I move as an unopposed motion—

When the House adjourned yesterday, I was dealing with the Prime Minister’s argument that it is unnecessary to appoint the Committee asked for, as there is machinery in existence for doing the work. The existing machinery referred to by him is inter alia, that we have the report of the Auditor-General from year to year, and if there are evils, the Auditor-General will draw attention to it, and there will be an opportunity to get rid of it. In the second place, he argued that all finance accounts of the State are referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. That was the machinery he referred to, and I have indicated that that machinery, which has been in existence for many years, is ineffective for this purpose. The Auditor-General’s report did refer to the evils there were in regard to the cost-plus contracts. There have been warnings, year after year, and the Government eventually agreed to appoint a Committee. The evils were further investigated after that only, and the country has been saved thousands of pounds by the work of the Committee. Permit me to refer to the Report of the Auditor-General on the War Expenses Account for the year 1940/41, at page 6. There he deals with the control of national expenditure in connection with the war, and he says in his report—

He refers there to the question of Treasury Control of Expenditure. And then he says that the establishment of the Authorities Committee has in no way diminished the control of finance which is by law and constitutional practice vested in the Treasury. He then continues and says in the next paragraph, with regard to Departmental Control—

In this case a special Committee has been appointed, the Authorities Committee, by means of which control may be exercised. In spite of the Auditor-General’s Report, in spite of the work of the Authorities Committee, and in spite of the fact that the Select Committee on Public Accounts has made special enquiry into this matter, we find that the Auditor-General, in his report for the year 1940/41 reports as follows on the question of control of expenditure—

In which report is that?

It is par. 6, page 6 of the report for the year 1940/41. I should also like to read about the payment of soldiers on the same page, par. 7. It deals with the pay of soldiers, a matter that has been discussed in this House year after year, and which has also been dealt with by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The Auditor-General says—

I also wish to refer to what is said in the next paragraph—

Special changes had been devised and what does the following paragraph say—

I am taking these quotations from the Report for 1940/41 in order to indicate how the Auditor-General and his staff exerted themselves to the utmost to expose the evils, and yet we find that he has had to repeat the same things in the report submitted by him a year later. I wish to quote from the Report of the Auditor-General for the year 1941-42, at page 3 of which he states the following—

In spite of the fact that he had stated in his previous report that additional staff would have to be appointed to put the books in order, we find that he once again had to report that he had been unable to audit the accounts properly. And on page 4 he says this—

Here we again have the unsatisfactory position that it has not been possible for the Auditor-General, after all the warnings, to analyse the accounts properly this year. In this connection it is interesting to observe what he says about departmental control of expenditure—

The Select Committee drew attention to this evil last year, but the position is still not satisfactory, owing to the Defence Department not having done its duty yet. The Auditor-General says—

And then further—

It is a history precisely similar to what we have had in regard to the enquiry into contracts on the basis of Cost-Plus a percentage, and the evils could only be remedied after the Committee, of which we have now received the report, had been appointed. For that reason we suggest that a Commission be appointed to institute an enquiry during the recess, in order that all the evils may be disclosed and that the leaks may be located, so as to enable us to put a stop to the waste of money that is taking place. The Auditor-General again deals with the question of soldiers’ pay in the Second Report, and on page 5, at paragraph 4, he says—

I am quoting this to point out, that in spite of al the attempts that have been made to put a stop to these evils, they could not be stopped. It is precisely the same history we have had in connection with the cost plus a percentage contracts. For that reason we say that we should again appoint a Commission to put an end to these evils, and to prevent the squandering of thousands upon thousands of pounds. Thousands upon thousands of pounds have been wasted in connection with cost plus a percentage, and it was only this latter Committee that could put a stop to it. In this connection I should like to refer to the Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts for the year 1941. The Committee says in its report—

The excuse has always been that the war came so suddenly, and that recruiting was on such a large scale that they could not keep the work up to date. But the report continues—

The Select Committee thus clearly states that proper supervision has not been exercised, but it was glad to learn that an improvement had been effected, and it draws attention to the necessity for the exercise of better control in future. But I now come to the report of the Committee for the year 1942. In that year the Select Committee on Public Accounts again came forward with the same complaints. In spite of all the previous enquiries and warnings, it again makes the same complaints, and in connection with the same question, I should like to read what the Committee of that year reported—

A year later we have the same complaint. I should like to read on—

We find it being reported year after year that the system of accounting is unsatisfactory, and as a consequence of that, thousands upon thousands of pounds are missing, but the system of accounting still remains unsatisfactory—

And then the Select Committee states—

It is recommended that every endeavour should be made in order to institute a proper system of accounting. It had not been done. I mention this case in order to indicate that, in spite of the use of all the existing machinery, to which the Prime Minister has referred, those evils could not be stopped. From year to year the Auditor-General reports to the Government and to this House, that these evils exist; the Select Committee on Public Accounts devotes days and days to the discussion of those evils. The Committee made a special enquiry into it during the previous session, but it was of no avail. The reason is this, that the reports of that Select Committee are not discussed by this House. I recollect that members opposite, namely the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) on a certain occasion even wanted to prevent members on this side discussing the report of the Auditor-General before the Select Committee on Public Accounts had finished with it. One gains the impression that every endeavour is made to disguise these evils in regard to finance in such a way that the people outside should be unable to know what is going on. Now I should like to return to the arguments used by the Prime Minister. He confined himself to report number one, and he said it is a certificate that all is well, and that the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) had given him that certificate. Let me ask the Prime Minister why he concentrates on report number one. Is he not aware that that Report has been referred back to the Committee by the Government? Why does he not confine himself to the findings in the third or final report? If he does that, he will see that that report proves that it is absolutely necessary, that it is pre-eminently necessary that a Commission of Enquiry be appointed to investigate further our finances in this respect. I wish to quote from the third report, in which the Committee says this with regard to the control of ships repairs—

This is what is stated in the third report. It is a report signed by all the members of the Committee, and that is what they say. The evidence upon this aspect of the matter showed that the position is most unsatisfactory. The Report then continues—

There is therefore an important aspect of the matter still to be dealt with. [Time expired.]

I regret that circumstances over which I had no control made it impossible for me to be here during the first two days of this debate. I am very glad, however, that I am able to be here now, and to deal with some of the remarks that were made during my absence. May I first of all deal with some of the statements which my hon. friend who has just sat down made. He dealt with the question of ship repairs but he did not continue his quotations from the report. If he had continued reading he would have seen that we dealt with these matters, but we said that as the question was outside the scope of our terms of reference and as these ships were not our ships and the money spent was not our money we could not include our findings in our report, but we have put our findings in a confidential memorandum to the Minister. If the hon. member wants to see that report I have no doubt the Minister will show it to him, but it could not be included in our report. I do not want the hon. member to think, however, that it was not enquired into. It was enquired into and dealt with. Now, may I return to what I was going to say? Anyone who reads the minority report of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and the somewhat sturdy reply from members of the Committee, may come under the impression that the proceedings at the committee were in the nature of a “bear garden.” Let me at once correct that impression. Our proceedings were thoroughly harmonious, there never was a ripple to disturb the calmness of the atmosphere. From first to last our proceedings were harmonious. At the very last we were compelled to disagree, but only in regard to one portion of our investigations, and I would like to add that within the terms of our Mandate, and sometimes slightly beyond it, no avenue of investigation was left unexplored. We did not cover up anything, we did not try to burke any discussion; if any matter required further exploration, it was explored. Now, I see that the hon. member for George has criticised the personnel of that committee. I must go by the newspaper reports of his speech, of course, and the hon. member will correct me, I am sure, if I am wrong. He says that two members of the committee were “deeply compromised.” He referred, of course, to Mr. Osborne and Mr. Prentice. Now, in one sense it is true that these two gentlemen were not able to approach the matter shall I say with as completely open minds as the rest of the committee, because Mr. Osborne is Chairman of Dorman Long, one of the largest engineering firms, and a firm very much involved in contracts Under the Cost-Plus system. Let me just say this. Before the committee commenced its investigations Mr. Osborne came to see me and he said that he had written to the Minister and he had offered his resignation. Well, he was told it was too late and he had to carry on. Mr. Prentice is the chief quantity surveyor in the Department of Public Works in the Union, and as the Department of Public Works had to be investigated in a sense Mr. Prentice was sitting in judgment on himself, and on many occasions, while the committee was sitting we had to invite Mr. Prentice to leave his seat as a Commissioner and to take his seat as a witness in order to explain certain things, but I think the hon. member for George will agree with me that although these two members were subject to these limitations they did approach their task with the utmost impartiality—neither by word nor by deed throughout the sittings of the Commission did they give evidence of prejudice. I should like to nay this special tribute to Mr. Osborne, that he signed a report on important shipping repairs which contain some very severe criticisms of his own industry, and I never admired a man more than I did him when he signed that report. So it is right that I should pay a tribute to those two gentlemen. They approached the sittings of the Commission, in a sense with the handicaps which the hon. member for George has mentioned, but despite those handicaps they brought to their work on the Commission the greatest ability and the greatest impartiality. But when the hon. member talks about a member of the committee being “deeply compromised,” I want to ask whether any member of that committee was more deeply compromised than the hon. member for George himself? I have a great regard for the hon. member and I am not going to make any personal reflections on him, but when he talks about being deeply compromised let us consider for one moment the position of the hon. member himself. He is, as we are all aware, the chief financial critic of the Opposition. He is their chief mouthpiece on financial matters.

Be careful, you are on dangerous ground.

Don’t forget this was a committee to investigate war expenditure. He is bitterly and uncompromisingly, with the rest of his Party, totally opposed to any war expenditure.

And you were in favour of any war expenditure.

May I deal with the hon. member for George for a moment? No one has suggested that I was compromised in this matter, and no one will suggest it. But let us consider his position. This is a committee to investigate expenditure of nearly £100,000,000 and every penny of that money has been voted against the vote of the hon. member himself and his Party.

And you voted in favour of it.

May I say this, about prejudging the issue—can anyone have burnt his boats more completely in the direction of prejudging his position than the hon. member himself.

What about yourself?

I have not had time to look up many of the speeches of the hon. member, but in the few moments which I had this morning I looked up his Budget speech last year. Now, this was a speech he made about a month before he was appointed to this Committee, and this is what he said—

By the way, which they did not vote!

And a very excellent speech that was.

That is the policy of the hon. member for George on this Committee to investigate military expenditure, and then the hon. member contends that Mr. Prentice and Mr. Osborne were prejudiced.

What did you say at that time?

And yet when we come down to it it was a full enquiry, and it was a thoroughly statesmanlike act to put the hon. member on that Committee. It shows that the Government was prepared to play open cards, to put all its cards on the table, to say to the hon. member—to the chief financial critic sitting on the Opposition benches: “We are going to appoint a Committee to investigate Cost-Plus which means possibly two-thirds of the war expenditure and we invite you to sit on that Committee”, and the hon. member agreed to accept that invitation, and he sat on it.

And the Government accepted his minority report.

In the middle of a great war we invited one of our chief opponents to sit on a Committee to investigate war expenditure. That is democracy. In any Axis country they would have put him in a concentration camp, but here we put him on a Committee to investigate war expenditure.

Yes, you paid him a compliment.

I was not here when the hon. member for George spoke, but I have no doubt that he got a perfectly quiet hearing from this side of the House. I am trying to reply to him on a difficult and technical matter, and I hope hon. members will give me the opportunity of saying what I want to say. About twenty hon. members are trying to interrupt me at the same time. Well, I cannot deal with all these interruptions at once.

Well, deal with the matter before the House.

This Committee, the work of this Committee, involved travelling round South Africa and inspecting military works and undertakings. We put him on that Committee instead of putting him in a concentration camp, and we invited him with the other members of the Committee to inspect the defence undertakings in the Union, and I should like to tell the House a story about that.

Yes, tell your interesting story.

Yes, I shall tell it to the House. When we reached a particular town, which I won’t name, one of our inspections meant visiting certain fortifications and gun emplacements. We arranged to visit those fortifications on a particular day. We were out the day before and when I got back to my hotel I found that the Defence Authorities had been trying to get me on the telephone for some considerable time I spoke to the officer who had been ringing me and he said, “What is this I hear,—your Committee is visiting our place tomorrow?” I said, “Yes, that is so,” and the officer replied, “And are you taking that fellow Werth with you?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Well, I cannot allow it. The other five can come, but Werth must stay behind.” I told the officer that either we must all go or none of us. He said, “Will you vouch for Werth?” I said, “Of course I do. I trust him in a matter like this just as I trust myself.” “Well”, he said “in those circumstances I will allow it.” Anyhow the next day we were given permits to visit these secret works. I gave my hon. friend his permit and said, “You should frame this in your parlour because you are the only Nationalist—the only avowed Nationalist—who has ever received such a permit.” I want to show the House the spirit in which that Committee worked, in which it was conceived, and again I say this, that while we may differ across the floor of the House, never throughout the sittings of this Committee, never throughout our proceedings, never throughout all the evidence which we received, did we have any difficulty or was the atmosphere in any way disturbed. Now, my hon. friend has criticised, or rather he has queried the appointment of two of his colleagues on that Committee. I have tried to show briefly that if any member of that Committee approached it with preconceived ideas, if in fact any member was deeply compromised, it was the hon. member himself. May I say this about the hon. member? He has been a colleague of mine not only on this Committee but on other committees for very many years. I regard him as a man who is vigilant, keen, honest and fair-minded, but impetuous to a degree and woefully inclined to come to conclusions on imperfect facts, and without really studying these facts, and I am proposing this morning to show to this House—if hon. members opposite will give me the opportunity—and if some of my hon. friends don’t get too excited—how my hon. friend’s mind works and how some of his conclusions are completely unjustified. In doing that I may have to cover some of the ground which has already been covered. I cannot help that, but I feel that the speech of my hon. friend which he made on Monday cannot be allowed to go out to the world, cannot be allowed to go out to South Africa, as a true presentation of the facts, because it is not. I have not got the time, nor would the House have the patience to listen to a complete statement of the case, but I have picked out four instances upon which I shall take up my hon. friend and show how absolutely false are the conclusions to which he has come. Now, the first one is this: his reference to the practice in Australia. In his minority report, in paragraph 36 this is what he said—

What is the point which the hon. member makes? He is criticising the precipitate way in which we rushed into Cost-Plus in South Africa and he says: “Contrast that with Australia. They did not adopt a Cost-Plus in the same precipitate way”. And then he proceeds to quote a letter from the Prime Minister of Australia which reaches a precisely opposite conclusion. Now, I am going to read that letter. My hon. friend does not give the date of it. He quoted the letter in his minority report. But the date of the letter was the 16th July, 1942, and it says this—

That is up to the 16th July, 1942—

Now, what is the point the hon. member makes? This letter from the Prime Minister of Australia, of course, completely demolishes my hon. friend’s case. The Prime Minister of Australia says: “Up to now we have had very little urgency building but since we have found ourselves confronted with the necessity for it we have had to embark on an extensive building programme and we have adopted as a matter of urgency the Cost-Plus system.”

Not Cost-Plus percentage.

My hon. friend does not make that point, and that is three years after the war has been in operation. In other words, Australia was doing in July, 1942, when faced with the same emergency as we were faced with in July, 1942, the same thing as we did. I think that is clear. The only difference being this, here it is Cost-Plus percentage. They made it Cost-Plus a fixed fee instead of Cost-Plus percentage. But it still is Cost-Plus. Now, I go back to what my hon. friend says. He speaks of the precipitate way in which South Africa rushed into Cost-Plus percentage.

There is a vast difference.

I repeat again Australia in July, 1942, when faced with an urgency programme of emergency building, had to accept the Cost-Plus system, and the only difference is one of detail. In their case they adopted a Cost-Plus fixed fee basis and in our case a Cost-Plus percentage basis.

I am completely demolished on that point.

Now I come to the second point, which my hon. friend makes. And that second point is contained in paragraph 27 of his minority report where he says this—

Then he goes on to amplify that in paragraph 31—where he says this—

Now, my hon. friend having expressed certain doubts on this point a letter was sent to Col. Craig inviting him to write specially to the hon. member giving the history of those gun emplacements, and Col. Craig replied in a letter which I shall now read to the Committee. That letter is on page 5 of the Committee’s memorandum and it is dated the 19th September, 1942. Now I want the House to judge. I want them to constitute themselves judges as to Col. Craig’s case which is so contemptuously dismissed or rather ignored by my hon. friend opposite. Now, this is the letter—

1. (i) That all the land undertakings required heavy road construction to enable the materials to be got to the selected sites.
2. (ii) That in the case of Robben Island, there was no harbour there for any transport facilities;
3. (iii) That the very restricted time limit meant employment of a great deal of heavy plant.
4. (iv) That no firm in the Union had the necessary plant individually, to carry out such a contract in time.
5. (v) That no time was available to them i in which to take borings (in order to ascertain the nature of the sub-soil), i or to make thorough investigations.
6. (vi) Such a large volume of steel, together with steel doors, shutters, joints, etc., was required that no single contracting firm in the Union was capable of handling such an order in time.

Now I am putting it to hon. members of this House whether that is not a complete answer to the charge that Col. Craig rushed into Cost-Plus? He invited these people to tender.

Cost-Plus percentage.

That is not the phrase used.

Read paragraph 33 of my report.

I shall read again what the hon. member said—

Here Col. Craig has specially written to my hon. friend, the hon. member for George when he was writing his minority report and he placed these facts before him, and he told him that he invited these people to tender. They said they could not tender and then with the complete approval of the Union Tender Board he was told to go ahead at Cost-Plus.

Would you mind reading paragraph 33 of my report?

What did my hon. friend say? — Surely irrelevance could not go further—

Well, supposing there were no guns to mount? Supposing the ships carrying the guns had been sunk. What has that to do with Col. Craig? His job was to get the emplacements ready and he did. I say he deserves the thanks of South Africa for getting these emplacements ready, and he should not have been subjected to this carping criticism. My hon. friend does not even do him the justice of mentioning Col. Craig’s side of the case. He does not refer to Col. Craig’s evidence or to Col. Craig’s letter. No more complete expose of unfairness could be made than my reference to my hon. friend’s handling of Col. Craig, and his so-called “Rushing into Cost-Plus”.

Why don’t you read paragraph 33 as well?

I shall read anything my hon. friend wants me to. I shall now read paragraph 33—This is what my friend says there—

Exactly!

