I move—

The intention of this motion is quite clear. It has been moved with the intention of giving the House the right to sit tonight, instead of rising at 5.45 p.m. The intention is to complete the Estimates of Expenditure tonight, so that we shall have time tomorrow for the House and the Senate to deal with the Appropriation Bills. For that purpose it will be necessary to start a bit earlier tomorrow morning. We therefore move to commence at 9.30 tomorrow morning. In this manner we intend finishing the Estimates of Expenditure and to utilise tomorrow on the Appropriation Bills and a few other small things which are still on the Order Paper.

I second.

In the first place we would like to know from the Prime Minister until what time we will sit tonight, and whether we will sit right through the night to achieve what the Prime Minister wants done. It is becoming quite impossible, as circumstances are at the moment, to sit here until late at night. There is no conveyance to our homes, and it is impossible to commence again at half-past nine in the morning. This matter is of a serious nature. At the commencement of the Session, when a similar motion was before the House. I asked the Government whether it was going to do the same as it did in previous years, viz. to allow important Votes of Expenditure to stand over until the last day of the Session and then to rush them through. The Minister of Finance replied that arrangements would be made, and that the Whips would arrange matters amongst themselves. I want to lodge a grave objection against the fact that we have to allow important Votes to stand over in order to dispose of them at midnight. I am thinking of the Railway Budget. The Government has arranged matters in such a way that the Votes of the Minister of Railways were allowed to stand over while the Government was passing legislation, and now we shall no doubt only arrive at the Railway Budget tonight. The Railway Votes cover practically as much money as the rest of the Budget, and after we have been sitting since ten o’clock this morning, we must now dispose of these Votes at midnight. It is definitely unreasonable towards this House. The Minister of Finance did not carry out his promise to me, to see that we would have reasonable time for the disposal of the Estimates. I say that it is not reasonable time, if we arrive at the Railway Estimates at ten o’clock or eleven o’clock tonight. We cannot then dispose of the work properly at that late hour. It is not fair towards members, and it is also not fair towards the country to treat an important matter in this manner. I protest against this action because I warned the Government at the beginning of the Session that these things would happen and that we could not allow it. We are not unwilling to assist the Government in ending this Session. We have always done it. The Government cannot say that the Opposition this year caused obstruction or took up unreasonable time, but we cannot agree that important estimates should be disposed of in this manner. The Justice vote has not yet been disposed of. We have only just commenced with it. Then there are still the Police Votes, Magistrate’s Offices and High Courts Votes. Then there is still the important Native Affairs Vote, then the Commerce and Industries Vote, in addition to quite a number of votes of the Minister of Finance, as, for example, Higher Education. Only after that we come to the Railway Budget. I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether we still have to dispose of the Loan Estimates tonight.

Yes.

No, it is really expecting too much from this House to dispose of all these votes in one day, including the Loan Estimates. It is simply disgraceful. The Government cannot expect that we should assist it if it carries on in this way. I want to say that the Opposition has always been prepared to grant the Government, at the end of the Session, various facilities, and not to object to certain matters. But we are not going to allow this sort of thing, and we shall object to the granting of facilities if it continues in this manner. I say that here. We will not grant the Government the usual facilities at the end of the Session, if it carries on in this way, and wants to compel us to dispose of all this important work in one day. It is impossible for us in this House to dispose of the votes of five Ministers, plus the Loan Estimates in one day, and if the Government wants to compel us to do this, they will not finish on Tuesday night. If they compel us to put through all these important votes today, then I can only say that they will not succeed. We will object to it. We want to ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the matter and to realise what he is doing. In particular I want to stress the Railway Budget. There are quite a number of items in connection therewith which hon. members want to discuss. There will be an important debate thereon, and it will not do to ask members to start with it at one or two o’clock. If the Government does this, it will not finish tomorrow night. We are not going to allow ourselves to be treated in this unreasonable manner. We are prepared to consider reasonable requests by the Government, but it cannot expect us to pass these important votes in this manner. I hope that the Prime Minister will reconsider the matter, and that he will realise that it is impossible to finish in this manner.

I would like to stress a few aspects of this matter. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that not only does the Government, at the end of the Session, come with these important votes, of which the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) spoke, that it not only expects members to dispose of these votes in a hurry, but the Government suffers from the malady that it applies these tactics at the one Session after the other, to place very important legislation before the House at the end of the Session and then expects us to dispose of it in a hurry. This is actually contentious legislation. Take the legislation in connection with the Indians; take the legislation in connection with soldiers’ votes—both contentious Bills, which the Government brought up at the end of the Session, with the hope that those Bills would be forced through in haste, without proper attention being given to the measures. That is the one side of the matter. The other is this: The Government stands, so we are told, for the maintenance of democracy and government by the people. That is what the Government says. But can we think of a better means of bringing government by the people and the voice of the people into discredit, than by making Parliament appear ridiculous in this manner? There is no doubt that the Prime Minister is making Parliament seem ridiculous. Look at all the important votes which must be passed in one day and one night. The Prime Minister daily praises government by the people and can he now think of a better way of making this government by the people seem ridiculous? If the Prime Minister is sincere in his intention of maintaining government by the people and democracy, then he must act in such a way that afterwards the people outside will not look with contempt upon what we are doing in this House. There is a third point which I want to bring to the notice of the Government. We are now at the end of the Session. There are quite a number of votes which must be forced through in one day. Why? An agreement has been reached and the Government stated at the beginning of the Session that a certain amount of time would be allowed for the disposal of the Budget. What happens now? I want in particular to focus attention on the action of the Minister of Lands. He spoke here for hours and hours on end, and only on matters which were not raised by the Opposition. He occupied the time of the House, and now the Prime Minister comes and tells us that there is only so much time left and everything must be disposed of. The Prime Minister was not here when the Minister of Lands spoke, but he can ask the other Ministers and they can give him the assurance that the Minister of Lands spoke here for hours and hours, and enlarged upon a thousand and one things, he talked until we were weary of things which were not brought up in the debate. It is that sort of thing in the House of Assembly which makes Parliament seem ridiculous in the eyes of the nation. Then there is still another point in connection with the dignity of this House. Why must the work of the Assembly be completed tomorrow night? If there is important work, why cannot the Session last two or three days longer? Is the future of the country going to depend on whether members go home tomorrow, must everything be made ridiculous for that reason? I ask in all earnestness that the Prime Minister should give this matter his attention. If it is a matter of sincerity to him to maintain the dignity of the House of Assembly, then he must not act in this manner, because there is no better method of making government by the people seem ridiculous.

I can only express regret that we have to dispose of so much work at the end of the Session in a definite period. I am acting in the interests of Parliament and of hon. members. For weeks it has been understood that we would finish the work more or less at this time, and members made their arrangements accordingly. Unfortunately during the last week the debate was slightly retarded.

That was not our fault.

It is not a question of whose fault it is, I blame nobody. We must at least see to the convenience of members of the House. The arrangement was made on a certain basis, and the number of members on both sides of the House, especially on the side of the Opposition, show that members acted on the understanding that the House would come to an end at a definite time this week. All that I suggest now is to carry out this understanding, upon which we have acted, and I trust that my hon. friends on the other side will not take steps which will make it impossible for us to complete our work tomorrow.

The Government presented a long programme, and how can you expect that it must be disposed of in such a short time?

No, the programme, which was presented to Parliament this Session was particularly short. But during the last week or two lengthy discussions took place on certain points, which upset our time-table.

Especially by the Minister of Lands, who took four and a half hours to make an attack on the Church.

It might be so that my hon. friend argued at length on a position in which he takes a keen interest. The argument is not about the Minister of Lands, but about the convenience and in the interest of the House itself, and I say that it is in the interest of hon. members and the country that we should confine ourselves to the arrangement which was arrived at. It is not desirable that we should continue with a small number of members, just enough to form a quorum. It gives even a worse impression of democracy.

But you must cooperate with the Opposition.

I am in favour of co-operation, and I hope that we shall have co-operation today and tomorrow, in order to remove the difficulties which lie before us, and which are great, and which the Government would like to overcome. We are in favour of consultation and understanding between the two parties. It is now a question of the convenience and interest of the House. It is a question of importance to the country whether Parliament should be kept going when the majority of the members have already left. We are sitting here with a small number of members, only a few more than a quorum, and I think it is better to make arrangements to dispose of our work as the Government suggests.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—45:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Clark. C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis. A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Friedlander, A.

Hare. W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Smuts, J. C.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Noes—21:

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

Before the House adjourned I was pleading for a reduction in the rate of interest. The original Act of 1934 was accepted to give the farmer a low rate of interest. We feel that that is one of the best ways of assisting the farmers. There are two ways. The one is to give the farmer higher prices and the other is to assist him with a lower rate of interest, and here we agree with the hon. members for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) and Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman), that we should have a lower rate of interest. I know that the Minister cannot now include it in the Bill, but I hope that he has in the meantime considered to make the rate of interest 3½ per cent. for the farmers. Then the farmers will be in a position to carry on and also reduce their mortgages. A farmer does not mind paying 5 per cent. if a portion thereof is in redemption. The Minister does not today know what to do with the money. He would like to invest more money amongst the farmers, and that is why the percentage of the valuation which can be borrowed has been increased from 60 per cent. tot 66 per cent. We feel that the Minister will have to make it 75 per cent. in order to compete with outside money-lenders. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to see whether he can give money at 3½ per cent., so that the redemption plus the interest amount to 5 per cent. Then there is another point of which we were afraid, and that is that the Land Bank will now take over the 1935 Act. It was clearly stated by some of our members that we should be careful that the Land Bank does not kill the Act of 1935. We would rather see that the Act of 1935 should be extended to the present time, in order to assist farmers who are overcapitalised. Now I would like to establish this theory, that any money which is borrowed over and above 66 per cent. of the valuation, must be governed by the Farmers Relief Act of 1935. We must endeavour to extend the Act of 1935 to the present time, in order that any man who owes more than 66 per cent. of the value of his farm, can be covered by the Farmers Relief Act. We trust that the Minister will do everything possible not to kill the 1935 Act, but that he will rather extend it to a later date and make it permanent.

