I move—

1. (a) fixing the minimum prices, guaranteed for the duration of the war and for a reasonable time thereafter, especially in view of the fact that the Government is to-day competing with the farmer on an extensive scale in agricultural production;
2. (b) compensating wool growers for the loss sustained by them in consequence of the average wool prices realised during the first two years of sale under the wool scheme of the Government not having reached the guaranteed level;
3. (c) fixing the maximum prices for agricultural requirements and ensuring that the farmer will obtain such requirements at reasonable prices, if necessary by paying subsidies for such requirements;
4. (d) ensuring and supplying to farmers the necessary farm labour to enable them to carry on the industry in a satisfactory manner;
5. (e) combating the blowfly and other pests more effectually; and
6. (f) safeguarding and protecting farmers in the industry.

I think that the motion I am proposing is very clear. Last year the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Forestry resented my proposing a motion in connection with the farming industry, and he said that it was peculiar that I had to be the person to propose such a motion. Why he objected to my proposing such a motion, I cannot quite understand. In the second place the Minister suggested that the motion was devoid of all truth. I consider he is the last person to accuse anybody of making an untrue statement, for if we take the promises made by the Government and review what actually happened, I do not think there is any member on this side of the House nor anybody in the country who can rely on the words of our Ministers to-day. To-day they say one thing and to-morrow or the day after they again change their policy and advocate the opposite thing and as far as the agricultural policy is concerned, I am under the impression that the Government, like Pharao, is determined to exterminate and ruin farmers and to make slaves of them in our country. In the third place the Minister stated that he could not understand not meeting any dissatisfied farmers—he only met satisfied farmers. I believe that since that time the Minister will have learnt a lesson and that he has found out by now that even among his own supporters there are many people who are dissatisfied with the policy of his department. I maintain in all seriousness that there is a large measure of dissatisfaction, and I want to ask the Minister to go even to his own constituency and address a public meeting of farmers there, not a meeting where admission is on tickets only; then he will find out that in his own constituency many farmers are dissatisfied with the policy of the present Government. I want to make it perfectly clear to the Minister of Agriculture that my criticism of the Department of Agriculture is in the interests of the farming population; I have the right to critise the department when I, as a representative of the farmers feel that a policy is being followed which is against the best interests of the farmers. When I have to do business with the Department of Agriculture I do it on sound business principles. I do not expect any favours from the Department of Agriculture and I do not expect to receive preferential treatment as compared to other farmers. I only ask that the Department of Agriculture deals with matters on purely business lines, and I trust that that is also the way in which they will treat my fellow farmers. I now want to bring a few matters to the attention of the House. I assert that its policy is a policy of deception, or if I may put is differently, of “political trickery.” This side of the House and the whole country and the whole population were told “Produce, produce!” That had to be the slogan of the farmers, but after they had produced, the farmers were left in the lurch. The Minister says that his department warned the farmers against producing perishable products. When were they warned? We were told to produce, that the country needed more food, but when was it said that we had to be careful in regard to perishable products? There are even farmers in our country who ploughed their lucerne fields because at the time they could obtain high prices for other agricultural products and the Department of Agriculture did not warn them, but encouraged them to produce more. We were told that everything we could produce would find buyers. Did that happen? Have the promises made by the Department of Agriculture been implemented? The farmers were told to produce and everything they produced would find a market, for there was a shortage of everything. On the 4th September, 1939, we heard that we had to participate in the war, as otherwise there would be no means of transport for our products and all our produce would lie and perish. What does that lie and perish story look like today? I do not want to elaborate that point. The farmers were promised a Canaan, but today we find that the farmers are in a deplorable position. In passing I first want to read out a few letters, only a few out of a large number I received. Here I have a letter dated the 18th January, 1943, and this is a letter from a person whose opinion I greatly respect, namely from Mr. P. Booysen, of Taaifontein, Post Office Bronkhorstspruit, near Pretoria. He writes—

The Minister of Agriculture will perhaps again come with the excuse that the markets fall under the Provincial Administrations. Isn’t the Government there to see to it that what is wrong with our markets, be put right? When miserable conditions prevail which depress our entire farming community, is it not the duty of the Government to put matters right? The Minister of Finance came here and exclaimed “Look how splendidly the farmers are paying off their debts.” Well, I maintain that a large section of the farmers is in a precarious position. What is the cause of so many farmers migrating to the towns? The reason is that they cannot make a living on the farms. That is why they flee to the towns. I want, however, to read something else for the edification of the Minister of Agriculture. Here is a letter reading as follows—

These are the words of people who know what they are talking about, people living on the Rand, farmers. But here I have another short letter in connection with another problem, which I want to read out—

I only want to quote these letters here to show the Minister that things are by no means as rosy as he presents them here. There is much dissatisfaction, and especially much dissatisfaction in connection with the lack of adequate control. This side of the House has always expressed itself in favour of control, but then it must be efficient control. It should not be control whereby certain people wax rich, whilst the consumers and the farmers suffer as a result. It should not be a control in virtue of which the middleman makes a 300 per cent. profit. This is a condition which we cannot tolerate any longer, and steps must be taken to put an end to it. Coming to the motion itself, I propose first of all—

Why are we demanding minimum prices? Because it is only fair to fix minimum prices, especially under existing circumstances. The Government fixes maximum prices and tells us that we must sell our products more cheaply, and when the Government encourages our farmers to produce the producers should be protected too, so that we need not, as is happening at present, give our products away after having produced them. The Minister now states that these are inferior potatoes which can be used for feeding pigs. I have already referred to the fact that first grade potatoes have been sold at 2s. 6d. and the Minister himself does pot know what he says when he tells us that these are inferior potatoes. The public certainly do not believe it, which is shown by the letters and telegrams we receive. Nobody believes it. The Government not only went out of its way to encourage the farmers to produce, but it also started competing with the farmers during the past year. I do not want to say anything about the Vaal-Hartz. The Minister says that they produced seed potatoes there which the farmers required. I do not want to discuss that, but let us look at the Pongola settlement. There the Government took more than 100 Italians in its employ. Not only that, hundreds of natives were also engaged and enticed by higher wages to go there from the neighbouring farms, and the natives were put on the Pongola scheme after the Europeans had been removed from there on political grounds. The people there were Nationalists, and they were sent to another area, and it was said that the settlement is so unhealthy that the Europeans had to leave there. The Government went there and planted 12,000 bags of potatoes. Just imagine what 12,000 bags of potatoes are going to yield. Part of these potatoes were sent to the convoys. But I say that the farmers should have supplied these potatoes, that the Government should have bought them from the farmers. Potatoes were bought from me and other farmers, but afterwards the Government sent its own supplies. Today I and other farmers are left with summer potatoes and I am given the advice to feed the pigs with them. The Government planted 12,000 bags, but not only that, the Government also planted acres and acres of onions, thus competing with our farmers, and wheat was sown and other things produced too. Is it fair that the Government should come along and compete with the farmers? I most strongly protest against the Government entering the open market. Some of the potatoes were thrown on the open market and the price of potatoes slumped.

Were Pongola potatoes put on the open market.

Yes, and if the hon. Minister is doubtful about it, I can supply him with the proofs. You tell the farmers to produce, and then you proceed to depress prices by competing yourself with the farmers. One hundred Italians and hundreds of natives were used in this competition against the farmers. I do not believe that it is necessary to dwell any longer on that point. It is quite clear. We now come to the second part of my motion—

Why do we submit this request? Because the Government did not fulfil that agreement, or rather because the farmers were treated unfairly under the agreement. We know what the results were of the agreement entered into during the last war of 1914-1918, and we know all about the many millions of profit which the British Government made out of wool. I am afraid the same position is going to arise again and our wool farmers have to suffer as a result of it. That is why we bring up this matter. When the Government enters into an agreement which is an injustice to the farmers, it is not more than fair that the farmers should be compensated. We now come to the question of agricultural implements, for I shall rather leave the wool question for discussion by the wool farmers in this House. We now come to the requirements necessary for production, the prices of which have risen enormously. This is the third point of the motion, namely that the Government, if necessary by paying subsidies, should provide for the fixing of prices for agricultural requirements on a reasonable level. I want to give a few examples. The hon. Minister will remember that in the Piet Retief district compulsory dipping is applied. I sent the Minister a telegram informing him that we could not obtain dipping materials. He replied that he would immediately take the necessary steps. His attitude was most friendly. The Secretary for Agriculture informed me that they were busy arranging with the De Beers company for the conversion of locust poison into sodium arsenate for cattle dip. They sent the locust poison to the De Beers company in order to effect this conversion. What was the result? Whereas in former times we used to pay £1 9s. 6d. for 100 lbs. of dipping material, only a week before I left my farm I had to pay not less than £5 for 80 lbs. of dip. under this Government scheme. I needed 100 lbs. but for the 80 lbs. I received I had to pay £5. This is an untenable position, a dreadful position. Somebody must be making the profit; it may be the Government which makes the profit for war purposes, or otherwise it must be the De Beers company. It should no longer be tolerated that certain people make these profits. And on top of that the farmers are accused of making huge profits. The farmers have to pay the higher prices. Those are the things which absorb all our profits; it is scandalous, and should receive the immediate attention of the Department. If the Government should not be able to reduce the price, a subsidy should be paid to enable the farmers to be supplied with dipping material, for the Minister should remember that in those parts of the country dipping is compulsory. But this does not apply to dipping materials only. Take fertilisers today. A few days ago I was in Piketberg and there a man stopped me and said that they had made application for fertilisers. The Government tells them they must produce, but these people were informed that they could not even get one quarter of the fertiliser they applied for. Where is the mighty British navy? How should the farmers produce if they cannot get the fertiliser? The result is that farmers can only sow one fourth of what they wanted to sow and the wheat crop is getting smaller and smaller. Should we be blamed when we criticise such conditions? We cannot let such things pass without comment, we cannot allow farmers to be ruined by the terrible conditions which have been created by an improper control of prices. There is no proper control. Certain things are being controlled, those produced by the farmer, but the farmer’s requirements are allowed to rise in price. I do not want to say anything more about it now, but rather proceed to the next point of my motion—

I think this point is quite obvious. The war policy of the Government caused thousands of natives to leave the farms and to walk about with the red tab, and our farmers cannot get labour today. Only this morning I saw a letter in the newspaper of a wheat farmer who writes that he cannot get labourers and that he cannot get machinery, with the result that he cannot harvest. In the interests of the country steps should be taken to recruit less natives for war purposes so that the farmers will be enabled to produce adequately. But the Government comes along and takes away additional natives from the farms and uses them on settlements, in order to compete with the farmers. That position must end. We are prepared to pay for our labourers, but the Government comes along and pays higher wages and makes it impossible for the farmers to compete. Now they even want to send natives overseas. I ask the Minister whether he believes that a red tab native will ever work on a farm again? He has been spoiled for ever. A different policy should immediately be adopted in regard to natives workers. I hope that the Government will give consideration to this matter in the interests of the farmers who form the backbone of the country. If we lose our healthy farming population, we will all suffer. The farmers have to feed the population and today also have to feed the soldiers and they have to produce fodder for the cattle, but today they are hampered in all manners. I now come to the following point—

I want to say this morning again that we in the Eastern Transvaal have been under quarantine and under cattle disease regulations practically for the last 40 years, and that we have to fight agricultural pests which the Government is supposed to combat. What did the Government do during the last two years? In the districts of Vryheid, Dundee, Piet Retief and others, the cattle inspectors were withdrawn. They had to wear the red tab, as the result of which East Coast fever spread again, so that today we are labouring under the most stringent regulations. The chief veterinary surgeon is in the camp in Pretoria, instead of doing his actual work. He wears the red tabs and draws a very high salary, but he should do his work and combat diseases. It is said that we cannot get inspectors any more. No, not under the procedure which is used for their appointment at present. How are they appointed? There are certain S.A.P. agents in the district, and if a man has not got a letter from the S.A.P. agent, he cannot be appointed. That is the position today. You can get plenty of them.

That is not true.

In my district there is old man Prengel. If you do not carry a recommendation from him, you cannot get an appointment. I know how these things are worked. The Minister should change those things. I shall give him a whole list of names of persons who would like to become inspectors, but he does not want them, for he is afraid that political persons from our side might be appointed. There are scores of young Afrikaners who are anxious to obtain the appointments, but who cannot get them. They have to be forced to join up. They have to be forced by starvation and the Saps have to get the key positions so that they can stay here and need not go to fight in the war. That is the position. As far as the combating of the pests is concerned, we see how inefficiently the Government does the work. I have the utmost respect for Onderstepoort. There we have people who are doing their utmost and are trying to find remedies, but they are not infallible either, and I think the Government should now take steps to combat effectively the pests from which our farmers are suffering. The last part of my motion reads—

I have indicated how our farmers have to struggle in order to keep going and I have pointed to the terrible conditions on our markets. The Department of Agriculture should take over the control so that the farmers may be enabled to make a reasonable living. Promises are made for the post-war period. We heard from the Minister of Finance that a sort of Canaan will be created, but those wonderful promises leave us stone cold. Nothing will come of them. We do not want words, we want to see the Government do something. Take the maize farmers. The Minister says that he is afraid there may be a large surplus. At the moment there is a drought in the Transvaal and in the Free State, just at a time when the maize requires rain. If that condition should continue, the Minister will find that instead of a surplus he will have a shortage. That will be the position. The Minister is busy counting his chickens before they are hatched. The position of the maize farmers is critical. They cannot get fertiliser to enable them to produce and the little they still can get is frightfully expensive. The prices of implements have risen in an unprecedented way, the cost of labour is very high. The Minister last year declared that the price of labour had only increased by 10 per cent. Today he will certainly no longer say that. Take the wheat farmers. Can they be satisfied? The Minister should visit Malmesbury and the other districts and find out whether the wheat farmers are satisfied. Take the dairy farmers. In a town like Durban, where there should never have been a shortage of milk, there is a very serious shortage today. The farmers can no longer feed their stock owing to the shortage of fodder. The oppressive measures of the Government with its policy of seeing the war through, is the reason why the farmers are dissatisfied today and why they advocate a change. The vegetable farmers complain bitterly. The farmers are being encouraged to produce more, but now they are saddled with their products and cannot sell them. In the sweat of their brow they have planted and harvested, but know they cannot get decent prices and other people make 300 per cent. profit on the products. That has to be stopped. No, the Government with all its promises has disappointed the country; the entire farming community is disappointed. I hope that the Minister will still wake up at the eleventh hour and try to save the farmers. The motion is very clear and I hope the Minister will accept it. We do not demand the impossible from him. I know that a Minister of Agriculture’s path is not always strewn with roses; there are many thorns in his path, but sometimes it is the person at the head of the department who causes matters to go wrong. The Minister should wake up and make reasonable concessions to the farmers, and in the future he should follow a better policy than he is following today.

I have pleasure in seconding the motion by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). I am sorry that the hon. Minister of Finance is not present today. Lately he has been referring to farming and agricultural matters so frequently that I really thought he would see to it that he was present in the House, now that we have this agricultural motion before the House. Last year a similar motion was before the House, and with the experience we have had I know at once that we may expect opposition on this occasion, especially if we take the Ministers into consideration. Finding that the Ministers consider the position of the farmers rosy, we cannot expect much from the opposite side of the House in support of this motion. Last year, the morning after the introduction of the motion, we read in one of the English papers here in Cape Town, in thick black type, that the previous day they again had to listen to the Jeremiah-stories of the farmers in the House of Assembly. But, said the paper, “we have learned to take those stories with a pinch of salt.” That was a paper supporting the Government. It is the paper of a party that professes sympathy with the farmers. But we know that we shall meet with the opposition of 99 per cent. of the members opposite when we plead here for the rights of the farmers. What actually is the position of the farmer at present? Because I particularly want to read it for the edification of the friends opposite—for I dare say that they have not yet read the annual report of the Secretary for Agriculture—I specially want to read a few extracts from this report in English. The Secretary for Agriculture says in his report:

That is what the Secretary for Agriculture tells us. But members opposite may perhaps come to the conclusion that that was the position last year, and that it does not apply to this year, and that in the ensuing year there is a tremendous expectation that the farmers are going to accumulate great wealth. Listen to what the Secretary for Agriculture says:

That is the position.

And is the Government to blame?

That is my reply to the stories about the rosy position of the farmer. I should also like to give the reply given by the Minister of Finance himself, and this also I shall read in English. This is what his words amount to according to one of his English papers—

Is the Government to blame for that also?

I am reading this because that hon. member’s friends so often refer to the hopelessness of the farmers when times become difficult in the farming industry. I continue reading

And to this the Minister of Finance added:

I hope my hon. friends opposite will at least listen to what is said by the Secretary for Agriculture, and also to what has been said here by the Minister of Finance, who clearly says here that the position of the farmers in South Africa is due primarily to the fact that every day of their lives they have to cope with difficulties. In a few cases we know of farmers who have made and accumulated a good deal of money. In many cases things ostensibly also were quite rosy. But let me say this to my friends opposite. I again quote what the Minister of Finance has said—

The remarks of the Minister of Finance were discussed by an English paper here in Cape Town, and what conclusion did that paper arrive at? The interjections coming from over there give us to understand that they are opposed to this motion, but, one of his English papers admits this, with reference to the words of the Minister of Finance—

That is to say, the farmers of South Africa are facing a very difficult time, and now that there is an opportunity, and now, while we should have had a Minister who should have been in the lead assisting the farmers to prepare them for that difficult time, now we find that we have a Minister of Agriculture whom we have to criticise. I consider this motion to be an urgently necessary one. I do hope it will not end with a discussion. I am of course taking it for granted that this House is going to pass this motion.

Those opposite also have to vote for this motion, even though they may do so only to catch votes. But I would ask the Minister of Agriculture not only to accept this motion, but also to give effect to it. It is high time that drastic and revolutionary measures were adopted to save the farmers once and for all out of this miserable position they are in. May I tell the Minister of Agriculture—however unpleasant it may be—because I know it and I admit it, and perhaps the hon. member for Wolmaransstad will also tell this to the Minister, that we know what a difficult portfolio the portfolio of Agriculture is; nevertheless, however unpleasant it may be, I have to ask the Minister whether he is aware that it is being demanded, throughout the country, that he should resign as Minister of Agriculture? His own followers are receiving telegrams from parts of the country, in which it is said: “We demand that the Minister of Agriculture should resign.” Does he know what appeared in an English paper in Natal? The Natal paper, “The Farmer”, openly railed at the Minister of Agriculture and demanded that he should go. A letter appeared in the paper in which these words were used:

And the editor of the paper appends these words:

I know the Minister’s position is very difficult. I always try to attend all the agricultural congresses, but I have never seen him at a farmers’ congress. If he were to go there and move about among the farmers, I think he might develop some sympathy with the farmers, that he will try to like the farmers and to understand their position, and then these things would not happen. Then his eyes will open to the realisation that he should try to help the farmers. We go to meetings of agricultural societies today—at the congresses the people are a bit scared to speak out because they see there a reporter from the newspapers—but if we go to the meetings of farmers’ unions, we hear the Minister of Agriculture being criticised, and I can assure him that he is criticised by his own supporters. The Minister might ask me now why he should resign. I am going to enumerate eight or so things for him. The first is the terrible confusion caused in the country because the Minister resorted to nailing down the farmers with maximum prices without also fixing minimum prices. Does the Minister realise the injustice he has done the farmers? If we go to the war of 1918, we find that raisins were sold at 12d. a lb. Now the farmers receive 3d. a lb. as a maximum price. At that time the farmers received £2 and £3 for a bag of wheat; now they receive 30s.

