I move—

I second.

I move—

1. (a) the position of the agricultural industry in all its aspects;
2. (b) the rearing of livestock;
3. (c) the production of crops;
4. (d) the dairy industry;
5. (e) the maintenance of soil fertility;
6. (f) the marketing and distribution of its produce; and
7. (g) the provision of the necessary finance;

In moving the motion standing in my name, I intend for one moment to dwell on the present position of the agricultural industry. I think it is common cause that although our costs have risen enormously, with the exception of a few articles, agriculture today stands on a very prosperous basis, and in the majority of cases farmers are satisfied with the prices we are receiving for our products. It is not our intention to traverse that aspect at all, but what I do feel is that in view of the chaotic state of the world today, the outlook for agriculture, unless it is properly organised, unless we get a better system of agriculture in this country, is going to be precarious in the extreme. We all, I think, look to the post-war period as one in which there is going to be a general reconstructive policy in the whole of our economic system. We realise that many of the old methods have got to go. We realise that possibly there has got to be a more even distribution of wealth, that neither great poverty nor great wealth will exist after the war. But in whatever scheme of reconstruction is adopted, it is absolutely essential that agriculture shall find its place in that scheme. Up to the present we have heard a tremendous lot about health; we have heard a lot about social measures that will affect other members of the community, but nothing whatever is done in the way of investigating the necessary steps that must be taken if agriculture is to come into its rightful place in the scheme of economic reconstruction after the war is over. Agriculture is a key-industry. That, I think, is common ground. Agriculture is and must always be a key-industry in any country in the world, and it must find its place alongside other industries on which the very life of the community rests. It must also be realised that other countries are moving in the matter, that other countries are now planning for the future of the industry, and I would just like this House to realise what is taking place in Great Britain. I just want to quote from a recent speech by Mr. Hudson, the Minister of Agriculture, in which he says—

That is exactly what I am asking should be done in this country. I am asking that a properly constituted body shall be set up to make the necessary investigation. In the first place, this country has got to make up its mind whether it requires a prosperous agriculture, a prosperous rural community or not. If it does not want one, well and good. If it does want a prosperous agriculture, it has got to realise that it is only on an artificial basis that both industries and agriculture can survive in this country. There is no question about that. Agriculture cannot be expected to survive, if unaided it has got to withstand the shock of competition from other countries in the world. That is an impossibility. I will deal in one moment with the industrial position in connection with agriculture. But we have got to realise that the position in this country is very diffirent from the position in other countries. We have droughts to contend with. We may be faced with what we think is a prosperous season. A disastrous hailstorm comes along and the efforts of the season are wiped out. We may find the position that faces us today, that where a month ago it looked as though we would have a bumper mealie crop, today we will be fortunate if the mealie crop is sufficient to meet the needs of the country. South Africa is a country where you can never reckon from day to day with any certainty on your production, and therefore I say that agriculture must and always will be based on an artificial basis, and can never stand on its own legs against outside competition. It is common knowledge; take our wheat, for example. We can never hope to compete with the wheat lands of Canada or Australia. This Hous knows that at times we have landed wheat in this country at 9s. a bag; but if wheat growing is to continue in this country, if we are to continue the main source of our life, that is our bread, then it must be encouraged and must exist on that artificial basis. We can never compete in maize with South America; our cheese and butter can never hold their own against Canada, New Zealand and Australia. In every line, with the exception of fruit and one or two other items we are handicapped against the world’s production, and I say it has got to be an artificial industry if it has got to find its place. But let there be no mistake about the position of agriculture in relation to industries. It is a common gibe which is flung at agriculture even in this House, that it lives on subsidies, that it lives on government assistance, and people have gone so far as to say that this country would be better off from the consumer’s point of view, if there was no agriculture. But I am going to ask the House seriously to consider what the position of industry in this country is. I am only going to take three instances. We have in this country an industry of which we are tremendously proud. We realise its value fully, and that is Iscor, our iron and steel industry. It is held up as a model. It is doing marvellous war work and it is an industry which has grown to enormous development. But what is Iscor based on? It is just as much spoon-fed as farming. I wonder if hon. members realise this: The basic duty on steel is 3%, but in order to enable Iscor to exist, there are special duties on various steel products. I am going to take steel girders as one of the principal products, for example. On top of that 3% there is a duty of £9 11s. 10d. per ton. There are zone arrangements under which additional duties are levied and the protection is well over £10 a ton on your steel girders. What is the C.I.F. value of steel girders in this country? They cost £30 a ton. Of that £10 is a protective tariff. Iscor is getting a 50% protection on every article of steel which it puts out in this country, and that is not all. If Iscor sends its products down to Durban to compete with the imported article, it pays 16d. per 100 lbs. railage. On the other hand, if that imported article goes to the Rand to compete there, it pays 66d. per 100 lbs. railage. So you have got a protection of 5s. per 100 lbs. in railage, in addition to £10 a ton on the imported article. I would ask the urban dweller to be honest with the farmer. Isn’t the steel industry, just as agriculture, spoon-fed? Is it not living on a subsidy just as one hears that the agricultural industry is? Let us take your printing industry, a well-known example. The printing industry has a protection of 50% on everything imported from overseas. Take your boot industry. The boot industry is one which this country is very proud of. Anyhow, the boot industry carries today a protection of 33%. Hon. members will look back and remember the time when the boot industry could not live unless there was absolute prohibition aganist competition from Czecho-Slovakia, and that protection was given. There was absolute prohibition on the importation of boots from Czecho-Slovakia, and today the boot industry is living under the shelter of a tariff of 33%. There again, hon. members will admit that industry is today just as much spoon-fed as the farming industry. We do not hear that Iscor is being spoon-fed, but I think it should be realised that agriculture must be considered as an artificial industry in this country, and only under artificial conditions can it exist, just like these other industries do. Now we visualise tremendous industrial expansion in this country, but what has been the history of every country in the world? As industry has increased so the demand for cheap food has increased with it, and so the agricultural industry has been starved to death. Take Great Britain. Great Britain has gone into two wars and at the beginning of each war she did not produce enough food for a month’s consumption, and she had to rebuild her agricultural industry during a war period in order to survive. That has been the history of two wars. Industries live with agriculture as their handmaiden in all the great industial countries in the world, and that is what I want to see avoided in this country. I want to see agriculture standing alongside industry on equal terms, and bringing to those engaged in agriculture an equal share of prosperity which is their rightful due. I want to quote now to show the feeling which exists in so many minds in this country. I quote from the report of the evidence given before the National. Health Services Commission just recently. This evidence was given by a certain gentleman called Prof. Hutt. I think if his evidence, which I am about to quote, is to be the opinion of the majority in this country, then Prof. Hutt would be very well described as a professor of lunacy. What else he is a professor of I do not know.

He is a professor of commerce.

Then I hope commerce will reply on behalf of this eminent professor, when I have finished my quotation. He says—

His point is that food has got to be imported duty free into this country, and at a price at which it will be possible for the people to buy, and the only way to do that is by removing all tariffs on foodstuffs.

Why not?

Will my hon. friend stand up and ask for the removal of all tariffs on Iscor and other industries? Will he stand up and ask for the removal of all tariffs on the printing industry, on the boot industry and on hundreds of other industries? If he does, he will never come back to this House. That is the very thing for which I want a commission appointed that will carve out a place in this country for agriculture alongside industry, where they will both get a fair share of protection. Why should we not have protection on our production? If industry demands protection on their output they must not say that the farmer must give them cheap food. That is, I know, the attitude of the great industrial magnates in this country, but if you give agriculture the encouragement which is its right on a properly planned basis, then agriculture will produce every ounce of food this country requires; let there be no mistake about that. In the past we have had often produced more than the people could buy, but that was not the fault of the farmer, that the consuming public could not buy our food. There is one more matter I particularly want to quote, to show how the farmer is being blamed in many cases, and how he is being abused in spite of the attitude of the Government departments to supply cheap foods. I want to call the attention of the House to report No. 1 of the Social and Economic Planning Council that was recently set up. There has been tremendous criticism of the waste of foodstuffs, the destruction of foodstuffs, the destruction of citrus and other fruits in this country, and quite rightly so, because that food should have gone into consumption amongst the submerged classes. But let me quote this report. In its first report under the heading “Waste of citrus fruit” it says—

That is what the country has been asking for. That is what those who plead for the proper distribution of nutritive foods have been asking for. They have said “Distribute this amongst the poorer classes of people.” What was the reply from the Department of Native Affairs? “The offer was not accepted.” The growers in this country offered their fruit free on rail if the Department of Native Affairs would distribute it amongst the Natives, that is the poorer classes of this country, and “the offer was not accepted.”

They said the transport charges were too high.

The board said to the railways “If we give you the fruit will you carry it free of charge to those who require it most,” and the Railways said: “We will not do so.” They said: “You who make this offer must pay up the full rates for that fruit if it is going to be carried to those people who require it.” Is a system like that defensible? Can you defend such a department? What is the good of producing cheap food which many poor people want if the Railways of this country will not carry that food free, and the department concerned will not distribute it? I do not suppose the Minister knows anything about it. Before we go any further, I want the House to realise the position which agriculture is gradually drifting into. I quote here from a White Paper issued in 1939 on the agricultural position, by the Government. Taking 1929 with the index figure of 100, since 1929 to 1938, over a period of nine years, the value of agricultural products gradually fell from the index figure of 100 down to 77. They fell over 25 per cent., but, on the other hand, if you take the average index of weekly wages for Europeans, from an index figure of 100 in 1929, they rose to 117 in 1939. There you see the trend of agriculture. There you see the gradual trend over a period of years the price of products declining, although the cost of production is rising. There you find the wages, and I presume the income of other sections of the community, have been steadily rising, and that is what we have in some way or another to remedy. The figures up to date will be of very little value, because we have the war period which has brought about an entirely artificial value of articles. I am not one to grudge a rise in wages. I care not how high your wage standards go, provided it is realised that the consumer has to pay. The higher the rise in wages, the higher your cost of production becomes, and the higher the cost to the consumer of a particular article must be. I only say the consumer must be prepared to pay if your wage standard is going to be increased in this country. We have been accused of living, as I said, on subsidies. The greater part of the inhabitants of the Union have been living on subsidies. I was very interested in January of this year, when the Prime Minister was replying to a deputation of church leaders in Cape Town. He said—

That is what my motion is based on, reconstruction of our economic structure and not the payment of subsidies. I was very struck with the reply given by the Prime Minister to the Labour movement in this country. He said—

What we ask for is an agricultural charter, on which we can base the prosperity of agriculture. There is one other matter, and again I am very sorry that we do not seem to have a Minister in the House at all, and that is the most extraordinary position in which I find myself. I am trying to explain the difficulties we labour under in agriculture. I rely on the Government of this country at least with regard to the future organisation of our industry, and I see empty Ministerial benches. Even the Minister of Agriculture has disappeared. There is one matter which I do want this House to realise, and I am only sorry the Prime Minister is not here to reply to the query which I am going to put. I have got here a copy of the Atlantic Charter. I understand that this country has subscribed, through its Government, to the principles of the Atlantic Charter, and we are being told every day that the principles of the Atlantic Charter must be applied to many of the depressed classes in this country. I want to read to this hon. House Clause 4 of the Atlantic Charter—

Now what does that mean? That means free trade, if it means anything. “Access on equal terms to the trade and to the raw materials of the world.” That means free trade, if it means anything, and if my hon. friends with whom I discussed it, are going to say that it allows us to build up an artifical wall of tariffs for the protection of our industries, or for the protection of our agriculture, then I say we shall go right away back into the bad old times, where every country erected national barriers around itself, and this, we are told, was the prime cause of this war, and many other preceding wars. If this means that we continue to shelter ourselves behind trade barriers, behind tariff walls, then it means we are simply reverting to the old state, and we shall find ourselves involved again in wars in the future, which find their origin in endeavours of trade to expand. Now I want a definite statement here in this House. Do we subscribe to a charter which gives all nations of the world free access on equal terms to the trade and raw materials of the world, and are we again to see boots from Czecho-Slovakia? Are we to see the products of other countries dumped in this country, and ruining our agriculture. What does it mean? I do not go to the extent that my hon. friends opposite go to, and talk about eye wash. I think there is a tremendous spirit behind the Atlantic Charter, but are we to take it literally that it means free trade, and open competition by all nations of the world in the trade of South Africa? Is that what it means? Perhaps the Minister of Commerce, who has just come back and who has been in close touch with world affairs, will deal with it, because to me it is a vital turning point in the history and the prosperity of this country. That is what I mean when I said we live on an artificial basis. If we are to do away with that artificial basis, then the prosperity of this country is gone once and for all. I think, that Clause 4 of the Atlantic Charter is of such importance that we should realise that it has to be taken into consideration in the development of agriculture, or of any other industry in South Africa. Now, I come to certain suggestions. I do not intend to go into details, but I intend to deal principally with the bigger issues. In this country I think the landowner has come to that point when he has got to realise that although we are in temporary possesion of our land, although we are, shall I say, temporary owners during our lifetime, we are also trustees of that land for future generations. We have an obligation on us to hand that land down to posterity in the same state of fertility in which we received it. That is a duty on every landowner in this country, and that is one matter which has got to be considered with deep seriousness in the future. It goes a long way. It may even mean this, that where a man is not capable of farming his land properly, where his land is deteriorating or soil erosion is taking place and so on, the Government will have to buy him out and find another avenue of occupation for him, where he could be perhaps more prosperous than he is where he is situated, and for which he is not suited. Possibly the Government will have to place other men on the ground in his stead. That is to say where land is being improperly used the State may have to expropriate it in order to preserve that very heritage of which we are the trustees. If our land is to be properly cared for, and some of it is deteriorating to the extent that it is going to take large sums of money to bring it to its former fertile state, the State will have to realise not only that the landowner is the trustee, but it will also have to realise that it is responsible for giving assistance to that trustee in order to help maintain that ground. It is not only a question of raising crops. It is a question of combating all the climatic evils, and the destruction that is going on around us every day. That is a sine qua non in the future of agricultural prosperity in this country, that the state has got to do its duty, and bear its share of the responsibility. Also we may have to zone our country as far as production is concerned; and there may have to be some form of compulsion. I hate the word “control,” and in the last twelve months my hate has increased 1,000%, but it may be necessary to have some form of control under which the production of crops has to be zoned to those particular areas most suited to them. If, for example, it is going to cost 15s. to produce a bag of potatoes in one portion of the country, and the cost of production is 7s. 6d. in another portion, then steps will have to be taken to see that potatoes are produced in that portion of the country where they can be produced at the cheaper rate, and that some other crops are grown which are more suitable to the type of farming in the other area. I think that must come. Now, sir, it is the biggest question of all to be considered. Given the proper facilities, given the proper encouragement, given the proper reward for his work, the farmer in South Africa will produce enough for every section of the community, but the State in one way or another has got to see that that—I do not like to use the word “surplus”—volume of foodstuffs is brought within reach of every section of the community. That is not the farmer’s job. It is not our job to produce and sell at a loss in order that the poorer sections of the community can buy from us. That is not a burden, agriculture can carry. That is a burden which rests on the shoulder of the State, and that is a duty which the State has always run away from. For instance, we have produced a surplus of 10,000,000 bags of mealies, but what has happened? Have we ever had assistance to bring those mealies to the door of the starving people? No. We have dumped them overseas, and I do not blame the people of this country when they say to the farmer: “What right have you to send your food overseas when we are starving?” But it is not the duty of the farming community to sell at below cost of production. There will have to be some system under which those who can afford to buy will have to pay what one might call the market price for foodstuffs. But the State will have to take over the balance and sell to the poor people of this country at whatever price they can afford to pay—not necessarily a price at which we can afford to produce, but a price which they can afford to pay, and the State will have to bear the loss. Something of that sort must emerge from any agricultural policy in future. After all, you cannot produce foodstuffs at a loss. If that cost of production makes the price one that those who are living below the bread line cannot afford to pay, and I repeat again, the State has to shoulder the burden of putting that food within reach of those who cannot afford to buy it. Now, above all, we will have to get down to a system of price control. There will have to be established in some form or another, by a system of price control or otherwise, a fixed price which will enable the agricultural industry to obtain a living wage for its labour. That is absolutely essential. We shall probably have to set up some form of Board of Agriculture to protect our interests. You have a Board of Trade and Industries that is always fostering the interests of industry, that is always keeping a watchful eye on industry and commerce, but you have no such thing as a Board of Agriculture which acts as a guardian angel to agriculture. There we have to depend entirely on the Department of Agriculture, but industry does not depend on its department. It has its organisation, which is a Government body, and the duty of the board I propose will be the costing and investigation of costs of production of agricultural products, which will vary from time to time, and the fixation of a price by the responsible Minister on the recommendation of that board. I again draw attention to a remark made by Mr. R. S. Hudson, the English Minister of Agriculture, in this connection. He says—

That will have to be the chief matter to be dealt with in the formation of our agricultural industry in the future. Now, I come to perhaps the most debatable point of my motion. I think everybody will agree that agriculture must be protected, must receive a modicum of protection to enable it to exist and flourish. Nobody will query that, now to give effect to this I am asking for an Extra-Departmental Commission. We do not want to be under the tutelage of a department. We want the commission set up to investigate the matters which I have referred to, to plan for the agricultural community, and we want the best brains which we have in the country to act on that commission. Firstly, we want men of the land, men who know what they are up against, men who know the difficulties of production, men who know the costs of production, men who know what it means to lose all their crops overnight in an untimely frost or other causes, and what steps must be taken to meet those difficulties. We do not want men who have gone through a university, and have written a thesis which they perhaps copied from some publication or another, and have got a B.A. degree by virtue of that thesis and have then been absorbed into the Department of Agriculture, as experts. Let me repeat something that happened to me once. A lady wrote to me many years ago. I did not know the lady. She evidently was very interested in agriculture, and had heard I had taken a great deal of interest and had done a lot of experimental work in connection with pasture grasses. I was a lot younger in those days. This lady had heard I was what she called, perhaps quite wrongly, an expert on pastural grasses, and she wrote that she would be awfully obliged if I would describe to her very fully my experience and my methods. I was very flattered, but perhaps I would not have been so much flattered if it had happened now. Anyhow, I sat down, and burnt the midnight oil, and wrote a very long article. I found afterwards that article of mine with a few corrections, appeared as that lady’s thesis, and on that thesis she had got her degree. That is what I mean when I say a great many B.A.’s are granted to people who have no opportunity of really studying the subject, and therefore I ask the Minister to appoint this commission from others than officials of his Department. I think the time has come when the Minister should realise that the farmers in this country are in deadly earnest. They have been played with long enough. The farmers are determined that we have got to have our position, defined, and defined in a manner which is going to mean prosperity in future to agriculture in this country, and I think it will be very unwise — and I hope the Minister will agree with me — to refuse to recognise farming opinion which I know is 100 per cent. behind me in this request I am making, that a proper representative commission be set up to plan for the future. I think it will be unwise to refuse it, and I do say to the Minister if he takes any sympathetic view of this request, that we do not want, and the farmers will not be content with a departmental commission. We would welcome officers of his department on such a commission. We also hope to get an economist on such a commission, and we want business brains, and we also want practical men, men who know the difficulties of farming. Those men must be the backbone of such a commission, and that is the request I put up to the Minister. There is only one other point I want to touch on, which I left for the last, and that is marketing and distribution. That is probably one to deal with in future. I am not going to go into details, but I think that my request of the most vital matters which we will have for an extra-departmental commission has a very solid foundation. We have had a year under control which has created absolute chaos in this country. It has created resentment and ill-feeling amongst all sections of the people, such as I have never known, and why? Because very largely the normal channels of distribution have been ignored, and the whole administration has been bureaucratic. Men I have the highest respect for, but who have had no business knowledge whatsoever, have undertaken the distribution of the whole of the foodstuffs in this country. It is not right and reasonable to expect men who have given the whole of their lives to the administration and have rendered great service to agriculture and its organisation in that capacity, to take over the business of distribution. We have trade channels in this country which you cannot ignore. You have a distributive trade built up in this country, probably one of the highest organised trades in this country, and if we worked in conjunction with those people, if we use the benefit of their experience, it will be all to the good for the distribution of our products. I know, as a fact, that the secretary of one of our control boards, travelling in the train and talking to certain commercial distributors, recently said: “We are out to get rid of you as quickly as we can.” Distribution has got its place, and always will have its place in the life of this country. I think it has levied too much on the producer of this country, and if it has, then let us control its charges for distribution. Let us pay it its rightful wage, and let us get men who have made a study of it, and who know exactly how to organise it, to build up this organisation. I will go thus far and say that if during this period of control the actual distribution had been in the hands of a body of business men, you would have got 100 per cent. better results, and 100 per cent. less grousing on the part of the consumers and producers of this country. I have tried to deal with the big issues, and in moving the motion, I very earnestly ask the Minister on behalf of agriculture in this country—which I again repeat is 100 per cent. behind this demand—to accede to this demand, and see that a body is set up which will pave the way to place before him a policy for the reconstruction of agriculture for the years before us.