The Land Bank today actually finds itself in the position that where in the past it always had to appeal to the Government for funds, it has too much money, and all the legislation this year has as a back-ground that the Land Bank is in a better position to invest money in competition with the commercial banks. So the Minister withdrew a clause at the instance of this side, which also had as the back-ground a plan to assist the Land Bank to get rid of the surplus money. Now we are dealing here with a Bill of the same calibre. The Minister wants to create better facilities for valuation, and so far as the reserve fund is concerned, it covers the proposals to enable the Land Bank to invest the money. But I want to point out that the report of the Land Bank stated in 1941—

The whole trouble is therefore too much money, and they are even now beginning to repay loans to the Treasury, money which they received from the Treasury. We on this side contend that although better facilities will be granted, there is one difficulty and that is the rate of interest is too high. As long as that is the case, you will not succeed. You will admit that the Land Bank, in comparison with other money-lenders demanded in the past a low rate of interest. I think it would be unfair to say that the rate of interest of the Land Bank has always been very high, but what we do contend is that whereas money is plentiful today, the rate of interest of the Land Bank must also be reduced to prevent farmers from seeking assistance elsewhere. Now I want to refresh the Minister’s memory, and quote from the report of the Land Bank, where special reference is made to commercial banks, to whom the farmers turn for assistance. The report reads—

And then it ends with the warning—

We are in full agreement. The Land Bank lays down the following theory—

That is what we say. The Minister will therefore see that it is not only our contention but also the contention of the Land Bank itself. The Land Bank is there to grant long-term loans to the farmers at a low rate of interest. That is what we are asking for. We ask that the Minister should make an alteration therein. As long as the rate of interest remains what it is, the farmers will obtain money from trust and commercial banks, or chambers, and they will further reduce their mortgage bonds to the Land Bank. Does the Minister not think that the policy of the Land Bank will return to him as a boomerang if times become worse? The Chambers wil then call up their money and the Land Bank will have to come to the assistance. Therefore the only thing to do is to reduce the rate of interest. If the Minister says that it will cause confusion in respect of the mortgage bonds which are already in existence, then the Minister can only apply it to new mortgage bonds, so that the new mortgage bonds can be granted at a rate of interest of 3½ per cent. The Minister asks that money belonging to the Land Bank should be invested in the State or the municipalities. The Minister himself said that the Bank cannot expect more than 3 per cent. from this source. Why cannot loans then be granted to the farmers at 3½ per cent. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter favourably. The Land Bank in 1941 repaid £500,000 of their loans from the State and this year an amount of only £100,000 is asked for in the Budget to be placed at the disposal of the Land Bank. During the last depression we experienced great difficulty in obtaining money from the Land Bank. It was simply stated that there was no money. Now the Land Bank has built up a large reserve, and now it wants to repay money to the Government. I think that that is wrong. Let me quote an example. In the years 1933 to 1935, you could, as a farmer, obtain a fencing loan. If you erected a jackal-proof fence, it would cost more or less £35 for 1,000 yards. Then, however, there was no money available. Today there is enough money, but it cannot be used for this purpose because if you want to erect 1,000 yards today, it would cost from £70 to £80. I agree that the Land Bank cannot make such advances now. But the Land Bank should have this money available and not repay it to the Government, so that when the times change, and material becomes cheaper, the farmers may avail themselves of the opportunity to erect fences. We regard the Land Bank as the farmers’ friend. Although we are quite satisfied with certain things, we want to express the hope that the Minister will see that the Land Bank reduces its rate of interest, especially future mortgage bonds. We hope that the policy of repaying money to the Government will not be carried out any further. Let them ration the money so that when difficult times come, the money will be available to assist the farmers.

I will not detain the House long. At the second reading I quoted from the report of the Land Bank for 1941, from which the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has just quoted. I asked the Minister whether it would not be possible to table the report for 1942. It is necessary that the report be tabled before we disperse. It should have been available long ago, so that members of the House may have acquainted themselves with the activities of the Land Bank during the past year. Developments are continually taking place, and we would like to know what the position is in regard to this great financial institution, which has been created in the interest of the farmer. I want to repeat that in previous years the Manager of the Land Bank was empowered to increase or diminish the rate of interest. They always work on a profit basis of one half per cent., i.e. they charge one half per cent. over and above the interest paid by them on loans from the State. At the present moment they borrow, or can borrow at 3 per cent., that is the rate of interest at which the Government can place money at their disposal. That is also the general ruling rate of interest. You must accept that the rate of interest of any country is the rate at which the Government can lend money. The State now lends money at the rate of 3 per cent., therefore the Land Bank ought not to ask the farmers more than 3½ per cent. I strongly want to recommend that the Government must take into consideration, in co-operation with the management of the Land Bank, to reduce the rate of interest to 3½ per cent. which is the ruling rate of interest in the country. I hope that the Minister will take steps in this matter, and I want to repeat that it is absolutely essential that the report of the Land Bank for the preceding year should be tabled before the end of March.

I shall only be a few minutes. I do not want to speak about the reduction of the rate of interest, because I think enough has been said in that connection. But I have repeatedly argued that the powers of the Land Bank should be extended, and today I want to do so again. The Land Bank has rendered very good services to the farmers, and I feel that it would be a good thing if these services could be extended so that poor people who lease ground and the “by-woners” could also be assisted by the Land Bank at a low rate of interest. At the present moment farmers are only assisted if they have ground and then they are assisted to the extent of two-thirds of the valuation. The time will come when the poor “by-woners” and tenants, of which there are many, will not be in a position to be assisted in connection with the crops which are still on the land, and to cultivate ground, because the traders will cease to finance these people. Then the time will come when the Government will be compelled to provide loans through the Land Bank to these tenants on their crops—even if they must mortgage their crops. In connection with the sugar industry certain assistance is granted. Why cannot this be extended in general? Where you have the system of “by-woners” and those people who farm on a share basis, and where you have people in this country who lease ground, such services should be created. After all is said and done, those people assist in the production of our requirements.

Short term loans?

Yes, these are short-term loans which are granted for this purpose. Will the Minister not investigate to see if anything can be done for these people.

As regards the question of the rate of interest. I have already said that I will go into the matter with the Land Bank. May I just remind hon. members that the Act specifically lays down that the Land Bank itself must fix the rate of interest and not the Government. The Land Bank itself must fix the rate of interest and it is sufficient to ensure that the Land Bank will not work on a loss. That is the requirement laid down in the Act, but I say again that I shall go into the matter. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) and other hon. members are afraid that the Act of 1935 will be killed. I have already said that that will not be the case. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has raised the point of granting credit facilities to people who cannot give fixed property as security. I shall go into this matter.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

When the House adjourned, I was dealing with the Yeld case. But the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) is not here at the moment, and I shall therefore deal with a few other points. I wish to express my appreciation for what the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) said in connection with the abolition of pin-tables, I also want to congratulate him on his excellent Afrikaans. I think that his Afrikaans is so good that many of us can take lessons from him. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) is no doubt labouring under the wrong impression. I can only tell him that in regard to the suspension of imprisonment, it is applied more frequently in connection with the civilians than in the case of persons in uniform.

In comparison?

There I must be careful because I have not got the particulars here. It is possible that it can happen that a man in uniform assaults another man in uniform, because he is in uniform. Such cases have occurred, although they are the exceptions. There also the rule applies. The rule is the same for everybody. Where soldiers cause provocation, the sentences are suspended. Only where a soldier is assaulted, because he is in uniform, we do not suspend the sentence. That is the policy.

May I say that the Police are labouring under a wrong impression. They think that you dare not touch a man in uniform, even if he strikes you first.

That is the regulation. If you assault a man in uniform the Magistrate must impose a sentence of imprisonment.

Even if he strikes you first?

That is the regulation, but in actuality it is never applied. In practically all the cases, I know of no exception, the Magistrate is asked to make recommendation of what he would have done in the ordinary course of events, and then the sentence is suspended. I can quote numbers of such cases. I repeat that unless a soldier is assaulted because he is in uniform, we do not apply the regulation.

If you defend yourself, you are brought before the Court and convicted, because you defended yourself against a man in uniform.

That is the regulation.

That is madness.

The hon. member will have to admit that there are numbers of cases where soldiers, who were walking in the streets, were knocked down without any provocation. There was no protection for the soldier. The ordinary laws make no provision for these cases.

Why do the ordinary laws make no provision? Is it not prohibited according to law that one person should assault another?

There were people who were prepared to pay the fine for the first offence. A stop had to be put to that state of affairs.

The ordinary law is sufficient.

I only mentioned that. You might not agree with the regulation …

And if a soldier assaults a civilian without provocation, does he go to gaol?

The Magistrate has discretion in such matters. If the assault is unprovoked, the Magistrate can also send him to gaol, but there was a movement amongst a certain section to assault soldiers. There was no movement to assault civilians.

What about the people with beards?

And travellers on trains?

Such cases did occur, but the point which I am here dealing with is not the merits or demerits of the regulation, but only the application thereof. I have explained that the regulation is applied more leniently and that in effect it is not applied in cases where it is clear that the soldier was not assaulted only because he is a soldier.

Is there still any necessity for this regulation?

It may possibly become necessary again. There is a certain section in the country which acts rather irresponsibly, and it is intended for them. I think the hon. member himself disapproves of their actions, but the regulation restrains these people. In effect it is not applied. Nobody is sent to gaol if he does not attack a soldier without provocation. The regulation is applied in a wide sense.

If a soldier assaults a man, and the man is found guilty in the court, under this regulation, is that conviction recorded against the man as a previous conviction, even if the sentence is suspended?

If he is found guilty.

If he is actually not guilty, and acted in self-defence, in other words, if he is convicted under your nonsensical regulation?

It must be an assault. Where a man defends himself against a soldier, it is not an assault.

But according to your regulation it is the case.

He must commit an assault. The regulation is applied very carefully and it only deals with people who commit an assault.

But if a man defends himself against a soldier, and is convicted under your emergency regulations?

This regulation does not alter the law in that respect. It only alters the penalty.

If I give him a clout, then it is assault.

That is under the ordinary law. The regulation does not create a new law in that respect, it only alters the penalty. Where the Magistrate previously had the discretion to impose imprisonment or a fine, he can now only impose imprisonment.

If I defend myself against a soldier, then I can be sent to goal.