I am going to deal with that. I shall not run away from any of these points. I have them all in my notes. But I am on the wider question at the moment. I am on the accusation that Fortifications unnecessarily and unwarrantably rushed into Cost-Plus. I say that that charge is completely disproved, has no substance, and never had any substance.

Well, well!

Do my hon. friends over there approach this matter in a fair and impartial way? If my hon. friend, the member for George, had done so, he would in his minority report have referred to Col. Craig’s letter which reached him at George while he was writing this minority report. Then I want to deal with another matter. I promise my hon. friend that I shall not sit down without dealing with the point that they chose the worst kind of Cost-Plus system. I shall deal with that in due course. My hon. friend raised a tremendous song in his minority report about the sins, the misdeeds of Fortifications, in giving their contracts to certain selected big contractors and leaving out the small men. Now, that is contained in paragraphs 48, 49 and 51 of my hon. friend’s minority report, and I am afraid that even at the risk of wearying the House I shall have to read these paragraphs. I shall first of all read paragraph 48—

Now, I ask hon. members to note the words “a few selected firms”.

It is a full fledged accusation of improper favouritism against Col. Craig.

Quite right.

The hon. member may say quite right, but I hope by the time I am finished with him, the House will say “quite wrong”. I go on to quote paragraph 49—

Then I go on to paragraph 51—

Will you believe me when I tell you that my hon. friend in his minority report has quoted two extracts from the evidence of Mr. Bakker, a Cape Town builder, who gave this evidence, but he has entirely omitted to report the fact that Mr. Bakker came to the Committee after giving his evidence in the first instance, and voluntarily withdrew all that evidence and said: “I have no complaint; I never tried to tender; I never tried to get Government work.” It is almost incredible that my hon. friend should have written his minority report in that way, and omit that retraction on the part of Mr. Bakker.

Do you dare to say that in the House, after my reply to your memorandum?

Yes, I do. This is what Mr. Bakker said—

Not prepared to tender.

Will my hon. friend allow me to finish this quotation—

I want to say right now that when Mr. Bakker made that statement to us, from that moment the Committee regarded this accusation of favouritism as closed.

You dare to say that?

But I am saying that.

Mr. Chairman, there is a very serious charge against me here. After having made that statement Mr. Bakker was later on cross-examined on that statement by Mr. Boyder, and in reply to Mr. Boyder’s query as to what he meant by the statement just read, the second quotation that I have given here was the reply of Mr. Bakker. He replied—

Order, order. I can only allow the hon. member to make a personal explanation and he can only do so at this stage with the consent of the member in possession of the House.

The hon. member said the matter was closed, and I just wanted to point out what Mr. Bakker had said in reply to a further question by Mr. Boyder.

It is now clear that whatever my hon. friend did quote or did not quote, he did not quote that retraction by Mr. Bakker. He stands convicted by his own report on referring only to part of the evidence. He admits now …

That is exactly what you are doing now.

I am dealing with one hon. gentleman at a time.

Mr. Boyder asked Mr. Bakker what he meant by that reply.

My hon. friends can chatter as much as they like, and the hon. member for George can get as hot under the collar as he likes, but I say this fact emerges, that in writing his minority report and framing a full-blooded accusation of favouritism against Fortifications, he omitted to tell the House and the country that Mr. Bakker in express terms voluntarily withdrew his charge of favouritism before the Committee. I would expect the hon. member at least to mention it. What has my hon. friend done? I know he feels sorry now.

Sorry!

He has framed a full-blooded accusation of favouritism against Fortifications and put only half the evidence in.

The same as you are doing.

Cackling again. No one has ever said that against me in this House.

You are doing it now. It is self-evident.

My hon. friends cannot take their medicine. My. hon. friend started this argument in the House, and I am now dealing with it, and I say this, that it runs for anybody to read, because we have supplied the missing link in the evidence; that in making that charge he told only half a story, and he omitted that pregnant piece of evidence where Mr. Bakker withdrew his charge. I will go on from where I was when my hon. friend rose. After Mr. Bakker had voluntarily come along and made this statement and said what I had quoted, we no longer treated his charge of favouritism seriously at all, and we carried that investigation no further at all. By common consent—I do not know what the hon. member thought—by common consent we took it that the charge was withdrawn, that there was no substance in it, and that there was nothing more to be said. Now I come to my hon. friend’s reference to the evidence of Mr. Hopewell—again one of these things he does impetuously, and I am sure is sorry for afterwards—in paragraph 10 of his minority report this is what my hon. friend says; I want the House to follow this point carefully—

Quite right.

Yes, I said that.

[Time limit extended] The joke of all this—this has a humorous side—the joke is this. He quotes from Mr. Hopewell’s strictures relating solely to war supplies and shipping repairs, but he issued a report on war supplies. That report was a unanimous report, and that report finds no evils at all in regard to war supplies. I do not know whether my hon. friend remembers that. I am giving the House an extract from it. The second report actually says this—and this deals with engineering contracts and war supplies—

And the report goes further—

That was a unanimous report which was also signed by the hon. member for George. This reference of Mr. Hopewell’s to abuses, to overcharges, in regard to war supplies and shipping repairs is covered by this second report which gives the whole system its blessing, but what does my hon. friend do? He drags it into a minority report on building. What for? To try and create an atmosphere, to bolster up a case, and for no other reason. As we say in our reply: “You may as well try to convict the butchers in Cape Town of profiteering by reference to what the grocers are doing in Pretoria.” You can see the lengths to which the hon. member for George is prepared to go in trying to make out a case. He puts in the forefront of his minority report strictures by Mr. Hopewell which he found only in the town of Durban and only in regard to war supplies and shipping repairs. Mr. Hopewell had nothing to do with building and building contracts, and his evidence was only taken by an accident. We happened to be in Durban taking evidence on building contracts, but in order to avoid a return to Durban we took his evidence on shipping repairs merely by accident. We might have gone back to Durban and taken the evidence of Mr. Hopewell. If we had done that it would not have been available to my hon. friend, but because it was given he takes it and drags it into his minority report, which deals only with building contracts. I come now to the point that my hon. friend is so keen on, namely, that the worst and not the best form of Cost-Plus was adopted by the Government. My hon. friend, right through his minority report stresses this point. He says: “If you had to have a Cost-Plus at all, why do you adopt the worst form of it and not the best form of it.”

That is my point.

I am going to deal with that. He sets out the four different kinds of Cost-Plus in his minority report, in paragraph 6—

He says: “Obviously the best of these is the last and instead of adopting the best of these, we adopted the worst.” There is one simple answer to my hon. friend, and I am going to give it. The existence of these four forms of Cost-Plus was not known to Defence or to anybody else until the Auditor-General published his report at the beginning of 1942, twelve months ago. There is the simple answer. It was in his report of 1942, the report which led to the establishment of this committee, when for the first time the Auditor-General, on reports he had received from England and elsewhere, defined these four forms of Cost-Plus, and it was not until then that it was done. In the meantime the Government had been carrying on for two years on the only form that was then known. That, in a word, is the complete answer to my hon. friend on that point. The truth about the hon. member for George is this, that he is more concerned with seeing that every rule and regulation is observed, with seeing that every canon of financial purity is followed, than with winning the war. My hon. friend is now instructing someone else, and is missing the point I am making.

You are not making any point.

While I was coming down in the train I had an opportunity of reading from an American source what they are doing over there. The House may have heard of Henry Kaiser, perhaps the greatest shipbuilder in the world, the man who has revolutionised American shipbuilding. Henry Kaiser’s first 10,000 ton cargo vessel was completed in October, 1941, in 197 days. This year he built one in two weeks. What were his methods? I commend these to my hon. friend. He did it by concentrating on the job, and his method is to employ a force of expediters. These people are employed by him to go through the length and breadth of the country to look for the things that Henry Kaiser wants on his job. What are the instructions given by Henry Kaiser to his expediters? I will read them from the Reader’s Digest—

That, sir, was the principle on which Col. Craig worked: Deliver the goods, produce the building. If Col. Craig has shocked my hon. friend’s conscience by some of his methods, that is just too bad, but the fact is that he has delivered the goods; he has produced the goods.

Although he wasted money?

Yes, although he wasted money. I say that again. My hon. friend would rather preserve complete financial purity and lose the war, whereas some of us would rather win the war, even though occasionally we break a regulation. Now I want to come to my hon. friend’s speech. He broke new ground in that speech on the subject of contractors’ profit, or rather, he developed it in a way that he did not in his minority report, and he has fallen into a very serious error. I take the speech as it is reported. My hon. friend can, of course, correct me. This is what he told the country. He said that the South African contractors got a completely excessive remuneration. He also said that the total contracts given by Fortifications to these contractors were £800,000; on that they made a profit at 10 per cent. The contracts altogether totalled £800,000 and on that they got a profit of £80,000. He asked: “What would they have got in England; what would they have got in Australia?” He said in Australia they would have got only 3 per cent. But what does my hon. friend base that on? He bases that on a statement which is contained in a letter of Mr. Curtin which is annexed to the memorandum. We had no opportunity of finding out how that 3 per cent. was arrived at in Australia. But we were informed by the Lewis Construction Company that that 3 per cent. is entirely fallacious and misleading. I cannot take that matter any further. We must be content to leave it at the figure mentioned in Mr. Curtin’s letter. But when it comes to the English case, I hope I can show that my hon. friend has completely misled the House and the country. He told this House that if these jobs had been done in England, the percentage allowed would have been only 2¾ per cent. He is completely wrong. He has forgotten what the evidence was. The evidence was given by Mr. Adams, Naval Superintending Civil Engineer of the British Admiralty. What Mr. Adams said was this: “We fixed a fee basis on a percentage, and we start at 10 per cent. on a £10,000 job and we taper down, and for one single job of £500,000 we would pay as low as 2¾ per cent.” This £800,000 job was not one job. It was a series of jobs up and down the coastal ports of the Union. Secondly, the hon. member forgets that the Committee received information afterwards tending to show that the figure of 2¾ per cent. was wrong, that it was 3½ per cent. So what does it come to? My hon. friend in his desperate endeavour to make a case, says that if these jobs were done in England, they would be done at 2¾ per cent. There is no evidence about that. I repeat that Mr. Adams said that they started on a 10 per cent. basis and worked down to 2¾ per cent., but that was only for one definite entity of a job which cost £500,000. So the information my hon. friend has given the House and the country on this point again is fallacious and misleading. I understand that my hon. friend, the member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), dealt with this question of the aerodrome at East London. The hon. member for George paints a horrible picture of favouritism in regard to that job at East London. He says that the P.W.D. were doing the job, that they were doing it well, and that they were suddenly brushed aside. The job was taken out of their hands and given to Fortifications, and Fortifications without rhyme or reason, but simply through favouritism, brought in a big firm to do the job. But what are the facts, sir? The facts are that the aerodrome in East London consisted of several portions and the P.W.D. were carrying on the first portion of that work with a firm of local contractors. Then, while they were carrying on, they were told to hand over the remainder of the work, being in the coastal area, to Fortifications. Fortifications investigated the position and found that the contracts already under P.W.D., which were not disturbed, had already absorbed the whole available contracting forces in East London. All the available contracting forces in East London had already been absorbed. Therefore, when Fortifications came in with a job of £250,000 or more, it had neither the labour complement nor the contractors available on the spot to do the work, and in those circumstances they called in this big Cape Town firm, and both the P.W.D. and Fortifications agreed that in those circumstances there was no other course which could be pursued. But in this vendetta which my hon. friend carries on against Fortifications, he does not hestitate to use this instance as one of the charges he hurls at them. Then there is this financial sin of Fortifications in carrying its staff on the books of the contractors.

I should like to hear you on that.

Yes, my hon. friend would like to hear me on this. He is going to hear me. In time of peace and under normal conditions, not a single word can be said in defence of such a practice. But what did Fortifications do? They went to the contractor and said: “We have not got authority for the employment of so many time-keepers and so many storemen and so on, but we have got to have them. You pay them out of your funds, and we will repay you when it comes to paying the contract.” And that is what the contractors did. I say again that one cannot defend that in normal circumstances, but what were the circumstances? Col. Craig would be rung up on the phone and told: “In three months time you have to have a camp at Pollsmoor, costing £500,000, and housing 10,000 or 15,000 men; the only thing that counts is time.” Col. Craig has not got the staff and can only get the staff by going cap in hand to the Public Service Commission and to the Quartermaster-General. He was fased with the alternative of getting on with the job without any supervision at all, simply paying the contractors whatever they asked, taking their time-sheets at their face value, allowing them to check in stores themselves, to have no supervision; or he has to provide his supervision in this way.

And report it at once.

Yes.

Which he did not do.

I will deal with it step by step. I say this,—and no fair-minded man in this House will differ from me—that in those circumstances he had no alternative; and the hon. member agrees with me too, that the system was a bad one; he agrees with me in saying this, that if you tell an officer like Col. Craig that he has to produce a given result in the shortest possible time, then you must allow him, the man on the spot, to engage his own supervisory staff. I am speaking now about the temporary staff on the job. We all agree that the system was cumbrous; we agree that the system was unworkable. Col. Craig should have had a blanket authority to engage his staff in any job. When my Committee went out to Brooklyn—I think it was Brooklyn—we found one officer and about two clerks supervising a job many square miles in extent, and comprising the work of about four or five different contractors. We found the job quite an impossible one. The men could not carry out the supervision. I got in touch by telegram with the Quartermaster-General saying that there was no staff to carry out the supervision. A few weeks later Col. Craigstill had the same staff and the matter had not been remedied. Desperate diseases call for desperate remedies, and it is common cause that Col. Craig had no option to do but what he did.

He should have reported it.

The hon. member says he should have reported it. The answer is that he did report it. This matter came to the notice of the Public Service Inspectors, and they reported that this hideous crime was being committed from the point of view of all Public Service canons of Administration. Col. Craig was asked for the facts: “What are you doing and what were you doing?” He reported all these facts fully. He gave the name of the aerodrome, the names of persons employed there, and all the information they wanted.

Except in regard to Durban.

Anyway it is common cause that he did report the facts fully. Did he get an express injunction not to do it any more? No, he did not. Maj. Jordaan claimed on behalf of Col. Craig that he was justified in thinking that his action had been condoned. Then, unfortunately, the practice continued. Why? Because the system went on; because every time they started a new job, they still had to go to Pretoria to get their staff. Right up to the time of our report, every time a new job started, they were faced with the same difficulty, and when we were in Durban in August, we were told that millions of pounds were going to be spent on new projects. A month later they did start. The officer in charge had to go to Pretoria to see what staff he could get. I say again that it is wrong according to public account standards. But who will tell me that a man like Col. Craig is to be censured because he had to deliver the goods? It is wrong, but then the system was wrong. He could not get the supervisory staff that he should have got, and he did not get it. Mr. Gibson, the Public Service Inspector, who came before us, agreed in express terms that not a single unnecessary man had been employed; and secondly that Col. Craig, faced with the dilemma which faced him, could not have acted other than he did. I just want to come very briefly to my hon. friend’s amendment. He is not satisfied. He is not satisfied that he has had this committee; he is not satisfied that he has served on that Committee; he i snot satisfied that that Committee has proved every matter that came before it. He now wants another Committee. Let me remind the hon. member and let me remind the House, how this Cost-Plus Committee came into existence. It came into existence on a unanimous recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee. The recommendation was passed after they had had under review the report of the Auditor-General. This year the report of the Auditor-General is still under consideration. Mv hon. friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that they are still in the middle of investigating the Auditor-General’s report. We would therefore be premature with this motion. If the Public Accounts Committee finds that there is need for a further enquiry, if it formulates a recommendation that there should be such an enquiry, such a recommendation no doubt will be considered by the Prime Minister on its merits. But there is no call now for my hon. friend to rush in at the beginning of the Session with this full-blooded resolution demanding a Committee. Although this Committee was called a Committee of Cost-Plus-Contract, it did in fact take into review almost every branch of war expenditure. We investigated the building programme. We have spent up to date on war supplies £35,000,000. We considered the work of the Director-General of War Supplies. Let me put that at £40,000,000 for 2½ years or three years. We went fairly thoroughly into shipping—say £5,000,000. Therefore, we did investigate war expenditure to an amount of £80,000,000. When you have taken buildings, when you have taken war supplies, when you have taken shipping, what is left? I will tell you: The actual expenditure on the war itself, i.e. the pay of our troops. The references by the Auditor-General to the pay accounts, to the Pay-Master and so forth, are actually under investigation. The Chief Pay-Master is actually to be examined. I say, therefore, that there is no case at the moment. Let me repeat this, if the Public Accounts Committee feels, as it did last year, that there must be a specific enquiry on some matter which it cannot carry out, then it is free to make such a recommendation to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. But my hon. friend’s amendment at the moment is entirely premature. There are just one or two words I would like to say in conclusion. In our memorandum we quote American comment on a report in America very similar to our own, and this is what that journal in America says: It is quoted in paragraph 3 of our memorandum—

Now, Sir, the chief sport of the Opposition is not rugby or tennis, or even jukskei; the chief sport of the Opposition is high-lighting the bad, and the champion high-lighter of them all is the hon. member for George. No one has ever accused me of being a yes-man; I can say that having conducted that enquiry, having probed it in all its branches, having helped to unearth many instances of wrong expenditure and bad management—I agree with all that, but my conclusion is summed up in these words of the American journal—

It is a very peculiar phenomenon that we have been experiencing in this House, particularly of late, that when facts are submitted to the House and the country, one sometimes finds one of the Ministers participating in the debate, by way of exception, but when they do not consider themselves equal to the task, a member such as the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) is hastily summoned from the North to come (who knows) by aeroplane, to save what it still to be saved out of the precarious position the Government finds itself in as a result of disclosures such as those by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). What has the hon. member for Kensington done except to endeavour to accuse the hon. member for George of telling half truths to this House and the country? If I have understood him right, that was his charge against the hon. member for George. In reply to that I have to say that the charge much rather applies to the hon. member himself than to the hon. member for George. He made a great fuss about the Bakker case. Mr. Bakker is alleged to have stated at first that his firm had never had an opportunity to share in the contract work, and then he accuses the hon. member for George of having presented a portion only of the evidence of Mr. Bakker to the House. But what does the hon. member for Kensington do? He does a much worse thing. He presents the case to members, who have not had the privilege of sitting on the Committee, and who are not acquainted with all the details, and have not heard the evidence, in such a manner that they must gain the impression that Mr. Bakker made a certain allegation and then subsequently came back and withdrew his words and stated that it was not so. What is the true position however? Of course, we have only a part of the evidence before us, not all, but on the basis of this we can arrive at certain conclusions. We have here that portion of the evidence to which the hon. member for Kensington refers, and it appears on page 447. But note well: What portion of the evidence did Mr. Bakker emphasise. Not that his firm had not had the opportunity to do work, but that the firm was not prepared to tender and take the risk. But further on in the Report we see after the so-called withdrawal of Mr. Bakker, further evidence of the greatest significance, and the hon. member for Kensington carefully remains silent about it. He has the audacity to accuse the hon. member for George of having told a half truth, but he does the same thing.

