As hon. members know there is an understanding to conclude my votes by quarter to one. I think there is such an arrangement. That being so, I am afraid that I cannot answer comprehensively to everything that has been raised, because I want to give hon. members the chance to speak and I do not want to take up all the time. If there are thus little points with which I cannot deal here, and if other points are raised which I cannot deal with in the time at my disposal, I shall be prepared to reply to hon. members by letter. I hope that hon. members will be satisfied with that plan.

†The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) has asked me certain questions and made certain suggestions in connection with the very serious outbreak of East Coast Fever in Vryheid. He has stressed that the request of farmers in the Vryheid district and more especially in the Newcastle and Dundee districts for a public enquiry should be acceded to. We have continually contacted farmers not only on their farms, but at public meetings. A Special Vigilance and Advisory Committee of farmers has been chosen by the Vryheid people, and they are being contacted all the time—they are asked for advice and asked to make recommendations in regard to certain matters. I suggest that farmers should be satisfied with that for the time being. I do not know whether it is suggested that if it is found that the Government has been negligent or that the Government officers have been negligent, or if it is found that there has been laxity, that we should relax certain regulations, I do not think that is the suggestion. On the other hand, the suggestion surely is not that we should stop fighting the disease—which might have to be done if my officers were required to attend the sittings of the Committee. It seems that we cannot lose any time in dealing with the position, but once we have stamped out the disease or confined it within certain limits, if an enquiry is still required, then I shall consider the matter sympathetically. The hon. member also asked that we should deal gently with cattle movements. Surely the hon. member cannot be serious about this. I can only say that we shall deal severely with people moving their cattle without permits. We have had a few cases where the people have broken the law. They will be punished by the magistrate—the matter is in his discretion. Even if they are fined to the limit allowed by the law, I am afraid it will still pay some farmers to move their cattle, and more stringent measures will have to be and will be taken. I was rather impressed by the suggestion of the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) that a cordon should be drawn rather widely around the whole of the infected area and no movements be allowed out of that area. I am rather impressed with that, and I have wired to the officers dealing with the matter, and asked for their advice. The hon. member also spoke about an emulsion dip, and there, too, I must be guided by the opinion of my technical officers. The matter of branding will have to be gone into. We are dealing with that now. Where there are serious cases, I have the power to order branding, but there, too, I must be guided by my officers. The other points are also being enquired into. The hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) has asked two things. The one is to put to the Dairy Board that on account of the rise in the price of mealies and the shortage of foodstuffs they should consider seriously raising the prices of dairy products. The second point he put was that I should approach the Price Controller and point out that the price of condensed milk is generally still the same as it was before the war, and that if the Board should think that the price for condensing milk is warranted, he should consider putting up the price of condensed milk. Both requests seem to be fair as far as they go, and I shall refer his representations to the Board and discuss the matter with my colleague who is responsible for price controlling.

What about cheese milk?

All the dairy products. May I just enter a gentle protest with hon. members? It is rather dangerous to go one better or sometimes ten better than the Minister goes. I have referred again to Hansard and I would like to remind hon. members of what I said in reply to the request made by the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) for the subsidisation of maize to Natives. You see, hon. members at present are accepting—are taking it for granted that maize or maize products are going to be subsidised. Now, this is what I said—

Now the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has already told me how much the subsidy should be. I don’t want hon. members to be under a misapprehension—apparently the hon. member was under the impression that we have already agreed to the suggestion of the hon. member for Transkei. The principle involved is a big one, and it will also involve tremendous expense to the Government. So I do not want hon. members to be under a misapprehension. I might also gently remind my hon. friend behind me of what I said in regard to the question of Lucerne seed. I said that I was willing to discuss the question with my colleagues. I said that I was prepared to discuss with my colleagues the question of subsidising farmers to buy lucerne seed. Lucerne seed is very expensive today and I am naturally anxious to encourage farmers to increase the fertility of their land. It seems very sound and I am willing to discuss the matter of subsidisation under certain conditions with my colleagues.

You don’t undertake it, you only want to discuss it.

Why do hon. members split hairs? If I discuss it, I discuss it with a view to giving it if I can. I cannot undertake it straight away. I discuss it with a view to giving it. What otherwise would be the use of any discussion? Now, the hon. member fox Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) has asked me quite a few questions. He says the price of bread cannot, and should not go up. Well, we have not arrived at that stage yet. I have told the committee that the prices mentioned are prices which the Government will stand good for, whatever it may cost the Government. But the final fixing will only take place in September, and then the price of meal and bread and everything else is fixed at the same time. I am not going to anticipate what the board might do and what the Government might agree to. The hon. member has also asked me for a statement about meat. He has asked me to tell the House what we are going to do about meat, and what the position of meat is in the country—he wants to know whether it is scarce or otherwise. It is, of all the difficult questions today the most difficult one, and I am not ready to make a statement that is half boiled. I can only tell him this, that although it is admitted that we are cutting somewhat into our capital, into our stock capital. I am not yet certain about the position. I have been consulting many of the people who are in the best position to know what the situation is. My own experience as far as cattle are concerned, and that of people I have consulted, is that we are not faced with a very alarming scarcity. May I nut it that way—that we are still a long way from the time when we would have to ration meat to consumers. That, generally speaking is the view of people who know the position. We have not taken a census for the last three or four years, and to some extent it must be guess work. I suggest to people who are alarmed at the fact that young stock and breeding stock is being slaughtered that possibly that is due to the good prices which have been obtained—people have done away with scrub cattle, with scrub stuff: they have got rid of stuff which they would not otherwise have taken the trouble to send to the market. That is largely the position in respect of the increased slaughterings. On the whole I certainly do not propose at present to suggest any scheme of rationing meat. The hon. member has also asked me a question about the Canners’ Council. I want to tell him that since the establishment of the Food Control Organisation the need for a Canners’ Council has disappeared. Food Control is doing the work. I have consulted the Minister of Commerce and Industries, and he agreed with me.

†*The hon. member for Middelburg (Mr. Bosman) asked what the position is in connection with bonemeal. Middelburg and Lydenburg, and those areas, are not recognised as gallamsiekte areas, but where there are special cases a farmer can simply go to the veterinary officer to obtain a certificate and on the strength of that he can apply for bonemeal. They fall in the third category of persons who may get bonemeal. We have not got enough bonemeal, and we help the gallamsiekte areas first.

But we have not even got a veterinary officer.

Then he can apply to the magistrate or direct to the Food Controller in Pretoria. The hon. member asks me, where I have now persuaded the railways to grant the 90 per cent. rebate on manure from certain parts of the Karoo to the Eastern Transvaal, that I should now ensure the provision of trucks. I think the hon. member should ask the Minister of Railways, but if he fails to get anywhere in the matter I shall try to help him. The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. P. M. K. le Roux) spoke about beans and peas. The price increased last week by about 10s. according to the reports I have received. I do not understand whether the hon. member wants the introduction of control for the purpose of increasing or decreasing the price. Many people direct serious representations to me that I should fix the price with the idea of bringing it down, because they have to feed beans and peas in place of mealies. In any case, I am going into the matter thoroughly. The hon. member asked me why there was not an earlier statement in connection with the price of raisins and sultanas. I had hoped that this could be done betimes this year, but there were circumstances which caused a delay. I hope that there will be more expedition in the matter next year. I have asked the manager of the Mealie Control Board what the position is in connection with mealies for Basutoland in connection with which the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) spoke. The reply is that Bechuanaland, Swaziland, and up to a point British Bechuanaland, have always got their mealies from the Union. They do not produce enough, but they also get only their quota, and when the quota is reduced in the Union their quota is also reduced. Zastron happens to be the nearest centre from which the mealies can be sent away, and that is why the hon. member saw such a lot of activity there. But I can give him the assurance that Basutoland merely gets the quota.

My question was whether there would be the same strict control in Basutoland as in the Union.

That is the condition on which they receive mealies. The hon. member must remember that there was a fairly big wheat crop in Basutoland, and for all these years we have been receiving their surplus wheat, and if they require mealies then they get the mealies from us. But they are rationed in the same way as our own people. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) raised the question of the delivery price of meat. The butchers had said that they would rather see a minimum price fixed to the consumer and then, where people did not fetch their own meat, an extra delivery fee. I do not know for certain if this has worked well and we are again going into the matter. I am glad about the hint which the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) gave in connection with the distribution of fertiliser. I think there is a lot to be said in favour of the small farmer receiving proportionally more than the big farmer. I am grateful for the hint and I shall cause an immediate investigation. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) asked for barbed wire. I have persuaded the Department of Defence to the extent that we shall get 200 tons of barbed wire. Farmers can apply to the Controller of Agricultural Machinery and Agricultural Requirements in Pretoria. All the particulars and also the forms may be obtained there. I am hoping that I shall perhaps also be able to get a little barbed wire here and there, for I can assure the hon. member that I am just as short of barbed wire as he is. If I look after myself, I shall also look after them. It would take me half an hour to reply to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), and with his permission I shall try later to thrash out the points with him. With reference to the grading of meat, the hon. member rightly said that this is one of our great difficulties. We have done whatever we can with the officials we have available. I do not say it is perfect, but we are again going into the matter. I can just tell the hon. member that there has already been some change, and inter alia the price of Afrikaner sheep will be a little higher than the old price. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) has again spoken about the grading of wheat. My information is that the threshing machines can be adjusted in such a way today that there is very little broken wheat.

You cannot do it, not on a dry day.

My information as regards the Swartland is that the percentage of first-grade wheat was 96 per cent. last year. I say that 96 per cent. of the wheat in the Swartland was first-grade at the last crop. That is the information I have from my officials. If that is so, then the grading could not have caused much harm.

But you cannot justify the wrong grading system on the strength of that.

Give me a chance. It is pointed out to me that it is not only a question of broken seeds. That is not the only criterion. There is also the question of foreign matter in the wheat, and then the bushel weight. I can tell the hon. member that I have asked the Wheat Control Board to go into the matter again and to see to what extent we can meet the objections mentioned by the hon. member. Then he also spoke about the price of apricots. I can do nothing about that now. Perhaps we can place an “agterskot” in prospect.

Will there be a compensation next year?

That I do not know. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has mentioned another matter, into which I have gone very thoroughly. It happened before I became Minister of Agriculture, but I have thoroughly considered all the arguments for and against. I am not so sure that the farmers would have succeeded even if the case had been thrown out on exception.

But that is not the point.

The point is this, that the Perishable Products Control Board should not have the defence that they are exempted by the law. I want to tell the hon. member that we shall not get any board of this nature to react if it does not have that exemption. That is the reason why the law was framed like that at the time. In any case, we are now fairly far from the export of fruit, and before we export deciduous fruits again we can go into the matter, and see if it is desirable to amend the law in that respect. I am not quite so sure that it is desirable to amend the law. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) asked me to obtain a reduction of the import duty on our liquor in Rhodesia. I shall go into the matter in consultation with my colleague. As regards the 1s. stamp on application forms—that is a matter which I will discuss with the Minister of Finance.

†The hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. C. M. Warren) spoke about the establishment of wool factories and he said that the Industrial Development Corporation wanted to start one. And then he said that it depended on me to see that if they started a wool factory the wool farmers should get a preference in regard to getting shares. I don’t know whether I have the power to do so. I shall be only too glad if someone does start a wool factory. If the Corporation says that they can start a factory, I do hope that the wool farmer will get preference in the matter of shares, but I have not got the power to instruct them to do this. I have not got the power to forbid them taking the steps they have in mind.

†*With reference to the question of the hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. S. Bekker) regarding the marketing and breeding of pigs, I may say that we are busy investigating the matter. In Johannesburg the position is fairly satisfactory, but in other places again it is not so satisfactory. We are busy investigating the matter. If there are other points upon which I have not touched, then hon. members will receive a written reply.

Can you tell me something about the price of fresh milk which I raised here?

I had documents on my table this morning in connection with the price of fresh milk. In some places the price will have to be increased. It is a difficult matter, and I can only tell the hon. member that I shall give my best attention to it.

Can you promise the poultry farmers nothing?

I have been quarelling for the last two months, first with this board and then with the other, to see if I cannot get something for the poultry farmers so that they need not have to kill so many fowls. We have given them wheat. That is all we now have. If they can carry on for another five weeks then they will be able to get the feed.

We want less beer and more eggs.

The egg position is not so serious. Some people say they want more beer and less eggs.

I want to bring a matter to the attention of the Minister which I wanted to raise on a subsequent vote, but owing to lack of time I do not know if we shall get to that vote, and therefore I want to raise the matter here on the salary of the Minister. It is the question of the closing of the agricultural schools. The farmers generally are very anxious about the matter. Why should the agricultural schools be selected to be penalised in this respect? Are there then no more boys who want to go there, or does the Government want to compel the boys to join the army? Then I would also like to know from the Minister what his reply was to the Agricultural Union, which at its congress adopted a very strong resolution about the closing of the agricultural schools. They urged the Minister to reconsider his decision, and they pointed out that it is particularly necessary in this time to educate our boys. We all know that we are approaching a very uncertain world, and now is the time to train our boys to find their feet in that uncertain world.

There is a vote on the estimates under which the hon. member can deal with this matter. He can put a question to the Minister now. I realise the reason why he is discussing the matter here, but nevertheless I cannot allow it under the Rules of the House.

Then I hope that the Minister will take us into his confidence and give us a reply to this point.

Why cannot it wait for the Forestry Vote?

We shall not come to it.

Why shall we not come to it?

There are still quite a few members who want to speak on this vote. To revert to the Agriculture Vote, I would like to know from the Minister if he has arrived at a decision in connection with the recommendations of the Tobacco Control Board regarding the price of tobacco. The Tobacco Control Board adopted a resolution; that resolution was before the Marketing Board, and I think that the recommendation was sent through to the Minister. The tobacco farmers would like to know what the Minister’s decision is.

I regret to say that I cannot yet say anything. I was fairly busy during the past four or five days, and I have not yet had the opportunity to go into the recommendation. I can promise, however, that as soon as I have had the chance of going into the recommendation I shall announce it to the tobacco farmers.

In that event I only hope that the Minister will keep account of the needs of the tobacco farmers. They belong to the poorest class of farmers in the country. Furthermore I want to put a question to the Minister in connection with the eradication of noxious weeds, and I would like to know from him how far he has got with the eradication of lintjies cactus. We have learned that the Government has taken steps to tackle the eradication of lintjies cactus, but it seems to me that the matter has again reached a dead end, and I would like to ask if it is not possible to employ the Italian prisoners-of-war to eradicate this noxious weed. The same applies to the eradiction of noxious weeds that grow luxuriantly along our rivers. The responsibility has been thrown upon the farmers to eradicate these, but sometimes we find that after a big flood the noxious weeds grow so luxuriantly beside the rivers that the farmer cannot bring them under control. Take a noxious weed such as kankerroos. I think that the Minister should pay attention to this suggestion of using the Italian prisoners-of-war to clean the land along the rivers. I also want to mention the position in connection with dodder. The Minister has taken the eradication of noxious weeds out of the hands of the Provincial Administration, and our experience in Oudtshoorn is that dodder has increased instead of decreased under Central Government administration. I broached the subject here last year, and I want the Minister to ensure that this noxious weed is combated in all seriousness, particularly where he intends helping the wheat farmers in the Western Province with lucerne seed, so that they can get clean seed and not seed contaminated by dodder. Then I also want to ask if the Minister would not once and for all, in view of the protection and the rehabilitation of our soil, seriously consider the creation of a soil conservation and development board which could co-ordinate all the plans in connection with the combating of soil erosion, the promotion of afforestation, and the protection of watersheds, and which could formulate an effective plan for soil protection and land conservation. Here again I feel that the Government need not tarry in doing something actual and practical. In consultation with his colleague, the Minister of Irrigation, the Minister can see whether the Irrigation Commission cannot act practically in this respect. In Consequence of the war the Irrigation Commission has not had much to do. The Government is not undertaking any great irrigation works, and for that reason the commission has practically nothing to do today. It appears to me, therefore, that this is the commission that the Minister can use to assist in connection with the combating of soil erosion, with afforestation and other matters relative to the conservation of our land. He must inspan that commission. If he would approach his colleague with this object, then the commission could act immediately. It appears to me that the commission could do very useful work, if the Minister would go into this plan.

I do not want to keep the House long, but I just want to say a few words in connection with the breeding of horses. In view of the fact that motor transport in the Union has become very scarce and that there is thus a certain measure of encouragement to the farmers to breed horses, I would like to know from the Minister if the time has not come for his department to extend the necessary encouragement also to this branch of the farming industry. By means of self-help the horse-farmer has fought on and has made a difficult livelihood in the past. It is quite clear that horse power in many places in South Africa can be employed more economically than motor power has been used in the past, or can be used now. Some time ago I saw a carefully formulated plan in the possession of one of the Minister’s experts in connection with the breeding of horses, and I ask the Minister to tackle that matter forcefully and to give the farmers in South Africa an opportunity of breeding better horses. The reason why we could not compete with motor transport was partly because we did not have the right class of horses for the purpose. The demand for heavy horses is great today, and I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to place stud stallions at more convenient centres. The farmers can then use those stallions, and they can even hire stallions from the Department. Then I would also like to know from the Minister if the time has not come to give the farmers a subsidy for approved foals. Horse breeding was neglected in the past, and the opportunity is now there, because imported vehicles are scarce, to encourage horse breeding, and I want to ask the Minister if he does not think the Government owes it to the horse farmer to assist him. The farmers must be assisted particularly in the breeding of heavy horses, but also of horses generally.

I would just like to touch on something in connection with the eradication of noxious weeds. Since the Central Government has taken over, noxious weeds in my area have multiplied on a great scale. Boetebos now grows luxuriantly in areas where it was never seen before. The inspector lives at Steynsburg. His method is to send every farmer a registered letter, that is to every owner or tenant, that he must clean his farm within so many days. He travels about in a motorcar and remains on the main roads. And even along the main roads I have seen boetebos growing 3 ft. and 4 ft. high. When the Divisional Council was responsible for eradication, they kept the roads clean. Today the boetebos is increasing. We find further that our farmers receive letters to keep their farms clean when the boetebos does not even grow on their farms. He does not make sure who the owner is. That has happened to me. The boetebos was on my neighbour’s land, and I got the letter that I must eradicate the noxious weed within seven days.

The seed probably blew from your side.

It is a pity that the noxious weeds on the other side blow only to the middle of the House and not quite to us. I consider that this is a matter that should have the serious attention of the Minister. I do not know that man, and I do not want to bandy the names of officials across the floor of the House. But if the Minister goes into the methods of this inspector and if he sends an impartial inspector to ascertain how the noxious weeds have increased, then he will get a fright to see what is happening. With us noxious weeds are dangerous things, and I ask the Minister to pay attention to the matter.