No, self-defence is not assault.

But it happens.

No, let me explicitly say to the hon. member that the regulation does not alter the law as to what is and what is not an assault. It only alters the sentence after the Court has given its finding that an assault has been committed.

Is there a case where a civilian has been acquitted in spite of a clash having taken place between him and a soldier?

There are many such cases, and if the hon. member comes to see me, I shall show them to him. The ordinary law is applied to establish whether it amounts to assault, but if the person is found guilty under the ordinary law, then a fine can be imposed, or he may be sentenced to imprisonment. This regulation only alters the penalty by stipulating that imprisonment must be imposed. I want to return to the Yeld case. This case goes back to 1941 and I do not know why it was brought up again. The hon. member probably regards it as his duty to do so. I misunderstood him and I admit that I perhaps expressed myself too strongly. Whether the hon. member’s criticism is justified or not, I acknowledge the fact that he had the fullest right to raise such cases here, and to receive an explanation from me. I just want to say that I am in full agreement with what the hon. Prime Minister said, that our judiciary must not be tampered with, except in so far as the law imposes certain duties upon me. There is no difference on that point, although there might be a difference in the manner in which that principle is applied. I want to state briefly what the position is in connection with the Yeld case. I would not have paid so much attention to it, had it not been for the fact that the Judge was under the impression that he was disrespectfully treated by me. I know what the judiciary in our country means, and what it means to us that the nation should have full confidence in the Courts and I shall always do everything in my power to maintain the prestige of the Courts. What happened is this: Only the notice that the preparatory examination would be re-opened on the 6th and that the case would be tried on the 18th was submitted to me, and I said that I was prepared to postpone the trial. The reason why the case was not referred to the Attorney-General, is because he said that he was related to both the accused and the complainant, and I acted accordingly, so that there would be no reflection on him. That was all I knew about the case. Complications set in later. I only mention this to show that there is no question at all of disrespect towards the Court. I did not think that the case would come before a Judge. It would actually have been the best way of dealing with the case. The second point is now whether I was correct in giving my consent. That is quite a different matter to the question of disrespect towards the Court. The law gives me the right to do this under special circumstances. It was presented to me that the accused in this case would only have a short time to prepare his defence in a fraud case. A case of embezzlement is very difficult and to give the minimum time in such a case, which is prescribed by law, would in my opinion not have been sufficient. It might be sufficient in an ordinary case, but in a difficult case it is not sufficient, and I consider that we should see that every accused has a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. In the ordinary course of events I would have referred a case of this nature to the Attorney-General, to obtain his views, but I have already explained why I did not do this. I now mention the facts in connection with this case, but I do it ex post facto, because at that time I did not have the facts before me, only those which I have mentioned. The accused at that time was ill, and he sent in a medical certificate that he could not be present at the preparatory examination on the 28th. It was then fixed for the 6th. It was contended that it would only be in connection with previous convictions, but the Attorney-General had notified him that the re-opening would be to lead further evidence. On the 6th the man was served with seven sworn affidavits and the case was set down for the 18th. I cannot accept that any court would expect a man to prepare his defence under those circumstances in twelve days. He had to contact his attorneys and advocate, and my opinion was that twelve days would be totally inadequate. It does not really matter whether evidence was lead or not. I admit that I did not know everthing about this, I only considered that the time was not sufficient. I do not think that seven declarations should be served upon a person and that he should be expected to defend himself within twelve days. I think that the Attorney-General knew that this case would not be tried on the 18th. On account of illness and on account of these declarations, the man could not appear on the 18th. There was a question of doubt and if there is a doubt, then it must be in favour of the accused. I contend that when a case of this nature is brought against a person, we all want to see that he has enough time to prepare his defence. I want to go further and say that on the 13th the accused was notified that the case would not be tried at Heilbron but at Bloemfontein. I think it is correct to say that it fell under Verdefort and not under Heilbron. The following month he appeared and was convicted. I want to say that his advocate, who is a member of this House, approached me to obtain a postponement, I told him that in view of the circumstances which had developed, they should first apply to the Court, so that the Court would not think it a question of disrespect. The accused offered to plead guilty, and this he did. Certain charges were withdrawn, and to others he pleaded guilty.

When was the application made?

The hon. member for Germiston, South (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss), came to see me in October.

Is it customary for the advocate in a case to interview you?

Yes, advocates interview me. Members on the other side also interview me. The law gives me the right to act under certain circumstances. I do not act on my own, but I refer to the Attorney-General, and it would have been done in this case had the Attorney-General not told me that the accused and the complainant were related to him. This is a case which was tried in 1941, but I admit that hon. members are entitled to information, and I shall give it. I want to emphasise that there was no disrespect towards the Court, and that it was my right to grant a postponement. I would like to defend my department in connection with this matter, and also the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart). There was a misunderstanding. I think it would have been better to withdraw the charges immediately, and to present another charge in another Court. But here was a request for postponement and the Crown consented, and there was apparently a misunderstanding, with the result that the Judge considered that he had not been treated with the usual respect.

Do you now accuse me of not withdrawing the charge?

I hope the hon. member will take my word for it that I am not making the slighest insinuation against him. I did not say that he should have withdrawn the charge. I said it should have been withdrawn, and it should have been done by the Attorney-General. I offer the excuse why it has not been done, not to accuse the hon. member, but to exonerate him. He did not do it because the Crown agreed to a postponement, and there would be no difficulty. That is a mistake which can easily be made, and it is a pity that the Judge was under the impression that the Court was treated with contempt in this respect. The Court has not been treated with disrespect by me nor by the hon. member, nor by the Attorney-General, and it was not by any means our intention. It is, of course, the duty of the Bench to see that the Court is always treated with the utmost respect.

I did not want to go into the Yeld case, as I was the advocate in the case. The Minister declared here that the charge should have been withdrawn. I came there with a letter from the Attorney-General stating that my instructions were to tell the Court that the Minster’s order was to postpone the case. I acquitted myself of that duty. I had my written instructions and there was no question of wrong information or anything of the kind. I hope the Minister will leave my name out of it. I simply carried out my instructions. I again want to say something about the assaults on soldiers. The Minister told us here openly that if a person is attacked by a soldier and dares to hit back, that person should go to prison.

No, I did not say so. That is a misunderstanding. I said that if the Court finds that person guilty of assault in hitting back he should go to gaol. That person has to be found guilty of assault under our common law, and the regulation only refers to the punishment.

The fact remains that the Minister admits that when a soldier gets in the first blow and I am stronger than he and hit him back harder, that I should go to gaol on that account.

If the Court finds you guilty of assault.

The Minister knows that a smack in the face amounts to assault. If a soldier hits me and I hit him back with my fist, the Court may find me guilty of assault and I may have to go to gaol. The Magistrate is compelled to sentence me to imprisonment, and the Minister can suspend that sentence or not but there will be a record gainst me of a sentence for assault which may count against me until the end of my days, because it was a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine. If I perhaps went a bit too far and if the Court considers that the provocation was not sufficient, it will mean imprisonment to me. That simply means that soldiers can go about and hit people as much as they like, but that civilians may not hit back. If a civilian happens to be stronger than the soldier, he has to go to prison. The fact which the Minister brought to light here, namely that regulation No. 45 goes so far that even when soldiers give provocation, the civilians concerned will have to go to gaol, is a very serious matter. The Minister now says that he will reduce the sentences. The Minister says that only in the case of self-defence, it will not be a matter of assault. Provocation is no justification for attacking a person. Under the regulation no account is taken at all of provocation, for the regulation says that if a person is found guilty of assault, whatever the provocation may have been, he has to be imprisoned. The position therefore simply is that a soldier can be as provoking to me as he likes, but I am not allowed to defend myself, for I may be found guilty of assault and that would mean my going to gaol. The Minister gave us the assurance that in all these cases of delays in trials, the people have been treated fairly, because it was found out, or they wanted to find out, that there was a conspiracy going on. The Minister should not blame me for accepting that story with a large pinch of salt. The only excuse the Minister can offer is that a conspiracy was taking place. Was the fact that a few students put a bomb in a Cape Town bioscope an indication of a widespread conspiracy which necessitated a delay of 8 months in their trial? Take the case of Weilbach. Admittedly this person was guilty of foolish actions, and he did show the explosives, but why had he to be kept in gaol for 15 months in order to find out whether there was not perhaps a conspiracy going on. No, the Minister followed a policy of keeping people in gaol for months and even for more than a year, and then he comes here, without going into the details of the case, and says that the excuse is that there was a conspiracy brewing. Certainly one cannot swallow everything the Minister and his Department announce. Take the Oosthuizen case. The Minister read out a letter which the Department wrote to me and which was supposed to make mincemeat of my assertions. That was his reply. I now wish to point out that first of all it was stated in that letter that these persons were not detained under the Emergency Regulations. In spite of that, the Oosthuizens declared that when they asked what the charge against them was, they were told that they were being detained under the Emergency Regulations. If they had been arrested under the common law they would have had to be informed of the charge against them within 48 hours. They were not told that. They were arrested on a Friday and it was not until the following week that they heard what the charge was. If the Minister now declares that these people were not detained under the Emergency Regulations, then it means that his own department has broken the law by detaining these persons for more than 48 hours without informing them of the charge against them. The Minister cannot have his cake and eat it. My contention is that the assertion by Oosthuizen has been proved by the actions of the Department itself, for if the Department had not arrested him under the Emergency Regulations, then the Department has broken its own law. Furthermore the following assertion is made in the letter—

And that in spite of Van Pletsen having told them in the morning that the man was seriously ill. The one brother told them that his brother was ill. The doctor stated that the man’s condition was very bad, and that he should be operated on. Nevertheless, after the doctor had twice asked what had happened to the man, he was sent to the magistrate’s court in the afternoon. The Department maintains that everything was done to assist him without delay. That is incorrect. The letter goes on—

I read out this statement that the doctor had submitted a report that the man was seriously ill, and that he should be operated on immediately, but in spite of that he was thereafter compelled to walk the 300 yards to the magistrate’s office writhing with pain. It therefore appears that these statements in the letter of the Department are incorrect. [Time limit.]