And that only for the very best.

At that time wool went up to 84d. per lb., and now 26d. is the maximum. I hope the Minister will consider those things. He will reply to me that we do not want the enormous inflation prices, as it would force up the price of land so much. What I am going to say now does not apply to the country as a whole, but there are parts of the country where the price of land is 25 per cent. higher than it was in the previous war when land prices were highest. I do not know whether the Minister knows that the meat trade is in a miserable state, and that 90 per cent. of it is in the hands of the Jews. The Minister will say now that there is a Meat Board which has to work out a scheme. Since I have become a member of Parliament we have been hearing that there is a Meat Board which has to work out a scheme. The farmers of South Africa have to bear the cost of it, and if all we hear in connection with the meat trade is true, then it simply is scandalous, and then the Minister ought to intervene, even though he might become a dictator. Improprieties are occurring in connection with the meat trade in South Africa, and they are going on at the cost of the farmer as well as that of the consumer. If the farmers of South Africa do not want to stand together, then I do hope the consumers will get together so that the middleman might be stopped from making that scandalous profit. I wish to come to the second point, as to why the public demands that the Minister of Agriculture should resign. That is that the Minister simply makes promises and that is all. Now he might ask me where he made promises. Let me refer to wool again. I am not going to read all the quotations from Hansard again in order to prove what promises the Minister has made. I shall merely quote these few words: The average price of 10.75d. per lb. has been finally accepted. Thus, the average price of 10.75d. was accepted finally by the British Government in its agreement with the Minister of Agriculture. That is a promise the Minister gave us, and did he fulfil that promise? I would say this to him here, that I know that he, as Minister of Agriculture, has a very difficult task in regard to this matter. I am not accusing him personally, but as a result of certain steps that had been taken, people went around in the country telling the farmers to shear only long wool. Why? Then we come to the average of 10.75d. for our wool. Last year I asked a question on the quantity of short wool shorn in South Africa. The reply was that about 250,000 bales of short wool had been shorn, which is about a quarter of our clip. I have now asked the same question, but the reply has been that it is impossible to supply me with the figures. If the Minister goes into the matter, he will see that the farmers are being dissuaded as much as possible from shearing short wool; they are encouraged to shear only long wool, so that the average price may approximate closer to 10.75d. than when more short wool is shorn. But the farmers do not let themselves be deceived so easily. If we refer to the agenda of the Congress of the Agricultural Union in 1941, we find that certain resolutions were passed with regard to the wool agreement. Those resolutions were adopted almost unanimously. I think two Fusionists voted against the motion. They did so because they were too sorry for the British tax-payers. I would also tell the Minister that the majority at that Congress were supporters of his Party, and here we have the resolution adopted by them:

And then again this Resolution:

These Resolutions were adopted twice. They were transmitted to the Minister of Agriculture, and of all the replies he gave, I would read only one—

Now the question arises: Will those profits that also have to be paid out, be taken into account in fixing the average price of 10.75d.? Here is another reply given by the Minister—

That now is the Minister who told us that the average price of 10.75d. per lb. for fat wool had been finally accepted. The Minister makes promises, and then he does not fulfil them. Can he then expect the farmers in South Africa to have faith in him? At the beginning of the year I asked the Minister of Agriculture certain questions. This side has been fighting for the last three years for an increase in the wool price, and eventually an increase of 15 per cent. took place. Australia assisted in that regard. That I would readily acknowledge, and for that we also desire to express our gratitude to Australia. We also want to thank the Minister for having eventually become convinced of the justness and fairness of our demand, and for having commended this matter to the Prime Minister to try to rectify it. The agitation on this side of the House was so great that the Minister of Agriculture could do nothing less than give way before it. That is the fact. I asked the Minister of Agriculture this simple question—

To this the Minister of Agriculture replied—

That means that this 15 per cent. will be added at the termination of the agreement in order to make up the price of 10.75d., and as against this we have the words of the Secretary for Agriculture, in which he stated that this 15 per cent. has nothing to do with the price of 10.75d. It is a grant to the woolgrowers of South Africa in view of the increase in costs of production. I hope therefore that when the Minister some day makes out the accounts of this agreement, he will in terms of his promise see to it that the farmers under this scheme receive 10.75d. on an average plus 15 per cent. as the minimum. Let me now come to the third point, as to why the Minister is asked to resign. It is because the Minister allows the Government to rob the farmers of their labour. We have already pointed it out repeatedly in this House. The Prime Minister at the time stated that recruiting should not take place in the districts. But today, the coloureds are taken in the towns, and tomorrow the coloureds from the farms go the towns. In this manner the farms are being deprived of their labour. This week I have had a case of a person in Richmond. I could mention the name to the Minister. The labourer deserted from the farm and he joined up. The man is simply unable to do a thing. Cannot the Minister act on behalf of the farmers and see to it that this kind of thing does not take place ? In a sense I cannot blame the Minister, for he has never been a farmer himself. Has he seen his wheat ripen on the lands, without him having any labour to gather the crop? Does he realise what goes on in the heart of the farmer then? Has he seen his lucerne ready for cutting, or requiring to have water led onto it because it is drying up, without having anybody to do it? But still more than that. Has he considered the position of the farmer who has been struggling hard with the blowfly plague, when he finds that nearly 50 per cent. of his sheep are afflicted with the plague, and he simply has to have the animals destroyed entirely by the maggots because he lacks the men to clean them? No, the Minister cannot realise what goes on in the heart of the farmer at such times. The people opposite cannot realise what these things mean, because they have not been farmers themselves. They do not know what the farmer has to put up with. Yet we find the Government permitting the coloureds to be recruited, and what is worse—a coloured woman is paid an allowance of £7 10s. with a maximum of £10 17s. per month, and she keeps ten or twelve others with her because they have never before lived on such a lavish scale. It is not only that the coloureds enlist, but the labourers are enticed away from the farms, and this kind of thing kindles a grudge in the heart of the farmer. I come to the fourth point. We know the Government has told the farmers that they should produce to the best of their ability. The Minister of Agriculture sent his officials about to tell the people to produce to the best of their ability, and afterwards he permitted the Government itself to compete with the farmer. Then the farmers found themselves in the position that hundreds of bags of potatoes lay rotting on the market here, and that vegetables had to be destroyed. Vegetables were destroyed by the ton, because there was no demand for those vegetables, and we all know what the condition of the potato market has been. The Minister of Agriculture nevertheless permits the Minister of Lands to continue producing in competition with those farmers. I know the Minister of Lands will say that he did not produce in order to compete with the farmers. As he stated according to his own paper—[Translation]—

That was the reply of the Minister of Lands. But what are they producing now? He has placed under irrigation from 4,000 to 5,000 morgen of land, in order to compete with the farmers in South Africa. I am not going to the extent of saying that the Minister should not have produced produce which was required for the country, and of which there was a scarcity. We have to see to it that our people have food.

Was wheat not necessary?

If wheat had to be imported, the Minister could have produced it.’ But here we have it written in his own paper, that he has produced potatoes and vegetables. It appears in “Die Suiderstem” of Tuesday, 5th May. And now we come to the acme of it all, and that is that the Minister of Agriculture’s advice to the farmers has been hopelessly bad. That is why we ask him to resign. The Minister of Lands will realise it, because I want to quote from his own paper, to indicate how hopeless the advice of the Minister of Agriculture has been. On 30th April, 1942, the Minister of Agriculture sent out some of his officials to tell the people to produce to the best of their ability. Note well the date, 30th April. They went to the constituency of the Minister of Native Affairs, and here we see it in the “Suiderstem” of the 30th April, in big black type:

That was on the 2nd May. On the 5th May we read the following in the “Suiderstem”:

And then we come to the 6th May, and we read:

On that day we also read that 15 tons of vegetables had been destroyed within nine days. How on earth the people had been able to produce so rapidly was incomprehensible to us.

From what paper is that quotation?

The last quotation is from “Die Burger”. The others were from “Die Suiderstem”. I challenge the Minister to prove to me that those reports are wrong.

But you have said that those quotations are from the “Suiderstem”, and you thought you would get away with it.

And then we come to the 8th May. The same Dr. Sims now again went out to the vegetable growers, and asked them to grow more vegetables. The report reads as follows:

That was on the 8th May. No, we cannot go on like this. I think the Minister will realise that his advice has been hopeless. The farmers of South Africa desire that when the Minister of Agriculture says something, they should be able to have complete faith in his statement, and know that they may put their all in it.

Do not mislead the House by saying that you are reading extracts from the “Suiderstem” when you are really quoting from the “Burger”.

I shall furnish the Minister with the dates of the “Suiderstem” from which I quoted and the one from “Die Burger” if he desires to have it. The next reason why we ask the Minister of Agriculture to resign is that when he makes a move he moves too slowly. Look at the position of our potato market. This is not the first time that our potatoes have lain rotting on the market. On the 6th May, 1942, already a large quantity of potatoes lay rotting here on the market, and 15 tons of vegetables had to be destroyed within nine days. I have pointed out that Prof. Sims at that time already stated that it happened at a time when vegetables usually are very scarce, or not plentiful. And he warned the vegetable growers to go slowly. Now I should like to know from the Minister what he actually did to save the position as regards the potato market Take things like agricultural implements. The Secretary for. Agriculture says in his report—and I would felicitate him on his good report—that the farmers find difficulty in obtaining agricultural machinery. But what has the Minister done to remedy the position.

Yes, you have quoted only one paragraph from his report, and why do you not also quote the next paragraph?

I will be prepared to read the whole report to the Minister. What is said in this report is well-founded. The next paragraph tells of farmers who have made money, and in that connection I pointed out that it was mock prosperity. If the Minister were to refer to the report of his own Secretary for Agriculture he will see that there was quite a good time for some farmers, but that applies to certain classes only. The Minister knows we are sitting on our farms without implements. There are thousands of windmills in the country for which we are unable to obtain spare parts, and where we still do obtain spare parts we have to pay the most exorbitant prices for it. Has the Minister intervened to see what he could do? My time is too short to go into this aspect of the matter, but we know that we are no longer able to obtain spades even. No, the Minister of Agriculture should not act so slowly when he does act. Take an article like wire. Does the Minister know that one roll of wire has already been sold at £10? Why has he not fixed a maximum price? No, for the farmers’ product a maximum price was fixed immediately, but not for things like wire. The Minister should have been aware of the position in the country. We have forced the people to fence in their farms and here in this House I have fought hard for loans to enable those people to do so. Now we have the position that a man may have fenced in seven-eighths of his farm, and even if a roll of wire costs him £10, he has to buy it in order to close the other portion. Has the Minister intervened to see what he could do? But I would refer to another matter, to show how slow the Minister is. We have been engaged in this war for 3½ years already and has the Minister during that time taken steps to assist our people to establish a woollen goods industry in the country? During such a time of war we should make a start with such an industry. It is the time to undertake big things, to establish an industry, in order that it might be well-established, so that once the war is over it will be able to resist foreign competition. Take a country such as Australia. Nearly every day there are statements on the negotiations the Australian Government is carrying on in connection with the post-war price of wool. Why should the Minister of Australia be called number one in that connection, and not our Minister of Agriculture? The seventh reason why I say the Minister of Agriculture should resign, and why the country requests him to resign, is the hopeless distribution system we have in South Africa today. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has already gone into that. I would refer to one thing only in this connection. The Minister knows that the price of first-class oranges received by the farmer has been 1s. 3d. to 2s. per pocket. There are 50, 60 to 70 oranges in such a pocket. If we travel by rail, we buy those oranges at 8 for 1s. Does the Minister know that? The price charged is simply scandalous. A profit of from 300 per cent. to 400 per cent. is made. The consumer is exploited and the producer is exploited, and the consumers should also intervene to see that this state of affairs does not continue. Cannot the Minister take drastic steps to see what he can do? Take the potatoes to which reference is so frequently made here. The retail selling price of potatoes is 2½d. per lb., and on the market first grade is sold at from 3s. to 10s. per bag. There is something wrong somewhere. Somewhere somebody is making large sums of money. It is a pity that I do not have time to indicate to the Minister where those enormous sums of money are going. He will find some of it if he goes to those people who today are buying farms in order to evade the payment of taxes. There are people who are making £30,000 and £40,000 from Government contracts. And then we come to the platteland, and we find people like the Minister of Justice who deny that there is anything wrong with our marketing system, when we point out that food is being destroyed in the country while there are people who are under-nourished and do not receive the fruit and stuff they need. I wonder whether the Minister of Justice will ever again show his face at Barrydale, and whether he and a certain Mr. Kloppers will again dare to ascend a platform there. He called me a liar there, because I said that oranges had been destroyed. I hope the Minister will rise and apologise here now, or that he will write to those people to tell them that he was wrong. I said there that fruit had been destroyed, and the Minister denied it. And now we know that 1,700,000 boxes or pockets of oranges have been destroyed, and then the Minister came along with the story that it was rotten suff that we Nationalists wanted to give to the people. Can we conceive of a responsible man saying things like that in view of all the reports we have?

We did not refer to oranges, we were referring to grapes.

No, the Minister cannot shake the matter off him in this manner. I have told of the oranges that had been destroyed, and I added that a few lorry-loads of grapes had also been buried. The Minister of Justice will not again dare to show7 his face in Barrydale. No, the position is that under the marketing system we have, the Minister of Agriculture allows people to be undernourished in the country, while food is being destroyed on the other hand. In my constituency there are many people who never see anything like that fruit, or it is a kind of luxury to them. What did the same Minister say at Barrydale? He said: Yes, it is true that 57 per cent. of our young people have been underfed, but that was not during the term of office of the present Government. The Minister knows that things are worse now, and we can only say that the country will call him to account. My time is short, and I cannot pursue this point any longer. There are one or two things I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister, with reference to which he has not shown sufficient interest. In this country we have a great problem in the blowfly. It is one of the greatest problems and from year to year we have invited the Minister to make an estimate of how much loss the farmer suffers directly and indirectly in consequence of it. I do not think the Minister of Agriculture and his Department realise the gravity of the matter. The Executive Committee of the Woolgrowers’ Association has discussed the matter and they have appointed a committee of experts to investigate the annual loss directly and indirectly caused by the blowfly plague. The position has been put more or less as follows:

We shall say approximately £l¾ million. But then we are not yet taking into account the tremendous indirect damage in the form of soil erosion that is caused. Does the Minister realise to what an enormous extent soil erosion is caused when we have to bring the sheep into the fold almost every day in order to clean them. Things are worse than previously when we had the jackal-proof.

A good farmer does not bring his sheep to the fold; he deals with them in the veld.

We can imagine the enormous damage caused in this manner. Unfortunately I cannot discuss this matter at greater length. There is something else in respect of which the Minister also has been too slow. The Minister or his Department should have known that there would be a great scarcity of fertiliser in the country. But instead of warning the farmers, they did nothing, with the result that many farmers sold their dung heaps to exploiters who went around buying up the dung heaps at ridiculous prices. In some cases they paid £200 for a dung heap out of which the purchaser subsequently made £10,000, £20,000 and £30,000.

Was it not your duty also to warn them?

When we say anything about the war, they say we may not say anything. The Minister knew what was going on. He knew what the position was with regard to shipping, and it was his duty to warn the farmers, so that they should not have suffered the loss. Had we done so, without knowing what the position was, and the people suffered loss, it would also have been wrong. My time has nearly expired, but I should like to refer to the question of maize. With regard to maize, it has already been said that the action of the Minister of Agriculture in itself is sufficient to cause the downfall of the Government. In my own constituency, as the Minister and his Department knows, there has been a very severe drought. There are farmers who have been ruined until they had nothing left. What does the Minister intend doing to set those people on their feet again? The poultry farmers and the dairy farmers are in a precarious position. I am speaking subject to correction, but in the Press it is being indicated that the poultry farmers are just about able to keep alive their birds, and the result is that eggs are being sold at as much as 5s. per dozen. Instead of those people now having an opportunity of making money, they are being handicapped in their industry. But the Minister has taken no precautions. Instead of the Minister of Lands sowing maize, rather than growing vegetables and potatoes. [Time limit.]

I had a motion on the Order Paper, but as there had been a similar motion on the Order Paper notice of which had been given by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), I had to withdraw that motion. I should just like to read this motion of mine to the House, as it stood before it was withdrawn, and then I should like to add an amendment to this motion. My motion was as follows—

And now I should like to move the following amendment in connection with paragraph (f) of the motion before the House—

Now, warnings have from time to time in this House been sounded to the Minister of Agriculture that he and the Government should keep an eye upon conditions in the country. The Minister did not heed that. The result is that we are at the moment in a state of confusion. You know, Mr. Speaker, since I have become a member of this House, I have devoted myself to the economical conditions of the farming community, and I am still doing so. I feel that we should devote ourselves more to what concerns the interests of the country, and if the Government had done so, things would not have got completely out of hand. I have told the Prime Minister here in this House that our farmers are willing to produce. We are prepared to produce on a large scale, and we are prepared to produce on an exceptional scale should there be a shortage. We were prepared to exert our energies in order to make up the shortage. But I added to that that the farmers should then be protected so that we may receive a fair and living price for our products. We do not wish to make excess profits. That has never been our object. That is not what the farmer wants. He simply wants to be in a position to make a decent living. But what has happened now? I saw something in the paper yesterday, of what is happening in America. It appeared in both the “Cape Times” and “Die Burger.” The Report read as follows—

A gigantic sum of money has been voted in America to compensate farmers for the failure of crops. It has been voted for the protection of the farming community. What have we in this country done to assist our farmers in such a contingency, more or less to protect them against failure of crops? How are our farmers being protected? You are aware of the damage suffered by the farmer from time to time. A man is engaged in reaping his wheat; a shower of hail comes along, and he simply loses everything.