I have received a letter from the Municipality of Ladismith in connection with a certain kind of noxious weed. It grows on a piece of municipal ground in the mountains at Ladismith. It was at first the property of the Government. They never eradicated it, but now that the municipality has bought the land they threaten the municipality every day and instruct it to eradicate the noxious weed. It is almost impossible for them to eradicate the noxious weed there, and the municipality requests that it should be given time until the necessary labour can be obtained. Owing to the scarcity of labour they cannot do it now. They have written to the Department to ask for a postponement, but the Department has refused a postponement. I know the country where this noxious weed grows. It is in the Black Mountains. The people who will have to go and eradicate the weed there will have to remain in the mountains at night. The municipality has now asked for a postponement. It is the Government who allowed the noxious weed to spread there. They virtually cultivated the weed, and when they had cultivated enough, they sold the farm to the municipality and now they want the municipality to clean it. The municipality simply cannot do it, and you must give those people time. But instead of that, they are being threatened every day. I do not want to say anything against the inspector. I have no personal complaints against him, and I do not think the public has complaints against him. He must do his duty. He is on our heels every day. Nobody has as yet been prosecuted, but he insists on the eradication of the noxious weed. Then I want to say something in connection with dodder. It is a miserable kind of noxious weed which the farmers cannot possibly eradicate. The Government should help the people to do it. Thirty years ago I, as a member of the Divisional Council, personally tried to eradicate it in the district. There were a few small infested patches and we wanted to eradicate it there, but it availed us nothing. The land along the rivers became infested. Lucerne seed is sold with dodder in it, and in that way it is propagated in our lands. The Government must eradicate it. Where it neglected its duty in the past and left eradication to the farmers and the Divisional Councils, the Government should now intervene because that noxious weed has increased menacingly. It is easy to send out the inspectors to tell the farmers to eradicate the noxious weed. Along the Buffels River there the ground is infested with boetebos. The seed comes down the river. We have done our best to eradicate it, but we cannot succeed unless the Government supervises the land higher up.

It grows to here in Cape Town.

We do our best to eradicate it, but we cannot eradicate it. We do not want to contravene the law, because then we are punished. We eradicate these just as in Laingsburg we thrashed the coloured soldiers who became a danger to the community. I appeal to the Government to assist those people and to give the municipality a chance. They are not recalcitrant; they just ask for a little longer time.

I was glad to learn from the Minister that he will consider the question of the price of beans and peas. Apparently the Minister was not certain as to what I wanted. In the first place we want that uncertainty which prevails among the producers to be removed. Before they begin harvesting, or just when they begin thrashing the peas, then a reasonable price is offered, but after a week or fourteen days the price drops by 100 per cent. I do not know if the Minister can tell us what the average price of peas and beans is. He did say that the price increased last week by about 10s. per bag. There lies the rub. Who gets the benefit of it? Certainly not the farmer who cultivated the peas, because those peas have long since been sold to the produce merchants at the price which they had offered, and that increase of 10s. per bag will now go into the pocket of the produce merchant.

Those who consulted the Department were advised to hold in.

I am also one of those who held in, but the most of those farmers live from hand to mouth, and how many of them can afford to hold in their products? The richer people can hold in; the poorer cannot do it, and I plead for their protection. I really hope that the Minister, when he controls prices, will, take into consideration that only one bag of peas or one bag of beans can be produced where two bags of wheat are produced. The Minister must not only look at the product from the standpoint of its value as a rotation crop or as green manuring. He must in the first place consider its production costs, and in the second place the nutritional value of the commodity, and on the strength of that the price should be regulated. Then there is another matter in connection with sultanas and raisins regarding which I want to put a question to the Minister. The farmer gets 3d. per lb. for his sultanas. The wholesaler buys it and packs it, and then we in the retail trade must pay 8d., 9d. to 10d. and sometimes 11d. per lb. We have had the agreement that the loss on the proportion that is exported, that is the difference between the export price and the fixed price, must be covered by the Government and also by the K.W.V. But we know that it is the policy of the Government, through the medium of the Fruit Board, to make the internal price so high that the internal price will compensate for the loss on export. In other words, the internal producer must pay a higher price for the product, and the gap in the country between what the farmer receives and what the consumer must pay has been enormously big in that period, in order to enable the English Government to get our raisins cheaply, because we know that the Government delivers raisins to England. I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us what the percentage rise is in respect of the raisins sold to the English Government, how the price at the moment compares with the price before the war. The price must be very little or nothing at all, and we cannot call it anything but bad business. I hope the Minister will go into this matter, because we must see if the product cannot be brought more cheaply on the internal market. The Dried Fruit Board must try to provide it more cheaply to the consumer.

The Minister has replied that I should myself apply for trucks. He has no time. The Minister might as well tell me to seek a needle in a haystack; I shall not succeed. What does it help one if there is manure available if the farmers cannot get trucks to transport it? I would like to see the Minister tackle this matter himself and take steps to ensure that the farmers get the necessary trucks. I read out to him yesterday a letter from my Cooperative which applied in October last year for trucks, and only got them in December. Then the Minister did not answer me in connection with that particular noxious weed which I mentioned here. He has not informed us how far the combating of this weed has progressed. Then the Minister said further that bonemeal is granted in those districts in which there is gallamsiekte. In the districts in which there is no gallamsiekte the officials refuse to give even a little because the Minister has issued instructions that the bonemeal must be kept for the districts that have gallamsiekte. The Minister should now give instructions for the issue of small quantities of bonemeal in other districts as well. As regards mealie prices, I would like to see the Minister looking at the matter from another viewpoint, and that is that the price that the farmer gets for his mealies must pay for everything, for all the commodities that he requires, and the prices of those commodities are too high. Only the production cost of mealies is being taken into consideration. But the Minister should go further and consider all the other things that the farmer needs, things that are expensive and for all of which the mealies must pay. The farmer has not only to contend with the increased cost of production of mealies. The farmer has not only to contend with increased production costs. What is there that he has not to pay out of the income which he receives from his mealies? He goes to the chemist and must pay £2 10s. for medicines which he formerly bought for 5s. or 10s. He goes to a shop and must pay 12s. for an article that formerly cost 2s. 6d. He sends his children to school and his expenses in that connection are very much higher. All must be paid out of the mealies. For that reason I say that the price of 16s. is not adequate. Deputations of mealie farmers will come to the Minister. I have here a telegram from my Co-operative in which the farmers demand 17s. 6d. To me it is a question if even that is enough. If everything is taken into consideration, then it is a big question if that is enough. The estimate has always been wrong at the fixation of mealie prices. Everything the farmer needs has increased in price, and it cannot be paid out of the low price for mealies.

The Minister remarked a little while ago that we deliver mealies to the Protectorates, also to British Bechuanaland. He said that Bechuanaland also requires our mealies. Since this is so I would like him to consider approaching the Protectorates. When I spoke the other day about the grazing of cattle across the border in the Protectorate the Minister replied that he did not feel inclined to go to the Protectorate’s Administration to ask for grazing. But where they have the privilege of expecting the Minister to provide them with mealies, why should he not have the privilege to ask them for grazing for the border farmers who badly need the grazing? On a previous occasion the Minister replied that he would go into the matter to see if grazing could not be found elsewhere in the Union for the farmers on the boundary. It is an extremely important matter to us there. The Minister spoke this morning about the meat position. Now I want to ask the Minister if he has taken practical steps to find grazing for the farmers elsewhere. I mention this because it seems to me that the Department of Agriculture is not taking the matter seriously. They are of opinion that we have had copious rains in those parts. My information is that so far only meagre rains have fallen, not in any sense big rains that will help the farmers through the winter months. If the Minister intends to find grazing elsewhere for the farmers then he must take steps now. Is the Minister thinking of obtaining grazing near the boundary? Where? The Minister may think that there are great blocks of land belonging to the Department of Lands, but in that case I want to point out that there is no water. There are great blocks that can be made available for grazing, but without water there can be no talk of grazing. Thus if he thinks that he can assist the farmers in that manner he will find the matter very difficult. Since the Minister’s reply in this House, I have been in touch with the people who are most closely concerned in the matter, and they say hat the information of the officials is not quite correct. They deny that they are busy letting their grazing to other people and that they got into distress thereby. They say that they are worried about their stock, about grazing for their own stock. I would now like to know from the Minister if he has done anything in connection with this important matter. The winter is at hand and it is necessary to help these people before it is too late. If no provision is made, they are going to suffer great loss, and it will affect the country as a whole as regards the meat position.

The Minister must understand that the farmers have hitherto been in an unenviable position, and also in a humiliating position, because from time to time the accusation is thrown at their heads that they lie on the doorstep of the Government. The Minister of Agriculture who is himself a farmer knows that it is not just or fair to direct that accusation at the farming community. Why is it done? Because the farming community repeatedly finds itself in the position, through no fault of its own, where it must knock at the door of some Government Department or other. In the past the Government has adopted measures of assistance, often of a drastic nature, but these were not permanent assistance measures that could put the farmers permantly on their feet. These were merely measures to keep them going, and to keep a large section on the land who would otherwise have been dispossessed. I would like to tell the Minister that it is not necessary merely to keep the farming community going, or merely to enable them to cover their production costs. The farmers are expected to produce food for the people and to enable the Government to carry on the war. But where the prices have been increased a little today, it is also necessary for the Minister to enable the farmers at last to rid themselves of chafing bonds that have bound them for so many years. The prices of products have been pushed up by the Minister, but does he admit that the prices have been pushed up in view of extra production costs? No extra profit worth mentioning is possible, or profit that will enable the farmers to overtake their arrears. The increase in prices is merely such that it keeps pace with the increased production costs. There are other circumstances that forbid the farmers to make use of the small and temporary price increase. Take the prices of wheat and mealies, products that are produced on a big scale in my environment. I have just returned from my constituency. The farmers are sitting with their hands in their hair because they cannot get in one-third of the seed which they put in last year for wheat, owing to the shortage of fertiliser. If a farmer wants to sow 100 bags of wheat, he can only put in 30 or 40 bags because he cannot produce wheat without fertiliser. We are dependent upon fertiliser, upon Karroo manures, because we cannot get super-phosphates. What is the position? We are being exploited in a manner that one must call shocking. For a large part the manure is no longer in the hands of the original owners, but has fallen into the hands of speculators who are pushing the price sky-high, and if one sends off an order for Karroo manure, then one often gets numbers of stones and even pieces of iron in the manure. The farmers now have to use this inferior stuff, and even then we cannot get enough. If the Government feels that there is a shortage of super-phosphates, why does is not intervene in so far as Karroo manure is concerned and fix a maximum price and ensure that we get a decent commodity that we can use for mixing purposes? The inferior stuff is now being sent. How can we produce as the Government wants us to in this manner? There is something else I want to mention, and that is the provision of spare parts for agricultural machinery. The Minister says that he has not got the necessary shipping space for importations. We have here old machinery, obsolete machinery on which we have to depend. We can still get along if we can get spare parts, but we cannot get these, or we have to pay through our noses for them in a black market. The Minister may smile, but if he does not ensure the introduction of spare parts production will decline enormously.

It was merely a smile of sympathy.

The farming community cannot live from sympathy. They must produce and they must be put into a position to produce. We understand that great masses of spare parts lie heaped up in America at the coast. Cannot the Minister get one ship to transport a shipment of spare parts from America to this country? While the Free State last year produced 100,000 bags of wheat, and while the farmers again intend sowing a big quantity, the Government will miscalculate if it does not ensure that fertilisers are made available. There will be a very small crop if no provision is made. Where one can still get Karroo manure the prices have been sent up sky-high and it is inferior stuff. The farmers are prepared to save themselves and no longer want to lie on the doorstep of the Government. There is now a good chance for the Government to see that the farmers are rehabilitated and that the difficulties of the past are dissolved. The farmers must again be made the strong backbone of the country, and this Minister has the opportunity of saving the farming community. Where the prices of products have gone up as a result of abnormal circumstances this presents the opportunity for placing the farming community in a strong position so that when the depression comes after the war the farmers will be able to withstand the setback.

I am sorry I have to get up again, but the Minister has apparently forgotten to reply to a little matter in which I take a big interest and which is of great value to the country. The Minister has promised the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) that he will be helpful in obtaining a subsidy in connection with lucerne seed in order to create and encourage a proper rotational system of agriculture in view of the exhaustion of the soil. The Minister promised to give his attention to that matter so that the fertility of the soil may be regained and enhanced. Then I asked the Minister, in view of the exhaustion of our agricultural land and the shortage of fertilisers, if he will help us up there … .

That of course falls under the same principle.

I was disappointed that the Minister did not reply. He spoke about the rotational agricultural system here in the Western Province. I now take it as a final confirmation of the Minister that he is prepared to enable us in those parts where legumes are the appropriate rotation product to do the same. It is urgently necessary, particularly in view of the shortage of fertilisers. If the war is going to continue, then next year’s crop will show an enormous decrease. But if we are now enabled to put beans into the soil, then we shall be able to get a good crop without fertiliser next year. That is our experience of the past, that if you grow beans one year then you will have a good crop the following year without fertiliser. This indicates the enormous advantage of that rotational crop.

I am afraid that the hon. Minister perhaps does not take a serious enough view of the position with us on the boundary. It appears to me that the Minister has received a report from his officials which does not reflect the position fairly. Otherwise I cannot understand the attitude which the Minister is adopting. I have again received letters from those areas and the people there write me that the rain which has fallen there in some parts has not soaked in deeper than nine inches, after the three years’ drought that we have had there. Does the Minister think that the grass will grow and be nutritive? Does the Minister think that the grass will be able to carry the stock for long? Now it appears from the Minister’s utterances that the Protectorate of Bechuanaland is not so independent of us as we perhaps thought. The Minister can thus insist with a free conscience that our farmers shall be assisted as regards grazing. The grass is standing there and waiting until the “Vaalpense” come and burn it, when bush and all are destroyed. That is what happens. Now we ask that our farmers be permitted to obtain grazing there. It will help them surprisingly. The Protectorate is dependent on us. They farm there with people and they cannot keep the people alive if they do not import the necessary mealies from the Union. In our country the dairy farmers have had to get rid of their cattle and the poultry farmers have had to dispose of their poultry, and now we hear that the Proctectorates have received mealies from the Union. I am not against it, but then we must get alleviation. A territory 500 miles broad and 1,000 miles long lies in the middle of Union territory, and our boys must be shot dead on the battlefields of Egypt and Tunisia, and our cattle are perishing from drought, while the grass grows there right on the border, until the fire comes and destroys it all. Where we helped them, we can claim that our farmers should also be assisted.

I just want to raise a little matter. I have already approached the Minister in connection with difficulties regarding mealies in my constituency. The people there have had no mealies, and now the farmers get only one bag a month for their farm servants. It is ploughing time and an impossible position. The kaffirs want only mealiemeal, otherwise they will not work. The Minister, or rather his Department, has written to me that we must try to feed the kaffirs wheat, and other things such as potatoes, beans and vegetables. But the kaffirs will have nothing of this. I appreciate the Minister’s advice, but he himself knows that the kaffir does not believe in potatoes or vegetables. He only wants mealiemeal. Now I want to ask the Minister if mixed wheatmeal is still being sold.

No, it has been stopped long ago. Only 1,000 bags of mixed meal were sold the whole season, and it has been stopped completely. There is no more mixed meal in the country.

Well, I hope it is so. But I fear that if the farmer brings his wheat, he will still get mixed meal.

If it is reported it will be stopped.

One does not want to institute prosecutions, but I shall be glad if the Minister will ensure that the regulation is carried out. I am a member of Parliament and I did not know that there was no more mixed meal in the country, and very few people know it. I shall be glad if the Minister will bring it prominently to the notice of the public. The Minister’s position is very difficult, but the farmers are suffering a great deal because they cannot get mealies for their farm labourers.

I would like to know from the Minister what has become of the compulsory dipping law which he intended to introduce a year or two ago. He held out the prospect of the introduction of such a Bill at the time. I held a big farmers’ meeting in my constituency and a large majority was in favour of it and told me that they would support such a Bill. The Minister knows that the tick is very prevalent in those parts. The tick comes from the coastal regions and has approached nearer to the Highveld. It is now very bad in the Bushveld, but it is gradually approaching the Middle Veld, and although the Mountain Veld of the Highveld is still clear, the tick is becoming more and more acclimatised and if something is not done betimes to combat the plague, then I fear it will get the upper hand. The Minister will say that the farmers should construct their own dips, but the small farmers cannot afford it, and in addition there are various company farms in the middle, between the other farms, and on these company farms there are only kaffirs and they are not compelled to dip. Without general and compulsory dipping, the tick cannot be eradicated. Hundreds and thousands of head of cattle die every year as a result of ticks, and it is a serious matter that deserves the attention of the Minister. If he does not want to make dipping compulsory, then he can subsidise those people who cannot afford it to construct dips. Then I just want to say something about fruit diseases. There is the codling moth and the fruit fly which destroys a great quantity of fruit every year, fruit that could otherwise be dried or canned. The damage runs to thousands and thousands of pounds. The Minister can assist us by appointing extension officers to draw the attention of the people to these dangers, and he can assist in the provision of the necessary spraying remedies to combat the diseases. Many of the farmers do not now know how to combat the plagues, and if there are extension officers who are instructed to see to this then the plagues can be combated in a large measure and the country can be saved hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—40:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Fouché, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: F. C. Erasmus and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—63:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F,

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Warren, C. M.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 19.—“Agriculture”, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 20.—“Agriculture (Assistance to Farmers)”, £2,206,500,

I wish to ask the hon. Minister when he is going to declare the district of New Hanover as a cattle improvement area. I think it is nearly a year since they complied with all the regulations, and up to the present nothing has been done. I wish to ask the Minister whether he will not agree to declare New Hanover a cattle improvement area. These farmers are very anxious to get the subsidy for the purpose of purchasing bulls, and I hope the Minister will give me an answer on this point so that I can tell the farmers what the attitude is in regard to this.

I would like to put a question to the Minister. In my constituency there are many small vegetable farmers, and they find it very difficult to obtain manure. They enjoy the privilege of the reduced railway rates. Before I go further, I want to say that I am glad that the Minister has considered assisting these small farmers as regards fertiliser. They cannot do without fertiliser. I am glad that they will receive proportionately more than the big farmers. I now want to mention another consideration. These people are not in a position to buy Karoo manure by the truckload. A few of them must stand together and go to the trader to order the manure for them. The trader then orders the manure in their name, and in that way they get the benefit of the reduced railway rate. If the shopkeeper does not do it, then the manure cannot be transported at the reduced tariff. These farmers cannot order 20 or 30 truckloads as the big farmer. They must be assisted by the trader, and I would now like the Minister to investigate whether it is not possible to enable the trader to obtain manure in his own name for those farmers, and yet enjoy the reduced railway tariff. I realise that there will have to be precautionary measures in order to prevent abuse, but I think that this is a difficulty that the Minister will be able to remove.