Mr. Speaker, I second this motion, and in doing so I wish to say to the Ministers who are present here now that we take this motion very seriously, and we hope that what we are going to say will be treated as serious remarks with regard to the future of agriculture. I am not going to repeat on the same lines the troubles and disabilities of agriculture that the mover has referred to. I wish to deal more with the plans of the Government. The Government, I think, realises the importance and the difficulties of agriculture in this country. They have now decided on a plan. They have appointed a Social and Economic Planning Council, and that is what I wish to speak about on this motion this morning. That planning council has issued its first report, and if you read that report you see that we have very little to hope for from the work of this planning council. The Prime Minister in addressing the first meeting of that council, told them that the Government looked upon them as a very important body, and looked to them for great results with regard to this economic post-war planning, and for schemes for the future of the country. He went on further to say that if they failed it would be a calamity to the country. If you read that report, you can only come to one conclusion, that they must fail, because they have no machinery, they have no staff and they have no means of getting any data which is necessary for their planning schemes. I should just like to quote one or two things from that report. I won’t deal with the re-employment of soldiers and things of that sort. We are this morning discussing production, and farming matters. In their recommendations they say—

Now, Mr. Speaker, that statement by the Economic Planning Council is a terrible statement to be made after all we have been allowed to hope for from their work. They go further on to say—

To get over these difficulties, they now ask for certain things. They say—

Those investigating committees that they are asking to be appointed are going to be heads of departments, Government officials and people of that sort. If that is necessary, then I say what need of this planning council, because they are going to be purely a rubber stamp to carry out the plans and suggestions of the department and its officials. Now, they have made some other suggestion. They say—

That shows to us that as that planning council is constituted today, they cannot function. They are up against it. They are out of their depth. They are floundering in the mud, and unless something can be done, this planning for the future of agriculture must fail, and that is one of the reasons why we have brought forward this motion this morning, because we realise that without the assistance of practical and successful farmers, that council will never be able to bring forward any scheme or any plan that after the war will be able to reconstitute agriculture on a sound and prosperous foundation. Now I wish to say that speaking for farmers we are most anxious to co-operate and to assist not only the department but any other body that is put up by the Government to deal with our interests, but unless we are asked to do so or are allowed to do so we are being absolutely ignored at the present time. We have often organised and been up to Pretoria to interview the Minister and also his department on various schemes that we have in view, but we are always up against it, that it is not in accordance with Government policy. We are in this position at the present time, that the whole of our future, the whole of the security of the industry and the development of industry is being directed from Pretoria and from the department, I believe, and honestly believe, with the best intention, but up to the present with very poor results. I think it has been the policy of the department in all investigations and in all planning to confine those investigations to departmental organisations, and not to have members of the farming community or of organised agriculture on those Boards or investigating Committees. They plan our future, they plan the policy of the Government, and we have to make the best of it, but we find that they do not work out as they anticipated. That is why we are asking now for an extra departmental commission. It can do no harm and it may do a lot of good. I feel that unless there is co-operation between the Department and this Planning Council, and the farming community as a whole, the future of farming is going to be very black. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the farming industry has always been the Cinderella industry of South Africa. The farmers have always been used by other interests for making profits for themselves. We are unorganised and we are unable to help ourselves, and we are at the mercy of everybody. Anybody who is a speculator or who deals in our products has us at his mercy. I do not say that we can do without middlemen, but the middle man should only be entitled to the benefits of the services he renders us. Once they begin to speculate in our products, once they hold up our products for higher prices, after these products have gone out of our hands, and employ many of the other practices that are practised by them, they get all the profits, and we, the people who do all the work, get nothing in return. The farmers are determined that they are going to organise and they demand a square deal in the future. As the mover has indicated we are not prepared to go on in the future as we have gone on in the past. We are entitled to a fair living wage for our work and for what we are producing and unless we get that agriculture must go to the wall. The consumer is entitled to get our products at a price which is a fair price to him after having paid a fair reward to the middleman and others who have handled the products between us and the consumer. I know that is the policy of the Government, but they have not been able to carry it into effect because they are up against vested interests and powerful interests too. Now this Social and Economic Planning Council has made certain suggestions, but the big question, as the hon. mover has said, is with regard to our marketing and distribution of our products. They do not mention that part of our business in any way whatsoever. We have on many occasions put up suggestions to the Government that marketing and distribution should be made a Social Service, because while it is liable to be used by the interests that use it at present you can never get a square deal. We feel that marketing and distribution should become the function of the Government and it should be run on the lines of a social utility service. Unless that is done you will never be able to get anywhere. I may say that in Natal and in other parts of the country the farmers have got to this stage now, that they are organising on co-operative lines to try and deal with this question of marketing. Farmers in the past were up against the same trouble, and we have the same experience at the present time, that their products are being sold entirely by brokers and commercial businesses. It has been found that they are being exploited in all the ways that many of us have been exploited in the past, but they have now formed co-operative undertakings like the F.C.U. and the Boere-Saamwerk and those institutions have been an unqualified success. They have not only saved the farmer money but the marketing of their wool has been done in the best way, and has given very good results. The costs of marketing have been brought down with great benefit to the industry. That shows,. Mr. Speaker, that the farmers by co-operation can do a lot to help themselves, but you can only do that with an article that is not perishable. When we come to foodstuffs it is a very much more difficult matter. We have put up schemes to the Minister with regard to the marketing of meat, which, if he would make an attempt to investigate and try to carry out, we are sure would do a lot towards solving the problems the meat industry is up against. In fact, I am led to understand that the Meat Marketing Board, a body that has been in existence for a good many years, has, as far as we know, done nothing and has achieved nothing, but they have, I believe, as a result of pressure from stock farmers, at least come forward with a marketing scheme along the lines I have indicated, a utility scheme. If the Minister tells us there is likelihood of such a scheme being put into operation then we may look with hope to the future, but while the cold storages …

That is not in your motion.

In reply to the Minister I say that if the Minister will be guided by us or consult us in these matters which affect our living perhaps something might be done. I understand that the Meat Control Board has come forward with a scheme on the lines of what we have been asking for in the past. If the Minister, in replying to this debate, tells us that they are investigating a scheme of that sort—but I am afraid very little will be done because he cannot deal with cold storages, municipal markets, abattoirs, and all those other interests that exploit the farmer as well as the consumer—some good may result. Until we can control these people and pay them only what they are entitled to and not allow them to speculate and exploit both the farmer and consumer we will never get anywhere as far as agriculture goes in this country. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers in this country are very despondent. The hon. mover has said that the farmers are flourishing at the present time. We admit many of them are, but it is entirely due to war conditions. We know after the war when we come back to normal again we will go back to the position of low prices and then the farmers will become a liability to the Government again, and we will have to come forward and ask for assistance. The farmers do not want subsidises and assistance schemes. What they want is that their industry be put on a sound and firm foundation, and that our control boards and the machinery we have created under the Marketing Act should function properly. Prices should be fixed as is done under some of the boards, such as the Dairy Control Board, to the producer, to the middleman and to the consumer. If that can be done with all our products there will be very little to complain about, but it can only be done where the Board can control a product from the producer to the consumer. We have no such Boards or such control whatsoever, and until we do we will continue to have gluts on our markets, food destroyed, because it cannot be marketed, and all the other evils in this country, such as we have witnessed recently. I ask the Minister, as the hon. mover has done, to seriously consider this motion. Let him appoint an extra-departmental Commission composed of farmers, and, if necessary, some of the most necessary of the departmental men. Let us come forward with a scheme and a plan for the benefit of the Planning Council. The Planning Council cannot get the material or the data to formulate a scheme. They have told us so, and they have pointed out the difficulties that they are up against, that nothing is being done and that nothing can be done under present circumstances, and we feel we have nothing to look forward to from that Planning Council unless they can get assistance from the very people they are trying to help. For that reason, I ask that the Government takes the service that is offered by the farmers. Let them give their advice and assistance in order to formulate a scheme and plan with regard to agriculture. I can do no harm, and it can only do good, I am sure, and the Planning Council will welcome the assistance that will come from a Commission of that sort, and so I would urge on the Minister again not to turn down this motion, but to welcome it and to make use of us in trying to make a success of any reconstruction or planning for the future.

I think the House is indebted to the mover (Mr. Gilson) for bringing this very important matter so prominently before it and the country. I want to say at once, and it is already generally known, that the Government is committed to a policy of reconstruction. It is one of the cardinal features of the present Government’s policy. It is an indisputable fact, of course, that a strong agricultural industry is indispensable to the welfare of the country. I also agree with the mover, and everyone does, that agriculture is a key industry. I do not think that any reconstruction of permanent importance can be brought about without having a sound agricultural policy, and if you want a sound agricultural policy you have to give the farmer a fair return for his capital and his labour. I think those are indisputable facts and one need not perhaps stress them. So far I agree with the hon. member. I do not want to go into any particulars, but I do say this, that the Government of the day and former Governments have done a tremendous lot to rehabilitate and reconstruct agriculture, especially during the past ten years. I think you need only look at the face of the country to see how agriculture has moved forward and how the face of the country has altered. As I say, I don’t want to go into details, but it is an indisputable fact. Now it seems to me that whatever one may think of the present position, and whatever one may hear of the despondency of the farmers, a great deal has been achieved in the last ten years, since the 1932—’33 depression. Now, it does seem to me that in tackling post-war problems of agriculture we should take cognisance of one or two matters which I would like to mention. I think that whatever happens we shall have to export products—we won’t get away from that, and we shall have to develop a sound and economic export policy. Whether that is possible we shall have to see, but it seems to me that whatever we do in this country we shall always to some extent be an exporting country. A second matter, which is certainly of more importance, is local marketing. No one contends or holds that our present marketing policy is all it should be; I am not going into details as to why this problem cannot be dealt with immediately, and why, during war time, we cannot take measures which we have learned by experience would be the correct ones. But it is indisputable that a good local marketing policy should be followed. I think also that a third matter which will require serious attention, and will have to receive attention, is the adaptation of agriculture to the requirements of an industrialised South Africa. I think we are all in agreement that South Africa, after this war, is going to be largely also an industrial country, and it will be the duty of anyone who plans for the future to ensure that we adapt our agriculture to the needs of industry. I therefore agree generally with the objects which the mover has in mind, but I disagree with him in his method of approach. I do not believe that a Commission, and an extra departmental Commission at that, would take us very far. Such a Commission does not seem to be the right type of body to deal with such a question. For one thing, the scope of what we shall require from this Commission seems to me too large, too all-embracing, and I do not see how such a Commission would be able to get the facts, to get all the necessary data, and to report at all in good time to help us in our planning. We cannot wait till after the war to do the planning. But I want to say this, that if there emerges a special matter, if a special phase in agriculture should require further investigation, if a further or special point would require to be investigated, and a report would be required on that matter, I am willing, and I have no doubt the Government will be willing, to appoint a Commission for that special purpose. But to appoint this extra Departmental Commission at this stage I am afraid will not take us very much further. Now, I know, and certainly after the speeches of the hon. members, the House might be inclined to smile when I tell them what I think should be done. Notwithstanding what hon. members say I still think that the only organisation that can do the work here visualised is the Department of Agriculture.

Oh, Lord!

I say this, that if the Agricultural Department is not able to do it, it certainly should be able to do it.

There I agree with you.

This Department will not have justified itself, and the public will want to know why, if it cannot put a proper scheme before the Planning Council. And I believe—with the knowledge I have acquired of this department since I have had the honour of directing it—I believe it can be done, I believe, with the knowledge I have of the ability of the staff and with the experience of the officers over the last ten or more years, I believe that we have the material there that can furnish us with the proper report.

They have been doing it for 25 years.

Of course the one point which I must emphasise immediately is that this report, or this work, of the Agricultural Department, must be done in close collaboration and in consultation with the Economic Planning Council. As a matter of fact, the machinery has already been set in motion. The Department has made a commencement with the work. Instructions have already been given to all the chiefs of divisions to submit their considered views and recommendations, reflecting not only the opinions of the division but also the opinions of individual members of those officers who might not agree and might differ from the common opinion expressed by such a division. The entire field will thus be covered. The intention is to appoint a Departmental Committee immediately after the Parliamentary Session under the Chairmanship of the Secretary for Agriculture, to consider all the memoranda which will be sent in by the various chiefs of divisions, to consult organised agriculture, to consult individual farmers and business men, and I hereby invite such individuals to give us the benefit of their advice, and then place this Report before the Social and Economic Planning Council, and in consultation with them, to try and evolve the best scheme possible as far as I can see, in this way we shall be able to place the most satisfactory scheme before the country.

Do you leave out the practical farmers altogether?

We have two practical farmers on that Council and we have practical farmers in organised agriculture. It seems to me that it would be a sounder policy for the Department, with all the organisation it has at its disposal, to get the views from organised agriculture, as well as from individual farmers by way of evidence or otherwise. That seems the soundest way of tackling the matter. I suggest that this scheme will probably be more satisfactory. I repeat if we find that we want more evidence, more advice on any particular phase of this matter, I am willing at once, with the consent of my colleagues—I have not consulted them—to appoint a Commission to enquire into any special phases that may come to our knowledge. It seems to me that hon. members might leave the matter at that. That is as far as I am prepared to go. I am not prepared to accept this motion today for the appointment of an extra departmental Commission to deal with this matter.

I am pleased to notice that hon. members on the other side of the House are now also beginning to realise what the agricultural industry means to South Africa and that they are also beginning to ask what we on this side of the House have been asking for a long time already, viz a thorough investigation into the general position of the industry and that steps be taken to put the industry on a sound economic basis. On a previous occasion we also made use of the discussion which was opened by the Leader of the Opposition in connection with our motion on social security, to focus attention on the position of the farming industry. We fully realise what the importance of agriculture is not only as an economic factor in our society, but also as an industry which is of particular social importance to our country, and we pointed out that owing to the fact that agriculture is of so much economic and social importance to our people, it should be based on a perfectly sound foundation so that our national life may be built thereon. As we fully realise the value of this industry we are glad that hon. members on the other side agree that this industry deserves all the support which can be given to it and that the right thing to do will be first of all to have a complete enquiry into the extent of the problems and needs of the industry. Seeing that the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) proposes today a Commission of enquiry, we cannot but pledge our support to it. I am only very sorry that the hon. Minister does not share the point of view of the hon. member for Griqualand East and that in reply to the motion he said that it was not necessary to institute such a general enquiry.

The hon. Minister in his reply to the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) said that he agreed with him in so far as his opinion as to the importance of the agricultural industry was concerned, but where the hon. member asked for a general enquiry into the problems of that industry, the Minister said that the hon. member approached the matter from too wide an angle. He is not prepared to have a general enquiry instituted. He is, however, prepared, if necessary, to have special enquiries instituted into certain problems which may crop up. This is exactly where we find fault with the hon. Minister and with the Government. We find fault with the Minister because he apparently does not believe in tackling a problem in anticipation. Tn regard to the agricultural industry we demand a fixed policy and we want to see proof that the Government is willing to institute an enquiry in order to plan a general agricultural policy which will co-ordinate all branches of the industry. The Minister wants to approach only one aspect of the matter at a time and it is exactly when he does that, when he approaches every problem disconnected from other problems, that he finds himself in difficulties. Yesterday we heard from the hon. Minister that in regard to price control he has again abandoned a certain principle. He said that he no longer stands for the maximum prices which he fixed himself. If he had a well planned policy it would not be necessary for him to throw overboard a principle like that of fixing prices now. It is our complaint against the Minister that when he adopts a policy he does not adopt one that has been thoroughly worked out in detail. Now that the hon. member for Griqualand East comes here and pleads for such a general enquiry, we say that we realise that there is a very great need for it. We want the Government to draw up a well devised plan so as to prevent the frequent recurrence of mistakes such as those the Minister of Agriculture has been guilty of. We do not want the Minister to wait until the problem is actually here. We believe that prevention is better than cure. The Minister does not want to enquire into the problems and accept a general plan for the prevention of difficulties. He is only prepared, when the difficulty has arisen, to try and solve it. We maintain that that Government policy is a wrong policy and we find fault with it. In connection with the agricultural policy we see three aspects dominating the back-ground. We see that steps should be taken to secure and protect the agricultural sources of our country. We realise that the best production methods should be applied in the exploitation of those sources and we furthermore realise that steps should be taken to market the products so produced in the most efficient manner. We therefore ask the Government not to consider these three aspects as separate matters, but to co-ordinate them and to institute en enquiry into all the ramifications of agriculture. We want to see the Government secure and protect our agricultural riches and for that reason we proposed here on a previous occasion that the Government should take certain steps in regard to ensuring such a protection of the industry. I was glad to notice that the hon. member for Griqualand East also felt that we should develop the principle of trusteeship, that the farmers should regard their farms as a possession which has been given to them for a time and which they should hand over to posterity in an improved form. The Government should also have a co-ordinated policy in regard to soil erosion, overcropping, etc. We ask the Government to take special steps in regard to those matters. It is necessary that we should have in advance a well devised policy which will be put into force in order to prevent our agricultural wealth being depleted. We notice the erosion of our soil, we see the mountain fires which destroy our country, but the Minister wants to wait until a particular problem is facing us and then he wants to institute enquiries. In regard to the production aspect of the agricultural industry we maintain that in this case also it is not necessary to wait. If we want to make the best use of our agricultural riches, we must have a farming community which will make the best possible use of those riches. We want to see our agriculture yielding a maximum production. For that reason we need to have a financially sound farming community, which will be able to make the best possible use of the soil. I now ask him: Is that not a problem which ought to be tackled at once? Did we not hear many a time and do we not know that there are hundreds of farmers who, owing to economic pressure, are not in a position to make the best use of that agricultural wealth? So let there be an enquiry into the needs of the agriculturist. We must have an economically sound farming population. We must see to it that they will be able to develop the agricultural sources in the most economical and soundest manner possible, so that not only they themselves, but the whole country and especially the consumer, will benefit by it. When people who are financially embarrassed have to do the producing, it is obvious that one cannot make sure of cheap production in the country. We therefore ask for sound credit facilities for our farmers; long-term facilities as well as short-term facilities. Those facilities do not exist today and we therefore maintain that the Minister should at once institute enquiries. The farmers need more practical scientific enlightenment. We suggested the manner in which we expected the Government to give more practical enlightenment, but the Government does not want to do so. Information is only given to the farmers from the platform. We want that information and instruction to be given to the man on his farm. In this regard the Minister had a chance to institute an enquiry into the manner in which such information can be given to the farmers in the most efficient manner. Don’t we know of the problem the farmer has to face today in regard to farm labour? It will be essential, especially in view of the war and the post-war conditions, that the Government should take steps in anticipation in order to effectively control the problem of farm labour. The farmers have no labourers and we do not know what the position after the war will be in regard to farm labour. It is absolutely necessary that that matter should be gone into at this stage. The Minister should not wait until tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, when the farmer, owing to lack of labour, will no longer be able to produce. He must start creating a sound system right now. We also see frequently that farmers who have produced suffer damage in consequence of circumstances over which they have no control — natural phenomena, which destroy their crops and on account of which they do not reap the fruits of their work. Why does the Minister not institute an enquiry now to find out whether any sound schemes of crop insurance can be drawn up? The problem exists; it is not even necessary for him to wait until the problem presents itself. But when we come to the third aspect of the agricultural position which I enumerated, viz., the question of marketing, then an enquiry appears to be even more necessary still. We are living in abnormal times, and today it may be possible perhaps to market one’s products fairly reasonably, but what will happen after the war, when the demand for particular products will fall off? Then the Minister will perhaps want to investigate the matter, but it should be investigated in advance. If we see the fumbling of the Minister in this time, while there is a scarcity of products and the demand is brisk, what will he do if there is a slackening off in the demand? That is the reason why we maintain that such investigations should take place now. The hon. Minister has on a previous occasion already promised to this House that he will institute enquiries in regard to the marketing problem. He promised the country that he would appoint a Commission of enquiry in connection with the marketing in the country itself, but he never did so. I ask the Minister what his intentions are in regard to the Commission he promised. The country is yearning for a solution of these problems, and the Government should prevent difficulties and should try to remedy matters by palliative measures when difficult conditions have already arisen. There is miscontrol in regard to marketing and the Minister should intervene, but he puts it off indefinitely. If there ever was an opportune time to appoint a Commission, then it is the present time. Seeing that the mover of the motion asks for a general enquiry with the idea of referring the report to the Government and the Planning Council, I must say that I am afraid that not much will come of the last-mentioned idea. Here I must give vent to my misgivings. I am afraid that the Government, as it is now composed, will not achieve much. We notice the attitude of indifference of the Government towards these matters. During the introductory speech on the motion there was at one stage not even a single Minister in the House; this shows how little interest the Government has in the farming industry. And when the proposed Commission has to report to the Government, I am afraid that hardly any effect will be given to the report for the Government is too indifferent in this matter. As far as the other idea is concerned, that of referring the matter afterwards to the Planning Council, I am also afraid that the hon. member will receive little satisfaction from the Planning Council as composed at present. The Planning Council will hardly be able to draw up any sound plan in regard to any economic problem. We have already noticed how they proceed. Owing to the composition of the Planning Council we cannot expect much from them. We on this side of the House have continuously pleaded for the creation of a sound economic council, consisting of people who can do the work and who are capable of enquiring into the problems and suggest solutions and who can develop co-ordinated schemes. The agricultural industry is only one factor in our economic life and we want a council which can take all factors into consideration and which will be able to devise a sound policy. But when we look at the composition of the council, as it is now, we see that they are people whose chief ability is to say yes and amen to everything the political party on the other side says, and we therefore feel that the Planning Council will not be able to devise effective schemes. We therefore ask the Government to accept this motion of the hon. member for Griqualand East. His intentions are good. He would like to see that plans are devised which will put our agricultural industry, which is of such great importance in our national life, on a sound basis. That enormous industry has to give work to our people, it has to supply the nation’s food and it has to develop its own mode of living, an industry which, as I put it, must remain the power centre of the nation. The hon. member for Griqualand East had the best of intentions with this motion and I sympathise with him on account of the indifferent attitude adopted by the Government. I only hope that they will soon realise that they dare not adopt such an indifferent attitude in respect of such an important matter. I hope that this motion will be carried.