When the House adjourned, I was trying to indicate the setbacks suffered by the farmers. I have mentioned instances where people have expected a large crop, and where they have even been engaged in harvesting, when a hailstorm suddenly occurs and destroys everything. I was explaining that in America the Minister of Agriculture has decided to meet the farmers who have suffered loss in this manner. In this country, however, nothing is done to assist that farmer. The Minister probably has not given thought to whether these farmers should be assisted. Today we are in this position in the farming industry, that there is a tendency on the part of the farmers to decrease their debt obligations as soon as possible. People who have gathered then-crops, have told me this year that they first want to redeem their farmers’ assistance debt, that they wish to be relieved of the mortgages pressing upon them; but unfortunately there is a certain class of farmer who cannot afford to do that, and it is our contention that that class of farmer should be assisted. We have also advised the Minister from time to time, and we have gone out of our way to give him this advice. This morning he made this remark: Why did the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) not warn him in time? But we have always been warning, and I and other members on this side, last year prophesied that these things would happen. I hold the Minister in fairly high esteem, because he does not become angry when one tells him something, and he takes it in a good spirit. But the trouble is that he receives wrong advice. He takes the advice of his officials, who do not have personal knowledge of conditions in the country. I should like to give the hon. the Prime Minister a little advice here. I do not know whether he will take it, but I should advise him to make changes in his Cabinet. There should be people in that Cabinet who are conversant with conditions in the country. We notice that the Report of this Planning Council is not in favour of the Government’s policy. It is entirely in conflict with the interests of the country, and you will see the setback after this war. You will see unemployed, and whatever the position may be today, it is necessary to take account of what passes. There certainly is money in this country; money is plentiful and cheap. Why does the Minister not utilise this cheap money to help the farmers out of their difficulties? Other countries are doing so; for instance, Australia does so; New Zealand does so; everybody does so, but in this country there is no policy aiming at the future. No, the Planning Council’s report is a report that indicates that the policy of this Government is unable to solve the intricate questions regarding the farming industry. It is a very serious matter, and it is a matter the Government should tackle at once. The Minister is aware of what is happening; he sees the difficulties in the country; he has asked the farmers to produce. Incidentally I should like to mention the price of milk. Look what it costs a man today to deliver milk. The price of milk today is 2s. 8d. per gallon for the consumer. The poor farmer receives 9d. per gallon of milk. He has to take all the trouble to produce the milk. He has to cope with droughts, he has to feed his cattle, he has setbacks, he has to cope with cattle diseases, and he receives a meagre sum of 9d. per gallon and the consumer has to pay 2s. 8d. per gallon. Take the price of beer. The breweries receive 6s. 8d. per gallon. What risk do they run? They are manufacturers, they hire their employees, and they sell the beer. Beer is not a food for the people. I know that most of the hon. members in this House of course do not drink beer, because they know it is not good nourishment, but all of them probably drink milk. Compare the position of the manufacturer with that of the dairy farmer, who receives 9d. per gallon, while the consumer has to pay 2s. 8d. Is that fair? Every man, woman and child in this country could receive enough milk at a reasonable price, but the farmer is not protected. Why cannot the Government impose a higher tax on beer? Whisky, we are told, is no longer obtainable in the country. That is a good thing. At one time I also drank whisky, and then I was told that I should not drink it as it was a foreign commodity. Here is my amendment. I propose that the poorer people should be provided with land. I have here a letter I received from a man who was a farmer for many years. He worked himself up as a farmer, and now he has the money to buy land, but he simply is unable to procure it. Land is unobtainable in terms of Sections 10 and 11 of the Act. What are the poor people, who are landless, to do? That is one of the greatest difficulties facing us today, and it is one of the reasons why so many people flock to the cities, simply because they are unable to obtain land. There are many people in Johannesburg who have flocked from the farms; there are many in Pretoria, and there are many in Cape Town; all those people are people who could no longer make a living in the country, and they have resorted to the cities. The Government’s policy today is that no land is to be allocated, for they want to give the land to returned soldiers. In the Transvaal there are thousands of morgen of land for purposes of speculation, and here the poor man comes along and he is unable to procure a small piece of land. We are playing with fire. Those people, who come from the platteland, are going to get out of hand. They are not educated and equal to work in the cities. They haven’t the necessary training. Today the Minister of Lands says there is no land obtainable. He says that land may only be had on unwanted farms. But all of us know that if one has to make a beginning on an unwanted farm, one has no hope of making a success of it. No, we should help the people to obtain the best land, and today there are many families who are without land. Who is flourishing today? The Minister of Finance has been asked that question here, and he stated that all is well; he said so many farmers are paying back, and everything is very fine. As I have said, the farmer desires to lessen his burdens, but that certainly does not mean that he is in a prosperous position. Actually the position is that the farmer is not flourishing. The people who are flourishing today are those who possess land they cannot use. They let that land at high prices. I know of one case where a farm of 300 morgen had been purchased. Now the poor man who hired it has to pay £200 per year for it. Nothing has been done by the Minister to put a stop to this sort of thing. It is exorbitant profits. Take the requirements for our farming industry. At present we are simply unable to obtain them. I want to tell you an instance of chains. In the past we used to buy these chains at 2s. 6d. per chain. Now they are charging 5s. a chain. I have reported the matter, and they say it does not fall within the fixed price system. Here we have an instance where 100 per cent. profit is made at once. The farmer gets no protection. It has been said: “If you produce we shall see to it that you receive a fair price; we shall protect your interests, and we shall see that you have cheap material.” But we are not getting it today. I would appeal to the Minister to try to help these people to obtain land. I cannot add anything to what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has said. He stated everything in a very competent manner. He has reported the nature of the actual position on the platteland, and if the Minister heeds that, he will not be able to reproach us again for not having given him advice. We give it again, and I hope he will wake up now and accept the good advice given him by the Opposition. If he does that, his difficulties will be 90 per cent. less.

It gives me pleasure to second that little amendment and it fits in with our proposal. We on this side of the House will adopt this amendment together with our proposal. The favourable circumstances of the farmers are always being spoken about. I just want to tell our friends on the other side of the House that the circumstances of the farmer in South Africa are very critical of late. They forget all the droughts which there were, for instance, in the North West; they forget the great losses suffered by the farmers there. But we do not want to criticise only. We also want to show them how to rectify matters. It is said that we only criticise and that we never offer a solution for the difficulties. We on this side of the House tried to give the Minister of Agriculture guidance during the last few years. He has never listened to us. There is one thing which appears to be very strange to us and that is the fixing of maximum prices. The fixing of these maximum prices proves to us that the Minister and his Department are engaged in protecting the middelman against the small farmer and that is why maximum prices are being fixed. If you are fixing maximum prices then you must at the same time also fix the minimum prices. What happens to the maximum prices to-day? The farmer does not derive any advantage from it. If the price of the farmer’s potatoes is fixed at, say, 15s., then it still does not help him anything, because the middelman and the speculator come along and buy those same potatoes for 5s. or 6s., and the consumer still has to pay the same price. To-day the consumer has to pay 1s. for 7 lbs. of potatoes notwithstanding the fact that those potatoes are lying at the market and rotting. It is being sold at 2s. 6d. a bag. If the Minister wanted to protect the farmer and not follow this capitalistic policy, then he would definitely have fixed minimum prices for the farmer: he would have fixed a minimum price of 12s. 6d. for potatoes. If the Minister expects the farmer to produce then he should also see that they are protected. In this matter the farmer is not protected. The farmer is being told that he must produce. Who for? For the middleman to make these big profits. On the one side the consumer is being exploited and on the other side the farmer is being impoverished. I say that if maximum prices are fixed then there should also be minimum prices. That is our policy. We want to appeal to the Minister to fix those prices for the protection of the farmer. If we do not get it then our Boards do not mean anything today. I want to ask the Minister if his Boards have not already, appealed to him to fix those minimum prices in order to protect the producer; have not the Agricultural Societies already made an appeal to him to fix minimum prices? The Agricultural Union suggested its own Boards and advocated the fixing of minimum prices. I should like to ask the Minister to what use he has put the Board of Producers? This Board of Producers is after all only a smokescreen behind which the Minister covers his policy. It only serves as a mouthpiece in order to keep the farmers satisfied. It has no mouthpiece. I should like to ask the Minister when last his Board of Producers met. It was last year. Does that Board exert any influence on the Minister; no, by the Controller of Foodstuffs and the Minister himself is Controller of Foodstuffs. Previously we blamed the Controller of Foodstuffs but now we have to place all the blame on the Minister because he himself is Controller of Foodstuffs. What counsel did the Minister obtain from the Board of Producers during the past year? I say again that it is only a smokescreen. We are not satisfied with the composition of that Board. Permit me to say, that we are not against the principle of control; in fact we are in favour of it, but we are also not in favour of this Arthur Barlow kind of agitation which is being made to kill Boards. Naturally he wants to set the middleman at liberty so as to make his profits again as in the past. We have two dangers now. There is the Arthur Barlow type wanting to kill our Boards and on the other side we have the Minister who wants to kill the Boards with his maximum prices whilst he neglects to fix minimum prices. The farmers have a right to a proper existence and whilst the farming community is the backbone of the country the Government has to see to it that they are afforded this protection. We ask that there should be a Board of Producers as well as a Board of Consumers. Why have those Boards been appointed in other countries? From time to time we have urged the Minister to bring such Boards into existence. There should be a proper Board of Producers and not a conglomerate of a Board where there are only a lot of middelmen who are only working in their own interest, and who are doing their utmost to make that Board a laughing stock in the eyes of the public and in that manner finally destroy it. It is as a result of the fact that we have middelmen on these Boards that we experience all these difficulties to-day. What we want is a Board of Producers on which only farmers should have a say. We are also not against the fact that there should be a Board of Consumers: the consumers also have a right to exist and in their interest they can have a Board of Consumers. Consequently if you have a Board of Producers and a Board of Consumers a proper Board may be constituted out of those two Boards; then you have the two sections together which are apart to-day. Then you will break this overtrading as the English call it. It is that overtrading which has to be eliminated, and I want to tell the Minister that as long as his Boards are constituted as they are today you will never be in a position to protect your producer as well as your consumer. We produce a Board which will consist of the two interested sections, and then we feel that the Minister did not pay any attention to what we said about storage places. As regards storage places, we have to have a proper Board which possesses the necessary powers. But, who are in possession of the places of storage today? These places of storage are today in the hands of the middleman, and the farmer is unable to store his products properly if he has no storage place. Who has the great mealie stores today? The speculators, and they control the prices because the farmers have no places of storage which they should have. In Australia the position is quite different. The Government there provides cold storage; the Government provides grain stores, where the farmer can store his produce and it is from these grain stores that distribution can be made satisfactorily. In this country we have a conglomerate of systems, a system which has become discredited. No wonder the Minister is being asked to resign. It is because there is no system in this country, because there is no policy, and there is no future for the farmer under this system. We ask here for minimum prices for the duration of the war and for some time thereafter. Are we not entitled to it? Without the food produced by the farmers the Government cannot wage a war. The farmers are being neglected and nothing effectual is being done for them. Maximum prices have been fixed but it does not improve matters if maximum prices are fixed without fixing any minimum prices. We ask that there should be a minimum price for the duration of the war and for a short while thereafter. Then the farmer will know if it is worth his while to produce. Let us look at the price of wheat for a moment. We so often hear that the price of wheat has been fixed at 30s. It is not true. The average price obtained by the farmer is 26s. and not 30s. The miller who makes all the profits, comes along and says: But you are getting 30s. for your wheat. I say it is a comedy; it is absolutely untrue. There is a very big difference between the prices obtained by the producer and the price paid by the consumer and these big profits all go into the pockets of the millers. We hear that it is not so, but I want to ask the Minister that these millers should be remunerated in a similar manner as in other countries, e.g. Australia. The miller there is allowed 3s. per bag for milling and distribution. We do not want to eliminate the middelman, but we want to curtail his profits. We want him to be kept at a certain margin. We are not there to kill this man but at the same time we also want to see that the farmer and the consumer are not exploited. In Australia the miller is paid a certain price. If he is unable to do the milling for that price then the next man gets the right to do the job, and in this way the producer and consumer are protected. Our marketing system and composition of our Board in this country are absolutely rotten and of no value whatsoever to the farmer. I also want to say that we are not there to kill the Board but that we want to create a better Board system than the one that we have today. As long as we are leaving our meat, for instance, in the hands of the Imperial Cold Storage we are in the unhappy position that we shall never know where we are. Our point of view is that the Government should take over all Cold Storages; take away all the markets from the Provincial Councils and see to it that we are provided with a proper marketing system. And if they fail to do this then they do not care about the health of the people; then they do not care for the prosperity of the people but only look after the speculator who flourishes in this war. We have told them before what to do but it is useless to speak. They think that no one sits on their side who think as we do, but the truth of the matter is that they are being smothered in the caucus.

It is not true.

They do not differ from us, but they are smothered beforehand in the caucus. In the absence of any stores there cannot be any distribution system which is satisfactory, and that is why we insist that the Government supply us with cold storages and then only can we create a proper distribution system. We had discussions here about the mealie position and there were friends from the Transkei who said that the natives nearly died of hunger. It is because of the fact that we have no policy or system in connection with distribution. If we had a proper distribution system it would never have happened. Then it would not have been necessary for the Minister of Railways and Harbours to take three or four weeks in order to convey mealies a hundred miles by rail. We should have had stores in the Karroo and other dry parts and also in the Transkei where the people in the vicinity could have obtained their mealies. It is as clear as daylight what should be done. But we do not get it from this Government and from that Minister. All we got is a state of chaos. I want to reiterate that it is the duty of the Government to have a proper agricultural policy. It is the duty of the Government to bring into existence a proper marketing system. It does not assist the Minister only to have one thing in view and that is to provide the people with cheap food. If he does that in the manner he is busy with now then he digs a grave for the farmers in order to supply cheap food to the industrialists so that it does not become necessary for them to increase the wages of the workers. It is the farmer who has to pay for it now. No, there must be chaos in order that the industrialists can buy cheap. It is not only they but there are other commercial sections who only want us to produce more and more so that they can buy cheap. The farmer has the same right to live as any other person. In order to achieve this, we, on this side of the House, composed a firm agricultural policy, and I maintain that that agricultural policy is something that can be executed. It is an agricultural policy that has been studied and which has taken some time to compose and which has been built up together with our agricultural unions. We on this side of the House are not afraid to go to the country with this policy and I am convinced that the country will follow us 100 per cent. in order to accomplish that policy. It is not what the Prime Minister has termed, only an election song. Two years ago we formed into groups and worked in the interest of the farmer. We had the assistance of the best brains in the country to help us in order to provide a proper farming system for our country. Not only did we have the assistance of those people but we also had the assistance of people who had experience of farming and who made a study of the subject. In this connection I should like to know from the Minister where the Schutte report is in connection with the meat trade. After Dr. Schutte returned from the Argentine he compiled a proper report on our meat trade. Where is that report? No it did not suit the wholesale dealers and big capitalists and that is why it cannot be published. Dr. Schutte compiled his report with the interest of the country in view, but it did not suit those gentlemen. Had they followed the Schutte report at the time we would have had a proper marketing system for meat and not this state of chaos that we now have. In connection with this we have to discuss the question of cold storage, But the Government did not provide for it and the only thing that we got was confusion and nothing else. We asked the Minister of Agriculture also to fix minimum prices so that the farmer may know where he is. Fix the price of meat, butter, wheat, meal, and similar things for five years and then both the producer and consumer will know where they are. But we know that the Minister of Agriculture does not want to hear of this. He refuses to take into consideration the production figures. Assuming the farmer gets 15s. per bag for his mealies then the price may still be economical for him because he had a bad year. In the event the crop was better and he only received 12s. 6d. then he would have been better off. Consequenty we say that the Minister should fix the price for a period of five years in order that the gain of the one year may balance the loss of the other year. But the Minister has aboslutely no policy and it is hopeless to ask him te tell us what the policy of the Government is, because they have no policy to give us. Take for instance the position with the pedigree stock. The pedigree register came into existence under an obsolete law which has been passed twenty years ago. People improved their stock but they still sort under a law which was passed twenty years ago and the Minister never gave it a thought to correct the matter. No, there is no policy, not even as far as it concerns pedigree stock. Also as far as general stock breeding is concerned they have no policy. Take our Agricultural Colleges. There is no such thing as the study of heredity. The farmer makes a success of his stud animals because he has a purpose for which he has been striving for years and years. But does the Department of Agriculture do something in that direction? They have experts and some of them are donkeys, but take those who are really experts. Such a person stays at an Agricultural College for some time, he makes certain experiments, and is then transferred to another place. If the Government has a good man for stock breeding it should not happen to him, because he should be afforded an opportunity to attain some purpose with his breeding and then he will be in a position to study heredity. We find today that a farmer starts with a few hundred pounds but because he knows the breeding animals and he has a certain purpose in view he makes a success of it. We always asked the Minister of Agriculture to be more practical in his Department and with the Agricultural Colleges. There are good people in his service, but they do not achieve much in the practical direction. Young people are being sent to the country as extension officers. They have a simple University Degree. How are they to give a lead in those districts? It is not their fault; it is the policy that has to be blamed, but those people make mistakes and it takes years and years to correct things again. Many of these people are not capable of doing the work because they did not have the correct training. It would be a good thing if the Minister would think about these things and if he would do as they do in Australia. There they select a practical farmer who has made a success of his branch of farming and they bring him to the Agricultural College to lecture on the practical side of farming. Here we have nothing of the kind. I am very sorry to say it, but the Minister’s Department consists chiefly of people without any practical experience but of theoretical people and our farmers are becoming afraid of those theoretical people. We have already experienced cases where they have given very bad guidance, and I really think that the Minister should be a little more practical in his Department. What are the consequences of this absence of policy in South Africa? The result is that many farmers became poor whites. I do not want to speak about wool again,, because I hope to speak about it at a later occasion, and then to tell the Minister a little about his foolishness. At this stage I only want to point at the money which farmers lost during the first two years of the agreement. I assume that this agreement has now been concluded. That contract was based on an average price of 10.75d. for fatty wool. It has now been altered because there was an increase in the price. The British Government admitted that the price was too low, and we received an increase of 20 per cent. on this type basis. When I told the Minister and his Department that we cannot get a fixed price on the type basis, they told us that we will get more. It simply boiled down to the fact that the farmers had to hand over all the powers into the hands of the buyers and that the producer had no say in the matter. If the farmer wanted to complain, then he had to go to the buyer, the very man against whom he had the complaint. I will admit that the members of the British Wool Commission are honourable men, but they are buying for the British Government and they are human. If they are making mistakes then it will be mistakes in the interest of the British Government and not in the interest of the farmer. I wonder which wonderful expert was present who gave the Minister the advice to come to the agreement on the type basis. Whoever they may be, they certainly made the farmers lose millions of pounds with this foolish scheme which the Minister of Agriculture accepted. Had the Minister remained on the 10.75d. basis, as it was done in Australia, then our farmers would have been £1¼ million better off on the first clip. What would £1¼ million in the pocket of the farmer have meant to him. Just put it at £1 million—it is the interest on £20 million. The Agricultural Department and its experts should not play with the farmers like this. We can appreciate what this additional money would mean to the farmer. The British Government has now admitted that we have suffered a loss in South Africa. But what I cannot understand is why the Minister of Agriculture in South Africa refuses to supply us with figures as regards the proceeds of our wool clip. Has it ever happened in the history of South Africa? I wrote to Australia for the figures produced by their clip and they are sending them to me. But here in South Africa we are not entitled to get it. Why not? Because the Minister of Agriculture knows what a fool he was and what foolish business he has done for the wool farmers generally, and because he does not possess the courage to admit that he has made a mistake and does not promise that he will try to rectify the mistake. No, he wants to conceal it and he tells us that the prices will be fixed over the whole war period. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard of such a foolish thing? We have now received an increase of 20 per cent. on the type basis and the Minister cannot fix it so as to arrive at the old price basis. It is a new contract which has just been concluded. I want to know from the Minister how much money we have lost as a result of his negligence to accept this 10.75d. basis as it was done in Australia instead of making it a type basis. We ask him to reimburse us for what we have lost under this contract which, I presume, has now been terminated. If the Minister is unable to give the money to the farmers now, then he can invest it against interest and on conclusion of the war pay it out to the farmers. Then I come to the dairy industry. Here we have a similar comedy. The dairy farmers are unable to obtain forage for their cattle. They have been told that after February they are unable to obtain mealies for their cattle. But what baffles me completely in connection with this business is that the Dairy Board has now gone and reduced the price of butter fat by 4d. a lb. Have you ever heard of such a silly thing in all your life? It is now a time of food shortage and the price has to be maintained, and why reduce the price of butter fat by 4d.? It seems wonderful to me. Is it possible that a Minister of Agriculture could allow a thing like that? He cannot escape liability, because he holds the veto in his hands. We know that the Control Boards are always belittled. But there sits the man who holds the veto, the man who makes the mistakes and who is playing into the hands of the big capitalists. He is the man who has it in his power to show the right direction and to give us a proper system. But it seems as if his brain is a little fogged. I do not want to say that he is asleep and also not that he is the worst Minister of Agriculture we have had. We may perhaps get one that is worse, if we have to look for him on the other side. But with the powers which we have given to that Government, the Minister could have had within one month a practical system and a proper system. But he is clutched in the hands of the wholesale dealers who are sitting behind him, with the result that he is only using his veto in the interest of the rich capitalists, and the farmer must see how to get along. The dairy farmers are cross. I have here a telegram which I received from Natal. The Minister has already had such a hard time that I cannot read this telegram of the dairy farmers to hit him even more hard.