I would just like to put a question to the Minister in connection with this amount of £250,000— subsidy on fertiliser. The subsidy is £1 per ton on any kind of fertiliser that is bought. It does not matter what kind of fertiliser is bought, the subsidy is £1 per ton. If super-phosphate is bought, then the subsidy is £1 per ton, but there are many farmers who would also like to have potassium and nitrogen in the fertiliser, and it costs them more to buy fertilisers that contain those ingredients. I would like to ask the Minister, therefore, if is not possible to pay out the subsidy on a percentage basis. Where super-phosphate costs £5 per ton the other fertilisers perhaps cost £7 per ton, but the man who pays £7 per ton also gets only the £1 per ton subsidy. I will tell you why I think it is necessary to pay out the subsidy on a percentage basis. There are numbers of farmers who buy the cheaper fertiliser because the subsidy is then relatively higher. If he invests £100 in fertiliser, and he can buy more tons of the cheaper fertiliser, then his subsidy, is so much higher. The fewer tons he buys, the less subsidy he gets. For that reason I say that it will encourage the farmers to put other constituents in the soil, which the soil lacks, if the subsidy can be paid out on a different basis. I think this is something that the Minister should consider.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the subsidy on bulls. Good work has been done to improve our stock by the subsidy paid on bulls, but in respect of those areas where the subsidy has now been withdrawn because the time has expired, I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to pay the subsidy at least to the smaller farmers. There are many farmers who cannot afford to buy good bulls, and there is the danger that the stock will retrogress if this subsidy is no longer paid. I therefore want to ask the Minister if it is not possible, in those areas where the subsidy is no longer being paid, to pay it again to the smaller farmers. I want to ask the Minister further to draw the attention of the extension officers to the fact that cross-breeding is being unsystematically practised where subsidies on bulls are being paid. We feel disquieted when we notice the kind of cross-breeding that is going on. Bulls are approved, and then these bulls are used for cross-breeding, and I would like the Department to ensure that unsystematic cross-breeding shall not take place. Good work has indeed been accomplished, but the unsystematic cross-breeding has vitiated a large part of the good work. I really think that this is something to which the Minister and his Department should pay attention.

I want to associate myself with the request of the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché), but I hope that if the Minister gives a subsidy on bulls to those farmers, that it will not result in the price of bulls going up, and in the bull-breeders getting the advantage of the subsidy and not the people who buy the bulls. If subsidies are given then those subsidies must go towards assisting the small farmers and not the bull-breeders. I hope the Minister will grant the request, but that he will ensure at the same time that it shall not be the bull-breeders who get the benefit of it.

I would also like to give the Minister a hint in connection with Item H, the subsidy on fertiliser. I presume that the Minister gives the subsidy in order to get the best production in time of war. Now I suggest that it will be better to give this subsidy on fertiliser to that class of farmers who cannot buy the necessary fertiliser, en enable them to apply the necessary fertilisation to their soil. The man who buys 100 tons or 200 tons of fertiliser will buy his fertiliser whether there is a subsidy or not. But there are the smaller farmers who cannot afford to buy the fertiliser.

Where are you going to draw the line?

I shall tell the hon. member. We can pay the subsidy on a sliding scale. Supposing the man who buys 50 tons gets the subsidy of £1, then the more he buys the less becomes the subsidy, and the less he buys the more becomes the subsidy. Then it will mean that the small farmer who buys from one ton to two tons will get a considerable subsidy, and the man who does not require it will get less. Let us try to help where help is needed most. The Minister wants to get the best out of this subsidy in the shape of production. I want to say this, that the mealie king will not buy one ton less because he gets less subsidy. But the small farmer cannot buy now, and if we enable him to buy fertiliser then production will increase. I suggest this to the Minister. Then there is another matter, and it falls under Item F. I wonder if an improvement cannot be brought about. Assume that Kroonstad is a drought-stricken district, and the farmer sends his stock to Mafeking. The stock become fat in Mafeking, and he wants to send them to the Johannesburg market. Then he must load them and send them back to Kroonstad via Kimberley. At Kroonstad they must be loaded again to be sent to Johannesburg, whereas they could have been trucked in Mafeking and sent direct to Johannesburg. But if that had been done then the reduction in the railway tariff would have had to be returned to the Government. Why should it now be made compulsory for the farmer to send his stock hundreds of miles along that roundabout way, and why cannot he send them straight from Mafeking? The stock will then arrive on the market in a better condition. I hope the Minister will consider these few points.

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture for information in connection with the subsidy on bulls. Certain areas have been declared cattle improvement areas, and in those districts a subsidy on bulls is paid. In some of the districts the period has now expired, and those districts have either been deproclaimed or will be deproclaimed shortly. This applies also to certain districts in the southern Free State. This subsidy has yielded good results, and if it now lapses it will have deleterious results.

Talk to my colleague a little.

I am glad that the Minister of Finance is also here. Representatives on all sides of this House will admit that if ever a measure was adopted that was a good investment for the farmer and the State, and from which we shall reap a rich harvest in the future, then it was this subsidy on bulls. The purchase of good bulls has improved the standard of our stock, and where that process of improvement is now in progress it will be a great pity to deproclaim certain areas, with the result that that improvement will be simply stopped. I think the Minister of Agriculture feels with me that it will be a pity if we should now terminate that scheme. We have gone half way and I do not think that we should stop before we have achieved our purpose. As I have said, it is an investment for the future and I want to make a strong plea to the Minister that those districts which were recently deproclaimed, or which will be deproclaimed in the near future, should be reproclaimed so that the farmers may continue to receive the subsidy and may continue the good work of improving the quality of stock. I want to point out to the Minister that it is also necessary in those areas to introduce fresh blood into our cattle from time time, and for that reason also it is necessary to proceed with this subsidy. I want to give the Minister the assurance, and every practical farmer knows this, that as soon as this subsidy is stopped the people will again be inclined to keep inferior bulls, and what has been built up will again be broken down. In view of what has already been done, a strong case has been made out for the Minister to pay that subsidy to those districts which were recently deproclaimed, and that he should not deproclaim those districts whose time will expire shortly.

I would like to identify myself with what the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) said here. I just want to mention a few districts in my constituency in which the period will expire shortly or has already expired. There is for instance Fauresmith where the period expired in November, and then there is Philoppolis where it will apparently expire in August this year. We have to do here with a scheme that was instituted in the first place for seven years with the object of improving our stock and also of increasing our production. I want to bring that side of the matter to the particular attention of the Minister of Finance, that we have to do here with increased production and consequently with the increase of national revenue, which is one of the most important requirements in our country. The grazing used by one head of cattle of poor quality is the same as that used by one head of cattle of good quality. There is also the other consideration that those people did not make immediate use of the scheme at its inception. They did not know of it at the start and it took some time. For that reason it is very important to prolong the period so that they can go further along the road they have taken. I think it is one of the most important things for our cattle industry that those farmers should be enabled to improve the quality of their stock. It will be a pity, where we shall be confronted with post-war problems, if we now take the hand from the plough. I therefore make an earnest appeal to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Minister of Finance to ensure that this long-term policy is carried out in the interests of the general welfare of the country. We must continue with this scheme and it should not be expected of us to stop this effort after seven years. I see there is a decrease of £40,000 on this item for this year. I want to ask that the districts that have been deproclaimed shall be reproclaimed and that the period shall be prolonged. I am certain that this is an investment of State money that will ensure greater dividens to us in the future.

I would like to submit to the Minister of Agriculture a matter in connection with the payment of subsidy on fertiliser. I do not know who is responsible for the Department’s books, but in my constituency double payments have been made. The Minister will find that he will not get through with the £250,000. It will be much more. Farmers who apply directly got the subsidy on the fertiliser, and then subsidy was again paid through the trader. Those cheques are lying about the district, and the Department places the farmers in the position to abuse those double cheques. If the farmers draw those cheques, then the Department will summons them one of these days, and it will result in court cases. I want to draw the Minister’s serious attention to the fact that this is happening. I can provide proof of it. I think he should go into the matter and put a stop to it.

I just want to reply to one or two of the points raised. I want to say to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) that there are certain difficulties connected with the plan which he suggested. We went thoroughly into that side of the matter at the time. I also want to say to the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Bezuidenhout) that we thoroughly considered at the time whether we should give the subsidy on fertiliser on a percentage basis, and after exhaustive investigation we decided to give the sum of £1 per ton. I do not see my way clear to depart from that system. I was surprised to hear what the hon. member for Bethal (Mr. C. J. van den Berg) said here. I do hope that where a farmer has applied in two places, perhaps in all innocence, and where he has received a cheque directly and another one through the trader, that he will not draw both cheques. There may be a mistake, but the person concerned should know that he is not entitled to two payments. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I shall go into the matter.

You are placing the people in a position to do it.

It is not done deliberately by the Department. We administer the scheme as well as we can. Mistakes may occur. I shall in any case go into the matter seriously.

The traders neglected to apply. The farmers then applied themselves, and then later on the cheques through the traders were also received.

I shall be glad if the hon. member mentions cases to me. I would like to go into the matter. Important matters have been raised in connection with the subsidy on bulls. I want to admit frankly that I have already had much difficulty in connection with that. Just as in the case of the predecessor of the present Minister of Finance, I have had to fight hard with him and with the present Minister to get the subsidy extended. When they wanted to put a stop to it, we at last agreed to continue it for another few years until 1945, but that in any case no district will have the advantages of the scheme for longer than seven years. I have every sympathy with what hon. members have said. I am not so much concerned with the man who needs fresh blood for his cattle, because that man can help himself to some extent. But in practice I find that it is the poor man and particularly also the native who is today keen to go in for the scheme. There are perhaps hon. members who will ask why the natives should be assisted, but they know as well as I do that if the natives do not get approved bulls then our farmers suffer under it, because those bulls get among our herds. For all these reasons it seems to me that a case can be made out in favour of the continuation of the scheme. I shall try again, and speak nicely to the Minister of Finance. I do not know if I will succeed. I realise that we agreed at the time that the scheme should terminate in 1945, but in all the circumstances I feel that the matter merits further consideration.

I would like to suggest something else to the Minister. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) and I pleaded for the continuation of the scheme and the grounds we adduced were the improvement of the quality of our stock. That was the object with which the scheme was instituted. In the short period improvement took place, but it took time before the farmers made use of it. The Minister says that there is an agreement to terminate the scheme, and that he has already quarrelled with the former Minister of Finance, or at least that his predecessors quarrelled with the former Minister of Finance. I want to suggest that the Minister should continue to struggle with the Minister of Finance. In any case, the scheme will terminate entirely only in 1945, and I think that the Minister will in any case be so fair as to let the scheme continue for all areas until 1945. When the scheme was called into being it was a new scheme and many farmers at first wanted to see the results of the scheme. They went in for it on a large scale later. The same applies to the natives. It is decidedly a good investment for the future, and we have been busy eliminating unproductive cattle. If the agreement remains until 1945, that is to say the scheme, then all the areas should continue to derive the benefit of it until 1945.

There are areas which have had the scheme for seven years, while others have had it for only three or four years.

But in the beginning many people did not make use of it because it was an unfamiliar thing. Now it is known among the farmers, and particularly the less well-to-do farmers are now making eager use of the scheme. It would be a pity to terminate it now. It will not cost the State too much, and it will be to the benefit of the whole country. I hope the Minister will not depart from the scheme, and that he will do his best to keep it alive.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 21.—“Agriculture (General)”, £417,200,

I see under (d) that an amount of £386,000 is asked for the control of the price of bread under this Vote. That is the amount that is used to stabilise the price of bread in the interest of the consumer. With that I agree. We are in favour of the Government ensuring that the consumers should get bread as cheaply as possible, but why should it appear here under “Assistance to Farmers”?

Not under “Assistance to Farmers”.

But it should not appear under “Agriculture”. The expenditure is not connected with agriculture

The Department of Agriculture must administer it.

The Minister of Agriculture is the official responsible for the account.

This is not expenditure in connection with agriculture. There are quite a few items that appear under “Agriculture” but which are not connected with agricultural expenditure. It creates a wrong impression in the country, that the farmers, as the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. E. R, Strauss) said, sit on the doorstep of the Government. There is for instance Vote No. 20, in connection with interest subsidy. It amounts to almost £1,500,000, and the impression is created that this is paid to the farmers, while actually it is paid to the bondholders, and not to the mortgagees. We must put it clearly and not create a wrong impression. It should appear under some other Vote.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 22.—“Agriculture (Education and Experimental Farms)”, £224,000,

I just want to put the question to the Minister which I put just now. There is an increase here under this Vote and not a decrease of expenditure. How is this possible while the Minister of Agriculture is closing the schools to farmers’ sons? It is a matter that the community takes very seriously. We want the agricultural schools to remain open particularly at this time in order to give our sons an effective training so that after the war we shall have well-equipped boys on the Platteland to resist the difficult times that lie ahead. We feel that is a catastrophic step to close the agricultural schools.

I would just like to put a question to the Minister in connection with the Experimental Farm at Malmesbury. I see there is an increase of only £40 on the estimates as compared with last year. It is because things have become dearer? Is less being spent on the Experimental Farm? Do the farm manager and foreman also get increased cost of living allowances?

As regards the agricultural schools, it is fair that I should tell the House why we took the step of closing these schools. Hon. members understand that the students who are still there will complete their courses. Only new courses are stopped. In the first place we need the services of the professors, and we also need the buildings, for what to my mind are more urgent matters in connection with food control. But I want to be honest with the hon. member. Apart from that it seems inconsistent to me that on the one side we should ask young men to do their duty in connection with the war, while on the other side we say that we shall extend special privileges to those who continue their studies so that they receive an advantage over the others who do their duty. Is it fair that those who remain here should get a better chance than those who will return later?

Why do you single out the agricultural boys and why is this not applied in respect of other students?

I have no control over the Universities.

The agricultural schools are of national importance.

The position to my mind is that the man who will return must have the same chance as the man who remains here. I will tell you how the matter came to be discussed. The Prime Minister had just made his appeal for more volunteers, mostly persons of 18 years and older, and a few days thereafter advertisements appeared in the newspapers calling for young people to study at Saasveld, the agricultural school. Then I said that it was inconsistent. Here we are asking for people to join up to do their duty as we conceive it, and at the same time we ask other people to pursue their studies and to enjoy the advantages of them.

But you are supposed to be fighting with volunteers.

We cannot place the people who do their duty in a disadvantageous position. We do not want to close the agricultural schools, and the Government does not want to use the opportunity to evade its financial obligations towards agriculture and the agricultural schools. It is simply a suspension for a year or two, and thereafter the agricultural schools will be restored. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) asked if the staff receive extra allowances, that is to say at the experimental farm at Malmesbury. I will go into the matter and give him a written reply later.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

We on this side of the House were willing as far as possible not to prevent this vote of the Minister of Agriculture being adopted at the lunch adjournment, but after the reply that the Minister has given us regarding the closing of the agricultural and afforestation schools I think that we would be neglecting our duty if we simply let the matter pass. I must thank the Minister for the openheartedness which he revealed when he told us why the agricultural schools were closed. He said that the agricultural schools were closed because it would not be right to keep open the schools while the Government wanted to recruit persons between the ages of 18 and 25, and for that reason the agricultural schools must be closed. Now I want to ask the Minister if he as Minister of Agriculture must be the reddest Minister. The other Ministers will not make such a contribution. By this decision of the Minister and of the Government agriculture is being singled out to be prejudiced on behalf of their war policy. The agricultural schools in which the boys who must carry on the interests of agriculture in this country must be trained, have to be closed. By this step the Government prevents boys from being able to build up the industry as such scientifically. Afforestation must also be neglected. Saasveld must be closed, and those people must participate in the war. These two industries, forestry and agriculture, must be singled out to be prejudiced by this Minister and the Government on behalf of the war policy. Now I want to put this question to the Minister: If they have such a need of persons to participate in military activities, why precisely should he single out the Plattelanders? It is the Platteland child who today has the least opportunity of enjoying post-school education. For the most part the universities are also closed to the Platteland boy. We have been informed how Platteland children apply practically in vain for admission to the Cape Town University or to the Witwatersrand University for the purpose of continuing their studies there. It is said that preference will be given to the boys in the vicinity of those universities. The Platteland child will therefore not have the opportunity of continuing his studies at those universities. Only the agricultural schools remain open to him, but even that opportunity of enjoying post-school education has now been closed by the Minister. The Platteland child has to be singled out particularly to be prejudiced. Does the Minister then want to wage the war only with the Platteland child? Is that what perhaps lurks behind their decision? The Minister knows full well that the half of the population if not the majority of the population is opposed to the war, and it is mostly the Plattelanders who are opposed to it, and now the Minister must precisely take steps to forbid the Platteland children to continue their studies. They must now be indirectly compelled to participate in the war. The children in the big cities who feel so strongly for the war hide away in the universities. As one hon. member expressed it, the universities are the funkholes of the urban children. They are permitted to creep into the funkholes of the universities, and the Platteland children are prohibited from going to the agricultural and afforestation schools, and in this way they are indirectly compelled to participate in the war. We cannot allow this. So long as the Minister persists in this policy so long shall we remain seriously aggrieved, and I can assure him that this is the feeling that has manifested itself on the Platteland. That feeling was revealed at the Agricultural Union Congress which was held in Bloemfontein a few months ago. Strong protest was lodged against this policy of the Minister, and instead of telling us today that he will depart from this policy, the Minister tells us that he is going to see that policy through. What becomes of his excuse that they require people for the military services when we hear from the Right Hon. the Prime Minister that they are going to stop recruiting of troops to a certain extent. The Right Hon. Minister as Minister of Defence has announced this: That they do not require many more people for the army, and for that reason recruiting for the army has been stopped to a certain extent. That being so, why must the hon. Minister now close the agricultural schools? Must recruiting for the army be stopped in the cities but proceeded with on the Platteland? If that is so, then it is a confirmation of what I said, namely that they want to continue the war with Platteland children. I know that the Platteland children make the best troops, but the Minister knows that that Plattelanders are opposed to this war. Why must they alone carry on the war? The hon. Minister now tells us that they need the people, while the Prime Minister tells us that the recruiting of troops for the army has been stopped to a certain extent. Then the hon. Minister gave us another excuse; he said that he needed these people for other work.

No, the professors.

The Minister now says that he needs the professors for other work. But if that is the case, then he must not vote that money here.

It boils down to this that he is obtaining this money under false pretences.

He now says that he is going to use that money to employ those officials in another capacity. That is what it comes down to. Then the Minister is busy obtaining this money under false pretences. Then he is not honest with the House. Because he is dishonest with the House and is taking steps to prejudice the Platteland we cannot accept this and we want to ask him to depart from that policy; and until he gives us a reassuring answer I feel that we cannot help him to get this Vote adopted.

The policy that has been pursued by certain Ministers on the other side of the House has in fact contributed towards making the so-called voluntary recruitment of troops for the army a fiasco. We have already experienced, although it is strongly denied by the Government side, that the Government is busy forcing the boys of the Platteland indirectly to join the army. Here we now find the Minister of Agriculture doing the same thing. I feel that we shall be decidedly negelecting our duty if we do not protest in the strongest terms against this policy. It is perhaps the thin end of the wedge. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) pointed out that the universities are still being allowed at this stage as funkholes for those who want to evade the war; but if the Government continues with this they will apparently take the step later of closing even the universities. This Government has only one object in view, and that is to see the war through despite the interests of the country, and in order to attain that object it will take the most ridiculous and the most radical steps. There is another matter. I have also an agricultural school in my constituency. This agricultural school, thank Heaven, does not fall under the Minister of Agriculture. The Agricultural school falls under the Provincial Administration. But what guarantee have we that that Minister will not exercise his influence on the Provincial Administration to have that school closed as well. I would like to have that assurance from the Minister today—I ask it in all respect—that the Government will not attempt to persuade the Provincial Administration to close the school concerned. It is trying to do good work, and I can give you the assurance that the greatest disappointment will prevail if the Provincial Council closes the school as a result of the compulsion exercised by the Central Government. I would like to know from the Minister whether the Government intends exercising compulsion on the provinces to close such schools because of the war.