I wish to congratulate the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) who has introduced this motion, on the note he struck. He avoided party politics entirely, and we had hoped that that atmosphere would prevail throughout this debate. Unfortunately the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux)—he may have endeavoured to avoid politics—but politics seemed to be the be all and end all of everything so far as he is concerned and he could not resist the temptation of also bringing this matter into the political arena. He says we have only now come to the awakening that we should take an interest in agriculture. He knows as well as we do that this Government has done more for agriculture in a given time than any previous Government.

Who is talking politics now?

Are you catching votes?

When the empty vapourings of the K.W.V. have died down I might be able to continue. This Government has done a lot for agriculture as I have said, but by the motion which has been introduced we acknowledge that not all has been done, and that more could still be done. The motion is an all embracing one, and touches on all the facets of agriculture. Admittedly we can boast of high technical services as far as agriculture is concerned. To instance only one branch—take the question of veterinary science—I make bold to say that research work in this country as far as animal husbandry and animal diseases are concerned stand second to none in the world. The technical services of the department have added considerably to the efficiency of agriculture as far as production is concerned. We need only go back a year and remember the appeal the Minister made to the country for an increase of production. There was an immediate response and production increased to a considerable extent. And if at any time there is a reduction in production it will not be due to any lack of effort on the part of the agricultural community. At present a drought is threatened and unfortunately that may, despite our high hopes, destroy the possibility of good harvests. These are elements of nature against which even this Government cannot contend. I wish however to confine myself to a few remarks on the other side, the business side of agriculture. The farmers up to now have been able to hold their own as far as production is concerned. Given the wherewithal to produce they will produce. The more difficult side, however, and there we have perhaps failed, is the commercial side. For the first time in many years the department has had to tackle a new task and that is the task of controlling the foodstuffs of the country. It is a very difficult and very delicate task; and it is not to be wondered at that the success achieved has not been a hundred per cent. so far. They have done their best in very difficult circumstances but there are a few directions in which we think alterations can be made with possibly increased efficiency. Take for one thing the question of the distribution of fruit. Much has already been said on this subject, but I feel that the state of affairs complained about in previous years has not been entirely remedied. The Deciduous Fruit Board has tried its best to control a perishable product. It has cold storage facilities, so that it can ration the market and it thought wise to allow the whole crop to be sold by public auction. The Board has appointed certain agents in the principal marketing centres of the Union, but in practice it has not been found possible for those agents to handle the crop profitably. It often happens that an agent has to deal with many more packages than he can economically handle. The result is that he does not sell in small lots, but in wholesale lots, with the consequence that speculators step in and buy in wholesale quantities. Immediately afterwards the speculators sell on the same market the very products which they have just bought at a profit of from 20 to 50 per cent.

Very much more than that.

Yes, in some instances the profit is even higher. Now, that method defeats the very object which the Board has in view and I would suggest that instead of stifling the distributive channels which have been laboriously built up over a period of many years, the Fruit Board might well consider the advisability of availing itself of all the known channels of distribution. We are going through a most difficult period. There is no export market for fruit and we have to exploit the internal market to the full. Might I therefore suggest that all the known channels of distribution be employed to the utmost capacity. By using all such channels of distribution the consumer would be supplied direct with a greater quantity of fruit at prices below those now being charged by the speculators and at the same time the Board would get a far better return for its fruit. I hold no brief for any broker or market agent, but if these people are necessary in performing a public duty I feel that we would do well to avail ourselves of their organisation to the full. There are some of us who have advocated an internal subsidy. In the past there have always been many more who have favoured an external subsidy, but now that we are forced to make the most of our internal markets I hope we shall realise the benefits and the need of an internal subsidy. The health of the nation is its biggest asset, and while we export food at prices below that at which we sell to our own people, it means that we are exploiting the health of our nation. We hope that in the not too distant future the ports of the world will be open to us again when we shall be able to reconsider our export trade, but in the meantime let us exploit our local markets to the full. It should not be necessary for us to resort to the destruction of essential foodstuffs—rather give the food away, give it to the poor who cannot pay, give it to them rather than dump it into the sea. We have had the example of the Citrus Fruit Board offering citrus free to the Native Affairs Department—they were unable to avail themselves of the offer because of the cost of railage, but it is better to pay the cost of the railage and allow the fruit to go to the people than allow it to be sent to the docks—not so much in the case of citrus, but certainly in the case of deciduous fruit, and then to find that the market cannot take it. In any case the fruit was wasted so that considerable expense in transport and storage was involved. We feel that in that direction there is a decided improvement to be made. We know that the powers that be will do all they can to remedy the position. Now, take the question of meat. I had the privilege of visiting the Durban abattoirs some time ago. I think the Department is to be congratulated on the system under which cattle are sent to the Durban market, where they are slaughtered and graded. The seller knows what he is selling and the buyer knows what he is buying. I do not think we can find fault with the system of slaughtering and grading on the Durban market. The producer does not have to contend with the speculative element. He knows that if the animal is slaughtered, the carcase is graded, and if he is not satisfied with the grading he can call in his own grader. When the carcase is sold, the purchaser knows what he is buying, and with that part of the scheme I think we are all in agreement. The apparent weakness of the scheme lies between the wholesale and the retail butcher. I do not think the retail butcher can be accused of making excessive profits, but the wholesale meat ring is a strong organisation, an organisation which, I think, exacts too much profit from the pockets of the consumer without giving anything to the producer. I think we might well tackle the meat ring. It is a very powerful organisation and it is not one which will easily yield to pressure, but there can be very little doubt that most of the profits made out of the meat trade go into the pockets of the wholesale meat dealers. The producer is getting a reasonable price today and it should also be possible to sell the product to the consumer at a reasonable price, after allowing for a reasonable profit. But then there is another aspect. I am certain that at present we are slaughtering-very much heavier than ever before simply because the demand for meat has been correspondingly greater. It is unfortunate to have to witness the slaughter of young stock and of breeding stock. Cows heavy in calf are being slaughtered. It is not uncommon to see half a dozen calves extracted from cows just slaughtered. We see young heifers slaughtered too, and calves a few months old, and lambs and sucking pigs. I may here mention that in England the slaughter of pigs weighing less than 200 lbs. is prohibited. If we allow our young stock to be slaughtered in ever increasing-numbers we are destroying the capital of our cattle industry and that is dangerous. It is better that everyone should have pork, mutton and beef than that only a chosen few should have sucking pig, veal and lamb. But I think most of these difficulties can be overcome. There can be no doubt that if we examine the number of breeding cattle slaughtered as against the number of oxen, the curve in the slaughtering of breeding stock is taking a dangerous upward trend, and if might well reach, if not exceed, the curve in regard to the slaughter of oxen. We must examine that aspect very carefully. We must prohibit that stock which can possibly be reared as a basis for breeding stock being destroyed, except, of course, for very sound reasons. For instance, there may be a threatened outbreak of disease. It may be that a cow cannot feed her calf; that is a different position, but apart from that I feel that our breeding stock should be carefully watched because there is going to be a great shortage of breeding stock all over the world after this war. Europe has been denuded of its stock, and even countries like the United States and Canada are also already rationing meat, and if it is necessary for the United States and Canada to ration meat that should be an indication that after the war for many years there is going to be a shortage of slaughter and breeding stock, and we should then be in a position to supply such stock to the rest of the world. We have brought South Africa to a high standard in this regard, and I believe that our stud animals in this country can take their place with any other stud animals in the world. Now, there is one other aspect which has been mentioned and that is the question of soil erosion. It is impossible to over-emphasise the importance of the preservation of the soil. As the mover has remarked we are at the most only trustees of the soil and we owe a debt to posterity to hand over that soil in as good a condition as possible, and here I would utter a word of warning to two Government Departments who I think are in themselves also responsible for a great deal of soil erosion, and those are the Railways and the Administrations who build our roads. It is very well going for the private land owner but the State itself has been a great sinner, and I think the Railways and Roads Departments should take stock of the position; they should set an example and conduct their operations in such a way that the soil is not thereby washed away. It has been stated by experts that by the end of this century—that is in less than fifty years—the domain of man over the soil will have ceased. In other words those forces which ravage the soil will have gained the upper hand and by the end of this century, that is in about fifty years time the soil will not be able to support animal life. That is an alarming statement because it is no use talking of a better world if the world which we are today fighting for will then no longer exist. I feel that this question of soil erosion should have been tackled on a national basis. The question of soil preservation is of paramount importance, it is the very basis of our existence because everything we have comes from the soil and it is our sacred duty to preserve that soil intact. Now, while on the question of protection of the soil I want to mention one fact, a fact which is assuming alarming proportions in the Eastern Transvaal—I am referring to the spread of silver wattle. Many years ago people were advised to plant silver wattle for the sake of the bark for tanning purposes. Up to twenty years ago we were able to sell this bark for tanning purposes, but since then it has been ruled out and today silver wattle is regarded as a noxious weed, as a pest. As is the case with all pests, it thrives where other plants don’t grow so easily. Of recent years the silver wattle has taken up an ever increasing proportion of land and unless this problem is tackled we may have to abandon thousands and thousands of acres. The silver wattle is easy to eradicate when small but once it is allowed to grow up it is not so easy to deal with. In the Eastern Transvaal we know of areas of 400 and 500 morgen on single farms taken up by silver wattle, and it is high time that this evil is tackled.

What about the timber?

Yes, the timber in certain circumstances is useful—it could be used for firewood.

What about mine props?

Yes, it is possible to use silver wattle for mine props. But under prevailing conditions one has to contend with labour and transport difficulties. The mines are also taking less timber and are, therefore, much more particular about the class that they are still prepared to buy. The hon. Minister is personally very well acquained with the position and as the menace has grown very considerably of late, I feel that a note of warning is certainly not out of place. If thousands of morgen of useful land are to be saved from the silver wattle danger the necessary steps will have to be taken on a large scale immediately.

I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) for his courage in introducing this motion. I want to assure him that in some respects he has succeeded in bringing to the notice of the Government the anxiety that exists in the minds of the farming community of South Africa. It is clear that in the times in which we are living the economic law of supply and demand has been practically eliminated, and because the economic law of supply and demand has been eliminated to such an extent, a certain amount of freedom has been taken away from trade. As regards agricultural products, it has become increasingly necessary for the State to control these things. Today there is control of practically everything, and the anxiety in the hearts of the farming community is that today there is a reasonable market for everything; there is opportunity for using the great demand that exists for disposing of produce to advantage, and in this way to reduce obligations as far as the future is concerned. I say the great anxiety in the soul of the farmer today is this: Will he be left after this war, to a certain extent at the mercy of the merciless conditions that must necessarily follow; whether the Government will take steps to see, that when the time of need arises, that there will be the necessary regulations and control to assist the farmer? It is a pity that this motion has been received so coldly, so ice-coldly on the Ministerial benches on the other side, because personally I regard it as one of the most important motions that has been tabled this Session. I expected that the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues would eagerly grasp at the request embodied in the motion; but it has been received with a shrugging of the shoulders, like an orphan that is more of a burden than something of importance. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) stood up here and chewed the fat; he blew warm and cold, and he did not say whether he welcomed the motion or whether he did not welcome it. It is a pitiful state of affairs coming from one who represents a country constituency, that he did not welcome the motion with his whole heart. There already exists control of many agricultural products. This control, I hope, has come to stay. In the past many efforts have been made by certain elements to get away from Control Boards. There have been definite efforts to throw the food of the nation and the essential products of agriculture on to the altar of gambling. They are eager to gamble with the matter. This motion asks that there should be a definite authoritative body to investigate the matter and the conditions of farmers, so that we can prevent products which satisfy the most essential requirements of the country from being again thrown at the mercy of the hard hearts of gamblers, as was the case in the past. The Minister of Agriculture has now refused to accept this motion. It is painful to see what is going on in the maize industry. The maize industry has struggled for years. This industry is a key industry which must supply the greatest portion of the food of the people, and the maize industry has often not known whether it is standing on its head or walking on its feet. Because there has been no definite scientific investigation to adapt distribution to the requirements and the production of the country. We have still had many flaws in our system. Painful flaws have existed, and this is one of the aspects which in my opinion should be investigated. It is an investigation that cannot be postponed. The history of the past year has shown that there is dissatisfaction among producers, dissatisfaction among stock feeders, dissatisfaction among the large factories, among poultry farmers—the whole country is practically seething with dissatisfaction, because the maize trade has not been established on a healthy basis. The hon. member for Griqualand is one of those who revolted against this in periodicals. Now he comes with this request for an investigation, but his request is coldly received and pushed off of the Table. Another matter that requires investigation in order to arrive at a solution is the question of our settlements. Many of the settlers are making progress and are producing. But we must remember that the money devoted to that production is often State money, and is the State not called upon in these circumstances to institute an inquiry to see to what extent it is entitled to compete with independent farmers, who without assistance must make an existence out of those products? I do not grudge the settlers a proper market, but there ought to be a scientific examination into the marketing quota for the areas that are subsidised with public money, as against the products that are produced by independent farmers. I want to point out further that a co-ordinating system should be devised in the Union of South Africa so as to assist the distribution of produce There are parts of the country that produce one kind of product and other parts that only produce products of another nature, and there is sometimes such a state of distress that there is an over abundance of produce in one part of the country, while in the other part of the country you cannot get those products for money or good words. Is it then not essential to investigate that aspect of agriculture? It is crying out for investigation. I just wanted to say these few words; that I consider that the hon. member for Griqualand has rendered the country a good service by introducing this motion and the investigation which he is seeking should not and must not be postponed until after the war. Now is the time for active steps to be taken so that if a setback comes after these abnormal times, there will be machinery ready to assist us in that time of reverse. We are now living in a time in which produce prices are somewhat compatible. Now is the time to conduct experiments. In times of setback any government is reluctant to experiment, because none can stand the shock of failure. But now that there is a demand for produce from all sides, while produce prices justify it, now is the time to take the necessary practical steps and to experiment with a view to establishing the proper machinery. There are Control Boards that operate beautifully, but they had to get through the experimental stage. Take the Dairy Board. Since the institution of the Dairy Board the people of South Africa have been supplied with diary produce in a manner as never before. Prices have never again become so abnormally high as was previously the case in South Africa. They have remained more normal, within the reach of every consumer. That Board is one of the examples of one of the exemplary Boards that are operating. Take the Meat Board, which controls the market at Johannesburg. Great evils have already been eliminated, although many evils still exist. Take the Maize Board which has gone through a very difficult time in the past year. It has not yet solved all the difficulties, but it has done much. So I can go on referring to other Boards; and why is the Minister then afraid to appoint a Commission composed of technical people and practical farmers acquainted with these difficulties and who can investigate the matter further. Is it because this Commission might perhaps issue a report that will frighten the Government? I think that he has the courage, and his Department has the courage—it is a Department in which there are many efficient officials—to welcome a proper report, because such a report would supplement technical knowledge with the practical knowledge of the farmer, knowledge that is necessary from day to day to enable such a system to work reasonably and soundly. I now just want to say this to the Minister, that now that the economic laws have to a certain extent been eliminated, and the farming community in these times of prosperity have been forced to accent a controlled price, agriculture will go into a state of rebellion if there is a reverse and timely provision is not made to help them in that period of depression. I support the motion and I want to congratulate the member for having had the courage to introduce this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I see there are numbers of others who want to take part in this debate so I do not intend to take up much of the time available. It is in the nature of an adventure on the part of a mere urban-dweller to enter a debate on agricultural matters, but I have a very special reason for presuming upon the patience of the House for a few moments to say a word or two on this occasion. I feel it is a pity that the hon. Minister had made his decision upon this proposition before he had heard what is actually said in the House upon it. It is a pity, sir, because I am under the impression from what I already have heard, particularly by the mover of the motion, that those who are responsible for this motion are likely to have a pretty solid support of members of the House behind them in the proposition that has been put forward. I for one feel that I can fully support the proposition that the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) and his supporter have put forward and I want to take the opportunity of saying so, because my support is based on the lines which the hon. member and his supporter have taken in presenting their case. There has been an assumption in the past, not without some justification, that there is conflict between the urban population and the rural population and there is no doubt that, in fact, there has been a very considerable conflict. On the other hand, I believe that two sections of the population have a common interest. No doubt the town dwellers tend to approach the problem of agriculture from the standpoint of the consumer, but we have learnt something in the last ten years, and I am going to say with gratitude, that from the speech of the hon. member for East Griqualand this morning, it is quite clear that the farming community has also learnt something in the course of that time and that is the close interdependence of town and country. None of us in South Africa can afford to be inimical to the farming interest. The farming industry is and always will be, one of the major industries of South Africa, and it is of the very first importance that that industry should be established on a firm and solid foundation. We have never felt otherwise, although sometimes our arguments have not been acceptable in this House. It is because I feel that in the last ten years experiments have been made with a great deal of money, more money than we are ever likely to have again, experiments that have failed to provide a safe foundation for agriculture, that I think the hon. Minister might have accepted this proposition today. For years we have been travelling along, struggling to rehabilitate the agricultural industry without that open-mindedness that I think the hon. member for Griqualand East has shown today. I am not going to suggest that in many cases the farmers have come round to our point of view, but I do think that they have begun to realise that there is more justice in our arguments than they have been prepared in the past to admit, and that the foundation of agriculture in this country must be a strong and healthy local consuming market. Moreover, I believe the arguments that the hon. Proposer has put up in this House today, show that he too now believes that it is unwise to fix the prices of essential produce without laying down the areas of specific production. I was most encouraged to hear the hon. member for Griqualand East this morning insist that if prices are to be fixed for farmers, as they want them to be, then the farmers themselves should be prepared to fix those prices on the basis of specific-producing areas. To fix prices for produce without defining the areas for the production of those products, is wrong. The tendency of fixed prices is to bring into cultivation what may be called marginal and sub-marginal areas. I was also extremely encouraged to hear the hon. member say that if we are going to have a planned policy for agriculture with a view to establishing farmers on a secure and satisfactory foundation, we must be prepared to face the necessity of having to turn inefficient farmers off the land. These are all new propositions from the agricultural side.

Who is going to say who are efficient?

That is surely the basis of any planning. Surely the time has come when we, as a community, recognise what the hon. member said this morning, that the land is a national heritage; it is, indeed, the only one that we can be at all sure of, and we should have the right as a nation, to insist that those who will not use their land in the national interest, shall not be allowed to use it at all. That, I think, we ought to be quite clear about. I do not think we ought to be under any illusion about this. If we are to have planning then we must have it over the whole field. You cannot plan piecemeal without making the last state worse than the first. The farming community at large has asked, and has been entitled to ask, that this country will consider their necessity to make a living. Incidentally, I entirely agree with the hon. member for East Griqualand when he says that it is not only agriculture that has been subsidised in this country but that our secondary industries are also subsidised, and heavily subsidised. We are bound to admit that and begin to face all the implications, namely that we must plan our development comprehensively. And it is because the proposers of this motion have postulated this proposition that I think we should hold out the hand of friendship to them and support them. I want also to support the second part of their proposition, that is that we shall be given a Commission that will be extra-departmental. I think that is an essential part of the proposition, and should have the fullest support of this House. The Social and Economic Planning Council does not talk about the progress that the Minister told us about this morning. They do not talk about progress, they talk about the lamentably slow level of production in agriculture, a level which has continued for many years, sir, in spite of the past policy of the Government which was, mainly, to keep people on the land. The Planning Council has seen only too clearly all the problems of post-war reconstruction. They know that a good deal of information has to be gathered. They have proposed a number of Committees. Now, sir, I am not going to say there is not a very large field of knowlerge that has to be gleaned and garnered before we can build up a sound policy, but I do challenge the proposition that runs through all the Planning Council’s recommendation in this regard, and that is that the people who are in a postion to give us what we want, and to lay down the lines of development that should be followed, are the Civil Servants. I claim, sir, that our Civil Service has never been trained to do the job that they are being asked to do by the Planning Council. It never was the business of the Civil Service to lay down lines of policy. It was their business to administer a policy laid down by this House, and if we are going to use our Civil Service in the way that the Planning Council suggests, we shall be superseding the functions of Parliament and the Government. I think we shall make a grave mistake if we implement these proposals of the Planning Council. I say that of all departments, irrespective of the functions they were designed to fulfil. I do not feel that they have the training, nor have they, above all, the responsibility for deciding the lines upon which policies should be laid down. That is the business of Parliament, and of the people whom Parliament represents. A departmental official cannot do what we want done. But particularly the officials of the Agricultural Department cannot do what we want done, nor is it fair to ask them. For years they have being doing their best to implement one line of policy; to walk along one line, and I say that the result has been anything but encouraging. I think it will be very difficult to find anybody who is satisfied with what the Department of Agriculture has done in the last ten years, with all the money and time and encouragement it has had at its disposal, with the result that new policies are in the air. As I have shown I can remember quite well when in this House, Mr. Havenga defended the practice of the late Government by saying: “Well, we have at least kept the people on the land.” Well, sir, we are now being shown that was the last thing we should have tried to do, as many of us suspected, that we cannot afford to keep some of the people on the land who are now on the land. I can point to reports which show how that policy has worked, and what the results have been. We have now been told by the Planning Council that what we have been doing is extending sub-marginal areas of production, to the detriment of the whole industry. I can say from my personal knowledge that under the encouragement of fixed prices, we have increased production, and at the same time have raised the cost of food. We have had the amazing situation in this country that the more food produced the higher the price to the consumer. That is the history of the maize industry in recent years. Now, I defy any department to go back on what it has been doing for ten years and say it is wrong, and itself plan to build up on another line. It is beyond human nature; you are asking men to condemn, in many instances, all they have been doing for years and years; and to see advantageous possibilities in an entirely different policy from that which they have been pursuing. I do not see how we can expect them to accept that position, no matter how great their goodwill and integrity. But, sir, there is a special reason why I feel that a departmental Committee is not the thing we want. I think even the farmers will agree that any Commission appointed should represent the consumers as well as the farmers; it should, in fact, represent all the interests in the country. What we have to do in regard to farming is what we have to do with regard to every other enterprise. We have to make it part of our national life. For that reason a Departmental Committee is simply incapable of meeting the situation as it needs to be met at this time. So I heartily support these propositions: (a) that we have a Commission, and (b) that we have a Commission that is outside departmental control. Let us have departmental officials in consultation. Where does this idea come from that we cannot have the accumulated experience of our Civil Service Departments without giving the departmental heads the position of policy makers? Surely the whole function of our Civil Service is to administer policies and to supply the technical knowledge that may be required. In the past they have done that, and why should we now put them in the position of policy makers? The whole idea, to my mind, is entirely wrong, and I sincerely trust the hon. Minister will reconsider his position in the matter. I can assure him that if he goes ahead with the plan he presented here this morning, he will not have the support of most members of the House behind him, and he will not get the confidence of the country, which the Government badly needs at the present time.