I read the whole thing.

No. Mr. Bakker clearly indicates what he meant as a result of cross questioning by certain members. It is a pity that we do not have the opportunity of having the entire report of the evidence, for then we might find much worse things than those already disclosed by the hon. member for George. But on page 465 of the report Mr. Bakker states very emphatically that thus far he has not done any defence work. Then we find a cross-examination as follows—

I read that.

Where in the name of heaven does the hon. member get the right to come here and accuse the hon. member for George of telling half of the truth? Here we have the actual position now.

I referred to it.

Only later, when you were challenged.

I do not think a further reply to that interjection is necessary. The hon. member for Kensington tried for as long as an hour to explain away a bad case.

When business was suspended for lunch, I was indicating what a sorry figure the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) had cut. Perhaps it is unnecessary for a person to devote so much time to his beating about the bush and irrevelant remarks; but as he is the understudy of the Minister of Finance, the leader over there as regards financial matters, it might serve a good purpose to go a bit further into the so-called arguments he endeavoured to use here. I wish to have it well understood that I have not accused the hon. member of not having read certain sections of the report, but the point I have made is that the hon. member has read out certain information and made certain deductions, and then arrived at the conclusion that the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) had presented false things to this House. If the hon. member is going to draw such faulty inferences, as he has drawn this morning, in his future career, I am sorry for the accused appearing before him. It would seem to us that the hon. member, also has not read the report, in common with the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) who has admitted that he, together with the Prime Minister, has not read the report well. I admit that he might have read it, but he most certainly has not studied it. He came here with an endeavour to reply to the hon. member for George, who stated that the personnel of the Committee was not the best we could have had, and in his reply he merely confirmed what the hon. member for George had said, namely, that there were interested parties on that Committee; and how can he expect a person who is interested in the matter, to give a verdict in such a matter? But the hon. member went still further, and explained to us how those members were in an uncomfortable position. To justify the constitution of the Committee, he went still further and said that he hon. member for George had no right to serve on the Committee, because he had voted against the war expenditure in the House.

I did not say that.

He said he had been compromised.

I asked him to serve on the Committee.

The hon. member definitely stated that the hon. member for George had been compromised just like the other two members.

I said that if the other two members had been compromised, he was as deeply compromised.

Well if the hon. member for George had been compromised, then the hon. member for Kensington had been compromised a hundred times more, for was he not the one who during the last Session of Parliament came here with crocodile tears and made all kinds of promises to this side, if only we would support their war effort? It was he who, when England was in the critical position after Dunkirk, promised us a paradise, that they would even release the people from the internment camps, if we would only help. He is the one who wants to fight to the last man and to the last penny in a war which is no concern of ours, and with which we want nothing to do. He is one of those who say that the great thing is that the work must be done; we do not look at the cost. Can we permit such a person to serve on such a Committee—who says that it does not matter what such works cost; that we need not consider the expense; we have only to serve the cause; can we permit such a person to serve on a Committee which has to enquire whether irregularities have occurred or not? If we follow the so-called arguments of the hon. member further, we see in him precisely the same phenomenon we have found in other members opposite who have participated in this debate. They want to disguise this pernicious system of Cost-Plus a percentage. They come along and continuously talk about Cost-Plus and not Cost-Plus a percentage. They carefully conceal the percentage basis. The hon. member for Kensington has read from the letter written by the Prime Minister of Australia. What does the Prime Minister of Australia emphasise? He says that in certain circumstances—and the hon. member for Kensington surely does not aver that South Africa is in as precarious a position as Australia? The Japanese were at the gates of Australia. Australia was in a critical position, and the Prime Minister of Australia then wrote—

It was the threat of Japan—

The Prime Minister of Australia also is not in favour of the system of Cost-Plus a percentage. No, he does not want those people, who during war time always are filling their pockets, and do not go and do their duty where they say the citizen can best do his duty, to have a chance. The Prime Minister of Australia continues—

Had we had anything of this nature in South Africa, we would not have had the condemnation of it to the extent to which we have had it. It is for the very reason that this control has been lacking in South Africa, that we have had this state of confusion. Even if we refer to this report which has been tabled by the Committee, as well as the Auditor-General’s report, we can come to no other conclusion than that the people of South Africa have been expected to put up with things that could not have been expected of any civilised country in this enlightened century. Things have been going on in our country which cannot be permitted in a civilised country in these times. One comes to the conclusion that the slender money-bags of the country have been left open for the vultures to prey upon it, and the Government has, like a Rip van Winkle, not yet awakened from its war dream, and does not yet realise that it has to put a stop to these things. Even an inequality such as the payment of double salaries disappears into nothingness in comparison with the manner in which the people of South Africa is being no less than robbed. The money of the country is being squandered in this manner. The report of the Auditor-General shows that a stigma has been cast on the country, and it will remain on record as a scandal against this Government which posterity will also see. What has a man to say, who today has to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow? In this country we have the position that thousands upon thousands of people are living below the bread-line. Where they do have a livelihood, they are not in the position to earn sufficient to make a decent living, because there never is money to apply to those kinds of services. There is no money for railway connections and bus services. No account is taken of what the future might bring. Take the position of the cattle-farmer in our country today. The people suffer colossal losses as a result of the shortsightedness of the Minister of Agriculture who has not seen to it that there are sufficient quantities of bonemeal in the country. And now that there is a little bonemeal available, now they come along with a permit system which works so slowly that you constantly hear of losses throughout the country. We do not wish to go into all the shortcomings of this Government in regard to these matters now. There are numerous instances we could mention. On the one hand we have those difficulties, and on the other hand we have those people who are filling their pockets under the very nose of the Government, with the unfair earnings they are making. No wonder the Minister of Lands referred to people who are making pots and pots of money. It is lack of control that promotes these things. Now this side of the House comes along, through the medium of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and proposes an amendment asking for a stop to be put to these things that are happening, and of which there is convincing proof in the report of the Auditor-General as well as in the reports of the Committee which are countersigned by the hon. member for Kensington; asking also that a Standing Committee be appointed in South Africa, as in other countries, to supervise these things. The Prime Minister has told us: “No, this is going too far, it cannot be done; we have to leave the work to the Auditor-General.” The Prime Minister says that when he discloses certain things, further steps may be considered. Let us just enquire into the position for a while. The hon. Prime Minister refers to a certificate given to him by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), and he waved the report about in the air in a dramatic manner and said: There is the proof, all is well. He carefully avoided replying to the interjection by the hon. member for George: “After that (i.e. after the first report) only the scandals were exposed. I have here the third report which is also countersigned by the hon. member for Kensington. What does it say?

It is called an unsatisfactory feature that it was left to the Auditor-General to unearth it, and that Fortifications themselves did not unearth it. The report continues:

Now where does the Prime Minister find his certificate that all is well? Here the Third Report of the Committee comes along and says that all is not well at all, and that there is a hopeless position, that matters have been allowed to accumulate and that ultimate settlement of them might be extremely difficult. The Prime Minister says that the Auditor-General is the person to point out the malpractices, but if we refer to the report of the Auditor-General, we find him saying—

He himself states that the report is unaudited, but nevertheless the Prime Minister comes along and says that we should just let things develop; it must just go on as it is until the Auditor-General someday manages to unearth the mistakes. If we go further, we find that the Auditor-General is entirely unable to do the work. It is not his fault. He has too small a number of qualified auditors and other clerks at his disposal to check up those accounts properly, for the difficulty is increased on account of the omission by the Defence Department to furnish financial documents. When we see all these things, and when we consider that nearly £100,000,000 is spent on Defence in one year, can we permit things to continue so loosely until someday we will be able to unearth the malpractices? If these things have to continue, I am afraid that the malpractices of this war will be exposed in distant posterity. In the first place therefore we have an incomplete report, but from the sections that have been audited, we can come to one conclusion only, and that is that conditions are very serious. We can only say: “Poor Auditor-General,” but also “Poor people of South Africa.” There is mismanagement and the financial control of the Defence Force is in a chaotic state. There are innumerable instances in the reports, too many to enumerate in the short time at my disposal, to confirm that the position is very disturbing, that there are gaps, lack of proper auditing and supervision and control, as well as lack of desire to put a stop to the malpractices. What can we expect when there is such a lack of will? If the Government does not lack the will to rectify matters, why then does the Prime Minister not accept our amendment? Let us have such a Committee, which will be engaged not only during the Session, but also after the Session, on an enquiry into the expenditure by the Department of Defence. Have we now to adopt a policy of just allowing things to develop? Does the Prime Minister not realise that there must be keymen to do the auditing, men whose front is in South Africa, and whose work is more important than that of any soldier at the front? The Auditor-General reports that the statements have not been audited, but if you take the part that has been audited, you see there has been arson, theft, overpayments, deficits, etc. To mention just a few instances. The Auditor-General refers to increased wages paid to workmen in error—

He refers to Native labourers who have been paid a walking allowance for the time it takes them to proceed to work from their homes. Is it not a scandalous state of affairs? Those of us who know the Native, know that he never is in a hurry to get to work, and the Government pays an allowance to the Native for the time taken by him in proceeding to his work. In paragraph 15, page 8, he mentions the case of contractors who had received exorbitant prices. In paragraph 19 of his report he states—

If this is not a scandalous manner in which the Department of Defence is carrying-on, then I do not know what we could call scandalous. Further on in the report we find cases where people, who had to execute works, had to wait two months before they could continue with their work, and we see that during that period wages had been paid to an amount of about £350 to people who had done nothing. Why? Because the Department of Defence in that case had omitted to convey the necessary information to the Department of Irrigation which did the work in this case. Nor is one surprised that errors crept in with regard to the supply depot. We see there were 27 main depots, and, apart from two which are under daily control, in fact, 17 of them have not been checked. They may just carry on and maybe we shall discover errors after many years. It is a disgusting state of affairs. I do not say that the mistakes are always made wilfully, but there is no control by people duly qualified to do the work. So one could continue. One finds that flags have been bought by the Department of Defence to an amount of nearly £6,000, to be distributed among the various commands, but the Auditor says that the question as to whether they will be distributed or not will not be decided until after the war. We see misdeeds in every direction, and one cannot understand why the Prime Minister refuses to accept our proposal to nominate a Committee. Why should we not follow the example of England and other countries in this respect? The reason is that the Government is afraid. If the people become aware of the misdeeds, it will go hard with the Government. They have received a bitter pill now after the appointment of one Committee. The pill is very bitter. That is why the Government does not want to run the risk of having to swallow other bitter pills. These things must be concealed. There is an election coming, and the people may not know who are the exploiters and extortioners, and who is making the masses of money to which the Minister of Lands has referred. The Government follows Great Britain in many wrong things; why does it not follow Great Britain in regard to this great thing, by appointing such a Committee? The Government is afraid. They do not want an enquiry into the expenditure, for it might result in further misdeeds being exposed. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) has said that in our country there are not occurring such outrageous things as are happening in England and America. I think that if the matter is gone into, it will appear that the conditions here are no less serious. The hon. Prime Minister quotes only one paragraph from the first report, in which it is stated that the position is not as bad as it was thought. That is the first report, but the Prime Minister forgets what appears in the later reports. I have here the second report of the Commission, for instance. In this they state—

Here the Committee comes forward and says that things must come to an end, and it emphasises that there is profiteering on the part of contractors. We know it is so. If you keep your eyes open, you see what is happening. Therefore we ask the Government to appoint a Committee, a properly constituted Committee, not one that wants to whitewash the Department but a Committee which will make a full enquiry into matters, and which will have the machinery to enquire into everything, so that a stop can be put to the scandals. When you peruse the reports, you arrive at the conclusion that there is tremendous profiteering. This side will insist upon an enquiry. We shall not remain silent. We shall not have ourselves deterred by members who say that it is not becoming to do this or that, or to attack this or that person, or to criticise this or that matter. We shall continue exposing the misdeeds. It is not very difficult to expose misdeeds. You are almost in the position of the widow and the pitcher which never became empty. You can continue from morning to night bringing scandals to the notice of the people, and we are going to insist upon an enquiry into these things, and upon a stop being put to the irregularities. We shall continue to do so until the Government has the courage to go to the people in an election, and we know what the result is going to be.

The debate on the Part Appropriation Bill affords an opportunity to me of asking the Food Controller in the politest manner possible if he can explain some incongruities that seem to abound in his department. We know very well that he has a difficult role to perform as Food Controller, but there are certain simple things which are occurring, which are beyond the wit of man to comprehend, and one would like to have some light thrown on these matters. In Maritzburg a City with a normal population of 40,000, which today is nearer 100,000, if you include the various military camps, and the other influx that has taken place in the last year or two, many complaints are voiced. I have a letter from the leading fruiterers in Maritzburg, some of whom I saw on a recent visit to that town, in which they say this—

Against other complaints made against this body it is said with a great amount of proof that they have been destroying fruit or allowing it to rot than permit it to be sold at reasonable prices. That criticism also applies to the Citrus Board, and I was surprised to hear from one of the most responsible men I know in Maritzburg, confirmation of the fact that the Citrus Board destroyed fruit wholesale rather than sell it at reasonable prices. Now, this gentleman who gave me my information is a prominent man in Maritzburg who also grows fruit in the country. He told me that he had instructed his farm manager in Zululand to get a truck load of citrus and send it to Oribi Camp for the benefit of the troops there. He was amazed to receive a flat refusal on the part of the Railways even to provide a truck, because they said the Citrus Board control all the consignments of citrus fruit, and Oribi Camp was not one of the destinations to which they were allowed to send fruit, so they refused to send it or to provide a truck. Now, hon. members will realise that this is a serious charge. Here we find that this department is so ineffective, or deliberately opposed to the war effort that when a public spirited man wishes to give a truck load of citrus fruit to the troops he is not allowed to carry out that act of goodwill because the Citrus Board stands over the Railways and will not allow them to send the fruit to its destination. In addition to that I want to touch briefly on the position in regard to the feeding of poultry and the feeding of animals generally. We have all accepted loyally the decision of the Minister that no maize could be used after the end of February for anything but the supplying of human beings in the Union. In other words, that cattle are not to be fed on maize after the end of February. But quite recently I submitted to the Minister a telegram from a prominent produce dealer in Maritzburg which said briefly: “I have the opportunity of buying 500 bags of hominy chop from Bethlehem. Will the authorities grant a permit for this purpose”? I applied without loss of time to the Minister’s Department and after some patient waiting I was sent a copy of a letter which the Deputy-Food Controller had addressed to this gentleman in Maritzburg. If you were to read that letter you would grow impatient—a lor of long winded arguments that were entered into as to whether the sender of the telegram did not already have the right to buy hominy chop, the Deputy-Food Controller making out that he did not understand the position. I said: “If the writer of that letter does not understand the position I shall tell him what it is very clearly.” You have told us that we may not use maize for anything but human consumption; we have accepted that but here is a buyer who has heard of hominy chop which is not fit for human consumption, which is never eaten so far as I know, by any human being without bad results, and he asks for permission to buy this food in order to help those poor diarymen who will be obliged to sell their stock at great sacrifice through not being able to feed their cattle. One prominent dairyman supplying 500 persons in Durban was obliged to go out of business, because he could not get food for his cattle. I know others were selling their stack rather than arrive at the stage at which, for all they know, there may be no maize for months to come. It was a reasonable request from this dealer, because if he had been allowed to buy these 500 bags of hominy chop, the supply would have gone a long way in his centre to keep the dairymen going. Those dairymen in the neighbourhood of towns where grazing is scarce cannot possibly support their cattle unless they get some concentrates of that kind to feed their cattle. The attitude of the Deputy-Food Controller was interpreted by me to be a flat refusal to grant the permission asked for. I said in my reply to the Minister of Agriculture: “I can only come to the conclusion, sir, that this long letter means that the Deputy-Food Controller flatly refuses to grant that permit.” I want to know why. I want to know in the most explicit manner possible, whether the Deputy-Food Controller is entitled to lay down the law in that manner, when it is the duty of the Minister to see that all people are treated fairly and with due consideration. We have stopped the dairy farmers from feeding maize to their cattle; hominy chop is not human food; for heaven’s sake grant this permit and let us get on with the good work. No, sir, the Minister’s officials prefer to spend hours, days, and even weeks in useless and futile correspondence, rather than to get on with the good work. That is the attitude which conditions the policy of the Food Controller. His officials are a law unto themselves. If the Minister has a policy it has been rendered unintelligible by the bad work of his officials. They want a good hefty kick in the pants—that is the kind of treatment needed to bring these people to their senses. We have suffered this long enough, sir. I don’t care who the Food Controller or the Deputy-Food Controller may be. I say that I am utterly unmoved by explanations from those quarters. I say the people of this country are driven to desperation by these methods. Let me have the permit, sir, as I stand here. There is no reason in the world why these people in Maritzburg should not have it; it would help considerably in the tasks of milk production in the area which is seriously affected by a shortage of food. We know from the Medical Officer of Health that in Durban alone there is a shortage of 2,000 gallons of milk daily, but these things mean nothing to the Department of the Minister, and it is high time, sir, that this Department was brought to a sense of the realities of the position. I have here a letter from one of the men who has suffered in regard to this matter. He treats the matter philosophically. He says—

That is the attitude of despair that the people are obliged to take up. Their attitude is: “The Food Controller has spoken, and that is all there is about it.” I do entreat the Minister, if public service means anything, it certainly does not mean this sort of thing. I was a public servant for the best part of 20 years, and if I had ventured for half a day to embark upon conduct such as these people have shown, I should have been sacked on the spot, and it would have served me right. I tell you, sir, that these men are doing an infinity of harm; they are doing harm that the Minister cannot measure. When you think, sir, of what these Boards are allowed to do—the Citrus Board destroys fruit for the sake of the paltry profit that they can make out of it; the Citrus Board refuses to allow fruit to go to the troops because they get nothing out of it. Where a man seeks to benefit the soldiers by a wholly public-spirited action, he is prevented from doing so by a Board that the Minister has appointed under his own hand. And, sir, you have now the Deciduous Board following very closely the policy of the Citrus Board. You may take it, sir, that the letter I have read expresses the indignation of the leading fruiterers in Pietermaritzburg. These people are completely dissatisfied with this Board, they have no confidence in it, and would like to see it dissolved and done away with. But we have got to suffer all these things. We as farmers are supposed to make bricks without straw, we are supposed to keep up production, and when it is almost impossible to get any material for the task, the Food Controller flatly refuses to grant us a permit for food that is not used for human consumption, and which is available at reasonable prices for the feeding of dairy stock. We have reached the stage at which we cannot suffer any more of this. On the 5th February, 1943, the South African Poultry Association wrote to the Minister of Agriculture as follows:

I do ask the Minister whatever he may be told by his advisers, he must brush them aside and do the right thing in spite of those advisers. Certainly, if the measure of their long-winded letter is the measure of their willingness to help us, it is a very deficient measure indeed. We get no satisfaction out of this correspondence, we realise with an air of despair that nothing can be done with the department. We want to them to behave with commonsense and reason.

