is imperative that we should face this situation. The crux of the situation is the idea of the ability of the industry to pay. The Wage Board has been told that it must consider the ability of industry to pay, but, as I have had occasion to point out to the House before, we may have a serious conflict between the ability of the industry to pay and the capacity of the worker to consume the goods industry produces, and that is the conflict which I see if we lay down this principle of sound business lines in this field of industrial development. I beg the Minister to consider this question very carefully. The Government has already decided to appoint an Economic and Social Planning Council to implement the findings of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission. One of the first findings of that Commission is that we are not using our labour force in an economic way, and that we cannot develop our industrial possibilities unless we are prepared to change the patterns of our labour market and the present pattern of our economic life. We cannot do that on the traditional basis of “sound business principles”, and I hope the Minister will therefore consider dropping out this condition.

May I say first of all that I can hardly agree with the Minister’s opening remarks that the object of this Bill was merely to clarify the original Act. Clause 3 (a) to establish and conduct industrial undertakings introduces an entirely new principle into the Bill that was introduced two years ago, and I venture to say that if that section had been proposed in the Committee stage of that Bill you, Mr. Speaker, would probably have felt it necessary to rule it out of order, because it fundamentally alters the proposal which was made that the Government should not under take and be responsible for creating industries. Many members of the House felt on that occasion that the Government should have extra powers. I think there were discussions and various members made suggestions, but the Minister himself said most emphatically that it was not the intention that this Corporation should have the power to create and establish new industries. All he asked for was that this Corporation should assist — his own words were “for the purpose of aiding, guiding and accelerating that expansion of industry”—he said that that was the purpose for which the Bill was introduced, and he went on to say: “I want to explain that in this case they are not going to be industrialists themselves, they are going to help enterprising industrialists to find the money.” And there is no question that if it had been proposed by the Minister to introduce this clause the Select Committee which dealt with the Bill would have asked for the insertion of certain precautions. I personally can appreciate the position as it is necessary today in connection with certain war measures to create industries, and I understand that it has been found, I understand that the Director of War Supplies has found it necessary to get these extra powers. But I think that it should be noted that under this measure the Corporation can now start and carry on any single industry it likes without coming to this House, without the Government being consulted, and without anyone having any knowledge of it at all. They have already got the money, and out of that money I take it they can do that—any of that money can be used for the establishment of new industries. It does seem to me that in view of the fact, quite rightly, that the Corporation my feel it necessary to establish an industry, which may be a key industry, the Government must take the responsibility for the establishment of that industry. If the Corporation wishes to establish and conduct an industrial undertaking itself, it must be started under the full authority and carry the weight of the Government. That is to say, that if any proposal is put up for the establishment of an industry, it may be a key industry, or some other South African industry, then it is a matter for the Government itself to give the full authority and carry the responsibility for doing so, and I am going to suggest to the Minister that when the Committee stage comes he will accept an amendment to this first Clause 3 (a) to establish and conduct industrial undertakings “subject to the approval of the Governor-General.” That means that if they wish to go in and establish and conduct any industrial concern it must be submitted to the Government and receive the consent of the Cabinet. There you link the responsibility and I think it is only proper that in such cases the Government should have full knowledge and accept that responsibility. Now, dealing with this Bill, I am not too certain that if this amendment is made other amendments will not also have to be made in the Principal Act. Assuming a new industry is created. I do not see anything under the original Act to necessitate a report on that industry being submitted to Parliament. In view of the fact that now you are providing for giving the Corporation authority to create new industries, I do not think that under Clause 19, which deals with information to be furnished to the Minister and to Parliament—I do not think that that covers the point that you have to furnish reports on the new industries created by the Corporation. This Bill as it stands now, I think, deals only with reports and balance sheets and reports of the Board. It does not necessarily mean that the account of any subsidiary industry will also have to be submitted and reported to Parliament, and it seems to me that it is quite possible that you may have a very important key industry established under this, and that the House would be kept completely in the dark as to how it was progressing and what was taking place. That, I think, is a matter which should be looked into further. Now, I must confess that I find it somewhat difficult to follow the hon. member for Cape, Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). I should like to ask the hon. member how she wants a business to be carried on if not on sound business principles? If a business is not on sound business principles, it should be cut out. Does the hon. member recommend that the Government should set up any number of industries, whether they are really required or not, and that they should not be carried on on business principles, that they should be carried on, irrespective of the cost, and that they should be subsidised by the State, irrespective of the cost incurred? Surely, if we are going to ask the State to find the finance for carrying on business, we can at least ask the State to see that it is not involved in very great losses in carrying on those businesses; and if a business is not to be run at a loss, surely that means carrying it on on sound business principles. I do not follow the hon. member. Surely carrying on a business on sound business principles does not mean not paying adequate wages. You have the wage legislation of the country which is looking after the wage levels. Those wage levels may not be as high as hon. members may want to see them, but that does not alter the fact that the enterprise would still be carried on on sound business principles and pay the wages which the State demands.

It may be good business to pay your men well.

I cannot quite follow on what basis hon. members would like industry carried on, if not on sound business principles. The hon. member for Cape, Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), seemed to me to be concerned only with the economic state of certain sections of the population, whose wage level is not sufficiently high. There is no question, however, that wage levels have been very materially improved during the last 20 or 30 years. Her proposition seems to be that any business must be subsidised by the State in order to raise the wage level, but the point is whether it is economically sound to develop industries which cannot stand on their own feet. As a matter of fact, up to the present time wage levels have been increased; and, in spite of that, industries have been established. The hon. member has referred to the local market, but is it right to establish industries here which have to look entirely to the local market? All the other manufacturing countries in the world look outside for a large proportion of their market, and if we are only going to look inside South Africa for our market, we are never going to develop industries here to any great extent. We have not got the population. There is no doubt that if you can raise the wage level of the lower-paid sections of the population, the native and coloured people, you will to some extent improve your internal market, and that is being done today, slowly, I will admit, but it is being done. That is all to the good, but South Africa can never provide a market for all the manufactures that we ought to establish here. It is very easy to be destructive of the terms of the Bill, but I did not hear any hon. members make any constructive suggestions. It is unsound to establish industries subsidised by this Corporation in which the wage level is very much higher than in other industries, and to say that on that basis the State should bear the cost. I hope the Minister will accept my proposal, so far as Clause A is concerned, and I hope he will not agree to any proposed amendment to delete the words referred to by the hon. member for Cape, Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger).

In his reply to the debate on the previous Bill which was before the House, the Minister admitted here that he was still against the principle that the State should establish industries. Now it is strange that since in principle he is opposed to the State undertaking industries of this nature, he should be the Minister who now makes provision in a Bill for the State to start industries on its own. It makes one suspicious. It makes one think that the Government now has a special reason for submitting this Bill through a Minister who says that he is against the principle of the Bill. And now I want to tell the Minister that we on this side of the House have more than once expressed our approval in regard to the principle that the State itself should undertake certain key industries, when private capital is reluctant to undertake to do so. Our attitude is that where in normal circumstances private capital does not provide the necessary requirements of the country, the State should not hesitate to intervene and to give the people what they require. In South Africa, in the industrial sphere, we are not by any means independent, and we want to support any effort which aims at making our country independent in the sphere of industry. But I cannot help being suspicious when a Minister who only an hour ago declared himself against that principle, now asks the right for the State to establish industries in the country itself. What is the reason why the Minister asks this authority? I am afraid that what the Minister has in mind is to establish industries, which possibly possess no vitality in ordinary circumstances. I think that what he possibly has in mind is to create industries merely for the purpose of manufacturing war material, industries which will then simply come to an end after the war. That will mean that we will now give the Government and this Corporation the authority to create uneconomical industries for the sake of the war. We are living in abnormal circumstances today; there is a clear, strong demand for war requirements; private capital will not risk creating those industries, because such industries have no chance in South Africa during peace time. But now money must be found, and the State must find it, to establish those industries, and after the war they will disappear again, and in the meantime we must find the money for them. For that reason the Minister is now suggesting something which conflicts with his principles. But we on this side of the House are in favour of the principle that, where private undertakings do not provide the necessary requirements of the country, the State itself should come forward with such undertakings, and since we are giving authority to the Industrial Corporation to start such industries itself, I want to ask the Minister to bear in mind another matter which I have repeatedly brought to the notice of the Government, namely, to see to it that certain industries are established in the platteland, and that the industries are not all concentrated in some big city or other. The Minister knows that we particularly require industries in the platteland, in small towns, and since the State is now suggesting that certain undertakings should be started, we want to ask the Government to use its influence and to suggest that those industries which will continue after the war, be established in the platteland areas and not all concentrated in a few big cities, whereby the economic balance of the country will be thrown overboard. The Minister knows that in other countries there is that unsound industrial relationship. In Australia, for example, you have a concentration of nearly three quarters of the community in a few big cities. We are running the same risk in South Africa, and since the Government is now going to take the lead in connection with industries, we want to ask the Government not to make the same mistake in this country which Australia and other countries made. Not only do you want your population spread over the whole country for economic reasons, but we have now seen that in time of war it is dangerous to have the whole population at a few big places. Your country is particularly vulnerable in time of war if the whole community is concentrated in a few large cities. It is particularly desirable not only in time of war, but also in peace time, that your industries should be spread over the whole country. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give us a satisfactory reply in connection with the two matters which I have raised.

This debate has shown perfectly clearly fundamental principles that actuate certain sections of this House. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has enunciated the principle that the establishment of industries is not a question of economics at all with some people, but a question of nationalism. Let there be no mistake about it, it is the same all over the country amongst nationally-minded people. Anybody who interprets the fundamental principle of South Africa alone, must of necessity have industries, cost what they may. The question whether one approaches it from an economic or a national standpoint is a matter which does not concern them. On the other hand, it is rather surprising that the Minister was forced to give expression to the principle which has actuated him. He is opposed to the Government establishing any industry, and that is the view that commerce has consistently adopted throughout. There are other sections of this House who consider that the fundamental principle underlying the establishment of industry shall be the capacity of that industry to pay wages. Now anyone who faces up to the position, is faced with three questions, first where is the raw material, secondly how much is it going to cost to produce a given article, and thirdly, whether it is possible for him to make a profit within the market he has in view’ in connection with other maufacturers. Now the question of wages depends largely on whether the labour is organised or unorganised. In this country the skilled artisan is generally organised, and wherever that is the case, labour can look after itself. Organised labour does not want wage boards, because trades unions have always consis tently looked after themselves. I should be the last in this House to suggest that trades unions or organised labour of any kind should go back on that attitude. Relatively speaking, South Africa is the one country in the world where the relative position of skilled and unskilled labour shows such wide divergence. There is no industrial country in the world which relatively speaking pays so little to unskilled labour as South Africa. Those who represent the skilled and unskilled workers in this country, say that no industry in this country should be permitted to be established unless it is competent and prepared to pay decent wages to unskilled and unorganised labour in this country. There is only one way in which that can be paid, and that is out of the pockets of South Africa generally. Under protection you can pay whatever wages you like, because you can shut out all your competitors, and you can create as large a wage bill as you please. My objection to protection is that the country does not really know how much it is paying for the luxury of having that particular protective industry. Through the customs it is impossible to determine how much your industry is costing you. You can put a 33 per cent. tariff against any article, and if that protection is not high enough to establish the industry, then all you have to do is to raise your tariff. We have been told we are going to have a new economic heaven when the war is over, that we are going to fight for something that is well worth fighting for, when victory is won. Now after the war the unskilled worker is not going to be satisfied with being an unorganised pawn in industry and commerce. Large numbers of our unskilled workers are fighting for us and when they return they will want a greater share in the products of industry. I hope that industries will be established in this country, and established in such a way as to permit a fair return being given to the unskilled workman. The hon. member for Pretoria Central (Mr. Pocock) told us what the Minister did not tell us, and that is that it may be necessary to establish industries which are essential to the war and which must be established regardless of cost. May I add my plea to the plea of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that it is uneconomic, unfair and unjust to expect the unskilled and unorganised labourer to contribute to the wealth of this country by producing industries out of their own pockets. The importance of the internal market cannot be exaggerated. We know that South Africa finds tremendous difficulty today in exporting the surplus products of our primary industries. We know that it is costing this country today hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions to export the overproduction of the sugar industry, and also hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions, to export our surplus maize, and that export is being built up at the expense of our own citizens.

Order. I think the hon. member is travelling rather wide of the subject.

I am trying, sir, to make the point that our unorganised and unskilled labour should be made a better consumer than he is today, and that can only be done by paying him higher wages. You can only export surpluses at world prices, and therefore every effort must be made to expand the internal market. Unless we can do this, there is danger to the establishment of secondary industries. The hon. member for Cape Eastern says that wages must be paid to the unskilled labourer which will ensure him a decent standard of living without taking into consideration the ability of the industry to pay, and I am inclined to ask the hon. Minister to see that any industry which is established in South Africa shall give the unskilled and unorganised worker a more just share in the products of that industry.

Many years ago it was stated by Mr. Fisher, the first Labour Prime Minister of Australia, that no industry is worth anything which cannot pay a living wage to its employees. That is a policy which has been pursued in Australia, irrespective of what government has been in power. I feel that in dealing with this matter, my friend, the hon. member for Cape, Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), probably misunderstood the position, because I cannot conceive anyone at the present moment, certainly not this Government, and certainly not Dr. Van der Bijl, who is in charge of the Industrial Development Corporation, favouring the establishment of any industry on the basis of sweated labour. No industry is worth having which is not prepared to pay its workers a decent wage and enable them to maintain a decent standard of living. As far as this Bill is concerned, I want to touch on two points. One is the amendment, which I heartily support, by which provision is now made for the establishment of industries, where that becomes necessary, by the Corporation. When the original measure was before Parliament, I and some other hon. members advocated that the Corporation should take the necessary power not merely to finance, but to establish industries. My reason then and my reason today is that private enterprise is only concerned with the question of making profits, regardless of national needs, and to that extent I entirely agree with the hon. members for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), and Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux). In that connection, however, I want to make it clear that I do not mean nationalist industries, but national industries, which are in the interests of the nation as a whole. It is possible that those can only be established by national effort, and it cannot be expected that private enterprise which is only concerned with profits, would, regardless of profit, undertake industries which are merely intended for the interests of the nation. Therefore I entirely welcome this amendment. Unless this power is given to the Corporation, the probabilities are that many industries necessary for national development will not be established if they are left to private enterprise. But I take the other amendment, and that again to my mind is a very substantial improvement to the present Act. I refer to the provision—

This provision is a tremendous improvement on the provision in the original Act, which says—

The amendment is an important one. The economic requirements of the Union means an industry required by the Union, irrespective of anything else. But there is a definite conflict, firstly, between this amendment and the provision of paragraph “a” of Clause 5 of the Act, which reads—

And I think if this new proposal means anything, it will be necessary to delete the interpretation laid down in paragraph (a) of Section 5 of the Act; and, secondly, I feel that the words “on sound business principles” are in conflict with its first part of the provision. I feel that there are occasions—there may be continuous occasions —where the national needs may require the establishment of an industry which private enterprise will not provide for, and therefore the Corporation should not be bound down to the making of profits.