I listened with attention to the last speaker, and, without being insulting, I want to say that while listening to her, I was thinking of the English proverb: “But fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” I have not been in Parliament for a very long time yet, but hon. members on the other side representing rural constituencies have always reminded me of a mouse struggling in a trap. I have only been in Parliament for a short while, but since I have been here the hon. members on the other side representing the platteland have always made me think of a rabbit. They jump this way and that way, but they get nowhere. The hon. member who has just sat down said that they realise that they have to look after the interests of the farmers. Hon. members on the other side realise this just as well as we do, but all we get from that side is patchwork. Here and there the farming community is given some assistance, but no serious attempt is made to tackle the problem and to solve it. We do no expect that from the Minister of Agriculture. He is no longer very young. He has no need to look very far into the future. Tomorrow or the day after he resigns, and somebody else then has to take his place. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) had the audacity to maintain that the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) did not propose this motion in order to make political capital out of it. They cannot tell me that they moved it because they are so fond of the farming community. The mover of this proposal, of course, knew that the Minister would not accept it. Why did he move it, then? I’ll tell you. He simply moved it because we all expected that there will be an election this year. This motion is therefore moved now, so that they can tell their electorates: “We proposed this and that; we try to look after your interests.” We agree with the motion. It is a first-class motion. But we do not expect anything will come out of it. We do not expect the Minister to accept it. The difficulty is that even if we were to have such a Commission of Enquiry appointed, we would not get the right personnel on it. When members are appointed on Commissions, does the Government not ask itself whether those members are capable? No, the man who makes most noise on the other side is put on a Board. It has gone so far that the people in my district are already beginning to ridicule it; the whole thing is a farce. Recently we had an election for an Irrigation Board, the members of which do not get any remuneration, but are compelled to perform certain work; they carry certain responsibilities. In the past the people used to come and vote for the election if any difficulty had arisen, but otherwise the voters simply stayed at home. In the past they always re-appointed the retiring members, for they knew that there would be no trouble. Persons are now appointed to serve on Boards, without any consideration of their being capable to serve on them. Take, for instance, the Dried Fruit Board. The hon. member for Calvinia (Dr. Steenkamp) is a member of that Board. What does he know about dried fruit? He knows nothing about it, apart from how to eat the fruit. As I said before, the position is beginning to be farcical, and the people are starting to talk about it. I therefore want to tell the hon. member for Griqualand East that even if his request for a Commission were acceded to, it will not help him. Today we are all concerned about what is going to happen to the farmers after the war. After the last war the farmer received £3 for a bag of wheat, and from £3 to £4 for a sheep. But now his prices have been fixed and limited. He cannot get more than £1 10s. Today he cannot get more than 3d. for his raisins, and during the last war he got 1s. for them. Maximum prices have now been fixed. Well, for a certain time the farmers will be able to make then-living out of it, but what is the position of the farmer after the war going to be when bad times arrive? We have here the example of what is happening to our potatoes. Owing to the war position no ships have called here for some time, and the result was that our potatoes are today perishing on the quayside. The Minister says that the position has now improved. Of course, it has improved; it has improved because the potatoes are now rotten and have been thrown away. I just want to say that if nothing is done to help the farmers, the farming community will be in a desperate position after this war when less prosperous times arrive. I, who saw what happened during the last war, am convinced that the Government will do nothing about it. I am convinced that the farmer has most difficult times in store for him. The other countries will be too poor to buy from us. We will be left stranded with our surpluses and ultimately the farmer will have to pay for it. What will the position of the farmer be when the war is over next year? Unless the Government is prepared to do something it will mean the ruination of the farmer. What it the Government afraid of; why is is not prepared to appoint a Commission in order to investigate these things? The Government need not accept the recommendation of such a Commission if it is of opinion that those are wrong. What can be their objection to the persons concerned giving evidence before such a Commission? No, we are facing the position that the Government is simply going to do nothing at all. What is the farmer’s future? It is a dark future. The fact that the Government does not want to accept this motion, is clear proof of the fact that they possess no policy for the post-war period. They are prepared to carry on as usual. I only want to say this; although I have nothing against this motion, I do not agree with the hon. member for Griqualand East when he declares that a man should be able to come to my farm and tell me: “You must produce this or that; you must not produce this; or you must not produce something else” or “your farm is not showing a profit and I am going to give it to someone else.” It is quite right that we should give advice to the farmers, but to say that I am only the trustee of my land and that the Government can take my land away, does not meet with my approval. The hon. member may be an expert but we have often been wrongly advised by experts in the past. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) said that the production of this country is lower than that of any other country in the world. That may be quite true, but I want to point out that there are many parts of this country—they may be small parts—where the productive capacity is higher than in any other country of the world. One cannot assert that the productive capacity of this country is the lowest in the world because the production here is less than in any other country. We have districts in this country which are as good as areas in any other country. We know that farming is the poorest paid occupation in the world. That is not only so in South Africa, but right through the world. The income derived from farming is less than that obtained from any other business. Look at the statistics of our country …

Then it is not the right man who is farming.

Don’t talk if you know nothing about the matter. If one takes the statistics for the country as a whole it will be seen that the interest yield of farming is lower than that of any other business. I can mention a concrete case for the benefit of the hon. member. I know a man who farms for six months and does business for six months. He makes four times as much out of his business than out of his farming.

But he is not a farmer.

He is a better farmer than you are. After this war we are going to have the same conditions as prevailed after the last war. Soldiers will again be settled on the land. After the last war hundreds of soldiers were settled in our parts, but they only remained on those farms for a couple of months. They could not make a success of their farming. I predict that the same thing will again happen after this war. I maintain that it is our duty to keep as many people as are prepared to farm on the farms. Mines and business undertakings come and go, but farming will always exist. It is our duty to perpetuate the farming industry as much as possible. If the Minister is not prepared to appoint a Commission to inquire into farming activities, the position of the farmer is going to be desperate. If the Minister does not want to appoint such a Commission, then it is obvious that he is not able to do anything further for the farmers.

I am glad that the debate so far has remained reasonably outside party politics. In general the debate has been conducted on the merits of the case, and I want to say at once that in principle I support the motion of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). I think that both sides of this House are prepared to support the principle that there should be a proper investigation into the agricultural industry, but when I say this, I want hon. members to be reasonable and I am convinced that the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) is reasonable in connection with such matters. Let us ask ourselves why the agricultural industry is in the position it is today. I think I am entitled to say that the various governments have brought the agricultural industry no further than it is today. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) also in my opinion discussed the matter on its merits this morning. He did, it is true, accuse the Government, but the same charge can also be made against former governments. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) went off the rails a little. The Minister did not say that he was not prepared to institute an inquiry, but instead of instituting a public Commission, he wants to institute a departmental inquiry. This will then give an opportunity to the farming industry, the various farming associations, the agricultural unions and co-operatives to place their evidence before that departmental Commission. Even the hon. member can give evidence if she wants to. That Committee will not submit its report to the Government and say: “There is our report.” It will be handed to the Planning Council that has been appointed. The Planning Council will consider the recommendations of the Committee and take further evidence and then they will make recommendations to the Government. The Government then has an opportunity of getting recommendations from an independent body like that, independent of the Government and the Civil Service. The Planning Council will then submit its plan to the Government. I do not think the hon. member for Swellendam can say the hon. Minister is without advice because a body has been appointed for that purpose, namely the Planning Council. I think it is the best thing that could happen in the country, because in the past we have always sought a political solution to the farming problems and we have failed. That Council has now been created and after the war it will be of great importance to the Government. Parliament will then have the opportunity, when the Minister places those recommendations before the House to go into the matter. The Minister is aiming at precisely what the hon. member for Cape Eastern suggests. Why is the agricultural industry in the condition today that it is? If a business undertaking fails, it is because the cost of production is too high; because there is over-production or because there is no economic consumption. In the case of a business undertaking it is therefore comparatively easy to find out where the fault is and to remove it. In the agricultural sphere, however, the position is quite different. In the first place South Africa cannot be compared with other countries in the world, i.e. in the agricultural sphere. This country does not compare favourably with other countries and consequently we must take measures in order to maintain agriculture here, measures that are not necessary in other countries. This is necessarily protection. Now hon. members may ask what we should do to reduce the costs of production. In ordinary business you can easily take certain economic steps to reduce the cost of production. But here we have an industry that is not in the hands of man; there are factors that are not in the hands of man. Therefore it is a problem in South Africa and I think it is a mistake to say that it is the fault of the Government if problems beyond the control of man are not solved. The Government can only try as far as possible to assist the agricultural industry. The problem is already there. Then there is the question of over-production. It may be said that we, instead of subsidising overproduction, should give the products to the poor. But it can happen that you produce more than the total consumption, the total capacity of consumption. Suppose now there is over-production, then you must throw goods away or burn them, but then you are faced again with an economic problem that is not easy to solve. Then you are faced with the marketing problem. If you find that a similar article of the same quality is supplied cheaper by another country, then you are faced with the marketing difficulty. The only solution there, is protection. All these things just lead you to one conclusion, and that is that you cannot fix attractive prices for your farmers unless you also have, to a certain extent, control of production. I want to tell hon. members briefly what the international steel industry has done. They came together and consulted, and decided that every country should have a certain tonnage of production. You will understand that you cannot control agricultural products in that manner, but nevertheless the solution lies in the direction of proper control. You must not adopt the attitude that the hon. member for Swellendam adopts, namely, that the Government cannot tell the farmer what he may produce. If you want a solution, then there must be control. If you want control, then there must be discipline, and if you have discipline, then you get your solution. I should like to see this matter tackled as a problem outside of politics. There are farmers who support that side of the House, and there are farmers who support this side. It is a matter of national interest, and only in that light can we solve the difficulty. I want in passing to tell the hon. member for Griqualand that the steel industry enjoys no protection by way of taxation. No protection is given to the steel industry in the form of import duties. We have already an Act that forbids “dumping”, so that if any country can land an article cheaply here, it must be taxed. This is useful legislation, because we must protect our people here. The only protection the steel industry enjoys is an improvement of that “dumpiing” Act. In order to protect the steel industry, to prevent “dumping”, the Government passed this law. The price of our steel depends on the general world Drice of that article. The steel industry of the country has not yet benefited a single penny from it; so far no steel has been landed in this country at a cheaper price than the price fixed by the Government. I do not say this in order to criticise the hon. member. He is quite right when he says that the agricultural industry, just like other industries, should be protected. The city dweller is inclined to say that the farmer gets all the protection, that the farmer is always being fed by the Government. I am certain that the agricultural industry as such receives very much less protection than other industries in the country. Consequently I say that the hon. member is quite right when he says that the agricultural industry is entitled to that protection. Now, I just want to make this suggestion. It is of no use giving protection to any industry where the protection is given on the basis of the price at which the products can be sold in other countries. The conditions in South Africa are quite different, and factors that exist in other countries have in many cases no connection with our country. We may perhaps have special legislation here, or our standard of living may be very much higher than in the country where a similar article is produced at a cheaper price. If the Government wants to give protection to the farmer, then they must take into consideration the costs of production in this country. With every discretion, I want to say this: that no Government in this country has ever yet had a real and fixed industrial policy under which a new industry can feel that it enjoys the necessary measure of protection and that it can carry on with safety. There is no such thing. It is of no use speaking of industrial development unless you want to do something about it. I just want to pause for a moment at the Atlantic Charter, of which we have heard here. If the explanation of the hon. member for Griqualand is correct, then this Government, and, for that matter, no Government will remain in power for one month. I cannot imagine that this Charter ever intended free trade in the ordinary sense. The hon. member referred to paragraph 4. I just want to read this—

Every part of the world must have economic prosperity. You cannot expect this country to compete with older countries; in the first place, because they have large-scale production, and perhaps cheaper labour. The hon. member also read Article 5—

If the explanation of the hon. member is correct, then we cannot have social protection. If we want social protection for the economic progress of our country, then it necessarily follows that free trade could not have been intended. In Paragraph 4 it says expressly: “In respect of their existing obligations.”

Then it is not free trade.

I will tell what I think is meant by that. Clause 6 reads as follows—

If we accept this, then we must surely come into line with other countries, and not in collision with the policy of the whole world.

Then we will get the same conditions as before the last war.

Well, it is only two leaders of two countries who came together, and they certainly cannot lay down the law for the whole world. They merely laid down what they thought the conditions should be. I take it that every country will have the right of existence, and that cannot mean that we in South Africa will be destroyed. We also have the right of existence, and I assume that every country will perhaps have its quota of production. You may perhaps say that South Africa is a maize country and can put so many bags of maize on the market, and so much wool and so much steel. It is possible that a quota system will be arranged for the whole world, and where we have a lot of raw material, and, for example, Britain cannot buy it all, it will be so divided that other nations will also be provided with the materials they need to establish factories to enable their population to make an existence. And I appreciate the proposal of the hon. member for Griqualand very much, and I am very glad that it has been welcomed on all sides of the House. I am also pleased that the Minister is going to institute an inquiry, even although perhaps we do not agree with the procedure. But if an inquiry takes place and a report is submitted to the Planning Council, and I hope that the Planning Council will go into it carefully, and will submit proposals which this House, irrespective of parties, can accept.

The test of sincerity, and I take it that both sides of the House are sincere, is to prove where you stand when the matter is put to the vote. I do not want to speak unduly long, therefore, so as to give the House an opportunity to vote on this motion, and I make an appeal to hon. members who are agreed on this motion, to vote on this as their feelings dictate, without any party connection or party loyalty. I would like to create the opportunity to give expression to the feelings of the farming community, the feeling which they have on their minds, a condition about which they are concerned. I just want to touch on a few points which the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) raised. He says that this matter affects us all. That is correct. It is such an important matter affecting us all, that we would like it to be brought to finality. The hon. member welcomed the motion of the Minister. I want to say to the hon. member, however, that departmental investigations could have taken place, and did take place in the past ten years. All the machinery for departmental investigation was available under the various Governments which were in power, and departmental investigations took place, but nevertheless it never reached a point where a solution was found to this important problem. It is an important problem, and I want to emphasise what the mover said. He said that if one reviewed the whole position of the farming community, as it is at the moment, then one must come to the conclusion that nothing has so far been done, which gives a guarantee of security in the future in so far as the farming population is concerned. He stated yet another great truth, viz., that it was a big key industry in our country, and that it must take its place as such. It is a key industry because a large proportion of the nation’s capital is invested in it. It is a key industry because it embraces a big national possession of the people. Year after year we advocated the urgent necessity for investigation, and this year, too, it is again considered necessary to appoint a Commission of Investigation. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) further said that there were other countries which were now tackling this matter, and that that was the reason why we should also tackle it. That was one of his main reasons. I just want to say that it is not essential for us to tackle this matter because other countries have now tackled it, but it is essential for us to face this problem for the salvation of the farming community of South Africa. It is the farming community which is the backbone of our nation, and if the backbone is paralysed, then the whole population with which you have to enter the future is crippled. There are a few points which I would like to put in amplification of what was said by the hon. member for Griqualand. I support the point which was made by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux), namely, that if we look at the position, we come to the conclusion that the farming community of South Africa is in a lamentable position, especially if we look into the future and ask ourselves what guarantee there is for the continued existence of the farming community. I have already said that I agree with the second point which he made, that the farming industry is a key industry. If you cripple the farming industry, you cripple the whole nation. In the third place, he made a strong plea that it was necessary to improve conditions. That is essential, and I want to remind the House that during the past ten years, since 1933, we on this side have constantly made the same plea which the hon. member for Griqualand has made.

We are all farmers.

That is my plea. I can point to the motions of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, the motions of the hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom), and other members from year to year. This is not a foreign or a new plea. We have continually advocated that the position of the farming community should for once and all be thoroughly investigated, and that it should be placed on a basis of security for the future. A fourth point on which I heartily agree with the mover of the motion, is that this is the opportune time for investigation, and that the investigation of the past was not the correct investigation. All the investigations of the past, all the Commissions of investigations and Boards which were appointed, such as the Boards of Control and others, suffered from one great defect, namely, that there were not sufficient practical men to conduct the investigation and that the investigation was therefore unsatisfactory. Practical men are needed who deal with these problems every day, and as the hon. member so strikingly expressed himself: “It is only the farmer who knows that although his mealies in the fields are in fine condition, one night’s frost can wilt and wither them. Then the farmer is at his wits’ end.” These are the defects so far, in connection with the investigations which took place, and I do not think that the Minister can pride himself on the investigations of the past. They yielded no results. I mention a few points in connection with which we agree with the mover of the motion. I now want to mention a few points where we do not agree with him. The first is the important point where he says that we must institute an investigation with a view to salvation after the war. I want to tell the hon. member that it will not avail us to wait until after the war, nor will it be of any avail to set about an investigation and to leave the matter in abeyance until after the war, before anything is done. The opportune moment to do something is the present. Let me tell the hon. member that we all expect a set-back after the war. That has been the experience on every occasion and also after the previous war of 1914 to 1918.

I propose, with leave, to withdraw the motion.

I object.

When the debate on the third reading of the Railways and Harbours Part Appropriation Bill was under discussion in this House on the last occasion, viz. on Friday last, there was a vindictive and harsh attack on the Minister of Railways and Harbours, and the attack was led by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, South (Mr. Haywood). During the course of his speech he used very strong language. He referred to the promotion policy of the present Minister of Railways, and made out that the Minister’s policy was to prejudice Afrikaansspeaking officials who were entitled to promotion, and to overlook them, and to promote English-speaking officials instead, and he accused the Minister of manipulating things in such a way, in a more or less underhand way, that English-speaking officials, who, according to their records, were not entitled to it, received promotion, and he also said that if the same policy had been followed with regard to English-speaking officials in the Service, it would have created an uproar, and the Leader of the Opposition went so far as to say by means of an interjection: “Disgraceful! The fellow must be kicked out.”

When did I say that?

The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) is not acquainted with the details in connection with all the cases, but I am quoting what he said. Thereafter followed a harsh attack in “Die Burger” in a leading article under the heading “The Racialist.”

And now you feel called upon to defend him.

I do not feel called upon to defend him, but at least to bring the facts before the House and the country in an impartial manner and to bring to the notice of the House the wrong impression which was created by the onesided representation and the distortion of facts by the hon. member, and to remove the erroneous impression which was created. He said that this Minister was regarded at the outset as a good friend of the Afrikaansspeaking people, but that he has now been found out. He then made these charges. I feel that Afrikaans-speaking members of the staff and Afrikaans-speaking members of this House, who make these charges do not know how properly to appreciate a friend of the Afrikaans-speaking officials, because the facts which I want to mention will, in my submission, clearly prove that the present Minister always has been, and still is, a true friend of the Afrikaansspeaking officials. A great deal has been said about English-speaking officials, who, it was alleged, were accorded preference, but not a word was said about Afrikaans-speaking officials, who in the past received promotion over the heads of both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking officials, and I should like to give a few facts to the House. I want to begin by taking a case which was referred to by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District, viz., that of Dr. M. M. Loubser. The charge in so far as he is concerned was that he was unfairly treated, and that he was overlooked when someone else was promoted. What are the facts? The facts are that today Dr. Loubser is the Chief Mechanical Engineer in the South African Railway Service, the most highly paid position for a mechanical engineer in the whole Service, and he reached this position in the Railway Service after only 14 years’ service. For any person to reach the highest position in the Service after a period of 14 years, is unequalled in any railway undertaking which can be compared with our Railways, and it is certainly unequalled in so far as our Railway Service is concerned. There is no English-speaking Chief Mechanical Engineer in the past history of the South African Railway Service, so I am assured, who rose to that pinnacle within the short period of 14 years.