They have not got it.

As far as the country is concerned, we want the dissolution of any Board that sets out to destroy fruit and prevent it from reaching people for whom it is destined from public-spirited donors.

A serious complaint has been made against the Government in connection with its financial policy, and up to the present the reply which we have had from the Government has definitely been weak. The country is disturbed; the country is seriously concerned about the reckless extravagance and waste which is going on; the country is concerned about the enrichment of favoured people. We know this Government of the Prime Minister as a government of extravagance. It is not the first time that the present Prime Minister is head of the Government in South Africa. On a former occasion he was also the head of the Government, and then the country had the experience of millions of pounds being wasted and all trace of it lost, and when the Prime Minister again came into power, the country felt that the same thing might happen again. This charge is now made, and the country is convinced, judging by the poor reply which was given, that it is paying a high price for the Government we have today. The Prime Minister cannot be regarded as a man who has special knowledge of economic matters. He simply allows these things to develop with the result that there is no proper control over these matters. We realise that in time of war abnormal circumstances prevail, and that there is general dislocation: For that reason steps should be taken at a time like this to prevent improper expenditure from taking place, and to prevent improper profiteering on the part of certain individuals and groups. I have already said that the Prime Minister is not a person who can realise these things and control them, but the least one would have expected was that he would have appointed people who were able to exercise control. Only recently we heard of certain steps which would be taken, and that was done after it had been proved that there were great leakages in the country’s expenditure. The Opposition proposes that a constant eye should be kept on the expenditure of the country, and one would have thought that the Government would welcome the assistance which was offered by this side of the House, and that it would say: “We will co-operate in effecting this control.” No! I say that we can only come to one conclusion, and that is that the Government is afraid that its misdeeds of the past will be revealed to an even greater extent than has been done by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). In abnormal times such as war, it is reasonable that measures of control should be adopted in connection with any matter. But the most important measures of control must be taken in connection with the war expenditure of the Government itself. We heard that there were big leakages and maladministration in the Department of Defence, and for that reason we hoped that the Government would see to it that proper control is exercised. But the Government is not prepared to take those steps, and in future the country will have to pay a high price for the refusal on the part of the Government to exercise this essential control. When the first Budget was submitted after the war, I prophesied that it would not be long before this country’s expenditure amounted to £100,000,000 per annum, and we hear now that in respect of the past year the war expenditure will exceed £100,000,000. We do not know what this may lead to, and it is therefore essential, in view of the fact that the expenditure is so extraordinarily high, since new works are being built, that the most careful attention should be paid to controlling expenditure. Here we offer an opportunity to the Government to see to it that such expenditure will be properly controlled, but the Government turns it down. Control measures are demanded during abnormal times. For that reason we expected that steps would immediately be taken in connection with the commercial and industrial stocks which were in the country when the war broke out. But nothing was done in that direction. We heard recently that the Minister is now creating a Supplies Board. If such a Board had been appointed earlier, it could have prevented unreasonable profiteering. It is true that at a later stage steps were taken by the Government to control prices. But no return was taken of stocks on hand so as to see to it that no extra profits were added in selling those stocks. We know that a certain type of dealer in South Africa, perhaps knowing that the war would come, laid in unusually large stocks, and when the war broke out those people had huge stocks on hand, and today they are selling those stocks at big profits. I know certain cases where dealers refused to bring their stocks into the market at a certain stage. They waited until the market price had risen, and then only they brought their stocks on to the market. If you make investigations, you will find that there are certain dealers who had accumulated stocks, on which at a later date, they made huge profits. Those people are profiteering today on a scale which is unknown in our history. As I have said, one would have expected the Minister to intervene and to control prices. We have never, for example, objected to the appointment of the Minister of Agriculture as Price Controller, in connection with agriculture and foodstuffs. If, however, there is one person in the country who has succeeded preeminently in demonstrating his indisputable inefficiency, then it is the Minister of Agriculture. He is regarded as the Food Pope (Paap).

Food … ?

Not idiot (swaap); I said Food Pope (Paap). The public might perhaps have thought it was the other name. I think there is no one in the country who has shown himself less efficient to fill that role than the Minister of Agriculture. He has convinced the producers, the middlemen and the consumers that he is not qualified for that role. Just ask the producer, the middleman and the consumer what they think of the Minister of Agriculture. They will tell you that he has exercised no control, that he has only dislocated things. Ask the opinion of the consumers in Durban who are unable to obtain certain products while at the same time the people in Johannesburg are overloaded with those products. One would have expected the Minister to see to it that foodstuffs are controlled in such a way that there would be no dislocation. There are three things in connection with which steps should be taken. In connection with production, we must see to it that sufficient quantities will be produced, but we must also see to it that the distribution of those products will be effected in such a wav that there will be the least possible dislocation and that the profits which are taken in connection with those foodstuffs will not be unreasonable, in other words, we must see to it that we create proper channels of distribution, and then we must prevent the exploitation of the consumer. What is the country’s opinion in connection with these three functions which the hon. Minister had to fulfil? Did he see to it that there was proper distribution? Did he create channels of distribution, and did he enable the consumer to buy the food which he required? Without going into details, one feels immediately that the Minister has failed hopelessly in so far as food control is concerned. But I want to say a few words mainly in connection with the producers’ side of the case. The Minister is supposed to function in these abnormal times as the person who will protect the interests of the producer. Let us see how he has protected the producer, how he has looked after the interests of the producer. Take the wool farmer. After the war broke out the Minister entered into a wool agreement with the British Government. We were against the scheme because we thought that it would be better for us not to accept such a scheme at that stage. But assuming that the Minister considered it advisable to accept such a scheme, I want to ask him whether he can deny that he has shown in his actions that he was not a match for those people who entered into the contract with him, with the result that the wool farmers lost at least £2,000,000. [Laughter.] The hon. Minister of Finance laughs, but I say that we have proved it in this House. It would be very interesting to go into the matter afresh today. I should like to do that, because we have the Minister of Commerce and Industries here who was in London at the time, and perhaps he can tell us whether we are correct in our contention. The Minister of Agriculture held out to the farmers that they would get an assured guranteed price for their wool. Recently there was an increase in the price stipulated in the Agreement. Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, were to receive an increase of 15 per cent., 15 per cent. more than the contract price which was originally agreed upon. South Africa, however, does not receive 15 per cent. more, but 20 per cent. Why? That was done because the Minister knew that during the first two years our wool was sold at too low a price and that the wool farmers did not get the guaranteed price which the Minister held out to them. The fact is that they received 5 per cent. too little for their wool. Now there has been this increase. The Minister does not want to reply when we ask him to tell us what the average price was which the wool farmers got during the first two years. His reply is that this is a contract entered into with the British Government and that he cannot divulge this. Australia, however, does not refuse to divulge the price. Why should it be such a terrible secret in South Africa? I shall tell you what the reason is. It is simply because that guaranteed price was not given to South Africa, and this is proved by the fact that South Africa received an increase of 20 per cent., while Australia and New Zealand received an increase of only 15 per cent. When the Minister had to take steps in the interests of the wool farmers, he acted in such a way that he prejudiced the farmers to the extent of a £1,000,000 a year. Take the vegetable farmer, for example. We know what happens to the hardworking vegetable farmers in the Cape They bring their potatoes to the Cape Town market; the potatoes accumulate here and are practically given away. The Minister fixed the price of potatoes. He fixed a maximum price, but at the same time he failed to fix a minimum price, nor did he see to it that in the future there would be proper cold storage facilities for the produce of the farmer. Nor did he take steps to see that the farmer would receive a price which would make it a payable proposition for him to produce. He simply folds his hands and allows things to take their course. What happens? In our harbours and big cities—in Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg—potatoes are lying and rotting today. The Minister told us that we must participate in the war because if we did not do so our products would lie here and rot. The Government plunged us into this war, and as a result of our entering the war, our produce is now rotting here. As a result of his maladministration, our produce lies and rots here today. I do not think the farmers have any reason to be grateful to the Minister for his control measures. The price fixation was ill-considered, and the Minister did not take the necessary steps to see to it that the market would be fed in such a way that it would not collapse, as is happening today. But apart from the fact that the farmers have to give their potatoes away for practically nothing today, the Government started competing with the potato farmers on a large scale in the meantime. The Government proceeded to plant potatoes at Vaal Hartz and Pongola. What was the result of that competition? The result was that the price of potatoes fell to an even greater extent. Recently the Minister denied that that was the case. He denied that they competed with the farmers. If the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) and I had not made representations to Defence recently, the farmers in the neighbourhood of Riet River who plant potatoes and who were encouraged by the officials of the Government to do so for the military camp at Koffiefontein, would not even have had the right to offer their potatoes for sale at the camp. It was only when we drew their attention to their promise that they permitted this. The Minister says that these potatoes which the Government produces are largely sold to convoys. But if the Government had not sold them to the convoys, the farmers would have been able to sell their potatoes to the convoys. Government officials travelled about the country and encouraged the farmers to produce. I just want to say this this afternoon—I do not want to state it as an absolute truth—but I was told that Government officials even went so far as to hold out the prospect of certain prices for certain products. I was told that these officials held out the prospect of certain minimum prices which the farmers would get for their potatoes for instance. The impression which was created by these Government officials was that the farmers could safely proceed to plant. What was the result? The markets are now overloaded to such an extent that the produce cannot be sold. No one but the Minister himself is responsible for that state of affairs. The steps which he took caused the dislocation of the market. If he had not competed with the farmers, the market would not have been dislocated to the extent it was. Why did he not cultivate wheat at Pongola, Riet River and Vaal Hartz? There was not a surplus of wheat and if he had confined himself to wheat, he would not have dislocated the market. But he proceeded to grow potatoes on a large scale, with the result that he dislocated the whole market, and that the farmers suffered damage. No, the Government stands accused of having controlled these matters in such a way that the farmers were prejudiced to an enormous extent. Take the meat farmers. Recently there was a shortage, to some extent, of slaughter stock as a result of the drought. At that time cattle were not put on the market on a large scale, and the price was high. The Minister then intervened and controlled the price. He introduced price fixation, but in that respect, too, the Minister acted in such a clumsy and ill-considered manner, that he totally dislocated the meat market, and not only did he dislocate the market in so far as the producer was concerned, with the result that the price of sheep fell, but the consumer also had to suffer because the agents and brokers did not know how to observe the Minister’s regulations. The regulations were framed in such a clumsy way that the people could not understand them. Prices were fixed by fractions and farthings, and to such a degree that the dealers and market agents did not know how to observe the price regulations. If they had to observe the regulations, they would have had to engage additional bookkeepers to work out what fraction of a penny should be added in respect of the various types of meat. In any case, this action on the part of the Minister resulted in the dislocation of the markets, and now we find that people do not pay any attention to the regulations of the Minister. The Minister cannot enforce his own clumsy regulations, and he dare not institute a prosecution. He will not dare to institute a prosecution. He may in the future devise a better system, but at the moment there is no system. Now I want to tell the Minister this. We hear that steps will again be taken to fix the price of meat on a lower basis, and we hope that this matter will not be dealt with in such a clumsy way again. The country has already suffered great damage as a result of his policy, and the country will suffer even more damage if the Minister takes any further steps. At the moment the price of sheep is not high. The price of prime merino sheep is £1 5s. and £1 7s. It cannot be said that that is a high price. We hear that the Minister is again intervening, and I am afraid that the Minister will again cause a dislocation. In saying that, I would like it to be understood that I do not say that there should be no price control. I do not want any person to have the opportunity of making unreasonable profits. I want to see that the farmer gets a proper price, but I do not want him to have the opportunity of exploiting the consumer. I want a proper price for the producer, but at the same time I would like to ensure that the consumer does not have to pay too much. We welcome control, but not clumsy, ill-considered control. Why cannot the Minister introduce better measures to ensure that the meat is sold according to dead weight? Such facilities can be made available, and if the Minister wants to do anything, he ought to take steps to provide such facilities. He will not then require detailed price fixations, such as those in operation now. He could then apply price control in a simple manner. Then I also want to say this. The Minister has seriously neglected to keep an eye on the general needs of the farmer in South Africa. The first proof of that is to be found in the manner in which he permitted the farmer to be deprived of his farm labour, in consequence of the steps which the Government took, in recruiting people without discrimination from the ranks of farm labourers for war purposes. In the majority of cases these farm labourers have been taken away, and the farmers are consequently experiencing great difficulty. The Minister of Agriculture should, in the first instance, have told the Minister of Defence that farm labour is indispensable to the farmer, and that we could not permit farm labourers to be recruited for the Army. He did not intervene and it was only after members on this side had directed urgent representations to him, and after the recruitment had already taken place on a large scale, that the Prime Minister promised that there would be no further recruiting in certain districts. But the damage had then already been done. The farmers had already been deprived of their farm labour. In that respect the Minister has failed in his duty towards the farmer.

And this recruitment has not yet been discontinued.

It has only been stopped in certain districts. Recruiting is apparently still taking place in a manner unknown to us. Then there is also another matter in respect of which the Minister did not take effective steps to meet the needs of the farmers. Take, for instance, certain types of dip. Certain types of dips are today prohibitively expensive and are unprocurable. Certain remedies which are required to combat cattle diseases are unprocurable. The “knoppies” worm remedy which many farmers have to use regularly for their cattle, and which is manufactured in the country, are almost unobtainable. There is not a sufficient quantity to meet the needs of the farmers, and great damage is consequently caused. Let us then take farming implements. The Minister has no control over importation. This control is in the hands of the Minister of Commerce and Industries. But it is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to co-operate with the Minister of Commerce and Industries in order to see to it, since imports are controlled, that provision is made in anticipation and in due time for certain needs of the farmer, so that the farmer will not be hindered in his production. There are certain things which are required urgently for farming purposes today and which we cannot get. I have in mind, for instance, hay machines and rakes. We cannot obtain those essential articles because they cannot be imported from overseas. The Minister should long ago have seen to it, in collaboration with the Minister of Commerce and Industries, that those requirements of which there was a serious shortage, were imported. He should have made the necessary provision to obtain shipping facilities for those commodities. Then I want to give a further example, namely, baling wire. He is aware of the detrimental effects of a shortage of baling wire. He has provided a small quantity of wire, but not sufficient, with the result that not only the lucerne farmers suffered, but also the dairy farmers who could not obtain lucerne for their cows. The result is that the price of milk has risen to 3s. to 4s. per gallon in the cities. If provision had been made for baling wire in time there would not have been this shortage. A shortage of mealies is one of the factors which cause a shortage of milk. But because there was not sufficient baling wire, the lucerne had to remain on the farms and could not be sent to the dairy farmers. The Minister was then urged to take steps to provide baling wire to the hay farmers. The Minister did give assistance to a certain extent. Iscor provided cable wire, but I must say that up to the present that wire could hardly be handled. I understand that they are now adopting a better method. We ascertained, however, that Iscor will also be in a position to furnish ordinary baling wire.

Are you a stranger in Jerusalem? I have given notice of that long ago.

But does the Minister know when? The question of baling wire was discussed at an Agricultural Congress in Bloemfontein which was held long ago, and it was said that the baling wire would be available towards the end of last year. Up to the present it has not yet been supplied. We have only ascertained now that a thousand rolls of baling wire will be available. Our complaint against the Minister is that he promises certain things to the people and that he does not fulfil those promises. At the congress it was said that this baling wire would be available. I asked these people personally, and the reply was that that statement was actually made there, but that they did not know when the Government would have the baling wire available. A small quantity has now arrived. It comes drop by drop. I mention this in order to show that there was not sufficient control on the part of the Minister, and the Minister cannot plead not guilty when we level these charges against him. There are also certain necessary services which the Minister had to provide and which he did not provide. I want to refer to one of them. I refer to the need for boring machines. There is this need, and little is done to meet it. Everywhere in the country we see boring machines standing idle, and when application is made for those boring machines, it is said that there are no people to operate them. The staff is at the front. If those people want to enlist for military service, it is their concern and not mine. But then the Minister could make other arrangements. There are other people in the country who could be used to operate these boring machines; why should those boring machines be idle?

Which Department are you referring to?

Even if it does not fall under the Department of the Minister of Agriculture, surely it falls under the Government? No provision has been made for this definite need which is experienced by the farmer. I want to conclude by saying this to the Minister, that we expect him to anticipate events. He must not wait until the last moment until the need is great, before taking steps to meet that need. He must anticipate these things. He apparently feels at ease about the position. I want to tell him that there is every reason for him to feel disturbed. I know for a fact that he consoles himself with the thought that the country is going to have an enormously big mealie crop. As things are going at the moment, that is uncertain. It may well be that the crop will not be so big at all. He feels at ease because there was a fair wheat crop. But what about the future? Has he taken steps to see to it that the future will be assured? If we take into consideration what the position is in connection with manure, I am afraid that our next crop, both with regard to mealies and wheat, will be a meagre one, and the country will suffer. We learned, in reply to questions which were put to the Minister in this House, that this year there would be manure for the wheat farmers up to 40 per cent. of their requirements only.

And that is very little.