You may read it with pleasure.

No, we are a little sorry for the Minister notwithstanding the fact that he is playing into the hands of the capitalists with his veto rights. But I want to say this, that those dairy farmers are furious and they are asking where the policy of the Government is. Here we have a Minister with powers such as were never possessed by any other Minister. But he does not do anything. We have now had a beautiful opportunity to develop a wool industry in our country. The Industrial Development Corporation came along and told us that they will advance £250,000 against our £250,000 in order to start such an industry. The wool farmers came together—there are 22,000 of them—and asked the Minister what we should do. Once again he is frightened by a few political agitators at Adelaide—and after all they are Dominionites. He is frightened by those jingos, and he, the man with the veto power, does not take sides with the people in the country. He has powers under the Emergency Regulations, and why did he not put the matter through? The wool farmers would have been thankful. No, there he sits and is afraid of the wholesalers who are playing such a big part on his side. He had every opportunity to do something but did not do anything. He sacrificed the interests of the wool farmers in the interests of the big industrialists. They are the people who are flourishing today. No, we have a rotten agricultural policy today and the sooner the Minister puts things in order the better for South Africa; and the sooner that Minister and his Government remove themselves the better it will be for South Africa—especially for the farmers of our country.

I rise to reply briefly to the attack made on me by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in connection with the settlement at Pongola. He attacked me and said that I took the settlers away from Pongola against their wishes, and that I did so for political reasons. He also said that I perhaps took them away from there because they were Nationalist boys. I think it is necessary that I explain the position to the House, in order that the House may understand what the position of Pongola was when in 1939 I took it over from the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. At that time the settlement cost the State £529,000 as the capital cost. There were 22 boys at the settlement. Let me explain that the settlement had been founded for unmarried people, because it was considered to be too unhealthy to send people with families there. Unmarried young men were therefore sent there to be trained as probationer settlers, to be passed out to other settlements subsequently. When I took over, the number there was 22, and the amount asked for during that Session of Parliament for administrative purposes in connection with the Pongola-settlement, was £95,600 for that year. That would have been the cost of the settlement. For 22 boys the capital expenditure amounted to £529,000 and the running expenses £95,600, that is costs in connection with the administration for that year. There was a boarding-house there, for only unmarried young men were to go there. The boarding-house had been established for a much larger number than the 22 boys. When I took over, there was not a single boy in the boarding-house. They had some of the officials in there, but the boys were spread over the settlement. Some of the 22 boys had already been married, and had one or two children. That was the position of the settlement when I took over. Now I ask the House whether it would have been reasonable of me to carry on like that with public moneys—£529,000 had been applied to capital expenditure, and £95,000 as running expenses for the year, and that for 22 boys.

How many are there now?

I took them away from there. And then the hon. member for Wolmaransstad suggests that I took the people away for political reasons. Is the position not perhaps just the opposite? The hon. member has stated that all of them were Nationalists—he knows it is. Did he then select Nationalists only? Did he concern himself only with selecting Nationalists? And now he accuses me of having taken them away for political reasons. No, it is just the opposite. That enormous amount of capital money, together with that colossal running expenditure on 22 boys, I say, according to the statement we have had from the member, had been kept going by the Minister of Lands of the time for political reasons, because he knows that only Nationalists had been selected; and instead of accusing me of having taken them away from there, for political reasons, he has accused himself of that.

But at that time he was a Minister of the United Party Government, and why should he have selected Nationalists?

He has told us that the boys there were all Nationalists. What have I done now? I have given those boys first-class treatment in accordance with the agreement they had with us. I did not inquire what their political views were. Also I did not send them against their wishes. I sent them to Loskop where they have a first-class living and where they are happy. They were glad to go there. Now I come to the charge laid against me by several members on the opposite side, that I have grown large quantities of potatoes on the settlements, and sent them to the open market in competition with the farmers. No, not a quarter of the 12,000 bags has been thrown on the market.

You planted 12,000 bags.

I do not deny that. But to suggest that I threw those potatoes on the market in competition with the farmers, that is not true. A small quantity of the potatoes from Pongola went to the markets of Pietermaritzburg and Durban. It was a small quantity, and we put those potatoes on the market at a time when the market was absolutely empty, and the prices we received for the potatoes, prove that the market must have been empty at the time, for the prices were high.

When was that?

I am unable to tell the hon. member now which month it was, but it was in the course of last year.

How much potatoes was it?

It was a small quantity that came onto the market, and I say that at that time the market was empty, as proved by the prices we received. No, we did not throw our potatoes on the open market, but I wish to tell my friends something else. All the potatoes we grew there, we used for the convoys, for military supplies and for the prisoners-of-war camps.

And is that not competition with the farmers?

The farmers were not able to supply the potatoes. The farmers will again have a shortage. In any case, at that time they were unable to supply the demand, and I would only repeat that we never competed with the farmers. But I wish to tell the hon. member for Wolmaransstad something else. Whereas in September, 1939 the capital liability on Pongola was £529,000, we were able, in consequence of what we did in growing potatoes etc., to reduce the capital liability from £529,000 to £390,000 in the course of the year.

And that was at the expense of the farmer.

I am very anxious to impress that fact upon the House. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad cannot get away with his misleading assertions, and when I reply to them, they try to shout me down from over there. I wish to say something else. As a result of the lack of shipping space, it was impossible for the farmers to obtain sufficient seed potatoes, but Pongola was able to supply them with those seed potatoes. Pongola provided 6,000 bags of seed potatoes for the farmers. And I might tell you that at present there are 4,000 boxes of seed potatoes which we shall plant in order that we may be able once again to supply seed to the farmers.

Yes, and for that reason I am unable to obtain any imported seed potatoes.

I say there are 4,000 boxes of seed potatoes on the water, and we are going to plant those seed potatoes simply for the purpose of seeing that the farmers have sufficient seed potatoes for the next season. If we do not do so, they will not be able to plant next season. We are providing for that. That is what Pongola is doing to safeguard the farmers. I come now to my hon. friend the member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), who is not in his seat. He stated this morning that there are people who are making colossal sums of money out of the military contracts they hold.

It is some of the pots and pots of money referred to on the opposite side.

Let me tell him this, on that side over there, there are also members who are making pots and pots of money out of such contracts. Just ask the hon. member for Wolmaransstad whether he does not also have such contracts with the military.

Of course; why should I not enter into such contracts.

If it is true that people are making large sums of money out of Government contracts, then I say there are many of them sitting over there who also make pots and pots of money out of the war situation. They condemn us because people are making money out of contracts to supply the military, and here the hon. member for Wolmaransstad has to admit that he also has contracts with the military. But I proceed, and I should like to come a little closer to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad who has had objections with regard to Pongola. He has bought a farm at Pongola, and now he wants water from us. He has come to us and asked us to supply him with water, for the Government says we must produce, and he wants to help.

Is that not so?

But wait a bit. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad has bought that farm from a man who came to the previous Government, of which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was Minister of Lands, and asked for water, and it was refused to him. Now that he has bought it, he comes to us and wants water, for, he says, we said he should produce.

What is wrong with that?

Your Government refused to give that man water, and now that you have bought the farm and we are engaged in a war to which you are opposed, now you wish to help. We have to give you the water and buy the produce from you. The hon. member has weighed with two scales, one for the other man and one for himself. I told him: All right, we shall give you water for 50 morgen. He had not been away for three months—and as far as my knowledge goes, he had not yet set a plough to the ground—when he returned and desired water for 50 morgen more. I then said: No, I am sorry, but I can not let you have water for 50 morgen. Then he turned round and insulted me, and said that this Government makes false promises, that we are misleading the people—because we are unwilling to supply him with water. That is what that member has done, and then they over there talk about honesty and sincerity.

Is there anything irregular in that? Don’t I pay for the water?

And the other man to whom you refused water, would not he also have paid for it?

Order! The hon. Minister must address the Chair.

Are they people who may talk about honesty towards the people and of misleading the people? The hon. member is the last man to talk about that, for no one has misled and deceived the people as he has.

The hon. Minister must withdraw the word “deceived”.

All right, I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that at the time when the guns were commandeered, he advised the people …

The hon. Minister must confine himself to the motion before the House.

All right, Mr. Speaker, I shall not talk about that. I only wish to state that on that occasion the hon. member also misled the people, and he is the last man to lay those charges and allegations against us that he did. Before I sit down I should like to say a word to the hon. member for Victoria West. He ceremoniously came to his feet here with a whole lot of newspaper cuttings, and told us that he was going to read from “my paper”, meaning thereby “Die Suiderstem”. He turned over one cutting after the other, and read what was in “Die Suiderstem”, and he continued until he read out of “Die Burger” also, without telling us that he was doing so. Had I not interjected and asked him from what he was reading, he would have got away with it. He gave this House the impression that he was reading from “Die Suiderstem” while he really was reading from “Die Burger”. Methods like those evoke suspicion and make it ironical that those members then lay charges of misleading and the furnishing of inaccurate information. Solmenly he read from those cuttings, as if they were from “Die Suiderstem”. I rose only to reply to the question of Pongola and the potatoes, and I hope I have done so conclusively.

The hon. Minister of Lands who has just sat down has already been labelled by his own political party as the man who has attained the first prize for the most stupid speech. I fear that, after the speech he has just delivered, he will get the first prize again. He declared here that he and his department were not competing with the farmer and the reason which he gave is that he only wants to make provision for the convoys, for the military and internment camps as well as for the prisoner-of-war camps by means of the settlements. Now I should like to ask him whether that is not also the farmer’s market? It ought to be the farmer’s market and he competes with the farmer by depriving the farmers of that market. The promise opposite was that they would not compete with us. But we know that the Government is doing so and to what level has our potato market dropped. The Government still is on our market now. No, the Government does not fulfil the promises it makes to this House and to the people. Last year when we were discussing this question we requested that also in this case a minimum price should be laid down. The Minister of Agriculture has only laid down maximum prices and in some cases a fixed price, and we requested here that also minimum prices should be laid down. What was the reply? The Minister of Agriculture declared that he was not going to lay down minimum prices, but he added that he was going to treat the farmers fairly and reasonably. Did he do that? Allow me to read a telegram I have received from the Ventersdorp Farmers’ Association—

The people are reasonable. The Minister had promised that he would treat the farmers fairly and reasonably, and now my farmers have to send me that telegram. We cannot tell those farmers that they are lying. The position of the potato farmers is critical. And I am asking the Minister: Give me an answer, what has become of your promises?

The hon. member must address the Chair.

Alright, Mr. Speaker, and I hope it will be applied to everybody. The position is, that the position of the potato farmers is critical, and now I ask the Minister: Where is your equity and fairness towards the farmers whose potato market we have brought down to the level it is at today? Dou you know that the price of potatoes had been from 1s. to 10s.? The lowest price is not even the cost of the bag. Then there is railage in addition. And then the Minister told us last year that he is going to treat us reasonably. Is that reasonable and fair towards the farmers; would the Minister first like to see the farmers go under before he steps in? As the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) and the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) have declared, the Minister is a good man, but he is as slow as a snail. No, those farmers feel themselves orphans today. We in this House who represent farmers, and who are farmers, feel that we have no Minister of Agriculture. He is a Minister for the consumers and for them only. The reason why I am saying this is this: The Minister laid down only maximum prices, and determined fixed prices but not minimum prices. The principle of maximum prices has been accepted, and what do maximum prices mean? It is nothing but protection for the consumer, but no protection for the producer. The Minister would not step in to lay down minimum prices also and that means that we do not have a Minister of Agriculture who represents our farmers. Take the position last year. I received £1 15s. for a bag of potatoes. Then the Minister intervened and laid down the maximum price at £1 5s. That meant that I lost 10s. per bag, and I am of opinion that the farmers lost it too. It means that those farmers suffered a loss of thousands of pounds. And for whose benefit were those maximum prices laid down? It was for the consumer. But is was not meant to be a protection for our producers. Today the same farmers who could have obtained £1 15s. at that time, are receiving as little as 5s. per bag of potatoes. Why does the Minister not step in now? Does he want to wait until the people have gone bankrupt and then step in? It will be too late then. That is why I say that the Minister of Agriculture is not there for the protection of our farmers, but he is there for the protection of the consumers. I mentioned at a previous occasion here that the Minister laid down a fixed price, viz. 15s. per bag, for maize last year. It meant that our farmers lost about £8 million as a result of that price determination. That is what the Minister robbed us of, and then he pretends to be Minister of Agriculture. That is why I say that the farmers, the producers of the country, are orphans. We have no Minister of Agriculture. We do have a Minister who sits there and makes promises, but promises which he does not fulfil. I want to repeat that he said here in this House last year that he would see to it that the farmers receive equitable and fair prices for their products. I made the interjection: “What is an equitable and fair price?” and he answered:—“Leave that to me.” I had a certain degree of confidence in him, and I left it to him.

And do you still have confidence in him?

No, I have not. I left it to him. But now that he permits the potato farmers to go under, how can I longer have confidence in him? That is why motions of no confidence are moved at several places at meetings of the farmers’ associations and he is told to make room for another Minister. But I doubt whether we shall be able to find anyone on the other side of the House that is better than he is. No, what I feel at this moment is this. Take our implements. I as farmer can hardly obtain parts for my cultivators. I cannot get shares, and I cannot cultivate my lands properly. What is the result? The result is that my maize, which should have been properly cleaned, is today practically unweeded, and cannot resist the drought. Why is that? Because I cannot get parts for my implements.

You are too good a farmer; I cannot believe it.

Yes, I may be a good farmer, but the Minister cannot convince me that I am a good smith as well. Were I a good smith, I might perhaps have been able to make the parts for my implements. No, but we have been plunged into this war, and we cannot get the things we require for our farming. I have cattle in the rock veld. Many Ventersdorp farmers have cattle there, and we must feed the animals bone meal regularly. But we cannot get the bone meal we require. Those are the things for which provision should have been made. Large numbers of my cattle, especially the cows with small calves, are stiff on account of their getting no bone meal. I would like to know from the Minister of Agriculture whether he is today going to provide for farmers to get the necessary bone meal. Why must the farmers have permits and make applications to get bone meal? Am I going to buy up bone meal in order to speculate? Why must those unnecessary things be required of the farmer? I could get no bone meal for three months, and not only I, but numerous farmers in my vicinity. No, I believe in a person with foresight, and especially when a person is a Minister of Agriculture he must be able to look ahead. If a person cannot do that, he will go bankrupt. And that is the reason why the farmers demand that the Minister of Agriculture should make room for somebody else who is better than he is. If I as farmer have no foresight as to the methods of my farming I know what future awaits me—I shall go bankrupt. Take another article like grease. Take our labour problems. Last year the Prime Minister made the promise that he would see to it that no workers would be recruited on the farms. Do you know what the result was? Although I am as frightened of a tractor as a hare is of a dog, I was forced to buy a tractor in order to save labour, because I could get no labour. Why are these promises made which are not fulfilled. You know, Mr. Speaker, there are a few things in life that I hate. They are a liar, a cheat … … …

And a South African Party member?

No, I do not say that. And the sluggard. No, I still have time for a South African Party member, but for those three things I have no time; I hate them. I now want to make the charge that those persons on the opposite side who have made the promises … …

The hon. member must withdraw that; he may not make such allegations against other hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, if I may explain, I say that I hate these three types of people: they are the liar, the cheat and the sluggard. I did not say that they are sluggards. It might have come to that had you not helped me.

I want to warn the hon. member that he may not use such expressions in connection with other hon. members of this House.

I would have used them, but I will not do so now. It is well that you have warned me. I only want to ask that if they are going to make promises in future, they should fulfil those promises. If a Minister gets to his feet here in this House and makes promises, we have the right, and the country has the right, to expect that he will make good those promises.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), who introduced this motion, criticised me for the way I received his motion last year, and in addition he asked me on this occasion to take the motion more seriously. He said that I should not take it amiss that he had to introduce this motion. But, Mr. Speaker, when a responsible member of the Opposition, as he is, stands up here and says that I am engaged in destroying the farmers and making slaves of them, when he uses that sort of language, then he will understand that it does not actually interest me to argue with him. He knows that I have just such a heart for the farmers as he has. They are flesh of my flesh and bone or my bone, just as of his. He must not come here with that sort of talk if he wishes us to take him seriously. But I do not wish to become as serious as the hon. member, and I do not wish to speak in the same spirit in which the hon. member spoke. I wish to deal with the matter as calmly as possible, because in the end we have to do here with a business matter. I wish further to say this. I heard here today refreshing remarks about myself. I heard things which I do not believe myself. I have never imagined that I am such a wonderful fellow, but I was astonished to hear the remarks of my friends opposite which have been hurled at me. I am not going to answer those things; I reject them with contempt. The motion says in the preamble that the House expresses its disapproval over the control of agricultural prices by the Government, and at the end of his speech on the motion the hon. member asked me whether I would accept it. Does he think that I can accept something of this sort which expresses disapproval of me and the Government? But the mover, I think, makes in his motion a sort of misleading remark.