What does sound business principles mean?

It does not necessarily mean the making of profits. If it means that the Corporation shall run the business in an efficient manner, then there is no need to put in these words, because the principal part is the first part of that clause, namely, “the economic requirements”. If these words are put in they may be misinterpreted and cause difficulties. I say that in the interest of the smooth running of the Corporation it is desirable that these words “on sound business principles” should be eliminated, so that the Corporation, when it feels it should establish an industry in the interests of the country as a whole should not be bound down by these words which would stand in the way of an industry being established. I think the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) and others should have enough confidence in the Industrial Corporation to know that they will not establish an industry which is thoroughly unsound, and therefore I hope that in the Committee stage the Minister will agree to the deletion of the words “on sound business principles”, and also to the deletion of paragraph (a) of Section 5, because otherwise you may have a conflict in connection with the matter. One other word: I put that point when the original Bill was before the House. So far as promoting private enterprise is concerned, the Industrial Development Corporation should see to it that it is represented on such an enterprise, not merely to look after its own interests, but to see that it is carried on in the best interests of the country, and, although it may be that the Corporation does make such arrangements now, I do feel that provision should be made by which it is not merely discretionary, but it should be made obligatory for the Corporation to be definitely represented on such enterprises.

I can hardly conceive of an organisation established and directed by business men of the calibre of the directors of the Industrial Development Corporation lending money to or taking an interest in any business concern without representation on the Board of that concern and without making sure that that concern is run on proper lines. Business men of that calibre can be relied upon to take care of that point. With regard to the Bill before the House, the difficulty I find is this, that it seems to me that the two sub-sections of Clause 3, namely, (a) and (b), are absolutely in conflict with each other. When the original Bill came before the House in the first place, the primary object was to establish the Corporation as an industrial banking institution, a Corporation which would facilitate, promote and guide and assist in the financing of new industries and the expansion of existing industry. Now apparently the reason for bringing this Bill before the House is that the Corporation has failed in that connection, and I think we should examine some of the reasons for that failure. I am sorry the Minister did not tell us some of the reasons. If one examines the report of the Corporation for the year ending June last, which covers a period of about nine months, one finds that this has been the position—the Corporation examined 150 applications from persons who wished to establish industries, involving £1,500,000. We find that at the end of June the Corporation had tentatively accepted schemes involving £400,000, and had accordingly earmarked £400,000 as a contingent obligation, and we find that it had actually made one loan of £1,500 only. I must say when I read that report I was very disappointed indeed to see that so little progress had been made. The Corporation had certainly investigated some of the important industrial problems of the country, and I feel it was doing admirable work in that way, but if you consider that it had been operating for nine months and had considered 150 applications and had only concluded an agreement for £1,500, one must wonder what was wrong. And what is wrong? There has been no reticence of the part of private enterprise to establish industry, but there have been other factors which made it impossible to do so. Of course, there is the difficulty of getting adequate and suitable man-power, and also the necessary machinery, but the salient difficulty which presented itself was the incidence of the excess profits tax, which made it utterly impossible for new industries to be established. I do not know whether the Minister has gone into that question sufficiently carefully, and whether he understands the full implications of this very important matter. Now, apparently, the Corporation has found that it is not able to further industries sufficiently by means of operating as a banking institution, and it now wants to go into industry itself, and it wants to take power to establish and conduct industry— in other words, it wants to become an industrialist. We find this position now, that this Corporation which was established to assist and promote industry is now going to become an industrialist itself; it is very much on a par with a commercial bank which engaged in trade and industry—but the commercial bank never does that, because the two interests are in conflict with each other, and I think it is quite wrong that the Industrial Development Corporation should be given this power to establish and conduct industry along with the parallel power to promote and assist industry. Rather should it be this. If the Industrial Development Corporation after investigation finds that it is advisable to establish an industry in the interests of the country, and that private enterprise is not prepared to establish that industry—it may be a key industry which is essential—then I feel that such an industry should be established on the lines of the present Iron and Steel Corporation, which was established by a charter of its own, and as public money is involved it should be done in the same way as Iscor has been started, by means of a measure passed by this House. For that purpose I do not see why powers of this sort in the Bill should be necessary. It seems quite simple to come to this House with the necessary proposals and ask the House to pass a Bill. I do not see how this Corporation can expect people to come to it, disclose their ideas, their principles, and their patents if you like, when at the same time it has the power to establish industry itself, to establish and conduct industry itself. It seems to me this creates such a hopeless conflict that the Corporation will be in difficulty very soon, and I hope the Minister will consider in the Committee stage amending the clause to meet this position. Now the principal Act which was passed two years ago seems to have broken down in another respect—and that is tied up in the first point I made—that is that under Section 3 of the Bill, the period within which the capital has to put up is to be prolonged. There is only one reason—the Corporation has not been able to put out its money in the time laid down by the original Act. It has found itself so handicapped that it has not been able to put out its money and now it comes and asks for an extended period. There is no object in putting the money up and leaving it lying idle. It is all the more deplorable that industry should not be progressing as we hoped it would do when we passed this measure in 1940. It is all the more regrettable because I know the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission has made it clear that in its opinion one of the principal sources of re-employment of returned soldiers is going to be in the direction of the extension of industries. The mines cannot take more than a few thousand back. Agricultrue can only absorb limited numbers, and there is no doubt that when our men come back, when demobilisation sets in, we shall have to look to industry to absorb these men in large measure. It is for that reason I think it deplorable that new industry should have been so stultified, should have been so handicapped, that this Corporation which we set out to establish two years ago should have found its operations so handicapped and should have produced such small results in comparison with what was expected. I would support the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock), in his views on this matter to the extent that if the Minister is not prepared to delete the section to establish and conduct industry from the Bill, it will need some further provisions to safeguard the issue along the lines the hon. member mentioned, and I hope the Minister will give careful attention to this point. With regard to the further point made by the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Bowen), I cannot conceive how you are going to run a Corporation of this nature unless it is founded on sound business principles. Sound business principles do not mean that you have to found industry which will pay niggardly wages. But what will the position be if this Corporation were to found industry on lines which were not sound? I can easily imagine what the cumulative effect will be in a very short space of time. We would have dozens of industries in this country which would cause all of us very serious headaches. I hope the Minister will not tamper with the deletion of that principle in this Bill—I hope he will not tamper with the principle of the Corporation operating on sound business principles. The expression is wide in its meaning, and I am sure this Corporation can be relied upon to see that when it does promote industries, it will make sure that those industries will be established along sound lines which in itself connotes that the industries will pay good wages, too.

The second reading of this Bill seems to me to present the opportunity of enlisting the earnest consideration of the Minister of Commerce and Industries for the establishment of what would be a new industry in South Africa, capable of assisting the primary industry, that of agriculture in a way which has never been attempted before. For the time being the price of cattle maintains a fairly high level, but the difficulty of obtaining a reasonable price for the large class of inferior stock that are owned by the natives and the poor farmers in this country, has never been properly met by the Government. Face to face as we are with the greatest war that has ever been heard of, we are also face to face with the possibility of a great famine in various parts of the world, and a very distinguished scientist, Dr. Watkins Pitchford, who was Director of Food Production to the War Office in the last war, is still with us in this country, and his services in connection with the production of nutritious meat foods, are still available. I know that he has recently been in communication with the head of the Red Cross Society in America with a view to a scheme being founded in this country for the production of meat foods for the famine areas that will quickly develop in the wake of the war, and I hope the Minister of Commerce and Industries will in connection with this Industrial Development Corporation, give favourable consideration to the establishment of an industry on fair terms which would probably build up a sphere of employment in South Africa which has hitherto been unknown to us. I know that the prospects of developing such an industry are very favourable. I do not propose to delay the House at this period of the session by going into the details of that industry, but I would commend to the consideration of the Minister the desirability of taking this matter into favourable consideration, and allowing Dr. Watkins Pitchford to lay his plans before the Industrial Corporation.

If there is one thing for which we in this House and the country can be grateful, then it is the fact that the conscience of the Government has been awakened in connection with this development of our country. In the past we, in this House, and amongst others I did so too, agitated that the State should intervene in the development of our industries. I remember how the ex-Minister of Finance, Mr. Havenga, called out to us: “Do you then want the State to play the role of manufacturer?” We did want that and we still want it today. If there is not sufficient iniative on the part of the public, or if there is not sufficient money available from the public, then it is the duty of the State to intervene if it sees that there is an opportunity of developing an industry. History will record what losses the people of South Africa suffered as a result of the short-sightedness of this and previous Governments—I do not mean this Government especially, because it has perhaps not had time enough to do much and it is now being awakened—I say that history will record what losses the people of South Africa suffered, because in this sphere we were so short-sighted that we did not tackle the matter with energy and establish industries. When this legislation was passed a little while ago, and we made available a certain amount—up to £5,000,000 for the development of our industries—we made provision for an Industrial Development Corporation which would have that money at its disposal in order to do these things. Then we were glad and we expected a great deal from the corporation. But as the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) correctly said—he did not use these words but it amounted to this—the mountain went into labour and brought forth a poor little mouse. Whether those members on the board of the corporation did not have sufficient vision, or whether they did not possess sufficient initiative, or whether they did not have the necessary brain, I cannot say. But there are very many things which they could have done, but which they did not do. If we can be of assistance to them, then we want to quote to them the example of Germany, although members on the other side do not want one to refer to Germany. But we can give them the example of Germany, which makes petrol from potatoes and which makes a hundred and one things from synthetic substances. We can take a leaf from the experience of those countries. We have sugar cane in our country; we have potatoes; we have mealies. We have an experimental institute which engages in experiments and never gets any further. It tells us that it is not economical to manufacture petrol from mealies and from sugar cane, and least of all from potatoes. Within the near future, we shall have to resort to any possible source from which petrol can be made, whatever it may be. I notice that Australia wants to make petrol out of wheat. We shall have to make petrol from mealies and perhaps also from potatoes and sugar cane. We had this corporation; it had the money and the power, but it did practically nothing. I want to return again to this corporation. People who wanted to develop andalusite went to the corporation. It is a material which lies at the bottom of the Marico River, and it is used to make the hard flint, which formerly had to come from Europe for our blast furnaces, for example. Now we are cut off from that source, and we have excellent materials here to manufacture that flint ourselves. It was the intention that the Cullinan Company and the company of Olifantsfontein would co-operate in developing that andalusite. But the farmers in that neighbourhood have the biggest quantity of it. We made representations on behalf of those people to the Government, and to the corporation, but they have not yet given us any reply. There is a great possibility of developing this industry, but nothing is being done. I do not know whether Brick and Tiles, of which the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) knows something perhaps, and the companies which I have mentioned had a hand in the corporation not doing anything in connection with the development of andalusite. That is one case to which I want to refer. Then I come to another matter, and it is this: those friends who stood up on the other side and opposed our undertaking the establishment of factories. The war drives us into a corner, and if it were not for the war, members on the other side would never have gone so far as to allow the State to intervene in these things. In connection with the “business lines” to which reference was made, I can understand that the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock), should be so concerned about the definition of “business principles.” As a business man he imagines that the first requisite is that profit should be made. An undertaking must show large profits. If that cannot be done, then it is not business. In this connection I want to lend my support to what was said here by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) to the effect that we should not have regard so much to the profit of an undertaking, but to what the advantage of that undertaking will be to the public in general. The Minister of Commerce and Industries might also talk about the profits of his undertaking; and I have in mind too the salaries which he pays to his people in order to be able to make those profits. We are going to establish industries and thousands of girls and boys will work in them, and in order to be able to show profits we are going to pay a meagre wage to those people. That should not be the idea, and for that reason I support what those hon. members said, namely, that in establishing such institutions our main thought should be not the profits which are made, but what advantage those industries will be to the public in general, and to the people who work in those factories, and not to those people who have shares in it, and who only look to the dividends which are paid.

I do not want to take up a great deal of the time of the House, but I feel that I should say a few words, because this Bill touches upon one of the points which was largely introduced by us on this side, by the Afrikaner Party, in connection with the establishment of industries, and the treatment which our industries ought to receive, and especially which the new industries ought to receive from the Government. It is very clear to me that this Bill fills a gap, especially in these times in which we live. There is very great uncertainty in the economic sphere. People do not like risking their money, especially in the circumstances prevailing today, and since the State is interfering to a certain extent and affording protection to the establishment of industries, that industry regards it as a certain measure of safety. In those circumstances, we have nothing else to say in regard to this Bill than that we are glad that the Government has introduced it in order to encourage our industries. A point was raised by the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé), however, with which I want to deal in passing. The policy of the Government in the past and especially the policy of the previous Minister of Finance, was that of protection for our industries. Under that policy of protection, numerous industries were established in our country, and eventually found their feet. The public in general had to help in this sense, that it had to be willing to refrain from importing possibly cheaper goods from overseas in order to give the local goods a chance. But the public did this willingly for the sake of the great ideal which we had, namely, to make our country as self-supporting in the economic sphere as was possible. There is always one great thought in the minds of our producers in connection with the establishment of factories, namely, to what extent those factories will be able to use the materials which are produced in the country, and to what extent we can be supplied with clothes and other articles through our own factories. In that connection we had the statement that Iscor was a key industry. But we cannot get away from the fact, if we take into consideration that we are one of the biggest wool-producing countries, and that that production is very stable, and that sometimes we have to sell the wool at very uneconomical prices, that it is possible to establish an economic industry here, and that that is one of the big things which the Government ought to support in the first instance by means of this legislation. In the past we made certain efforts, but as a result of the scandalous way in which the money of the people was dealt with, conditions arose as a result of which the farming community is today actually timid to go so far as to establish factories of this nature on their own initiative. We know, for example, of the position which arose at Harrismith. There people had to be summoned for amounts of £500 and £1,000 of which they did not receive a single penny, and the establishers got away with all the money and today they are still living in comfort. That is one of the reasons why the farming section of the community is timid in connection with the establishment of industries and why they do not take the initiative. Now, however, there is again a big movement amongst the wool farmers, and I regard the wool industry as a big key industry. There is always a big market for woollen articles. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give its close attention to that key industry, especially under this legislation. There is the danger, of course, that unless an industry can eventually stand on its own feet—I am talking about the second part of the Bill, where the Government votes money in order to help industries —losses will be suffered. We must proceed with the utmost caution, and I do not agree with the hon. member for Potgietersrust that the Government was too cautious. Caution is better in this instance than a great deal of brain which we may seek here. When I speak of caution, then I intend it in this sense of the word, that eventually the community should not be saddled with a large number of industries which the State will eventually have to carry on its shoulders. With these few words I want to support the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will give his attention, in the first place, to seeing that a wool industry is established as soon as possible.