Was he not bilingual?

Where is the injustice? Where is the disgusting discrimination of which the hon. member spoke? But that is not all. I want to refer to other cases which the hon. member also quoted. Mr. Heckroodt’s case was also referred to, and I want to deal with his case for a moment and to give you the facts. Let me say that in quoting these cases, I do not want to suggest that these people are not very deserving and first-class Railway officials. I know Mr. Heckroodt very well personally, and my impression is that he is a first-class official, but I think it is only right that the House should know the facts concerning him. The facts are that this official received no less than three different promotions in three and a half years’ time under this Minister. Is there any official who can object when he has had such a bright career as to be promoted three times within the space of three and a half years? His first promotion was to a position immediately below the Chief Accountant. Thereafter he was promoted to Chief Accountant, and in 1941 to his present position of Chief Traffic Manager. I think that the facts, in so far as Mr. Heckroodt is concerned, rather prove the opposite of what the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District wanted to make the House believe. Another case to which he referred too, was that of Mr. Von Willich. He is today the Chief Civil Engineer in the Railway Service, and who placed him in that exalted position in the Railway Service? None other than the present Minister of Railways, who is now being attacked as an Afrikaner hater, and as some one who is bent on doing the Afrikaans-speaking officials an injustice. And, since I am dealing with Mr. Von Willich’s case, I want to point out this interesting fact, that when he became Chief Civil Engineer, a vacancy was created for a system manager, and that vacancy was filled by Mr. P. T. Steyn. He was appointed by the present Minister over the head of a senior English-speaking official. If there was an injustice in this case, it was towards the English-speaking officials, and not towards the Afrikaans-speaking officials. I just want to mention in passing that Mr. P. T. Steyn was one of the assistant managers in the Railway Road Motor Services. At that time there were two such positions, two assistant managers in the Road Motor Services. When Mr. Steyn was appointed as system manager, the other assistant manager of the Road Motor Services was and English-speaking person, and he was senior to Mr. Steyn. What are the respective positions occupied by these officials today? Today the senior English-speaking official occupies a post of approximately £1,000 per annum, while Mr. Steyn is occupying a position of £1,800 per annum. In this short space of time, therefore, the Afrikaans-speaking official gained an advantage of £800 per annum over the senior English-speaking official. He is in receipt of nearly double the salary of the English-speaking official.

Was the English-speaking official bilingual?

He is now earning almost double that salary. Another case which I want to mention is that of Mr. Lindenberg who is today the Chief Stores Superintendent. Under the previous Ministers, before the present Minister became the head, Mr. Lindenberg also made rapid advancement, and under the present Minister he was recently appointed as Chief Stores Superintendent. These are a few cases which give the lie to what the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District said. Then I come to yet another case, that of Mr. D. H. C. du Plessis who, as we all remember, was on the Parliamentary staff of the Railway Service. As far as he is concerned, it was recently announced that he had been appointed System Manager of the Western Transvaal, that is to say, the most important System managership in the whole Railway service of our country.

After he had also been overlooked.

We will always get that complaint when we come forward with facts. I am not trying to convert the hon. member, because I know that it is a hopeless task, but I am quoting facts to put the matter in its right perspective. Mr. de Plessis also received various promotions under the present Minister. In 1941 an improvement was effected in the grading of his post, thereafter he was appointed System Manager in the Free State, and recently System Manager of the Western Transvaal with headquarters at Johannesburg.

Was he the senior official or was he not?

Another example is the case of the System Manager in Pretoria. He too, received no less than three rapid promotions under this Minister. First of all there was an improvement in the grading of his post. Thereafter he was appointed System Manager in East London, and in the third place to his present position, as System Manager in Pretoria. So one could go on quoting cases to refute the false impression which the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District tried to create in this House and in the country. I want to conclude by referring to only two other cases. The case of Mr. B. M. Robbertze concerns a young official. In 1939 he was appointed to a position immediately below the Chief Rates Official, and in 1941 he was promoted to Chief Rates Officer. The last case to which I want to refer is that of Mr. P. D. Troskie. He was first appointed Chief Traffic Manager and then Assistant General Manager (Commercial). He received that promotion from the present Minister. This constitutes the so-called injustices done to Afrikaans-speaking officials, and the Minister who did this is the socalled Racialist. He appointed Mr. Troskie as Assistant General Manager (Commercial), as a result of which he was placed in direct line for appointment to the position of General Manager when that post becomes vacant. The facts indisputably prove that this Minister is acting quite impartially in so far as the Afrikaans-speaking personnel of the Railway is concerned, and that the Afrikaans-speaking officials need not fear that their interests will not be looked after impartially and properly.

Are those the only cases you can mention?

I have mentioned a number of cases, and one could mention more such cases. I have mentioned the cases of people in the highest positions in the Railway Service, and they are quite ample to refute, and to refute completely, the unfounded charge of the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District. These cases which I have mentioned prove how unfounded the charges were and they prove how impartial the present Minister is in his policy with regard to promotions, which are made on merit. The deciding factor is not whether an individual is English-speaking or Afrikaansspeaking or wether he belongs to our party or to another party. I think that the thinking Afrikaans-speaking people of the country will realise this, and that they will not be misled by the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District. They will know who their friend is. The good Afrikaner, the Afrikaner who regards it as his first duty to discharge his duty as railwayman, will know that under this Minister he will receive proper consideration and that promotions will take place on merit.

I want, through you, Mr. Speaker, to express my sympathy with the hon. member for Germiston, South (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss), for the weak effort he has made to justify something that is wrong. But I have even more sympathy with the Minister because he today has such a weak advocate in this House. I do not take the hon. member for Germiston, South amiss for having made out such a weak case, because his case is weak. He mentioned a number of cases where the Minister acted correctly. In other words, a man is charged with theft by his present master, and then his defence comes along and says that he worked for three other masters where he did not steal, and then he pleads not guilty. The hon. member’s contention is that because it can be shown that in a few cases Afrikaans-speaking persons have been promoted—because they were seniors and because they were entitled to it—therefore it has been proved that in the numerous cases quoted by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. J. J. Haywood), there has been no unfairness. He had so much information. Why did he not take these specific cases?

I did.

He should have mentioned the cases quoted by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District. But the hon. member comes along and says that the Minister is not so bad as he is made out to be, because there are at least a few cases where he acted correctly, a few lumps of sugar. I want to return to a few cases that have been raised here, but, in the first place, I want to say that the country and the House have been surprised by the revelations made here in the past few days in respect of these cases. I can give you the assurance that there is great unrest among the staff about this favouritism of a small number of selected fortunate people, the discrimination and patronising that is going on, and the intrigue in connection with the grading of posts. There is wire-pulling without precedent.

What is the proof of that?

The cases mentioned by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District and which I shall expand. To those cases the hon. member did not reply. Let me again mention the case of Dr. Von Abo. The facts briefly are these: There are two Inspecting Engineers on the staff of the Chief Civil Engineer. A vacancy occurs and nominations are invited, for one of the posts at the grading of £1,600 maximum. Dr. Von Abo should have been considered, but as it appears from the facts quoted here, that post with a maximum of £1,600 was reduced to a £1,400 maximum, so that Dr. Von Abo could not be considered. Therefore the position is that one of the Inspecting Engineers is on a scale of £1,600 maximum and the other—in order to keep Dr. Von Abo out—has been reduced to £1,400 maximum. They have the same duties, it is the same post. Why the change? I just want to say that I am not defending Dr. Von Abo here, but years ago we had a strict inquiry into the electrification of a railway, and when we asked the Chief Engineer, Mr. Watermeyer, to give us one of his best men to investigate the matter and to give evidence before the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, he appointed Dr. Von Abo. He conducted an inquiry and supplied valuable information to the Select Committee, which enabled us to submit a report to this House. Then there is the case of Mr. Carter. He was Superintendent (Traffic) in Johannesburg, and he was to have been considered for promotion as System Manager. That would have meant that an Afrikaans-speaking official, Mr. MacDonald, would have to be moved up to Superintendent (Traffic) in Johannesburg. The post was then up-graded from a maximum of £1,200 to a maximum of £1,400, so that Mr. Carter could remain in the position. Mr. Carter was then temporarily appointed as System Manager in Kimberley, and then Mr. Thiel, of Windhoek, was appointed in his place as Superintendent (Traffic). Mr. Thiel was appointed temporarily, although his maximum salary is only £840. Those are the cases that were mentioned here. Those are the charges that have been made here. I am not in a position to say whether it is all true, but that is the information we have.

Mr. Thiel is Afrikaans speaking.

The Minister does not see the point. The post was up-graded to £1,400 to keep Mr. Carter in it, so that Mr. MacDonald would not be promoted, and, in spite of this, Mr. Thiel, with a maximum salary of £840 a year was appointed temporarily as Superintendent (Traffic). The hon. member for Germiston, South (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss) mentioned some cases here. Among others he mentioned the case of Mr. du Plessis to show that there was a case where an Afrikaans-speaking person was promoted. That is no refutation of the charge. But I will take the case of Mr. du Plessis. Mr. du Plessis has been appointed in Johannesburg, but does he know that Mr. du Plessis had the right to get an appointment in Durban?

When?

Recently. The Minister is aware of the case. Mr. du Plessis was in Bloemfontein and he should have received an appointment in Durban. Now he has received an appointment in Johannesburg.

How long afterwards?

Some months afterwards. Why did he not go to Durban? I will give you the reason. He did not go to Durban because the Durban businessmen gave the Department of Railways to understand that they did not want an Afrikaansspeaking person. Will the Minister deny that? He will not deny it. The businessmen in Durban said they did not want an Afrikaans-speaking System Manager there, and the Minister does not deny it. Why did the hon. member mention Mr. du Plessis’s name? Was he not entitled to promotion?

I did not say that he was not entitled to promotion.

But what was rhe hon. member’s point then? No, his idea was that here an Afrikaner was privileged. I say that Mr. du Plessis was entitled to promotion.

I also said he was entitled to it.

Well, they could not do him an injustice twice. Why was he not appointed in the first place, and why was an English-speaking person, his junior, appointed? No, the hon. member has not succeeded at all in replying to the charge. He mentioned the names of English-speaking persons who had been held back. Well, there are English-speaking persons who are bilingual who have been promoted. These English-speaking persons and Afrikaansspeaking persons have gone ahead because they were bilingual and therefore entitled to promotion. Then the hon. member mentioned cases of promotion of Afrikaans-speaking persons and he mentioned amongst others Mr. Heckroodt, who has been promoted three times in three and a half years. Did he not earn it?

I said that he earned it.

But what did you want to prove then? What is wrong with it if Mr. Heckroodt advances rapidly, if he has earned it. We are complaining about the numerous cases where Afrikaans-speaking persons are entitled to promotion but where they did not get that promotion, because there is scheming and intrigue in connection with the grading of the posts. Did the hon. member mention one Afrikaans-speaking person who was promoted when the promotion was due to an English-speaking person.

But your argument is that English-speaking persons should not be promoted when they earn promotion.

That is not the case. The hon. member knows that what he says there is not true. Our viewpoint is that Afrikaans-speaking persons are held back when they are entitled to promotion, because there is intrigue in connection with the posts to keep Afrikaans-speaking people out.

What is the intrigue.

I have mentioned cases here and the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood) has mentioned a long series of cases where there has been intrigue. Why has the hon. member not replied to those cases? We gave a list here; and we mentioned one case after the other with full particulars. The hon. member has had sufficient time to go into the matter, but he could not reply to it. No, the Department of Railways has now discovered another word in the service. That word is “flexibility.” A person must have “flexibility” to be promoted. It is now discovered that he must be flexible. He must be clay in the potters hands. We do not know who the potter is. Is it the Minister of Railways or the General Manager of Railways? Some years ago I took an interest in Railway matters. I am today no longer well acquainted with Railway matters, but I want to say this that the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District has brought forward a long list of cases, and if those cases are true, then it is a scandalous state of affairs, and it is a serious charge against the Railways, a charge that is every justification for the amendment proposed that there should be an inquiry. If these allegations that have been made are not true, then the Minister, by means of an inquiry, can prove to the country that they are not true. We ask him in view of these charges that have been made in the long list brought forward here, to regard it as his duty and the duty of the General Manager to conduct an inquiry. If the General Manager and the Administration are not guilty, then it is still their duty to institute an inquiry, because if the allegations are not true, then such an inquiry can prove it to the full. Here no vague and general charge has been made. Here a whole series of concrete cases have been mentioned. I cannot give my word that it is so, because I have not the documents before me. But the charge has been made, and it is in the interest of the Railway Service and in the interest of the country and the Minister that this matter should not be left at this debate, but that a thorough investigation should be instituted to see whether this charge is true or not. I do not want to say, whether this charge is true or not, one fact is indisputable, and I know it personally and for this reason I can say it, that there is today in the Railway Service — and I say it with every emphasis — a couldron of dissatisfaction, of distrust and discontent, a feeling of injustice. There is more. There is a breeding and growing fury among numerous railway officials. It has never been so bad under any former Minister. I know of the days of Mr. Burton and Mr. Jagger, when there was dissatisfaction. But in all those days under Mr. Burton, Mr. Jagger, Mr. C. W. Malan and the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) there never was such boiling dissatisfaction and distrust among the officials, and especially among the high officials as there is today. Whether it is justified or not, but it is there. This state of dissatisfaction, this state of discontent, and continual feeling of unhappiness, a feeling that everything is not fair, a feeling that everything is not going justly, is undermining the foundations of the Railway Service. It undermines that feeling of justice and fairness, that feeling of impartiality that is essential for the success of the Railways. It undermines the confidence between staff, Minister and General Manager, which is absolutely essential for the good management of the Railways. I want to tell the Minister that there is a strong feeling of doubt about his fairness and justice as Minister of Railways and there is nothing that has such a disastrous and damaging effect on any service than the feeling that the head is not just, that he wants people who are “flexible”, who will creep for him and creep in with him. I say again this state of affairs is very unsatisfactory on the Railways. I now want to say something addressed to the General Manager of Railways. Personally I do not like saying anything in the House about an official.

It is often done from the other side.

It is the only place where members can do it, but I personally do not like it. Apart from the merits of this case I want to say to the General Manager, through the Minister, that it is a fact today that there is a feeling among the railway staff of dissatisfaction and bitterness towards him for his treatment of subordinates. It is said that he is becoming the most hated General Manager we have ever had. I warn him with every good intention, and I want the Minister to tell the General Manager it is going to have a damaging effect on the Railways, and that he must take care, because what will the state of affairs be if the General Manager is hated by his subordinates because it is felt that he does not act correctly. If the staff loses its confidence in the General Manager and his goodwill, then it is an ill day for the Railway Service. That feeling exists, and I ask the General Manager to take care and see that the position does not arise that he becomes the most hated General Manager that we have yet had. Does the Minister not want a contented staff? Does the General Manager not want a contented staff? If so, then they must right this matter and see to it that there is no semblance of injustice. I say that the Minister can rectify these matters only by accepting the amendment proposed here to institute an inquiry. If the Minister and the General Manager are unscathed after the inquiry, no one will be more pleased than this side of the House, but while that feeling exists, let him grant that inquiry. The present General Manager held an important post under Mr. C. W. Malan. He was given a chance to progress in the Railway service by Mr. C. W. Malan and a predominantly Afrikaans-speaking Nationalist Government. He earned it, but it is said today, whether it is true I do not know, but it is said that he turns his back on Afrikaans-speaking people. That accusation is made, and I do not want it to be made if it is not true. Therefore I ask, together with hon. members on this side of the House, that the matter should be investigated. I come now to the question of bilingualism and the attitude of the Minister and the General Manager of Railways. I should like the Minister to give us more information. I want to emphasise what is happening, and I should like the Minister to give us the reasons why things have gone wrong. A few years ago, since 1935, a fixed policy was laid down that persons who are promoted in the Railway Service must be bilingual. There appears to have been a different trend since May, 1940, and that special confidential circular letter was sent out by the General Manager of Railways creating a change in the policy. On 22nd May, 1940, he issued this confidentiall circular letter—

Did this have the approval of the Minister? The names of people, who, according to a previous circular letter were not entitled to promotion, must now still be submitted for consideration on the merits of every particular case. In July, 1941, the General Manager again issued a confidential circular letter. He wanted to emphasise the matter. He said—

Take note, it is emphasised—

When a unilingual official is not appointed, then it must be stated why he was not appointed. In March, 1942, we again get the same sort of thing. Again a confidential circular letter is issued—

What does it matter what attempts he has made if he is not bilingual? Later in 1942 the General Manager came along again with the same sort of thing. He said that special attention should be given to unilingual officials and where bilingual officials are appointed—

Why is this necessary? If a man is not bilingual, then he is not qualified. If a bilingual person is appointed, then a statement must be made that there is not a unilingual person that can be appointed. In this connection I want to ask why eventually on 15th December, 1942, another circular letter was issued. In the other circular letters the Minister’s letter was never mentioned, but in this last circular letter his name was mentioned. On 15th December the General Manager suddenly came along with this circular letter—

Now, I want to know from the Minister why he considered it necessary to issue this circular letter? The other circular letters were issued in the course of two years and more, and in those circular letters it was emphasised that every opportunity for promotion should be given to unilingual officials. The General Manager in those circular letters said in so many words that, although, according to the policy of the Government, unilingual officials were not entitled to promotion, their names should nevertheless be submitted, so that their cases could be considered on their merits. I want to know from the Minister whether these circular letters from the General Manager were issued with his knowledge and approval? If not, who is responsible? If so, why did he consider it necessary at the end of 1942 to issue a new circular letter, or otherwise it means nothing, in which it is stated by the General Manager: “I must inform you confidentially that the Minister has intimated that the Government’s policy in connection with bilingualism must be maintained.” This circular letter is very strange to me. It appears to me as if there was something going on, and the Minister and the Government later became alarmed and tried to correct matters. Therefore we have the right to demand to know what the reason was and why the change was made. Two matters were raised here by members who spoke on this side. The first is the manipulation of posts and the unjust treatment of certain officials. A whole series of cases of injustice was mentioned. The second matter raised was this effort to injure the bilingual policy of former governments. We ask the Minister not to reply by mentioning a few cases where Afrikaans-speaking officials have been promoted, we want him not to give a vague explanation, but that he should carefully investigate everyone of these cases. Only if he does this can we on this side be satisfied and the Railway Service satisfied and then only can there be that confidence which definitely must exist between staff and General Manager and between the staff and the Minister. I am now finished with that side of the matter. I now want to touch upon another question and that is in connection with the wages that are paid to temporary artisans. Quite a number of cases have been mentioned to me, and I mention one case. A temporary artisan is appointed at Bloemfontein in a temporary capacity. According to the regulations he should have been paid a wage payable for that trade in Bloemfontein, namely a wage of 3s. 3d. an hour. He was however paid 2s. 7½d. an hour all the time he was in the Railway Service, the wage of a permanent artisan. After he had served for two years, he eventually received a permanent appointment and then he had the greatest difficulty in getting the arreas in wages, namely the difference between 2s. 7½d. and 3s 3d. He brought the matter to me and after a long correspondence, eventually an instruction came from the General Manager that he should be paid the outstanding wages. Now, however, I discover that there are also other cases of the same nature in Bloemfontein. The one case I have mentioned is that of Mr. Brummer. Now I discover that there are a number of other cases of persons in the same position and their outstanding wages are not paid to them, according to what I am told. They worked as temporary men. Later they received permanent appointments. They struggled to get the outstanding wages and now the Administration has informed them that the outstanding wages would be paid out, but only for three months, instead of three years. My information is that the Administration refuses to pay out their full wages for the full period. And now I want to ask. Why were the correct wages not paid to these people from the beginning? The Railway Administration did eventually admit in the case of Mr. Brummer that in the three years he should have been paid 3s. 3d. an hour instead of 2s. 7½d. Why did the man not get the wage he was entitled to, and why did he have to go later and beg and struggle to get the wage from the Administration? And why can the other people not get their outstanding wages for the whole period? I hope the Minister and the General Manager will go into the whole matter and see that justice is done to these men. The same case occurred in Kroonstad. My information is that at the moment there are at Kroonstad a number of men working as casual aritsans who were sent there from Durban. In Durban the scale of pay was on the basis of 3s. 6d. an hour. The allegation is that when they were transferred to Kroonstad the Works Inspector, Mr. Scott, gave them the assurance that they would get the same wages at Kroonstad as they received at Durban, because otherwise they would not have gone from Durban to Kroonstad. When however they arrived at Kroonstad, they found that they received 2s. 71d. an hour instead of 3s. 6d. an hour. I should be pleased if the Minister would go into this matter. It applies to quite a number of people—and I know of four at Kroonstad—and I hope that the Minister will remove this anomaly. If wages are fixed by regulation, then the people should receive those wages and there is no reason whatever why they should be with held from the people. It should not be necessary for them to go to members of Parliament to help them to get their wages from the Railways. It is quite unfair and the Minister ought to see that justice is done to these people and that these wages be paid out so that it is not necessary in future for people to struggle to get it.