I do not again want to go into the Minister’s explanation of the assaults on soldiers. I leave it to the House to judge whether we can be satisfied with the Minister’s reply. The fact remains that under these emergency regulations, in case a soldier hits first and the civilian hits back, the latter can be sentenced for assault and may have to go to gaol, whilst that does not apply to the soldier. I want to come back to the question of drunkenness amongst soldiers. I notice that during the week-end even the Prime Minister issued a warning in a certain paper about the increase in drunkenness amongst soldiers. I do not want to speak on specific cases here. I have already shown the unpleasant things we have to witness even near the Houses of Parliament. I also pointed to the conditions on the train where a waiter was killed by being thrown out of the train. I now want to ask the Minister of Justice, seeing that the Prime Minister himself issued a warning, to take steps against this evil. It is not only a question of drunkenness but there are other evils going hand in hand with drunkenness. I want to ask the Minister to consider the placing out of bounds for soldiers of certain areas of our large towns. I shall tell you why. Even if the soldiers cannot obtain liquor in the town, there still are—and the police know more or less where they are—places where soldiers can obtain liquor illegally, and will be in the interest of those soldiers, especially of those arriving here in convoys, that certain areas of the towns be placed out of bounds for them. I do not want to mention openly in this House what the dangers are which are facing them there. I hope the Minister will give consideration to this matter and that his Department will take active steps. The Minister said something this morning in reply to the speech of the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) in regard to pin tables. I want the Minister to reply frankly as a Minister of Justice should. Is it not true that pin tables had been prohibited under the previous Minister of Justice? When the present Minister of Justice took over office the pin tables started again. I have put two questions to the Minister in this connection. I do not want to read out those questions. I first of all asked him whether he is going to prevent the recurrence of pin tables and gambling machines. The Minister’s reply was that the common law is sufficient to deal with them. Under pressure the Minister has now had to act to prohibit those tables and gambling machines. The impression has been created that the Minister put a stop to those things. The actual position is that the Prime Minister, when he was the Minister of Justice, put a stop to it, and that the present Minister of Justice allowed them again and has now under pressure again put a stop to it. I am not going to refer to the police here, but I want to ask the Minister what his policy is in regard to the large number of policemen detained in internment camps. Is he going to take those officers back into the service or is he not going to do so. As a member of the Cabinet he knows that many of those police officers do not yet know why they have been interned, for no charges have as yet been laid against them. What is the Minister going to do now. When the war is over will he take them back into the service and is he going to withdraw any allowance to which they may be entitled or is he going to keep them on without them suffering any loss therefrom? That is something we should like to know and it is a matter of policy. Then there is a further question I want to put to the Minister. I want to make a plea here, with all due respect, and not on account of political reasons or otherwise. Johannes van der Walt is no longer alive. He left a widow and children. I want to remind the Minister that he or the Minister of Defence prohibited van der Walt from continuing with his gymnasium in Johannesburg. He suffered great losses as a result of that action. He had spent much money on starting it but he was refused the permit to continue with it. I do not want to discuss how Johannes van der Walt came to die, but it is a fact that he was not allowed to carry on with his business. He lost much money as a result of it. Today his widow and children are left behind and I want to ask the Minister whether under the circumstances he will consider granting some sort of compensation to the widow and her children. Johannes van der Walt was a person who was liked throughout South Africa. He was an Afrikaner world figure and the fact that he left behind his widow with very little money shows, in view of the way he lived, that he must have been doing a lot of good and was very charitably inclined. Owing to a most unfortunate occurrence van der Walt is no longer alive today. I do not want to go into the merits of the case but I want to ask the Minister to grant some assistance to his widow. I ask this without any political motive, but I hope that the Minister will make a statement that he will assist the widow and the children in the difficult position in which they find themselves. I should also like to say something about the shortage of policemen. I do not know whether that is a question of policy.

The hon. member should rather raise that point under the “Police” Vote.

I am pleased to note that the Minister of Justice is in a better mood today. Apparently the peace of Easter has descended upon him over the week-end. When one knows the Minister well, there is nothing more typical of his position than his reaction on Saturday when this matter was brought up. We know that his disposition is kindhearted and when he loses his temper you can be sure that there is something wrong with him. Unconsciously a man may reveal more in that way than by his statements. I therefore went a bit further into the documents of the Yeld case and I want to come back to it. First of all I want to remove the smoke screen laid by the Minister. It is only the fig leaf behind which he is hiding. He feels so terribly sorry for the accused! I went through the papers and found that a definite opinion was expressed by the Attorney-General that further postponement should be refused as the person concerned had had ample opportunities to prepare his defence. I have the correspondence here and there are also letters from the Attorney-General to the Under-Secretary for Justice. The Attorney-General writes: “The accused knew the charges brought against him at least since the end of June.” That is what he wrote to the Under-Secretary for Justice on 6th September. On the 10th September the accused said that he was going to plead guilty on 15 charges. The Minister said that in October he was approached by the advocate for the defence asking for further postponement. In spite of that, the accused who, according to the Minister needs so much time, had already pleaded guilty on 15 charges. In October when the case actually went to court no further evidence was led on behalf of the accused. At the preliminary trial on 6th September, the accused said, according to the notes made by the magistrate, that as far as he was concerned he did not desire the further appearance of any of the Crown witnesses. That is the person who had to receive a fair deal, the person who enjoyed special consideration on the part of the Minister. No, the Minister tried to lay down a smoke screen which I wanted to remove first. We now come to the Minister’s statement. He said that the reopening on the 28th August had been ordered for the leading of further evidence. We know that the case was not re-opened on the 28th because the accused said that he was ill and a postponement until 6th September was asked for. The re-opening was thereupon postponed until the 6th September. Was any further evidence led then? No. But here is something more. I have here a letter from the Attorney-General. It is not clear whether it was addressed to the magistrate or to the Crown prosecutor at Kopjes, but in regard to the preliminary trial the Attorney-General states: “The preliminary trial should be re-opened for submitting proof of previous convictions.” Nothing else. That was the instruction. The preliminary trial had to be re-opened in connection with previous convictions. That was written by the Attorney-General on 20th August, 1941. On the 2nd September, before the re-opening of the 6th September took place, the Attorney-General wrote to the accused personally inter alia—

The accused therefore knew quite well that the re-opening on the 6th would only take place in order to submit his previous convictions to him. That was all. When a re-opening takes place for that purpose, it takes place in terms of Section 76 of the Act, and the 31 days rule does not apply in that case. The 31 days only apply when there is a re-opening in terms of Section 90. According to these statements it is quite clear that the re-opening on the 6th September only took place in order to prove previous convictions, and for that only. The Minister cannot come here now and tell us that under the circumstances other matters could also have been submitted. That is not the case. The re-opening was solely for submitting proof of previous convictions and the Attorney-General specifically wrote to the accused that the purpose was to prove previous convictions and not to lead further evidence. And in fact no evidence was led on the 6th. I saw the report and there it says that only his previous convictions were submitted to him and that he admitted them. That was all. Use was made of this opportunity to submit certain statements to him which would be led in evidence at the trial. I believe there were seven statements. But the House should understand that the serving of such statements on the accused before the time is the correct procedure. One should not spring upon a man evidence he knows nothing about, but the 31 days rule does not apply in such a case. The fact that such statements were submitted therefore also does not bear out the Minister’s conclusions. That is all I wanted to say in regard to the re-opening on the 6th. According to law the Minister’s defence is valueless. Now, however, I come to a further point, an important point, and that is that the Minister usurps the power which has been entrusted to the courts of the country, viz. the power to move the trial from one place to another. In our criminal law it is clearly laid down which court shall have the jurisdiction. In this case it obviously was the circuit court at Heilbron, because the preliminary trial took place at Kopjes. The position is that when an accused has already been committed for trial, when summons have been issued against him, the case can only be moved by the court. This is clear from Section 141 which says that if an indictment has been brought against the accused in a higher court, the Judge of that court can at the request of or on behalf of the Attorney-General, or on behalf of the accused, order that the trial be moved to some other place. Arrangements are then made in accordance with the order of the Judge. That is a function of the court and is being interpreted so strictly that in a recent case in the Eastern Districts, when an accused was tried before a circuit court and a summons was issued against him, the Supreme Court at Grahamstown refused to move the trial to his own court. They declared that that is not the function of the Supreme Court but of the Court which has jurisdiction to order such a moving of the case, in this case the Circuit Court. [Time limit.]

There is a steadily growing protest in this country against the outrages committed by soldiers, and the public outside is seriously concerned about it, and looks up to the Minister of Justice. The public outside quite rightly blames the Minister for allowing it, and for not taking definite steps to counteract these outrages.

Which kind?

If the hon. member does not yet know about it he must have been dreaming all the time

Mention a few.

Soldiers are being disciplined and quite rightly so. You cannot use a soldier who has not been properly disciplined. The State spends enormous sums of money on disciplining the soldiers, and I think it is being done properly. All possible steps are being taken to maintain discipline, and once these young men have been disciplined, obedience is demanded of them, and the soldiers agree to it. What I want to impress especially on the Minister is that all the valuable work of discipline, all the expenditure in connection therewith are being wasted when the Minister allows the soldiers to drink more than they should, and when he allows drinking places to be open so that the soldiers can drink as much as they want to. If you allow that you lose the discipline. Even the Prime Minister expressed his disappointment about it and then the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) asks me to quote examples. It would be foolish to quote examples for we all know what is happening.

Are the soldiers the only people who drink?

The Prime Minister himself is disappointed about it, but the hon. member for Caledon apparently wants to encourage it.

I want to remove the slur.

Furthermore we have the so-called protection of and virtual encouragement to soldiers under the Emergency Regulations to attack other people. The public are not being protected. There are many cases where soldiers are under the influence of liquor. When you are for instance travelling by train it may happen that you are almost thrown out of the train when you dare to speak Afrikaans.

Nonsense!

What happened to that waiter? Is that also nonsense? I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister not to allow this condition to continue. Discipline amongst the soldiers should be maintained, but you cannot do so if they drink too much. Even the Prime Minister expressed his disappointment about the position. There should be stricter control over the places selling liquor, and the soldiers should not be at liberty to drink as much as they want to. They are even disgracing the Prime Minister. I need only point to what is happening in the streets, the hotels and the bioscopes. It is a shocking sight., even for the children passing through our streets. One can witness disgusting spectacles. Surely we are not living in a country of barbarism, and liquor is the cause of it. I am the last one to begrudge the soldier an occasional drink, but there are many of them going too far, and restrictions should be placed on the places selling liquor, so that our boys may be protected.