I wish to support the hon. member for Cape, Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), as I understand her, that the hon. member is opposed to the establishment of any industry unless it can also pay economic wages to the unskilled workers. Now there can be no doubt about it that it is necessary to increase the consumption of our local products, and this will enable many industries to pay their way. The bulk of our population consists of unskilled workers, and you can only improve their position by paying increased wages, and if those wages are more than the industry can pay, they have to come out of the pockets of the general public by way of protection afforded to such industry. I stand for industry that is conducted on sound, economic and businesslike lines. The hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) now says that we must not always look for profits, but we must establish industries, even if they show a loss. Surely he does not seriously suggest that, because if you are going to follow that theory, you are going to increase your taxation to such an extent that the hon. member will regret that he ever laid down such a theory. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) did not say that we must establish industries, even if they do not show a profit, but he said that it might be necessary from a national point of view, to establish industries from which we should not look for profit. He certainly did not suggest that we must do that as a matter of course or policy. If you establish an industry on sound economic lines, it can take charge of the point made by the hon. member for Cape (Eastern), and pay your unskilled workers a suffcient and economic wage, but then you must adhere to the policy of protection and independence of other countries. You must have a policy of protection which must be fixed in terms of your own internal costs of production. We have peculiar conditions here; we have a population of unskilled European and native workers who need the protection of this House. I must point out that whether you establish industry by the State or by private enterprise, you must not run away with the idea that either the State or private enterprise can do just what it likes. The real measuring stick is what is the article you are going to manufacture going to cost to produce? If the cost of production, whether by State or private enterprise, is going to be more than you can import it for, your consumers will buy the imported article, so that cost of production is an important factor to consider. If our social legislation is going to raise the wage level of the natives we must then consider what the internal cost of production is to be, and if that cost is higher than the price of the imported article, the Minister will have to protect that industry by tariffs. If you are going to disregard, as the hon. member for Potgietersrust seems to think we should, the cost of production, then I am afraid we are going to land ourselves in a cost of living which we cannot meet. It all boils down to this, that industry must be established on sound business lines. I fully support this Bill, because I believe that the development which will take place as the result of it, will be on sound lines.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) was rather afraid that the Industrial Development Corporation was going in for the establishment of a lot of small industries. Well, there is no suggestion of any kind that we are going to go in for any large-scale or small-scale industry. They only want to be able to protect themselves in small matters which they may undertake, so that they cannot be ruled out of court as being against what in business terms are called the articles of association. The hon. member wanted to know roughly something about what developments have already taken place. I do not think I had better give the information in too great detail, but I can give him a general list of industries promoted or assisted by the Industrial Development Corporation since its inception. They are propositions that are either at present being worked on, or already dealt with. The list includes raw materials such as stone and clay, and so on, on which £203,000 has been provided. Then metals and engineering, £130,000; food and drink, £102,000; taxtiles, including such things as woollen blankets, £391,000; and sundries, £35,000. So the hon. member will see that work is distributed over pretty well all classes of industry and covers both the platteland, in many instances as well as the towns. I do not think it is necessary for me to reply to the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) because so many other members who have spoken have dealt at considerable length with what she said. I have no intention whatever of removing from the conditions governing the corporation the words “on sound business lines.” I am convinced that sound business principles mean principles which are harmful to no portion of the population, if they are sound business principles they are beneficial, that is my view. The hon. member may differ from me. On the other questions, the hon. member is preaching to the converted when she suggests that in order to make our economic base a great deal stronger, we should strengthen the consumer demand by paying better wages to those of our population who are less well paid. I accept that, and the sooner that is carried out the better for everybody. I feel that this development of our industrial life will tend to have that effect, so I hope hon. members will not be annoyed at my refusal to alter the terms of the Bill. The hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) is rather nervous about the first Clause, 3 (a). Well, as I said, it is not the intention at all to go in for any widespread establishment of industry. But if it will meet the hon. member I am perfectly willing to accept an amendment such as he suggests, that if the Board decide to establish an industry and work it, then that should only be done with the Governor-General’s consent. Then the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) thinks we should go ahead and establish as many industries as possible, and he was not perfectly satisfied that they ought to be on sound business principles. But I think the fact that the report of the work of the Corporation has to be put on the Table of the House every year means that the members of the House can bring up any point regarding the work of the Corporation. I think when the Minister’s vote is under consideration hon. members can take it up, but I will look into that. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) is very suspicious of me because I dislike the Government establishing industries and working them themselves. Well, in this case I may point out to the hon. member that the Government is not ding it, there is an independent Board of gentlemen running the Corporation, who decide whether an industry is sound or not. I think that is the reply to his question. As to the question whether the intention under this clause is that they shall be allowed to establish war industries, as far as I read the Act they cannot establish war industries or any other industries unless they are satisfied that in normal economic conditions those industries will be sound and capable of self-support. I don’t think he need worry about that. Both the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) and the hon. member for Troyeville gave me rather a long lecture on political economy, and I do not think I have time to deal with that. I have no intention of suggesting to the Corporation that they should proceed to establish industries. I want them to carry out the work which we originally created the Corporation for, and that is to finance industries, to act as bankers to commercial and industrial life, as one member of the Opposition described it. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) asked me to deal with the cattle industry. That is purely a matter of going to the Industrial Corporation and putting this problem of the Watkins Pitchford meat industry in front of them. If they think it is sound and there is anybody behind the industry to put up some money, I suppose the Industrial Development Corporation will take it up. The essential thing to start with is that there must be somebody else who has sufficient faith in the industry to put up some solid cash. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell) was quite right when he said that one of the handicaps of this Corporation is this question of the excess profits tax. At the moment I do not see how we can get over that difficulty. I now move the second reading.

I move as an unopposed motion—

That Order of the Day No. VI for today, stand over until after Order No. VII has been disposed of.

I second.

Agreed to.

On the last occasion when we dealt with his vote, the Minister said that he was only confining himself to matters of less importance and that, when we started again, he would deal with more important points. The Minister has repeatedly made himself guilty of saying that he would deal with important matters later on, but then he forgets them. I shall mention one or two of the important matters in connection with which we on this side of the House made particularly strong representations to the Government, and the first is in connection with internees. We made comparisons between the conditions in the internment camps at the moment, in comparison with the conditions during the 1914-’18 war. The Minister was strongly urged to bring about an improvement, especially with regard to visiting hours. I doubt whether anywhere else in the world there are such unfavourable conditions as in our country, and in any case there was greater concession during the previous war. That is one of the important matters upon which we insisted, and I hope that insofar as that is concerned, the Minister will give satisfaction to the House and to the people in the camps and to their relations. Then there is another matter of a more local nature, and that is the postponement of the Provincial Council elections. Objections were made insofar as the Free State is concerned. I think that the Minister owes a clear explanation to the House. As a Free Stater I felt that an unjust blame had been put on the Free State. At that time the argument was advanced that the Provincial Council of the Free State had specifically asked for a postponement of the election until after the delimitation. There was absolutely no request of that kind. It is true that there was a request for the postponement until the 1st January. I just want to mention another point in this connection. It was generally felt in the Free State that it was undesirable to hold the Provincial elections during the holiday season, round about Christmas or New Year. According to the termination of the term of office of the Provincial Councils the elections could have taken place at that time in normal circumstances, and that was regarded as undesirable. There was never a request, however, for postponement until after the delimitation. The circumstances are such today that no one can no longer talk of the postponement of the elections, but of their postponement sine die. We do not know what will happen in connection with the Union elections next year, nor do we know what will happen in the case of the Provincial elections. Will the people again be deprived of the opportunity to express their opinion in regard to the action of the Government? These are a few matters of importance with which the Minister ought to deal.

I received permission from the Minister to visit the internment camps, and I should like to explain under this vote, as I promised to do at the time of the Budget debate, what my experience was in the various camps. The first camp I visited was Ganspan. It no longer exists. The Union citizens are now at Koffiefontein.

When the House adjourned I was saying that I had the opportunity of visiting all the internment camps; and I had time to look through the camps thoroughly from one end to the other. The authorities gave me every facility to look through the whole camp from beginning to end. I visited the places where the internees eat and sleep. Before I visited the camps I also visited the places of the guards and also examined their food and the manner in which it was prepared. I want to tell you in all honesty what conditions I found there. The food which the internees receive and the food which the guards receive is precisely the same, but the internees enjoy an advantage in this respect, that their food is better prepared, because they have people who are qualified. In one camp, for example, they have a man who worked in the Carlton Hotel and there received £100 per month; and he could, of course, prepare the food better.

But they have to do it themselves.

They do it themselves. I feel that we must stop saying that those people are not getting certain facilities. I do not agree with the manner in which these people were interned, nor do I agree that they get a proper trial—I am convinced that they do not get it; but all those people whom I saw told me that they had nothing to complain about in so far as food and sleeping accommodation was concerned. They asked me to submit various requests to the departments concerned. They requested me that consideration should be given to the following matters: In the first place, review of the cases of internees with a view to release without awaiting representations on their part. Many of those poor people have no attorneys or advocates who can appear on their behalf. They feel that the Minister should investigate their cases impartially, and if it then appears that they are not guilty they should be released. The second point is this: Those people are not criminals. They were interned because their view differs from ours; they are not in the war. Now they ask that when their wives and children and relations visit them they should not be kept apart. They have to stand apart and they are not allowed to greet each other. I hope therefore that the Minister will effect an improvement in this respect.’ As I have said, these people are not criminals and ought not to be treated as such. If a person is in gaol one might be able to understand that treatment, but in the case of internees they should be allowed to greet their wives and children and to be with them. I shall be very glad if the Minister will bring about an improvement in the position. Now, the third point. The internees ask that they should get more work. Those people are locked up for an indefinite period.

Are you talking about Union citizens now?

I am talking about the internees in general. It is said that if they are given equipment, they may dig tunnels and try to escape. But the internees are prepared to hand in their picks and shovels or other tools which are given to them every evening, and then they can get them back in the morning. These people must have recreation. They will become insane if they have to remain there for an indefinite period. That is one of the points on which they insist very strongly. In the fourth place, they would like to have more reading matter. The reading matter which I found there consists only of Government reading matter.

That is the best.

I do not want to drag politics into this matter now; but the reading matter which the internees get only comes from one side. Surely these people are entitled to look at both sides of the matter. They would like to have the opportunity of seeing things from both sides. Then they also ask to get more facilities with a view to getting hold of certain requirements. They may want to manufacture something; they may want wood or something else to keep them busy. Whatever it is they require, they ask that they should be given it. Then they would like to get hold of material in order to bring about improvements for their own comfort. They would like to make benches and such things for their own benefit, which will come out more cheaply for the department than if the department itself were to make it. Then they feel that there is a tremendous delay in connection with their post. Just imagine, those people are in the camp; they expect a letter from relations and there is tremendous delay before they eventually get the letter. They remain in the camp for perhaps a year, two years or three years, and they ask that they should at least be granted the facility that their letters are delivered as soon as possible. They also want the letters which are sent to them to be delivered without delay. Another point is this. They would like to have a swimming bath. They say that they are prepared to build the swimming bath themselves. They will do anything in order to get hold of a swimming bath.

They want to make tunnels.

No, this is a serious matter. The question of obtaining a swimming bath is a serious matter to them. They are prepared to dig the hole themselves, as long as they are supplied with the necessary material and tools in order to build the swimming bath. The next thing is this. If there are people who, for urgent family reasons, want to be released on parole, those people should be given an opportunity of being so released. We are but human. Today I may be free and tomorrow I may be in trouble; those people should be treated sympathetically when their relations are seriously ill. They ask that when that is the case they should be given the opportunity of being released on parole. Then with regard to the aged people; there are poor old people who can hardly move about. Well, what can those old people do? Why should those people be locked up in their old age because they possibly did some trivial thing?

Are you talking about the Germans now?

Yes, I am not talking about Union citizens. With regard to the Union citizens, I ask that before they are locked up, they be brought before a proper court which will determine whether or not they are guilty. I do not want to enlarge upon that, but I am talking about the old Italians and the old Germans now. We feel that those old people should be granted more facilities. There are people who are 70 and 80 years of age amongst them. [Time limit].

When I was replying last Thursday afternoon to the many important points raised by hon. members, I had no opportunity of reaching the question of the internment policy of the Government, and I should like now to deal with the various matters which have been raised in regard to this issue, and I should like to say at the outset that the speech which my hon. friend for Aliwal North (Capt G. H. F. Strydom) has made tonight, seems to me to be the best answer to those hon. members opposite who have suggested that I as an English speaking South African am attempting to be vindictive towards our internees and treat them badly. That speech of the hon. member’s who has just sat down is a complete vindication of our internment policy in this country. It is true he has raised a number of matters which I shall deal with, and which may have to have further consideration. But the hon. member who has just sat down, the hon. member who was given an opportunity by me of visiting all the internment camps, has not in this House tonight repeated those extravagances of other members who have had no experience of our internment camps. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), who, I am sorry, is not in his seat tonight, said in the course of the debate in dealing with the internment policy that I, the Minister of the Interior, was the most hated man in South Africa, because I had no heart for the Afrikaner. He alleged that I, because I am an English speaking Afrikaner, have no sense of responsibility.