That is the reply which the Minister gave. What does it mean? If you cannot give the wheat farmer the manure he requires, it is possible that wheat cultivation will collapse altogether. There are only a few areas in the country where it is not necessary for the people to use manure in connection with wheat cultivation. The majority of the wheat farmers must have manure, and we hear that they cannot get it. Not only do we learn from the Minister that there is no manure, but we also learn from the farmers that the distribution of the manure takes place on an ineffective basis. Last week there was a conference of wheat farmers here, and they said that as a result of the shortage, it was necessary for them to apply for manure. Some farmers say that they receive 100 per cent.; others again say that they receive 20 per cent. If these matters are controlled, why did the Minister not take steps to ascertain what the real requirements of these people were? Why does one person get 100 per cent. and the other 20 per cent.? Well, we know that, generally speaking, they will get only 40 per cent. of their requirements. Now, I want to say this to the Minister: In the light of this, he will have to take certain steps, otherwise wheat production will be on a low scale next year. If the wheat farmers have not got sufficient manure, they will sow oats and barley for their animals; but they will not sow wheat, with the result that there will be a shortage. That will be disastrous for the country. The Minister must anticipate these things. He must see to it in anticipation that he has enough of these requirements. Since there is a possibility of small-scale wheat production, the Minister must take steps to encourage production. Unwilling as I am to let the consumer in the country pay too much, especially for bread, I feel that the Minister will be compelled by circumstances to hold out an increase in the price to the wheat farmers. I make this appeal to him not for the sake of the wheat farmers, but for the sake of the consumers. If the farmers are not encouraged to use the small quantity of manure which they have for wheat cultivation, I predict that they will not sow wheat, but other crops, and the country will suffer enormous damage as a result of that course. I therefore say that the Minister must not wait until the difficulty presents itself but he must take steps in anticipation to ward off the disastrous dangers which lie ahead, I want to conclude by telling the Minister that this side of the House always adopts the attitude that it does not only want to criticise, but that it wants to be of assistance, but we cannot do other than express dissatisfaction at the manner in which the Government acted in these respects. Since the Government’s policy is short-sighted and ill-considered, we must criticise it. We want to ask the Minister to make thorough investigations, and to consult people who can look into the future, and to take steps in the future to prevent the Commission of the same mistakes which he made in the past, mistakes which have already caused immeasurably great damage to our country, and which will cause even greater damage in the future if the Minister does not adopt another policy.

When the Prime Minister’s vote was under discussion last year I suggested that the Government should consider appointing a full time Coloured Commission with a view to giving effect to the Fact Finding Commission’s report. It will be remembered that in 1934 the then Minister of the Interior said that the time had come when the political economic and social position of the coloured people should be fully examined in order to see what steps could be taken for their betterment. As a result that Commission was appointed and I pointed out in my speech last year that although a great deal had already been done for the coloured community, much more remained to be done. I also wish to point out that there are numbers of organisations which claim to speak for the coloured people as a whole. In actual fact there is no single organisation in the country which can claim to speak for all the coloured people. I always maintain, in addressing my coloured audiences, that until such time as they can come to some unanimity of action and viewpoint they will never get their interests looked after in the way they went. There are many bodies representing them expressing divergent views, and I feel many of the claims made by the coloured people have not been acceded to, because of those divergent views put forward. I therefore made the suggestion that a permanent Coloured Commission should be set up which would effectively voice coloured opinion. Unfortunately, in the course of my remarks I referred to the Native Affairs Commission as an example of a full time body, and in his reply to me the Prime Minister then took me up on the point of the Native Affairs Commission seeming to understand from what I had said that I had suggested the formation of a full time Coloured Affairs Commission, under the Native Affairs Department, with the same standing and functions as the Native Affairs Commission. I just want to read out the Prime Minister’s reply to me on that occasion. He said this—

Well, I did not have another opportunity last Session again to refer to that matter or to correct the erroneous impression created. Recently, at a meeting at the Woodstock Town Hall, addressed by the Minister of the Interior, he made an announcement and said that while there was a difference in colour between a European and a non-European, there could be no differentiation when it came to economic questions—the right to fairplay, decent living and a chance in life. He said that for some time it had been the concern of the Government to bridge the gap which existed between itself and the coloured people. There was a special Government Department to deal with matters affecting the Natives, and a Commission for Asiatic Affairs. There was, however, no such provision for the coloured people. The Coloured Commission appointed by a previous Government had done good work. Some of its recommendations had been implemented by the present Government, but much still remained to be done.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I now find that unfortunately some suspicion has been aroused as a result of this statement, which in my opinion is entirely unwarranted and unfounded. There has never been any intention, certainly not in my mind, or in the mind of the Minister of the Interior or of the Government, which has in any way as its object the further depression of or taking away existing rights of the coloured people. The reverse is the case. It is the sole object of this Commission, so I understand, and so I desired, to improve the lot of the coloured community, and I think I am justified in asking the Minister of the Interior, to whom I have already spoken about this matter, whether he will be good enough to make a public announcement in this House to the effect that the Government policy as affecting the Coloured people has not changed one iota since the policy announced by him in this House a few years ago, and that the appointment of this Commission is a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Government. When I read this announcement in the Press I was very pleased. I felt that something had come about which I personally had felt, and was quite convinced in my own mind would be to the interest of the coloured people, but I am afraid that the reply which the Prime Minister gave to me was based on a misunderstanding, and has caused a certain amount of suspicion to be roused outside this House. A meeting was held recently under the aegis of a body called the New Era Fellowship, and a coloured citizen there made certain remarks which I should like to quote from to give the House some idea of what was in the minds of these people. Here is one of the remarks that was made—

And then, further on—

I hope the Minister of the Interior will shortly make a statement in this House, to make it perfectly clear that the Government’s policy has not changed one iota, and that the suspicions voiced have no substance in fact. That, I think, will be sufficient to quell this unfortunate suspicion which has arisen in the minds of the coloured people, a suspicion which is stirred up by those who are out to create prejudices and ill-feelings among the coloured people against the Government. I also want to refer to another matter—it is in connection with our fruit marketing. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has already drawn attention to the position in Maritzburg and other parts of Natal. The same position as that obtains in Cape Town. For years and years; in fact, for more years than I care to remember, I have advocated in this House that a system of local marketing of our fruit should be thoroughly organised; and, if necessary, by the Government itself. Never before in our history has the time been more appropriate for a proper policy being laid down. Even before the war I advocated that we should adopt a system of local marketing, so that our local consumers should receive good quality fruit in South Africa. Now that there is no shipping available when our producers are producing more and more fruit, owing to the fact that their trees have grown older and produce more fruit or some other reason, such as increased plantings, it seems an extraordinary anomaly that the public are finding it more and more difficult to get fruit, either fruit of decent quality or at reasonable prices, and it seems to me that unless we tackle the problem the fruit growers will sufer in the long run, because we cannot expect that for some time after the war there will be a sufficiency of refrigeration space to carry our fruit overseas, or that the market overseas will be able to absorb substantial quantities of good fruit from South Africa. I believe it is essential to get down to the root of the trouble and find a means whereby the decidious and citrus fruit Boards will go in for a policy not only of ceasing from withholding fruit from the markets, but of attempting to bring into being a sound marketing system for the whole Union.

I must draw the attention of the hon. member to th notice of motion by the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), which deals with marketing and the distribution of agricultural products. He cannot discuss that question now on this motion.

I am sorry I have gone into that, sir, and I will not proceed further.

I do not think it is necessary to say anything else in regard to the financial policy of the Government, after the speech of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). He gave a comprehensive exposition of the critical position with regard to our financial control, especially with regard to the Department of Defence. When I looked at the newspapers the following day on the day following the speech by the hon. member for George, it struck me that the Jingo Press, the Imperial Press in South Africa, carefully withheld the figures which the hon. member for George gave. They created the impression in the country that it was merely a difference of opinion, that one side held one view, and the other side a different view, but the figures relating to the waste of money were not given, except in certain Nationalist newspapers. I think that when we come to the third reading of the Additional Appropriation Bill, the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) will again have to find an excuse to go to Johannesburg, because I shall be sorry for him when the hon. member for George replies to the statements which were made today by the hon. member for Kensington, and to the excuses in defence of the Government. With regard to the agricultural policy, the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux), made a powerful plea. I just want to say in passing that there is one complaint which exists in the country and which, in my opinion, is well founded. I do not want to blame the Government for it, but this is a complaint in regard to the policy which the Government adopted. In the past, seed corn and manure were provided to the farmers, and—I am referring to the districts which I know personally—there are people in these districts who unfortunately are unable to pay the money which they owe on it. These are not cases where the people are attempting to evade their obligations, but they really cannot pay. Now the Government is taking steps with a view to recovering the money from these people, and sometimes threats are even resorted to. I want to ask the Minister in these circumstances, to wipe out the debt of those people who cannot pay and who have struggled for years to pay off these debts. The local Magistrate, or whoever it may be, can investigate the matter with a view to ascertaining whether these people can pay. Surely the Minister does not want these people to be ruined. I am not talking about those people who can afford easily, but of those who cannot pay. Now I want to deal with another point. Yesterday I withdrew two motions which appeared on the Order Paper, viz. Motion No. VIII on page 209, which reads as follows—

An then Motion No. XIII on the same page—

1. (a) granting to persons in receipt of a pension on which they cannot decently exist, an allowance in proportion to such rise;
2. (b) increasing old age pensions by 50 per cent.; and
3. (c) allowing old age pensioners to retain extra earnings.

I just want to enlarge a little on these motions. These motions have no chance of being discussed in this House and I have withdrawn them, not because I have changed my views, but because I have no opportunity otherwise of discussing them under the Standing Rules and Orders. I just briefly want to bring certain points to the notice of the Government. I put a question to the Minister of the Interior in connection with prizes for cultural achievements, to writers, musicians, etc. Unfortunately, the Minister gave me a very unsatisfactory reply. On the 29th January he replied in this House that he could not see his way clear to grant prizes to such persons. I have a letter here which I received from the Performing Rights Society Limited. Unfortunately we have as yet very little original works in South Africa. When we listen in to the Afrikaans musical programme on the wireless, we get nothing but foreign items, apart from Afrikaans songs which we like very much. There is no Afrikaans opera or anything of that sort. We are a young nation and we are still developing, and we want to encourage our own artists to attain eminence. But the Government replies that it does not see its way clear to award prizes to promising young people. There is no doubt that we have such people. I have a letter here from the principal agent of the Performing Rights Society, and after I had given notice of my motion, he wrote as follows—I shall read it in English:

Then he refers to the prize of £10 which was awarded. In 1937, Mr. James, the general manager of this society, came to South Africa and on the evening of his arrival they were invited to a concert given by the Oranje Club, where compositions of South African composers only were performed. He writes—

I quote this in order to show that we have talent. Van Wyk went overseas. At that time he did not even have money to buy clothes. But this is further written in regard to him—

There we have proof that we have the talent. I do not want to talk about the writers we have in South Africa. We all know the names of our well-known Afrikaans writers, and if there is such a society, which writes with so much appreciation about our talent, I feel that the Government of South Africa cannot say “no” to such a request to encourage our talent. It is not to the Minister’s credit that he turned down this request. He should be sympathetically disposed towards it, and he ought to leave aside the war for a moment and to look ahead on the road of South Africa, on the road of our culture—he should not always look at the war road only. Let him make available a sum for the development of our talent. It is remarkable that some of the greatest Afrikaans writers and musicians have usually belonged to the poorest section of the people, and for that reason it is necessary for the Government to lend some assistance. Now I want to deal briefly with my second motion which deals with pensions. In that connection I also put a question to the Minister concerned, and the reply which I received was more encouraging. The Minister tried, of course, to make political capital out of it. He does not really want to say that a question had been put and that they had decided to do something in that direction, but the Minister did say in reply to my question that they were considering the matter. I asked that those people who were in receipt of small pensions should be given an allowance. I purposely refrained from mentioning any sum. I did not say that the pension should be £7 because in that case someone might say: “Why not £6 15s.?” Or if I had said £8, someone might have asked: Why not £7 10s.?” I omitted the figure and merely asked the Minister to give a pension on which these people could exist decently. The Minister replied that they were considering it and that he had already made representations to the Minister of Railways and that the latter was considering the matter. Well, it does not matter who gets the credit as long as something is done for these people. We want to ask the Minister not to investigate unduly long, because in the meantime the position of these people is becoming worse and worse. We in this House will all admit that the costs of living have risen enormously. Generally speaking, it is difficult to say by how much, but it is indisputably true that it is impossible for a person in receipt of a small pension to make a living. Apart from that, there is unfortunately a provision in connection with old age pensions that if a man works and earns something extra, he must give notice of it, and it frequently happens that the old age pension is taken away. He may be able to earn £5 or £10 extra, and then it takes a few months before he receives his old age pension again, with the result that he is in a worse position, having earned this extra money, than he would have been if he had not earned it. Now I come to the Minister of Justice. I also put a question to him, and I wonder whether he will not summon the Cabinet to consider what the reply and the figures given by the Minister of Justice really mean. The Minister of Justice laid the reply on the Table of the House, and perhaps it was as well that he did it, because otherwise the House would have been highly amused at the confused reply which was given. One cannot make anything of it. I asked—

1. (1) How many (a) European, and (b) nonEuropean soldiers have been (i) tried and (ii) convicted in Cape Town, Durban, Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth, respectively, since the outbreak of war to the end of 1942;
2. (2) in how many such cases in which the Court found the accused guilty, has the Minister (a) altered the decision or sentence of the Court, and (b) reduced, and (c) increased the sentence; and
3. (3) in how many cases in the places referred to have the sentences been imposed on civilians during the same period been (a) altered, and (b) reduced.

In reply to that he laid a sheet on the table of the House, and gave certain figures, of which one cannot make anything. I asked, for example, how many soldiers in Johannesburg had been convicted, and the Minister’s reply was: “Nil”. I know of one case, however, where a soldier was convicted in Johannesburg, and there are many more. I do not want to accuse the Minister of untruthfulness, but I hope the Minister will elaborate on his reply. Men in uniform have undoubtedly been convicted in the Courts of Law, and the Minister without sound reasons, but simply because they were in uniform, reduced the sentences. The Minister said in his reply—

1. (1) No special record is kept, and to extract this information from the Court records would entail an expenditure of time and labour which is not justified.

I must say that I got the impression that the Minister did not want to give the reply. He always says that he cannot interfer with the Courts, that he never does so, but it is undoubtedly true that he does interfere. I asked him—

1. (1) Whether he has given any instructions to Magistrates to impose light sentences in the case of offences committed by certain persons; if so, in the case of which persons.

He replied—

1. (1) No.

His further reply was—

Then I also asked him—

1. (2) whether his attention has been drawn (a) to the increasing number of thefts in connection with motor-cars, and (b) to the sentence imposed on a soldier in the Malmesbury Magistrate’s Court for the theft of a motor-car, viz., £10 or six weeks, suspended for six months; if so, whether he will obtain the reasons for such sentence.

I purposely refrained from mentioning the name of the soldier concerned, but the reply was—

This person was given a suspended sentence, in other words, no punishment at all. The reply was that the Magistrate had come to the conclusion that the soldier intended returning the motor-car. Just imagine, if I steal it and the Minister decides that he is convinced that I intended giving back the motor-car, I would only be fined £10, suspended for six months. I read the report in the newspaper. In the first place, he took away the number plate, and removed every number or identification mark whereby the motor-car could be recognised. But the Minister says that the punishment in this case was correct. I further asked him—’

Listen to the reply which was given by the Minister of Justice, with emphasis on the word “Justice”—

If he interferes in these matters there will be abuse. I believe that there is hardly a soldier who has appeared in court, where the Minister did not interfere. He reduces the sentence, only because the man is in uniform. How am I to understand the Minister’s reply that he cannot interfere, that it would be an abuse? But I have another case here. It was reported in the newspaper under the heading “Dr. C. Steyn and a Black Communist”. The black Communist was arrested under the Emergency Regulations. What did the Minister of Justice do? This black Communist was arrested because he had contravened an Emergency Regulation. The Minister said in this House, in reply to a question as to why he was released, and whether the Communist Party and others had asked for his release—

In that case the Minister again intervened, he again interfered, and abused his position, as he himself described such intervention. Then I come to another case. We asked the Minister whether his attention had been drawn to a judgment of a Judge in Natal, under which a European soldier from overseas, who had had sexual intercourse with a Native girl, was only given a suspended sentence. We asked—