Isn’t your own son also a soldier?

So much more reason for me to ask for protection. I do not think the hon. member has a son in the army. That is the reason why he does not mind what happens to the soldiers.

My son is a soldier, but I greet him.

That slanderous interruption is not worth replying to. I maintain that the public should be protected and the soldiers should also be protected against themselves. I come into touch with soldiers who have not been drinking too much and one can converse with them quite pleasantly. They are disciplined, and we are proud of them, but when soldiers drink too much they forget everything they have been taught, and the Minister is the person who should protect them against people who intend exploiting them and making them drink too much. The country cannot protest to the soldiers but we should protest, to the Minister. He should protect them. [Time limit.]

Earlier in this Session questions were asked regarding the punishment meted out to certain European youths between the ages of 15 and 18 whose actions brought about the death of two natives. We realise that the Press did not give an accurate report of the evidence disclosed at the enquiry, and also that this case, as in all others where death occurs, was reviewed by the Solicitor-General before the accused were committed for trial. Rightly or wrongly, public resentment has been aroused, and it should be appreciated if the hon. Minister could assure us that in the administration of justice the question of colour does not arise. I would like also to ask the Minister if he does not think that provision should be made in the administration of justice that anyone over the age of 18 years should not be regarded as a minor.

The hon. member is now asking for legislation.

Under the Vote “Interior” I brought a matter to the notice of the Minister of the Interior about a man who had been interned 7 months ago and who still does not know the reason for his internment. The Minister of the Interior said that I should raise the matter under this Vote. The wife of the interned is Mrs. Johnson of De Aar. I received several letters from her in connection with this matter and I think, if my memory serves me right, that she wrote at the beginning of the year that her husband had already been interned for 7 months and had never yet heard the reasons for it. She has now written to me again, and states that the reasons for the internment were sent to her but that they are nothing but lies. This lady lives in my constituency. I do not know why the man was interned and I do not know him personally, but this lady definitely wrote that he had been interned for 7 months and still did not know the charges against him. Should such a state of affairs be allowed to continue any longer? Why is it not possible to put these people on trial immediately? And why can they not be told the reasons for their internment? This lady tells me that she has no means or hardly any means to keep herself and her children, and that they do not know why the husband was interned. Then there is a further point I want to raise. Perhaps the Minister will remember that practically every year I have spoken about the necessity of amending the legislation in connection with stock theft. I believe the Minister definitely promised he would introduce such legislation.

The hon. member may not advocate legislation now; he can only put a question in regard to legislation.

Then I should like to ask the Minister whether he remembers that we on this side of the House have already for years been raising this matter, and whether he remembers having promised to introduce legislation and what has become of it.

I was busy explaining that it is the function of the Court to order a trial to be heard in some other place. What happened in this case? On the 18th September the Circuit Court sat at Heilbron. I asked the Minister whether the accused was present there, and the Minister replied in the negative. In other words, the Circuit Court was led by the nose. It could not exercise its discretion to order the moving of the case or otherwise, for if the Court had said that it could not be moved the trial could in any case not have been proceeded with because the accused was not present. In order to obtain the moving of a trial to another place the necessary sworn declarations must be submitted to the Court showing the reasons why the case should be tried somewhere else. This however did not happen in this particular case. The Act clearly lays down according to Gardiner and Lansdowne—

There must be very good reasons for moving a trial. I just want to read out how strictly they take this rule in England, and that may be of great importance to the Minister—

My point is this. It was the function of the Court, when having all the facts before it, to decide whether this was a suitable case for moving to Bloemfontein. No facts were laid before the Court. The Minister put the Court before an accomplished fact. The Minister usurped the function of the Court and made it impossible for the Court to take action. This not only amounted to contempt of Court because it was made impossible for it to use its discretion under the Act, but even if the Court had decided that the case should go on, it could not have gone on, for on instructions of the Minister the accused was not present. The second offence was, and we protest against it, and any person who has to deal with administration of justice in our country will protest against it, that there should be interference in our administration of justice on the part of the administration of the country. It is not the function of the Minister of Justice to recommend that a trial should be moved, and if such application is made, the interpretation according to the Court in the Eastern Districts, viz. in Grahamstown, was so strict, that the Supreme Court at Grahamstown did not even want to decide the point but stated that the decision lay with the Circuit Court. The manner in which the Minister proceeded was an interference with the functions of the Court, and we maintain that if we want to have proper administration of justice in our country we cannot allow a Minister interfering with the judicature in that manner. I have no interest in this matter except for the wish to see that the administration of justice in our country is placed on a sound basis. The reasons the Minister gave for his action are not convincing. There may have been another way to achieve the same purpose, a method technically more correct, but I still doubt whether in principle it would have been sound. But the manner in which the Minister interfered in this case in order to obtain a moving of the case from the Circuit Court in Heilbron to the Supreme Court in Bloemfontein is a flagrant interference by the Government in the administration of justice in our country, and as such it deserves the disapproval of everybody, also of the Minister himself, if he is really concerned about the correctness of our judicial administration, as he declared here. On those grounds we protest and I shall be glad if the Minister will express his regret about it, and will give us the assurance that something of that nature will not happen again. It was our duty to bring this matter to the notice of the country, and I do hope that it will not be necessary to ever do this again. On the defence of the Minister himself one cannot find any excuse for his actions. He personally interfered with the judicature of the country, and I cannot imagine anything which will be more fatal to a healthy administration of justice in our country than cases of that nature, where the Minister interferes between the complainant and the accused and usurps the functions of the Court, taking them in his own hands and using them.

Allow me to reply briefly to this point. My hon. friend forgets that above all the Crown has to see that a case is not brought up unnecessarily at a certain place. The preliminary enquiry took place at Vredefort and not at Heilbron.

No, it took place at Kopjes.

In the district of Vredefort.

But the Circuit Court sits at Heilbron.

The position is this. The Attorney-General gave the assurance that the case would be re-opened in order to hear evidence.

No, that is not so.

He gave that assurance. Seven sworm declarations were served on the accused and I cannot imagine any Court allowing the accused to be tried within twelve days of such an occurrence. He would not have had a proper opportunity to consult his attorney and his advocate, and to build up his case. There was no question of interference. On the 13th already the Attorney-General had given notice that the case would not be heard. What he really should have done was to withdraw the summons and afterwards to issue fresh summons for the other Court. I have a letter here from the Attorney-General [letter read showing that sworn declarations concerning previous convictions will be dealt with at the trial and also other outstanding matters].

What is the date of that letter?

The 5th September. After the matter was raised here in Parliament I got into touch with the Attorney-General and he told me that the intention was to hear evidence and that seven sworn declarations had been served on the accused.

And in the letter of the 2nd September it was stated that no further evidence would be heard.

I also have a telegram here which was sent to the accused informing him that his presence would be required for a re-opening of the preliminary trial on Wednesday, the 6th. Then the following further letter was sent to the accused: “I have been directed by the Attorney-General at Bloemfontein to inform you that the preliminary trial in your case will be re-opened at Heilbron on 6th September, 1941 and that your presence on that occasion will be required”. Seeing that this is the case and that the case had to serve before the Circuit Court on the 18th, it is reasonable to assume that the case would be postponed. It is furthermore my duty to see that the money of the State is not being wasted. For that reason the Attorney-General on the 13th September said that the case would serve not at Heilbrbon, but at. Bloemfontein. I had before me only the facts that the preliminary trial would be re-opened on the 6th, and that the case would serve on the 18th, and for that reason I agreed to a postponement of the trial. That is all my interference amounted to. I have already explained that in such cases I get into touch with the Attorney-General. In this case I did not do so for the Attorney-General was a relation of both the accused and the complainant. For the reasons I mentioned here I was prepared to grant a postponement, and there was no interference with the course of justice. If the summons had been withdrawn when notice was given that the case would serve at Bloemfontein there would never have been anything mentioned about the incident. I think we can now leave the matter at that. As far as the regulations in connection with assaults are concerned I wish to repeat again that a person has first of all to be found guilty of assault under our common law. The regulations had nothing to do with that. The regulations have only to do with the punishment inflicted. The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo) mentioned one case in his constituency. I told him personally that I spoke to the police and the military authorities about preventing such incidents as much as possible. I think proper measures will be taken. As far as drunkenness is concerned, a matter raised by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), I want to say that we have been in touch with the military authorities and that arrangements will be made to have more military police available so that they can remove the soldiers at once. At some places the hours for bars and hotels were reduced. I do not know whether it had much effect. My own opinion is that there should be more military police to look after the soldiers and to take them away.

Is it not possible for the Minister to introduce a system of coupons for soldiers on the trains?

I do not want to say too much about the trains at the moment. The matter is so to say sub-judice, because it is the subject of an enquiry which is taking place at present. As far as pin tables are concerned, it is true that the Prime Minister put a stop to it and that we restored the position to some extent on condition that no gambling would take place. I reckoned that the existing law would adequately cover the position. Now however, we have prohibited it altogether.

And you will not allow it again?

No. I wish to tell the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) that we do not make any discrimination on account of colour. I want to inform the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) that the person he spoke about must have been interned, and in that case he comes under the Minister of the Interior. Perhaps he is awaiting his trial. If the hon. member will give me the name of that person I shall have the matter investigated. It is difficult to do so when I do not know who the person is. As far as stock theft in the Cape and the Transvaal is concerned, the police are experimenting with all kinds of measures to catch the thieves more easily. I do not know whether legislation will assist us in that respect. The principal problem is to catch the thief.

But as the law is now it is practically impossible to catch a man.

There are certain things which make it more difficult. I am however consulting farmers’ associations and the police authorities about this matter, in order to find out which amendments can be introduced.

There are two points about which the Minister was careful not to say anything, and on which we should like to hear his reply. I have mentioned the large scale gambling for so-called war funds, and I want to know whether the Minister is going to allow those things to continue in contravention of the law, or if he is going to prevent it. The second point is what the position is in regard to the Immorality Act and the verdict given by a Court in Natal, viz. that persons from abroad are not punishable under that. Act, but only the inhabitants of this country.