Hear, hear.

And no sense of feeling or sentiment for my fellow-Afrikaans speaking Afrikaners.

Not because you are English, but because you are Harry Lawrence.

And I say that the hon. member who has just spoken flings back that charge to the hon. member who made it. He is a man who has visited our internment camps, he has seen the conditions there, and he has told us tonight of his experiences, and I venture to suggest that what he has told the House tonight forms good ground for showing that there is no foundation for the indictment levelled against the Government by hon. members opposite. The hon. member has come forward with a number of suggestions; he does say that a number of things should be put right in his opinion, but he does not make those extravagant charges which were made by other hon. members. I should like in dealing with this matter to draw a clear distinction between the merits of internment as itself and the treatment of internees once they are interned. I know that my hon. friend for Aliwal North disagrees with me in regard to the particular persons who are interned—that is a matter on which we can agree to differ. Hon. members opposite may suggest that no Union nationals should have been interned. They may suggest that the grounds for their internment are shallow, without foundation. On that point we can argue, but I do appeal to my hon. friends opposite not to make extravagant charges in regard to the treatment of internees inside the internment camps if they have no knowledge of the conditions there.

Why do you refuse other members the right to visit these places?

I have not refused others.

You have refused the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein), in whose constituency it is.

I have not.

Last year when you were asked you said you would not.

I am speaking from memory now. I think I told the hon. member for Boshof that I was prepared to allow a delegation of members of Parliament to visit the internment camps. I may have refused members in this House but since the debate in the House of the hon. member for Aliwal has visited the camps and the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) has visited the camps where Union nationals are housed. I shall come to that question of visits a little later, and also to the question raised specifically by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) in this debate. I just want to deal very briefly with this question of internment which has been debated ad nauseum in this House, and in the Other Place, during the last two years, and I want to remove certain misunderstandings which have arisen through confusion of internment under the Emergency Regulations and detention in terms of the proclamation which was issued by my colleague, the Minister for Justice. It is quite obvious from the discussions which have taken place so far that in the minds of certain hon. members there is confusion on this issue. A number of hon. members are confusing internment in terms of Section 15 of the Emergency Regulations and detention in terms of that special regulation issued by the Minister of Justice in order to deal with the crisis which arose at the beginning of the year through extensive sabotage operations on the Rand and elsewhere. The position is quite clear. We have since the beginning of the war interned not merely enemy aliens, Germans and subsequently Italians, but also Union nationals. In regard to enemy aliens we did not adopt a policy of wholesale internment at the start, but rather of selective internment, where there was definite evidence of subversive activities on the part of the persons concerned. At a subsequent stage after we had benefited from the experiences of Holland, Belgium and Norway, the Government decided to stiffen up its policy in regard to enemy aliens. We have interned large numbers of Germans and Italians, not necessarily because we have positive evidence that they have been engaged in subversive activities, but because in the interest of the State we felt that they were safer inside internment camps than out. Then are enemy aliens, they would presumably want to assist their country if they could do so. Well, we cannot afford the risk of being stabbed in the back. In regard to Union nationals, the policy has always been that there must be prima facie evidence of subversive conduct before a Union national is interned. Subsequently, the appeal procedure was introduced. There is a Commissioner of Appeals. The Union national must be informed within a reasonable period after internment of the charges against him, and he can reply to these charges.

What is a reasonable time?

I have laid down fourteen days.

There are cases of two months already.

There may be such cases.

It is not a case of maybe, there are cases of two months and more.

There may be, due to the fact that a number of persons have had to be interned over a short period of time, but I have laid it down that a reasonable period is a fortnight, and within the provisions, within the power of the available staff, that instruction is being carried out. But the point is this, that Union nationals who are interned are given this reasonable time of a written summary of the charges against him. They have the right of answering these charges; they can obtain legal assistance if they want to, and the procedure which has been explained ad nauseum in this House is then followed. But no Union national is interned before evidence is placed before the Chief Control Officer, which prima facie shows that that person has been guilty of subversive conduct. We do not intern Union nationals simply at the request of the police or at my own request, or any other Minister or officials’ request. The Chief Control Officer must have evidence before him before he interns any person. When that person is interned he is sent to an appropriate internment camp. Formerly the Union nationals went to Ganspan. Now they go to Koffiefontein. They have the right of appeal. Now let me say this in regard to internments, that for every case of internment of a Union National probably thirty have been warned. The suggestion has been made that I or the Chief Control Officer or some other official light heartedly send persons to the internment camps, that we have no regard for the sentiments of these people, and that we do so for political or other reasons. Let me once again give the assurance to hon. members that before any Union National is interned his case is most carefully sifted by the police, the local Control Officer, who is a magistrate, the Chief Control Officer, who is a most experienced official, a former Commissioner of Police, and ultimately by myself in discussion with the Chief Control Officer, and for every Union National who is interned, probably at least thirty have been warned. Many cases have been put up for internment, and the Chief Control Officer after due investigation, has considered that it may be better not to intern but to warn the person concerned, to point out the error of his ways, and give him the chance to behave himself. On the other hand, we have a system of detention or questioning under the Emergency Regulations promulgated by the Minister of Justice.

When did you start this system of warning?

It has been going on for the last two and a half years.

It shows how ignorant they are.

We want proof of it.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn, who apparently does not accept my word.

I did not say that.

If my hon. friend would like to come to me or to the Chief Control Officer (Col. Truter) either he or I would be able to give him abundant proof of the system which is in force, and that for every Union National who has been interned at least thirty have been warned.

That is not the question; the question is whether these Union Nationals who are interned have been warned.

I am not suggesting that. Do hon. members opposite suggest that when a Union National has been in touch with a Gestapo agent outside this country or has tried to blow up vital installations or has done work of a similar vital nature, that we should warn him before interning him?

In that case you could charge him before a court of law.

It is not always possible to do so. Those hon. members who are lawyers know that one may have evidence which is perfectly clear but from the point of view of a court of law it will not substantiate a charge.

That should also apply in peace time.

Let me give one example. One may have the example of a Union national who has been in touch with enemy agents. Whereas it may be difficult to produce the information in a court of law, it may be perfectly clear that that person has been in touch with enemy agents. The only inference is that that person has been in touch with enemy agents, not for the benefit of South Africa, but when we have had sabotage as we have had in this country on an extensive scale … I am drawing a distinction between internment and detention for questioning. That has been instituted by regulations promulgated by the Minister of Justice, and I cannot deal with that tonight. That is a matter for my colleague. The suggestion has been made that certain persons have been kept in gaol or interned at Koffiefontein and allegations have been made in regard to that. My answer is that the persons referred to by hon. members had been detained for questioning in terms of a regulation promulgated by the Minister of Justice. The only persons who have been so detained are persons suspected of having participated in or having knowledge of sabotage operations. It was an extraordinary measure introduced to deal with an extraordinary and most dangerous situation.

By an extraordinary Minister.

By a most able Minister, may I say. May I just say in this regard how my hon. friends opposite in an irresponsible fashion used the racial string for their own particular purposes. I am not referring to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) but to an hon. member who made the suggestion that because I am English speaking I have no time for the Afrikaners. When hon. members of the Opposition refer to internments, they refer to a Minister who has an English name and who is English speaking, and they say that because he is English speaking he is the most hated man in South Africa.

No, he did not say that.

The hon. Gauleiter for Mossel Bay was obviously not in the House at the time.

Order, order.

May I ask whether it is in order for the hon. Minister to call an hon. member the hon. Gauleiter for Mossel Bay?

I don’t think the hon. Minister should use the term.

It was a lapsis lingua. Probably it was wishful thinking on the part of the hon. member for Mossel Bay that made me make that lapse. Surely hon. members opposite who accused me as an English speaking South African of being unfriendly to my fellow Afrikaners, I who have never been out of the country, have no justification. When they speak of the Minister of Justice, who is a full-blooded Afrikaner, they use another argument. They do not say he is wrong because he is English speaking, but because he is an Afrikaner.

He has been contaminated by you.

Let me just say this, that in the matter of internment, most careful consideration is given to each case. It is not an easy task for any Minister to have to deal with fellow-South Africans.

Why do it then? Why not leave it to the courts?

Because it is a duty imposed on the Minister in time of war, and I propose to carry out that duty. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) who charged me with being unfriendly to the Opposition, and the Afrikaans speaking section, told me a story the other day, and I propose to tell it to this House, because I do feel that these charges should not be thrown about in this House.

Purely in confidence.

No, it was not in confidence. I say that these charges can do a terrific amount of harm in the country. If the suggestion is made that an English speaking Minister who is dealing with fellow Afrikaners is inimical towards them, it can cause a tremendous amount of harm because people in the platteland believe it. They feel that the Minister is someone out of sympathy with them, one who may not know their background, and with that sort of thing in time of war, if that idea is fostered by hon. members of the Opposition, they are taking a great responsibility. The hon. member for Victoria West, who made that charge against me, told me the other day when he had an official interview with me in regard to internments, that he had had a case of a man who had not been interned, because apparently the chief control officer had considered it was not a case for internment. The man had been charged before the court with making a subversive statement in terms of the emergency regulations, and he was convicted by the magistrate. The hon. member for Victoria West, who has accused me as an English speaking South African, of being out of sympathy with the Afrikaners, told me that he was thankful that the magistrate who tried the case was an English speaking South African, because, he said, that if he had not been an English speaking South African, he probably would have been convicted because of the disunion between Afrikaans speaking people in this country.

You think you are right in repeating these interviews you have with Opposition members? The hon. member for Victoria West is not here.

I am not repeating a Lobby conversation. If hon. members tell me one thing in my office when they see me officially, and then come to this House and tell the country that I, as an English speaking person am prejudiced against South Africans, I am entitled to tell the House and the country what they say elsewhere. Another charge that has been made is that a number of innocent persons have been released. That is not so. I know of only two cases, and those were cases which occurred before I was in charge of internments. I know of only two cases where persons have been interned as the result of false affidavits. They were released and the person responsible for the affidavit was charged before the court. Many persons have been released. Let me give the figures. The suggestion is that countless persons have been interned, and that we are acting in a most irresponsible fashion. But the position is that since the beginning of the war 220 Union nationals by birth, and 139 Union nationals by naturalisation, have been interned, making a total of 357. Of these, 75 Union nationals by birth and 50 by naturalisation have been released, a total of 125. In other words, out of a total of 357, more than a third have been released. At the present time there are in internment camps in the Union 153 Union nationals by birth, and 79 by naturalisation. Of the 153, 129 were born in the Union, 22 in South-West Africa, and two in neighbouring territories. Those who were Union nationals by naturalisation I do not deal with tonight. The bulk of them were Germans, and we have evidence against them that naturalisation was effected by them purely for business or economic reasons, and they never intended to become true South Africans. Of the 153 Union nationals by birth, 22 are from SouthWest Africa, probably born of German parents, and stated openly that they did not want to lodge an appeal against internment, because they are not Union nationals but German nationals through and through. I give these figures to fling back to the Opposition the challenge which they have made, that countless Union nationals have been interned. The figures show that that is not correct. If it is suggested that these people are being treated in a most brutal fashion, the fact that more than a third have been released is a sufficient answer. The reason they have been released is not necessarily that they were innocent, but that the chief control officer felt that they could be released with safety to the State. They have had a period of internment, they have probably realised that they must not carry on in the same way again, and they have been released subject to control. That system has been proved to be very effective. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), who is here tonight, and other hon. members, said that we have no time for, no sympathy with and no understanding of the South Africans who have been interned, that many of them are young men who have been wrongly influenced, and if they were only given a chance all would be well. I want to tell the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) who raised this question of release on parole, of one unfortunate experience which we had. Both the chief control officer and myself have always felt that apart from people who have taken part in sabotage, if any of these people show that they may reasonably be released, we would consider their cases. But this was a case of a young man named Stadler, a student at Pretoria University. He was apprehended by the police for attempting to get back to Portuguese East Africa about 4 o’clock one morning. He had an unlicensed revolver in his possession and a large amount of ammunition, and there was evidence that he was in touch with German agents in Portuguese East Africa. He was interned. He was a young man of about 21 years. About six months afterwards very strong representations were made from a number of quarters asking for his release. It was suggested that he was a young man who had fallen under wrong influences, and that if he were allowed to return to the university he would be looked after and could carry on with his academic career. Assurances were given by high authority in the university and the young man was released. He took an oath that he would do nothing to hinder the present Government in its war effort. We did not ask him to vote for this Government, or to work for the Government, but asked him to take an oath that he would not by word or deed attempt to hinder this Government in its war effort. He was not back long at the university when he disappeared. The next thing that happened was that he was in company with Robey Leibbrandt in the Louis Trichardt area. Hon. members may remember that there were attacks made on a number of farmers, and a very courageous woman, the wife of a farmer, with a shotgun went out and shot at the attackers. At a subsequent stage, the police captured this young man in a stolen car, and there was irrefutable evidence that he had been there and some of the shots were found in a vulnerable portion of his anatomy. I may say he was not facing the enemy when he did it. He was also found with Leibbrandt. That young man is now doing six months’ imprisonment, and when he comes out he will go back to the internment camp. We had the case of another young man named Theron, who impersonated a soldier and got a rifle away from a man.

[Inaudible.]

So my hon. friends are yellow, like their colleagues in the Far East; they don’t like the truth.

Mr. Chairman, may I appeal to you, is it in order for the hon. Minister to say that hon. members here are yellow like their colleagues in the Far East?

I should like to read to the hon. Minister Rule 73, which says—

You are handling this matter very badly.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I also criticised; and has the Minister the right to tell me that the yellow races of the East are my colleagues, and that I am just as yellow as they are? It is the biggest and the most rude insult which any person has ever flung at me.

What is the point of order?

We cannot permit such things, and the point of order which I raise is whether the Minister should not withdraw this statement. These are the insults which are hurled at us.

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you to order the Minister to withdraw the words “yellow like their colleagues in the Far East.”

I am quite prepared to withdraw the words “like their colleagues in the Far East.” I am quite prepared to withdraw that. I have no wish to be offensive.

You cannot help yourself.

You are not succeeding in your wish. That is the nastiest remark made in this House for a long time.