The Minister replied that he did not interfere with the Courts of Law. Where do we stand now? Must everything always go to one side? As soon as anything happens and a soldier is involved, there is intervention. I hope that no soldier will have to appear before the courts, but how can one explain the fact that whenever a soldier appears before the court, even though he is a foreign soldier, the Minister interferes and the soldier is met, while, on the other hand, numerous people are sitting in internment camps without trial and the Minister does not even afford them an opportunity of appearing in court to defend themselves. At the moment there are still 91 Union citizens in the camps an gaols who have not yet been tried. And then the Minister says that he cannot interfere. That is the attitude of the so-called Minister of Justice. I proceed now to deal with something else, and here I am dealing now with a sum of £25,000, a big sum of money. Before the war, when we spoke of thousands of pounds, people took some notice, but now we speak in terms of millions. Even if millions are wasted, the hon. member for Kensington says that it does not matter, as long as it is for the war, as long as we can carry on with the prosecution of the war. This relates to £25,000 for something which the Afrikaner nation is very keen on having. As a young nation we too would like to have our own dictionary. We would like to perfect our language as much as possible; we would like to progress in the cultural sphere, and not only be the equal of other nations, but we want to go so far as to give a lead. We would like to have our own dictionary, so that when our children ask us for information, we will be able to give them that information. Our elderly people often received poor instruction in Afrikaans. We had to learn English, and we learned very little Afrikaans. The Afrikaner nation cannot help feeling very bitterly dissatisfied at the poor progress which is being made with the so-called dictionary which is now in the process of creation. Let me just briefly draw attention to the position. We asked the Minister as from which date Prof. Smith has been engaged in the compilation of the Afrikaans dictionary. During the previous Session the Minister said that one could not expect a dictionary to be completed within a few days, within a short time; that it took a long time. When this work started, it was assumed that the dictionary would be completed on the 1st April, 1935. Prof. Smith started on the 1st January, 1926. I asked up to which letter the Afrikaans dictionary had been finally completed by Prof. Smith for printing. From 1926 to 1943 is a period of 17 years, and the reply of the Minister was that this work was commenced on the 1st January, 1926, but that from 1930 to 1933, for two and a half years, Prof. Smith was a full-time professor. In reply to the question, viz., up to which letter the Afrikaans dictionary had been completed after seventeen years, the Minister replied that Prof. Smith was busy with the final editing of the letter “A”. It has cost £25,000; he has been working on it for 17 years, and the final editing of the letter “A” is not yet finished. I do not know whether he has gone much further than the word “aap” (ape). For the rest, the other letters up to “G” are engaging attention. Then I also asked whether Prof. Smith had been exempted by the University of Stellenbosch from holding lectures, so as to enable him to devote all his attention to the compilation of the dictionary, and the Minister replied that since 1934 Prof. Smith had not given any lectures. I wondered whether the slow progress was due to the fact that Prof. Smith was employed on other work. He is engaged on other work. He is one of the people who makes political speeches on the occasion of the Dingaan’s Day celebrations. Even at places where the church arranges the Dingaan’s Day celebrations, he is one of the people who addresses political festivals at the same place. He can find the time for that. He is one of the Government’s propaganda people, one of the people who goes about making propaganda in an effort to keep the Government in power. I have no objection to his being used as a political agent, but the Afrikaner nation is waiting for the dictionary. We would like to have our own dictionary. We have now progressed as far as the letter “A”. I asked of which bodies Prof. Smith was still a member, and the reply was that he is still a member of the Joint Matriculation Board, of the Geographical Place Names Committee, that he was also employed as an examination moderator during the July and Christmas holidays, and that he is also Secretary of the Het Jan Marais Fund. The Minister also replied that in his opinion Prof. Smith could easily do the other work as well. I agree with the Minister; those activities will not keep him very occupied; but there is a farce going on here. Prof. Smith has a nice time; he is paid to do things which he does not do, and he is paid to do things which he likes to do. We also asked who was working with Prof. Smith, and how much his assistants were paid. Five names are given here, and here are the figures received by each of them. One person got £339. He was employed from 1937 to 1939, and then he stopped. But there is a certain Mr. Toerien here who has assisted Prof. Smith since the 14th March, 1931, and he receives a salary of £750 per annum. For more than three years, therefore, he has been receiving £750 per annum, and they are nearly finished with the letter “A”. Another person has been working there from the 1st September, 1942, and he gets £660 per annum. The fourth person has been working from the beginning of February and he gets £540 per annum. And then there is another person who has been employed since the 10th June, 1940, and het gets £300 per annum. At the moment five people are employed on the dictionary, and they have not yet finished the letter “A”, although we started in the year 1926. Then we also asked the Minister which form of spelling was adopted in the dictionary; whether the Academy spelling was followed or whether Prof. Smith’s spelling rules were observed, and the Minister replied that both forms were used. Then we also put this further question—

We asked whether anyone uses Prof. Smith’s spelling rules, and one must admit that in Acts of Parliament, in the Government Gazette, in the Education Department, in the Civil Service, in the newspapers, and even in the S.A.P. newspapers the Academy spelling is used. But Prof. Smith adheres to his form of spelling and it appears first in the dictionary. Why must one introduce a dictionary which gives preference to the spelling of Prof. Smith, although the Academy spelling is used everywhere? Is it to cause confusion and duplication in the Afrikaans spelling? Even the reply which we got here from the Department of the Minister of Education uses the Academy spelling. We also asked the Minister whether he would not delegate the further compilation of the dictionary to a committee, and I am glad to see that the Minister says that that can be considered if circumstances demand it. He admitted that the position which obtains today is not satisfactory. I also asked to whom the copyright in connection with the dictionary belonged. Supposing, for argument’s sake, that Prof. Smith is discharged tomorrow because of the unsatisfactory work which he has done up to the present. To whom would the copyright then belong? The Minister’s reply was that according to the agreement, the copyright would belong to the Nasionale Pers, Bpk. I must say I did not mean “copyright” in the ordinary sense of that word; what I meant was this: Let us assume that the Minister becomes more sensible, and that he dismisses Prof. Smith tomorrow, and that he gives the compilation of the dictionary to a Committee of competent persons, to whom would that work belong which has already been done? In other words, will it be the property of Prof. Smith or will it belong to the Nasionale Pers? I should like the Minister to give us a reply on that point. I can assure the Minister that those people who are charged with the education of our people, are keen to have a reply on this point. I have received letters from quite a few people who are connected with education. They asked me to urge the Minister to give his attention to this matter so that a stop could be put to this impossible position. Then I just want to deal briefly with another point. I purposely put questions to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister of Defence, and to the Minister of Agriculture, with reference to the same subject, but dealing with different aspects of it, and there is a slight difference between the reply given by the Prime Minister and the reply given by the Minister of Agriculture. My question was in reference to the consumption of white bread. I am glad that the Prime Minister is in the House at the moment. I just want him either to correct me, if I am wrong, or to correct his reply. I asked—

He replied that white bread was given to certain institutions, to hospitals, etc. I believe that, but now I want to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that Afrikaners are getting brown bread at the Air Stations, while the pilots of other countries are getting white bread—while members of the R.A.F. are getting white bread. I want to ask him whether he is aware of this, and if he is not aware of it, I want to ask him whether he will investigate the matter Afrikaner soldiers have told us that members of the R.A.F. are getting white bread. And they are not sick people; they are healthy, but in spite of that they are getting white bread. Then I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether it is true that white meal was given to the Jews on the occasion of the Jewish festival, for the Matzo which they bake, while Christians and Afrikaners could not obtain white bread during the Christmas season. I have a letter here from a person who is willing to confirm it that white meal was given to the Jewish community. I do not say for a moment that the Jewish community must not get it, but why cannot Christians obtain it too? I would like the Minister of Agriculture to explain this. Then there is another point to which I want to refer, and I am glad that the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Carinus) is in the House; because there is an Election pending. There are a few things which I want to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister and his Government. I do not know whether this took place with the approval of the Prime Minister, but during the month of March Mr. Speaker intimated in this House that the then member for Hottentots Holland had submited his resignation. [Time limit.]

I want to discuss briefly a few points raised by members on the other side. As far as the last speaker is concerned, I just want to refer to a few matters in connection with the dictionary. I understand that Professor Smith, whose name has been mentioned in the House so frequently, is paid by the University of Stellenbosch; his salary is paid by the University. I have not yet heard that one of the hon. members on the other side is representing the University of Stellenbosch here. Neither have I heard that the University of Stellenbosch has raised any objections in regard to that dictionary.

Have you ever heard anything at all?

Yes, I have already heard a lot from the hon. member over there but it was always nonsense. The University of Stellenbosch enjoys the highest esteem amongst Afrikaners, and I believe that it is much better, if we have to obtain an opinion, to obtain such opinion from the University and not from laymen who know very little about these matters. When the University would tell Professor Smith: “Professor Smith, you now have to finish the dictionary, as otherwise we shall dismiss you,” we could take notice of it, but when hon. members on the other side say so, I do not think we should take any notice of it. I assume that the University of Stellenbosch knows much more about that matter than any member of this House. Furthermore, we listened here to many complaints in regard to agriculture. We received complaints from all sections. I just want to refer to past happenings to show you what the real position is now. I still remember the difficult times we had to go through in this country when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was our Minister. What was his attiude in regard to mealies when the price was 2s. 6d. per bag? Today he comes here and accuses this Government of not seeing to it that the farmers get a decent price. Deputations from all parts of the country at that time asked the hon. member why the price was so low. His reply to this was: “Your wives should no longer wear silk stockings and should not run about in motor cars.” That was the reply we got from the hon. member for Wolmaransstad

When were mealies 2s. 6d. a bag?

In 1933 or 1934 or thereabout. What did the hon. member for Wolmaransstad say in 1939 after leaving here? At Wolmaransstad he declared: “There are people who think differently, as for instance the Minister of Agriculture; is our Afrikanership so cheap that we want to barter it away for mealies?” I want to ask the hon. member whether that Afrikanership has now depreciated in value? I believe the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) was present at that meeting.

No, I was not there.

It has been said here that Mr. Wilkens and the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) were present. They must have agreed with the point of view that our Afrikanership is too valuable to worry about the price of our agricultural products. What is the position today? The people who today cause the greatest difficulty in regard to the price of our products, those people who told us that they did not have time for such trivialities, that our Afrikanership is not so cheap that we want to exchange it for mealies, now make the most noise. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) told us here about the unfair policy which has been followed in regard to the price of wool. We well remember the occasion when the hon. member for Cradock advocated a barter trade with Germany. I think everybody in this country will admit today that it was a good thing that we got rid of that barter trade. The hon. member would still prefer to have that barter trade today, in spite of the fact that the last deliveries of that barter trade have not yet been paid for in cash by Germany up to the present.

That shows how little you know.

The hon. member for Cradock at people’s congresses which he attended expressed his gratitude for us having sold our wool to Britain. He was most grateful that the arrangements had been made. That here and there irregularities may occur, is of minor importance. I maintain that if we had not made those arrangements we would have been in a deplorable position. Where would our wool farmers have stood today?

They would be much better off.

Hon. members will remember that the first question raised was: We have been asked why we did not sell our wool to Japan.

In the open market.

After Germany fell away we should have sold our wool to Japan.

And also to Italy.

Is that the direction the hon. member for Cradock wished to steer us in on account of his Afrikanership which was much more valuable than the price of wool? We remember those things and the wool farmers also remember them. The hon. member on the other side should not forget this: although the price of wool is perhaps slightly lower than it might have been on the open market, we know—and the hon. member himself knows—that we are dependent upon shipping space to sell our wool. Which country would have bought our wool? Which country besides England would have bought our wool and paid cash for it?

What about America?

The hon. member knows that if the Government had not acted as it did we would today have had the greatest misery in the world.

Wool is one of the sinews of war.

Yes, wool is one of the sinews of war, but in spite of that the fact remains that our wool would still be lying at our ports today. We were told that we should have done this, that and the other thing; we were told that the Government did not do this and did not do that. We were asked why the Government could not interfere in regard to the price of vegetables and the distribution of vegetables? We were asked: Why do not the farmers receive sufficient fertiliser? But I want to ask the hon. members the following: What would have become of us if we had not taken part in this war? Do we not all know that we are dependent upon the shipping facilities of other nations, that we are dependent upon our friends?

Yes, upon the Russians.

Those members are attacking Russia today, but is the hon. member for Cradock prepared to tell me whether, if a Russian ship would arrive here to-morrow to buy the accumulated potatoes, he would refuse such an offer?

I said the Russians are your friends.

It seems to me that the hon. member’s hatred and venom exceeds the interest he takes in the farmers. No, that is not the way in which to save our farmers. We have to save the farmers if a market can be found for their products, even if that market is found amongst the Natives of Northern Africa. If we enter into trade agreements, we should not enter into them with people who will afterwards leave us in the lurch, people who afterwards will not be able to pay for our products. We furthermore heard a great deal about the sins of our Control Boards. That makes me doubtful whether some of the members sitting on the opposite side are in favour of Control Boards. They repeatedly assure us that they are not against the principle of control, but the criticism which is made makes me very doubtful whether they are in favour of Control Boards, for their criticism is directed not solely against the Minister, but against the advice the Minister receives.

Nonsense.

The hon. member says “nonsense”, but that is the type of criticism we get from his side. Hon. members on the other side also said that the Minister is now hiding behind the farmers, because he took their advice. The Minister is accused for not having called for the advice of the farmers’ organisations, but when he does so, he is reproached because that advice of the organisations has been accepted by him.

More nonsense.

There is no doubt that we on this side of the House support the principle of Control Boards. All the farmers on this side of the House are in favour of the principle of Control Boards.

You say “farmers”; what about the traders?

I clearly told my hon. friend that this is the opinion of the farmers on this side. If he wants to know the opinion of the commercial people, he can ask them himself.

That is not a reply.

I have not the time now to go into all these details; if the hon. member wants to go to school again he should not do it here. I should like to ask that our agriculture, as far as distribution and marketing are concerned …

I regret to say that the hon. member cannot discuss distribution and marketing.

We went so far that we expected from our Control Boards that they should take in hand the control of products from the farm until they reached the consumer. My opinion is this—and we have the experience of other countries in the world to support it that it is an impossibility to leave the control i of distribution in the hands of the farmer. The farmer is blamed for all kinds of possible mistakes that take place. I admit that under the circumstances we lived in in this country, where we had no organised channels of distribution, the Minister of Agriculture was forced to make use of the organisations which were the only ones he could make use of. But I hope that in the future we shall call a controlling body into being which will protect the interests of the consumers. I believe that the more interference there is with the distribution of any product, the less will be your purchasing power, and so much less will be the quantity of that product which will ultimately find its way to the consumer. For that reason I stand for the principle of adopting in future a policy of calling into being control bodies in regard to distribution. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Cradock also suggested something of this nature. I am glad to find that we can be in agreement on such a cardinal point. If the Control Beard of the producers had to do all those things, we would get landed into great difficulties. I now want to come to another point. The growing of potatoes on settlements has been criticised here. It has been mentioned by the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) as well as by other members. We all know, however, that an exchange of seed potatoes has to take place. I want to make use of this occasion to heartily congratulate the hon. Minister of Agriculture with that step. Even the hon. member for Ventersdorp will admit that at the moment it is impossible for any individual to obtain an import permit for potatoes from abroad. Should the entire potato growing branch of farming have collapsed because we could not grant a right of importation to any one individual? I even want to go further and assert that if one would get all the potato farmers together and would ask them: “Do you, under existing circumstances, want large individual undertakings to import seed potatoes, or do you prefer that the right of import be reserved to the Government,” then I have not the slightest doubt that those farmers would unanimously declare that the Government should have that right. The Department of Agriculture undertook to grow those potatoes so that they could supply the farmers with seed potatoes. That is the first principle. I maintain that the Minister and the Department of Lands and Agriculture in this connection deserve the highest praise we can bestow upon them.

We complain about the fact that the Government is competing against us.

The hon. member received a direct reply and I need not go further into that point. We had another peculiar argument here. We were told that the Afrikaans-speaking person has lately become a stranger in his own country. Of course the Government is accused of being the cause for Afrikaans-speaking persons becoming strangers in their own country. I make bold to say that it is possible for an Afrikaner to become a stranger in his own country, and what will be the reason if that should happen? It will obviously be due to the isolationary politics of hon. members on the other side. It will be caused by isolating oneself and standing aside. One can create the position that an Afrikaner will be a stranger in his own country. Take the example of America. What happened in America. Isn’t the position there today that the descendants of the old Dutch pioneers who first came there, are still the leaders of the people? Did they say that they did not want to collaborate with other people and that they wanted to stand aloof? No, they adopted the policy when we on this side adopt, viz.: to welcome other people under their influence, and we can do so too. When Afrikaners should become strangers in their own country, the Afrikaner himself will be to blame for it. If we want to prevent that, then the time has arrived that we should use our influence over people coming in large numbers into this country, and who may come in still larger numbers, so that that influence may remain paramount. We have already in the past gone to war over this question. We fought the Anglo-Boer war over that issue, and we lost it. Are we not able to learn a lesson from the past, and are we unable to do better in the future? I speak on this subject with deep sincerity, and when we speak about our people, we should not refer to a section of the people belonging to one or other political party, but then we should speak of the people as an entity which is much larger than any political party. We should be careful lest we keep our people, which can be and will be a great people, isolated and lest we belittle it, as otherwise in time to come it would become subservient to other nations. We all need to solve our difficulties in this country. I finally want to say a few words about the merits of and praise due to that section of our people which at the moment is engaged in other work for this country, viz. in war service. It is not fair from the Opposition to try and belittle that praise. We fight for a cause and the more we can persuade the Afrikaans-speaking section to take their proper share in it, the higher will be the praise South Africa will receive after this struggle is over.

The hon. member who has just sat down need not be taken notice of. I can spend my time much better by submitting the interests of my electors to this House than by answering him. I want to tell the hon. Minister of Agriculture that there is very strong dissatisfaction among the apricot farmers, due to the treatment they received from the Minister of Agriculture. He knows that for the 1941 crop the apricot farmers received 16s, 8d. per 100 lbs. In 1942 the price was fixed at 12s. 6d. We all know that the number of farmers going in for apricots is very small, and we are convinced that that is the reason why they received such treatment from the Minister of Agriculture. I think he realises that the apricot growers were very dissatisfied, not only the supporters of this side of the House, but also his own supporters. They made representations to him and asked for better and fairer treatment. In regard to this matter I should like to put the following question to the Minister: Whereas the price was 16s. 8d. in 1941, and seeing that it was fixed at 12s. 6d. for 1942, can the Minister tell us how much the difference in price was which the consumer had to pay for his apricot jam as a result? I believe it would greatly interest the public to know whether the consumers benefited from it. The producers’ price was reduced by 25 per cent. and we should like to know whether the consumer actually derived the benefit from this price fixing. But that is not all. We know that when the crop was being harvested, there was a terrific storm and the apricot farmers suffered much damage. I personally wired to the Minister whether he would not, in view of the great damage done to the apricot crop, consider a revision of the price fixation. I received his reply to the effect that he was sorry but he could not do so. I still want to continue pleading with the Minister and to ask him again whether he is not prepared to right the wrong that was done to the apricot farmers. I cannot put it strongly enough. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture should not adopt the point of view that this concerns a small number of farmers, that they have no power or influence and that they can therefore be ignored by the Government in this way. I am positive that if the mealie farmers had been treated in this way the Minister would not dare to treat them similarly under similar circumstances. Now I want to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister, namely, that of farm labour. The farmers of the Western Province had a particularly difficult time during the harvesting period. I want to confine my remarks more particularly to the wheat farmers. There were farmers who had to lock after the harvest with one, two or perhaps three men. They got in their harvest with the utmost difficulty, and whereas other parts received help from Italian prisoners of war, Malesbury and Moorreesburg did not have that advantage. It is said that those districts are too near the coast. I want to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister and to ask him whether he will be prepared to discuss this matter with the Minister concerned, for surely there can be no danger since these districts are only slightly nearer the coast than certain other districts.

And parts thereof are far from the coast.