It is a terrible thing for any country when the people are beginning to lose their confidence in the judicature. In our country we could always depend on the Court of Law dispensing right and justice. In my constituency the Messenger of the Court joined up and somebody else had to be found. Applications were called for. A certain Mr. Crous applied. He is a pensioned police officer, and was the best man for the post.

Would it not be better if the hon. member would leave that matter over until we reach Vote 41.

This is a matter of policy and. I want to discuss it under the Minister’s salary: The position of Messenger of the Court at Robertson is not a very important one, and it is not necessary to appoint an outstanding person. What is worrying me in regard to this matter is that it seems as if such appointments are now being regarded as political appointments. I do not know whether the Minister knows about it or whether it is perhaps the magistrate who is responsible for it. The position, however, is that a letter came from the head office of the Minister’s party at Cape Town to the secretary of that party at Robertson to ask whether Mr. Crous was a supporter of the Government party. The secretary at Robertson, Mr. Reid, wrote back to the head office in Cape Town that he was very sorry but that Mr. J. H. Crous was not a supporter of the Government party. That man would not have got the appointment if it were not for the fact that he had a personal friend in the head office who sent the letter on to him. I saw that letter personally, so it cannot be said that I am talking about things I know nothing about. The only conclusion therefore, is that the Minister appoints such officials on a political basis. They are being paid with money from the State, and I and others have to pay taxes for it. The people are losing confidence when things of this nature happen. They feel that under such circumstances they will not receive justice. If that happens in minor cases such as this one, we cannot expect anything better to happen in more important matters. It goes against our grain to see what is happening in our Courts of Law. We notice that persons sometimes receive heavy fines or heavy punishment, but when a person happens to be a soldier and has committed the same offence, he is discharged. One does not feel happy about that. We want justice to be done, and to see that everybody shall receive the same punishment according to the crime. I do not want to say that the Minister knows about these things, but I bring it to his attention so that he may take steps to see that it does not happen again in future. I want to point out to the Minister that he should not appoint people belonging to one party only. Amongst us there are persons who are as good and even better than those belonging to his party.

That is your own opinion.

Yes, my opinion is better than yours for I make bold to say that I have more brains than you have. The position is that if we must have the system of jobs for pals in this country, then the Government should frankly say so. This Government will not always be in power. Sooner than they think it will happen that we shall be sitting over there, and then they must not blame us if we do the same thing. If these things are to continue we can only expect a feeling of bitterness to grow up in the country, and I therefore want to ask the Minister to see that such injustice does not take place. This one particular case has now come to light, but how many cases are there which are being kept in the dark? I do not expect a Government to act in this way, for the Government is dealing with public moneys; it is the country’s money; we all contribute to it and we expect the Government to appoint the best man for a position.

I want to address a few words to the Minister on the peculiar position which Durban has assumed in recent years in regard to the chief magistracy.

Does that not fall under the “Magistrates Courts” Vote?

No, I am not dealing with the office itself. But the whole question of the administration of justice in Durban has assumed a position which is comparable neither to the larger cities nor to the smaller cities. It has acquired a status entirely of its own due to the fact that a practice has developed of having a chief magistrate appointed to Durban in the last few years of his career in the service. That does not happen in the smaller towns, and it does not happen in the other large towns; and this must of necessity reflect upon the administration of justice in Durban. We have an incumbent spending perhaps a year or eighteen months or two years and then passing, on to retirement and being replaced by another who does the same thing. I am under the impression that the present incumbent is due to retire shortly. That is not fair to the city; it is not in the best interests of the administration of justice. The city hardly becomes familiar with its chief magistrate before it finds that he is being replaced, and the work involved of co-ordinating the various activities under the hand of the chief magistrate suffers a disturbing effect, when it just about reaches a satisfactory stage, and it comes under the hand of a successor.

I am afraid I have allowed the hon. member to go very far. This matter very definitely falls under the “Magistrates Court” Vote, and it would be far better to discuss it under that Vote.

Very well, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister tried to create the impression that the accused on the 5th September was still under the impression that there would be something more than just a submission of previous convictions. But I want to say that if he has a look through his own files which were put at my disposal, he will find that the accused was so convinced that there would be only this submission of his previous convictions, that during August he wrote to the Attorney-General whether he could not submit these things by means of a sworn declaration. On the 29th August he received a reply from the Attorney-General that this could not be done by means of a sworn declaration. The Minister pointed out that the Attorney-General in his letter spoke of other matters which were still pending. If the Minister goes through his own files he will see that this pending matter was the question whether the trial should take place with or without a jury. This point the Minister ignored. On the 2nd September, three days before the letter of the 5th September, a letter was addressed to the accused by the Attorney-General stating that the trial would be in connection with the previous convictions, and not in order to hear further evidence. On the 5th September he therefore could not be under any other impression than that no further evidence would be led on the 6th September. I do not want to go into all the particulars now, but the Minister will be well advised not to go any further in his own files, for the facts which he will discover there will be of such a nature that they will bear out everything we have said here. The Minister said that the summons might have been withdrawn and have been re-issued in another Court. That is so. That can be done, but we are here not concerned with what might have been done, but with what was done, and on account of what was done we maintain that this was an interference on the part of the Minister with the functions of the Court, and that is regrettable as well as reprehensible. I am not so sure that we can make use of our common law to withdraw a summons and to issue a new one, as a pretext for usurping the functions of the Court. The purpose of Section 322 is not to substitute Section 141 of the Criminal Law. Whatever the case may be, in this connection it is an academic question. What we are dealing with are the facts of the case. And they are that the Minister acted in such a way that the Judges were deprived of the opportunity to decide whether a certain case should be moved from one Court to another Court or not. Owing to the actions of the Minister the Court was denied that right, and the Judge did not have an opportunity of expressing his opinion on it; he did not have the opportunity to exercise his judicial discretion, for that had already been done by the Minister who put him before an accomplished fact. That amounts to contempt of Court and an insult to the whole judicial system of our country, and an interference of a most serious nature in regard to our judicature.

I should like to bring a matter to the notice of the Minister and I should furthermore like to see that it will result in a request to the Minister which I hope he will agree to. It concerns Johannes van der Walt. I think I can best explain the case by referring to two scenes. The first one could be witnessed in the streets of Johannesburg a few weeks ago. Johannes van der Walt had died. His funeral took place on that Sunday. On that occasion the streets of Johannesburg were so full of people as they have not been for years. All these people wanted to take part in this function. There we had a funeral such as there have been few in South Africa. Judging from the number of people and the interest shown one might have thought this to be the funeral of a great historical figure, of a great national hero. That is the one scene I want to remind you of. The other scene I want to remind you of took place in this House last year, 13 months ago. That happened just after the shooting of Johannes van der Walt, when he was wounded, and which injury cost him 13 months of struggle and pain and misery until he ultimately succumbed to his wounds. On that occasion, 13 months ago, we asked the Minister to give a satisfactory explanation of what actually happened. What the Minister told us on that occasion was that Johannes van der Walt was himself to blame for having been shot at, that he had had a revolver in his hand and had threatened the police and that the police had to fire in self-defence. I want to tell the Minister that no person who can judge impartially and has the facts before him, will attach any credence to that explanation of the Minister. An enquiry was asked for. If he were so certain of his case he could have agreed to it. But he refused it. But that refusal the Minister has taken the blame on himself for what happened there, and he also has burdened his conscience with the blood of Johannes van der Walt. Under these circumstances I want to make a request to the Minister, and that is whether he will not be prepared to use his influence to have a pension granted to the widow of Johannes van der Walt. Johannes van der Walt died a poor man. That is the request I want to make to the Minister.

Just imagine, for the widow of a gaol-bird.

He lost his money through unfortunate investments and he particularly became financially embarrassed by the Government closing down his gymnasium in which he had invested his money. I understand from the reply which the Prime Minister gave to a question in this House that the aeroplane which Johannes van der Walt possessed, was confiscated by the Government and that he was not given any compensation, at least not at that time. He left his widow in poor circumstances and today money is being collected throughout the country to keep his family going. I want to ask the Minister to use his influence in the Cabinet to grant a pension to this widow from State funds as soon as possible. I do not say that by such a pension the blood which has been shed will be forgotten. One can eliminate the marks of blood which has been shed but the blood trail of history you cannot wipe out. The blood of Jopie Fourie was shed and those responsible for it would afterwards have given millions to make their deed undone. They could rot. You cannot escape from it, but you can to a certain extent obliterate the traces and weaken the effect by being generous afterwards. I want to ask the Minister to deal with this matter in a magnanimous spirit.

After the plea of the Leader of the Opposition, I hope that the Minister of Justice will reply whether he intends meeting that righteous and fair demand or not. I want to proceed to something else of a local nature. I put a question to the Minister, but he did not reply to it. I just want to read out the question which I asked on March 12th—

1. (1) Whether disturbances involving the police and coloured soldiers recently took place at Mossel Bay; if so,
2. (2) (a) what was the cause and (b) whether any of the police were injured;
3. (3) whether knives were used by the coloured soldiers;
4. (4) whether any civilians were also assaulted; if so, how many;
5. (5) whether any of the coloured soldiers were arrested; if so, how many;
6. (6) whether any of the coloured soldiers have been charged and convicted; if so, what was the nature of the punishment imposed;
7. (7) whether they are still in prison; if so, where; and
8. (8) whether, in view of the establishment of a camp for coloured soldiers at Mossel Bay, he will make a statement on the steps taken or to be taken to ensure the safety of the public?

I should like the Minister to make a satisfactory statement in regard to this matter and to state in particular what steps will be taken for the protection of the public at Mossel Bay. I want to tell him that after this happened there was another riot in which soldiers took part, even more than one, and in one case a coloured woman lost her life as a result. Our police force there is not large in numbers and I want to ask the Minister what steps he has been taking for the safety of the public.

I just want to say that I shall be glad if the hon. member will permit the reply to this question to stand over. I thought the matter was still sub judice. I shall try to reply to it when we come to the Police Vote. As far as the request of the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, it is of course difficult for me to promise that I shall use my influence, but the hon. member did indicate some possible grounds, and I am thinking particularly of the confiscation of the aeroplane. I want to assure him that I shall go into that matter. If the case is as he presented it, and Van der Walt would have been entitled to compensation, I shall certainly do my best to see that compensation will be paid.