The reply of the Minister of Agriculture has not only caused astonishment but also deep disappointment. The standpoint which he adopts that agricultural schools must be closed because of the war has simply created astonishment and disappointment. What now becomes of the fine promise which the Prime Minister gave and which he repeated in this House that they would fight with volunteers, if the Minister admits here that he closed the agricultural colleges to obtain troops for the North?

I did not say that.

The Minister said here that he is going to close these extremely important institutions because of the war, and that means nothing else than that they are being closed so that the fellows who would otherwise have gone to the agricultural schools are compelled to join the army and go to the North. What right has the Minister to close the agricultural schools so that those persons who wanted to attend the courses will now not be able to do so? Our agricultural schools are one of the most important institutions for this industry. It is of radical importance in South Africa, and it is of the greatest significance that we should create educational facilities for our young men at the agricultural schools so as to qualify them for farming. But now the Minister is going to close those schools for three, four or five years in order to compel those people to go to the North. It not only astonishes the country that the Government should adopt this attitude, but the question is how far we can trust the Minister and the Government that pressure will not also be exercised in other directions to obtain people for the North. If the Minister creates this precedent then he can go further and say that work should not be provided to people otherwise they will not go to the North. The same justification he adduces here for the closing of the agricultural schools will be employed to deprive people of work.

I have had the opportunity of doing so, but I did not do it.

But the Minister has admitted here that he is closing the agricultural schools because of the war. He gives the explanation that some of the boys want to go to the North and that he needs the professors. Indirectly he is busy forcing people to go to the North. The young fellow on the farm who wants to go to the agricultural college now finds himself deprived of that opportunity, and the result is that he will later on join the army. That is also the object of the Minister. I say if he does that then he can easily take the next step and withdraw facilities for employment so as to compel people to join the army. The Minister of Agriculture should lodge a powerful protest against this attitude if he should be instructed to do such a thing. He knows that this step not only prejudices farming, but is also an injustice towards the young people of our country.

I want to raise objection to the reply of the Minister of Agriculture, as he is creating a very dangerous precedent here. All through this war we have been assured time and again from the other side of the House that no coercive measures would be applied. Now the cat has been let out of the bag—the agricultural schools are to be closed as an instrument to actuate people to join the army. The Minister said here just now that he did not do so, but I listened very attentively to what he said. He said that the position appeared contradictory to his mind and that he had to make a choice. On the one hand applications were made for admission to the agricultural schools. He felt that if he allowed those boys to enter the agricultural schools they would rather do that than join the army. He definitely mentioned this case and he said that to him it seemed to be contradictory. This is the contradictory position he took exception to and in order to comply with the policy which the hon. member characterised as his excessive loyalty towards the war effort, he decided to close the agricultural schools. This is a very serious state of affairs. The Minister knows what the results of his actions will be if the same method is to be applied in all cases. Supposing the Railway Administration does the same and does no longer accept young men for the service, because if the Administration accepts them they will not join the army. Supposing the other departments follow suit; what are the results going to be? Will any Minister still have the right to get up here and say that they wage this war with volunteers? No, this is a very serious matter, an absolute violation of the rights of the people. Those boys are being put in a position which amounts to coercion being applied to make them join up. Those boys have chosen farming as their vocation, to study farming methods. It has often been pointed out that few of our young men chose farming as their life-work. Now, however, the agricultural schools are being closed to compel them to join the army which the Minister considers more satisfactory. It is a very dangerous precedent which he is creating here. I want to point out to the Minister of Agriculture that these agricultural colleges are institutions in which large sums of capital have ben invested. We know what it has cost the country to establish and develop them, and the meaning of the statement of the Minister is that the yield of those capital investments in our agricultural colleges is now to be used for war purposes. What right does the Minister of Agriculture possess to do so, to use it for another purpose than that for which it was intended? According to the Ministers own statement he uses it for nothing else but recruiting purposes. He excludes those boys so that they can go and fight. This s his contribution to the war. That is the logical conclusion of what he stated here and I think it is a very dangerous precedent which is thus being laid down and the sooner we kill that thing in the bud, the better it will be. There is going to be unrest in the country when is becomes known that the agricultural colleges are to be closed for that reason. If this is done, then other Ministers may tomorrow simply close any channel of employment for our boys in order to force them to join the army. Under these circumstances I want to protest most vigorously against this rash action and against this thoughtless statement by the Minister of Agriculture.

I want to associate myself as closely as possible with the protest raised by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) against this decision of the Minister of Agriculture. This decision amounts to nothing else but sabotage of our agricultural education. We do not know how long the war is going to last and without being able to put forward any excuse, the Minister comes along and for the duration of the war sabotages this important branch of education in our country. Our agricultural education is something which we have gradually built up over a period of many years. In this connection I am thinking of the short courses for instance. Why did the Minister abolish the short courses? Does he believe that he will thereby persuade a single one of the people usually attending those short courses to join the army? No, that will not happen. At Glen in the Free State we had these short courses but the cessation of these courses will not move any of those people to go and fight. The whole matter seems to be so unfair. Today farming has become a profession. At the instigation of the Government young men qualified for that profession. They chose it as their career, and what is happening now? Other persons can follow their professions and be trained for it, but the farmer’s son is prevented from preparing himself for his life’s work. The Jew in the village can become qualified as a merchant or an attorney. The people swindling the farmers can learn their trade, but the farmer himself is prevented from qualifying for his profession. What justification is there for the Minister to come here and say that a boy can take his B.A. degree, that he can become an attorney or an advocate or choose some other profession, but that the farmer-to-be can no longer be trained for his calling? Why this discrimination? If the Government would be so stupid as to say that nobody may be trained for any profession or calling, then it may do so. But I maintain that there is no reason why the farmer’s son should be singled out and why he should be prevented from qualifying for his life’s task. The farmer went to these short courses to further qualify himself. The Government is shouting all day “Produce, produce!”, and many of our farmers attended these short courses in order to learn intensive methods of farming, but now the Government comes along and says no, all these courses have to be stopped. What is the use of the Government on the one hand calling upon the farmers to produce more and on the other hand preventing them to acquire the knowledge enabling them to produce more? There is no justification whatsoever for the behaviour of the Minister. It is really a pity that the Government is losing its balance—I nearly said its reason—to such an extent that it can do silly things like this. I should like to know what is to happen to the lecturers at the agricultural colleges. He said that he had other work for them. We should like to know what kind of work he has for them. I only got up here to voice the strongest protest, together with the agricultural congresses which do not consider the matter from a political point of view as they represent all parties, against this action of the Government, and I should very much like to hear what justification the Minister of Agriculture can advance for singling out a section of the population for this treatment.

When we are dealing with agricultural matters, we are dealing with the most important key industry of South Africa. Farming has been developed to such a stage today, that we can no longer continue to apply the old methods of the past. The custom of the past when a father would say to his son: You are not clever enough to become an attorney or a minister, you will have to be a farmer—I maintain that is a thing of the past. If we want to make a success of farming in South Africa with the manifold difficulties we are faced with, then we have to know our job, we have to be specialists as otherwise we cannot make a success of farming. Since farming is one of the most important industries in our country and as farming is the backbone of our whole community, it is the duty of the Government and it is the duty of the responsible Minister of Agriculture to supply all possible and all required facilities to ensure the future of agriculture, and to ensure that those who want to participate in that industry will in future have the capability to do so. Instead of that we had to hear to our astonishment today that the person who is in charge of the responsibility for the future of farming in South Africa, that the Minister of Agriculture, states here today that he in fact no longer considers farming to be an essential part of our national life, and that for that reason he is going to close down the agricultural colleges. The institutions where those who want to engage in this industry in future and want to qualify themselves to be able to face all the difficulties with which the farmer has to contend in South Africa, perhaps more than in any other part of the world, that source of education is now being closed down by the Minister of Agriculture and our young men will no longer have the opportunity of fitting themselves for their life’s task. What is going to happen if this system is to be applied right through the administration of our country? Now already we see scores of people walking about with badges indicating that they are key men. Key men for what? In 99 out of 100 cases they are key men here just to fill their own pockets and not to serve their country as such. But here where we have a matter which in all respects and with every justification can be viewed as a key position, we find that the Minister of Agriculture does not want to realise the importance of this service of the country. If there are people who have every right to be considered as key men and as persons essential for maintaining the structure of our society, then it is exactly these people who want to qualify for farming in South Africa, these persons who will have to continue the battle for farming in our country in the future. The Minister said that an illogical position had arisen and that he had to choose whether those people should join the army or whether they should be allowed to prefer the easier way, viz. the agricultural colleges. Did we ever hear a more direct reply to the accusations which we on this side of the House have made since 1939, viz. that this Government is trying in all sorts of ways to compel people to join the army? Not only does the Government want to force persons in its service to join up, who would otherwise not join up, but it also wants to put students who want to qualify for the farming profession in such a position that from sheer necessity and at their wits’ end they will have to join up. We notice very strange things happening in this House. We can again notice it now. Unfortunately there are not many farmers among the members on the other side of the House. There are, however, a few sitting there, but now we notice the peculiar phenomenon that where the rights of the farmers are being interfered with, they keep quiet and do not say a word; those members who represent rural constituencies sit as quiet as mice and are silent as the grave.

They wanted to speak, but they were stopped.

Yes, they wanted to speak but they were told to keep quiet.

Because we agreed to stop arguing.

Yes, they agreed to stop arguing. We cannot, when we see that the rights and the survival of the farming industry are in danger, decide to stop talking and simply to remain silent. We have to speak. If we remain silent today the mountains will answer, about this action of the Government. Does the Minister expect us simply to remain silent and that he can hide behind such silence? We notice that thousands of pounds are to be voted here but what is that money to be used for if these services in our country are to be stopped? No, the Minister may be able to silence members on the other side when the interests of the farmers are at stake. But when millions of the State’s money are being wasted and when such steps are taken against the farming industry and the farming community, then the Minister of Finance should not expect us to remain silent when it is necessary that we step into the breach for the interests of the farming population.

In the first instance we are opposed to the war, even if it be waged with so-called volunteers. But we are still more opposed to it because pressure is being brought to bear upon certain sections of the community and because they are being victimised, so as to force them to join the armed forces. The Minister of Agriculture by his statement revealed what the motives are behind the closing of the agricultural colleges. He said that the position in his opinion was anomalous. On the one hand the Prime Minister had appealed to the people to join the army and on the other side he received applications of young men to be admitted to the agricultural colleges in order to qualify for their calling. The Minister said that he had to choose between creating more work in the country itself or rather closing these institutions so that those people might answer the call of the Prime Minister. We cannot but conclude from that that the Minister wants to deprive the people of the right to prepare themselves for what can rightly be called the key industry of the country, the industry on which depends the future of the country, and that he wants to force them in that way to join the army. To those who are farmers and love farming this action of the Minister is a very serious matter, and we feel concerned about the future, so concerned that we cannot find words enough to voice our protest against the doings of the Minister of Agriculture. We can only hope that he will still get up here and say that he is prepared to reconsider that decision. If he is unable to do that, we shall be glad if he will clearly state on behalf of the Government whether it is the intention to make use of the precedent created here also in regard to other departments. The Minister’s statement is far-reaching and we want to know whether this will be taken as a precedent which may at some later date be followed by other departments.

I want to move that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The hon. member cannot do so.

I am sorry that I cannot do so under the rules of the House. It is most disappointing that the Minister of Agriculture against whom this serious accusation has been made, does not think it necessary to be here and to reply to it.

But you are not in earnest.

I can understand the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) no longer taking agriculture in earnest. He is no longer considered to be a farmer member. He is now a miller and besides that a yes-man. The Minister has now come in and I shall sit down in order to give him an opportunity to reply.

If the Minister does not want to reply to what we said, he should at least get up and tell the House that he is not to be moved and then we shall know what to expect from the Government. He can tell us whether he is going to withdraw the decision he came to and the statement he made here today, or whether he is going to stand by it unreservedly. I can only tell him that he is the first Minister who has said something of that nature here in the House, viz. that the Government is closing down an institution in order to oblige the people to join the army. He can state here clearly whether he is going to abandon that decision or whether he is going to stand by it.

I can only say that I adhere to my decision, and that I have nothing to add to that.

I want to ask the Minister whether the Government considers addressing the same request to the Provincial Administrations with regard to the agricultural schools under their control.

No.

We have voiced our protest and if it were not that under this Vote money is being made available with which useful work can be done, money to keep the administration going during the period of closing down, which as we hope is only temporary, we would have asked a division on this Vote. But because good work may still be done with this money, we shall not go as far as that. I am glad that hon. members on this side of the House have uttered such serious warnings against this dangerous policy of the Government, and the country owes them thanks for doing so, for it has now been clearly shown what the policy of the Government is. Is this not perhaps the thin end of the wedge?

It is conclusive proof of what we have said here in the past.

The people themselves can now see it. The people can see now that the farmer’s son has not only to sacrifice his material welfare but also his blood. The young farmer is forced to go up North to fight for those people who are too scared to go themselves, those people who go in hiding here in the Union whilst the farmer’s son is compelled to go. If there is anything we can rightly be aggrieved about, it is this state of affairs. As far as I myself am concerned, I have never yet felt so sore about the actions and attitude of a Minister as I have been on this occasion. No wonder the country feels disappointed with the Minister today and that the farmer, the consumer, the dealer and everybody views the conduct of the Minister with the greatest disappointment and considers him to be a complete failure.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 23. — “Agriculture (Forestry)”, £329,000,

I should like to say something in connection with “T” “Deregistration of woodcutters, Midland Conservancy”, £4,595. A few years ago an Act was passed by Parliament to cancel the rights of woodcutters. We took away from them the right to go and fell trees and to sell the timber, and because we took away that right from them, they were granted an annuity of £25 per annum. I think one should regard this annuity as a sort of pension. Because their rights were taken away, these people received a pension of £25 per annum to compensate them for the loss of income. What I should like to know from the Minister is the following. For many of the woodcutters this is the only income they have. When they reach the age of 65 years they lose the annuity, but receive instead an old age pension plus a cost of living allowance, but until they reach the age of 65 years that £25 is in many cases the only income these people have. I now should like to ask the Minister whether he does not think too that this class of pensioner should also receive a cost of living allowance. It is granted to old age pensioners, it is given to people receiving invalidity grants, now it is also given to settlers at places such as Sonop, Karatara and other settlements—it is granted to compensate people for the higher cost of living. The Minister announced this Session that he also intends to give consideration to the pensioners of the civil service. The only people who will be excluded from the benefit of the cost of living allowance will be the woodcutters. There are many of them between the ages of 60 and 65 years. Last week I was there and received a deputation of woodcutters. Their only form of income is the annuity which they receive. In 1939 £25 was not enough to live on. The Minister laughs. I wish he were a woodcutter and had to come out on £25. In 1939 it was too little to live on, and how much more difficult are conditions today. I think the Minister will admit that it is now much more difficult to come out on it. There is still another aspect of the matter. Supposing those people had kept their rights, they would now have profited from the higher prices of timber. Today Stinkhout is fetching three times and four times the price of that time when their rights were taken from them, and all other types of timber also fetch much higher prices and I think that the least the Minister can do is to grant them a cost of living allowance. I am glad the Minister of Finance is here. I hope we shall today receive the assurance that the Government intends to treat these people fairly and to grant the allowance with retrospective effect. Is the Minister laughing again? Make it retrospective. I hope that the Minister will give a satisfactory answer. I now want to ask the Minister honestly and straightforwardly: Does he think that the plantation workers are today receiving a wage on which a European can live decently? I have here before me the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for 1939 and also the Estimates for the new financial year, 1944. I find that in 1939 the revenue obtained from the forests amounted to £168,000 whilst revenue, according to the latest Estimates of the Department of Forestry, has risen to £960,000. That means that as far as the Forestry Department is concerned the revenue has risen by 400 to 500 per cent. since 1939.

The expenditure is also higher.

Very little. In 1939 the expenditure amounted to £270,000 and now it is £329,000, a difference of £50,000, but during the same period the revenue increased by £750,000. Does the Minister not consider that the time has arrived when plantation workers should receive better treatment. The wages they are receiving today still stand at 5s. 6d. per day. For them there are at the utmost 20 working days per month, for they do not work six days per week but only five. There are four weeks to a month and the maximum is therefore 20 working days at 5s. 6d. or £5 10s. per month. Fortunately they now receive a cost of living allowance of say £1 per month. That means a maximum of £6 10s. which those people can receive. But nobody knows better than the Department of Forestry that in those parts, especially in the mountains, not every day is a nice day, and when it rains they are not allowed to work and the average number of working days therefore amounts to 15 per month only. At 5s. 6d. per day that means an average income of less than £6 per month. I should like the Minister to promise us to do two things. First of all that he will allow those people to work also on Saturdays, half a day at a full day’s pay as is the case with all other workers. That is a reasonable request by the planation workers. Let them work on Saturday morning and be paid for a full day. Secondly I want to ask the Minister whether, in view of the increased revenue of the Forestry Department, he does not think that the time has arrived to put the planation workers on the same footing as the Railway workers? The Department of Forestry expects the woodcutters and the plantation workers to put in a day’s hard work. I wish I could get the Minister so far as to visit those forests once.

I went through them and then it rained.

Why did the Minister go there so furtively that nobody knew about it?

I went through them four or five years ago.

Some weeks ago I fortunately saw the Minister of Labour there. The plantation workers heard about his visit and they crowded around him and showed him the conditions under which they have to work. They explained to the Minister of Labour that as they had to start work at 7 o’clock in the morning, often 7 or 8 miles up in the mountains, they had to leave their homes at 5 o’clock in the morning in order to be able to start work at the stipulated time.

And if they are late and it starts raining at 10 o’clock they have to go home again.

Then they are paid for a quarter day only. They work until half past five in the late afternoon. [Time limit.]