I would like to deal with a few matters in connection with which I put certain questions to the Minister some time ago. I asked the Minister how many people there were in the Union of South Africa who were employed on the Railways and who received less than 10s. per day. The Minister replied that there were 23,513. I then also asked the Minister what it would cost if every one of those people were brought up to at least 10s. per day, and the Minister replied that it would cost £789,743. I then also asked the Minister whether he intended increasing the wages of those people so that they would receive at least 10s. per day. The Minister replied to this—

I think it would be quite a good thing for those people to know that at some time in the future they will have an opportunity of reaching that scale of wages, but it seems to me that it will take a fairly long time before they can reach those wages, because if this were to take place over a short period, the Minister need have no objection to increasing the wages of these people to a minimum of 10s. immediately. We have had the plea in this House of the hon. member for Germiston, South (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss) about the interests of a few prominent officials in the Railway Department. The hon. member has apparently given his attention to the matter. Well, some hon. members are very interested in those officials, and that applies to the majority of members in this House. I, however, take particular interest in the large number of people who do not receive 10s. per day. The Minister is one of those Ministers, who, it seems to me, want value for his money, and he has succeeded fairly well. He made fairly large profits under war conditions. But I do not see anywhere that he has made any concessions to these people. The Minister may perhaps point out that the Minister of Justice announced in Germiston that there would be a wonderful increase of 6d. per day. I do not think, if we take into consideration the enormous rise in the cost of living, that we can really describe an increment of 6d. per day as an increase. That 6d. disappears altogether. In the present circumstances it really does not mean much.

It is 1s. per day.

The hon. member corrects me and tells me that it is 1s. per day. That is somewhat better. Well, take it at 1s. per day. My hon. friend will agree with me that an increase of 1s. per day, in view of the high cost of living, does not mean much to either. It is a puzzle to me—I do not know whether other members can solve it—but it is a puzzle to me how these people can make ends meet without getting into difficulties. I want to ask members on all sides of the House to raise their voices and to let the Minister understand that this House is prepared to give its support to an increase up to a minimum of 10s. per day for these people. The Minister can work out things in terms of pounds, shillings and pennies, and I want to ask him to calculate how these people can live on their wages without getting into difficulties. People who occupy good positions, may not be able to appreciate this. Usually it is not necessary in this House to make a plea on behalf of those people. They have prominent positions and usually they are man enough to champion their own cause. They receive departmental preferences and they steadily progress according to circumstances, if there are vacancies. But the great masses on the Railways are the people for whom we plead. At the moment the Minister is showing enormous profits and we expect those people on the Railways to be considered. I know that the hon. member behind me (Mr. Allen) will hold it against me if I do not thank the Minister for that 1s. I do say “thank you”, but I think that these people are entitled to more. This 1s. does not mean much and the Minister must take into consideration the circumstances of those people. I say that 10s. is low, and very low. The Railways can afford to pay. It can no longer be said that a very big sum will be required, and that the Railways cannot afford it. It is clear that the Railways are in a position to pay it. Take the colossal sums which go through the Railways in the form of income alone; £700,000 is then a comparatively small sum, and there is no reason to withhold it from these people. In the newspapers we read of cases where Railway people get into trouble. I suppose these are but a few cases out of many. If we go into the circumstances, we find that these people cannot live on their meagre wages. The time has arrived for the Minister to change his policy and to say that 10s. will be the lowest of low wages for people who are in the service of the State. The Government is very fond of telling other employers what they must pay, but I suggest that the Government should set an example by showing to other employers what they ought to pay. It must not tell other people to do what it itself is not prepared to do. So much in regard to the question of wages. I cannot find language strong enough to commend this matter to the House. I ask the whole House on this occasion to exert its influence so as to see that those people get higher wages. The other reason why I got up is this. The hon. member for Germiston, South said that the Minister is a great friend of the Afrikaans-speaking people. Here is a chance for him to prove it. Let him now get up and say that he will see to it that they get higher wages. If the Minister does that, he will be able to throw out his chest and ’say that he is the friend of the Afrikaans-speaking people. If he does this, he will be doing a good deed for the Afrikaans-speaking people, a deed which will mean a great deal for the country. I hope that our Government will not follow the policy of the previous Government by praying for rain when there is overproduction. We have had a number of cases where complaints were made in regard to the question of tuberculosis. Here we have an opportunity. There are people who suffer from consumption because their wages are so low that they cannot afford to buy food. Then I would just like to bring to the notice of the public the general Railway policy in connection with transport. As far as passengers are concerned, we know today the public is being asked on official envelopes to make use of the Railways. But then again, we find a notice at big stations telling as not to travel by train, that the train is full, and that we should rather remain at home. This is an advertisement which altogether clashes with the advertisement on the envelopes. Today there are hundreds of people who queue up at the Johannesburg Station to reserve seats. On the one hand, we find an advertisement reading “Travel by train”, and, on the other hand, we are asked to use the Railways as little as possible. The two advertisements contradict each other. I feel that the Railways are not meeting the demand for transport. The Minister will immediately say that he is trying to use the transport facilities as well as he can. But how does he do it? We know that today there is a very great demand for the conveyance of passengers as well as goods throughout the length and breadth of the country. I want to ask the hon. Minister why they are not allowing the Road Transportation Board to issue more licences to people for transport purposes? Today the Department is not in a position to cope with the demand for transport. They say that they are overloaded and that they cannot cope with it, but when application is made for private transport, the Road Transportation Board simply turns it down. This is a policy which is as contradictory as the advertisements which ask the public to make use of the Railways, while one cannot get seats. Who travels by train nowadays? The public is told not to travel by train, and the soldiers are told that they must not travel by train.

The Minister said the other day that soldiers could travel by train.

Then you are safe.

This difficulty has existed from the beginning of the war. So much for the Minister’s transportation policy. Private assistance which is offered is rejected by the Minister, and the Minister is not in a position to explain this to me. I have argued with him for the past few years about this matter. The public is suffering and the farming community is suffering. The other day military vehicles proceeded to the Northern Free State to transport the wheat of the farmers. There are other people who also require that assistance but they cannot get it. I cannot understand the Minister’s policy. It is a contradictory policy and it does not serve its purpose. Then there is another question. During my absence the House approved of the construction of a Railway line. The General policy of the Minister in connection with the extension of the Railways, is such that the Minister will later get a nickname. He will later be known as the Minister of Johannesburg instead of the Minister of Railways. Everything is concentrated on Johannesburg. There is already that bottle-neck of traffic which the department referred to a few years ago. In spite of that, one hears that they now intend buying the Wanderers grounds in Johannesburg. There is a certain organisation which is putting up a sham fight against this. Let me warn the House against that sham fight. Those people are hoping and praying that the Wanderers grounds will be bought by the Railways. The Railways are not being extended to meet the needs of the various parts of the country. No, everything is concentrated in one section, and the Railways will miss its original object altogether, because unless I am mistaken, it was decided at the National Convention that, in the first instance, the Railways were being constructed to serve as a means of transport to assist agriculture.

You are not far wrong.

But the Minister has departed from that to a large extent. Today everything is concentrated at one place, for everything except agriculture. I expect the Minister to extend the Railways in the country and not to concentrate them at one place only. Link up Johannesburg with the rest of the Union but do not concentrate everything in the neighbourhood of Johannesburg. I think the whole country was surprised when they saw that the Minister intended buying the Wanderers grounds. With what object? To construct additional lines, to construct additional lines after they have already spoken of a bottleneck. I do not want to pretend for a moment that I am a wonderful Railway constructional engineer, but any person with common sense will appreciate that it is dangerous to put 20 Railway lines together, because if there is one derailment, there is the risk of 20 trains being derailed. If the Minister has not got competent men to advise him in these matters, he must appoint such men in the near future so that they can advise him how to construct his Railway lines. If he only appoints men who look after the interest of Johannesburg, the time has arrived for the Minister to appoint people who will look after the interests of the whole of South Africa. Today the Railways are not serving their purpose. Today it is a handsome source of moneymaking, but as far as the transport requirements of the Union of South Africa are concerned, the Railways are not serving their purpose at all. I know the Minister will say that I am pleading for the extension of the Railways. Naturally. If we do not do it now, when will we do it? And when I refer to an extension, I do not mean that numerous Railway lines must be constsructed alongside each other. I would have expected the Railways to expand in the first instance, as rapidly as possible, on condition that the lines which are constructed, represent a paying proposition. Today that is not the case however. Today it is a case of expansion on condition that one section, viz. Johannesburg, will derive benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) emphasising the point which I brought out in a previous debate, that is, the necessity for assisting the general public as far as bookings are concerned. There is one other matter which I did want to bring up when I spoke last time on the Railway debate at the previous meeting, and that is in regard to children in compartments, children under seven years of age. The position today is that if a woman takes her seat in a compartment and she has three children, no seats are booked for the children. She might be travelling second class, and there might be five other women in that compartment with her. If the other five women each have three children, I do not know how they can be accommodated. If a child is under seven years of age, the Railway Authorities will not recognise that a seat has been taken for that child. It is an impossible position which I have put up, but these women might all be in one compartment, and each of them have three children, which would mean 24 in one compartment, while the Railways only recognise that six are travelling. I do feel that this is a matter that they should seriously take up. The public are putting up with this inconvenience today. The children are the coming generation, and we have to look after them. I suggest that the General Manager and his staff should allow these children to travel in comfort.

Why should not the General Manager first test it out himself?

Mr. Speaker, there is another matter. I was very pleased to hear the reply which the hon. member for Krugersdorp got from the General Manager when he asked how many employees in the Service were getting less than 10s. a day. Here is where I call my hon. friends on the opposite side to book. They invariably get up, particularly over Defence, and accuse this side of the House, or rather accuse the Prime Minister of getting men into the army by giving them extra pay. Approximately there are 88,000 employees of the Railways, and out of them you have only 18,000 rail workers who are getting a scale of pay less than 10s. per day. I have the figures here showing the number of rail workers who have joined up. Two thousand and sixty rail workers out of 18,000 have joined up, which gives us approximately 11 per cent. Of these 18,000 rail workers I expect that 75 per cent. are married men with families, and therefore they will be very much better off if they left the Railway Service and came into the army, particularly as their jobs are guaranteed to them when they leave the army.

Are they killed?

Please do not worry about many of these rail workers being killed. There are very few out of the C category, and for the most part they remain in South Africa. It is very difficult, indeed, Mr. Speaker, for the army to use them, and that is the point I am coming to. Most of the C category men and the E category men are medically unfit, and they are returned to the Railways. Only a few of them scrape in, and they are mostly doing guard work. Only 12 per cent. of the ordinary Railwaymen have been discharged. What do we find on the other side of the picture? Out of 2,060 rail workers who have joined the U.D.F., 482 have been discharged, giving you a percentage of rail workers discharged of 23.4 per cent. as medically unfit. Out of your total number of Railwaymen who have joined the army, only 12 per cent. have been discharged. That is a very different picture, and there is a big difference in the figures. I went down to that display given by the Railways and Harbours Brigade last week at the City Hall, and I enjoyed it very much indeed, although the first half was really agonising for myself, and I think also as far as the athletes were concerned.

What are you trying to prove?

I do not know whether the Minister would like me to go right over it all again. I am showing him that 23.4 per cent. of his rail workers who have joined the army have been discharged as medically unfit, whereas amongst the others the percentage of discharges is only 12 per cent.

Tell the Minister to give them higher wages, and then they won’t be medically unfit.

I want to suggest to the Minister that that new innovation of his, giving the men physical exercises, although I think it is a very fine thing, I am wondering, when we see this huge mortality amongst a certain type of his rail workers, whether it is the right thing to do to give them strenuous exercises such as they were doing down there. I do not think they will last too long at it. We appreciate what the Railways have done in the matter of supplying men for the army. I think a percentage of 11.5 per cent. is a very fine effort, but when we see such a large percentage of a certain type of worker coming back, the suggestion is that it does not pay the army to accept these men only to keep them for such a very short time. That is the only point I want to make. In conclusion, I want to refer to what the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) said, namely, that the Minister should pay the men better. I am surprised the hon. member made a remark like that, when we know that if they come and join the army they will get 3s. 6d. a day, 4s. 6d. a day for the wife, and 1s. for each child.

You say they are turning them down.

We have medical officers who examine them and say whether they are fit for service or not. I have not got the figure relating to those who are rejected. What I said I hope will stop any charges being made against this side of the House, that we are inducing men to join the army by offering higher rates of pay. I have shown them what a small percentage of rail workers have actually joined the army, although it is all in their interests as far as pay is concerned. That seems to be all the hon. gentlemen opposite are worried about.

I also want to break a lance today for our Railway officials or workers. But in the first instance I want to express my thanks to the hon. member who has just sat down. He made a wonderful speech, so wonderful that I now want to ask the Minister whether his compartment in the train was also blacked-out, and whether there is only one small lamp in the whole compartment, in which 4 or 6 of us have to travel together sometimes. That was my experience on my last journey. We had only one small light by which we could not even read. I wondered whether the Minister’s compartment or the compartment of the General Manager or the compartments of the other Ministers too, have one small light only. Now I want to bring to the notice of the Minister a complaint emanating from a certain section of his railway employees. I think they number approximately 11,000. A certain number from the ranks of that class has also enlisted. I want to ask the hon. member who has just sat down, whether it is only the poor man who is expected to sacrifice his life, and whether the rich can stay at home? Is that why the hon. member spoke of “inducement” to enlist? What irony! Those workers must also enlist now. That is my reply to the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth). I think I cannot do better than to read to the Minister a letter which was addressed to me by his artisans. This letter reads as follows—[Translation]—

Is the hon. member still quoting?

Yes, I just wanted to give the contents of this slowly. I have, however, completed it, and the complaint which exists has been brought before the House. It was sent to me to bring it to the notice of the Minister when an opportunity presented itself, and I have done it.

I just want to raise one or two points in the very short time at my disposal. The Minister in his reply to the second reading made a point that requests for excursions for workers who could not avail themselves of excursions at the time they had their holidays, could not be entertained at the present juncture. Excursions have been abolished for the time being, but, before the Administration recommends the resumption of excursion fares, I hope that it will bear in mind the request made year by year for a new basis of excursion fares which will enable the workers of South Africa to obtain an excursion ticket for their annual holiday. We know that there are certain difficulties, but if time is taken by the forelock in this connection, I think the Administration will be able to devise some plan whereby these workers, who have a holiday once a year, may enjoy the privileges of travelling over their own Railways at excursion fares. In this connection I want to ask the Minister whether he will take into consulation the representatives of the Trade Unions. The second point was one to which the Minister did not reply, and perhaps he will deal with it in his Budget speech, and that is what scheme has he which will be reading “readily executable”, to provide employment on the Railways for returned soldiers? Being such a large concern it is perfectly obvious that the Railways an Harbours Administration will be able to find scope for a large number who will require employment.

I would like to bring just one point to the attention of the hon. Minister. It seems to me that with the shortage of locomotives, use must now be made of altogether inferior locomotives that are not provided with fire protectors offering protection against the belching out of coal. Recently I travelled through the Western Transvaal and tremendous fires originated there, and many farmers ran the risk of great damage. Some had to go out to extinguish the fires. A general drought now prevails, and it seems to me that sufficient provision is not made against the danger of fire damage. It also seems as if the Minister no longer causes fire belts to be cleared, with the result that the farmers are exposed to great damage to their lands and fields. I want to ask the Minister to protect the public against such disasters. I hope he will take immediate steps to prevent the danger.

I see that the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) is not here. He said that of 18,000 railway workers, that is, of the less privileged among the railway workers, more than 2,000 have joined up, and yet he calls this a serious effort. He said that if the other 16,000 had joined up, they would have received a better payment, namely, 3s. 6d. or 4s. a day. Now, I want to ask the Minister if it is the policy of the Railways to entice the low-paid to join the army by keeping their wages as low as possible? Then it seems to me as if the victimisation is proceeding on a much greater scale than we thought. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) pleaded for the people who get low wages, and I also want to plead that more should be paid them, particularly in view of the increased living costs. They cannot exist on the low wages. The hon. member for Rosettenville has also said that many have been rejected as medically unfit. That does not surprise me, because they have to work on the open railway track in sunshine, in the cold, and in the rain, and their pay is much too low. Those people ought to be met. Then I also want to ask the Minister what his policy is these days in connection with coloured people who travel on the Railways. Hitherto accommodation has always been reserved for coloureds—first, second and third class. In those classes they could travel. On Sunday afternoon I boarded the train at Bellville from Stellenbosch. The train was unusually full, and I walked through the passage to find a seat. I came to a compartment, and there sat a coloured woman, fairly broad, only three of her could sit on a bench, and she sat there alone in the compartment intended for Europeans. I learned that this happens repeatedly. Fortunately I got a little place elsewhere, after much trouble, otherwise I would have had to stand all the way to Cape Town, because I am not disposed to travel with a coloured woman in the same compartment. I hope the Minister will take notice of this and see to it that it does not happen again in the future. There are places for them, why must they encroach on the accommodation for Europeans? This is increasing more and more. I now come to something else. It is denied from time to time that there is a measure of victimisation or intimidation on the Railways. Just at the end of last week my attention was drawn to a sation-master who was acting at De Doorns, and who is warmly enthusiastic about the war and who is a big political supporter of the Government, who victimised the persons on the staff in such a way that they did not dare go to other meetings, except meetings of the Government Party. He is alleged to have told them that if they go to other meetings, then they must know that they are marked, and that their names will be sent up, so that they will have little chance of promotion. Will the Minister deny that this sort of thing happens? We take up the standpoint that the officials’ political activities must not be placed in the foreground, but on the other side we believe also that an official must have the right of his own free conscience to think as he likes about political matters. He should have the right to go and listen to any political meeting, even though it is a Communist meeting, so that he can form his own judgment on what is the best for him. We have heard a great deal in the past about the Railways having to be run on business lines, and when we got the present Minister of Railways we heard that the Railways are now being run in the right way, because a business man is now at the head, and he will see to it that the Railways are run on business lines. I now want to quote a reply that the Minister gave me during the debate that took place on the second reading. I pointed out that on some stations the staff have also to see to the post and the telephone, that there is a large number of people in the vicinity who often have to get their connection through the Post Office, and I tried to explain that the poor Railway official is often blamed for not serving the public properly, while he has to do all the work on the small stations, and cannot be at the telephone all the time to put through calls from the public. Then I got this reply from the Minister—

Then the Minister proceeded to say that the Railway officials are there to represent the interest of the Railways, and that if the staff do not get a chance to look after the postal facilities and the telephone facilities properly, then that is a matter for the Post Office. If the work is too much, so the Minister replied, then the Post Office must make some other arrangement. A business man ought not to treat such matters so lightly. It is a business transaction, I take it, made between the Post Office and the Railway Department, that the staff on the stations of certain places should see to the post and to the telephone exchange. There are numbers of such stations in my constituency, such as Breede River, Goudini, De Wet Station, Sandhills, and Hex River, and at all these places the Railway officials find it impossible to do this additional work, and to give satisfaction to the telephone subscribers. The officials get the discredit, but they cannot do the work, and the farmers or business men connected with that station exchange do not get the proper service. Now the Minister says that the matter belongs to the Department of Posts. If the Minister of Railways sees no chance to do this work for which he is paid by the Postal Department, then he ought not to accept this service if he is a business man; then the Department of Posts will be obliged to establish small post offices in those places. The Minister ought not to tread lightly over such matters. It affects the Railway officials employed there, and it affects a large proportion of the neighbouring farmers and business men who cannot get the service to which they are entitled. It will not cost much to put a young man, or if necessary a girl there, even if it is only for the purpose of answering the telephone. Then it will be possible to give telephone subscribers satisfaction, and the Railway officials will not come into discredit and be accused of not serving the people properly. With the best will in the world they cannot always put through calls. If there is a train in the station, then it is their first duty to see the train safely away. In addition, they have to deal with many departmental calls, etc. I hope the Minister will go into the matter thoroughly and bring about an improvement.

On the second reading of this Bill I raised a number of questions which I considered then and still consider of great importance. The Minister in his reply did not agree as to their importance, and despite the fact that he spoke for a very long time and meticulously answered a great number of questions of minor importance raised by the Opposition he did not deem it within his purview to reply to me. Therefore, I am persuaded to make a speech on the second reading of the Bill and perhaps when the Minister learns that important points raised from this side of the House deserve an answer he might save himself a tremendous amount of time in piloting his Bills through the House. The Minister must not run away with the idea that because we support the Government we do not expect an answer when we raise important points. Well, once again that brings me to a point which I propose, while I am in this House, to emphasise on every possible occasion—the position of the hon. members of this House, and I want to tell the Minister as clearly as I can that as far as I and my colleagues are concerned we are not here merely for the purpose of registering our voices among the “ayes” or the “noes”, or for the purposes of having our names registered on the division lists. We are here to represent our constituents and of placing before the Minister what we consider to be wrong with his department, and we are here to make suggestions which we consider should be entertained for the improvement of his department, and we expect the Minister to reply to us, and we expect him to tell us why things which we suggest cannot be done, and we expect him to put up some sort of a case when we put up things which we consider wrong. The first point I raised was a point which I would have imagined the Minister would have taken up as something of great importance—it was this, that I said I felt that his department was treating soldiers discharged from the Army coming back to his department with a great lack of sympathy. I want to repeat that, because subsequent to my speech I have heard of a number of other cases which convinced me that I am more than ever correct in stating that there is apparently in the Railway Administration a tendency to treat soldiers discharged from the Army with a complete lack of sympathy, and I ask the Minister to make investigations into this and to lay down his policy, and I suggested to him that it was his duty as Minister of Railways to insist that insofar from men being discharged from the Army being treated unsympathetically they should be treated with the greatest possible sympathy. I showed him that these men were discharged as unfit, suffering from the result of eighteen months or two years of hard work in the North, suffering from the rigours of very hard work, suffering from the effects of the climate in many instances, and in almost every instance suffering from a considerable amount of nervous strain due to the consistent dive bombing they had to undergo. I thought a plea on behalf of the Minister’s own servants who at his own request were prepared to enlist and go North would have brought forth some explanation, and I suppose his refusal to reply was a tacit admission that the Railway Administration was treating these men with a considerable amount of callousness.