The aeroplane was not in his name, but it was his.

One can investigate that and perhaps pay a fair compensation. In any case I shall go into the whole matter and anything to which the family would have been entitled under the circumstances will be enquired into. As far as gambling is concerned I just want to say that any complaint about gambling is always investigated, and where the complaint is justified we prosecute. We of course all know that at bazaars, also at Church bazaars, lotteries used to be run in the past. Steps were taken to keep it within reasonable limits. In many cases the police took steps, especially where it was feared that private persons were making a profit out of it.

Gambling in the streets?

That has been stopped and will be stopped. I should like to discuss this with the hon. member personally.

I just want to say a few words in connection with the request made by the Leader of the Opposition. I think that we are fully entitled to make that request. What I really intended to do, however, is to express my deepest indignation about the interjection made by the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) when he exclaimed: “What a request, and that for the widow of a gaol-bird.” I just want to voice the strongest protest against that insulting remark.

You over there are the cause of him being there.

At the beginning of the discussion on this Vote I did not want to move an amendment, for we first of all wanted to see how the Minister was going to explain the various matters in regard to his Department. I must say to my regret that we have not been satisfied by the attitude he has taken up. We have not been convinced that everything in regard to the administration of justice is as it should be, and we are not satisfied or convinced that right and justice are at the moment being dispensed in accordance with the laws of the country. For that reason I want to move as an amendment—

I repeatedly asked the Minister questions in regard to the application of the Immorality Act, but the Minister simply did not reply to them.

Why didn’t you just ask me when I was busy with my reply?

I repeatedly put those questions to you.

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

The Minister told us last Saturday that he had been giving reduced sentences to hundreds of persons, and I now want to put a request to him, and I trust that he will take this request into serious consideration; my request is whether he will be prepared to discharge the Rev. Vorster from gaol now. The hon. Minister will remember that when the Judge imposed the sentence he remarked that he regretted having to find the Rev. Vorster guilty and having to impose such a severe sentence but that he had no alternative. It was the minimum penalty under the Act. I now feel in the light of that remark that I am entitled to plead with the Minister and to ask him to give serious consideration to my request. I think I have a good case, and I trust that he will meet my request.

I wish to identify myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser). I think, if there is one case in which the Minister should give some relief, it is the case of the Rev. Vorster. Everybody knows that the Judge expressed his sympathy with the accused and said that his hands were tied in regard to the punishment he had to impose, and that he could not impose a lighter sentence because this was the minimum sentence under the regulation. Seeing that the case was not a serious one, and that the offence was only slight, I hope that the Minister will use his discretion in this case and show a measure of sympathy.

I shall not take up much of the time of the House but I should like to join in the request made by the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) in regard to relief being granted in the case of the Rev. Vorster. I believe he was the first person to be sentenced under those regulations, and I think he is the only person who so far has been punished under those regulations, and I think it would be a very fine gesture on the part of the Minister to release the Rev. Vorster now.

The hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) came to see me in connection with this matter and drew my attention to the remarks of the Judge, which of course received a great deal of attention. After this Session the matter will be referred to the law advisers, and will be dealt with from that point of view.

I hope you will use your influence.

Yes, I shall. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) raised the question of the Immorality Act. I am sorry I did not go into that point. The Act is there and it is being applied. The hon. member will know, especially after the remarks of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), that this is a judicial verdict and therefore I cannot express an opinion on it.

I do not expect that, but you can say what your attitude is.

I cannot say whether I approve or disapprove of it. At the moment it is receiving the attention of the Department. I do not think the hon. member should expect me to go further into that matter.

I should like to know whether you hold the opinion that certain people should be exempted from the provisions of that Act.

Hon. members should not blame me, but we are dealing here with the verdict of a court …

No, leave that verdict alone; only tell us whether you hold that opinion or not.

I cannot express my approval or disapproval. I must keep my personal opinion to myself. Being the Minister of Justice I can only take it as the verdict of the court and respect it. As far as the Mossel Bay trouble is concerned, I found out just now that the soldiers have been convicted and sentenced, but I do not have the facts in regard to the sentence here. I can only say that the police force there has been augmented and that they have also received more motor vehicles. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) raised a point here. I am going into the matter and I want to assure the hon. member that when this happens, political considerations will have no effect as far as this Department is concerned. There used to be an arrangement that O.B.’s had to leave the service. That would, however, not be sufficient justification for ferreting out what the man’s political opinion is and I shall see that it does not happen again.

I should like to know from the Minister what the position in regard to the future will be. Is he, as Minister of Justice, and is the Government, determined that our Immorality Act will be applied, viz., that there will be imprisonment only for offences with natives?

The attitude of the Government is clear. The law is there and the law has to be applied.

To everybody? Also to people who come here from abroad?

Yes, of course.

Why were you so afraid to say that?

It was merely a misunderstanding.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—26:

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—38:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus. J. G.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Friedlander, A.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Jackson, D.

Klopper, L. B.

Long, B. K.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet. J. W.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Trollip, A. E.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 39.—“Justice”, as printed, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 40.—“Superior Courts”, £280,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 41.—“Magistrates and District Administration”, £766,900.

I should like to make use of the 30 minutes rule. I should like to read out a letter to the Minister, but before doing so I first want to relate the circumstances leading up to it. An old man of 73 years went one morning to the house of a neighbour. He was a family friend there and went to talk to his neighbour and the latter’s wife. A young man of 22 years, a strong fellow, attacked the old man and knocked him over the head with a piece of wood. He gave him a few more hits and then sat on the old man and started pulling out the old man’s white beard. When the son came to the old man’s assistance, the attacked sent his wife to fetch the rifle with the cartridges and she came with the loaded rifle and the old man fired the rifle. The matter was reported to the police and it then appeared afterwards that no further steps had been taken in the matter. An attorney, named Samuel Emmanuel Steyn, went to the assistant-magistrate Muirhead and said that the accused was going to join the army and it was then decided not to lay a charge against him. I went to see the chief magistrate, Mr. Ross, about the case. He said he did not know anything about the matter. I then personally laid a charge and I shall now read the reply which I received. [Letter read to the effect that the Public Prosecutor had decided not to go on with the case.] I now want to bring a further matter to the notice of the Minister. At Springboklaagte, P.O. Arnot, district Middelburg, Tvl., there is a certain person, C. J. Botha, one of the worst criminals we know of. He was accused of having employed a native to rob trains and this had been going on for a period of five years. On the loft of his home half a carload of stolen goods was found. He was fined £25 for perjury, £25 for bribery and another £5 for assault and there were still more charges against him, but when this man had to appear in court, the attorney Steyn, the Jew, manipulated things in such a way in consultation with the prosecutor, that the man’s crimes were not read out in court. I bring these matters to the notice of the Minister. Here we have the case of Botha, one of our worst criminals and in spite of that, this is what happened with his case in that magistrate’s office. This attorney Steyn so to say controls the magistrate’s office. When I come there to do something for my electors he usually passes me and spits my way and says that he will not rest until every Nationalist is in gaol. When I go to other offices, he goes behind the counter to talk to the people so that I shall not be served. Frequently when I enter there he starts making the same imputations against me and he usually says that he will not rest until every Nationalist is in gaol and every German is dead. The atmosphere in that magistrate’s office is so unpleasant that one cannot get justice there any longer. I would call it bordering on corruption. The Minister will understand that I as a son of that district where I have grown up and nearly grown old, do not like under such circumstances to go to that magistrate’s office to do my work there, on account of the treatment that is meted out to one. I do not want to blame the chief magistrate, Mr. Ross, for it. He is chairman of a large number of organisations in connection with war work and he is very seldom at his office. But the assistant-magistrate, Mr. Muirhead, is there. In spite of that the whole magistrate’s office is controlled by the Jew, Steyn. I can assure the Minister that this is a most unpleasant state of affairs. We do not go to complain there for we find no justice there and usually we avoid going to the magistrate’s court. I wanted to bring this undesirable state of affairs to the notice of the Minister and I hope that he will take action in regard thereto.

I want to assure the hon. member that such a state of affairs does not meet with the approval of the Department. As far as I know the hon. member has never complained to me or to the Department about these things. It is difficult to say anything without first hearing all sides of the matter, but I want to assure him that a thorough investigation will take place. A magistrate holds a judicial position and everybody should be treated politely in the magistrate’s court. I shall have an investigation made.

There is one matter in connection with magistrates, which I want to raise. In certain villages of the Free State we have third-grade magistrates. They are given houses for which they have to pay in rent 12½ per cent. of their salary or 7½ per cent. of the value of the house. Then we have third-grade magistrates in larger places such as Kroonstad and Bethlehem where they are assistant-magistrates. No housing allowances are payable to them. They are in the same grade and receive the same allowances but have to live in the towns where the cost of living is higher, and they have not the benefit of the housing facilities which the others enjoy. The man in the small village has the privileges of a Government house at a low rental, but magistrates of the same grade in the larger towns, do not receive that benefit because they are not chief magistrates. I hope that the Minister will go into this question and will try to make some concessions in this regard.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that in the smaller towns the magistrate has to write or type out the evidence himself. That is very inconvenient and takes up much time, so that a case which might have been disposed of within one day sometimes takes three days or more. Will it not be possible to make shorthand writers available for the magistrates. It will not mean much expenditure and will on the other hand save much expenditure because cases will not take so long. A case which now takes three days will then probably occupy one day only.

I shall go into that question. It seems to be a reasonable request. We are following the system advocated by the hon. member in the large towns, and we should like to expand the service. It will save time.

You promised one for Bloemfontein.

It is difficult to get those people, but I shall do my best in this respect. As far as housing is concerned, we shall investigate the position. That also seems to be a reasonable request.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 42.—“Prisons and Gaols”, £807.000,

I should like to bring the condition of the goal at Malmesbury to the Minister’s attention. I do not know whether the Minister has already received information about it, but the goal is in such a condition that the prisoners can no longer be detained there. The result is, that whereas 35 prisoners could usually be accommodated there, there is now hardly room for the safe detention of four or five. The Minister knows that the question of convict labour is of rather considerable importance, especially in these parts Where farm labour is so scarce because the coloured farm workers have been taken away. I want to urge upon the Minister to go into this matter. Last week they found that conditions were such that it was deemed advisable to remove the larger portion of the 35 convicts. If the Minister will allow me to do so, I should rather like to discuss this matter with him personally.