I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). He was dealing with the hours those people have to work on the plantations and he asked that they should now be placed on at least the same scale as the Railway workers. I may say that that is something which the hon. member for George and I have been advocating for a long time. The Department in the past realised that we were right and they consequently granted those people an increase, but it was a very meagre increase of 6d. per day, which did not bring them anywhere near the wages which Railway workers receive. In former days it may have been argued, although I did not agree with it, that the country had to indulge in very high expenses in regard to afforestation and that it did not show a profit, or in any case that the revenue was much smaller than the expenditure. Now the revenue has increased by leaps and bounds. This year the income may amount to probably £1,000,000, and not only that but the forests supply one of the key requirements of the building industry, because it is impossible to import timber. Therefore the argument that the Department has only expenses and no income falls away in any case. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the plantation workers are the lowest paid Europeans which are working for the Government in any part of South Africa. There is no person or class of persons who receives so little pay as the plantation worker. It may perhaps be asked whether they are good workers. I can refer the Minister to various reports from the heads of his Department, form the former Director of Forestry and the present Secretary for Agriculture, in which they remark on the work which these people do—I am now referring mainly to the South Western districts, Knysna and George, and the reports say that they are unsurpassable in the work they do. One can understand this. These people are not accustomed to any other work, they have grown up with it, generation after generation has followed that trade, and they learn it when they are still children. The heads of the Department rightly remarked that their work could not be better. One cannot say from any other class of workers in South Africa, and especially not from the Cabinet as a whole, that they are unsurpassable for the work they have to do. And because they are so excellent in their work they are paid the lowest wages which are paid by the State to any European. The hon. member for George referred to the hours they have to work and the very great distances they have to travel to get to their place of work. They do not work under normal conditions. A few years ago a Commission was appointed to investigate matters in those parts. The Commission consisted of the heads of various Departments, of Labour, Agriculture, Social Welfare and they made an investigation any many of the members of the Commission where astonished at the conditions there. They thought these people were a lot of good-for-nothings. Before we were half way through the area one of the heads of a Department told me that he was thunderstruck, that he had always thought that these people were a burden on the country and that he now noticed that they were one of the greatest assets the country has, orderly, peace-loving, hard-working people. There is something else we should keep in mind. The period of their lives during which these people can work is very limited owing to the conditions under which they have to work. They have to work in a moist climate. It may be that the conditions in Barberton and those parts are different, for it is warmer there. But in these parts we do not have a warm climate and much of the work has to be done in moist conditions. It often happens that the people are already wet when they start working and they remain wet right through the day, for in those humid forests it remains moist and the shrubs and grass remain wet. In most of those parts it rains from 150 to 160 days per annum on an average. That means that it rains three days out of every seven of the week, and the whole area remains moist and wet. The Minister should obtain a report about the health of the people there from the local physicians and they will assure the Minister that the two ailments which occur there more than in any other part of South Africa are rheumatism and chest troubles, especially asthma and bronchitis. Rheumatism cuts short the period of their life during which they can work. We do not ask that they be paid exorbitant wag.es, but we ask that they be treated on the same level as our Railway workers. The Railway Administration is the largest single employer of European labour in the Union, and they instituted an enquiry as to a reasonable wage to pay to European workers and that is the wage which they laid down. The Minister should also remember that the Railway workers receive other facilities, such as free medical treatment and holiday facilities. The plantation workers do not receive anything. They may be 30 or 40 miles away from the nearest doctor and they are not entitled to free medical treatment for themselves and their wives and children. If the Minister goes carefully through the Stals Report, he will find that the whole consensus of the Stals Report is that economic conditions, lack of proper nourishment and housing are the cause of the conditions in which those people live and that it is not due to any mental shortcomings. They york at 5s. 6d. per day and receive a small plot of land whereon they have to build their own house themselves. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether you can visualise the possibility of building a dwelling house on a wage of 5s. 6d. a day In this connection one should remember that this is not the dry climate of the Karoo but the wettest district of the country, where one has to build a much more solid house to keep out the water and the dampness. And then it sometimes happens after the man has built his house and it has been standing for a couple of years that the Department comes along and declares that it needs the land for something else and the man is given notice to vacate his house and to remove it. [Time limit.]

I think that forestry occupies a very important place in the development of the Union. In my district forestry has reached the stage when it shows a promising future and when the State is beginning to receive considerable revenue from the forests which have been planted there over a period of years. There are a few matters which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. In 1939, when the war broke out, it soon became clear that there would be a serious shortage of wood for boxes and the shortage became more and more acute. I made representations to the Government and we are now in the position that we in our area can so to say meet the requirements of our district and that of many other districts as far as boxes are concerned. But what happened in regard to the price of boxes? The price rose to £18 per thousand for tomato boxes and to £28 in the case of paw paw boxes. I have certain interests in saw mills in my constituency, and the question I now want to put to the Minister is why fruit boxes which are manufactured for the Government saw mills have no fixed price. Why do you allow the boxes to be sold on the black market where the farmers have to compete, one against the other, in order to see who can outbid the other in order to get hold of the boxes? This is the main reason for the price of boxes having risen to the present level. The hon. Minister should keep in mind that for the class of farming we have there we have had tremendously increased expenditure since the war broke out. Our machinery, our nails, everything we require, has gone up in price, and I can state for certain that last year we did not receive a halfpenny more for our products than in 1938. The boxes have gone up in price. Today they ought to have been £12 and £13 per thousand and not £18. The Government has a price for the wood that goes through its saw mills, for all its wood, but we cannot get a price from the Department for the boxes they are today putting on the market. I think that is an injustice. Then there is a further matter in connection with forestry. Today the forests are yielding a reasonable revenue. The revenue has gradually gone up and I want to plead on behalf of the people who work in the forest plantations. Some of them started working there when the first trees were planted. Today they receive better wages. There are people who are on the 5s. 6d. and 6s. 4d. per day scale—I do not want to go back to the times when they had to work for 4s. and 3s. 6d. per day. We better leave the past alone, but today the revenue from the plantations is reasonable and the people there ought to receive better wages. I want to ask the Minister what are the wages which are being paid at the Government saw mills at Klein Sabie, Nelspruit and Elandshoek. The wage scales there are absolutely below the wages paid by any other saw mill, and it is not fair that the people there are being exploited to such an extent. There is a further serious matter which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister, viz. what is happening on the eastern slopes of the Drakensberge from Piggs Peak as far upwards as the Zoutpansberge. There we have the position that the indigenous forests and shrubs which should be a protection for our water supply are being exterminated systematically year after year. There is no restriction on the cutting out of shrubs and the natives are cutting them out. I may say here that this applies to land falling under the Department of Native Affairs as well as land which is under the control of the Department of Lands and also to private land. I want to congratulate the Minister on the step he took when he appointed a National Veld Conservation Board. Is he going to give that Board the powers to intervene? Are they going to investigate matters and are they in a position to intervene in order to protect our sources of water against the extermination which is taking place? If that does not happen the whole Eastern Low Veld will in future be without water. I have been living in the district since 1911 and there are small streams which had strongly running water when I came there and which today are absolutely dry, without a drop of water. The cause of that is the extermination of indigenous trees and shrubs which has been going on for years and years. I should like to hear a statement of the Minister as to his policy. In regard to the Board which has been appointed, we should like to see that an investigation is made as to the question whether the right type of trees are being planted in the forest plantations, especially on the eastern slopes there, and whether the trees are not perhaps the reason for the water supply getting less. I can mention a place, Barretts Berlin, where before the plantations were laid out there, the water came down in such quantities that the machinery of the old gold mine there was driven by water. When the first settlement was laid out there they received the water from the permanent rivulets there. Several years after the plantations had been planted the water gave in. The Department of Forestry should devise other ways in which to obtain water. The same position is to be found at Duiwelskloof. It almost appears that certain trees which have been planted there are not of the right type and that this is the reason why the water gets less. I should like the National Veld Preservation Board to be given instructions to investigate this matter thoroughly. There is another matter in connection with the woodcutters there which I forgot to mention. Among the facilities the people there receive is medical service, but no dental treatment has been included. I went to the Department of Social Welfare and to the Department of Labour, to find out whether there is nothing that can be done in that direction. I maintain that if the Forestry Department wants to use the people there and wants to have them perform good work, then they must pay them decent wages and the workers’ health must be looked after. When a man has bad teeth or no teeth, he cannot give of his best. I should like to see the Minister discuss this question of dental care with other departments, so that such services may be instituted there.

I would like to ask the Minister to go into the matter of the labour conditions of the plantation workers once again. The plantation workers at Swellendam have no housing. They live in the towns. They have to live five or six miles from the plantation. From February until almost December the grass is wet when they go on in the morning, the dew is heavy, and as I said before, half the people suffer from chest complaints, and they only get a meagre wage of 5s. 6d. per day. They are considered ordinary labourers. They got less in the past, and now they get a little more. I would just like to ask the Minister this, if he does not think that it is impossible for a married plantation worker with a wife and children to make ends meet on that wage? These plantation workers have to ride on a bicycle to the town, or otherwise they have to walk, and they work for only three or four weeks a month, and they cannot exist on that wage. Even if they get £5 per month and they must pay house rent out of that, and in addition have to support their wives and children, then it is absolutely impossible for them to exist on it. If the Minister thinks that they ought to get more, then I suggest that he should approach the Minister of Finance. It is said that he has a soft heart for those people. Money is in any case being given to the Railways to enable them to pay a living wage to their workers. I want to ask the Minister to vote money for these people, even if it is looked upon as charity. Those people are rendering a service to the State. They enable the State to make considerable money out of the wood that is sawed. The revenue that the State derives from it is great. I want to ask the Minister to give them a wage on which they can exist. I would go down on my knees before the Minister if he would do something for those people. They cannot live on that £5 per month, particularly when the man has a wife and children. I think the State can do it, and while we now want to bring about some kind of social change in our living conditions it is now the appointed time to make a beginning. Let him begin with these people. We who sit here as the representatives of the people dare not allow people in the employ of the State to get such a meagre wage that they cannot exist on it.

I also want to make representations to the Minister to pay a higher wage to these settlement labourers and forestry workers. I really think that if there is one section of labourers in the employ of the State who are entitled to more consideration as regards their wages, then it is these people. They live far from civilisation, away in the mountains. They are far from the Railways, they are far from the church, they are far from the shops, and they are deprived of many privileges. These people cannot improve their position; they have virtually become a part of those plantations, and if they go to the towns they feel lost. With the increased revenue that the Forestry Department receives today, I hope that the hon. Minister will seriously consider paying these people higher wages.

I want to say immediately that I am very sympathetic towards the first question of the hon. member regarding the allowances of forestry workers. The hon. member knows, of course, that the 194 who were dismissed, 140 worked last year, and they earned £27 per year during the period—they therefore earned £54. I do not want to say that this is a fortune, but I do want the Committee to know that the £25 is not their only source of income. I think in all the circumstances it is fair, no matter whether we consider it as a pension or a bonus, to give these people an allowance.

Make it retrospective to the beginning of the year.

There I shall have to look into the eyes of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance. The hon. member has spoken about the plantation workers …

Let them work six days instead of five days per week.

They are also working on Saturdays nowadays. I think I have written that to the hon. member. That was some months ago. As regards the payment, I shall go into the matter. I want to give hon. members the assurance that I shall consider the matter very seriously. On the face of it there seems to be a case for consideration, to see if these people cannot be brought closer to Railway workers as regards salary. I want to warn, however, that thereby we may be depriving the farmers of hands.

No, there is no danger.

The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Raubenheimer) raised a few matters regarding the boxes made and sold by the State. We are compelled to sell the boxes by tender. We have to ask for tenders for the boxes and therefore we cannot fix a price.

What about the poles?

I think that in general the people who buy poles are fairly satisfied with the latest change that was brought about. I have met them as far as I could, but it is not necessary to sell the poles by tender. We have tried it from time to time, as the hon. member knows, but we did not get the result which we expected, and where there was tendering some people thought that they had been done an injustice. The hon. member has asked me about the wages paid at Elandshoek and other places. The wages paid there are 5s. 6d. to 10s. per day for learner machinists, and 10s. to 20s. per day for skilled machinists. I think it compares fairly well with other persons, but I would not like to see here that we should lose some of our best people; I shall go into the position. It has indeed happened that the State has lost various people from the saw mills, and I do not know if that is one of the reasons. I shall compare the wages paid by private undertakings with those paid by the Department. As regards the bush in the Drakensberg, I agree completely with the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Raubenheimer) and we are now busy issuing a proclamation; under the new Forestry Act people may not chop down trees without a permit from the Minister. That is the road we are going to follow, but we shall do all in our power to prevent the bush from being damaged further. The hon. member is quite right, according to my observations, in connection with the plantations along the mountain slopes. I have visited the Duivelskloof area a few times and went about specially in those areas, and I found that what the hon. member said is true. I have not the least doubt that through the wrong planting of blue gum the water supplies have decreased considerably, and this is, of course, a serious matter. I have gone so far, where I considered that companies made themselves guilty of this, to warn them, and some of them have altered their plans, but I warned them that if they go on in this way the Government will have to consider the desirability of alienating their lands or of making some other plan. The matter is undoubtedly serious but I want to assure the hon. member that it will receive our close attention.

I am not quite satisfied with that reply of the hon. Minister. If I require thick-wood today, then they have a price for that thick-wood. The State sawmills saw boxes, and why have they not a price for those boxes? Those boxes are put up to tender for so much per thousand, and then the farmers have to compete with one another, and that is the main reason why the price of fruit boxes is so high today. The position is that this month the one farmer tenders £15 or £16 for tomato boxes, and he does not get them. The following month he raises the price, and in this way the price is driven up to the detriment of the farmers. Whether it is tomato boxes or something else, every commodity has a fixed price. It is only the Forestry Department that does not have a fixed price. As regards the salaries of the saw-millers, I can give the Minister the assurance that all those private millers, such as the Rand Timbers and the M. and B., derive the benefit of the experience of the men who are trained in the State mills, and because the State mills do not pay a proper wage they will not retain one man there. A first class machinist who knows how to saw can at any time step over from the State sawmills to the Rand Timbers, for instance, and earn £40 per month, and it pays the Rand Timbers to take those people into employ. Then there is the question of the chopping out of trees. The Minister knows that in the Drakensberg one finds beautiful kloofs. The natives are permitted to chop out the shrub, and that kloof is then used to grow mealies for a year or two. Then the soil becomes exhausted. Then they do the same in another kloof. This is a matter in respect of which we want the Minister to intervene.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 24.—“Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones”, £5,150,000,

Mr. Chairman, may I make use of the half hour rule. The first matter I wish to raise is with regard to the African Broadcasting Corporation, and chiefly to voice my protest and the protest of I suppose of 90 per cent. of listeners in South Africa, to the extremely poor quality of the programmes which we are having inflicted on us at present. We quite realise that the Government wishes to use the A.B.C. for propaganda purposes; we are willing to suffer that. But, Mr. Chairman, the amount that we have to suffer from the A.B.C. at present is almost incredible. I do not know what the reason for it is. It is so bad that in the Afrikaans section they give you the news two or three times in the evening in Afrikaans, and when they have finished, on the same station they give you the news in English.

Why not?

Why not? Do you want to listen to it twice? Now we have got to this stage that the A.B.C. has to be used to teach hon. members Afrikaans. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Col. Wares) has had something like 60, 70 or perhaps 80 years to learn Afrikaans, and has been unable to do it, and is the A.B.C. to be used to teach him? I should like to assure the hon. member that neither the A.B.C. nor anything else is able to do that. The Almighty is the only person who will be able to teach him Afrikaans, and he wil have a difficult job. No, Mr. Chairman, the programmes are very poor indeed, we have much inflicted on us, we have much that we are forced to listen to that we don’t want to listen to. This is supposed to be an African Broadcasting Corporation, but it is not that, it is becoming a British Broadcasting Corporation. The other day I read in the paper that 18½ hours of a re-hash of the B.B.C. was being given to us per week, 18½ hours. I suppose the Minister feels that Africa is so poor in talent that we cannot supply our own programmes. We supplied our own programmes previously, and on the whole we supplied very good programmes. I have listened to the B.B.C. before the war, and I think our programmes were better than theirs, taken on the merits, quite apart from the fact that our programmes had a South African flavour. Quite apart from that our programmes compared favourably with the B.B.C.

What then?

For 18½ hours a week we have to have a re-hash of the B.B.C. programme, and Mr. Chairman, the public is getting very tired. There is another thing which from the Afrikaans-speaking people’s point of view has become a very serious matter. That is whenever, no I won’t say whenever, but in very many cases our own people. Afrikaans-speaking people on the A.B.C., for no rhyme or reason are given notice, they are sacked, they are sacked for no rhyme or reason. A short time ago one of our ablest broadcasters was given a few hours notice, and he had to leave, and his was not the first case; in quite a number of cases it has taken place before, and the result is that the cream of the Afrikaans broadcasters in South Africa has been skimmed off, and the people with ability and experience in the Afrikaans station in South Africa are now so few that it has become quite impossible for them to do the work which is expected of them. I want to ask the Minister very definitely with regard to the last man who was sacked from Cape Town, what his reasons were, and why that man was given notice. The second matter I wish to raise is a matter which has been causing a considerable amount of agitation among postal servants, and that is the appointment of a pension drawer as postmaster of Durban. Now let me say when I deal with officials, and I will have to deal with quite a number of them, I deal with them quite impersonally.

All that matter has been settled and finished.

I am glad it has been settled, but I wish to say that I am dealing with this matter perfectly impersonally, I have nothing against the ability or character of any of these officials, but in Durban what took place was that a certain official who had retired from the service, was appointed postmaster of Durban, where there were other available people who could have been appointed in an acting capacity, and I do not believe for a moment that it was necessary for the Minister to take somebody who had left the service, who was a pension drawer, and appoint him to the very important post of postmaster at Durban. I think that was something quite uncalled for. I am very glad to hear from the Minister that he has listened to reason. I can assure him of this fact, that there was a great amount of dissatisfaction right through the service, and in future as the result of what he did, even although he has corrected the error that he made, he will be viewed with a large amount of suspicion right through the service. The Minister shakes his head, he probably means that they are already suspicious of him, and it is nothing new. The matter I chiefly want to deal with is the position of Afrikaans-speaking people in the postal service. This matter is becoming rather a scandal, the post office is becoming a close preserve for English-speaking officials. There are probably in the post office service as many Afrikaans-speaking people as English-speaking people, probably more, but is has become completely impossible for an Afrikaans-speaking person in the post office to get any of the better positions. Before I deal with individual cases, let me make a few general remarks. A year or two ago the Minister, in a speech during a debate in the House, patted himself on the back for using Afrikaans-speaking postmasters, bilingual postmasters at most of the country post offices, and he looked upon that action of his as being rather virtuous. Well, I agree with him that the Afrikaans-speaking people in the country districts are very glad to get these bilingual postmasters in their villages, but what happened was this; they sent the Afrikaans-speaking people to the small post offices from which promotion is difficult, while at headquarters, where promotion is much more rapid and where ability is more quickly seen, the English-speaking officials were employed. The Minister may have done something to the advantage of the people in the country villages, but he did something very definitely to the detriment of the Afrikaans-speaking people in the service. I said a few moments ago that the Afrikans-speaking people in the post office were finding it extremely difficult to occupy the more advanced posts in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, notwithstanding the fact that probably more than half of the employees in the Post Office are Afrikans-speaking. Let me give the Minister, if he does not know it, the numbers of Afrikaans-speaking people in the higher grades of the post office. The fact is that the Postmaster-General is on a salary scale of £1,500 to £1,800. He is English-speaking. Then you get Undersecretaries on the scale of £1,200 to £1,350. Of these there is one Afrikaans-speaking and two English-speaking. Then you get the Chief Engineer, £1,200 to £1.350, he is English-speaking. I am only now dealing with the administrative side, I do not know about all the others. There are two chief accountants on a salary scale of £950 to £1,100, they are English-speaking; controller of supplies £800 to £950, English-speaking. There are four divisional controllers on the scale £800 to £950, and of these four one is Afrikaans-speaking and three English-speaking—one oasis in the desert. Then we come to chief clerks on a scale of £700 to £900, there are thirteen chief clerks, and of these thirteen not a single one is Afrikaans-speaking, all are English-speaking. There are two telephone managers, both of whom are English-speaking on the scale £700 to £900. So if you take these 25 members of the administrative side drawing the higher salaries, there are 23 English-speaking and 2 Afrikaans-speaking.