Is it so once again?

I accept that it was not on purpose, and in all good faith.

Why do you say it then?

It is sometimes difficult to retain one’s patience with the hon. member. He says that the House disapproves of the control of agricultural prices which is exercised by the Government. He knows just as well as I that the prices of agricultural products are regulated in three ways. There are, for example, the products which fall under the Control Boards. Then there are a few products of which the prices are fixed under the emergency regulations, and then there is a series of products of which the prices are regulated by demand and supply. I say that agricultural prices are regulated in three different ways.

But in the end it is you who controls.

If the hon. member will give me a chance, I shall explain the position to him. I did not interrupt him, and I shall be glad if he will give me a chance. Under the first group, namely, that where the prices fall under the Boards of Control, we have such commodities as wheat, maize, dairy products, citrus fruit, deciduous fruit, dried fruits, tobacco and chicory. These are products of which the prices are fixed under the Marketing Council. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad was a party to the acceptance of the Marketing Act. I think we can rightly say that he was the father of the Marketing Act.

No, Colonel Reitz introduced it.

Then I immediately beg the hon. member’s pardon. I thought he was Minister of Agriculture at that time. He was, however, a member of the Cabinet at that time, and as such he was a party to the Marketing Act. I thought that he introduced it.

I warned against it.

I thought he was responsible for it. He was certainly co-responsible. I wish to give this answer to the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker), that if the Control Boards were wrongly constituted and if the Marketing Council was wrongly organised, then the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was more responsible for that than I.

But put it right then.

But anyway, the hon. member knows how the system works under the Marketing Act and the way in which the prices are fixed. It is a triumvirate, if I may call it that. The fixation is done through the Control Boards, the Marketing Council and the Minister. Now the hon. member asks, but in whom is the final decision vested? I admit immediately that the final decision rests with the Minister. The Minister, however, has not the right to fix prices. He may refuse to fix the prices recommended by the Control Board, and refer the matter back to the Marketing Council. The Control Board recommends the price to the Marketing Council, the Marketing Council fixes it and then it goes to the Minister. The Minister may refer the prices back to the Marketing Council. First of all, they try to decide the matter among themselves. And now I want to say that my experience during my term of office as Minister of Agriculture has been that the one who has the best facts at his disposal and who is nearest to the correct facts has won the argument, and the price has been fixed accordingly. Generally, I do not think there is much fault to be found with the way in which prices are fixed under the Marketing Council. I think that hon. members on the other side must admit that the Control Boards, under the system we have, have done quite a lot to stabilise prices for the producer as well as for the consumer. There may be members who have objections in connection with a particular price, but I say that generally this system has resulted in prices being fairly well stabilised. But I think that the hon. member’s objection refers principally to the fixation of agricultural prices since the outbreak of war. He not only hinted, but said, that because of the war and because of our participation in the war, the farmers have been placed in an unsound position. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that under the Marketing Act system we have always taken into consideration the increased costs of production and the enhanced living costs at the fixation of prices. This has been constantly done, and I challenge any hon. member of the Opposition to prove the reverse. Take the products which I mentioned just now as falling under this Marketing Act system. Take the prices before the war and the prices today, and you will find that throughout there has been an improvement of from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. If 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. is added to the original price in view of the additional war costs, and if this is not sufficient to cover the additoinal costs, well, then I know nothing about the whole matter. I am certain that the great bulk of farmers are satisfied with the prices for the products I have mentioned. Then I come to the second group, and it is there where we are getting the most criticism today. The second group is that in which prices have been fixed under the Emergency Regulations. Here we have commodities such as meat, potatoes, ground nuts, oats, barley and rye; I think also raisins and a few other commodities. In the case of meat, potatoes and lucerne, maximum prices have been fixed. I want to emphasise that the maximum price has been fixed so high that it has had no detrimental effect on the price that the farmer has received for those commodities.

Why did you not also fix the minimum prices?

That is another matter to which I shall come later. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) has said that he received 35s. a bag for potatoes. Was that a good price, was that a sound price?

It was sound.

If it was £5 per bag, I suppose that would also have been sound.

And if we got 1s. per bag, would that also be sound?

I will answer the hon. member and other hon. members in my own way. Let them exercise a little patience. I did not interrupt them, and I think they ought to give me a chance now. I think hon. members will agree with me that meat prices at a certain stage rose to such an extent that they threatened to get out of hand completely. It was necessary to fix prices for the wholesalers as well as the retailers. I ask members on the other side, can the farmers who sell slaughter oxen and slaughter sheep complain about the price they received for their stock during the last two years?

No.

What then is the complaint?

Why is there not also a minimum price?

If there had been a minimum price, would the farmers have received a higher price for their stock? If the price is almost 100 per cent. higher than before, how can the absence of a minimum price affect the farmers detrimentally? Ground nuts, the same thing. For oats, barley and rye a price has been fixed and a definite price of which the farmers in the country could never have dreamed.

Ground nuts are no longer fixed.

I say again that if fault can be found with the fixation of prices, then that fault must not be sought with the Government, and I say again that so far as I have met farmers, those farmers have been satisfied. It seems to me that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad considers that I select the farmers whom I meet. That is not the case. I come to the third group, namely, those commodities that are not sold under the Marketing Act or under the Emergency Regulations, where the price of the products is controlled by supply and demand. Even here the policy of the Government is not one of laissez faire and of saying: “You must simply be satisfied with the position of supply and demand.” In spite of what the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) has said, I simply refer to what has been done in connection with our export products such as wool, dried fruits, butter, cheese and meat. It is being held against us that if we had not declared war things would have been better. Now I want to ask hon. members if they think that we would then have received shipping space? They know what the position is. We would not have been able to export the commodities and they cannot argue that we would have received better prices. I would have thought that hon. members would say that if the war had brought one good thing then it is the convoys along our coasts, and that as a result of the convoys we have received prices that we have not received during the past three years.

We would have received better prices for our wool on the open market.

The hon. member says that they would have received better prices. If that is his actual opinion, then I cannot argue with him. But we have appointed a purchasing section to operate on the market, and I make bold to say that through their action the farmers have received appreciably better prices. I have received letters from farmers whom I do not even know telling me how they appreciated this and how it has helped to stabilise prices. I wonder if the hon. member disapproves also of this?

There are indeed a few things you have done that are good.

Now I want to analyse the motion that is before us today. The hon. member says that minimum prices must be fixed, guaranteed for the duration of the war and for a reasonable time thereafter, and particularly because the Government is today entereing into competition with the farmers by itself producing agricultural produtcs on a large scale. If that is the only reason why we must fix minimum prices, then he might as well drop the argument.

That is not the only point. I have mentioned many others.

I only want to put this question the hon. member: He wants minimum prices fixed for summer potatoes. What does he want to fix?

Last year I proposed 25s. for first-grade potatoes, 15s. for second grade, and 10s. for third grade.

For all kinds of potatoes? I do not want to talk now about first-grade potatoes, but I talk about the 15s. If he fixes the price of summer potatoes at even 12s. 6d. then—he can ask the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Colonel Jacob Wilkens)—the farmers will not plant a bag of mealies, no, then they will actually plough up their lucerne lands and plant potatoes. The whole production of our country would change, and the Government would go bankrupt in purchasing all the potatoes.

You have such a lot of money, give a little to the farmers also.

Now that shows. It is so easy to say that the minimum prices must be fixed, but how does it work out so that one gets a reasonable price both for the producer and for the consumer. Hon. members who are farmers know that when you plant potatoes it is a gamble. If that was not the position much more would be planted than today. I admit that the prices are low, but at this time of the year the prices are always low, and even in war time you cannot drive up the prices at this stage. The country simply cannot carry the great potato crop that suddenly comes on to the market. But I have here today’s prices, and if the hon. member is interested I shall give them: Durban 13s. to 18s., Pretoria 7s. 3d. to 12s. 3d., Johannesburg 7s. to 10s. 6d., Bloemfontein 9s. to 13s., Cape Town 11s. to 15s.

What grade?

Grade No. 1. That is the grade for first-class potatoes. If a man produces under-grade potatoes, he must be satisfied to take what he can get.

Are you going to fix the minimum price in that way?

Those are the prices today. I have received further reports that the demand is very good and that recently a considerable quantity has been exported. We do not sit still, but we do what we can. We have recommended the use of more potatoes to big employers in the country, such as the Railways, the mines and the Army, and we have also exported potatoes. We have exported a considerable quantity to neighbouring territories and Kenya. Stockfeeders particularly have taken an appreciable quantity of potatoes. Now I want to say further that the Cape crop will soon conclude marketing, and then the Cape market will draw considerable quantities from the Transvaal, whereby the position there will be alleviated. Although the Transvaal markets are still heavily loaded, the position in general is better, and as soon as the Cape Province begins drawing from the north on a considerable scale, the position there will also improve appreciably. Let me just add that I do not say that the price of potatoes is good, but I want to try to give reasons why, with the best will in the world, there can be a period in which the supply is terribly large. In addition to that you cannot keep potatoes long in the soil in the Cape. Consequently, the potatoes come in great masses on to the market. In the Transvaal there are areas where you can retain the potatoes longer in the ground, and the position will now gradually improve. The Department has dope everything it could do. We have hoped to alleviate the position. I therefore do not accept responsibility for the position, and I think that the hon. member for Ventersdorp was a little hard when he used angry words against me. We have done our best for the farmers, we have done our best to obtain a reasonable price for them, but if there is too great a production, either because of goodwill towards me or because they gambled a little, then the hon. member for Ventersdorp must at least accept that I did my best. If I do my best and my best is not good enough to give them a high price, then he must be satisfied with a lower price. Then I come to the second point, namely, the paragraph in the motion in connection with the wool farmers. It says here that the wool farmers must be compensated for the loss suffered by them in that the average price of wool during the first two years of sale under the wool scheme did not reach the guaranteed level. I want to read out to the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), who ranted about this, a decision taken by the South African National Wool Growers’ Association—

But that is an old thing, the position has altered.

I see that the hon. member for Victoria West is on the point of departing. He has spoken protractedly and has given eight reasons why he thinks I should resign, but I must honestly say that he has not persuaded me. If I try to look impartially at his arguments, then I cannot see much in them. But what I depreciate is that he quotes here from the report of the Secretary for Agriculture, and then he carefully skips a paragraph, then he reads the next one. He reads the one paragraph, but he skips the second one—

What we say here is that the year was difficult, but that thanks to the energy and initiative of the farmer he still did well, and to confirm this I want to quote something here in connection with repayments to the Land Bank—

Has the hon. member heard this before?

Yes, the Minister of Finance has already told us.

When the year began, the total debt of the farmers to the State through the Land Bank and the State Advances Recoveries Office was less than £40,000,000, and the reduction therefore amounts to almost 10 per cent. I want to emphasise that that is the position of the farmers.

Tell us a little more about the potatoes.

I have dealt with that, but the hon. member unfortunately was not here. But I have no time to repeat what I have already said. Now I want to go further. The hon. member has asked why maximum prices for agricultural products are necessary. On the other hand he says that we should have ensured that farmers could get their requirements at fair prices, and, if necessary, we should have paid a subsidy. In this connection I want to say to him: What interests me most, and what interests the farmer most, is to obtain the goods. We are finding difficulty in obtaining the goods at any price. The goods are not here. Now the hon. member will of course say: Where is the British Fleet? This is cheap talk. I say in the first place that it interests me to obtain the goods, even at higher costs. That is also the general opinion of the farmers. If an implement can be made in the country, or if it can be imported, then of course I say it is the Government’s duty to see that that implement shall not be sold at too high a price. But the hon. member knows that one of the matters that is giving us trouble is not the scarcity of the commodities, but also the fact that shipping is terribly expensive to get the commodities here. Shipping costs are not merely double, but several times higher than they were before. We must take this into consideration. Notwithstanding this, all agricultural requirements fall under the general price control, and I want to say this to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. He said here that he bought 80 lbs. of dip and told what he had to pay for it. It was his duty to report that matter immediately, and if he provides me with the particulars I shall immediately go into the matter. So far as I can see, according to the facts he has mentioned here, that man will have to be prosecuted because that commodity falls under the general price control. The hon. member also made the allegation that there is no dipping material for the farmers. But if I understood him correctly, then he said that Kynochs obtain arsenic from the Government at a reasonable price and then they sell the dipping material at a high price.

I did not say what it costs.

That is the argument he used. I want to assure him about the arsenic. We lent it to Kynochs to manufacture dipping material. They are busy getting big supplies from Rhodesia, and will later give it back to us. Naturally, we shall not give it to them at a cheap price. The hon. member need not fear that, now that things are expensive, we would give it to them and later get it back at a cheap price.

What I said is that for dipping material that previously cost £1 9s. 6d. I must now pay £5.

And I have told the hon. member that it was his duty to bring that case to our attention immediately.

I will give it to you. I have the account here with me.

I do not think that Kynochs is responsible for that. It is evidently someone else who has made a profit. Such a profit is not permitted, and the person will have to be prosecuted. I shall give my personal attention to the matter. The hon. member further spoke about subsidies. The hon. member knows that we have already subsidised various commodities, or have given rebates. But the hon. member will permit me to say this. If we had followed the policy that he and his friends wanted us to follow, then I do not know if we would have got shipping space to bring any agricultural implements here. I am certain that if we had followed the policy he wanted us to follow, then America and England would not have parted with articles that we need but in respect of which they themselves have a shortage.

With the £150,000,000 we could have created a Canaan.

I say I do not think that if we had followed his policy we would have been in a position to get those implements.

It does not seem as if Argentinia is to too badly off after all.

Those countries that remained neutral, take Ireland and Sweden, are so deep in the mud that they do not even complain about the little things we complain about. They do not make the profits we make. I must hurry because my time has almost expired. In paragraph (d) of the motion the hon. member says that the Government must ensure to the farmer the necessary labour for carrying out his industry properly. Yes, of course, but as the hon. member knows the question of farm labour is one we have had to contend with for the past 20 years. We had that question when he was Minister of Agriculture and all the time I have been Minister of Agriculture. It is a difficulty that is always with us.

But it was never as bad as it is now.

Of course not. But does the hon. member now propose that we must say to the Prime Minister that he must not take a single native into the Army to work there.

Let him take natives from the mines.

Does the hon. member propose that the soldiers themselves should do all the hard work that he and I had to do in the war. Does he mean that we must send no natives at all?