My friends over there are very susceptible to any sort of criticism. I was dealing with the case of a young man who had been given his chance. I was about to deal with this young man Theron. He was not interned, he was given a chance, but what happened? The next thing that happened was that that young man was blown up in attempting to dynamite the line to Lourenco Marques. If he had been interned he would be alive today, but through the clemency of the Government he was able to take this course, and he is now dead. Certain hon. members have asked about the expenses incurred by the South African Government on behalf of other governments, the United Kingdom, the Governments of East Africa and Kenya, on behalf of internees. The position is that all internees held by us in South Africa on behalf of these governments are held here at the expense of those respective governments. We have received thus far £287,770. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has asked what is the policy in regard to visits to internment camps. The position is this. Quite obviously the director could not allow the general public or members of Parliament to visit internment camps every day, but members of Parliament have been allowed to visit these camps, and other people have visited internees in respect of their legal interests. I would be quite prepared to allow a delegation of members of Parliament from all sides of the House to visit these camps. I have already agreed to allow a delegation from the churches, and in this connection I would like to say that it is incorrect to say that spiritual guidance may not be given to internees, particularly to Union nationals. A deputation was informed the other day that if they would like to nominate someone to visit the camp at Koffiefontein, an approved predikant would be allowed to visit. There is one inmate of that camp who is already dealing with the spiritual needs of persons there. If it is necessary to have someone from outside, I have no objection whatever to that course being adopted. I have been impressed by what hon. members have said in regard to the shortness of the visits. A restriction in regard to this was imposed at the beginning of 1941, as the result of very difficult positions which existed in all our internment camps. There was a good deal of lack of discipline. We had instances of visitors bringing in contraband articles, wire cutters and implements which could be used as shovels for the purposes of escape.

Any aeroplanes or tanks?

No, but we did have wireless sets and things of that sort, and it was necessary to impose very severe restrictions. I want to tell the House that I am quite prepared to ask the Director of Internment Camps to review the position in regard to visits to Union nationals. I would like to know from my friends opposite, who can help me in the matter, whether, if greater facilities are given, visiting relatives and wives would be prepared to be examined, searched in fact before their visit, or whether the internees themselves should be searched. I am not laying down any hard and fast rules tonight, but I want to make it clear that if any further facilities are given they must be given in consonance with all reasonable precautions, to ensure that contraband articles are not introduced into the camps. I can give an assurance tonight that I am prepared to review the position, and if hon. members opposite have any suggestions, I am prepared to consider them. The hon. member for Winburg referred to the case of Dr. Kuhlne. It is not usual to refer to specific cases, but Dr. Kuhlne is an unnaturalised German who was interned. He was released for a time because the medical authorities felt that it was in the interests of his health that he should be released. Normally, the rule is that we do not release persons from internment camps on grounds of health unless the senior medical officer considers it essential, because we have hospitals and medical treatment, but he was released because it was considered essential for health reasons that he should be. He was apparently not able to do any work. We have evidence of his pro-Nazi activities. The next thing that occurred some months afterwards was that he proposed to go to SouthWest Africa and resume practice there. It was felt by the internment authorities that if he was fit enough to go to Windhoek to resume his practice, he was fit enough to go back to the internment camp, and therefore he was sent back. I have asked for a medical report from the senior officer.

I read you the medical report.

If that report is confirmed by the senior medical officer, I am prepared to consider the question of release, but let me say this, sometimes it is possible to get a report which is favourable but not decisive. Now I leave the question of internment camps and come to the question of mentally defective children, which was raised by the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz) and Roodepoort (Mr. Allen). It is a difficult question and I quite agree that it is necessary that some provision should be made for these mentally defective children. The difficulty so far is the question of priority. We have at the present time a shortage of accommodation for mentally diseased persons. The hon. member asked me to go into the question of temporary accommodation. I am prepared to go into that, but I cannot hold out any very great hope at the present moment. We are only just making a start with a new mental hospital in the Bellville area, which will take the place of Valkenberg and Valkenberg will not be vacated for at least two years. I realise that the question is of importance, but it is largely a matter of priority and of finance. I now come to the hon. member for Winburg and the statement I made on the third reading of the Bill for extending the life of Provincial Councils. In my reply on the third reading I stated that a letter had been received from the Executive of the Free State Provincial Council asking for the life of the council to be prolonged in order to enable the time table to be put right, so that subsequent elections could take place in respect of the same constituencies as the Parliamentary ones. The hon. member said that I promised to lay papers on the Table of the House and that I did not do so, that I was incorrect in what I said and was deliberately misleading the House.

No, I did not say deliberately, I said recklessly.

I want to say quite frankly that I was incorrect in saying that the Free State Executive had asked me to postpone the election on the ground of putting the time table right. The suggestion has been made that I did this quite irresponsibly in order to bolster up the case for the Bill, and that I failed to explain the position afterwards. I have looked at Hansard. I see the report was not revised by me, I mention that to show the rush of work at the time, but it is quite clear from the report that I did say—I was speaking from memory at the time—I did say as the result of a remark made by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein), I was reminded that a letter had been written to me by the Secretary to the Provincial Council Executive. I never based my case for the Bill on that letter, as my second reading speech shows quite clearly.

You made a debating point of it.

I admit I made a debating point of it, I mentioned it in my second reading speech in order to show that the Free State had asked for a prolongation of the life of the Provincial Council, but I am prepared to admit that it was not on the ground that I thought they did.

Nothing to do with the new delimitation?

Then on the second point, it has been suggested that I should then have laid the papers on the Table or have seen my hon. friend. I said that I was prepared to lay the papers on the Table, and I think, Mr. Chairman, that is evidence that I was not out deliberately to mislead the House. If I was out to do that I would not have made that statement. After the debate had finished, I sent for the papers from Pretoria, and I then found I was in error as to the grounds I had stated. I then asked my private secretary to see the hon. member for Winburg and he attempted to do so, but the hon. member had left for the North, and he was away for at least a fortnight.

No, I have never been away for a fortnight.

Well, I do not know the details. I am only giving my hon. friend the facts. I asked my private secretary to see him, and to discuss matters with him, and I was quite prepared to give him the papers so that he could make what use he wished of them. He was away then— through inadvertance it was not brought to my notice. I ask my hon. friend to believe that.

I quite believe that, but why did you not lay the papers on the Table?

If my hon. friend thought I was trying to hide something, why did he not ask me? The Free State asked me to prolong the life of the Provincial Council—they wanted the new registration of voters to come into effect. At the 3rd reading I mentioned this matter and I confused the two issues. Finally, the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) has referred to the Information Bureau. He made a severe attack not only on the Press but on the advisory council of publicity. He suggested I had put up a Committee which was looking after the interests of a certain newspaper group in this country. He mentioned the names of English speaking members of the Committee but he totally failed to inform the House of the Afrikaans speaking members of that Committee. There are on that particular Committee not only the four members he mentioned but there was Mr. Coetzee, who was the Editor of the “Volkstem,” there was Mr. Esselen, Col. Kreft and Col. Werdmuller, four Afrikaans speaking members. That Committee was appointed to assist the Bureau of Information on publicity generally. If a Government wants expert advice it must go to experts, to the people doing the job, and the suggestion that these people were out to feather their own nests is unworthy, and one which cannot be supported by evidence. The hon. member said that I had to dance to the tune of that Committee. It is only advisory, many of its suggestions have been turned down by me and by the Director of Information and the charges made by the hon. member are without any foundation. That Committee has done very valuable work in suggesting schemes, publicity schemes, to the Government. The members of the Committee are men of integrity, men who are not going to sacrifice their careers and all they stand for for the motives suggested by the hon. member for Fordsburg. It was a most unworthy suggestion. That Committee has done most valuable work and I am glad it is still carrying on, and I can assure the hon. member that as a result of that Committee’s work certain steps are being taken at present which I hope will result in a complete coordination of publicity between the various departments, namely the Bureau of Information, the Department of Defence, and the Director-General of War Supplies.

I think everyone who listened this evening to the Minister of the Interior will involuntarily get the impression that something of the slums of Cape Town still clings to the Minister. I think that a more insulting speech against members of the Opposition has certainly not yet been made in this House.

Order. The hon. member must not enlarge upon that.

Very well, I bow to your ruling. In his reply this evening to the criticism made by this side, the Minister started by referring us to the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom). He told us that that hon. member had praised the internment camps after he had been there. Only one point was mentioned by the hon. member for Aliwal which was satisfactory, and that is the food which these people get. But the hon. member raised eight points, and he was still discussing them in order to show what the position is in the internment camps. There is the position, for example, that when people visit the internees, they have to stand on the other side of the fence as though they were talking to criminals. The Minister himself admitted that that is the position. Now the Minister wants to create the impression that our criticism of his policy was unfair. But we point out how the Minister treats these people, how they are treated like murderers and criminals. We protest against that, and in excuse, the Minister said that two people had been released, namely, Mr. Stadler and Mr. Theron, and that they committed certain crimes after they had been released from the camp.

Not Theron; he was not interned.

But you mentioned his name.

Theron was not interned.

Why then do you mention him? You gave all of us the impression that he was interned.

He was warned.

Our whole debate concerned the question of internment. But our position is even stronger now, because now we only have one person who was released from the internment camps, and who then proceeded to commit a crime. Does that justify the Minister in keeping approximately 300 citizens in the gaols? I state again, what I have previously said, that these people have no right of redress in any of our courts, but that they are left to the mercy of officials who are unsympathetic towards Afrikaners, and who have been placed in charge of the internment camps. It is not the slightest excuse for the Minister to mention the case of Stadler and further to keep other innocent people in gaol on the strength of that. But let me tell the Minister that the day of reckoning will come, the day of revenge. I do not know whether the Minister realises what that means. The Minister will not escape it. You can carry on besmirching us here. The Minister will not always be in office, and the time is approaching when this side will be in power and then the Minister will have to give an account of the things he did here. But I want to mention another case, that of the manager of the Koffiehuis in Pretoria. He is a naturalised citizen of this country. He is interned, and in reply to the question as to why he was interned, it was said that he was interned because he is a German subject. This was the reply shown to me in Pretoria last week: “Because he is a German subject.”

He was a member of the Sabotage Corps.

Is that an organisation?

Was he a member of it?

Yes.

But why then the reply “Because he is a German subject?” He is a citizen of our country, and the information which was given is that he was interned because he is a German subject. That was done after you had deprived him of his vote. These people are therefore deprived of the vote simply in order to intern them as soon as you get the chance.

He still has the vote; it has not yet been taken away.

Why then do you write “Because he is a German subject”? Are you mad or insane? This was the letter which was received in Pretoria, namely, that this man was interned because he is a German subject. But in the short time at my disposal I want to deal with another matter, and that is in connection with the two books which were banned by the Minister, namely, “Helkampe” and “Hoe Zy Stierven.” The Minister’s excuse is that these books have now been translated into Afrikaans and reprinted. If a book is translated into Afrikaans from High Dutch, must the book be banned? That is the argument of the Minister, and then he said further that the Nationalist Government had also banned “Turning Wheels.” That book is one of the filthiest and lowest books which has ever been written in connection with our people, and the Minister wants to compare it with history books, books which contain historical facts.

I said that I did not place them in the same category.

Then the Minister ought not to mention that as one of his excuses. We hope that the Minister will study these books and see whether they are not historically correct. The Minister admits that he merely acted on the recommendation of his commission. I do not know who they are, but they must be people without a sense of responsibility, or people who have no feeling for the Afrikaner nation. I shall be glad to get the names of the members of that commission, which recommended that two Afrikaans books which have now been read in the country for more than 30 years, and which were written on purely historical facts, should be banned. These books must now be banned, because after 30 years the English speaking people are supposed to feel sore about these books. Why did they not feel sore before this time? They know that these are facts which are recorded in these books, but the Minister wants to humiliate the Afrikaners still further and to trample upon them. I want to tell the Minister that this type of deed only makes the Afrikaner stronger. We shall not tolerate our being trampled upon continually. We shall resist until we eventually get justice in South Africa. English books may write badly about Afrikanerdom, but they are not banned. But when you have an historical book from the Afrikaans side, which describes the facts about the War of Independence, and which describes how our people died in the “murder camps,” then these books must be banned and they may not be read. I can only tell the Minister that these books have never had a better advertisement. In future they will be read on a larger scale. He awakens the youth of South Africa, which is proud of its history. He will gain nothing by these oppressive measures. I just want to ask the Minister to lift this ban; I want to advise him to do so, because in passing this type of measure, he engenders a feeling on the part of the Afrikaners against the English, which is stronger than it has ever been in South Africa. [Time limit.]

Upon the vote for the Minister of the Interior I wish to discuss the administration of the Mental Disorders Act, with the object of drawing attention to the grave danger to which the public is exposed through the abuse of the provisions of that Act.

I think this should be discussed on Vote 31.

It is a matter of policy. I should like to discuss it now, if the Minister of the Interior has no objection.

I regret that I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss it now.

I have already consulted the Chairman, I understood I was to be allowed to discuss it on this vote.

I regret that the Chair has not given the hon. member permission to discuss it now.

I think that if ever a Minister in this House has tried to defend a weak case with even weaker arguments, then it was the Minister of the Interior this evening. In reply to the question put to him as to why, if he is so convinced of the guilt of the internees, he does not bring them to trial under the laws of the country or under the emergency regulations, he said that in many cases they are convinced that a person is guilty, but that they would not be able to prove it in court. That is the best reason which can exist why the man should not be interned. If the Minister cannot prove his guilt! Then he simply interns people on suspicion. But assuming that that is the case in connection with some cases, does the Minister want to tell us this evening that in all those cases where Union citizens were interned, he was convinced of their guilt, but that he could not prove it? Does he want us to believe such nonsense? I admit that there may be exceptional cases where the Minister is convinced in his heart of the guilt of people, but where he will not be able to convince the court. But does the Minister want to tell this House that that is the case in connection with all the Union citizens who were interned? Another argument which was used is that it is in the interests of these people themselves that they should not be tried. I again want to throw out this invitation to the Minister on behalf of these people. They will all welcome it if they are tried. The Minister must not shield behind the statement that it is supposedly in the interests of the internees themselves not to be charged before a court, because the internees do not want that protection. What they demand is to have the right to appear before a court, and to prove their innocence, or, rather, to enable the Minister to prove their guilt. The Minister knows as well as I do that there are quite a number of cases where people were interned on false charges. The Minister shakes his head.