Shame.

If you go further and take the chief postmasters in South Africa, I am probably correct in saying that those are the postmasters at Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and Port Elizabeth. I presume that would be correct.

And Pretoria.

Yes, Pretoria. Of the five principal postmasters in South Africa, there is one who is Afrikaans-speaking and four English-speaking. Now add the postmaster of our most important post offices to the most highly salaried members of the administrative division, and you get three Afrikaans-speaking people and 27 English-speaking, and this is in a department in which the majority in all probability, are Afrikaans-speaking—if they are not in the majority then they are nearly 50 per cent—in that Department where 50 per cent. are Afrikaans-speaking, the members occupying the higher posts are three in thirty, 10 per cent. Mr. Chairman, the position in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs has always been bad. At one time there was a hope that the position might be improved, that the wrong done to the Afrikaans section in the Department might be in some degree redressed. You remember, sir, that in 1927 a Mr. Redelinghuys was appointed as Assistant Postmaster-General, as the position was then called. Mr. Lenton, who was then Postmaster-General was advising the Minister with regard to staff appointments, and especially with regard to senior staff appointments. Now I do not quite know how long the present Minister has been Minister, except that it is too long. I think, however, that he became Minister in 1932, and one of the very first things that the hon. Minister did was to override the Civil Service Commission and appoint a unilingual man. One of the bilingual people whom the Public Service Commission wanted to appoint was an English-speaking person, but the Minister has to override the Public Service Commission and he appointed two unilingual people to these important positions in the Service. That characterised the Minister and ever since he has been running true to form—he is like a bad horse—he started running badly at the beginning and he has run badly ever since. Now, he had to get rid of the one bilingual person in a senior position—Mr. Redelinghuys. He had to get rid of him and sidetrack him. He said: “The Post Office has much more work than any other Department, it has much more work than the Department of Agriculture, it has much more work than the Department of Defence, much more work than the Department of Railways, and it is absolutely impossible for one Assistant Postmaster-General to do all the work required of him. So now we shall do away with the position of Assistant Postmaster-General and instead we shall now appoint three men who will be assistant secretaries to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.” That was done. Two other people were appointed to the position with Mr. Redelinghuys, in which they were all in relation to the Minister and to the Postmaster-General in the same position. That is to say they were of the same grade. And the very first thing the Minister did was to take away the power of appointments from Mr. Redelinghuys and hand it back to one of the English-speaking Assistant Postmaster-Generals. That was the very first thing he did, and the proof of that policy we see today in this list which I have quoted to show that the Post Office has become a close preserve for the English-speaking people. I have no thought, no wish, no desire that the English-speaking people in South Africa in the Public Service should not have their rights. I believe that where a man has shown ability he should be given the position. No matter whether he is English or Afrikaans-speaking. I am not speaking of bilingual people, I am speaking of people of English-speaking origin, but you cannot tell me that only 10 per cent. of the Afrikaans-speaking people in the post office have ability and that 95 per cent. have none, and that 65 per cent. of the English-speaking people have ability. No. Mr. Redelinghuys has had to be ditched—he had to be got out of the way. He was the only hurdle the Minister had to get over. So Mr. Redelinghuys was sidetracked. So things went on for a number of years. Then the position of a new Postmaster-General had to be considered, and there were two people who came into consideration, the one was Mr. Redelinghuys who was appointed in 1901 and who rose to position of Assistant Postmaster-General in 1937, and who, subsequently to his appointment as Assistant Postmaster-General, had often acted in the position of Acting Postmaster-General No. Mr. Redelinghuys could not be appointed—the close preserve would be broken. Someone else had to be appointed, and so it was decided to appoint the present Postmaster-General. I don’t know anything about him; he may be a very able man—and the Minister needs able men to help him to run his Department—but this servant was promoted in a sort of roundabout way to get him past Mr. Redelinghuys. He was juggled into the position. They juggled him out of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs into the Natal Provincial Administration, and they juggled him out of that to make him Assistant Postmaster-General—they did that so that they could juggle him back to put him on an equal footing with Mr. Redelinghuys, so that he could be juggled over Mr. Redelinghuys’ head into the position of Postmaster-General. Now, he may be a very able man—he came into the Service ten years after Mr. Redelinghuys, or twelve years after, and he came back to the Post Office Department after he had been juggled into the Natal Provincial Administration and after he had been juggled into the Public Service Commission. Now, in other words, as under-secretary of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Mr. Redelinghuys was his senior by a matter of not less than ten years, but no, Mr. Redelinghuys had to be got out of the way. He had to be sidetracked, and the Minister managed to sidetrack him and to put a junior man over him. I say that it was done for no other reason but that Mr. Redelinghuys was an Afrikaans-speaking person and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs had to be kept as a close preserve for the English-speaking people.

You are quite wrong there.

What do you know about it?

Now let me tell you something, Mr. Chairman. The Minister wants loyal servants in his Department. The only way in which he will get people to stand by him loyally is to stand loyally by them. You have to give a man his rights—if you don’t give him his rights he will not stand by you. If you do not, you cannot expect loyalty. The Minister may say that his Department is loyal. Yes, it is so, but it is so in spite of the Minister. So much more to the credit of the Department, so much more to the credit of the Afrikaans-speaking people in that Department. But the Minister has no right to ask them to be loyal to him, when he is not loyal to them. He has no right to ask them to be loyal if men with Afrikaans-speaking names are not to be promoted to certain posts simply because they have Afrikaans names. This Department has become a scandal and it is time the machinations of this Department were exposed, and it is time we put a stop to this policy of keeping this Department as a preserve of the English-speaking people.

I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) for addressing me in English, and I want to take up the challenge he has thrown down straight away and give the facts. He has gone to a great deal of trouble in getting information as to the position as he finds in the Post Office, but I want to take hon. members back to the position as I found it ten years ago when I became Minister. I shall tell hon. members what the position is today and I shall leave it to them to judge as to whether I have not played the game as far as Afrikaans-speaking people are concerned. Ten years ago in the thirteen principal posts in the Post Office, only three were filled by bilingual people. Those three were Mr. Redelinghuys, and two others. There were ten unilingual people occupying these prominent positions. The position today is that notwithstanding the insinuations which the hon. member has made, of these thirteen positions eleven are occupied by fully bilingual people, and the occupants of the other two positions have a knowledge of Afrikaans, and if that is not a complete change then I do not know what is.

I did not make a point of bilingualism.

That is the position in regard to these important posts today. The other point the hon. member made concerned some of these important positions—those of the Postmaster-General, of the Undersecretaries, the Engineer and the Accountant. Those people got those positions on merit and on seniority. There is not one of them who superseded an Afrikaans-speaking member of the Service. I want to point out that they did not jump over anyone.

Seniority counts.

Don’t misunderstand me; they got those positions primarily on seniority, but in this case there was not one person. Now, when we come to the position of Mr. Redelinghuys the hon. member brought to the notice of the House what I have had to submit to two or three Sessions in succession when I had had the temerity to go against recommendations of the Public Service Commission. They had recommended two English bilingual people for two positions in the Post Office. In the opinion of the Post Office, these people were not the ones to carry these jobs. I was satisfied that that was so and I convinced my colleagues and we appointed the two I recommended. And just think what I got in this House because I had the temerity to do so—and now the hon. member gets up here and makes this harangue against me for the position which exists at this moment. Who appointed Mr. Burke? The Public Service Commission did. The responsibility was mine, I want to make the position clear. The Public Service Commission recommended Mr. Burke. Now, he was equal Under-Secretary, although lower in salary, than Mr. Redelinghuys. When there was a vacancy in the Provincial Council of Natal Mr. Burke was recommended by the Public Service Commission and he got the position. Mr. Burke then became Mr. Redelinghuys’ senior in the Service. The hon. member sniggers.

No, I snorted.

When the Public Service Commission had to decide who was to be the new Postmaster-General they knew Mr. Burke and Mr. Redelinghuys, and there were others they had to consider as well, and when they made the recommendation that Mr. Burke should be appointed the responsibility was on me to say whether I would accept or reject that recommendation. Knowing Mr. Burke and his ability and the work he had accomplished I had no hesitation in accepting that recommendation and I take the responsibility which falls on me as Minister in accepting that recommendation. But the responsibility for the recommendation is the Public Service Commission’s. What would the hon. member have said had I refused to accept the Public Service Commission’s recommendation and taken someone else? Would the hon. member have accepted that? When I first became Minister ten years ago the percentage of English-speaking people to Afrikaans-speaking people was 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. to 20 to 25 per cent. The position today is practically 60 per cent. to 40 per cent.

60 per cent. what?

60 per cent. English-speaking to 40 per cent. Afrikaans-speaking. In five years time it will be fifty-fifty, and then the ratio will be the other way round.

I suppose you are including the postmen.

I include everyone. The hon. member would probably be interested in hearing of these Afrikaans names—in hearing the names of these people who have received promotion to the principal positions in the Post Office, since I became Minister. They are De Jager, Van Aswegen, Le Roux, Heyman, Altona, Van Heerden.

Why did you not promote Redelinghuys?

These names which I have mentioned here are the names of people who have occupied the positions of Divisional Controllers and postmasters of Johannesburg. When I became Minister of Posts and Telegraphs there was not a solitary Afrikaans person occupying these positions. Today out of the nine principal offices four are occupied by Afrikaans-speaking people. Well, I hope that I have shown that so far as the Administration of the Post Office is concerned my concern has been to do justice to both sections. Promotions are taking place daily so far as the Afrikaans-speaking people are concerned. And the ratio today is in the degree of 33 per cent. to 66 per cent.

All on merit?

These promotions to which I have referred are settled by a Committee which was brought into existence some years ago as a result of my intervention at a time when promotion was left to an individual. That Committee is composed to the tune of nearly 50 per cent. of representatives who are Afrikaans-speaking, and the Committee receives reports from all over the country. A merit list is compiled and the promotions take place in accordance with the merit list. The Public Service Commission is represented on that Committee. All these controllers and chief post office officials whom the hon. member referred to, plus the Under Secretary in charge of the staff, are on the Committee, and they generally sit for a month once every eighteen months, and they prepare a list of the people in the order of merit and that list goes before the Pubic Service Commission, and that is the way in which recommendations are made. I have not gone against any of the Public Service Commission’s recommendations. The hon. member said that I had endeavoured to sidetrack Mr. Redelinghuys. Nothing is further from the truth. I appointed Mr. Redelinghuys to act as Postmaster-General on the three occasions when the then Postmaster-General went overseas on Government business.

Did you make any recommendations to the Public Service Commission?

I did not make any recommendations to the Public Service Commission.

Who submits the names?

In these senior positions the Public Service Commission make their own recommendations.

Are no names submitted by any official?

No names of prospective candidates?

I am not in a position to argue that point but I do know that the Public Service Commission considered more than the two names to which hon. members have been referring, and they discussed the matter with me.

Oh, they discussed it with you.

What was your recommendation?

I am not prepared to say what my recommendation was in connection with this particular matter. This recommendation was the recommendation of the Public Service Commission.

And now you are shirking your responsibility.

Oh, no, I am not shirking any responsibility. I take full responsibility as Minister for the appointment of Mr. Burke—a very able young man who got this position on merit and merit alone.

Are you satisfied with that decision?

Yes, if I had not been satisfied I would have gone against the recommendation.

The fact of the matter is, be honest and admit that you recommended him.

I did not. Well, I don’t want to go any further into that. So much for the position so far as the Postmaster-General is concerned. The hon. member referred to the poor reception and criticised the programmes of the African Broadcasting Corporation.

Reception—yes, the reception is alright—it is the stuff used that is so rotten.

Would it surprise the hon. member to hear that I also complained very bitterly.

I am glad to hear that.

But unfortunately he and I do not represent the whole of the listening public of South Africa. The A.B.C. have established, have laid down the principle of having committees throughout South Africa to advise them on the very questions which the hon. member has raised. The committees deal with the improvement of programmes and other matters affecting the running of broadcasting, and I am not sorry that the hon. member has mentioned this because the Broadcasting Board of Governors will be able to listen to what the hon. member has said. I have said in Another Place and I repeat here that when I am not satisfied with what I hear on the radio I switch over to some other programme, or I switch off altogether.

The best programme is when it is switched off.

What about repeating the news in the one language after the other?

Hon. members should realise that the control and the running of broadcasting is in the hands of a Board of Governors and I do not interfere. But I am prepared to make representations in support of what the hon. member has said. The whole idea of having separate programmes was to cut down this double rendering of speeches, so that a person does not have to listen to the same speech twice over. Unfortunately I cannot listen in to the Afrikaans except to the lovely music which comes over on that programme, but I would say that it would be a mistake if they were broadcasting the English and Afrikaans news in the same programme and also the ordinary propaganda.

We are getting hours of English on the Afrikaans programme.

Don’t you want that?

No, if I don’t want to listen to what is given on the one programme then I switch over. I like to do a little juggling myself—and if I don’t like to listen to a speech by the Minister of Native Affairs I either switch off or switch over.

Well, I shall make these representations to the Broadcasting Board. The other point which the hon. member raised was in regard to the appointment of the Postmaster at Durban. Well, it was not an appointment. The man was acting in that position. There was very important work to be done in Durban and the official was occupying an acting position of Postmaster.

Was he not the chief superintendent?

Yes, he was the chief superintendent and he was appointed to the acting position of Postmaster. The chief superintendent acted as Acting Postmaster in Durban. He retired in that position and in this case I personally investigated the matter. There was heavy postage in Durban, heavy work, and the man who would have been appointed in the ordinary way to the position of Postmaster was Mr. Phillips. I discussed the matter with Mr. Phillips and also with the official who had retired, and as a result of the discussion between the three of us Mr. Phillips said definitely that in the interest of the Post Office Mr. Corbett should carry on. I know the Postal Association took exception and I wrote to them at once and said that I recognised the attitude they had taken up. I said: “I stand by that attitude, but there are special circumstances here. There are a lot of acting appointments in the Post Office at present.” I arranged to meet a deputation at the beginning of this year and I explained the position to that deputation and they were quite satisfied. They realised that it was not going to be treated as a precedent. There were special circumstances and the whole object was to keep up the efficiency of the Post Office at that particular time.

If the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has one qualification more than some of the other aspirants, then it is his capacity for doing a good egg-dance. An accusation has been made against him here in connection with his administration, and he has replied in such a way that we can only say that we are deeply disappointed. He explained initially that he tries to be impartial in connection with appointments and promotions in his administration, because, he says, in the thirteen important posts in his administration, twelve bilingual persons were appointed during his term of office. He says further that the appointments were made on seniority. But still later, when he reverted to the appointment of Mr. Redelinghuys, he said that seniority did not count at all. And there he offered the excuse that it was not he who was responsible for the appointment, but that the Public Service Commission had made the appointment. But so much did his conscience prick him, that he nevertheless informed the House that he had been consulted by the Public Service Commission. He had made a recommendation. I want to say this to him, and he must deny it: The recommendation which he made was that Mr. Burke must be appointed. I do not want to say that Mr. Burke is not suitable for the post, but the Minister had already prided himself in his speech that people are appointed on seniority, and there must therefore be a good reason why this did not apply in the case of Mr. Redelinghuys. The Minister must give us that reason. Does he consider that Mr. Redelinghuys is not suitable, and that he could therefore not be appointed on merit? Does he consider that Mr. Redelinghuys is not sufficiently qualified to be appointed Postmaster-General? And if he cannot give that reason, then he must not come here and say that eleven bilingual persons had been appointed to thirteen posts because they were promoted by virtue of seniority. Let him say beforehand whether Mr. Redelinghuys is qualified for the post or not. Let us now consider whether, so far as we can judge, Mr. Redelinghuys is qualified. On three occasions the Minister appointed him Acting Postmaster-General, and that shows that Mr. Redelinhuys was able to act. If the Minister’s first experience was that Mr. Redelinghuys was not qualified for the post, then he would not have appointed him a second or a third time. Then what is the reason why he cannot appoint him permanently? I want to tell the Minister that we have long had the suspicion that he did not intend appointing Mr. Redelinghuys. This is not the first time that the matter has been raised in the House. Shortly after the Minister was appointed, we raised that question, because we saw what his plan was when he abolished the post of Assistant. Postmaster-General and appointed Secretaries. We told him at the time that he intended to go over the head of Mr. Redelinghuys, and that he was appointing the Assistant Secretaries for that purpose. Now it appears that our prophecy was correct. But at the time the Minister rejected that allegation with indignation. He said that he had no plans of that description, but now we see that our phophecy was right. Now the Minister is trying to shield behind the Public Service Commission, but at the same time he admits that the Public Service Commission had consulted him. The whole thing is only too clear. He must not ask us to be satisfied with his statement that he did not go out of his way to get Mr. Burke into that position. As regards Mr. Redelinghuys, the Minister, if he goes to the staff, will discover that he is a person who is highly esteemed even among the English-speaking section and that they appreciate Mr. Redelinghuys’ services and the manner in which he associates with the staff. For a long time he was in charge of the staff section, and before Mr. Burke was there he gave advice in connection with staff appointments. The whole staff was satisfied. He brought about changes which were generally approved, but right from the start the Minister went out of his way to make it possible for him to go over the head of Mr. Redelinghuys, and when the appointment of a Postmaster-General had to be made, the opportunity was there to pass Mr. Redelinghuys over and to get somebody else in the position, even although Mr. Redelinghuys was senior to Mr. Burke by far. Now if the Minister says here that he had nothing to do with the appointment, then he must excuse us if we say that we cannot accept that, and that the Minister intended from the start to go over the head of Mr. Redelinghuys. He must remember that such an example may be emulated some day. If Afrikaans-speaking persons are treated in this unjust manner in the matter of appointments, then the Minister must not complain tomorrow or the day after if there is another Government which acts in a similar manner. I had hoped that we in South Africa had progressed to the point where we can appoint persons on their merits and deserts, on the strength of services rendered. Here is a man who has had years of service and who has worked himself up to the second highest post in the Service, but once he got there the Minister went out of his way to prevent him from being promoted to the highest post. How would the Minister have felt if this had been done to him? The Minister must assume the responsibility. I only want to express the hope that this example will have no emulation, and that no further injustice will be committed against officials under the Minister. In such an event he can never expect loyal services from his staff. The officials in the service notice the injustice which is being done, and if that happens he cannot expect the best service. I hope that the Minister will in future depart from that policy of keeping back people who do not belong to his race. I hope the Minister will realise the indignation which prevails amongst the Afrikaans-speaking section in the country about the injustice done to Mr. Redelinghuys. There is indignation throughout the whole Service, for Mr. Redelinghuys has rendered loyal service and by virtue of his services he worked himself up until he was due to be considered for the post of Postmaster-General.