On a previous occasion I objected to this Report because I did not have the documents before me. I have now had the opportunity of studying the documents and of discussing the matter with members of the Select Committee. One of the things we strongly object to is that land in a white area is expropriated for the purpose of being converted into native areas. It seems that in this instance the two bits of land are practically alongside of each other. The one is suitable for an Air Base and that is why the exchange is recommended. I am only sorry that twice as much land is being given to the natives as the land that is being added to the white area. But as the Select Committee which also contains members of this side of the House recommends it I shall raise no objection.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Bill now before Parliament provides for a sum not exceeding £5,000,000 for the services of the railways and harbours for the financial year 1943—’44. This, as hon. members know, is the usual measure which it is necessary to pass in order to provide funds for the services until such time as the estimates are passed by this House. The amount which we have taken on this occasion will be enough to carry the railways through for a clear month, and that is considered sufficient for our purpose. I will not at this stage anticipate anything I may wish to say about railway policy on the occasion of the budget, and will therefore limit my remarks to formally moving the second reading.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a few matters that should receive his attention. The first is the condition of the catering service on the railways. I think the Minister travels in a private coach, and is not au fait with some of the conditions on the railways. But we who have to travel by the ordinary railway, know that those people are virtually driven beyond their endurance. They rise at 5 o’clock in the morning, and work throughout the day until 11 o’clock or 12 o’clock at night. It sometimes happens that by 11 o’clock in the morning they have not had breakfast. They are so exhausted that it is impossible for them to give proper services, services such as the passengers have a right to expect. I would like to know from the Minister what his policy is regarding these people. The other day one of the employees who had to serve along the passages on the train from Durban to Cape Town stepped off at Bloemfontein and refused to go any futher. From Bloemfontein to Cape Town there was then only one steward to serve people in their compartments. This was a train of from 14 to 15 coaches. There was only one person with the result that the passengers could get practically no service in their compartments, and if one came to the dining saloon it was generally full. Anyone travelling by train today is never certain whether he will get meals on the train and he is obliged to take food with him. It is even difficult to obtain coffee or tea. I would really say to the Minister that there is actually slave-driving on the railways as regards stewards. It is a shame for the railways to exploit its people, and we know that those people are poorly paid. I would ask the Minister to go seriously into this matter. The Minister cannot say that he cannot find people to do the work. It was formerly the custom to take on students in busy periods. Those students did not have much experience of the work, but nevertheless they did the work reasonably well. At the moment there are definitely too few stewards and the passengers do not get proper service. Then there is another matter. There is apparently a shortage of clerks. The complaint is that the clerks everywhere are compelled to work many hours overtime. That is happening in many places. According to their conditions of service, the clerks are entitled to a day’s leave when they have worked overtime. But in view of the circumstances they do not get that leave, and we know that that kind of leave does not accumulate. In some cases where the clerks have refused to work overtime, they have been transferred. If they are not prepared to work overtime, they are marked men, and then they are transferred. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention also to this. The railways have too few clerks, and why is it then that the Minister has placed a ban on the appointment of young Afrikaners who would like to join the railways as clerks? I know that young boys have applied for appointments as clerks in the railway service, but the General Manager has placed a ban on their appointment. The object of the General Manager is, of course, that those young boys of 20 and 21 should go to the North. That is the reason. On the other hand the other clerks must work overtime, while these people are kept out of the service. I am certain that if I were to put the question to the Minister to give us data regarding the number of hours that are being worked overtime, then we shall find out that hundreds of hours of overtime are being worked in each section. We have the same phenomenon also in another section of the railways, namely, those employed in an acting capacity in the higher ranks. Take the position of the station foreman. The station master goes away and the foreman becomes acting station master, and he not only does not receive a permanent appointment but he also does not get an increase. He works for the salary of a foreman, but he is acting station master and he must do the work of the station master. No fixed appointment is made, and this sort of thing is happening on a great scale. We would like to know from the Minister what his object is in this. Why do those people not receive fixed appointments? In isolated instances we can understand a person having to act, but when it happens on a great scale and when foremen must act as station masters for six or nine months, then we have the right to ask what the object of the Administration is. I want to ask the Minister to give us an explanation of the position. This applies not only to foremen and station masters; in many other ranks of the service we also get the phenomena that persons have to act in a higher rank, but they do not get the salary of the person whose duties they must assume; they continue to receive the salary or wage of the lower rank. Then I come to another matter. The standpoint of members on the other side has always been that the railways must be run on business lines. They have perpetually protested against our policy of European labour and have condemned it. They have said that those people must earn every penny paid to them, because the railways must be run on business lines. But now we find an increasing tendency on the part of the railways to assist the war effort and to take time and money from the railways for that purpose. Yet I see no protest of any kind against this on the other side. Those hon. members were very zealous with their protest against European labour—that the European labourers should earn the money paid to them. Now, however, we hear no protests from them against the tendency on the railways to assist the war effort. The military authorities get concessions for the soldiers. They travel at half-price. They get their meals on the railways at a decreased tariff. Goods are conveyed for the Department of Defence at a much decreased tariff—every concession to help the war effort. I do not want to say that the Minister should not help the war effort, but while the Minister’s party goes out from the standpoint that the railways should be run on business lines, I would like to know from him why he is departing from that policy. I would like to bring two cases to his attention. I see that £2,000 has been granted by the railways to a war organisation. Now I would like to know from the Minister whether that money has been contributed from railway income, or if it is money collected from members of the staff and then given to that organisation. I hope the Minister will give a reply. The other case is this. In our railway workshops gambling machines are being made to be used for making money for the war effort. I would like to know from the Minister if the Department of Defence pays for those gambling machines that are being manufactured by railway artisans from railway materials and in railway time. Does the Department of Defence pay for it, or is it another gift to the department on behalf of the war effort? If we approve of the railways doing this, then we do not know where we shall end. If we take up the attitude that the railway workshops may make things which they may give free to the Department of Defence, where shall we end? What is more: We have adopted a law to prohibit gambling, but here we have a State department manufacturing gambling machines. On the one hand we prohibit gambling, on the other hand we manufacture gambling machines. Another point to which I would like to draw attention, is that I hear complaints from the Railway Administration that they cannot get enough labourers for the railways. I have had to do with the European labourers who looked for work on the railways but could not get work. It appears to me that the General Manager takes up the attitude that non-Europeans must be taken on to do the work of European labourers, so that the European labourers can be compelled to take up arms and to go and fight in the North. I can mention a specific case, we can mention many cases of persons who cannot get work. Are we again following the policy prevailing before 1924 to substitute non-European for European labourers? This is a very serious matter, and I hope the Minister will say what his policy is in that connection. Where under previous Governments facilities were given to European labourers to qualify themselves to become semi-skilled or skilled workers, I find today that these facilities are more and more curtailed. The Minister has said that it is his policy also that European labourers should receive every opportunity to improve their position in the railways service, but it seems as if the policy is not being put into practice. Another matter is that the low-paid railway workers cannot exist with the rise in living costs, as a result of the war. I think we shall all admit that the percentage of the rise in living costs given by the Government does not conform to facts. In practice you find that meat that cost 7d. and 8d., today costs 1s. 3d. All living costs have risen, and the low-paid man in the railway service cannot exist on the salary he receives. There are many people who suffer want on the salaries they receive from the railways. The cost of living allowance they receive is but a drop in the bucket. It does not keep pace with the rise in the living costs. Where the Minister has surpluses year after year, every year a bigger surplus, he must take steps to see that his officials who serve him loyally are properly paid in the railway service. The Minister has stated in this House that the Railway workers are doing efficient work. He has praised them for the good work that they are doing under difficult circumstances and for the way in which they are keeping the Administration of the railways going with a small staff. Where this is so, the Minister must show his acknowledgement not merely in words but also in deeds. In that connection I would like to remind the Minister that some years ago, when there was a depression, thousands of railway workers were dismissed because there was no work. Before they were 60 years old, they were dismissed. One of the Minister’s predecessors in office later realised that the pensions received by these persons were too small and paltry to live on, and a commission was then appointed of which I had the honour to be a member, and the commission went into the matter of pensions. Today those people are getting a little more than formerly, but in view of the rise in living costs, it is still too little. They find that the pension is not sufficient today to live on. They write to us, and the Minister of Railways has probably also received letters; they plead that something more should be done for them. I want to ask the Minister to take that class of pensioners into consideration. They had served the railways for 20 or 30 years and in the time of depression they went out of the service at the request of the Minister before their time. That helped the railways through in those days. Now I ask the Minister to ensure that these people receive a better existence in this time of prosperity on the railways. Some of them are too old to continue to work, and their pensions are not sufficient. Another little matter that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister in this: In 1939 I strongly pleaded (Col. 1470, Hansard) for a sub-economic housing scheme for railway workers. That was before the time of the present Minister, but when the present Minister became Minister of Railways, I went to see him personally and asked him to introduce a scheme particularly for his low-paid officials, because the costs of house-rent is a very important item in the expenditure of such persons. I pointed out that the municipalities in the great cities, as for instance Bloemfontein and Johannesburg, that are obliged to look after housing, do nothing for those people. There are schemes under which the Government helps the municipalities sub-economic schemes, but they do not’ avail themselves of these. The Minister said that he would consider the matter and I want to thank him that he is busy at the moment building houses. Experience in Cape Town and elsewhere has taught that houses with two or three rooms, a bathroom, etc., all neatly arranged, can be let to the low-paid people at 15s. or £1. But in view of the fact that money at present is plentiful and houses scarce, I want to ask him to take steps to build houses on a great scale. The Minister will say that he cannot get building material, but one of his colleagues only the other day said that the building of houses is not being stopped and he asked the municipalities to proceed with the erection of houses. I want to ask the Minister to pay attention to this, so that the low-paid railway workers may be taken out of the slums, or when they come from outside they can receive a decent little house to live in Today you get cases where people live a long distance from their work. There are no travelling facilities, not even railway buses offer them facilities. They lose a great deal of time coming in on bicycles and if it is wet weather, they remain wet the whole dav and their health is underminded. It is the duty Adminstration to look after the health officials, and that it is necessary to build houses for such people. Today there are millions in surpluses, and I want to ask the Minister earnestly to focus his attention on the matter. It is in the interest of the railway workers as much as in the interest of the Administration itself.

I listened very carefully to the hon. member who has just sat down. I thought his criticism in certain respects was fair, but the best thing he said was this—[Translation]—

I hope that that is the policy of his party—to help the war effort.

He never said that.

I don’t want to speak about ships and shipping this afternoon in the sense that he knows ships and shipping, but I do want to speak about ships—and our post-war programme, our post-war reconstruction programme, and it is on that subject that I want to say something We have no ships of our won in this countrynothing to speak of.

Oh, yes, we have sixteen ships.

About twenty years ago we acquired three ships and those ships have done wonderfully well. I don’t want to go into their history but just let me say that in 1919 we acquired those three ships. They traded between this country and Australia. In those days we were wanting sleepers and those three ships brought our sleepers across. When that programme was finished they were without work for some time; then they took coal to the East and brought back rice and other cargoes. They tried at one time to take cargoes to Britain, but the big shipping companies put in their spoke and stopped them. Eventually they took sugar from Mauritius and returned with Government stores. In the course of twenty years they had done very well. These ships were owned by the Administration, and in the course of this time the accumlated profit made by these ships was £433,000. They were not given prefrential treatment in Union ports, there were no subsidies, and the rates of pay to our own men were between 20 per cent. and 45 per cent. higher than those paid in other ships. The insurance rates were covered by the Railways and Harbours Administration and the renewals fund today stands at about £127,000. When one examines this position, one finds that a Government owned shipping line can be made to pay. I know that when we talk about the Government controlled shipping lines we think of Australia and we know of the debecale which occurred there. But these are different times, and I think that we can overcome the mistakes which Australia made. Australia unfortunately allowed her shipping line to become the football of party politics. We could sidestep those mistakes. We have the Railway Board today which sees to it that no political lines are built, and so we can have a shipping board to control shipping, and see that it does not become a political football. I think definitely that this country should have its own ships after the war. We want two classes of ships. A board has been studying this question, it has not yet come to a final decision, and that is where I get most of my information. What is recommended is this, that we should have two classes of ships. We don’t want many ships. We must go slowly. We want one class of 4,500 tons, a shallow draft type which can get into the smaller ports, and into the ports of the East and West coast, and then we want a bigger type of ship of from 8,000 to 10,000 tons which can take cargoes to Europe.

We are not looking for a world wide service. We have men to man and repair our own ships, and if we establish an African trade we shall have done something we have never done before. The trade is there in oil, cocoa rubber, timber and what not.

What are what nots?

And we can sell to them. Our own products there will be great opportunties after this war and if the Atlantic Charter stands for anything we ought to make use of our opportunity. The bigger ships can take away our minerals, our base metals and even our wool clip to European ports. Our wool clip amounts to about 900,000 bales. That in itself is a very big factor. I feel that we should attempt this experiment. Of course we shall have our difficulties—we shall not establish this venture without difficulties, and we know the difficulties we had to contend with in the past. We know there were powerful shipping combines that made matters difficult, but I think that after the war, if we are to have a better world, conditions will be different, and I base my case on this assumption—if the Atlantic Charter is to stand for anything then we shall be allowed to trade freely also. We ourselves must trade on the East and West Coasts of Africa. In the past other shipping companies did this, and our interests were of secondary consideration. But there are other difficulties also. We wish to trade with these territories in Africa, the Portuguese, Belgians, and the French. They have sentimental and economic ties with Europe, and though these ties are difficult things to break, I think that what we shall be able to offer them will encourage them to come to us also. There is also the question of dumping which we have had to contend with, and throat-cutting competition. These things should disappear. As the Minister of Finance says we all hope that there will be greater economic freedom after this war.

What will happen to your industries if you have economic freedom?

The hon. member knows how this whole problem dovetails in. Our ships were allowed to go on certain routes and we were told to keep off other routes. These things will disappear, I hope, and we shall have the same facilities as other countries. After this war there must be great development in this country. We as a nation reached manhood some time ago. We have now got to the stage beyond manhood, and the possibility of increasing our national wealth is great, and so are the possibilities of developing our industries, we have never had such an opportunity. I saw a figure the other day which struck me. We have produced in this country war material for Allied and Associated Nations to the extent of £200,000,000—that is in the course of three years. It looks like an item in the American or the British Budget. It will give hon. members an idea of what the possibilities are in this country, Prior to the war we had no shipping at all, but when this war comes to an end I hope things will be very different. We are a producing country—naturally on a small scale—but the only important thing we lack is shipping and it is a problem to which we should give our serious attention. Of course, if we lose this war I would be wasting my time and the time of the House, but I am basing my case on the fact that we are going to win the war. There was a time when defeat stared us in the face, but those days are past and I do not believe there is any member here today who still believes that Germany will win the war. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) appeared not so very long ago to have a great regard for Italian arms. He told us of 8,000,000 Italian bayonets and he made our flesh creep. But I don’t think he thinks today that Hitler will win the war.

The hon. member must confine himself to the subject.

I say that I base my case on our winning the war.

Who are “we”—who are the “our winning the war”—do you mean Russia and America?

The hon. member knows as well as I that the Axis cannot win the war, but he does not say so. Those hon. members have changed their minds; there is the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) who said that we had lost the war. It was all over, he said. If he is right, then we would be wasting our time. If he were to talk as he did three or four months ago on the platteland I am sure he would get into hot water. He knows now that Germany cannot win the war.

You stick to the facts.

Therefore I contend that I am in order when I mention these things. Now I want to say a few words on railway matters.

Time you did.

The Minister has had a shower of congratulations. We congratulate him.

Who are “we”?

I think my hon. friend is included in the “we”. If he does not congratulate him, then he must feel some admiration for the Minister. The Minister has broken records in spite of the fact that there are 10,000 railway men away. We are very proud of these railway men; any Railway Administration can be proud of them.

The Minister should pay them better if he is proud of them.

It would be unfair if we criticised the Minister on the smaller points in war time. Therefore I am not going to criticise him on that score. But I say the Minister is to be congratulated on showing these great surpluses.

Is that a matter for congratulation?

Yes, of course, and I shall tell you why. He is building up big reserves and in building up those reserves and placing them to the credit of various funds, he is making the railway position so sound so that when repercussions or a slump comes after the war it will not be by any means so severe as previous slumps.

The Prime Minister says there will not be a slump.

What about your Atlantic Charter?

The Minister has built up such a strong position that the railway men will not feel a slump and the railway user will not feel a slump. That is why I feel that the Minister has done the right thing and that is why he is in such a strongposition today. I want to give a few figures to show in what a strong position the Minister is and how lucky railway men and railway users are alike. The total contributions by the Administration towards the deficiencies on pension funds amount to £7,250,000. In twenty-four years the contributions have been £3,500,000. But in the last six years the contributions have been £3,750,000, and it will not be long before this fund reaches £10,000,000 I hope. Another instance I want to give is the rates equalisation fund. In the twenty-two years between 1910 and 1932 the total contribution by the Administration was £1,000,000, but in the years 1935 to 1942 that fund has grown to £7,500,000, and when we think of the days just after the last war, when the Granet Commission sat, the days of the late Sir William Hoy, these gentlemen thought that £2,000,000 was sufficient, and yet today the fund stands at £7,500,000. Those are astounding figures. In six years special contributions were made to the four principal railway funds—Rates Equalisation Fund, Renewals Fund, Betterment and Pension Fund Deficiencies—amounting to £25,000,000. All this was done to build up our railways into a sound organisation for both railway men and the public. Now, I want to give some other figures. Rent rebates £500,000 responsibility allowance £750,000. Recruiting benefits to staff, £2,000,000, and difference between military and civil pay £900,000. All this goes to show a very sound position indeed. Now I want to make a few suggestions to the Minister. With all this soundness of his, the Minister must know where to stop. Once he has his funds in order, he should make certain contributions towards the public also. The people who are using the trains, are saying: “Our rates are too high.” The Minister knows that in 1931 there was a big slump and passenger fares were put up, and the additional revenue which came in was about £4,500,000. That rate has not been altered, it is still the same, and I feel that when the Minister has sufficient money in his funds he should look to the public. They want reductions in goods and railway fares, coal rates and so on. When you ask the Minister about these matters, he says that everything he touches he loses on—he loses on coal, on goods and passenger traffic. So where these millions come from no one seems to know. They certainly do not come out of the clouds.

They come out of the pockets of the workers on the railways.

The travelling public should have some concessions made to them. The Minister says that he is always losing on passenger traffic, but that loss is a permanent feature of railway finance. Then there is the rent rebate scheme. In principle this scheme is right, but in its application it is wrong. Where a railway man is getting £1,000 per year there is no need for him to get rebate of £4 per month.

How many get £1,000 per year?

The position is that the man in the lower ranks should get the full benefit of this rents rebate. The Minister should limit the rebate to certain salaries. Everything below a certain figure should get the full benefit but anything above that mark should not. There is another point in regard to housing—the housing of the lower paid European railway worker and the housing of the non-Europeans. Those two sections are badly in need of housing. I can foresee that after this war, with all the military building that is going on, the Minister will be able to house many hundreds of this type of man. I want the Minister to keep in view the housing of the lower paid railway man and of the coloured man. I am glad indeed to see the Minister is paying the coloured man an extra 6d. a day; it does not seem much, but it amounts to £500,000 a year in the aggregate. In regard to the pay of railwaymen proper, the mechanic is on velvet and good luck to him, the mechanic in some instances is getting £60 to £70 a month and more, some mechanics are getting more than their overseers or foremen.

How do they manage that?

The foreman does not participate in overtime, but the mechanic does. On the other hand, the running staff, ticket examiners, guards and station masters and checkers need consideration, and I hope the Minister will go into these matters. There is another point that I want to mention, and that is the question of decentralisation. I think the Minister has been making a mistake; it has been the policy not only of this Government but of many Governments to centralise everything in one big centre. Our power plants are centralised in one big centre, and so are the railway workshops. This is wrong in principle; the world is beginning to see that it is wrong. In Australia we have seen the effect of this congregation of large population in one or two centres.

That is for cricket.