Only two cases.

If there are two cases in which it has appeared that the people concerned were falsely accused, then it stands to reason that there are many other cases too where people were interned on false charges. But let me take the two cases. I refer to the railway engineer. He was twice interned, and on both occasions on a false charge, and he was twice released from the camp. Then we have the case of the two brothers Arndt of Bloemfontein. If one goes into the matter, one will find many more cases. But now I want to ask the Minister whether any single person who committed perjury, on the strength of which people were interned, has been brought to trial? If not, why not? The railway engineer concerned was twice interned on false statements. Were these people prosecuted on the ground of perjury? The brothers Arndt were prosecuted as a result of perjured statements. Has a single perjurer been brought to trial? If not, why not? In that case the Minister is encouraging people to commit perjury, simply because they want to wreak vengeance on some decent Union citizen or other. I have never listened to weaker arguments from a Minister. The Minister stated this evening that as many as 125 Union citizens who were interned had been released again.

Seventy-five.

How many of the seventy-five were interned as a result of false charges against them?

Two.

I have already mentioned at least three, and I am certain that other hon. members can mention other cases.

Is not the fact that people are released the best reply to your accusation?

No, the fact that they were released supports my statement that they were interned on false charges. Has the Minister brought any of the false accusers before the court? No, the Minister is encouraging people to make false statements. With regard to the treatment of internees, I want to mention one case because I discussed it with the Minister personally, and that is the case of Mr. Erasmus. He was interned. I do not know whether that was also done on a false charge. I leave it at that, because I only want to talk about the treatment meted out to these people. Within two weeks two of the sons of Mr. Erasmus were killed; one was shot by the police, and the other lost his life as a result of a dynamite explosion. The father was interned. His wife was allowed to see him for half an hour during a month. The death of the two sons of the internee, as well as the fact that he was financially ruined as a result of the internment, had such an effect upon him that the Director of Internment Camps himself made this statement—

This Mr. Erasmus is today a broken man in body and soul, and also with regard to worldly goods. He is ruined financially. His wife begs the Minister and the officials who are responsible for his internment to release him in the circumstances. In the condition in which he is at the moment he would not, even if he wanted to, be able to do any harm.

I have already said that I am prepared to investigate the matter.

I know, and for that reason I plead that he should be released. It is a sin against mankind and humanity to keep a man in an internment camp in these circumstances. I hope that these representations will be heeded by the Minister and that this poor man will be released. Here you have a poor woman who visits her husband for half an hour per month, and then she has to travel from Warmbad in the Transvaal to Koffiefontein. They have already been ruined financially, and now she has to pay the travelling expenses in order to be with her husband for half an hour.

I have already said that I will consider the question of additional and longer visits.

I hope the Minister realises how cruel it is, and that he will bring about a change.

It will be considered, subject to proper safeguards.

What can such a woman do with her husband now? Will she be able to spirit him away?

Some of them try to bring in tools.

Then I come to the district surgeoncy at Warmbad.

That falls under public health.

I can discuss it here under the Minister’s salary.

I have already ruled that such points are to be discussed under the vote under which they fall.

How many rulings must we still get? I would like to bow to your ruling, but it has been ruled time and again that the Minister’s policy can be discussed when his salary is voted.

On a point of order, there are two separate departments, two separate portfolios. The one is Interior and the other Public Health. There is a separate head of the Department of the Interior and a separate head of the Department of Public Health.

But there is only one Minister.

The hon. member must bring up the matter under Public Health, under the appropriate vote. He cannot expect the Department of the Interior to be responsible for the Department of Public Health.

I wish to express my strongest support for the action of the Minister in suppressing in war time publications which may excite racial animosity, whether that purpose is designed or not.

Then he should suppress the Municipalities too.

I should like to refer to the speech by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) in this debate. The hon. member said that one of the chief causes of racial division in South Africa was the action of Sir Charles Somerset in connection with the Slagtersnek episode.

Hear, hear.

The hon. member says “hear, hear,” showing how deeply that poison has sunk into the hearts of the Afrikaner people. I regard it as deplorable that wildly inaccurate statements in South Africa during the past hundred and thirty years over this episode have caused a feeling in the minds of one section of the community that the British Government was to blame for the Slagtersnek episode.

And so it was.

I have before me a book entitled “Lord Milner and South Africa.”

Good Lord.

A book by Iwan Müller, a gentleman whose paternal grandfather was a Russian.

A Bolshevik, I suppose.

I hope you are not suggesting I should ban it.

I quote his country of origin with the idea of proving that he was impartial.

He says on page 12—

From the foregoing narrative compiled from the records supplied by Pringle and Cloete, who were virtually contemporary witnesses, it will be seen that the affairs of Slagter’s Nek had nothing to do with British Government. Everybody connected with the affair, with the exception of the officers called in to assist the agents of the law, was of Dutch, Franco-Dutch or Afrikander origin. The magistrates were Dutch, the judges were Dutch, all the officials connected with the court were Dutch, Dutch the law which had been defied, Dutch the law which passed sentence, Dutch the language in which the proceedings of the Court were conducted. The English Governor’s sole contribution was the reprieve of one of the ringleaders on the recommendation of Col. Cuyler, an English officer of Dutch origin.

They don’t say who the hangman was.

His name was Bohle. I want to quote another extract from this book on page 13—

According to Canon Knox-Little, there was a yet more dramatic sequel to the story which is not recorded in any of the earlier narratives. In his sketches in South Africa he writes in this wise: “When honestly and fully told, the story redounds to the credit of the Cape Government. The convicted men did certainly deserve punishment in the interests of public order, but the Governor rightly deemed the execution of the extreme sentence unjustly harsh. He reprieved the criminals. The FieldCornet on whom the duty of carrying out the execution devolved, for some reason of his own, played the part of Martin Relph, not from exactly the same motive but probably from some motive of private spite. He had in his possession at the time of the execution the Governor’s order for the pardon of the incriminated prisoners, and he suppressed it. But so sure was he that he himself would be punished for his iniquity that he committed suicide. Will it be believed that the latter part of the story has been often omitted for party purpose?”

That is a new one on me.

The point I want to make is this, that the British Government is blamed, and consistently blamed, and it is a deplorable state of affairs that that should be in this country.

“A Century of Wrong” says that it is true.

In the Cambridge History of South Africa, it is expressly stated that from 1806 to 1815 the British Government did not take over the administration of the Cape, they were merely in military occupation until the conclusion of the Vienna Congress in June, 1815, under which the Cape of Good Hope was ceded to Great Britain. The Cambridge History says that during this period from 1806 to 1815, the Dutch system of local government, justice and police, each with its own personnel, was left intact, landrosts, heemraden and field-cornets were for the most part the same people and ran local affairs as before. There we have a case where our section of the community is blamed for something which they had nothing to do with, although they were held responsible. I regard it as most regrettable that it should be revived, and revived as it has been, by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne).

The Minister wanted to give us to understand this evening that no one is interned unless the control officer, whether it be the local police or magistrate, or the head which he appointed in connection with internments, has a good witness who accuses such a person. If it is the case that people are only interned on the strength of good information possessed by these people, why then is the Minister unwilling to place the internees in possession of the charges which are made against them? We ask the Minister to inform people who are interned who the persons are by whom they are accused, so that they may have the opportunity of denying the statements made against them. Then they will be in a position to show that the information which was received and upon which they were interned was prejudiced or not reliable.

I do not follow you.

The Minister says that no one is interned unless the control officer has reliable evidence that such a person is guilty. Now I ask whether the names of those people who make accusations cannot be brought to the notice of the internee. If the Minister does not do that, he merely has ex parte evidence. Many of these people are interned on evidence which is not reliable. These people who make the accusations may be motivated by certain improper reasons. I have been told that certain persons are being detained on the strength of charges which are made against them, and even on the strength of sworn statements, by school children. But then it is also said that that same person may bring ten other sworn statements which prove that the sworn statement upon which he was interned is untrue, but that does not help. These people are interned on evidence which is not sufficiently strong, and which is contradicted in many cases by stronger evidence. With regard to the treatment received by the internees, I just want to tell the Minister this. The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) said this evening that the treatment in the internment camps, insofar as food is concerned, is not too bad. The Minister forgets, however, that he added that insofar as their food is concerned, it is good because they prepare it themselves, and I think that that is undoubtedly the case. If that food had not been prepared by them, I am quite convinced that it would not have been as good. We have that proof in connection with the gaols. There the food is much poorer than in the internment camp, for the simple reason that the internees themselves prepare their food.

The hon. member for Aliwal said that the food which the internees received was the same as the food which the guards received.

Yes, but they prepare it themselves. The raw food, the meat and the vegetables, may be the same, but they prepare it; they are trained persons, and for that reason their food is better than the food given to the prisoners in the gaols. With regard to the visits, I just want to tell the Minister this. I am glad to hear that he now proposes to give better facilities to the internees. I just want to tell him, since he now wants to pride himself on the fact that the treatment which these people receive in the internment camp is reasonable, that the food which they get is not the main question; these people in the internment camps feel that it is not the food which they get, nor the barricades, which make it gaol for them, but other things which make it humiliating for them, viz., that in their own country they do not get a trial. Furthermore, they object to the uncertain period of the internment, the uncertainty of the term of internment; and then the humiliation which they have to suffer when their relations visit them, in that their relations have to talk to them under the supervision of guards, with those barricades between them. For that reason many of the internees at Koffiefontein said: “We do not want our relations to visit us here, because it is humiliating that they should see us under such circumstances.” These people are not ordinary criminals. The most that can be said of them is that they are political prisoners, and because they are merely political prisoners they should not be treated in such a humiliating manner. I am glad that the hon. Minister proposes to extend the time which is allowed to them for the purpose of receiving visitors.

Perhaps more than once per month.

And then, too, the relations of the internees have to travel long distances; they frequently have to travel hundreds of miles to reach the internment camp. I want to ask the Minister to allow them to pay two or three visits within a short space of time. Many of them go there for business purposes. I am glad to hear that the Minister proposes to improve the position. Then in connection with the post and other articles which the internees receive, why cannot these people receive more letters than they receive today? What harm is there in their being written to or in their writing to their relations? They are not allowed to receive or to write more than a certain number of letters. Why those humiliating provisions? I want to ask the Minister to take this question into review. With regard to articles, one finds the same limitations. I received a letter today from a woman who sent fruit to an internee. The fruit never arrived there. She writes in regard to the fruit and, inter alia, she says—

Is that a Union national?

Yes, he is a Union national.

Will you give me the particulars?

Yes, I shall do so. Here is a woman who writes that she sent fruit and other articles to her husband. And then with regard to reading matter: surely these people are not the riff-raff of the country?. Why cannot they at least get the newspapers which they want? They are allowed to receive Government newspapers, but they are not allowed to receive the newspapers of other parties. What is the reason for that? Is the Government afraid that they will set in motion an election in the camp? It seems so petty, and it is petty, to deprive those people of the right of reading then own newspapers. I want to ask the hon. Minister to discontinue that pettiness. [Time limit.]

I only want to say a few words on two points, and the first is in regard to the Civilian Protective Services. It seems to me that the coast boroughs are in a different position and a quite different category from the inland towns, no matter how important these may be. Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London and Durban are of the first importance not only as towns, but as assets in the conduct of this defensive war. I submit that they are of the first importance to our allies, they are tremendously important as receiving centres of food and other essential supplies, and they are tremendously important as ultimate bases of our trade. These seaports are a general asset, and insofar as they are performing a vital national service, the State should make certain provision for their needed extra defence. I suggest that more particularly because the cost, which would be very considerable, could be recoverable by the State under its Emergency Regulations from people who are making large sums of money out of this present war, and who are very well able to afford it. The corporation can raise money in one way and one way only, by a rate upon its citizens, and that would manifestly press very unfairly upon the poorest people, who are not making any extra money and, conceivably, are finding that they have only the same amount of money to meet vastly increased expenditure. I say that the seaports, so far as defence at the moment is concerned, are in a specially difficult position and should receive special treatment and financial help from the Government of the country. They should not only receive financial help, but a very necessary measure of control. We have in Durban roughly 60,000 Europeans, 60,000 Indians and 60,000 other non-Europeans, and the management of these in a state of emergency is not a job for any harassed and preoccupied town council, or any special town councillor, even if you put him into a military uniform and give him a majority or lieut.-colonel’s rank. It is too big a job for any readymade or quickly-made soldier. The man in charge should hold at least the rank of a full colonel; he should have soldiered before and been under fire, and he should, for preference, have had experience in a town which has actually been under bombardment. We hope none of these emergencies will happen, but they may, and it is precisely because they may that we have these organisations at all. I suggest the time has come when the matter should be under a supreme military authority at each port. The arrangement is that if any emergency and when any emergency arises, the commandant of the garrison takes charge. But I submit that at that stage the officer commanding the garrison would have plenty to do with his troops. It would be difficult for him at a moment’s notice to exercise authority over civilians unused to such control. Something might happen which I have seen happen in France in another war, with civilians under the feet of the soldiers, entirely in the way of the soldiers and preventing any sort of systematic military defence. I recommend that the command in each port should now be placed in the officer commanding the fortress, and that this should not be put off to be fixed up when the emergency is literally and actually upon us. I am very uneasy also with regard to air raid shelters, and the position in Durban in particular. We have a certain number of “pill boxes” on the beach and a certain amount of disconcerting barbed wire, which is probably very uncomfortable and inconvenient if one wants to bathe. But of air raid shelters we have none, and I suggest to the Government that pressure should be brought to bear where necessary to provide these shelters without further delay for that proportion of the population which must work on whatever the emergency. The ports must be kept open. Dockyard activities must continue, and essential work proceed without interruption. That will take a certain percentage of the population, perhaps a quarter, and they will have to work whatever happens, and for them shelters should surely be provided and not merely talked about.

I may tell the hon. member that we are having a conference on Thursday.