I shall apologise in due course.

I don’t want apologies, I want rectification. Apologies don’t cut any ice. I want some kind of investigation to prove whether my contention is correct or not, and if it is correct I want it to be altered. One of these men I know myself—somebody did apologise for him—but that did not do any good.

I shall apologise for not answering.

That does not worry me either, but I am pointing out that the attitude which the Minister is adopting is the attitude which is being adopted more and more in this House by other Ministers. It is the attitude that we who are sitting behind here should be quite satisfied to say “yes” when we are told to; but we are not prepared to do that. We are here for the purpose of seeing that things are worked out correctly in this country, and the question as to the Minister’s reply to me is a question which goes far beyond any question of an apology—it is the question of the whole attitude which is being adopted in a more and more extreme form by Ministers of this particular Government, and we are getting-just a little bit tired of it. And then there is also the further question. I found out when talking on the Part Appropriation Bill that the Minister told me that certain things were under consideration. There, again, when I pointed out that it was time the Railway Administration took steps to guarantee a certain number of vacancies on the Railways to returned soldiers—both now and after the war—the Minister again ignored that. Yesterday I managed to extract in an aside from a deputy-Minister that such a thing was being done as far as the Civil Service was concerned, but so far we have not been able to extract anything from the Minister of Railways. I notice that his deputy has gone away to Rhodesia. But, anyhow, the Minister has not given us any information. But now let me say that it is not only I who am concerned about this particular thing; it is not only the Labour Party, but the Minister saw fit to pass over some very pertinent criticisms and some very important points raised by members of his own party. He could spend half an hour on the question whether he should continue a road motor service from Olifantsfontein to some other Fontein. As a matter of fact, the Minister spent ten minutes showing that on a certain road motor service there were only three passengers per month, and he spent another ten minutes on a matter of no moment between himself and the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), but to this important question, which affects the lives and the future of the Railwaymen the Minister maintained a conspicuous silence. The Minister, however, with that Scotch canniness which I must say I admire in him, and which I probably understand better than any other member in the House …

You should.

Yes, I should, though the Minister takes some understanding. But in these days to break through the crust of pomposity of the Minister is a very difficult thing indeed. But I did infer from the Minister, although he did not say it—and it is the attitude which has been adopted by several Ministers of Railways—that questions of wages, increases of wages to Railwaymen, are not questions which should exercise members of this House.

[Inaudible.]

Are you stepping in where angels fear to tread? The hon. member knows about low wages for bywoners on the farms. By inference, the hon. Minister suggested that any question of a general increase of wage rates to servants of the Railways, was a mater for the Administration, and not for the Trades Unions, because, Mr. Speaker, the Railway Administration has now ceased to recognise anything in the nature of a trades union. The Trades Union is much too common, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Railways and his Administration. The trades unions today are now to be styled in grandiloquent fashion—that is the word used by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) — as staff organisations. They are no longer trade unions but staff organisations. But the ordinary railwayman is still satisfied to have his organisation called a trades union, and the sooner we get back to that description the better it will be for the ordinary servant in the Railway Department. I want to enter immediately a categorical denial that the position is that the questions of railwaymen’s wages and conditions are purely matters for the Railway Administrations and the staff organisations. After all, I am not a great constitutional expert, but I am going to suggest to the Minister that in fact the servants of the Railways are employed by this House for the benefit of the people of this country.

And paid for by this House.

Yes, paid for by this House. Even the Minister himself is paid for by this House. I don’t know whether we get as much value for it as he gets out of his mechanics. And therefore, sir, any story that we in this House have nothing to do with wage rates, hours and conditions and everything else as far as the railway servants are concerned, is so much tosh. In the long run we decide the rates, and it is our duty, Mr. Speaker, when we feel that those wage rates are insufficient, we are entitled in this House to get up and say so. And that brings me back to the point that the railwaymen are particularly concerned with their existing wages and conditions, and that is a state of mind which almost everybody in South Africa is in at the moment. We have been 3½ years in the war, and it has emerged quite a long time ago, precisely why we are in this war. We are not actually in the war because we are going to beat Nazi Germany. In the first instance, of course, we are in the war to beat Nazi Germany, but as the war progressed another reason emerged, and that reason is very firmly entrenched in almost every mind in South Africa, I should say in almost every individual in the United Nations today, and that is we are not only trying to remove the danger to all our freedom and democratic privileges, but we are fighting for a very much better form of life in the future. And we want to see it, we don’t want te hear about it, we don’t want to have a lot of high falutin’ platitudes thrown at us every day. We have often got to the extent of that, and if you get in the way you may get a black eye from the platitudes which proceed from Ministers. We want to see something done. Our Railways are piling up surpluses year after year. I know I may be anticipating the Budget speech. It is not an unusual thing for us to do that and to get a reply from Ministers who come along and tell us about concessions. Perhaps we ought not to worry as long as we get concessions, but the demand has come from these benches, and from all quarters of the House, that some portion of these accruing surpluses should be used to better the position of the railway worker. The Railway make these surpluses, because they are the biggest employers of sweated labour in the country. That is no exaggeration.—[Interruptions.] My hon. friend may quote me wages earned by railwaymen, but he does not quote me the hours that are worked by railwaymen. These wages are not earned by a week’s work or a month’s work. There are some railwaymen who are putting in almost a fortnight’s work in a week. Some engine-drivers have been doing that for years. And that brings me to the point that we have now waited 15 months for the report of this Committee which was set up to consider how far the Railway Department can be brought under the Factories Act. I do not know when we are getting it. The Minister agreed to appoint this Committee to find out how far we can apply the Factories Act to the Railway Department. Here we have a Government which introduces the Factories Act, which applies to all other industries, but we have to set up a Committee to see how far that can be applied to the Government’s own servants, and we have not got the report yet. The Government, by legislation, through the Labour Department, which is run by my hon. Leader the member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), has laid down a maximum number of hours in various industries, and even where overtime is worked attention has to be paid to the actual number of hours of overtime. Excessive hours of overtime in the long run defeat their own object, because men become tired and sick, and in the long run you do not get the output you want. The Railways are not concerned about that. They work these men all these hours, and of course show fairly reasonable salaries, but the salary is not the actual wage. This is not, Mr. Speaker, peculiarly a war-time expedient. Engine-drivers and firemen have been employed on this basis since the beginning of the South African Railways. We have pleaded for many years in this House on behalf of these men, and the excessive hours they have to work. There are occasions when the wives of these unfortunate employees hardly ever see them. They are sent out into the country, and when they come back they are wakened up in the middle of the night, and have to go out again. Their basic rate of pay is still entirely inadequate. If their basic rate of pay was adequate, these men would refuse to work these hours of overtime. The Minister must not come along and tell us this story that only by consultation with the staff organisations will incerases in pay and better conditions for them be considered. My own particular experience of these staff organisations is that they are very much drilled by the Administration itself. I have never been able to understand just why, just because the Railway Administration happens to be a State-owned affair, these staff organisations should be placed on a different basis from the ordinary trades unions. I have never been able to understand why the Government, running the Railways as they do, should demand a different kind of loyalty from their own employees than they expect from the employees of ordinary outside concerns, because after all, the contract is the same.

No, they get fixity of tenure.

But do they? Well, let us examine this fixity of tenure. I can remember the second speech I ever made in this House was on a motion to appoint a Select Committee to enquire into the rights of prematurely retired railwaymen. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) who was then Minister of Railways, said: “We had to retire all these men during the depression, before their period of service had expired. We realise that they have been retired on rates of pension too small for them possibly to live on, but we are prepared to consider the increase of those pensions to a rate which still places the railwaymen on the bread line, £100 a year.” I was on that Select Committee, and we dealt with thousands of these men. During the last depression, Mr. Speaker, I quoted this on the second reading of this Bill. The Railways saved over £1,000,000, every penny of which was taken directly out of the pockets of these men. Thousands of them were retired prematurely at ages of from 40 to 50, and thousands of other men, artisans, were degraded to the rank of labourers at 6s. a day, and my hon. friends talks about security of tenure. There is no security of tenure on the Railways any more than there is anywhere else.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member, in his arrogant way, tells this House how many years he has been here, and that being so, he ought to remember that this was a question we fought for five years. There were literally thousands of men in 1929 and onwards discharged from the Railways, and thousands of other men were degraded from the artisans’ rate of pay to labourers on 6s. a day.

Supposing that is true, normally there is still security of tenure.

Normally! Is my hon. friend normal? Surely my hon. friend is not going to suggest that we are today looking forward to a period which by any stretch of imagination can be called normal. We all know that we are looking forward to a period which will be abnormal. It is abnormal now, and it must continue to be abnormal, and all this talk about new orders and new worlds arises from the fact that we know civilisation is undergiong the greatest dislocation of all history, and that we shall have to pay for it. All this talk of social reconstruction arises from the fact that we are living in abnormal times, and will continue to live in abnormal times, and there is no such thing as fixity of tenure even as far as the Railways are concerned. The Railways, when they were faced with the last depression, immediately threw men out of work, and they did that despite the fact that the Railways were then due for an amount of reconditioning which would have kept these men permanently employed. The stupid result was, of course, that when South Africa turned the corner, the Railways found themselves in a terrible mess, and we well remember that it was justifiably contended that the accidents which were a feature of our Railway Administration for a number of years, were entirely due to the rotten state of our Railway system, which again was due to the fact that thousands had been prematurely retired, and the development of the Railways stopped. So this story of fixity of tenure does not cut any ice. That may be a very good lawyer’s story, but not for the men who work on the Railways, and who know very well that the system was in a parlous condition after the war, and they know that the same policy of prematurely retiring men will be indulged in this time, the same policy of de-grading men will be indulged in. The better policy would be to give the men this increase of wages, which I believe they are thoroughly entitled to now, out of the abounding surpluses which the Minister apparently feels is a contribution to the welfare of South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

I know the hon. Minister tells us about the Rates Equalisation Fund. I am not particularly enamoured of that, because as I have said before, as it has happened before in this country and in many other countries when bad times hit the Minister of Finance, there is a tendency—I am not speaking without my book, because I think in this House there was a celebrated occasion when something like £1,000,000 put into such a fund for roads, was diverted to some other purpose. There was a bit of a row about that, but it was still diverted, and we did not get any roads. That might still happen to this fund of the Railways, and Railwaymen believe that 1s. in the pocket is better than 1s. 6d. in the Rates Equalisation Fund, and, being a Scotsman, I am inclined to think that, too. I understand the Minister is also a Scotsman, and no doubt he thinks the same thing. I trust the Minister is going to give some consideration to a re-investigation of the whole system of payment on the Railways. That whole system reeks with anomalies. Amongst the artisans employed 50 per cent. received bonuses, and the other 50 per cent. received no bonuses. You have artisans employed in one particular place who get no bonus, and artisans doing the self-same work in another part receive a bonus. The Railway Service is riddled with anomalies, and it is raising a very considerable amount of dissatisfaction, particularly in view of the fact that the employees know that the Service is paying, and paying handsomely. I hope the Minister, in his reply, will make some attempt to deal with these matters. Now, there is one final matter I want to speak about. This, Mr. Speaker, is a copy of the weekly circular issued by the Railways, No. 2776. This is part of the Railway Gestapo; it is a secret document. Despite the fact that we are members of Parliament, despite the fact that we, in the long run are responsible for the running of the Railway Service, despite the fact that the Minister has to come and ask us for an appropriation to carry on the Service, this document is not supposed to come into our hands. It is private and confidential, and for the information and guidance of the Service Administration. For many years I have had a few copies stolen for me every week. Sometimes it is difficult to get one, so I make the necessary provision that at least six are stolen, and out of the six I get one. When I am tired of reading “Punch”, occasionally I turn to this document, and I often find it is better than “Punch”. This particular excerpt I think should amuse anybody who has any sense of humour. It says here—

Which means, Mr. Speaker, this: that where, for instance, a Railway servant is a member of the Town Council—let us take the Pretoria City Council as an example—there an allowance of £10 a month is paid to members, and every Railway servant who is a member of that Council, has to submit this kind of return, and this is the fashion in which reports are usually submitted: “Town Council, locomotion expenses, £5; allowance to wife for purchase of necessary clothing to appear respectable at civic function, £2”. Mr. Speaker, the thing is a farce, but this is actually the position. But, sir, I want to go on and read their closing paragraph—

I do not know what the “etc.” is …

Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression that we were going to war for the preservation of our democratic rights, and I had the idea—I may have been wrong—

[Inaudible].

As I say, I may have been wrong, but if I was wrong, I am quite sure the hon. member is not capable of correcting me. I did have the impression that we went to war to preserve democratic rights to retain the freedoms that have been won for us by thousands of years of strife undertaken to develop and extend those rights. In other words, we all of us believe a man ought to be given permission to think for himself, to act on his own thoughts, to express his own opinions, and in a legislative body, to vote as he wishes to vote. I find that the Railway Administration has got an entirely different view. First of all, it is necessary for any individual who wishes to stand for a municipal council, a village management board, or an “etc.”, it is necessary in terms of the relevant staff regulations, that no servant may accept nomination—Oh, we have got the “etc.” here. “No servant may accept nomination for election to a municipal council, village management board, health committee, hospital board, school board, local board, or other similar public body, without the permission of competent authority.” The competent authority is the General Manager. It is amusing, Mr. Speaker, to see what the General Manager has got to do in the running of these particular Railways. There is no question that I know of, even of infinitesimal details which in the long run has not got to have the authority of the General Manager. One understands that the General Manager never sees these things at all, but it is laid down that if you want to sneeze on the Railway on a particular side line, you have to get the permission of the General Manager. Whatever you want to do, the permission of the General Manager must be obtained. But that, of course, usually means the permission of a first-grade clerk in the General Manager’s office. Here is an example of what has to be done under certain circumstances—

That is a lovely word, Mr. Speaker,

Tell us if this is very long.

Unfortunately, the hon. member for Kensington is a professional man, and the hon. member has not, unfortunately, had to work for an employer, but I am quite satisfied that if he did the hon. member for Kensington would agree with me that providing he did the work for which he is paid, he would be entitled to do with his private time whatever he liked, and should not be debarred from so doing, because he is working for a Railway Department. I say he should not be debarred from exercising his democratic rights, rights that we are asking the youth of all the United Nations to go and die on the battlefield for. Why must a servant of the Railway Administration have to resign and forego his pension rights which it has probably taken him 20 years to work up to, before he can stand for election to this House? This House, I am sure, would be a great deal better if we had a few railwaymen in it. It would be a great deal better if we had a few school teachers who are under the Provincial Administration, elected to it. If we had a number of permanent Civil Servants, who, by their very experience would be a great asset, elected to this House, the House would be all the better. But we deny all these people these rights. They are not allowed to be elected to even the Provincial Councils, but on occasions they are given permission to stand for Town Councils, Village Management Boards, School Boards, and so on. But when they do so and out-of-pocket expenses or any kind of allowances are made, they are requested to submit these silly, stupid statements to the Administration. Mr. Speaker, this is the negation of democracy. Mr. Speaker, I understand that this provision has always existed, but at one time very little attention was paid to it, and the thing was allowed to go by the board. Now, however, that it has been issued in this particular weekly notice, it becomes a definite instruction to the staff, and every servant of the Railway Administration, who, in future is a member of any of these particular Boards, will have to submit, I presume in triplicate, the full account of his expenses. I suppose he will have to put down: “To entertaining John Brown, two whiskeys, 2s. 9d.”, and so on and so forth. The thing can be made ridiculous. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that some members have seen some of these forms filled in according to this, and I am sure it would delight the House to read them. This kind of thing ought to be done away with. The Railway Administration must realise that they are different from the Civil Service in this particular respect.

They are a business concern.

Yes, a business concern, and they do employ in many of their operations a type of individual who is entirely different from a Civil Servant, that is to say, they employ the artisan type. They often employ artisans who had not served their time on the Railways, artisans who are not in any way to be considered Civil Servants. The man who is driving an engine, the man who is working as a turner or a fitter in no way comes in contact in his occupation with anything in the nature of Government policy. That is a great point, one may admit that a case can be made against a Civil Servant being allowed to embark on a political career, because he may come in contact with policy, and therefore it may not be correct to allow him to come out as a politician or an embryo politician. Such an embryo politician might have been concerned with the working out of a particular Government policy, but there is no policy in driving an engine: there is no policy in firing an engine; there is no policy in being a turner at a lathe, or in being a fitter. Therefore, to deny these men who are artisans just like artisans outside, the ordinary political rights, to force on these men what I can only call the indignity of these stupid regulations, is a negation of democratic rights, and suggests to me that there are a lot of individuals higher up in the Railway Service who seem to have very little to do with their time. It seems to me that the Railway Service is a service too big, too gigantic, too important, and today too overworked to permit of any individual producing a document such as this, and if that is all they have to do with their time I would suggest that the Minister should do a little combing out in the higher ranks of the Service, and find these people something more useful to do, something more in line with the modern trend of thought, than issuing these stupid things.

I am glad that the Minister of Lands is also in his place, because I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Railways a matter of the utmost importance to the farming population in the North-West, and I think it will also interest the Minister of Lands. I brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture yesterday, but it is really the Minister of Railways who has to deal with it. The position in the North-Western areas has become unbearable in so far as it concerns the farmers along the Orange River settlements who produce on a big scale but who cannot get their products transported, and therefore cannot get their products to the market. The result of it all is that they cannot meet their financial obligations. The Minister of Lands was one of those who exhorted the farmers to produce and thereby to help the war effort. Those people did produce, and now it is the duty of the Government to see that they can get their products transported, but they are being left in the lurch. I do no like using the word, but their produce is lying rotting. They cannot even get their wheat transported. There are lucerne stacks in plenty but they cannot be transported. These people are beginning to lose hope. I therefore hope that the Minister of Railways will come to their assistance, otherwise they will be threatened by ruin. But not only can they not get their produce transported, but everything is at a standstill. There was a fair sultana crop, and this cannot be transported, and if rain falls shortly the whole crop may be destroyed. The sultana crop forms a large part of their incomes. Then they will not be able to meet their obligations. I have seen that in the Free State railway buses have been sent to transport the wheat of the farmers. I am glad of it, but here we also have to do with a deserving section of the population even though these people are mostly poor, and the Government must come to their assistance otherwise they will degenerate. These people are just beginning to find their legs nicely and to progress, and they must be helped. There is also a great deal of confusion. A station master informs a man that he can load and then that man gets his neighbours to help him; the lorry passes and then they learn that their products cannot be loaded. This is a serious situation and I hope that the Minister will send lorries immediately to transport the goods. They are people who deserve a concession. Do not make them desperate. The Minister shakes his head. I hope he will improve the position immediately. Then I want to say a few words about the tariffs on the lorries

It is very late.

Whether it is late or not is not the question with me. It is not a question of time with me, but one of gravity. It seems to me the Minister takes up these matters lightly. The tariffs for lorry transport are too high and must be decreased. These people have to live on their products, and if they are killed by high tariffs then these people cannot make progress. I know the Minister does not care. He is out of sympathy with these people and sits and laughs, but it is a serious matter. The people you get there are of the best. If they were coloureds he would certainly look after them, but these are honourable people who are threatened with ruin and he must take notice of their interests. But it seems to me he comes from overseas and he does not care what becomes of the people here. I take up the matter seriously, and I hope the Minister will not treat it with levity. Then I have another complaint in connection with passengers on trains. If you want to book accommodation on the platteland then you have to wait ten or fourteen days before you can travel, and yet you find that in many trains there are only one or two persons in a compartment. Is the Minister aware of the fact that the compartments run empty while people on the platteland cannot get travelling accommodaion? It is an unprecedented position. It seems to me that the trains are only for one section of the population, viz. for soldiers, and particularly for coloured soliders who play a big role on the Railways. The time has come when we shall no longer tolerate it. The Minister may think that because he has a cosmopolitan crowd behind him that he can thwart and steamroller us, and that he can sit and laugh, but we shall see at the election what the country thinks of it. That is the sort of thing one gets. A soldier can do as he likes, and not only the European soldier, but also the coloureds, but respectable people cannot get accommodatioin on the trains. Is this a position that we can tolerate? The Minister evidently does not care. He does not care about the Afrikaansspeaking section. He should rather go overseas.

The hon. member must calm down a bit.

I will calm down, but the Minister should at least take up such matters earnestly and not only care for the interests of the coloureds. If you travel by train you find that there are persons occupying coupes alone, and who are they?

Members of Parliament!