I think it is a wrong principle. These things should be spread out, where possible, and other parts of the country given an opportunity of developing. Then another point. I see the Minister is going to build hotels and new stations. I hope he is going to send his commission through the country, because there are many places that want new stations. I hope be will examine the position well, and not build only two or three stations. Then with regard to the road motor service, this has been a wonderful service with a mileage of about 15,000. We hardly realise what this service means. If it were taken away from us tomorrow, it would paralyse half the country. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that, because of course these machines do not run on rails, they run on rubber and petrol, and I would like to know what the Minister has to say, and if he can assure the country that that very important service will continue. The Minister is a director of one of the biggest railway companies in the world, he has done very well indeed, he has been most successful, and I hope he will continue.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat is, we accept, the spokesman on railway matters on that side of the House. He is Chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, and I have therefore listened to his speech this afternoon with particular attention. I had thought that now especially, in view of the election, we would hear considerable promises to the railway men, who were neglected of recent years by the Government on the other side. The hon. member commenced his speech by delivering a plea for a South African shipping service for the Union of South Africa. We feel a bit flattered that members on the other side tend more and more to the Opposition’s standpoint and plead matters that we have pleaded previously. We have already had the case where the Government took over the plan of this side of the House in connection with the appointment of a Central Economic Council, although the Government has in actuality created only a caricature of it. It is nevertheless a compliment to the Opposition to see that the other side is capable of learning and is doing its best to carry out something of the policy of the Opposition. Now we have had from the hon. member this afternoon a repetition of speeches that have been delivered year after year by this side of the House in connection with a South African owned shipping service. I can recall various speeches of that nature over some years, and I must add more effective speeches, coming from this side in connection with the establishment of our own shipping. Unfortunately the hon. member was not quite informed about affairs. As with the rest of his speech, he should first inform himself about matters and go into the facts before he speaks on the subject here. As regards our own shipping service, it is an essential thing for South Africa, but not in the way that the hon. member has in mind. It will have to be a gradual process, and in the course of the debate he will hear how it should really be instituted to be most effective and to the greatest advantage to South Africa. The member then deviated, and began speaking about the war. There he felt more at home. He began with the subject regarding the victory over Germany; then he came to the victory over Italy, and you, Mr. Speaker, should have called him to order. As regards the one point of his speech that shone out most, with that he was definitely unfortunate. He says that the Minister has created records. Unfortunately he did not inform this House what those records are. We are still waiting to hear what records the Minister has achieved. Was it a record in connection with the poor treatment of the officials, or was it a record in connection with the volume of passenger traffic, or what record was it? Nevertheless we agree that the Minister must be congratulated on those mysterious things he has done. Then the hon. member immediately added that he did not want to criticise the Minister. He said that the Minister had achieved so many records that we must not criticise the Minister, and he pointed out what a wonderful prestige the Minister of Railways had attained during the past three years. Let us investigate those achievements. The hon. member said that the Minister had built up particularly great reserves. Yes, exceptional reserves have been built up, but I wonder if the hon. member really ascribes this to the deeds of the present Minister of Railways. I think it is generally known that in the past few years a comparatively small sum has been added to those reserves, in comparison with what was done before. Then one of the achievements he mentioned was the contributions towards replenishment of the deficiency in the pension fund. I do not know whether this is such a wonderful achievement to attain. The pension fund is a Government institution. The Railway Administration is responsible to the officials for seeing that the pension fund is kept sound. The man who really improved the pension fund was the late Mr. C. W. Malan. He improved the pension fund so that improved pensions were allotted. Now the Railway Administration contributed something annually, ostensibly to cover this shortage. We know that that deficiency is a purely actuarial deficiency. Then the hon. member spoke of the contributions to the tariff reserve fund. That is not an achievement of the present Government. That tariff fund was called into being years ago by a previous Government. A start was made by a previous Government, and previous Governments have contributed millions. During the past three years, in order to get rid of exceptionally great surpluses, money was placed to this fund, but I declare that this is not such an exceptionally great advantage. If the Minister had rather devoted £2,000,000 to improving conditions for the officials, this would have been something tangible. But he used the money in this way to get rid of the surpluses of the railways—it is for that reason that he placed money in one fund or another. The hon. member inter alia mentioned the contributions to the renewal fund, the betterment fund and the depreciation fund, and he mentioned a sum of £25,000,000 for the past six years. We have pointed out year after year that it is in a measure unsound to take money from income for capital betterment works, while in reality capital should have been used for that—and that this is being done to get rid of surpluses, and to preclude the extension of improved conditions to the staff. It was to prevent this that that money was used from incomes to place in that fund. I do not know what achievement is connected with that. If the hon. member could have pointed to actual advantage provided to the public for the officials, then he could have told us that the Minister had achieved something. To come here and tell us that surpluses have been used to strengthen certain funds certainly reflects no achievement. He went on to speak, however, of the advantages that the staff are supposed to have received. That took up two minutes of his speech, and he spoke vaguely about rent rebates, and a few other advantages. He took only one of the annual memoranda and quoted a few little things from that. The hon. member did not speak about an improvement regarding working hours, or about other improvements that have been brought about. He did not tell us why improvements that should have been brought about, were not brought about. There was enough money, as proved by the surpluses of the railways, to enable the Administration to place the staff on an infinitely better footing than that at present prevailing. Then he went over to a few modest proposals. The first was that there should be a reduction in tariffs. He said that in 1931, with the depression, there was an increase of tariffs and hitherto the tariffs had not been restored to the former level. But did the hon. member say anything in connection with those economies that were brought about during the depression in the salaries and working conditions of the staff? Not one word. About that he is not concerned. Those cuts brought about during the depression, were brought about with the accompanying promise that they would be restored as soon as possible. To this day there has been no complete restoration of those economies. I shall mention a few of them. There is the economy introduced in connection with the hours of the trains staff. Ticket examiners and conductors previously worked eight hours per day. This was increased to nine hours, and did the hon. member plead that that position must be restored and that they must again be placed on eight hours per day? No, he is silent about that. He wants the tariffs reduced, but he says not a word about the economies that the staff have suffered. Before the depression in 1942, the checkers who are a section of the staff who are particularly poorly remunerated—checkers with 25 and 30 years’ service get about £20 per month—got a bonus of £5, calculated according to the quantity of goods they handled. That bonus was taken away during the depression, and did the hon. member ask that it should now be restored? No, he did not, and that in spite of the fact that year after year the railways have yielded great surpluses, and in spite of the fact that the Minister has used those surpluses to put into funds. He pleaded for those funds, but not for the staff. There was also another economy. Fomerly it was calculated that if the trains staff worked six hours and one minute, they got a day’s pay. Now they must work 96 hours in two weeks, and if they work less then the overtime must make up for it. This is an injustice towards the staff, from which they still suffer, and did the hon. member ask for restitution? And what about all the other grievances of the railway people? What he did say was something in connection with the recent rebates. He told what a good thing it is, but, he said, he wondered whether railwaymen are receiving the full benefit. In other words he wondered whether the low-paid railwaymen received the advantage of the rent rebates. He does not know whether they did receive it, but he dares to touch on the subject and say: “I wonder whether they are receiving the full benefit.”

Do you know it?

The hon. member can go on wondering. I will advise him to find out whether they get it. If he does that he will find out that great injustice prevails, and it avails him nothing to wonder here in the House. He speaks of housing and more housing in vague terms. He has no specific information. He did not say a word about where the shortage of houses really is, whether it is in connection with the procurement of own houses or in connection with railway houses. The House is waiting to hear from the hon. member as to what he meant. And then he surpassed himself. He spoke in a still broader and more general way about the trains staff, about the ticket examiners and conductors, and he said that they also wanted consideration. And that is the sum total of his plea—they want consideration. What consideration they want, and why they want it, that he does not tell the Minister. He does not tell the Minister what the grievances are under which they are going bent. There will probably be one or two further speeches from members on the other side and I hope that they will take a little more interest in the position of the railway officials. But on the other hand I do not think that we can expect too much. I want to come to another matter. Year after year we on this side of the House have brought it to the attention of the Minister that a reprehensible form of victimisation is taking place on the railways. There were many cases, and the Minister said that he was going to act strictly. He did his best to put a stop to that victimisation on the railways. Since the outbreak of the war it was brought to the attention of the Minister year after year that victimisation is taking place on the railways. Apparently he is powerless to stop it. When it is noticed that a member of the railway staff, particularly of the office staff, is not a loyal, zealous and enthusiastic supporter of the war, then he is victimised and persecuted in every way. I am mentioning facts, and I hone the Minister can follow me. I have a case that I want to bring to his notice. Last year I did not mention names here, because I knew that if I mentioned the name of a railway official here then I exposed him to further victimisation. He will then be marked in the service, and I know what the results will be. Here we now have the case of an official who, fortunately or unfortunately, is no longer in the service, and I am therefore at liberty to mention his name. It is a young man who had practically his whole life before him, who was at the threshold of his life. He was zealous and smart, an official against whom there was no complaint in connection with his work. He was an Afrikaner boy, named F. C. Ackermann—twenty-odd years old and he was employed at the Head Office in Johannesburg. He was in the years that have passed a member of the Ossewa-Brandwag. When a ban was placed on railway officials preventing them from being members of the Ossewa-Brandwag, he resigned from the Ossewa-Brandwag. He was not a member of the Stormjaers. But he was a member of the party of which I am a member. What happened is this. His flat was investigated by the police. They found nothing. He gave them every assistance and information, but they found nothing. He did not know what was afoot. Some time afterwards he received notice that his services would be terminated, and no reasons were given. There were no complaints against him; no reason was adduced as to why his services should be terminated. He then came to see me and I wrote to the Head Office. I was informed that he was suspected of undermining activities. But nothing more could be adduced; nothing could be stipulated as to what this young man really did; I had already informed the management that so far as I knew the only mistake that the boy had apparently made was that he was a member of the Herenigde Nasionale Party, if that is a mistake. The man appealed. I then wrote again, and I have now received a letter from the management that reads as follows—

Now what often happens, and this is again a matter that I have brought to the attention of the Minister, is that an official carries complaints against one of his colleagues through jealousy or other reasons, and on the grounds of those complaints action is then taken. I have already investigated such a case. I have brought similar cases to the attention of the Chief of Railway Police, and after he had investigated them he had found that the accusations were devoid of all truth. It is a sort of spy service that is in operation. Apparently the same happened in this case. Ackermann still does not know what happened, but I assume that this is what happened. Some official or other who wanted to get rid of such a person carried complaints. On that action was taken; the official is dismissed, and he gets no opportunity of facing his accuser and of defending himself. He is never informed of the actual indictment against him, but he is treated in this reprehensible and scandalous way, and he is informed that his services are terminated. Then members on the other side speak of the Gestapo. Things here are going 100 per cent. worse. I really trust, if the Government wants to retain a little of its good name, that it will act to see that this reprehensible persecution on the part of certain officials and employees shall not continue. Well, there was a long debate here last year in connection with the reorganisation of staff associations. The House will remember that considerable time was taken up in connection with this matter. The Minister refused to budge, and the staff groups were divided under certain associations. Spoorbond also refused to budge, and the result is that they no longer enjoy the recognition of the Administration. In the past year the position has been that a very large section of the staff have actually had no representation. Spoorbond was not recognised as a body representing that section of the staff. What the latest developments are, I do not know. But I would like to put this question to the Minister. I want to know whether he achieved the object he had in view with the regrouping of the staff; whether he has obtained more efficiency from the staff; whether there is more satisfaction among the staff; whether he has obtained more ability from individual members and more loyalty and fidelity; what improvement he really got as a result of the reorganisation and regrouping of the staff? It would be very interesting, after a year’s experience, to hear from the Minister what the position is. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us, after a year’s experience of the regrouping, what object he has achieved and what improvements he has brought about. Then there are still a few small matters on which I would like to touch. I have already referred to the depression economies that have not been restored. This year the railway surplus is again going to be several millions. The Minister has brought about a small improvement in the wage scales of railworkers. It looks very much like an election improvement, but we are nevertheless thankful for it. Even if it is given only three days before the election—any improvement is welcome. But will the Minister not again take into review the economies of 1932—’33, which have not yet been restored. There is the 8-hour day of the ticket examiners and conductors which has been increased to nine hours. The locomotive staff work eight hours per day, but the ticket examiners and conductors still work nine hours per day. It is no more than fair that they should also have a reduction of hours. They can particularly claim it now. And then there is the station foreman, and not only the station foreman but also the dining-room staff. It is a peculiar thing that the Government is always inclined to make laws for private employers. A 46-hour week is prescribed, and the tendency in the industrial world is to decrease the hours still further to 44. But when the Government deals with its own officials, the Government is the rottenest and worst employer in the whole country. On the railways and in the Government service people have to work twelve hours per day, and then not only while it is daylight, but they work night after night, year in and year out. Station foremen are entitled to get two hours off in the night. But if the Minister pays a visit to the stations in the night, he will see that the station foremen get no chance to take off any time. They work from six to six, throughout the night. This is a scandalous state of affairs, particularly if we consider the tendency in industry to bring about improved labour conditions in every sphere. The Government compels its own employees to work 12 hours per day, and that in the night. Here is a matter that has been brought to the attention of the Government year after year by this side. Surpluses of millions of pounds are obtained but the Government does nothing for those people who sacrifice their health. What have they of their life when they work the whole year, night after night. It is unreasonable and unfair to expect this. I also want to speak about the catering staff. There is a deterioration of labour conditions as regards the catering staff, and I allege that there is hardly any section of the staff who deserves the attention of the Minister more. Members who travel know what duties are placed upon the dining-saloon staff. On the long-distance trains those people work from 6 o’clock in the morning to 11 o’clock and half-past 11 at night. In the evenings there are four sittings for dinner. Those people begin 6 o’clock in the morning and they continue to 11 o’clock in the evening. They get very little chance to eat. They do not work twice as much but three times as much as in the past. The Minister knows that there is a shortage of this staff and that the number of trains has been curtailed, with the result that more and more is being demanded from these people. In normal circumstances they get a definite period at the home station. Now they scarcely get twelve hours at home when they must be back on the train. Has the Minister ever thought of raising their salaries a bit? A cost-of-living allowance is allotted to them. But has he thought about improving the salary scale? For Sunday service they are paid for 12 hours, even though they work longer. The rest of the staff are paid according to working time, and then at wage plus one-half. But the diningroom staff are paid only for 12 hours, even though they work 14 hours or 16 hours on Sundays. I think this is a scandalous position. Why should there be an exception in connection with one section of your staff? Why should the dining-room staff work 14 hours and be paid for only 12 hours? The Minister, with his millions surplus, can surely use a few pounds to improve the conditions of these people. Take the wages they receive. There are others on the railways who are paid even less, but take the dining-room staff as an example. They are paid from £9 to £11 or £12 per month. That is the scale of wages, without cost-of-living allowances. There is not much chance of promotion on the dining-room staff. They begin at £9 per month and can rise to chief steward, and then they get about £21. Of course they also get their food. This Government boasted the other day through the Minister of Finance about what they are doing for the people of South Africa. He boasted about the improvements they are bringing about; he boasted about all the intentions they have about creating a better life for the people of South Africa. Now we come with facts. Here is a section of your staff who are expected in this year 1943 to work 12 hours and 14 hours for £9 per month, and then they have the arrogance to speak of improvements. I also want to say something in connection with the promotion system. There are complaints from year to year, particularly in regard to the clerical staff, and what improvement has been brought about? We have recently had the grossest cases of promotions that have taken place over the heads of numbers of senior officials who are completely bilingual and able officials. It appears that so long as this Government is in power, one section of the railway staff are preparing themselves to get all the promotions. As regards the clerical staff, they have received very little improvement. Generally a clerk advances to the third grade, and then there is a dividing line. The’ maximum salary of a third grade clerk is £334 per year; for years he then has to wait until he gets promotion to the second grade, and I may say it often happens that a clerk remains at that grade for 15 or 20 years. They do get a cost-of-living allowance, but if we can take into consideration the rise that has taken place in living costs, then we see that this is out of all proportion to the cost-of-living allowances paid. We know that this year there are going to be great surpluses. I want to ask the hon. Minister, in his own interests, for there is an election pending, and it will suit their purpose to bring about those increases—we plead here that the Minister should go out of his way this year, particularly when one thinks about the conditions under which railway officials have to work, to bring about those improvements.

I want to support the hon. member for Kimberley, City (Mr. Humphreys) in the representations he has made to the Minister in regard to our association of the Railways and the development of our secondary industries. I agree with what he said about the necessity of a shipping line to go both East and West, and that necessity has been apparent for a long time. During the Empire Exhibition there was an excellent display from territories to the North and East with which we were doing a certain amount of business—not only timber, tea, coffee, etc., but many other items which this country is always requiring, and is in need of today. Though nothing was made of that, I consider that a great opportunity was lost and on enquiry it will be found that the means of transport were not to be had. But I am glad to notice that the Minister is already considering the appeal that has been made to him for as little delay as possible for ships to go both East and West. May I just, in order to support this, say something to the Minister in regard to the past history in this regard. It was after the Great War, during which we had been doing a certain amount of business with these various countries—it was after the war that our troubles started. We had been doing business with Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda, the Congo and other places. After the war we found that we could not compete and gradually but surely our industries were pushed out of all these territories, and that was the position at the beginning of this war. It is no use saying that because we are doing a certain amount of business in these territories today, therefore we shall continue to do that business afterwards. In war time you can do business anywhere. In war time you can supply these countries with manufactures from all parts of this country. But directly we come to normal again I am afraid the same thing will happen that happened after the last war. There are two causes which put us out of these fields. The first was our transport. The then Minister of Railways appointed an inter-departmental committee to enquire into the causes why we were losing our trade in those territories. The report was this—and I know it was right—that the cost of our commodities at the seat of manufacture was just what we should be able to land them for in those territories. If the House will appreciate that, it will see that our industries cannot expand without some means of transport. Now, what is the cure for this evil? It is this, that your railways which are the transport of this country, must be used in conjunction with the development of your industry, and your rates must be used in such a manner as to bring our goods to the East, the West and the North, and our railways must be the means of our competition in those countries—our railway rates must make it possible for us to compete. In other words, you link up our whole transport system with our industries and make our transport a part of our development, a part of our push, and that is the only way of success I can see. I know of nothing else that can be done except to use your transport to regulate your prices even if you have to carry your goods free to the North. It is the only way of holding those territories. It might only be for a limited time, that you might have to do that, but otherwise the same thing will happen to our industries as happened twenty years ago. Now the other reason why we have to shoulder this responsibility is this. Supposing we manage to find a market in those other countries. Today the cost of production is too high. We have to bring that down. We have to bring our costs down. The tariff Commission brought out a most excellent report on this whole matter but nothing was done. That Commission, after taking evidence which could not be doubted, came to the conclusion that the cost of production had to come down if we were to hold any of the trade which we had. They were perfectly right. Now, there are many products which we can get from those territories in the North. I know from personal observation that there is an enormous trade—there are tremendous openings for this country, and these other countries endeavour to open up trade with us by displaying at our exhibitions. Now, supposing we failed to avail ourselves of our opportunties. What will happen? This is what will happen. When we come to normal again you will be supplying just the people whom you supplied before—you will supply the people in the Union. You will send a little bit to Northern Rhodesia and a little bit elsewhere but you will not have the trade with these other countries which you can have. We want to develop our industries, and create greater employment not only for the returned soldiers, but for the other people in the country. It is very interesting to note that these other countries which I have been referring to are actually waiting for our goods if we can supply them reasonably. Now, the exports from those countries for the year before this war amounted to £140,000,000 worth. Those goods went to other parts of the world. They went to the Circle of Production, other colonies and territories which we also supply. If those countries exported £140,000,000 worth of goods and none of those goods came to the Union I suggest to the Minister that unless our transport is used, unless we take the responsibility for quoting our prices including landing, as other countries do, we shall lose our trade with those countries. When I was in Kenya a few years ago I saw New Zealand jams and other New Zealand and Australian products sold there, and the remarkable thing was that although these countries were three or four thousand miles away those commodities were sold cheaper than the South African manufactured article. This is a matter which has to be dealt with quickly and I have no doubt that we must utilise our railways. That is the only sledge hammer we have. We must use our railways for the holding of these markets and then I am sure that we shall have a big development of our industries, but if something is not done, precisely the same thing will happen as happened before. So I want the Minister to take this into serious consideration and it will be a good thing for this country and for the whole of Africa.