I listened with very great interest to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) when he was talking a little while ago, and I must admit with a certain amount of amusement as well. It is not very long ago when the hon. member for Humansdorp made a most eloquent appeal on this question of language, he spoke with tears in his voice, almost with tears in his eyes, and I must admit he made a very deep impression upon me by the way in which he handled the subject. Today he has added to what he said then in speaking of the filling of posts in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, and he seems to take a view which I must admit I was amazed to hear him adopt, because it would appear from what he said that it does not matter what language qualifications a man may have, it does not matter to what extent he may have rendered himself completely and absolutely bilingual, the only test apparently for an appointment seems to be the name that the man bears, whether that name is an English name or an Afrikaans name. The hon. member pays no attention whatever to the qualifications, the ability or the merits of the man concerned; he merely picks up a list and goes through the list, and he says this man is the one to be appointed because he bears an English name, or an Afrikaans name, quite oblivious of the fact, as the Minister has told us, that out of thirteen cases eleven were completely and absolutely bilingual. That means nothing to the hon. member. Is that the criterion which now has to be adopted in filling appointments in the Service? Because that seems to be a most extraordinary and amazing stand to take. All these men were senior men, as the Minister has told the House. I would go much further personally, because I attach far greater importance to merit than I do to seniority. I would like to see the best man get the job, quite irrespective of what his name may be, or whether he is completely bilingual or not. What I want to know is this, why does not the hon. member for Humansdorp, if he wants to be entirely honest in a thing of this sort, turn his attention to certain other departments of the Administration? Why should he confine his attention merely to the Post Office? It it because he is to be the future Minister of Posts and Telegraphs that he takes such an interest in that Department? A moment ago we just finished a Vote where I think an analysis based on the point of view of the hon. member for Humansdorp would be of amazing interest to the House, and would completely dispose of any arguments that he has brought to bear in regard to the Post Office. For you would find scarcely one English name. While that is so you do not find members on this side getting up and trying to make a case out of the situation there. It does not interest them in the least, provided the job is properly done and the man has the ability to do the job. When that is the case, why worry about whether the man has an English or an Afrikaans name. I was amazed that the hon. member, a man of very great intelligence, should adopt such an attitude in this House. He dealt with another matter, namely, the musical programme of the A.B.C. There I have a great deal of sympathy with him, for I must admit that some of the programmes put out are really almost beyond belief.

Don’t you like crooning?

I dislike it immensely, I think it a most appalling thing. Much better than crooners would be to have some of the members of the Opposition giving us some talks. We might have happenings from Humansdorp or burblings from Boshof, or we might have meanings from Moorreesburg. Anything of that sort would have a very good effect, it might indeed make the hon. members go to their constituencies in order to collect the necessary material. They never go there now. If it came to a question between the hon. member for Humansdorp on the wireless and the crooner, however much I might disagree with the subject matter of what the hon. member should say, I would prefer him to the crooner. A great deal might be done to encourage local talent on the broadcast, we have lots of good talent in this country, and I think we should all be very delighted to hear it from time to time. I think the Minister might consider whether it is not possible to give us a much better assortment than we have to put up with at the present time.

The Minister of Posts now shifts the blame for the appointment on to the Public Service Commission. He says that the Public Service Commission recommended Mr. Burke and not Mr. Redelinghuys. It is not clear whether the Minister was consulted and whether he also recommended Mr. Burke. But the Minister now comes here and has to assume responsibility for the appointment. His excuse is the appointment of the Public Service Commission. Some years ago the Public Service Commission recommended two bilingual officials for promotion. Then the Minister went and appointed two unilingual officials.

What can you expect? He himself is unilingual.

Then the recommendation of the Public Service Commission was for two bilingual persons but the Minister paid no attention to it. Now he comes and hides behind the Public Service Commission. He could not appoint Mr. Redelinghuys for the reason that the Public Service Commission made another recommendation. We have to do here with an injustice towards the Afrikaans-speaking section in a reprehensible manner. An Afrikaans name is a stigma of inferiority in the Post Office. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has pointed out that there are three Afrikaans-speaking persons among twenty-seven senior officials. But there was one person who was a senior official and at the same time Afrikaans-speaking, namely, Mr. Redelinghuys. He occupied a senior position, and yet the Minister of Posts comes and does that person an injustice also. Let me say, I have said it before, that there has been manoeuvering in the Post Office for some years to keep Mr. Redelinghuys out of the highest position. Let the Minister deny it. Those are the facts. They have been busy for some years keeping Mr. Redelinghuys out. I have been making that accusation for some years. Then the Minister gave us the assurance that Mr. Redelinghuys would remain the senior above the two other Assistant Postmasters-General who were appointed. Mr. Redelinghuys would remain the senior, but now he again gives the Afrikaans-speaking section a slap in the face. I am surprised that the Afrikaans-speaking members on the other side sit still under this injustice. The Post Office is today a closed preserve so far as the Afrikaans-speaking people are concerned. They have very little opportunity of getting promotion. The Minister has mentioned five or six cases of Afrikaans-speaking persons who have been promoted. Out of a hundred or two hundred promotions he can find five Afrikaans names. It is a scandalous discrimination against the Afrikaans-speaking section that prevails in the Post Office today. They are being kept out systematically. It was clear even some years back that if a post has to be filled, and there is an Afrikaans-speaking person who has to come into consideration, then he is transferred to another position, ostensibly with a little promotion, so that an English-speaking person can be put into the higher post. They do not act in accordance with merit and ability. That is our charge against the Minister and the Public Service Commission. A man like Mr. Redelinghuys, who is the senior of Mr. Burke by ten years, and who has worked himself up to the highest position bar one, is given a slap in the face because he is Afrikaans-speaking. Why did he rise so high? Because he is inefficient? No, because of his ability. But now this injustice is being done him.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take any part in what seems to be quite a private scrap.

You can join in.

Thank you, I would rather not, I would rather be excused. One thing I would like to put to the hon. Minister, which I look upon as a distinct injustice to a certain type of man that he employs, I refer chiefly to men who have served in the Post Office for long periods, and owing to loss of health through no fault of their own in many instances, have left the service and been re-employed. I refer particularly to a man who served for 22 years in the Post Office, and then owing to extreme pressure and overwork during the last war, he lost his health and had to retire. After about two years he regained his health and tried to get back again. He was taken on by the Department on a temporary basis, and has been kept in that position in spite of representations, for a period of 23 years. That man has given the Post Office something like 45 years extremely loyal service, and he is an extremely capable man. Under circumstances that exist, that man has never been able to get back to his old position. Now he comes to the period when he muset retire, and Mr. Chairman, he goes out with a pitiful pension of approximately £8s. 5d. per month. I do not think the Post Office is justified in keeping a man for as long as 23 years on a temporary basis in a responsible position, without giving him some recognition for his services. I would appeal to the Minister for some recognition in a case of that type. I have no doubt the instance I quote is not an isolated one, and I suggest that the Minister go through his files and try to do something for these people.

It was certainly a very deep disappointment to the Afrikaans-speaking section in our country when we were informed that Mr. Redelinghuys was passed over at the appointment of the Postmaster-General, the more so because the Minister of Posts made a statement at the time, when a change was made and when he created the two new posts of Assistant-Postmasters-General; then the Minister in reply to an attack by the Opposition virtually gave the assurance that Mr. Redelinghuys would be the successor of Mr. Lenton. He indicated that he had no ulterior motives with the creation of the new posts. The Minister shakes his head but I can give the assurance that deep disappointment prevailed among the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population. We get this sort of position not only in connection with high posts. I do not know if the Minister will take any notice of it but at Witbank a woman was appointed to serve the telephones and to take down telegrams, and if you telephone her to send off a telegram then she is not able to understand what you want to telegraph, because she does not understand Afrikaans. Even if you try to spell out the Afrikaans words to her she does not understand it in the Afrikaans A, B, C. This shows the direction in which matters are being steered by this Minister. A scandalous contempt is being displayed by the Post Office for the Afrikaans language. I want to end with these few words of strong protest. The Minister will not obtain the friendly attitude of the Afrikaans-speaking section in the country if he acts in this way, but he will get their opposition. I see that the Minister is now increasing the telephone fees by 12½ per cent. Will the Minister give us closer information about how this is being done, and whether he is doing so in order to be able to contribute more to war expenditure?

Mr. Chairman, I must speak in English. I deplore the necessity, but I am not quite satisfied with the translator. I want to assure the Minister that I come in contact with numbers of these officials practically every day, and some of the Afrikaans-speaking members of the staff are personal friends of mine. I want to assure the Minister of the fact that every one of these men feel that justice is not done in his case. They feel that because they are Afrikaans-speaking they do not get the opportunities of promotion that they otherwise would. Not from today, not from the time that he has been the Minister in charge of this portfolio, but for a long time promotion has been due to influence, political or otherwise, and not to merit. That is the feeling in the Service, and I am not surprised that he does not get the Afrikaans-speaking people in the Service that he otherwise would get, although they are useful men and very few of them are not bilingual. I do not wish to speak about the promotion of the present Postmaster-General. This is not the first time a similar appointment has taken place, it has taken place two or three times. The Postmaster-General before Mr. Lenton could not even stay in the country, he had to go and live in England. Speaking of the lower ranks in the Post Office. I know the system that obtains. The postmaster reports upon the members of the staff, and in most cases those reports are made by human beings, people who rightly or wrongly think that the people under them are good clerks; and this in many instances is due to the fact that they have been friendly. Sometimes they have shown kindness to the official above them, and in that way they get an advantage in the way that other members of the staff are not capable of doing, and therefore those other members of the staff do not get the advantage they should get. In the Railways we have the same trouble every time someone is appointed. When the last Postmaster-General was appointed there was the same method employed by moving people about. One went to the Public Service Commission, another went somewhere else, and these were people that had the right of the advance to the Postmaster-Generalship. These people were shifted out and the former Postmaster-General was given the post, because he had influence. I know all about it, and I think the country is beginning to see what the position is. The Railways have the same method of promotions, which are supposed to be made on merit. I want to know from the Minister who fixes the merit. I know that the man presently appointed is generally looked upon as a capable officer, and a man the staff can look up to. I do not want to run him down, but I consider the other man should get his chance. I do not know Mr. Redelinghuys, I do not know his merits, but he was next for the Postmaster-Generalship, and he ought to have sufficient merit to become Postmaster-General. He has acted as Postmaster-General. Long before an appointment becomes due, the people know when the period of retirement comes, they know that the holder of the office has got to the period when he must go out of the Service, and we know that before that time people are moved about, taken out of one branch and put into another in order that the man they desire shall get the post. We know the Minister recommended the present man, we know what the Civil Service Commission is, and we know that officials do not get their advancement according to merit. The present method of promotion is due to nothing more than influence, political or otherwise. Now I have finished with that, and I want to ask the Minister to please, when he comes through Swellendam, to have a good look at the Post Office. It is such a rotten building and so bad that they now have to put a town guard there to look after the building; they are afraid one of the inhabitants will put a bomb in it. It is about time something was done for the staff there, to give them a building they can work in and keep their health. Why must we rely upon municipalities and other people to build these things for the Post Office? In this instance I am told it was built privately, and I am told that it is unsuitable and unhealthy, and I believe the administration is afraid that somebody may throw a bomb in there, so they have put a guard there to look after the building. I think the time is ripe when an important community like Swellendam, one of the oldest places in the Union, one of the places that the whole population of the Union should be proud of, should get a building there that is fit for the purpose and that the people can be proud of.

I hope to go to Swellendam on Saturday.

I want the hon. Minister to go and look at this, and see if he cannot do something for the residents of Swellendam, and give them a decent building that the staff can work in and keen their health. If he did that he probably would not have the trouble that the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. C. M. Warren) spoke about, namely, officials losing their health through working in bad conditions.

I do not think that I can be accused of raising the language question in this House at any time but the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) evidently agrees with me that so far as the Civil Service is concerned promotion does not go by merit. I am in perfect agreement with him—but I do not arrive at that conclusion on the same premises as he does. The majority of the people in Natal feel about this matter in the same way as I do. They feel that if you have an Afrikaans name, and if you speak Afrikaans—that is the only qualification necessary for a Civil Servant today. I am surprised at hon. members on my right complaining of an English-speaking person having been promoted to the position of Postmaster-General. It has been a great bone of contention among the English-speaking people of South Africa for some years that they have not been given the opportunity of rising in the Public Service owing to their lack of knowledge of the second language. But in connection with this appointment we have not heard the criticism that the present Postmaster-General has no knowledge of the second language. I understand he has passed all the tests necessary. Now it seems it is not a question of bilingualism—but it seems to me that the time has arrived when all Government Departments will have to put up a notice: “No English-speaking person need apply for any job here.” That is almost the position today. It is impossible for an English-speaking person, even if he has been there for 30 or 40 years to get promotion if he is not bilingual. We have made the plea in this House on a number of occasions that pre-Union public servants who had joined the Service under certain conditions should be given the promotion they are entitled to. We say that their conditions of employment have been broken. New terms have been brought into being which these men have had to abide by—they have been debarred from promotion or increases in pay. My hon. friend must agree that it is most unfortunate for a man to be debarred from promotion owing to his not being proficient in the second language. A man may be employed on the intelligent joo of loading goods on to a lorry. If he cannot speak to these goods in the second language he cannot be promoted. But the man who is able to address the goods in both languages can go as high as he likes. What we desire is that promotion should go by merit and if it is not necessary for a man to have a knowledge of the second language we say that he should be given the promotion to which he is entitled. But no, the conditions of service have been altered and there are hundreds of English-speaking people who are suffering under tremendous disabilities. If my hon. friends were reasonable they would agree with me that these men are suffering from victimisation and disability.

Will the hon. member please come back to the Vote.

This debate has developed into a question of promotion and the language question has been brought into it. I submit that as our friends opposite have been discussing the language question for the last hour in connection with promotions in the Service and are maintaining that it is only merit that counts for promotion and not bilingualism, that I am entitled to reply on those lines. I have said that the English-speaking people of Natal are feeling that they are suffering under severe hardships. They have been cut out of the Service of the State owing to their lack of knowledge of the second language.

Don’t talk nonsense.

It will be found that in the Defence Department only 15 per cent. of the officials are English-speaking.

May I remind the hon. member that the Committee is considering the Post Office Vote.

What do we find in the Post Office? It has been the English-speaking section who have built up the postal service. They are the pioneers of it. All the brains … .

Hear, hear!

All the brains that were in South Africa, that were used to develop the postal service here, have come from overseas. That does not only apply to the postal services but to the other Departments as well. It has been necessary for us to import specialists from overseas to develop our postal system as well as other systems. Well, how can you expect these men who have come from overseas, who have come here to bring efficiency into our service, to be able to speak the second language? All those officials are disappearing from the Postal Service. They are dwindling away.

What a pity.

Owing to the enforcement of bilingualism the English-speaking section are gradually being debarred from the Government Service. And as the greatest qualification for promotion in the Postal Service is bilingualism, it is only a matter of time when a notice will be put up outside all Government institutions that no English-speaking person need apply, no matter what merits he may possess. If a man is not bilingual no matter what other qualifications he may have, he cannot get promotion, and it is no use his applying for promotion. That is what we object to.

I have very much to say on this matter but I am going to say very little. In the year of cur Lord, 1937, and the fourth year of the reign of King Charles Clarkson, this House discussed the matter of the freezing out of Mr. Redelinghuys—we discussed the question of the sidetracking and the freezing out of Mr. Redelinghuys, and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, in his best bedside manner tried to assure the House that nothing was wrong, and he gave the House an assurance, which we took as an assurance. Let me read to the House what King Charles Clarkson said—

Perfectly true.

That was in the year of our Lord 1937. And I say that that could only be construed as an assurance to this House that Mr. Redelinghuys would be the successor to Mr. Lenton. What else could it mean? He was the second person in seniority and nothing had been done to interfere with the normal arrangement. So after that he has interfered with the normal arrangement. He has gone back on his assurance. Was this pure bluff or was it an attempt to mislead the House? This was an assurance which members of the House could only construe in one way. I shall leave it to the Minister to explain why he has interfered with the normal arrangement. If Mr. Redelinghuys in 1937 was the best man to be second in command, then why have the normal arrangements now been interfered with? I have very much pleasure now in reading to the Minister what a newspaper which was the leading protagonist of his Government said at that time about his Post Office—

The article goes on to say—

That was written by the Editor of a newspaper supporting the Government. How much truer is it today?

I am exceedingly sorry that this question of the successor to the former Postmaster-General should have been raised in this House. I have a rooted objection to discussing public servants who are still in the Service and unable to reply to attacks; on the other hand, when refuting those attacks one is compelled sometimes to pass judgment on others—which I equally object to. In a case of this sort one has to go back a little further than 1937. It it well to get back to the days when Mr. Redelinghuys was first appointed Assistant Postmaster-General. Some hon. members will recollect when the present Minister of Labour was a Cabinet Minister in the first Pact Government. Possibly they will remember that during the absence of Mr. Lenton overseas there was published in the Government Gazette a scheme for the separation of the purely Post Office work from the technical, that is the telegraphs and telephone part of the Post Office. At that time the late Mr. Robert McArthur—who subsequently became member of this House for Umbilo—was Chief Engineer of the Post Office, and during Mr. Lenton’s absence he was acting Postmaster-General. That scheme was cancelled a week after it was introduced. For what reason I do not know, but from that time onwards there was a tendency to discredit the Chief Engineer, Mr. McArthur. It culminated in the introduction of the automatic telephone system on the Reef. What actually happened there was that an engineer from London was seconded to the South African Postal Service to supervise the installation of the new automatic telephones on the Reef. He was brought out here; he actually landed in Cape Town, and the Divisional Engineer in Johannesburg was told to prepare offices and staff for him. The Chief Engineer of the Post Office in South Africa was not even advised of the impending arrival of this officer. The matter culminated in the Chief Engineer of the Post Office going to the Public Service Commission, and saying: “Either I am Chief Engineer or I am not, one thing or the other.” They asked him what his terms were for retirement. He said: “Give me twenty-four hours and I shall tell you.” Within twenty-four hours he formulated his terms, presented them to the Public Service Commission and they were granted without demur and he retired. I think that it was in the interim between the publication of this scheme and the introduction of the automatic service when Mr. Redelinghuys was appointed Assistant Postmaster-General. It was remarked throughout the Service that Mr. Redelinghuys in the space of three or four years had been promoted from second grade clerk to the position of Assistant Postmaster-General. And I well remember a notice issued to the Press by the late Prime Minister, Gen. Hertzog, and was published in the Press: “In future no Chief Engineer will be Acting Postmaster-General during the absence of the Postmaster-General. Mr. Redelinghuys is appointed Assistant Postmaster-General and will be the next Postmaster-General.” We in the Service got an impression, a very nasty impression as to why Mr. Redelinghuys was promoted to that position. And that impression has persisted ever since among the older servants of the Post Office. I am not going into details, but it was not a nice impression, and when people squeal now that Mr. Redelinghuys has not received the Postmaster-Generalship, they should be aware of the fact that Mr. Redelinghuys received possibly the most rapid promotion anyone has ever received in the ranks of the Post Office during the past forty years. I ask the House to leave Mr. Redelinghuys alone and let the past be buried. I hope I have said sufficient to stifle any further reference to this matter during the remainder of the debate.