Yes, that is a fact. There is no danger, and I seriously think that the Minister should do something in regard to this matter. I furthermore should very much like to ask the Minister to make a statement here in the House in connection with the fertiliser position. This is a matter of the utmost concern. As you know the wheat farmers are now commencing to put the fertiliser into the soil. If the farmer has the prospect of obtaining more than he has obtained so far, he at least knows how to distribute his fertiliser. Now he sits there and does not know whether he will receive more later on. I understand that the Minister is very anxious to have wheat grown, but how can the wheat farmer carry on, seeing that he is busy applying fertiliser to the soil, if he does not know how much he is going to get. Must we assume that the quantity which has so far been allowed to the farmers is all they are going to get or must we assume that more is to come. I have here before me two letters of farmers who applied for fertiliser. The one applied for 560 bags and the other one for 520 bags. Each of them were allowed 180 bags, that is to say, about one-third of their order. One person wrote to me that he had a bond of £8,000 on his farm, and how can we expect a farmer in this position to carry on without fertiliser and without knowing what the actual position is. The Minister really owes a statement to this House in regard to this matter. I still want to say that the Minister should keep in mind that, although the wheat crop was not poor in general, we had the position that in those parts of the country where the harvest is usually good, it was very poor during the last season. The wheat farmers went through particularly difficult times, and I may tell you that the general financial position of the wheat farmers of the Western Province has deteriorated considerably during the year. I want to ask the Minister whether it is his intention to specially meet the wheat farmers of the Western Province in regard to fertiliser? I want to tell him that I am not exaggerating matters. He knows that we have to fertilise heavily. I request the Minister to take us into his confidence in regard to this matter and to make a definite statement, so that we shall clearly know what the position is. Furthermore there is another matter to which I should like to draw the Minister’s attention. We have our iron and steel works. We know that the factory works full blast, but everything produced is used to see the war through. Has not the time arrived that the Minister of Agriculture should make representations to them in regard to the manufacture of spare parts for machinery. There is furthermore the question of baling wire. That industry was called into being to provide, first of all, the requirements of the country, but it now looks as if it is being used in order to supply the requirements of other nations and not those of our own country. Then I have here the following wire which I received from the Poultry Breeders’ Association of Malmesbury—

I do not know whether the Minister is aware of it, but this is an important poultry association. They have very many members, and I want to ask him whether he really believes that the brewing of beer and the manufacture of rolled oats is more important than the poultry industry. We admit the importance of those industries, but as the price of eggs is rising owing to a shortage, I believe that the Minister will agree that we should see to the production of eggs not falling off. I want to ask him not to use all the barley for the breweries, and not all the oats for porridge. It is easier for us to do without beer than without eggs, and for that reason I ask him to give attention to this matter. There is finally still one point in connection with which I received a letter, and in regard to which strong dissatisfaction is rampant. An old man writes to me that he cannot even get some decent white flour, although he is suffering with his stomach. I want to ask the Minister whether the time has not arrived for him to go into this matter again and to see whether he cannot make the regulations less stringent, so that slightly more white bread can be baked, especially as under the existing circumstances there is a shortage of fodder, and bran can be used very well. I want to ask him to be more lenient and to make at least provision for people who have to have white bread for health reasons. I furthermore want to refer to the manner in which people are treated in some shops in regard to certain articles which are rather scarce. Take, for instance, matches. If one wants to buy matches one has to buy at the same time a certain quantity of cigarettes.

That does not fall under my Department.

Yes, but the other Minister is not present, and so you better tell him about it. I want to tell the Minister how they work these things. One day one cannot get that article at all, and the next day when it is obtainable again they have put up the price. I want to ask him to use his influence with the Minister concerned who controls these things, so that shops will no longer treat us in the way they are doing now. One has to buy one article in order to get something else. For the poor man this is a scandalous state of affairs. I should, furthermore, like to have the attention of the Minister of Finance for a moment. I understand that he is engaged upon drafting his Budget for the coming year, and I do not want to wait until he has finished drafting it. I want to ask him to consider a certain request, so that he cannot afterwards come here and say that it would mean a deficit in the budget if he were to grant such request. I want him to exempt from income tax the expenditure in connection with doctor’s and hospital accounts. If there is anything that will be of assistance to people who have been unfortunate and have to pay doctor’s bills and hospital fees, it will be such exemption. I feel that the position of that man becomes very difficult if he has to meet that expenditure and has still to pay income tax on top of it. I ask the Minister in good time, so that he cannot say after his budget speech that such a concession would cause a deficit. He should consider it in time. I finally want to reiterate what the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) said here in regard to old age pensions and other pensions and that provision should be made for allowances in connection with the cost of living. The present time is the time when those people who go through difficult times on account of their limited incomes, should receive something. There are persons who are particularly severely hit by the rise in the cost of living, and I want to ask the Minister not only to consider the request of the hon. member for Mossel Bay, but also to comply with it and to grant relief.

I was not anxious to talk about a matter which occurred in my constituency, but in order to link up with what the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) has told the House, it is my duty to do so. The hon. member drew attention to the reply given by the hon. the Minister of Justice about the change in the penalties imposed. The Minister’s reply given to the hon. member for Mossel Bay was that however much one might sometimes differ from the judgment given by a court, it did not become the Minister to change a judicial finding. Now, I just want to tell the House without mentioning any names that in my own constituency during the past year the Minister of Justice reduced a sentence in the case of a non-European who had not been punished by the magistrate, but by the Judge on circuit. This man was sentenced to imprisonment by the Judge, he was given twelve months, and that sentence was reduced to three months by the Minister of Justice. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Justice is not here just now to listen to what I have to say, but I want to say this to the House and to the country, and I shall leave it to the House and to the country to judge how much value one can attach to the Minister of Justice, both as a politician and a Minister. Unfortunately I was not here on Monday morning when the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) made a statement about his conclusions as a member of the Committee which had been appointed to enquire into the Cost-Plus-percentage system which has been in force in this country, but I had the privilege of being present here when the other side of the House put up a defence against the charges levelled by the hon. member for George. I can come to only one conclusion, and this House can come to only one conclusion, and the public of the country can come to only one conclusion, and that is that the country’s money has been wasted in a most reckless manner. Under the system which was in force, and which is still in force today, and as the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) said yesterday afternoon that it was our duty in this House to watch to the best of our ability against reckless expenditure, however well intended such expenditure might be, it still remained our duty to do so, and as it is our duty to do so we want to avail ourselves of this opportunity to protest as strongly as we can. Every day in the prayer read out by Mr. Speaker we pray that we shall be able to do right and justice to every member of the community so far as we are able to do so, and after having heard that prayer there is nobody in this House who with a clear conscience can say that so far as this matter is concerned right and justice have been done to every member of the community. Even the Prime Minister was prepared to admit that things were not entirely right, but he said that the position was exaggerated by the hon. member for George. The defence put up by the Minister of Defence, however, was so poor that one can hardly imagine what his position would be if he and the hon. member for George were to go on to a platform together and explain these matters to the more intelligent members of the community from their own particular point of view. I feel that everybody must have realised that the case put up by the Minister of Defence is a very weak one, and I feel that even his own side would agree that that is so. And if one remembers that money is being wasted under this system, one must admit that it is undoubtedly one of the most pernicious systems of all the systems that can be used, yet we find that that system is still in force—and that being so, one feels that the request made here this afternoon by this side of the House is a fair and reasonable one, the request that we should establish a Commission to go thoroughly into these matters. If one takes note of the fact that the so-called “big four” have put £80,000 in their pockets over a period of six months, and if at the same time one remembers that there are many people in this country who are actually starving, then surely our request for the appointment of a Commission must be regarded as a reasonable one. And what is worse, is that there are people who have to make their living, and in many cases have to sacrifice their lives, people who may be maimed for the rest of their lives, not because they join up voluntarily, but because they are forced to do so for the sake of their livelihood, and yet at the same time one finds that there are people in this country who exploit the needs of their fellow citizens in order to fill their pockets and to enrich themselves. It is that system which we protest against, and it is for that reason that we have introduced this amendment which I want to support most strongly in the hope that hon. members opposite, such hon. members at any rate who still have a reasonable sense of perspective, will see eye to eye with us, that the very least we can do is to have a thorough investigation made, not with a view to laying charges against anyone, but with a view to putting right that which is wrong, and to prevent in future this unnecessary waste of money, so that this money will be available for those people in our country who really need such assistance. And now I want to say a few words about the agricultural side. Bearing in mind the fact that money is being wasted in this country, I want to bring the position prevailing in some farming lines to the notice of the Minister. I know that unfortunately the farmers who are growing pears in this country, specially in Ceres, have suffered tremendous losses again this year as a result of the codling moth. But I also know, fortunately, that the system which was in force last year, and which was very effective, could not be used this season because there was not sufficient oil in the country and because the Government had failed to take the necessary precautionary steps to make the oil available, and also that it was so expensive that the pear crop in many parts of the country had simply to be sacrificed so that that section of the farming community growing pears suffered tremendous losses. They will suffer even heavier losses if the Government does not see to it that an ample supply of oil is available in this country. Now, there is another aspect of farming which I wish to refer to, and this is an aspect which I do not as a rule speak about because there are other members in this House who usually concern themselves with this particular matter. I am now going to say a few words about that part of my constituency where the farmers go in for the growing of wheat. I have taken the trouble, on account of the fact that last year’s wheat crop was a very bad one, to look up all those farmers, whether they were members of my party or not. I called on every wheat farmer. I called on 51 wheat farmers in that way. Of those 51 there were 15 only who grew wheat, and the other 36 were people who did not grow wheat alone but who also had grapes and vineyards. The average quantity of wheat sown by these 15 farmers was 1,248 bags of seed wheat, and the production was 11,365 bags. That was the return which the farmers themselves gave me, so this gave an average production of 9.1 bags per bag of seed wheat. These people gave me permission to make use of these figures.

Is that for the Paarl district?

So far as my constituency goes. If we leave out one particular farmer, the average production drops to 8.2 bags. There is one outstanding case where the production was 16 bags per bag. There was one case where it was 13 bags, and there were a few cases where it was 9½ bags, and after that the farmers went down in some cases to as low as 4 bags per bag. The people who only go in for wheat as part of their activities, namely, the 36, sowed 1,331 bags, and their production was 9,436 bags. Their average production was 7.09 bags per bag. It went down from 16 bags per bag to as low as 2½ bags per bag. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not here at the moment, but it must be perfectly obvious that in such circumstances it is impossible for people to remain on the land. Fortunately these people have also known better times, and we hope that in days to come they will have better times again, but in this year which I am referring to, these people have certainly farmed at a very heavy loss. Now, let me say something about the matter which my colleague on my right (Mr. Loubser) referred to, namely, that if at all possible the farmers should now be able to make up for the bad year they have had. But what is happening now? What is our experience? I notice that the Minister of Agriculture has just returned, and I want to bring one particular instance to his notice. Last year a farmer sowed 104 bags of wheat and 60 bags of oats; he produced 600 bags of wheat and 500 bags of oats. His is one of the poor cases, but he is exclusively a wheat farmer. He has now applied for 60 tons of fertiliser and he has been granted 27 tons. He telephoned me during the week-end and told me that the position was impossible. What is he to do now? What can he do with 27 tons? He did not tell me how much he wanted to sow this year, but generally speaking our farmers sow more or less the same quantities every year. I assume that he wants to sow 100 bags of wheat and about 60 bags of oats, and he is only allotted 27 tons of fertiliser for that purpose. He tells me that people in his district with a farm about the same size as his have been allotted a great deal more than he has been. His own son-in-law among others got more, and he asked me to do everything in my power to get matters put right for him. I want to ask the Minister to do all he can to save these people from complete ruin. If they don’t get sufficient fertiliser they are again going to have a bad crop and they cannot possibly be expected to carry on in this way. Of course, there are all sorts of causes: weather conditions and a number of plagues, which have seriously affected the farmers, but if they don’t get more fertiliser they will not be able to do anything at all. People express the opinion sometimes that we complain too much, but farming in South Africa is one of the biggest gambles, perhaps more so than in any other country. In the Western Province the farmers have had one of the poorest seasons they had for many years. The Minister of Agriculture told us: “We are going to war and many of our troubles are going to disappear now.” Well, we are at war now, and we trust that the Minister will remove the difficulties which are facing us.

I feel that I would be neglecting my duty if I failed to protest here this afternoon against the manner in which the Afrikaans dictionary has been dragged across the floor of this House. I want to say at once that the way in which it has been done will certainly not tend to gain any respect for this most important piece of work on which so much labour has already been spent. If we carry on in this way, we shall certainly not get the benefit from it that we want to get when eventually the dictionary is published.

Well, your grandchildren will be the ones to benefit—nobody will have any benefit before that.

I also want to protest emphatically against a man like Prof. Smith who cannot come here to defend himself, being dragged into this debate, and I want to protest against the way his name has been used. I want to assure the House, and I do so with all my power, that the contention that Prof. Smith addresses political meetings and wastes his time in doing so, the time he should be devoting to the dictionary, is devoid of all truth. If Prof. Smith were to do so, he would not be the only professor in this country acting in that way, but I want to assure the House that that sort of thing is beneath Prof. Smith, and I also want to assure the House that the Professor is the last man in the world who would lend himself to that sort of thing, he would not, at a time when he has undertaken such an important work as the compilation of the Afrikaans dictionary, travel through the country and waste his time addressing political meetings. There is not one man in this country who realises more than Prof. Smith does that his time is most valuable to the great cause which he is engaged on so far as the Afrikaansspeaking section of the community is concerned, namely the compilation of the dictionary. I am sorry that I should have the experience in this House that people who know that the compilation of such a dictionary among all nations in the world has taken a lifetime, expect it to be done here in less than twenty years. I don’t want to say any more about that. I only want to express a few views on the subject of agriculture. I listened attentively today to the speeches that were made here on the question of agriculture, and I must say that when listening to those speeches one immediately got two impressions. The first impression definitely is that our farmers are represented here as the most needy section of the community, people needing assistance, and the second impression is that the Minister of Agriculture is requested to do things which even Providence is not prepared to do for us. I have never imagined that the Minister of Agriculture was expected to be a superman. I certainly more than once wished that he were one, but I never realised that he was expected to be even greater than the Almighty. I have had to come here to learn that. I don’t want to defend the Minister of Agriculture because I know he is quite able to do so himself, but what I have noticed here is that hon. members are taking no account of the conditions prevailing in this country when they criticise the Minister; and the second thing I have found out here is that the natural difficulties with which our agricultural industry has to contend are not taken into account either. We know that our country is subject to a great many natural drawbacks. Consequently, we must also know that these are matters over which the farmer has not the slightest control, nor can the Minister of Agriculture be expected to have any control over these things. But what we do expect is that the man occupying the position of Minister of Agriculture will give us the best assistance he is able to in the circumstances. And when I say give assistance I do not mean that the farmers must be spoonfed, but I mean that we should be given assistance in combating natural drawbacks. I want to state here this afternoon that for very many years to come agriculture will be grateful to the Minister for the way he and his Department have met the difficult circumstances of the past three years. We have been told that we on this side of the House who are farmers are stifled in Caucus, but I can only say this in reply, that we on this side who are farmers realise our responsibility, and that this side is responsible for carrying out its duties towards agriculture. There never has been any question yet of stifling the voice of the farmers on this side. On the contrary, we are encouraged, but we take account of all the circumstances, and that is why I say that in days to come agriculture will be grateful to the Minister for the way he has assisted the farmers in these difficult times, and the success with which he has handled these excessively difficult problems. We know that control Boards have been severely criticised. We also know the way in which those control Boards have come into being. They came into being because there were surpluses of different kinds of products, while in the case of meat the control Board came into being on account of a shortage in the country. When the control Boards were instituted, as I have said, it was done primarily for the purpose of handling the surplus products in the most effective manner, and here I do not wish to make any accusation, but I want to say that trade as such, commerce as such, was unable to handle the surplus products, or otherwise trade and commerce refused to handle them, and I therefore say that whenever the control Boards are criticised we should look at the position from this point of view, that if trade and commerce had come to the fore at the time and had been prepared to handle the surplus products it would perhaps not have been necessary to create the control Boards. We are faced with the fact, however, that trade and commerce did not do so, and that the Minister and his Department were forced to take steps. Hence the Marketing Act and the Control Board. I am not going to say that the control Board have been a hundred per cent. correct in all they have done; we know that the man who makes no mistakes is the man who does nothing, and the same applies to such important bodies as the control Boards. The very best we can do today is to co-operate with the control Boards and to make the best of them instead of levelling destructive criticism which will never do any good to the cause of agriculture as a whole. Now, I want to say a few words about price control. We know that price control was something entirely foreign in this country. Here, too, I want to say that in regard to price control the right course has not always been followed. Serious mistakes have been made, but let me say this to the House: assuming no such thing was ever started, no price control had been introduced, where would the country as a whole have been? The consumers as well as the producers. Where would we have landed especially in a world where price control had been generally accepted? It would have been ended in chaos. I want to say here that the greatest difficulty in regard to price control is due to over trading in the centre, in the middle. I am not going to talk about marketing at this stage; I may perhaps do so at a later date, but we should cut out over trading—exaggerated trading as such. Agriculture recognises that trade is necessary, because without channels of distribution we cannot carry on. It is a farmer’s business to produce. It is somebody else’s business to distribute, but I want to appeal to trade as such to assist us to cut out what I call the exaggerated trade, so that in that way we may be able to bring the producer and the consumer nearer to each other. On the one side we have the producer, in the centre we have trade, and on the other side we have the consumer. Each of those three are dependent on each other and they are indispensable to each other, including trade. What is necessary is an effective price control. Now, I also want to say a few words about potatoes. I know that this is a very delicate matter, and I want to say that in this regard a mistake was made by the Price Controller when he interfered with the price of this agricultural product. From what I know about the fixing of the price of potatoes, from the negotiations which agricultural unions conducted with the Minister, I realise that if the potatoes had been left in the hands of the Food Controller and his department we would not have had the maximum price fixing in the way we did have it. And here I want to make an appeal to the Minister to do all he possibly can to remove this fixing of a maximum price for potatoes, to the benefit not only of the producer, but also of the consumer. I don’t want to go into details in regard to the operation of the fixing of prices, on which a great deal has been said here. I only want to say that in this particular instance the scheme has not been a success, neither from the point of view of the producer, nor from that of the consumer. There, again, an overdone middle trade has got away with the profits. The serious position in regard to potatoes has been made use of to a large extent to overflood the market during the past six or seven weeks. We are aware of the fact, however, that this is not the first time that has happened in this country. I remember that when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was Minister of Agriculture we often had to sell our potatoes during the course of a few months at prices of 2s. 6d. to 5s. per bag. That is the sort of thing that happens when the market is over-flooded. We have to recognise the fact that the potato farmers, encouraged by the Food Controller on this occasion, produced very much more than ever before. They listened to his appeal to produce more, but the greatest sinner in connection with the drop in the price of potatoes has not yet been mentioned. I am quite convinced that neither the Minister, nor any of us, ever expected that Rommel would take flight so quickly and that conditions up North would change so quickly as they did, with the result that convoys are no longer coming here to buy our products to the extent that they did before. But assuming for a moment that we had not planted any potatoes, and that the convoys continued to come here. Was it not necessary for the Food Controller to see to it that we had ample food? If the convoys had come, what would we have had for our own consumption if we had not produced more than we ordinarily did? We would immediately have been faced with a serious shortage. I therefore say again that criticism is a good thing, but I am quite convinced that the Minister welcomes criticism, but I want to add that if one does criticise one must take all circumstances into account. Finally, I want to say a few words about labour. I want to say most emphatically here this afternoon that if there is one department which has assisted to alleviate the position in regard to the scarcity of labour, it is the Department of the Minister of Agriculture. The scarcity of labour was created not only by the war, and by the starting of recruiting. We know that as far back as 1937 and 1938, and the beginning of 1939, the labour problem—the scarcity of labour—was dealt with in the same way as it has been since the outbreak of war. Even in those days the scarcity of labour was complained of. We know the different causes for this scarcity. There was the drift to the towns, to the factories, and in the Western Province, particularly, we got the desire on the part of the coloured people, and quite correctly, for better living, better social conditions in regard to housing, and educational facilities for their children. I am only mentioning a few factors to show that even before the war we had this problem of the scarcity of labour, and I want to show that it did not originate simply as the result of recruiting. We know that in the Western Province, particularly, thousands of our most competent coloured workers joined the army, and we know that others from the farms took their places in the towns because the wages there were higher. We should have expected that, and we are grateful to the Minister of Agriculture, as well as to the Minister of Defence, for the fact that when we made representations to them asking them to stop recruiting in certain districts, they immediately did so, and I may say that the orders given by them were strictly adhered to. The results have proved that. I want to admit today that the farmers are still faced with this labour problem, but members also know that that problem was there even before the war. I am convinced that if all of us put our heads together and devised some schemes with the departments concerned, and with our own organisations, we would be able to find a way out of the difficulty, even for after the war. I only want to say in connection with this problem that in spite of all the criticism about the scarcity of labour, we still have the fact that on every farm in the last two years more has been produced than ever before, and on no farm has the crop been spoilt. Whatever has been planted has been marketed, and the crops have been gathered. The farmers have been successful in their sowing, they have grown their products and they have gathered their crops.