I hope it will pass from conference to action. In Durban we have conferred about it for two years, and according to my information we still have no shelters whatever. I am of opinion that they are absolutely necessary, and the sooner they are provided the better. The figure of £2,000,000 was mentioned to me by the mayor as being the sum required to provide effective shelters for all concerned. The city engineer mentioned the amount of £1,000,000. That is an enormous sum of money, beyond the power of the Durban Municipality to produce on demand. Perhaps the Minister will suggest to the Government that aid should be given and means devised so that this might not be dead money altogether. If such shelters were provided they might come in useful afterwards as storages of some kind, or even as car parking places. One other matter I want to mention is the position of nurses who have gone on military service without the leave of the Provincial authorities. Some of them have pensionable service amounting to eighteen or twenty years, and have forfeited their rights in this respect. The Matron in Chief for our armed forces made a very powerful appeal and plea for qualified nurses to come to the aid of our wounded and invalided soldiers, an appeal which patriotic women could hardly ignore or refuse. Hundreds responded, and it seems very unfair to penalise them for their generous impulse and action. I believe an agreement has now been made that Defence will accept no further volunteers without the express consent of the Provincial authority. If this is so, I hope the present time is opportune to put in a plea for condonation of these nurses who joined without permission. It seems to me the Government is just as wicked in taking them as they were in leaving their posts.

The internment of Afrikaners is a matter which we on this side of the House regard as a very serious one. The hon. Minister gave certain figures this evening in order to show that a large number of citizens of the country were in the camps. He tried to make excuses as to why those people were there. During the last war of 1914-1918, people were not interned on the same scale. The question now arises, why was it not necessary then to throw Afrikaners into the camps on such a large scale? We then had greater unrest in the country; we had a rebellion; and notwithstanding that it was not necessary to have a camp in which citizens were interned on such a large scale. If we make a comparison between the treatment of Union nationals who were interned by the present Government, and the treatment meted out to the rebels who were in gaol in 1914, we find a very wide difference. When the relations of the internees go to the camps today in order to see their husbands or fathers, they must do so through a fence; they have to speak to the internees through a fence. They cannot get into contact with each other. The rebels could, however, see their relations personally; the relations of the rebels were allowed to be with them while talking to them, and they could even have meals together. Now, I ask why the Minister differentiates in the treatment meted out to internees today in comparison with the treatment meted out to the rebels in 1914-1918? If it is necessary to have a fence between the internees and their relations now, why was it not necessary in 1914?

There is a double fence.

The Minister has no excuse for that. I say again that the rebels of 1914 had the right to receive any article from their relations. They could get together and greet each other, and there was no fence or entanglement between the internee and the member of the family as there is today. The Minister has now stated that these people are all guilty, and that they deserve to be interned. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) mentioned three cases where the people were interned, and then released again. That is clear proof that those people were not guilty. Now, I want to mention another case. In the case of the two brothers Arndt of Bloemfontein, it was proved that false evidence had been given against them by a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church.

That was before I was responsible. But if people were released, it is the best proof that we do not detain innocent people in the internment camps.

I know that this took place before the Minister became responsible. But I mention this fact in order to show that people are thrown into the camps on false evidence. Let us take another case which took place while the Minister was Minister of the Interior, the case of Ellmer. He was a Railway engineer. He was interned on two occasions. After he had been interned on the first occasion, he was released again. Then he was again interned, and was released a second time. Today he is in the Railway Service. He was twice falsely accused and released.

Do you know who made the accusation against him?

No, I do not know.

Who made it in the first instance?

I do not want to say so in the House, but I could tell you.

It does not matter who gave the false evidence, but I say that the evidence against Ellmer was false, and for that reason he was released. But I want to point out another very important statement to the Minister. On a previous occasion I quoted what a System Manager of the Railways had said in connection with a case where a house father was accused of subversive activities. It was shown that the house father did not want to buy from a certain dealer, and that for that reason he was accused of subversive activities.

What happened to him?

He was not interned, but I mention the fact in order to show the Minister that trade jealousy also has something to do with it.

But he was not interned.

I mention the fact with a view to showing the Minister that people are falsely accused by others in order to get him into the camp. I say that there are numerous people in the camps today who are innocent. Take, for example, the case of Prof. Trumplemann of Pietermaritzburg. I know why he cannot be released; it is because he made a statement in regard to the Prime Minister. He was accused of having burnt certain documents. This is one of the most ridiculous accusations which could possibly be made.

He has latterly admitted that he is pro-Nazi.

If the Government has to imprison everyone who is pro-Nazi, they would have to imprison one-half of the members of Parliament.

His parents are Germans.

That does not matter. An accusation was brought against him. An accusation was made against him that he burnt certain documents. There cannot be a more ridiculous accusation. The papers which were burnt were openly burnt in broad daylight. That was said by his servant. The wife of his neighbour saw it and told the police about it. Who would burn documents in broad daylight if they are of an incriminating nature? If he wanted to do it, he would have done so in his house, without anyone seeing it. The second accusation against him was that he had made plans to break up his home and to clear out. The fact is that those people who were suspected of being of German descent, were attacked in Johannesburg and elsewhere, and their possessions were destroyed. They were assaulted and attacked. His brother-in-law wrote to him that he should rather, come and live in Bloemfontein. He then wrote that he would do so if certain developments took place, and if there were any danger to his wife and children. These are the reasons which are now advanced as to why he was interned. I also want to put a question to the Minister in connection with the banning of “Helkampe” and “Hoe Zy Stierven”. These are two books which contain nothing but facts and historical truths. They are facts of South African history, and if those books are to be banned, then the Minister can also ban other books which contain the facts of our history. What right has the Minister to ban books which contain the facts of South African history? Why does he not also ban “Eeu van Onreg” and Whiteside’s “Cape History”? I recollect that shortly after the Minister became Minister of the Interior, he made a speech, in which he pointed out the Communistic danger amongst the natives. [Time limit.]

I have pleaded very earnestly with the Minister on this question of the release of people who have behaved quietly before their arrest and who even now, when they are in the camps, are behaving quietly. I have listened most attentively to the Minister’s reply here this evening and I must really say that it is always pleasant to listen to the Minister’s flowing words. This evening, however, the contents of the Minister’s speech were so unconvincing that I am compelled to get up again and put a few specific points to the Minister. The Minister got up and said that so far as the question of parole is concerned he is unable to comply with my request.

I did not say that, I only pointed to the difficulties. We have actually done so in a few instances.

Let me put the position this way then; he said it was difficult to comply with my request because there have been cases where the parole system has been abused. He first of all mentioned Stadler’s case, a young fellow of twenty one years of age, and then he went on to say that there were others too. Then he came to Theron’s case. The Minister gave me the impression that Theron had been interned, that he was released, and that he then abused his freedom.

No, Theron was not interned; he was warned and he abused the opportunity which we gave him.

Theron was not interned, he was warned. But then I want to contend that the only argument which the Minister adduced was in regard to Stadler, a young fellow of twenty one years of age, and the Minister said that he had abused the freedom he was given. If that is so, then I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think that the exception proves the practical rule? The Minister can mention one case only where an individual has abused the freedom given him, and that case is the case of a young fellow, perhaps of an irresponsible type. And that being so, I want to ask the Minister seriously to consider again using the parole system and the system of releasing people. The Minister went on to say that many of these people are German subjects, who have been interned, because after the experience of Holland, Belgium and other countries, we could not take the risk in this country which those countries took. I assume the Minister was afraid that those people would commit acts of sabotage at a given moment, but surely there is a very wide difference between conditions in Holland and Belgium and the conditions which we have here in South Africa? We are 6,000 or 7,000 miles away from Germany and there is no communication between us and the enemy powers. These people cannot get into touch with the enemy, and conditions in South Africa are such that the Minister can really depend on being able to establish a system of control which will make it absolutely impossible for anyone who is under this system to abuse the freedom he is given. I believe that with the conditions which we have in South Africa, where the magistrate knows everybody in his district, where he knows everybody who is pro-Government and who is anti-Government, where he knows everybody whom the Government can depend upon in time of war, and whom the Government cannot depend upon — under those conditions these people can be released, they can be placed under the supervision of the magistrate and the magistrate can see to it that people who are above suspicion can be appointed in the immediate neighbourhood of those people to keep control over them. There are many German subjects in this country who are married to Afrikaans girls, and the wives of these German subjects are in the greatest misery today, and although they are looked upon as foreigners today they are none the less of our own flesh and blood. They are Afrikaners, although they are married to Germans, and the penalty imposed on the Germans who are interned is borne fifty-fifty by the women, although perhaps they are very law abiding and obedient South African women. Many of the class of person I am pleading for are perhaps just as law abiding as those others. I don’t want to ask the Minister to release people who will act as Stadler acted. But there are large numbers of people in the country who are interned today who could be released under a system of reasonable supervision. It would be to our credit if we did so. In one’s attitude towards other people it is one’s humane actions which count in the long run and not one’s barbarous actions —it is not the iron fist which counts in the end. It is the humane attitude of the one person towards the other which counts, and that is the appeal which I am making to the Minister, I am glad to hear from the Minister that he is prepared to grant more reasonable facilities or to hold out in prospect more reasonable facilities so far as visits to internees are concerned. I take it that the Minister wants to comply with our request and that he will bring about better facilities in regard to members of a family visiting each other. It will be to his credit if he does so. Now there is one other point I want to refer to. There are instances of people perhaps having been interned on statements which may have given the Minister an impression that particular individuals are a danger to the State, whereas in actual fact such people may have been in somebody else’s way. Perhaps a man was a business man who was in somebody else’s way, and the Minister should not shut his eyes to that possibility. One of the members of the Dominion Party said that Lord Charles Somerset was not responsible for the actions for which he is still beingblamed today, but that it was his subordinates who were responsible. That is my main argument in this connection too. The Minister must not merely say that this or that is the method which he wants to follow, but he must see to it that the subordinates act in such a manner that the position is not rendered impossible. In a hundred and fifty years time we are not going to say that the Minister really was not responsible, but that all the trouble was due to the fact that false charges had been made by certain people against our fellow Afrikaners. No, the Minister will be just as guilty as he is today. He will be considered just as guilty as Lord Charles Somerset was, and he will not be able to say that his subordinates were really responsible. I feel that very serious reasons have been adduced this evening by members on this side of the House for a change in the Minister’s policy, and I hope the Minister will allow himself to be persuaded to be more considerate in regard to this whole matter.

I just want very briefly to answer the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne), because he apparently misunderstood my reply when I spoke earlier on. He has appealed to me to release a number of internees to farm under supervision. I pointed out the dangers and the difficulties that beset one in cases where one might consider releasing people on parole. One cannot, of course, consider releases where persons have obviously been guilty of subversive activities such as sabotage—there the safety of the State demands that they shall be kept under control. But there are cases where with reasonable safety one might release these people. We have had some sad experiences and I gave those instances.

You have only one.

The very fect that we have already released 75 of the 198 Union nationals by birth shows that the very thing which the hon. member is pleading for has been done. There are cases where I have released persons to the control of farmers, where the farmers have been persons of responsibility, where one knows that they will see that the person concerned will behave himself. We do not ask for a monetary guarantee, we take the word of the man; we know that he is a person of standing. That has been done in certain cases and I am prepared to continue it, if circumstances justify it. I am not prepared to say that we shall release all internees to farmers but where it is felt that a risk can be taken—we do not release a man because he is innocent but where we know that a man has been subversive but that under proper guidance he will behave himself. I am prepared to release people where I feel I am justified in doing so, and I shall do so in future.

I had not really intended taking part in this debate because you know, Mr. Chairman, what the position is as between the Minister and myself. I propose, however, leaving all personalities out, and we will treat each other like colleagues although colleagues may sometimes be hostile to each other, as the Minister has proved to us. I want to know whether the Minister of the Interior, as he told us, contends that Stadler received a warning.

No, he was first of all interned and then released on parole.

And did he behave himself then?

He joined up with Robey Leibbrandt then, and he is in gaol today.

Very well, now I should like to know why an exception was made in Stadler’s case as compared with all the other internees? Is it not possible that it was done deliberately because they knew that Stadler would possibly behave in a dangerous manner in days to come, and that all the other internees would then be punished because of what Stadler had done? Why was Stadler given the chance and why were not the others given that opportunity? The appeal I want to make to the Minister is this: if one man is given the privilege of going out on parole why cannot that same privilege be extended to the others as well? Why does the Minister make fish of one and fowl of the other? Why are people who are quite possibly innocent not allowed out on parole? Why cannot we treat everybody alike? Is it fair, is it just to the others to make an exception in the one case? No, if I have children I have to treat all my children alike, A,. B and C, but here an exception was made in Stadler’s case; he was let out on parole but what about Pretorius, what about Wiesner, and all the other people; why are not they treated in the same way? I should like the Minister to give me an answer. This differentiation is an injustice to the Afrikaner people which the Minister will have to account for even if it is not in this life; he will have to account for it at some future time, and if he has not to do so, those coming after him, his children’s children, may have to do so. The Minister is silent and he does not tell us why he did not issue any warning to the others. I want him to interrupt, to make an interjection, and tell us why he did not issue a warning, but no, the Minister is as silent as the grave. That shows how unjust he has been to these people. He makes an exception. A clique is formed for the purpose of persecuting those people, the one after the other. It is the Minister of the Interior over there who is responsible for love, peace and unity in South Africa. Why are we more divided today than we were on the 4th September, 1939? Is it not due to the actions of the Minister of the Interior in persecuting our people, the one after the other, and putting them into the internment camps in a most disgraceful manner without proper investigations being made? People are arrested on slanderous statements, but the names of the people spreading this slanderous talk are not made public. We see how people giving evidence in court in public lie and practice deception. If people can do so in public what will they not do in secret if their names do not see the light of day? I am speaking from experience, the Minister knows it. It happened in evidence which was given in public; it was false evidence, and how much more will not false evidence be given to get people interned if the names are not made public? If I have an axe to grind, if I have a feeling of resentment against an individual, and I can give evidence in secret I may make false statements and get an individual prosecuted. We had such a case at Klerksdorp. People were interned afterwards. Why was I sentenced? I paid my £50 but those people I mentioned are quite possibly innocent. Evidence was given against them by only two people, and on that evidence they were sent to the internment camp. Why have those people to be kept there until after the war, and how long may not this war last? I said the other day that it might last another ten years. For all those years these men are separated from their wives, from their children, their fathers and their homes, and the Minister does not even want to give a child the right to visit his father. The day will come when he will also be put behind lock and key, and I hope that I shall be there to lock the door, but if that day comes I shall give his child the right to visit him and to put his arms around his neck and kiss him. I shall not be as barbarous as he is. We are parting our people from their children; the child is not allowed to see his father for months on end; if you have any love for your family then I fail to understand it. If you have no love then I can understand it, but then I can also understand that you have no love for the Afrikaner people. I paid my £50 but people are in the internment camps today for an indefinite period. Quite possibly they have done very little; quite possibly they are there innocently, but they have to be kept there for an indefinite period. For years and years they may be parted from their families, their wives and children. Is that unity, is that co-operation? You, Mr. Chairman, are a hunter, and you know we don’t shoot a bird when it is sitting, but we disturb it and give it a chance to get into the air. Does the Minister do that? Does he give those people of ours a chance?