The hon. member for Kimberley, City (Mr. Humphreys) this afternoon came along and said that he wished to congratulate the Minister, on behalf of his side of the House, with his great success and his record. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) went into that, and I do not wish to cover the same filed again, but I should like to say just this, that I do not believe that the general public, if they were present in this House this afternoon, would have congratulated the Minister of Railways. I believe still less that the railway staff, had they been present in this House this afternoon, would have congratulated the Minister. When the hon. member for Kimberley says that he congratulates the Minister on his record, then I think he is regarding it purely from a political point of view. I would say here, without exaggeration, that I do not believe the Railway Administration has ever been in a worse state of confusion than it is in today. The travelling public could testify to that. In Burghersdorp I have been approached by several people who have asked me whether I would not ask the Minister to do something with regard to the reservation of seats. At first you had to book a month before the time, and subsequently it was fourteen days; afterwards it was a month again. Suppose a person wishes to travel somewhere on the 14th December. You get to the station and book your seat, and if you get there, say on the 29th November, when you desire to travel on the 14th December, they tell you: No, you have to book your seat exactly fourteen days before the time. The Minister should really take into consideration the fact that all the people do not live in the towns; all the people do not have telephones in their homes. Now a person is told he has to book fourteen days before the time. Then he has to take his car and return to the farm, and he hardly has sufficient petrol to go to town to book his seat. Take the case of the school children. School children are told they have to come exactly fourteen days before the time. They get to the station a fortnight before the time, and are told that from that day they have to book a month before the time. Then, for instance, two schoolboys turn up on Monday, fourteen days before the time, and they are told: Now you can travel a month hence only, for from today you have to book a month beforehand. Have you ever heard of a more foolish and ridiculous policy? Just imagine, children and teachers who have to be back at school a fortnight hence, are told: No, from today you can only travel a month hence. The result of this has been that more than 20 people from Burghersdorp had to get into the dining saloon, in which they travelled to places such as Johannesburg and Pretoria. People with women and children had to spend the night in the dining saloon. During the night they are permitted to remain in the dining saloon, but in the morning they are driven out into the passage-ways. I do not wish to blame the staff; the people have to be there at a certain time, and they lose their jobs if they do not arrive in time. People are permitted to entrain through the generosity of the staff. But they are compelled to drive the people into the passage-ways; they cannot do anything else. Many people are en route to the mines, and there is no excuse for them should they come late. They simply have to travel in the dining saloon. Then the hon. member for Kimberley comes along and says that he has to congratulate the Minister on his record. I wish to say a word or two about the catering service, and the boys who are employed in the catering service. The other day I took the trouble to ask the Chief Steward how many people were travelling on a certain train. His reply was: 418. What do you think, how many stewards were there on that train? There were 4. Imagine that, one man to serve 104 people. In the afternoon I asked him how many people took the midday meal, and he replied 135. That poor boy works seventeen hours a day, and do you know what princely salary he is paid? £9 10s. a month. When I said to the Chief Steward: “How can you expect it; can you expect these people to rise at 5 o’clock in the morning and work until 12 o’clock?” he replied: “Well, it is due to the war.” When I told him I would bring boys from my constsituency who would be prepared to work in the dining saloon, he said: “Yes, we may be able to get the men, but they do not receive a princely salary.” I know of university students who tried to obtain employment in the catering service. They could not however endure it for more than three or four days. I know the families from which these boys are descended. They are not people who have grown up indifferently, but they say they simply cannot do it. They have to work 17 hours a day, and the princely salary they receive is £9 a month. Once one of the catering employees went to Braamfontein and asked the Minister for an increase in his salary. I understand he was given the sack. I am now talking subject to correction. Now I wish also to tell you about my personal experience on that train, carrying 418 people. I am sorry to have to bring in my personal case here. I have a wife and three children, who accompanied me on the journey. You know that small children wake up early in the morning. I could not take my small children to the dining saloon, because the people were queued up to get to the dining saloon. The children were awake from 7 o’clock, and you know how troublesome such a small child is in the morning. At ten minutes to ten, the steward came in and asked me what I wanted for breakfast. I had to struggle with the children for three hours. And my case is not the only one. How many people travelling on the trains, have to put up with such inconveniences. I do not blame the people who are employed by the railways, but I do say that a man who comes along and congratulates this Government—well, I nearly want to say that he is deprived of his senses, as the Minister said the other day, because one can never congratulate a Minister with something like that. I am referring to these cases this afternoon, because I consider it our duty to bring these cases to the notice of the Minister. Let me tell you what happened to me at the Cape Town station. Last year I criticised the Minister. He then asked me to bring specific cases to his notice. Now I am going to mention specific instances to him. Sunday night, 31st January, according to the time-table the train to Fish Hoek would have left at a quarter past eleven. So I naturally got into the train before a quarter past eleven. When do you think the train left? At twelve o’clock midnight sharp that night. Just imagine, you leave at midnight instead of at 11.15 p.m. You had a taxi ordered for you, and people have come to the station to meet you. When you reach your destination, it is past twelve and it is a black-out. By the time the train leaves, it is overcrowded, and a number of people have to stand. One woman with a child in her arms had to stand on the station for three-quarters of an hour. Notwithstanding all this, the Minister is now being congratulated with his record and good achievements. I have asked a few of the officials: “Tell me, why did the train leave so late.” They told me that the passenger train from Durban was overdue, that it was late, but that there was a train at 12.15 a.m. This instance I am mentioning is no exception. I am just referring to this case in order to bring it to the notice of the Minister that there is malorganisation in the Railways Department. Then I wish to appeal to the Minister. I once asked him why he discontinued the training of boys in the catering department. This afternoon I wish to ask, on behalf of the boys in the catering service, whether it is not possible to put more boys on those saloons in order that they may work shorter hours? I would also ask him whether it is not possible to increase the salaries of those boys in the catering service. We surely are not living in the time of slavery now. We are fighting for a new world, are we not? Those poor boys work from five o’clock in the morning until eleven or twelve o’clock at night. They will laugh at the Minister if he talks here about a better world. They are in the times of slavery, and the slave times might possibly become much worse. Then I wish to come to the ordinary railway worker. The Minister has indeed granted an increase of salary; I shall return to that later. But I would ask the Minister this: His predecessors have on previous occasions already granted railway workers concessions in regard to holidays. Don’t you think it would be fair to give those people 14 days’ leave? Their holiday leave is about eight days a year. Don’t you think it is reasonable that those people should have 14 days’ leave? Their leave is about 8 days a year, that is their paid leave. Suppose the people are up country, and they wish to go to the coast for their holidays. Whether we are rich or poor, that is the place we all wish to go to. If the people have 7 or 8 days, they take 3 or 4 days for the forward and return journeys in the train, possibly more. Only 3 or 4 days at the seaside remain. Therefore they cannot go. The Minister of Railways and Harbours also locks forward to the new millennium after the war, and I would ask him whether it is not fair that the railway workers should receive at least 14 days’ leave? In conclusion I should just like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood) has said, that he congratulates the Minister on the large tariff reserve fund, at present amounting to £7,500,000 already, and which is likely to increase to £10,000,000. The Minister of Finance recently warned the country, at Bredasdorp or another place, that difficult times lie ahead. We have seen that the Planning Council appointed by the Government expects that there will be 230,000 unemployed after the war, of which the Government will be able to provide employment for 15,000. Great unemployment is expected. We know it is the declared policy that people who join the South African Railways now are there temporarily only. When the soldiers return from the North they will take the places of those who have been employed temporarily. It does not matter who is thrown into the street, and who is rendered unemployed, but there will be unemployed, and if there is a depression, economy will be effected in all directions by restrictions and cuts. Therefore it is a good thing that the reserve fund is built up, not only in the interests of the public, but also in the interests of the railway personnel, because then it will not be necessary to discharge railway workers. The Planning Council indicates that the depression will affect the railways too. For that reason it will be a good thing for a reserve fund to be in existence in the difficult times that are expected, in order to prevent the railway personnel suffering. I do not think it is necessary for the Minister to boast of having the fund. We can only be glad that it is being supplemented so well, but we on this side will never say that it is too large, because it is cur intention to see to it, when this side comes into power, and the depression comes, that people are not discharged and wages decreased, but to carry on as if there is no depression. For this reason we are pleased about the tariff reserve fund, and we shall be glad if it is maintained on as sound a footing as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the last two hon. members who have spoken seem to object to the fact that the hon. member for Kimberley, City (Mr. Humphreys), congratulated the hon. Minister upon his record. Be that as it may, I must say it is rather a significant fact that not one of the hon. members who have spoken from the Opposition benches this afternoon has seen fit to utter a single word of praise for the very magnificent war effort of our Railway Administration.

We are against the war effort; don’t you know it?

The railways have made a magnificent war effort, and I do feel that the House and the country owe a deep debt of gratitude to our railwaymen. The extent of that effort can only be appreciated when comparative figures, showing the earnings of the Railway Department from the Defence Department are considered. For the year 1938—’39, which was the first year of the war, only £80,000 was paid by the Defence Department to the railways for work done. In the following year we find that sum increased to no less an amount of approximately £2,000,000, and although the figures for the present financial year are not yet available, the figures will approximate £3,000,000. That clearly indicates the magnificence of the war effort of the Railway Administration. Apart from that, we know that out of approximately 80,000 European railway employees, no less than 13,000 have been released for military service. We find also that the difference between the civil and military pay of those employees who have been released for military service, amounted to £427,415. Moreover, those men who have been released owing to their skill and knowledge of railway and harbour construction work, have certainly played a very important part in all the African campaigns, and I am quite certain that the country would like to voice its meed of praise to our Railway Engineering Corps, to our various railway construction companies, and last but not least, to our railways and harbours tank repair shops, which have done magnificent work. Their work in Libya, I have no doubt, contributed very largely to the rapid advance of the Eight Army. We must not, however, forget the railwaymen who remained at home, men who were quite ready to proceed on active service but owing to the fact that their services could not be dispensed with, are today in our workshops. One does appreciate that this war has shown us what our railway artisan is capable of doing. We know that these men have been able to execute most intricate work without any special training, and we look forward to the day when our railway workshops will be able to manufacture all our railway requirements, not only carriages and trucks, but locomotives. We all know that a sub-committee was appointed to investigate the possibilities of developments in our workshops. We await the report of that committee, and I hope that it will soon be laid on the Table of the House. We all appreciate the fact that our railway artisans have been the backbone of our munitions industry. Magnificent work has been done by them not only in the way of railway construction, but in ship repairs and construction work in Algoa Bay, and the smooth transport of hundreds of thousands of troops over our railways is, I think a matter upon which the Administration should be congratulated. Now, having spoken of the splendid work done by our railwaymen, I do want to make an appeal to the Minister to consider an increase of pay for the railway artisan. Owing to the long hours of work and the exacting nature of the work which he has been called upon to perform, his health has to a certain extent been impaired. We know that he enjoys many facilities that are not enjoyed by those outside, and we know that he has a cost of living allowance amounting during the last financial year, to approximately £500,000. But, sir, I do feel that as the late Minister of Railways granted a responsibility allowance of 1s. a day to the railway employee, something of the same nature might be given now when the circumstances are somewhat similar. I do not like the idea of a responsibility allowance, I would far rather see an increase in the substantive pay, but in any case I hope that matter will receive the consideration of the Minister. I now want to make an appeal to the Minister to consider the question of making a cost of living allowance to our railway pensioners. I know there are difficulties in the way, but a ridiculous position has arisen in my own constituency, and I think it applies to all railway pensioners throughout the country. There are pensioners who are physically fit, and who have been re-employed during the war period. They are doing good work, some of them in their old trades, and some as examiners in the workshops. The position is that the moment a pensioner is re-employed by the Administration, immediately he becomes entitled to the cost of living allowance. The other pensioners who are too old to be re-employed do not receive a cost of living allowance. I can assure the hon. Minister that this is a matter which is exercising the minds of the pensioners and although, as I have said, I appreciate the difficulties, I would appeal to the Minister to collaborate with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, and I am certain that some way to meet the situation will be found. Seeing that the railways are responsible for all our transport problems, I would like, for a moment, to deal with the matter of air transport. I am certain the House will realise that the development of air transport after the war will be a matter of vital importance, and I feel that now is the time to have the matter thoroughly investigated. The value of air transport was very successfully demonstrated by the Railway Administration just prior to the war, not only within the Union, but as a means of linking us with the neighbouring African territories. I feel that after this war air transport will play a very vital part in industrial development as far as we are concerned. It is absolutely essential that artificial boundaries between us and our neighbours should be banished, and so, in a way, bring together all the resources of the African territories. This can only be done through the development on a large scale of air transport. I would suggest that the time is now ripe for the appointment of a commission, or a committee, to carefully investigate the problem. We have been told that a shipping commission has been appointed to investigate the shipping question. We know, too, that the Minister informed the House last year that a committee had been appointed to examine postwar railway workshops development, and I feel that the time has now arrived to appoint a body to examine this branch of transport. That being so, I am strongly in favour of co-ordinating all our transport problems, and to that end I take this opportunity of strongly advocating the creation of a Ministry of Transport. We talk about post-war reconstruction, social security, and all that is to be done after the war, in a light and airy way, but I feel that transport is the chief factor that will help to solve our difficulties after the war. I appeal strongly for a Ministry of Transport. I feel that would be a means of removing not only monopolies, but would also see to it that each branch of transport received its legitimate traffic. There is only one other matter I would like to refer to briefly, and that is a matter on which I have already been in communication with the Minister. I refer to the question of our railway internees. Unfortunately, during the war period quite a number of our railwaymen have been interned for various reasons. Some of these have occupied very responsible positions in the railway service, many of them in a supervisory capacity. An internee who is on the temporary staff or a casual employee is immediately dismissed, but we find that those who are on the permanent staff have been merely suspended. That clearly indicates that it is the intention to reinstate them after the cessation of hostilities. This is a matter which is exercising the minds of the railwaymen. It has been raised in my constituency and throughout the country. I feel that now is the time for the Administration to decide what its policy is in regard to these men. I feel it would be grossly unfair to expect a railwayman who has served his three-and-a-half years in the desert to return and find himself controlled by a man who owing to the fact that he proved himself to be a danger to the State—otherwise he would not have been interned—who proved disloyal in a time of emergency and had been put away in an interment camp. This is a matter which should not be left until after our men have returned, but it should be dealt with at this stage, and so avoid the possibility of trouble after the war.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways to something said here recently by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made the statement that where recruits will now be selected for service overseas, he would see to it that the principle of voluntary enlistment will be applied; to use his own words: “To make the principle of voluntary recruiting real and effective.” Now I would like to know from the Minister of Railways if he will also apply that principle in the future to the railway service. Much has already been said about pressure that is being exercised in connection with recruiting, but such pressure is not only exercised when a man is threatened with dismissal, but there are also other means of exercising pressure—and that is just as compelling a way—and that is by saying to a man: “You cannot get work except if you are prepared to sign on”; or, “You are of military age, and you cannot therefore get work.” If the words of the Prime Minister mean anything, namely, that the vountary principle will be made actual and effective, then it does not mean only that people will not be victimised and threatened with dismissal, but then it also means that pressure will not be exercised in other ways. Then it will not be said to people: “You cannot get work, you can join up.” Now I want to ask the Minister of Railways if he will also instruct his officials to see that the principle that has been laid down by the Prime Minister will also be applied in the railway service, and that when in future applications come to the officials for work, that they will not answer as in the past: “Why do you not go and fight?” The Minister cannot deny that this is being done. Only last week it happened in my constituency with a man who asked whether there was an opening for him. The reply was: “Why do you not go and fight?” I hope the Minister will give us the assurance that this sort of thing will terminate and that he will not allow what has happened in the past to continue, that he also will not allow Government officials to come and seek recruits in the workshops and other places of the railways. That is not what the Prime Minister called “Making the principle of voluntary recruiting real and effective”! For if a man is at his work and the recruiting sergeant comes round, then that person is in a difficult position if he refuses to join up under the eyes of the officials placed over him. I hope that the Minister, in view of the words of the Prime Minister, will give the assurance that this will no longer be permitted. The hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood) has raised the question of stewards. I travel fairly frequently by train. I go home every weekend, and I can say to the Minister that the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District has not stated the position too strongly when he said that the stewards are among the hardest worked people in the railway service. The Minister perhaps does not realise this too well. He naturally travels in his private coach and does not know what happens in the dining saloons. But that is definitely the position. If we ask why it is so, then I would reply that it is not only a question of a shortage of men. That is certainly a contributing factor, but there is another reason, and that is the’ new way of table attendance that the Minister has introduced into South Africa in the past year. You know what the position is. You sit down in a dining saloon. Now you must wait until the dining room is full. You sometimes sit a quarter-of-an-hour before service can commence. Only then they come to hear if you want to order a drink. It takes another ten minutes to ascertain this. Then the service commences. And at the service a table attendant may not serve a second course before the people at the number of tables he serves have finished eating. It happens as in the case of a convoy. A convoy can only go as fast as the slowest ship in it. In the dining saloon the eating can progress only as fast as the slowest eater. If you have two women sitting and chatting, as I experienced the other day, then all must wait until the two ladies have finished eating.

And women can talk a lot.

They can talk a lot. The other day I sat at the end of the saloon, where the passage is. There were people eating at their leisure, all the others were finished. These table attendants stood smoking because they could not proceed with the service until those persons were ready. I took the trouble of discussing the matter with various chief stewards, and if the Minister would take the trouble of sending out a cricular, then he would find out that not one of them is satisfied with the new system. They all complain about it. The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps they tell him otherwise, but they are dissastified with what they call the continental system now introduced into the refreshment service. An objection I have always had to the continental system is that the service is so slow. The chief stewards assure me that it takes about twenty minutes longer to serve a meal than under the old system. The Minister again shakes his head. I can judge, because I sit there myself. Perhaps they do not tell him, but that is the position. If he sends out a circular he will probably not find one chief steward who subscribes to the new system. It is not only that the trains are full and that there is a shortage of staff, but it also takes so much longer to serve meals. We want the old South African system and not the imported continental method. There is another matter affecting the travelling public that I want to raise, and that is the matter of accommodation booking. I have raised the matter here before. I do not say that soldiers should not get leave, but I do want to ask if it is necessary to give soldiers leave four times a year to go home. It happens that a man goes home four times a year and if so many of the soldiers must travel, is it then not possible on behalf of the travelling public to run a special troop train, say once a week, at least on the main line between Cape Town and Johannesburg. That will reduce the difficulties of booking. The Minister once asked the public that they should not travel such a lot for pleasure. I fear that the appeal of the Minister to the public has availed little, even amongst his own supporters who travel so much for pleasure. The Minister stares at me. Perhaps he wants to know how I know. I looked through the passenger list the other day, en route to Cape Town, and on the list there were 145 adult passengers all bearing Jewish names and the place of destination of most of them was Kalk Bay, or Muizenberg, or other watering places. These are all people who travel for pleasure, but the people who go on business cannot get accommodation. At the breaking up of the schools recently there were, in the town of Fraserburg, in my constituency, which town is 80 miles from the station Fraserburg Road, teachers who had to go home after the closing of the school. They cannot remain there. They had booked accommodation on the train five weeks previously, but they could not get accommodation. They were compelled to make arrangements with a person who happened to go to Cape Town by motor. The same difficulty is being experienced by pupils and students. They do not travel for pleasure. They must go to school and to university. I have had such experience with my own son. The cause is the great number of military going on leave and the great number of people travelling for pleasure, and I feel that the Minister can perhaps help the travelling public who must travel by running a special train for troops between Johannesburg and Cape Town once a week. That will give alleviation to the overloaded trains and the overworked staff.