Members of Parliament are at any rate entitled to it, but the hon. member knows what persons get all those privileges. Is it right that we should tolerate such a thing? I want to revert further to the lorries and the use of the roads by the lorries. It is the Minister’s lorries that break up the roads, practically only those lorries, and the Railway Department should at least contribute an amount for the maintenance of the roads. Now it is expected that the Divisional Councils should take the whole responsibility. It is not fair. If the Minister comes to see our area, he will see in what a pitiful condition the roads are as the result of his lorries with their heavy weight running over the roads. It is only fair that the Railways should contribute their share. As regards the amendment before the House, I want to support it strongly, because a compulsion is being exercised on the Railways that one cannot disapprove of strongly enough. You find that the General Manager now wants to assume a power to which he is not entitled, and which is not fair, and the result is that the little lieutenants he has in his Department are committing the greatest injustices. You find how they go about to discover how some official or other feels and then indirect compulsion is exercised. People are being frightened that they will be put out if they do not join the army. Of course the Minister and the General Manager do not do this themselves, but it is done by their chief officials. What right has the General Manager to propagate such things in his Department? It is one of the greatest scandals that you can get in any administration, and the Minister of Railways agrees and takes no notice of it and lets the General Manager take his course. Is it fair? I think this sort of indirect compulsion on railway officials should now end, and I hope that the Minister will not further allow it. Then you also find that if an Afrikaner has to be promoted in rank, then you find all sorts of difficulties placed in his way. These things have been going on for a considerable time in the Railway Administration, at the expense of the Afrikaans-speaking people. It is an absolute scandal. And what about the General Manager? What do we find? When he was not at the head of affairs he came crawling to pretend that he is also Nationalist, and in this way he got promotion. What happens today? This proves again that you cannot trust an Englishman in any sense. He is playing his role to do injustice towards the Afrikaans-speaking population, and I tell the Minister that this sort of thing must now cease. The sooner he stops it the better. We cannot tolerate it any longer. The sooner he realises this, the better, and the sooner the General Manager also realises that we are informed about his position, the better.

I would now like to take the House back to a somewhat calmer atmosphere than we have been experiencing for the last twenty minutes, when it seemed a great deal of heat was engendered over very little indeed. The debate which has come to a rather belated conclusion has been a rather remarkable one for a Railway debate.

But it has been a true one, and the sooner you realise it the better.

Even bigger guns have been firing at the Minister than is usual during a Railway debate, but the aim of these bigger guns was no more accurate than the aim of the lesser guns—which usually fire from behind. Speaker after speaker declaimed against me and the General Manager because of our “flagrantly racial policy”, the “flagrantly racial treatment of our staff, particularly our senior officers”. Every kind of individual case was brought up—about a dozen individual cases out of many hundreds were picked out, and these were picked out as instances of flagrant racialism. We were accused of manipulating appointments, of excluding Afrikaners, when every case dealt with only illustrated that we on the South African Railways are most careful to see that only the most competent men are appointed to the jobs for which they are best suited.

Yes, only the English section; they are the most competent. The Afrikaners are never competent.

The hon. member has had a great deal to say, and I think he might now let me proceed. Some things were quoted which were alleged to be interfering unduly with the interests of our workers, but I think the impartial opinion of the House will show that whatever we have done did not react in any way on the staff, and certainly nothing can be shown to prove that any injustice was done to anyone. Allegations were made that I have changed. To begin with I was the bonny blue-eyed boy who did what was just and fair, and was out to see that justice was done, but now I have changed, and I am just the reverse. Well, I don’t think really the change is so much in the Minister of Railways. I think that all this excitement on the other side is due to the effect of the nearness of a General Election.

You go to the Railways and find out.

It would be most unfortunate if at this stage when an election is so near it should be allowed to go abroad that an English-speaking Minister of Railways, belonging to the United Party, is fair and just in his dealings with the other section.

But it is a fact, you are not just.

In every single case which was brought up, the appointment was made in the usual way through the recommendations of the Railway Commission, through the senior officers and the General Manager—every case had the right of appeal to the Railway Board if anyone felt that there was an injustice done, and every proper piece of machinery was put into operation. But I shall deal with one or two to show what the position is.

Why only deal with one or two?

I have fifteen pages of stuff here. I just want to deal with one or two of the principal and allegedly worst ones. I have occasionally allowed salaries to be reduced, and that I have done in order to spare the feelings of senior officers who might have been passed over otherwise—and in most cases Afrikaans-speaking senior officers. Take Mr. Timperley. He is a born staff man; he has very special qualifications for a staff job, but when I appointed him to our staff section he was really entitled to £1,800 a year. But I kept his salary at £1,600 per year, because there are two Afrikaans system managers senior to him only getting £1,600. But I kept him at £1,600 but if that policy is objected to …

Do you expect me to believe that?

If you don’t believe me I have nothing more to say, but hon. members who count in this House will believe me.

Yes, “honourable” members.

I shall try and avoid, despite provocation, the example of my hon. friend from Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys). No, as I say, if this House objects to that policy I shall reverse it. I am quite prepared to pay the youngest men the highest salaries if they are qualified for the jobs they are doing. The most astonishing case brought up was that of Dr. Booker who is alleged to be anti-Afrikaans. Well, I don’t know anyone more solidly Afrikaans than Dr. Booker. Dr. Booker has never asked anyone whether he was a member of the Reddingsdaadbond or not. He has to ask under the law whether people are members of a prohibited organisation, such as the Ossewa-Brandwag—whose members we are not allowed to employ. If the Reddingsdaadbond take that as an implication reflecting upon themselves, well, that is their fault and not Dr. Booker’s. Then, I would explain for the information of the House that Mr. Giffen who was described as the Secretary of the General Manager’s Gestapo, is Secretary of the Internal Security Committee which has done excellent work in protecting Railway property, in safeguarding the lives of passengers on the Railway and servants, and on the proper functioning of which so many people directly depend for their livelihood, and on which the whole country depends for its wellbeing. That is Mr. Giffen who is described as Secretary of the General Manager’s Gestapo and that is the kind of distortion, those are the sort of allegations which we have heard made here this afternoon. We have also heard allegations made that the position of the Secretary of the Railway Service Commission had been reduced in value in order to keep Afrikaners out. It was reduced in value because the job in the opinion of the Railway Board was paid far too highly, and we decided to reduce it whenever we had to change the officer, and because we have done that and because we have rated the job at what we think it is worth we are now accused of keeping out Afrikaners. And let me tell hon. members that for every Afrikaner we keep out in such cases we probably keep out five or six Englishmen. That is the prosaic explanation of this matter. Now, we come to the appointment of Mr. Chittenden and this is rather interesting. It was alleged that Mr. Heckroodt was done an injustice. Mr. Chittenden was appointed General Manager (Commercial) because of his special qualities for that particular job.

What special qualities has he got?

He has special qualities. Mr. Heckroodt passed over Mr. Chittenden’s head in 1939—owing to an appointment made by me. I appointed Mr. Heckroodt to an appointment in 1939, and there he passed over Mr. Chittenden’s head. I may say that these two officers have been alternatively passing over each other’s head right throughout their career. In 1939 I gave Mr. Heckroodt an appointment which put him over Mr. Chittenden. That was a fair and just Minister who did that Very fair and very just. Of course, that was the right thing to do.

Tell us what Mr. Chittenden’s qualifications are.

How can the hon. member expect me to tell the House the individual qualifications of the various individuals? But I do want to say this, and I say it without hesitation, that in my judgment, to put Mr. Heckroodt in charge of our operating department and Mr. Chittenden in charge of the commericial department, is to put these two men into the positions for which they are best fitted, and may I be allowed to say that I know much more about the respective cases than the hon. member does. I know the hon. member has a strange idea of the Railways. He has an idea that the Assistant General Manager of Railways does nothing but draw up advertisements. That is the kind of statement we have to reply to. When Mr. Chittenden is appointed over Mr. Heckroodt’s head, it is a piece of flagrant racialism, but when Mr. Heckroodt is appointed over Mr. Chittenden’s head, it is not a piece of flagrant racialism. Now I come to Mr. Brain. Several members have inveighed about Mr. Brain’s position and complained about taking him away from Durban. Mr. Brain also appealed when I appointed Mr. Heckroodt Chief Traffic Manager. He thought that he should be in that job. He appealed very vehemently. He had been in Durban ever since I took over. He appealed and appealed again against Mr. Heckroodt’s appointment. Therefore, when the Assistant Chief Civil Engineer’s job came along, which would give Mr. Brain another £200 a year, I naturally promoted him. But I apparently did the wrong thing. When I did not promote Mr. Brain I got into trouble with him, and when I did promote him I get bitter complaints from the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood) that I take away an Afrikaner from Durban.

You will get the reasons later on.

Mr. Brain is now our Assistant Chief Civil Engineer and should be highly satisfied.

I can tell you he is not satisfied.

With regard to the statement that Mr. Ritchie was sent there because he is English-speaking. Mr. du Plessis who might have gone there was already earmarked for Johannesburg. Mr. du Plessis knew the facts. It was explained to him. Mr. Ritchie had already had harbour experience and previous service in Natal. If we followed the ideas of hon. members opposite, we would be changing our System Managers every few weeks. We have to arrange the appointment of our System Managers far ahead, so that they can be put in the best places on their qualifications. We wanted an experienced System Manager at Johannesburg, and we decided to keep that post for Mr. du Plessis.

The people in Durban are dissatisfied.

I have never heard a single word from Durban, suggesting that we should not appoint an Afrikaans System Manager there. I try to be fair with all the staff, and I say that that was the situation with regard to Mr. Brain, and I challenge hon. members to say what I did wrong in connection with it. I am not going to quote any of the other cases because they have already been dealt with by the hon. member for Germiston, but I would like to say this in all sincerity: I am not wanting to take advantage of the lack of knowledge on the part of hon. members opposite; I say quite genuinely that there is no need for an enquiry; to appoint a committee of enquiry would be to admit that I have done wrong, and I do not admit that.

You are definitely afraid of an enquiry. I charge you of being afraid of an enquiry.

The hon. member may charge me with what he likes, as long as I am satisfied that there is nothing in the charge, I shall be satisfied. I shall be sorry if the hon. members will not take my word for this. I can assure them that if this enquiry were held it would in the end only make them look ridiculous. I want to assure hon. members that I shall be very sorry indeed if any member of this House really thought that there was anything in the ridiculous allegations made by the other side. Because of my desire to be fair to the Afrikaans-speaking members on my staff, I sometimes think that I almost load the dice against the English-speaking members.

You do; there is no doubt about that.

There you are; the hon. member agrees with me.

“Yes” men will always agree.

I don’t want to anticipate my Budget speech, in which I am dealing with the question of promotion, but there are one or two facts I would like to put as to what the position in the Railways was when I took over, in regard to the number of Afrikaans-speaking officers and the number of English-speaking officers who held senior appointments. The criticism of the Opposition was mainly concerned with senior appointments. In the lower salaried group there are very few English-speaking people at all. It is mainly Afrikaans. As far as senior officers are concerned, the position is somewhat different. Since Union, there has been a preponderance of senior English-speaking officials, although Afrikaansspeaking officers are rapidly increasing. The present preponderance has its origin in preUnion days, when the Railways could not maintain their personnel without importation. The proportion of English-speaking servants in those days was much higher. There are various reasons for it, which I do not think I need explain, but that is the fact. With the growing interest of the Afrikaans-speaking young man in commercial and industrial employment, stimulated to some extent by the drift from the country to the towns of that section of the population, the position is now completely reversed. There is a much greater proportion of Afrikaans-speaking people in the Railways than English-speaking people, although still the greater bulk of the senior officials are preponderatingly English-speaking. It is inevitable as long as we make appointments in the Railways on just and equitable grounds, that quite a large number of English-speaking men will be promoted. In 1939 when I took over, the senior officers’ appointments were 85 per cent. English-speaking and 15 per cent. Afrikaans-speaking. The position at the end of last year was that there were 80 per cent. English-speaking officers and 20 per cent. Afrikaans-speaking. So that in three short years, there has been a considerable move in the direction of more Afrikaans-speaking appointments. In the groups over £1,200 per annum in September, 1939, 80 per cent. were English speaking and 20 per cent. were Afrikaans-speaking. In December, 1942, 76.5 per cent. were English-speaking and 23.7 per cent. Afrikaansspeaking. Does that show any bias against the Afrikaner? Amongst our eight system managers, we have four who are English and four who are Afrikaans, despite the fact that nearly 80 per cent. of our senior officials are English-speaking. The average age of the Afrikaans system manager is 48½ years, and the average of the English-speaking system manager is 56 years, showing that the Afrikaner is getting his appointment much earlier than the English-speaking person. The average length of service in the case of the Afrikaner is 30½ years, and the average length of service of the English-speaking person is 38 years. So that the Afrikaners are working shorter time; they are getting more rapid promotion.

That is because they are bilingual.

The combined salaries of all the system managers show that the Afrikaans officers are getting £100 more in total than English-speaking officers. Again I ask, does that show any bias against the Afrikaners? On the different systems, the senior operating superintendents are five Afrikaners and two English-speaking; there is at present a vacancy. The average age of the Afrikaner is 52 years and the average of the English-speaking officer 54 years, again in favour of the Afrikaner. The average period of service of the Afrikaner is 34 years, and 37 years in the case of the English-speaking member. It may be that the Afrikaner is cleverer and brighter; good luck to him; if he is, he will get all the promotion from me that he deserves. In the senior marine appointments there is not a single Afrikaans officer. That is not due to bias on my part, but it is due to the fact that the Afrikaner does not seem to like the sea. With the work that is now being done on the Gen. Botha Training Ship, and in the S.A. Naval Services we hope that more and more Afrikaners will join our Marine Service. In the senior engineering appointments, 130 officers are English-speaking and 21 Afrikaans-speaking.

That is 50-50.

They are all importees, I suppose.

The hon. member says that is 50-50. That shows what he knows. These are positions that you automatically come to if you join the Railway Service. It means that we still have far more English-speaking engineers joining the service than we have Afrikaners. That is the reason why I am giving you these figures. In the case of assistant engineers, Class 2, 84% are English speaking and 16% Afrikaans-speaking. In regard to pupil engineers who have just left the university, the proportion is English-speaking 83% and Afrikaans-speaking 17%. In contrast to that, I would like to give the figures of the medical service. The medical service seems to attract the young Afrikaner more than engineering. I will give you the figure.

They mean nothing whatever.

Amongst the doctors, the English-speaking are 53% and the Afrikaansspeaking 47%.

And how many Jews?

Under the surgeons and other specialists, 48% are English-speaking and 52% Afrikaans-speaking. So it is quite apparent that engineering does not attract the Afrikaner as much as medicine does. To sum up, I think I can say that the picture I have given shows very Clearly that our service is well mixed in respect of the Afrikaans and English-speaking people, and if there is any bias shown by these figures, it is a bias, if anything, against English-speaking officers and not against Afrikaans-speaking officers.

Nonsense.

I got into such trouble about not replying to questions after the last debate, that I will reply to them now. Some questions were asked that I have already replied to, and I am not going to reply to them again. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) came back to the charge about Ackermann. The hon. member read a portion of the Service Act, but he omitted to tell the House that that portion did not refer to Ackermann at all. Ackermann was in temporary employment, and the section the hon. member read out referred to permanent employees. I hope that next time he will make sure of his facts before wasting the time of the House. In regard to the circular which the hon. member alleged had been issued by the General Manger, I want to explain that that circular was not issued by the General Manager. It was issued by Mr. du Plessis, the System Manager at Johannesburg, and quite properly issued. If magistrates make any remarks that are of interest to railwaymen, it is only right that system managers should draw the attention of railwaymen to those remarks. Delport’s incident is on all fours with that of Ackermann’s only in his case he also violated an oath of secrecy. The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) wants more support from the Road Fund. What we pay to the Provincial Council is the equivalent of what we would pay as licence duties if we had such. I do not see why the Railways should be called upon to pay more for running their lorries than the ordinary private contractor pays.

The private owner owns property and pays taxes.

That may be, but we are not going to pay more licence duties than private owners are called upon to pay. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. van Zyl) referred to a big dog in the compartment. If the hon. member gives me details, I promise to go into that. Insofar as the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) is concerned, I find it difficult to understand what she said in the third reading debate in the light of what she said in the second reading debate. I am referring to the matters which she raised, in my budget speech, and I do not think it is necessary for me to anticipate this now. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) complained because certain people were refused the use of the Institute Hall. The position is that no political body is allowed the use of Railway Institute Halls. We do not allow politics in the Railway Service, and we do not allow political meetings to be held in our Railway Institutes. If anyone can satisfy the Railway Administration that they are not political, then there should be no difficulty in getting the use of the hall.

What about the Reddingsdaad?

If you do not call the Reddingsdaad Bond political, then what I know of it cannot be true. They came to see me, and I asked them some straightforward questions, bearing upon their political activities, and I never got a satisfactory reply. Until such time as I am satisfied, I must regard them as political.

You said you would not meet them at all if they are political.

Why should I not meet a political body?

I am afraid that your memory is failing you. You said that you would not meet them if they were political.

Everything Afrikaans is political.

Then the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg referred to unilingual servants. I may tell him I found that what my predecessor had been doing was quite illegal. All that I did was to change an illegal and arbitrary procedure into a legal procedure laid down by the Service Act, and that I have been carrying on ever since. Now we have a question by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen). I know how strongly the hon. member for Roodepoort feels on this question of excursions. The hon. member is usually very well informed and constructive in his criticisms and I am sorry I did not reply to him during the earlier debate. I had 61 questions to reply to and it was quite easy to miss one of them, so the fault was a physical one and not an intentional one. I do promise to give very careful consideration to the suggestion put forward, and I will welcome the advice of anyone on the question of how we should establish our excursion fare. I cannot deal with postwar planning now, and that refers to some extent to the remarks made by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside). Besides, when you come to post-war planning, I doubt whether a Minister of Railways should make a statement on behalf of the Government. This I can assure you, however, that the Railways will play their part in any scheme which the Government undertakes. I think I have replied to most of the points made by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart). In regard to the case of the 17 casuals if he will give me the details, I will have the cases looked into. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van der Berg) wants me to prove my friendship to the Afrikaans-speaking people by giving an all-round increase to the staff. I would like to emphasise this, that increases in wages are paid for by increases in rates. I am not sure whether my hon. friends on the other side would think that I am showing my friendship to the Afrikaans farmers if I proceeded to increase the rates. So if I do not increase the wages I am in trouble with the hon. member for Krugersdorp, and if I do increase the wages I shall be in trouble with hon. members on the opposite side. I again want to emphasise with regard to the questions generally, that I am perfectly prepared to hear what any member has to say about wages. I have no objection to the hon. member for Umbilo getting up and telling me I am underpaying the Railway servants, but he must not expect me to get up immediately and say “By Jove, you are right; I shall do it immediately.”

Why not?

The hon. member may do it when he becomes Minister of Railways and Harbours, but that is not my method. Any increases are always discussed with the men themselves, who are most vitally concerned, even more so than the hon. member for Umbilo. So although he raises a question to which I have no objection, the hon. member must not expect me to reply in a debate such as this as to what it will be possible to do. The hon. member for Krugersdorp referred to envelopes used in the Railways on which we urge people to use the Railways. These envelopes are old stock and we are using them up in the interests of economy. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) raised the question of spark arresters and thought that we were overrunning our engines and that there would be grass fires. I want to assure the hon. member that the spark arresters are always kept up to the mark regardless of the condition of the engine, so he need not have fear on that score. In regard to the complaint of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard), on the Cape Suburban line it is not possible to segregate the coloured people because of the social customs in the Cape itself. There is no interference with the political freedom of servants. We only circumscribe their right to go into Town Councils. Hon. members will understand that in some of the country districts if all the staff became members of their local bodies the work of the stations would have to stop while the railwaymen attend the Council meeting.

How can a responsible Minister make such a statement?

I now come to the hon. member for Umbilo. With regard to the question of sympathy shown to returned soldiers, I want to tell the hon. member that we are considering the appointment of Liaison officers to look into the matter as soon as these men return to contact the returned soldiers, go into their cases, and if there was any trouble owing to ill health it would be the business of these Liaison Officers to see what would be done to smooth out their difficulties. In regard to the Factories Act report, I have only just received the 2nd report myself and I have had no chance of looking at it, but it will be gone into. In regard to the question of railway servants who make extra money, it was suggested that there was a grave abuse of the rights which servants have in this way, and the reason why we asked for full particulars was because we wanted to check up on this. Under the law we are compelled to see that the men are whole-time servants of the South African Railways.

What about Ministers of the Crown who make extra money?

The only other point is the point raised by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys). The hon. member got very angry with me. Only yesterday I told him that I would investigate.

You told me that you would do it, and you did not.

He wanted a reply to a problem which I could only deal with this morning. Telephone calls had to be put through to Upington to find out what the position was. I do not think the hon. member can be cross with me on that score. These enquiries take time. Just in conclusion, I want to deal with the second part of this amendment to which no one has referred. I want to make it quite clear that it is the intention of the South African Railways to reiterate the Prime Minister’s undertaking that no one will be unduly pressed to join up for service, and I have got the instructions here which we propose to issue in this connection. I want to read one portion of it. I have never had a complaint from any Railway servant that he has been urged to join up when he did not want to, but I have had a number of complaints from those who wanted to join up, but were discouraged from doing so. One portion of this instruction is worded as follows—

I move, Mr. Speaker—

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—50:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander. A.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hooper, E. C.

Jackson, D.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Miles—Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

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

Noes—24:

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, C. F.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, C. R.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Olivier, P. J.

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