He is not a hunter (jagter) but a butcher (slagter).

Yes, he is a slaughterer of people twice over. He ignores the love of man.

I think the hon. member is going too far now.

When I discuss these matters I put myself in the position of these internees. [Time limit.]

There is a question which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister, and it is an anomaly in the South Africa Act which makes an unfair discrimination between members of the Senate, members of this House and members of the Provincial Councils. I refer to Clause 52, which says that no member of either House of Parliament may be elected as a member of the Other Place. This means quite evidently that a member of the Senate may not stand for a vacancy in this House, or a member of this House may not stand for a vacancy in the Senate, or may not even be nominated.

Will the hon. member tell me which item he is discussing now?

The policy of the Minister’s department.

This is a matter which requires legislation—it is not the Minister’s policy.

May I not draw the attention of the Minister to an anomaly which, as I have said, is an unfair discrimination against the members of this House?

I am afraid the hon. member cannot discuss that now.

May I refer to a vacancy in the Senate?

Not if the hon. member wants an alteration in the law.

Are you a candidate?

I would make a better one than you.

I quite believe that—for the Senate. Who wants to go there, anyway?

May not I discuss this matter?

The hon. member is discussing something which would require legislation.

And I am not to discuss that?

Not in Committee of Supply.

When the Minister started on his reply this evening he at once, in the absence of the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) tried to create the impression that that hon. member had said that as the Minister of the Interior was English speaking he had no feeling for the Afrikaner. What the hon. member did say was that the Minister was an English speaking person and that he personally had no feeling for the Afrikaner. We agree with that. Fortunately there are English speaking people who, unlike the Minister of the Interior, are not unsympathetic towards the Afrikaans speaking section of the community. If the Minister tries to find excuses in that way it only shows that he has a very weak case. The Minister made a very poor show this evening. He told us that out of every thirty warnings that were given to people only one of the people warned was eventually placed in an internment camp. Does not the Minister prove by that that the charges made against those people are unfounded? If out of every thirty people who are charged there is only one who is interned, does not that indicate to us what the position is? The Minister warns people, but as against that other people are interned without being warned. And what is more, he goes behind their backs and interns Union citizens, while other people are still negotiating about their cases. The Minister knows that he recently interned a particular individual, while other people were actually negotiating with his department to get greater freedom for that person, to enable him to take on certain work. While the negotiations were going on the man was interned without warning. I want to say this to the Minister, that we are not complaining about the treatment of those people in the camps. Our main complaint is that innocent people are being interned. If I am innocently put in a camp, even if I enjoy the most royal life in that camp, you are still not treating me well because I should not be there at all, and I should not be deprived of my freedom. The Minister told the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) that he had given people, whose good behaviour was guaranteed, their freedom. The Minister said that there were such cases. The Minister knows that there is one person in one of the camps whom seven or eight members of Parliament are prepared to guarantee. That man was interned at very short notice, and some seven or eight members of Parliament gave the Minister a guarantee that they would stand good for his behaviour. The Minister wanted a long time before replying. The Minister knows whom I am alluding to, and there is no need for me to mention that man’s name. That man, in order to prove his innocence, went so far as to say that he was willing to join the Army, but his request was refused. The Minister may say now that charges were made against this man. We say that those charges were unfounded. My information is that the police in this particular instance favourably reported on this man.

He is not an Afrikaner.

He is an Englishman. I don’t know whether the Minister says that an Englishman is not an Afrikaner.

It is you people who make the distinction.

The Minister is trying to distort the position again; surely he trusts his own people. We hope so. Now, I want to come to another aspect of the matter which has not yet been raised in this House. I want to say a few words about the sufferers from tuberculosis who are coming into this country. I asked the Minister whether Imperial soldiers who suffered from tuberculosis were allowed to land in the Union, and, if so, how many of them had already been admitted? The Minister replied that 26 civilians and 604 members of His Majesty’s Forces suffering from tuberculosis had been admitted to the country. Anyone who has been abroad knows that well-to-do people suffering from tuberculosis always try, first of all, to come to the Union. Twenty-six civilians who have come to the notice of the medical people, and who are suffering from tuberculosis, have been admitted, but I can assure the House that a great many more have come into this country, not just because the Minister wants to admit them, but because they hide the fact that they are suffering from this disease, either in England or wherever they come from. They come out on a so-called pleasure trip, but they are tuberculosis sufferers.

I think this matter should be discussed on the vote “Public Health”.

My questions were replied to by the Minister of the Interior.

I think this discussion should be allowed because it concerns the question of immigration.

The hon. the Minister goes further, and he says that members of His Majesty’s Forces are not immigrants in terms of the law. In other words, if one is a sufferer from tuberculosis, and one belongs to the Imperial Forces, one is not a prohibited immigrant.

What is the date of that reply?

The 13th February, 1942. I put a further question, namely, how many members of the Imperial Forces suffering from tuberculosis were at the moment in convalescent homes and hospitals? The Minister gave me the figure of 394. I further asked whether any convalescent homes or hospitals had been constructed in South Africa for the treatment of tuberculosis cases of the Imperial Forces. If so, (a) where, (b) at whose expense, and (c) what were the estimated costs? The Minister replied—

The Minister is unsympathetically disposed to the health and well-being of South Africa if he allows troops suffering from infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis, to enter South Africa. Unfortunately there is tuberculosis in South Africa out of all proportion to the climate which we have here. Imperial Forces are now being allowed to be treated here for tuberculosis. How can the Minister do it?

In terms of the law.

I fail to understand it. Is that under the Emergency Regulations? Surely the Minister cannot say that he is going to allow tuberculosis to spread because it is in terms of the law. [Time limit,]

I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) has said. I also asked the Minister of Public Health a question about the position of the Nelspoort Sanatorium. Unfortunately I have not got the question here but I asked what the position was and what percentage, and how many of the patients in the Nelspoort Sanatorium were Union citizens, and how many had come into South Africa in the course of the last two years. The Minister’s reply showed that at the moment there were more people in the sanatorium who had come into the Union in the past two years than there were Union citizens. I further asked how many people there were on the waiting list to go to the sanatorium, and as far as I remember the Minister said that there were fifteen or twenty Union nationals on the waiting list who could not get into the sanatorium. The Minister says that special buildings have been erected by the British Government to take in soldiers who come to South Africa as tuberculosis sufferers. I asked the Minister a further question, namely, whether in regard to the admission of such people in South Africa the regulations about the entry of tuberculosis sufferers were still being as strictly applied as they were in the past. The Minister replied in the affirmative. I don’t understand the position. How can he say, on the one hand, that the regulations regarding the admission of tuberculosis sufferers into South Africa are still being applied—the Minister knows that the regulations are severe, while on the other hand he answers that the majority of the tuberculosis sufferers at Nelspoort are people who came to South Africa in the past two years. I know how strict the regulations are as I myself, when I was in Europe, have often refused visas to tuberculosis sufferers in accordance with the instructions I had received. How can the Minister say then that the regulations are still being equally strictly applied when so many tuberculosis sufferers have come to South Africa. My information is, but I cannot say so definitely, that there are not only British soldiers at Nelspoort but also other persons who cannot speak a word of English or Afrikaans, but who have been accommodated at the sanatorium. The sanatorium comes into my constituency and that is the information I get. It may be very fine from the point of view of charity and the Minister may say that out of the kindliness of our heart we should admit those people, but the Minister also knows that when they leave Nelspoort, whether they are soldiers, whether they are Frenchmen, Greeks or Spaniards, they don’t want to run the risk of leaving South Africa, because their only hope of avoiding a relapse is to remain in South Africa, and more particularly in some part of the Karroo. In spite of the Minister’s assurance that the regulations are applied it is clear to me that the old regulations that tuberculosis will not be admitted into South Africa have been departed from—it makes no difference whether they are soldiers or whether they are Greeks, Spaniards or whatever they may be. I say that it is in conflict with the interests of our country, because the figures show that tuberculosis is increasing in South Africa. In my own town the doctors will give the Minister the assurance that the Beaufort West location is infected with tuberculosis.

And we are building a hospital there.

That is so, and I asked for it, but it is no use closing the stable after the horse has been stolen. We want to have a condition of affairs so that it will not be necessary to build hospitals. The Minister now has to build a hospital because in the past, and even today, tuberculosis sufferers have been, and are being, admitted into the country. It is very easy to say “there is a war on”—and that is usually said. Let the Government, if it wants to, carry on its war policy, but why should our women and children be exposed to that danger? I have been told that patients whose condition is fairly satisfactory are allowed to go to Beaufort West. They go into the cafes there, they drink something, and after that my children and other people’s children go in and drink out of the same glasses. It is a serious state of affairs.

If one is not conversant with what goes on in the internment camps, and one listens to what the Minister has said, the question arises whether it is not better to be kept in an internment camp than even to be a Minister of the Crown. The Minister has used the instances we have mentioned as excuses for himself. Take the instance of the two brothers Arndt. The point I want to make is that these people were interned on false information. I can tell the House who the individual was who gave that false information; it is generally known. We know that it was a certain Pastor Luckoff.

This question was discussed even before the internment policy came under me.

I am only referring to these instances to point out how our internees are treated. These people were interned on false information and the man who gave the false information was not taken to court. On the contrary, he was given a very comfortable Government position.

Was there any sworn statement?

The Minister interns them on any kind of statement, and he is encouraging people to make false statements because they are paid some remuneration.

That is untrue.

Did not that pastor make false statements and was he not rewarded with a Government appointment? The Minister is silent now. It is an encouragement to make false statements, because there is a prospect of some reward. In reply to a question which was put to the Minister during the session it was stated that if an individual is detained for internment, he is supplied within a reasonable time, usually within fourteen days, with a summary of the charge against him. I have three cases in my constituency, namely, those of F. van Heerden, J. Haasbroek and F. de Klerk; they have been detained for two months already.

For internment?

At the moment they are in gaol at Potchefstroom.

That is not internment. This comes under another Proclamation. It comes under the Minister of Justice.

But these people do not know what they are being detained for; all they know is that they are in gaol. They know there is no charge against them, or at any rate they do not know what the charge against them is.

That does not come under me—it does not come under this vote at all.

Does it only come under this vote if people are in the internment camp? How are we to know what the position is if people are detained? How are we to know which Minister it comes under? There is no charge. For Heaven’s sake let those people know what the charge is. If they are guilty, or if there is some suspicion, why cannot those people be informed? Is it impossible after two months to tell those people why they are being kept there? I want to put up a plea on behalf of those people; they are not rich. Their families, their wives and children, are in need, they are almost starving. Financially these three families are being ruined. The men are in gaol and we don’t even know whether they are in a European or native gaol. In regard to the treatment of the internees, the Minister has told us that after the session he is prepared to allow a delegation of members of Parliament to visit the camps.

What I said was incorrect; those three people whom the hon. member mentioned are interned. I shall give the reason for their internment afterwards.

In regard to the Minister’s announcement that he will allow a delegation of members of Parliament to visit the camps, after the session, I want to say this: If he will not allow the members of the delegation freely to associate with the internees and to talk to them, and to find out what the position is, he may as well leave it alone, because otherwise it will be nothing but an attempt on the part of the Minister and his department to whitewash the whole position. We know of a few instances where members of Parliament were allowed to go and have a look. They could not go and talk to the internees to find out what was going on, and if a crowd of members of Parliament go there the officials in the camps will naturally know that they are coming.

Yes, and the internees will be given pudding on that particular day.

Everything will be clean and in perfect order on that day. If the members of the delegation only have the right to put questions to the internees in the presence of the camp commandant, it will be no use. The hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) talked about the food, which he said was good, but we know that things are very different. Does the Minister know, for instance, that in the neighbourhood of the internment camp at Koffiefontein you cannot even find an old ram on any of the farms. Everything has been bought up by the man who has the contract for the supplying of meat to the camp. It is meat which no butcher would accept.

What is the complaint?

I would like to see the Minister get a piece of meat like that on his plate.

That is an insult to the farmers.

The Minister should rather ask the Minister of Agriculture what a ram is, then he will find out. The Minister now says that he is going to consider allowing a man’s relatives to visit the camp more often and to be with the internees for a longer time. Don’t let the Minister make it just three quarters on an hour twice a month—let him make it a few hours every time. What is happening today? I know what happened in the case of Erasmus’ wife.

Yes, I know about that case.

She is not the only one. The train was a little late and she lost her half hour. [Time limit.]

I asked the question whether the Minister would give all the internees the same right as he gave Stadler? He did not answer, and I hope and trust that he will give every internee the same right as he gave Stadler. I am prepared to stand good, and I am convinced that the majority of members on this side of the House will be prepared to stand good for the internees. Surely the Minister does not want to be more severe than the Minister of Justice, and treat those people like thieves and murderers. I should like the Minister to reply. It seems to me he does not want to reply. Then I accuse him of nothing but partiality and cruelty such as we have never before had in South Africa, and I want to know something. On page 149 under “L” there is an increase of £2,500. What is that for? It is said there that the money is intended for the making of films and other expenditure, including the purchase of extracts from South African news films, and the payment of the expenses in connection with the development, etc., of films outside the Union. If there is one thing which we Afrikaners feel strongly about it is the propaganda for British Imperialism in the bioscopes. I cannot vote money for that; it is impossible. And when that propaganda is finished with, at the end of the bioscope performance, we get “God Save The King” played. It is the duty of the Minister of the Interior to see that we have love, peace and unity in the country, but what is he doing to the Afrikaner people? I challenge him, I defy him, to prove that he has made any concessions in any respect whatsoever to the Dutch speaking section of the population.