Specially potatoes.

Yes; they have been planted successfully, and have been produced. It is a tribute to the Afrikaner farmers, who, even under the most difficult conditions, have managed to get through. That should not merely be an encouragement to us, but it should discourage the making of speeches in which Afrikaner farmers are represented as being poor and needy and requiring assistance, giving the impression that they are passing through so serious a time that they have been reduced to the level of people dependent on the aid of the State. In regard to fertiliser, we have had negotiations with the departments concerned, and we know what the position is. I personally am satisfied that the Department of Agriculture is doing all in its power to help us, and that it is doing all it can to develop the resources in this country in regard to fertiliser, but the fact remains that there is a serious shortage. I thoroughly agree with the hon. members for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser), and Paarl (Mr. Hugo) in regard to the allocation of fertiliser to wheat farmers. We know how much fertiliser these people require, but we all know that if there is none, we cannot make it. We also have the vegetable gardeners, however, and nothing has been said about them here today, and I want to tell the Minister that this is a class of farmer who has never yet had any assistance from the Government. They produce under the most difficult conditions, and their product is just as necessary, just as badly needed, as wheat. I hope the Minister will see his way to go into this question, and I trust he will see to it that the small vegetable and market gardeners particularly, will get their fair share of fertiliser. Rather let him take a little from the large vegetable farmers, who can produce something else, and give a little more to the small market gardeners who are working under very difficult conditions. Their labour costs are tremendously high, fertiliser is expensive, but these people find it impossible, without fertliser, to produce anything on the poor type of ground they are working. Theirs is a very deserving case, and I want to associate myself with hon. members over there in making an appeal to the Minister to try and meet those farmers and the wheat farmers. When prices were fixed the prospects of a good apricot crop were very good. I would say that the prospects were better than they had been for the last five years, but unfortunately fourteen days before those people could gather their apricots a terrific wind sprang up which destroyed more than 50 per cent. of their crop, and I hope the Minister will give his attention to the position, and if possible consider the question of reviewing the prices that have been fixed. I also want to say a few words about wool.

No, you had better not.

Before sitting down let me say a few words about the contract. The wool contract which we have with Great Britain has been criticised here because it is not on the same basis as the Australian contract. When Australia made that contract, that self-same contract was offered to this country, for the Union of South Africa, and what was the result? A terrific agitation was started, and it was said that under no circumstances were we to go in for that contract. We know that the Government gave in to the request made by the farmers that an open market should be retained. It has been argued here that on the Australian basis our wool farmers have lost £2,000,000 on their yields but because the open market was retained for one year, our wool farmers had an advantage over the Australian wool farmers of more than £2,000,000. But this fact is very carefully kept back. It was only after France had fallen and war conditions made it necessary for a similar contract to be entered into that our Government had to start negotiating for a contract, so how can we condemn the Minister today for not having made exactly the same contract as Australia had made? It was offered to us but we did not want it, but at a later date we wanted to step in and get exactly the same benefits as Australia was getting. That criticism does not hold water, and the fact remains that the wool farmers throughout the country are quite satisfied.

Nonsense!

The wool farmers right throughout the country, especially those who have some business acumen, are satisfied. If we deduct the cheap wool coming from the Native Territories I say here today that the South African farmer has obtained a very much better price than the Australian farmer.

Nonsense!

You had better stick to potatoes.

I want to repeat that under our contract all these cheap types of wool from the Native areas and from the Protectorates have been included. I repeat that if those are deducted from our contract the South African wool farmer gets a better price than the Australian wool farmer.

Hear, hear!

I want to conclude by drawing the Minister’s attention to the Deciduous Fruit Board. I don’t want to go into any details …

Hear, hear!

There is a slip of paper in front of you; you had better have a look at that first.

The fact remains that with the experience before us it has been proved …

You had better read it quickly.

It has been proved that there are certain anomalies which have to be enquired into, and I want to ask the Minister to enquire into the marketing of deciduous fruit, and to ascertain whether the best methods are being followed in the marketing of our deciduous fruit.

Practically three debates have been carried on in the discussion of this Bill. There has been one debate on agricultural matters; then there was a second debate on defence—about practically nothing else but the question of Cost-Plus contracts—and then there was a third debate, a very small one, about the Afrikaans dictionary. So far as the debate on agricultural matters is concerned, I don’t propose saying anything on that.

You had better not.

Yes, perhaps it is better for my hon. friend that I should not say anything about that. I have agreed with my hon. colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, that he will discuss agricultural matters during the third reading stage on Monday. In regard to the debate about Defence, much has been said on both sides of the House, and there is not much left for me to say. I shall try, however, to summarise the position briefly and to place it in its right perspective. First of all, I want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). It was he who raised the question of the Afrikaans dictionary. He referred to two replies which I gave to questions he had put to me. The one was in regard to the allocation of prizes to South African authors, poets, composers or painters, and the other concerned cost of living allowances for pensioners. My replies to both those questions are still the same as those which I gave in writing. In regard to the allocation of prizes, I naturally, from the cultural point of view, take a great interest in this matter, but I do feel that this is a matter which should be a subject for private initiative. I have in mind the fact that in the olden days, long ago, when this country was much smaller and much poorer than it is today, there were many people who provided money for bursaries for overseas study and those bursaries are still in existence, and I can conceive of nothing better for the man of means than to provide money for that purpose. We must not try to put everything on the State. In regard to the question of cost of living allowance to pensioners, the hon. the Minister of Railways told the House a few days ago that this was being considered, and that is still the position. May I just say in passing that old age pensioners are already getting the cost of living allowance. And now I come to the question of the dictionary. The first point I wish to mention in that connection, is that so far as the dictionary is concerned we are bound by a contract which was made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan). We are advised at present on the daily administration of this matter by a Committee. That Committee was appointed in consequence of an investigation which I had made four years ago. One of the members of this Commission of Enquiry of four years ago was the hon. member for Graaff Reinet (Dr. Bremer) and he still serves on that Committee, which is still in existence today. The Committee consists of Judge Van Zyl, Judge President of the Cape Provincial Division of the Supreme Court; the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet; Dr. M. C. Botha, former Secretary for Education, and the present Secretary for Education, together with the Principal of the University, and Professor Smith, as the two University members. I mention the names of the hon. member for Piketberg and the hon. member for Graaff Reinet with only one object—I want to express the hope that we shall keep this matter out of party politics, and I am quite sure that what I am saying about this matter today would, if the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet were here today, be supported by him. I want to say this, that I feel that the attack which was made on Professor Smith here is somewhat unfair. The impression has been created that Professor Smith is now engaged on all sorts of outside business and that he is neglecting his work on the dictionary. Apparently the fact that he addresses Dingaan’s Day celebrations once a year is put forward as the reason why the dictionary has not progressed beyond the letter “A”. Is not that absurd? Practically all of us do outside work, and even a Minister like myself, who is very busy, does outside work, and I hope it is in the interest of the public. Professor Smith is not a Government official; his salary is not paid by the Government. He is in the service of the University of Stellenbosch. The University pays his salary, and I think we can leave it to the University to see to it that Professor Smith does not do too much outside work. The fact that this work has now been going on for 17 years, and that so far only the letter “A” has been completed, has been emphasised in particular.

It is not yet finished.

My hon. friend apparently wants us to believe that only the letter “A” has been worked on so far. A dictionary is not compiled in that way. All the letters have been dealt with.

Up to “G”.

All the letters have been worked on. One cannot work on a dictionary and confine oneself to one letter only. What I said was that the final editing of the letter “A” was almost completed. The hon. member for Mossel Bay talked about the staff which was assisting Professor Smith today on this work. It would be quite wrong for anyone to deduce from that that Professor Smith from the very start, for all those seventeen years, has had such a staff at his disposal. That is not so. Before that time, Professor Smith worked on his own and most of the time he had very little assistance. It was due solely to the activities of this Committee, on which the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet is also serving, that we found it possible now to give Professor Smith a proper staff.

Is he training people to succeed him?

I now come to the question of Defence expenditure, and particularly this much-discussed question of Cost-plus contracts. So far as that is concerned I want to take the debate back to the essential points raised by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). The debate covered a wide field. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) even went back to the missing £100,000 of two years ago, of which today only £300 are still missing. But I want to come back to the attack made by the hon. member for George. First of all, the hon. member declared himself entirely satisfied with the action taken by the Government on these reports. He is satisfied with that. He has no complaint against the Government so far as that is concerned. He only accuses the Government insofar as the Government is responsible for what was done by its officials in the past, but the hon. member is satisfied with what the Government is doing. Consequently, his objections only relate to what happened in the past, to what happened in regard to the matters which this Committee enquired into. Now, that matter consists of three parts. First of all, there is the work that was done under the supervision of the Director-General of War Supplies, and that by far is the major part of the work. Apart from the pay of our soldiers, the expenditure of the Director-General of War Supplies represents by far the largest part of our defence expenditure. So far as that is concerned, my hon. friend signed the same report as the other members of the Committee, and in the course of this debate he again expressed his satisfaction. Then he came to the work of the Department of Public Works. There he said mistakes had been made, but, generally speaking, the work has been carried out in accordance with the traditions of the Department of Public Works; the work is expensive, slow, honest. No special complaints there. His charge was about that part which all of us now call “Fortifications”. On that point there was a difference of opinion between him and his colleagues. I am sorry there was that difference of opinion, but I must say that I attach more value to the opinion of the majority than to that of the minority. The hon. member reminds me of the old Scotch saying: “They are all out of step but our Jock”. And there sits “our Jock”.

Still, you accepted his advice.

We accepted the advice of the Committee. There was no difference between the advice given by him and the advice given by the Committee—the only difference was in regard to the tempo. I have the Committee’s finding here, and I shall read it again. I shall come to the third report later on, but I am now quoting from the first report—

The majority grouped the Department of Public Works with Fortifications; my hon. friend distinguished between them. I say again that I accepted the opinion of the majority and not of the minority. In that connection I must draw attention to the attempt that has been made here to make it appear that two members of the Committee were prejudiced. Well, let us analyse that. Mr. Prentice could perhaps be regarded as being prejudiced in regard to the work of the Department of Public Works, but my hon. friend is satisfied with the work of the P.W.D. Mr. Osborne could perhaps have been regarded as being prejudiced in respect of the work of the Director-General of War Supplies, but the hon. member for George is satisfied with the work of the Director-General of War Supplies. In those two respects my hon. friend is satisfied; these two members, however, were certainly not prejudiced in favour of the Director of Fortifications. On the contrary, there had always been a certain degree of competition between Public Works and Fortifications. That argument therefore does not hold water. Those people were certainly not prejudiced in regard to that point. Now, let us come to a few of the specific points referred to by my hon. friend. His first point was in regard to the “Big Four” and the large profits made by them, especially in connection with the original Fortification. He drew comparison between the percentage drawn by them and the percentages that are drawn in England and Australia. One cannot compare those percentages without comparing the contracts as a whole. Under the different forms of contracts there are different arrangements in regard to the amounts which the contractor has to find himself and the provision which he himself has to make. Let me quote Clause 45 of the memorandum on that point—

Not 10 per cent …

My hon. friend will say that here was a contract for £800,000, but it was not one bit of work. There were several works, spread from Cape Town to Durban—

This 3½ per cent. on large contracts therefore has to be compared with our 5 per cent. Let us, however, take it that the percentage at the start was really a bit on the high side. That, too, was reduced afterwards. It is always very easy to be clever after the event, but may I be allowed to point this out: Col. Craig did not act off his own bat in this matter. He had to do what was best in the circumstances. He tried to get the work started on the tender basis. He could not manage it for reasons which were shown in the letter which he wrote to my hon. friend. He thereupon thought that the best way was to have the work done on the Cost-Plus-percentage basis. My hon. friend will say: “Why not Cost-Plus a fixed fee basis”? It would have been just as difficult to lay down a fixed fee as to get tenders in the time available. What did Col. Craig then do? He was not satisfied to act on his own bat; he went to Pretoria.

And the Tender Board approved of it. Consequently, if my hon. friend accuses Col. Craig, he also accuses Col. Pienaar and the Tender Board. Col. Craig did everything he possibly could to make sure that he was pursuing the right course. My hon. friend, perhaps unintentionally, created the impression that Col. Craig was hand in glove with the “big four”. I take it that he did not mean that, but if he did mean it, we have his reply in that letter. Col. Craig acted honestly and straightforwardly, and this letter proves it. He did not act arbitrarily. He did not discriminate unfairly. He took all those steps and my hon. friend was aware of that fact when he wrote his Minority Report in his judicial capacity and when he made these attacks in this House. I am very sorry that knowing the facts, my hon. friend yet expressed himself in the way he did about Col. Craig. In regard to the other matters, or details, mentioned by my hon. friend, there is the question of Collondale. There, too, perhaps unwittingly, he created the impression that although labour was available at East London, Col. Craig unnecessarily and at considerable expense brought people from Cape Town to do the work there. The evidence proves that that is quite wrong. Labour at East London was fully employed and in order to get the work completed it was absolutely essential to bring in other labour. I now want to come back to what was stated in the First Report—

But now my hon. friends come to the Third Report. They say that the Third Report changes the whole position in all its aspects. The hon. member for Boshof stated that the Government had referred the First Reoort back to the Committee and that as a result we got the Third Report. That is not so at all.

Why did you refer them back?

The minority report was referred back to the Committee because it appeared that the Committee had not considered the minority report at all. We asked that the Committee as a whole, including my hon. friend, the member for George, should express their opinion on it, but the Third Report is not the result of that. Part three of the Third Reoort, true, is partly the result of a question which the Authorities Committee put to the Committee on one point and one point only. Part three of the Third Reoort does not deal with the whole matter but with one point only. Part three does not by any means unset the First Reoort. Part three of the Third Report only deals with the question of the staff which had been placed on the contractors’ books, and here I again come back to the Committee’s findings. The Committee went fully into that question and this is what it found—

That was the Committee’s finding, but there is still one point left. The Committee said: “We accept that Col. Craig could not act any differently, but there are two aspects of the matter, two points arising from the general question, which we consider require attention.” The one is that incorrect facts were placed before the Committee on behalf of Col. Craig. The second is the fact that the contractors drew a percentage profit on the salaries of these people. Both these points were left over. In regard to the first point, namely, that incorrect facts were submitted to the Committee, in Clause 50 of its report, the Committee clearly stated that they were satisfied that this was not due to deliberate misrepresentation. I feel that my hon. friend will also accept that.

No, I have a report on that myself.

In any case the Committee’s finding was that there was no deliberate misrepresentation, but that an administrative mistake had been made. There still remains the question that the contractors had drawn a percentage profit on the salaries of these people, and there the Committee said this—

They were warned, beforehand.

Quite correct. On that one point an error was made, and the Treasury has already acted on that. And now, after all the dust that has been raised, after all the exaggerations which we have had, that is the only thing which is left. After all these arguments, all these attacks on the Government and on Col. Craig, that is all that is left! No, I do not agree with my hon. friend or with his amendment. He now wants us, because of this minor point—which is all he has left—to appoint a Commission with a general instruction on defence expenditure. We are not going to do away with our ordinary Parliamentary procedure. We have the Auditor-General and the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and we are always ready, if that Committee makes a recommendation, to do what we have done in the past, and if necessary—and we are waiting for their recommendation—to have a further specific investigation made. We are prepared to do so. We, as a Government, have produced the most emphatic proof of our bona fide in this matter. We appointed this Committee; we nominated the hon. member opposite as a member of that Committee. We immediately carried out in full the recommendations of the Committee. Surely that is proof of the Government’s bona fides on this matter, and we are prepared to follow the same procedure in future.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—67:

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

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.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Noes—38:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Oost, H.

Pieterse. P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob

Wilkens, Jan

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Werth dropped.

Original motion put and the House divided.

Ayes—66:

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander. A.

Gluckman, H.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson. R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon. V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

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.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Noes—38:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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