I would like to raise a question which to my mind is of great interest to the Post Office, and it is namely this: I have a special case in my mind, and I am going to give the details of it. I know that there are numbers of cases that are the same as the one I am now going to mention; then I want to ask the Minister to give us a reply. The case I have in mind is that of a lady postal official who has been in the Service for nine years. During the past few years she was employed in a post office in which two persons were employed. She was the head. From there she was transferred to Pretoria, again with a post office in which there were two other persons. The lady who for nine years rendered outstanding service—we who know her can testify to it—today gets a salary of £15 per month after nine years of service. Fifteen pounds a month for a lady who worked for nine years as hard as the Minister’s postal officials have to work. Now the position is this, that such a lady cannot get any further promotion because she is looked upon as a temporary official. She cannot be put on the permanent staff, with the result that such a person has to continue at a salary of £15 per month for the rest of her life, no matter what good services she renders or has rendered; and the excuse of the Department is: the Minister says that the Public Service Commission is responsible for the salary scales that apply to the Post Offices or to the Public Service. Now I want to know if it is right and fair for the Minister to keep his officials in that position, and to make them work for a salary that is today out of all proportion with the services they render. The only alternative that such a person in the Service has, is to resign. I now want to prophesy to the Minister that before this year is out numbers of people in his Service will be compelled to resign as postmasters and postmistresses, because they simply cannot exist and make ends meet on the remuneration that is given them. A lady of that kind can earn up to £25 today at the steel factory and elsewhere, but if she chooses to do the work of which she has had experience, in which she has grown up and which she has accomplished with outstanding results hitherto, then there is no other way out for her; then she must, if she wants to do herself justice, put in her resignation. I want to give the Minister the assurance that he can expect numbers of resignations from his best-trained officials if he does not now take the bull by the horns and say: Look, I am responsible for my officials; I shall now see to it that my officials get a living wage for their work. But I am afraid the Minister does not possess that courage. He will come forward with excuses. He will not admit that the ladies get too little. He will perhaps say to me that the ladies who have been in the Service for ten or twelve years will have to go and write the Public Service examination. But the Minister knows that that is beyond the question. It will simply mean that he will be trying to gloss over the matter. Now there is another little point on which I would like to touch, and that is in connection with the post office buildings on the Platteland. I consider that the Minister is treating the Platteland with the greatest contempt, because we on the Platteland have hitherto had to be served at the big stations where there is a great deal of traffic—that was the case up to last year at the big stations—in one little apartment that was not even plastered; in such a room the public is served, and I think that is far-reaching. Last year, on representations made, that little place was plastered, but it is hopelessly too small; it is hopelessly inadequate. We want to ask the Minister to place sufficient money on the Estimates for the construction of proper buildings on the Platteland. In Cape Town there stands a building today that can be compared with any post office building in the world. We are glad of it, but why must decent people on the Platteland be served in a hovel? I hope the Minister will consider the matter and pay attention to the two points I have raised.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has said that the Minister in his best bedside manner has dealt with a case of this description before. I think the Minister can very well apply the same bedside manner this afternoon.

He does not want a bedside manner, he wants a hearse.

Because on his own showing the hon. member for Winburg has admitted that we have to deal with them as a lot of chronic sick politicians. I am sorry names have been allowed to be dragged into this debate but I would say this, that if one comes into contact with people who have served under the present incumbent of the Postmaster-Generalship one finds that they cannot speak highly enough about his ability.

We have not said anything about that.

And I think we are indeed fortunate in having a man like Mr. Burke to serve this country in one of the most important offices of the land.

I suppose you want a new post office.

I feel that the Public Service Commission who are charged with making these recommendations must have known of the claims of all these gentlemen, and it acted accordingly. But if we are to follow the strictures of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) we may as well do away with the Public Service Commission entirely. It is known that the Public Service Commission has recommended this gentleman’s appointment, but the hon. member for Swellendam with a sneer said: “We all know what these recommendations mean”. Well, he apparently wants us to get rid of the Public Service Commission, or otherwise scrap the Constitution in regard to our Public Service as a whole. The Public Service Commission has stood the test of time for thirty-two years.

Why did die Minister previously override the Commission?

It is a pity the hon. member did not again refer to the Freedom Radio Station. Now I want to deal with another matter—the question of the unestablished clerks. There can be no doubt that these people are rendering good service. They are rendering service far in excess of their pay. They are not on the establishment but they are giving of their best. Mr. Chairman, there are officials in the service of the Post Office who are not adequately paid, and the Minister might uitlise a portion of his profit in giving the lower paid servants an increase.

The Minister has stood up here this afternoon and tried to tell us what all he did since he became Minister of Posts. The Minister admitted in his speech that shortly before the time he became Minister of Posts the Afrikaans-speaking persons were treated in a very unfair manner in the Post Office. We do not want to deny that this was so, because the head of the Post Office, I can say the heads of the Heads of the Post Office, were persons who were anything but well-disposed towards the Afrikaans section. The Minister has mentioned here persons who are bilingual. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has not mentioned a single word about bilingual persons. He spoke about how many persons are Afrikaans-speaking. Let us call the thing by its name. Mr. Redelinghuys was not appointed Postmaster-General because the Minister, like a typical Jingo, did not want to appoint an Afrikaans-speaking person in such a post. It will avail nothing to talk this way or that. The Minister simply did not appoint him because he has no mercy for an Afrikaans-speaking person. I want to speak about another matter, however, and I want to say that the person who gave me the information is willing to give me an affidavit if the Minister of Posts should allege that there is anything wrong or incorrect in connection with this statement which I am going to quote. I put a question to the Minister about the dismissal of Mr. Ernst Schutte, and I cannot do otherwise than read this declaration so that the Minister and everyone can hear what is in it regarding the manner in which Mr. Ernst Schutte was dismissed. As I have said, the person is willing to give this statement under oath—

This person was therefore congratulated on good work which he had done. I read further from the statement—

He was not allowed to put his foot inside the building—

Perhaps there might have been a bomb in the music.

Then we put the question to the Minister here in this House regarding the dismissal of Mr. Schutte, and with reference to that the statement proceeds—

I would like the Minister to notice this. We asked the Minister if there were any complaints from the South African Police or from the Criminal Investigation Department against Mr. Schutte, and the Minister said that he had received no complaints from the Criminal Investigation Department or from the Police. So far as the public is concerned, and so far as Mr. Schutte is concerned, no single reason has been given for his dismissal. The Minister stated here in this House that the Police did not lodge a single complaint against Mr. Schutte. The Head Office in Johannesburg singled Mr. Schutte out specially for congratulations on the quality of the work which he had delivered. We want to ask the Minister if it is fair towards Mr. Schutte, and towards the Afrikaans-speaking section in the country, that he should be treated as a scapegoat. Mr. Redelinghuys was made a scapegoat when he had to be appointed Postmaster-General, and now Mr. Schutte is being singled out as the scapegoat of the broadcasting service. I quote further from this statement—

Whether Prof. Fouché had something to do with it, we do not know. The Minister can tell us that. Now let me focus the attention of the Minister on this—

Why they played that rôle I do not know. On the 17th Mr. Ernst Schutte had already been dismissed at the Broadcasting Board meeting, and he got no reason for his dismissal. He tried to get into touch with the Manager of the Studio. He personally went to the door of the building, and the person who was there told him that he could not enter. He was refused admission to the building. The Minister has replied that this is not so. I want to give the Minister the assurance that it is so. What is more, he was not allowed to go and fetch his music books out of the Studio. He had to ask friends to go and fetch them for him. [Time limit.]

The Minister has not replied to the questions put to him.

I want to reply now.

The Minister is trying to shirk his responsibilities. The question was put to him by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) and this is the way he answered, and then he says he is not shirking his responsibilities. To Question No. 2, whether Mr. Ernest Schutte has been dismissed from the Broadcasting Service, the Minister replied—

Then to Question No. 3—

The Minister’s reply to that was that the Broadcasting Corporation does not disclose salaries of individual members of its staff. Does the hon. Minister mean to tell me it is impossible for him to find out? He does not want to give the answer. Then Question No. 4 was—

The answer to that was—

Is that an answer? The Minister is trying to hide the facts. Then Question No. 5—

The answer to that was “See (2)”. That is the answer from somebody who says he is not trying to cover a bushel over the facts. Does the Minister say he is not trying to shirk the question? Of course he is trying. Then we come to No. 6—

The answer to that was “no”. When he arrived at the door the police, or whoever was in charge, stopped him from going in. Not only does the Minister in his whole answer to these questions try and shirk the matter, but he actually went so far as to give wrong information to the House. We want to know why Schutte was dismissed, why he was not told why he was dismissed, and Mr. Chairman, I am willing to take an even bet with anybody, that we are not going to get that information, and that the Minister is going on shirking it. Then I want to know who was responsible during last year for a broadcast about a Communist meeting which was to be held in Cape Town. The facts of the case were that a Communist meeting was advertised in the newspapers, and for some reason better known to the Communists than to me, but possibly also known to the Minister, the date of this meeting was altered, and the Broadcasting Corporation was used to broadcast a message to say that the meeting in the City Hall would not be held on that date, but would be held on some subsequent date. Mr. Chairman, it boils down to nothing less than a free advertisement for a Communist meeting in Cape Town. Now we know the Minister’s attitude towards Communism is not what it used to be. We know that “Dirty Joe” has now become “Uncle Joe” and that the Minister’s mental outlook has also changed similarly. I think it has been definitely stated by the Minister, an assurance has been given us — we are now beginning to wonder what his assurances are worth — that the Broadcasting Corporation will be used for war propaganda, but not used in any way for political propaganda of any sort. Now we want to know who was responsible, and whether any disciplinary steps were taken against the person who was responsible for this broadcast. Will the Minister give us answers to that.

Mr. Chairman, I replied to a question before, regarding the broadcast of the postponement of this Communist meeting, and I said in that reply that it was at the request of the police; the police asked the Corporation to broadcast that notice.

It was broadcast that the meeting was to be held, and then the postponement was also sent out.

You mean that the police wanted you to advertise the meeting?

The police did not want that meeting held, and they asked the Broadcasting people to send out that broadcast, because they did not want the people to assemble; that is all that took place.

You did not say the meeting was not going to be held, you broadcast that it would be held on the subsequent date. The police invited the people to come at a subsequent date.

The A.B.C., in giving out that broadcast, did it at the request of the police. Now the hon. member refers to Mr. Schutte, and as to that I don’t interfere with the internal management of the Broadcasting Corporation.

What!

It is not “what”. I don’t interfere. I have not done so and I don’t intend to do so. We have appointed a Board to run the affairs of that Corporation, and they are carrying out their duty.

Even if they carry it out like this, you as Minister, do not interfere?

That is not the question. I am not going to interfere with the internal arrangements of the A.B.C. I cannot tell you why Schutte was dismissed; I have not taken the trouble to enquire.

I told you you would shirk it. Why did you try and answer the question, why did you not say the answer is not available? You answered half the question and left the other half.

I have given the hon. member all the information I am in possession of. I don’t try to shirk questions, I try to answer to the best of my ability. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has referred to a statement I made here in 1937.

A promise.

It was not a promise, it was a statement of fact. I appointed Mr. Redelinghuys Acting Postmaster-General in 1938.

Why did you not appoint him to the chief post? You went back on your word, that is all you did.

Dealing with the question of these sub-postmistresses; it is quite true they do good service for us, and many of them work for many years, but unfortunately they are not qualified to come on to the staff. I am taking up the matter with the Public Service Commission in the hope that we can better their condition as temporary assistants. Today their limit is £180 a year.

I did not want to participate in this debate, but after the reply which the Minister has given, I feel that one cannot but take very strong exception against such a reply which a responsible Minister gives here. To say to an honourable member: “I have not taken the trouble to get that information.” Then why does he sit there; why then have a Minister? If we come here as representatives of the people to ascertain certain things, and we put questions to the Minister concerned, then the Minister comes to this House and says: “I did not bother to find out.” If we cannot get information we want from the Minister on questions that we put here in the House, then to whom must we go? I have also a matter here that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister, but honestly I must say that after the reply which he gave here one wonder if it is worth the trouble, and whether it is not a waste of time to do so. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister did not mean seriously what he said there, and therefore I want to bring this matter to his attention. In the little town of Danielskuil—a peaceful community lives there—there is a public Post Office with two entrances and two counters. Over the one entrance there is a notice, “Europeans only”, and over the other, “Non-Europeans”. Matters went very well and there was no trouble. But after the incitement of a local Communist the coloured community of Danielskuil came in an organised band and they walked through the European entrance; they went to the European counter. I do not want to repeat to the House the language that was employed by those coloureds in the presence of ladies. The public of Danielskuil took the matter very seriously, and on the 20th January they sent a petition to the authority concerned, from whom they have not yet received a satisfactory reply. It is now the end of March, and still those people have had no satisfaction with regard to their petition. Feelings ran so high that they asked the police at Danielskuil to intervene to put a stop to this unpleasantness. Just imagine, when the European community wanted to act, to get more order in the town, the leader of the coloureds comes forward and pulls from his pocket a letter from the Postmaster-General, fortunately not the one we have now, but from the one who has retired—this was one of the last things he did—in which the coloureds were told that they are fully entitled to enter at that door just as the Europeans. It is an everlasting scandal. Instead of those coloureds being put in their place, this official of the Minister encourages them. He should have pointed their duty out to them, but instead of that a letter is written by the Postmaster-General to strengthen them in their evil, where they have been incited by the local Communist. Now I want to make an appeal to the Minister to use his influence and power to put a stop to this unpleasantness in Danielskuil. These things are also happening in other places. We want to warn the Minister that as he has now seen the tragic consequences of what happened here in Cape Town, in the behaviour of the coloureds at Laingsburg, so he will also see unpleasant consequences if he does not intervene to put a stop to these conditions in the Post Offices. We want to warn the Minister that if he does not act and protect the position of the European in this country, and if he does not give the Europeans their right in the Post Office, he will get another Laingsburg episode in the country. If the Minister does not want to maintain the position that there should be two separate entrances in the Post Office for coloureds and Europeans, then I ask him as representative of that section that he should build a new Post Office for Europeans, and that the coloureds should retain the old ones. The position that now prevails is intolerable. I hope that it will not continue. I hope the Minister will give his serious consideration to the representations that have been directed to him on behalf of the European inhabitants. He must try to calm the feelings which are running very high, and he must restore the position that the white man is the guardian of white civilisation and must maintain white civilisation.

After the poor reply of the Minister about the dismissal of Mr. Schutte, I want to move the following amendment—

I propose that we deduct the amount that the Minister may perhaps think he is worth, and we leave him with the amount plus five years’ interest which the Minister, according to our opinion, is worth. Now we would like to express our strong protest here, not only against the Minister’s reply, but the Minister has admitted that after we put that question to him he did not even take the trouble to find out the truth. Here we have an Afrikaans-speaking official in the Broadcasting Service who was congratulated by the people who are appointed over him, who was congratulated by the responsible heads on the work that he delivered, and he gets an immediate dismissal just because his name is Schutte. How must the Afrikaans-speaking people in the Broadcasting Service feel now about their positions, when they see that some of the highest persons in the Broadcasting Service congratulates a person on his work, when no complaints are brought in against him, and he is simply dismissed, and not only that, but he is refused entry to the building without any reason as to why he was dismissed. Then there is another matter that I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister. It concerns the staff of the Post Office. If there is one staff in the country which is being overworked then it is the Post Office staff.

Hear, hear.

I am glad that the Minister says that. It sounds different to the reply which he gave to my question. I asked the Minister to give us certain information about the work that is offloaded on to the Post Office. It seems to me that the Minister is the Cinderella of the Cabinet. He just does everything the Cabinet says just to retain his position. Whether he likes it or not, he must simply carry out what they tell him. I asked the Minister on what date the work in connection with the tax redemption certificates, and with the petrol coupons and the savings fund accounts, was handed over to the Post Office. The Minister gave the date in his reply. It extends from 1941 to 1943. He allowed that work to be offloaded on the Post Office. Then I asked him how many of the persons in the Post Office who had to assist in this work were on active service, and his reply was 514 persons. That number of persons who had to assist in this work were away on active service. Then I asked if any complaints were lodged with the Minister by the Post Office staff to the effect that it was impossible for them to carry out the work, and his reply was: “Very little.” I now want to ask the Minister if the Association of Posts and Telegraphs Officials did not direct very strong representations to him and complain that this work is offloaded on the Post Office and that they cannot cope with the work?

Yes.

And is that “very little”? Is that Association of Post Office Officials “very little” to the Minister? If they come to complain and he calls it “very little”, who are then the people who to him are “very much”? When the public goes to the Post Office today they find queues of people standing there. It is not only inconvenient for the staff who have to do the work but it is inconvenient for the public who have to stand and wait. I think the Minister ought to intervene, and to ensure that not a single additional bit of work is allotted to the Post Office Staff. Or the Minister must prevent any more persons participating in this unnecessary war. Speaking about key men. Those people are needed in the Post Office. I want to break a lance on their behalf. Quite apart from the injustice towards the Afrikaans-speaking section, I want to make a plea here on behalf of the temporary postmen. It is mostly young Afrikaners who are appointed as temporary postmen. I have a letter here and the persons would not like to have their names divulged, but it comes direct from the postmen, and they are prepared to confirm every word in the letter. Through the medium of a question to the Minister I asked how long they must remain temporary postmen before they are appointed permanently—and I asked the Minister what salary the temporary postmen receive. Most of them work in the big cities, and with the rising cost of living they get the astonishing sum of £10 per month. I also asked how long they must work before they are appointed permanently, and the Minister replied that some of them have been temporary postmen for five years. They remain temporary men. While the Government can spend all this money on the war, the temporary postmen get £10 per month and there are only a few who get an increase of £1, so that some of them are getting £11 per month. It is strange that none of the hon. members on the other side get up to protest against a salary such as that, and that none of them get up to ask what the real reason is why Mr. Schutte was dismissed. They remain as silent as the grave when the interest of the Afrikaans-speaking section are at stake. I want to ask the Minister whether a promise was made to the temporary postmen that they would receive an increase of £10 per annum after a year, and that soon thereafter their salaries would be brought up to £12, and that then they would be appointed as permanent postmen after satisfactory service. [Time limit.]

When hon. members said just now that the Minister sometimes does not honour his undertakings, the Minister was annoyed. I want to say definitely that the Minister does not always carry out his undertakings. When in 1939 I pleaded for extension of postal facilities at Worcester, the Minister made a promise and money was placed on the Estimates and the specifications were drawn up regarding the alteration of the building there. In the course of last year I again reminded the Minister of his undertaking of 1939, but nothing was done. What did the Minister say? That he does not see his way clear to do it now. What is particularly undesirable is that at the payment of old age pensions there is a terrible congestion, and the coloureds have also to be served there. I then suggested that another cubicle should be provided where they could be paid out, but the reply was that the Department was afraid that the coloureds would take exception if they had to be paid out in another place. The Minister shakes his head. I have the letter in my file in which this excuse was made by the Department. Let the Minister in that event pay out the Europeans in some other place. They will not object. Then there is another matter I want to raise here. I have already brought it to the attention of the Minister of Railways, but I want to raise it here now, and it is in connection with Post Office work that must be done at the halts along the main railway line. No additional staff is appointed to do the work, and the Railway staff have to do it.

At 6.10 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Orders adopted on the 28th January and 11th March, 1943, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 25th March.