With pleasure.

I want to ask the Minister whether he will take into consideration during the recess the necessity for rebuilding the police station, prison and so on at Mowbray. The place was built many years ago, it is very rambling, nothing like up to date, and I would not be surprised if the medical officer of health condemned it. Some little time ago the Minister and I both happened to be in this gaol—not as criminals, I may say—but we both happened to be there, and I think we were both shocked at the condition of the premises. I would like to ask the Minister to take this matter into consideration.

I just want to bring something to the notice of the Minister in connection with the prison wardens in the big cities. There is a great scarcity of houses, and when people are transferred to the cities they find it difficult to obtain a house, and if they do obtain one they have to pay a particularly high rental. Is it not possible to obtain housing facilities for these people; cannot houses be built for them on the open space of ground in Roeland Street, for example? The position is very difficult for those people, and I hope the Minister will give his attention to this matter.

I should like the Minister to give his attention to the condition of the gaol at Robertson. It is attached to the magistrate’s office, and when they inflict lashes on people, one can hear it in the magistrate’s office. One looks through the window into the gaol, and there is a door between the gaol and the magistrate’s office Not only is the place badly laid out, but the Municipality of Robertson was prepared to give land to the Government, free of charge to build a gaol outside the town. The time has really arrived for the Minister to do something to rectify this matter. Then there is another question, namely, the punishment imposed on people in the reformatories.

That does not fall under my Vote.

I want to bring it to the notice of the Minister, however. Those people are punished; the prisoners in the reformatories are beaten again and again, and later on it has no effect on them, and it only makes criminals of them. These people should be treated differently. I have received complaints about this matter, and I felt that it was my duty to raise it here.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to call attention to any gaol in particular in the country, but there have been very wide reflections cast on the conditions of prison life in this country in general by quite responsible and well-informed people. I expect the Minister is familiar with the statements made by ex-Chief Justice Krause as to the conditions in which our prisoners are housed. I feel that what Justice Krause has said is a grave reflection on the whole conditions of the prisons of this country. I know that a year or two ago the Minister appointed a Departmental Committee to go into this whole question. Quite a number of people are interested to know what this Committee has found, how its work is progressing and what possibilities there are of our prison system being brought into line with modern practice and modern ideas as to what should be done for the prison population. I hope the Minister is now in a position to tell us what the committee has done and whether there is a possibility of our wiping out some of the worst features of our gaol system in the near future.

Upon this point I might just say that this committee was appointed on account of its being impossible to appoint a commission, which was what we really desired. The committee work was only preparatory, and intended to be available to the commission the moment it was appointed. I am very anxious to appoint a commission as soon as possible, but war conditions have prevented it so far. As far as the gaols themselves are concerned, I think the conditions are good, as far as conditions can be good in gaols. The Johannesburg gaol was overcrowded and steps were immediately taken to alleviate the position there. At the present moment we are taking steps to see if it is not possible to give people who have been fined an opportunity to pay that fine, and not send them to gaol in default of payment. That will relieve the position to a certain extent, and there are other recommendations of the committee which we are going into. I do not think it is advisable to raise the issue here until we can have the facts before the commission.

†As far as the gaol at Malmesbury is concerned, I can say that this is a matter which is now being dealt with by the Department of Public Works. We should very much like to improve the position. That also applies to places like Robertson. It is difficult in these days to build where one would like to build. We shall do our best.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 43.—“Police”, £3,302,800,

I should like to raise a matter in connection with the police. We hear that there is dissatisfaction amongst the police in regard to the circumstances governing leave. We hear that there are policemen who cannot get leave at all. Some of them have not been able to get any leave since the beginning of the war. Others have not had leave for three years. Then there are cases where the police have obtained leave, but have hardly arrived at the place where they intended spending their holiday, before being recalled, and they receive no compensation in respect of the expenses incurred by them. A man may take his family to the coast for fourteen days or a month. He is scarcely there before he has to return. He has to suffer all these losses, and in addition to that he loses his leave. That is very unfair. I hope the Minister will go into this whole question. It is also very unreasonable to require a person to work for three or four years without leave. Then there is the question of the policemen who have to be on duty here during the Parliamentary Session. On the 7th February, 1941, a regulation was promulgated by Government Notice No. 209 in Government Gazette No. 2853, namely, that police officials who have to undertake temporary duties during the Parliamentary Session in Cape Town, shall receive the allowances and privileges applicable to ordinary State officials. Last year I put a question to the Minister, asking whether the police who are on duty in the House receive that allowance. His reply was: “Yes, those who come from outside Cape Town receive it, but not those who are stationed in Cape Town.” But now the difficulty is that policemen from Malmesbury and all the neighbouring places are temporarily transferred to Cape Town. They have to be on duty in the House of Parliament, and they do not receive the allowance. They have to leave their families at home and pay boarding here. They know well enough that they are brought here simply and solely in order to work in the House of Parliament. Their families remain at home. They have to pay boarding here. They are simply told that it is a temporary transfer, and that they are not entitled to this allowance. An injustice is committed here which cries out to heaven, and I hope the Minister will go into it, because it simply means that by deception these people are deprived of what they are entitled to. When officials are sent here, they receive an allowance, but the policemen who are on guard day and night at the House of Parliament, and who are sent here for that purpose only, to maintain order during the Parliamentary Session, do not receive this allowance. They are told that they are temporarily transferred to Cape Town. That happened last year and it is again happening this year. I hope the Minister will see to it that those who had to be on duty here last year and this year, and who did not receive the allowance, will get it in the form of arrears, because one feels that it is unfair towards these people. Why do the civil servants get this allowance, and why should the police be punished? They get their ordinary salaries without the allowance, and it is a screaming injustice.

I should like to put a few questions to the Minister. In the first place, I want to ask whether there is a shortage of policemen. At various places when application is made for more police, the reply is that there is a shortage, and that during the war they cannot be given more policemen. In many towns there is a partial or total blackout as the result of war circumstances, and one finds an enormous increase in housebreaking and theft during the blackout. Now I want to ask what the Government’s policy is in connection with the recruitment of police officials. Are people who are physically fit taken on when they apply, if they pass their examinations? Is the Minister aware of the fact that there are people who have successfully passed the examination and who are physically fit, but who have received no reply to their applications for appointment. There are many returned soldiers. Do they receive preference? What precisely is the position? There are many members of our police force who are trying to buy their discharge from the service. Why is it that such a large number wants to leave the service at present? If I may give a reason, I should say it is due to the unsatisfactory conditions under which they have to work. To mention just a small example: The police have to keep their uniforms particularly neat. They receive an allowance in respect of that. The other day I asked the Minister of Commerce and Industries what the percentage rise has been in the price of various commodities since the outbreak of the war, and he replied, inter alia, that since the outbreak of the war the cost of clothing has risen by nearly 51 per cent. in the retail business. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he will take into account the increase in the price of uniforms in awarding the cost of living allowance. I think that that is not done. A number of police officials who are attached to the mounted police, or who are drivers of motor vehicles, have to wear a green shirt with their uniform. They are then transferred to an infantry division, and then all of a sudden they have to wear a white shirt and a stiff collar. Without receiving any compensation they have to bring about this change, and as a result of the increased cost of living, this necessitates the expenditure of a fair amount. The Minister ought to increase this allowance. Then there is a suspicion in the country—I do not want to say that it is based on fact—that the man who shot Johannes van der Walt has been promoted. I have no information of a definite character in that connection, but this morning we made a request to the Minister to give some sort of support to the widow of Johannes van der Walt—to give her a pension. I do not want to mention the name of this person again, but it is said that the person who shot Johannes van der Walt has now received a high post in the service. I want to ask the Minister to say what the position is, and I shall say why we think that he ought not to receive promotion. I do not want to say anything at this stage in regard to the shooting episode, and whether or not the authorities acted correctly. We discussed that during the previous Session, and the Minister knows what our feelings are. But there is a very strong feeling that because he shot Johannes van der Walt, this person has now received promotion, and this involuntarily creates the impression that not only is that act approved of, but that the perpetrator is being rewarded. I do not know what the position is, but I should like to know what rank this individual occupied at that time and what his present rank is.

I want to raise a matter in regard to the policing of Durban. Apart from the fact that as a result of the war this matter has become more serious indeed; we have numbers of soldiers coming to the Port, and although in that respect a certain measure of relief has been afforded by the military people themselves supplying their own personnel, one must not lose sight of the fact that in consequence of the blackout things have been made doubly difficult. I do want to point out to the Minister what the position is. May I take as a classic example my own constituency, and in taking my own constituency I have no reason to believe that the conditions prevailing there are different from those prevailing in other parts of Durban. In the Point constituency we have something like thirty licensed victuallers. In fact there are more. In a Port town, with many ships coming in, we have merchant personnel, numerous problems arise, some as a result of the consumption of liquor. Then, we also have important traffic problems—large numbers of people go down to the beach and there is too the commercial channels, and additional responsibilities are placed on the police so far as accidents are concerned. Then there is another factor, and that is in regard to the restricted hours of sale of liquor in licensed premises. While I have every sympathy with the licensed victualler and I think the licensed victuallers are justified in taking the steps which they have taken in dealing with this difficult problem, but as a result of these restricted hours people who want liquor are driven underground into underground channels such as shebeens. I know the police have made a vigorous attempt to clear up the shebeens, but it is not an easy problem to cope with, and we know that undesirable elements will come along and open up illicit drinking places. There are also some five native togt barracks and compounds in this area too. With all these additional problems the personnel is approximately eleven for night duty, day duty, investigation work and not forgetting attendance at court. We have to bear in mind the fact that on account of the remuneration paid to members of the police force—a matter which I don’t want to go into at this stage—the number of recruits coming forward is not as large as one might wish for, but I do put it to the Minister that as the Government has decided to take on personnel from the military authorities, that is from those people stationed in sub-dispersal stations, it might be well if the Minister would make a statement to indicate the extent to which the Department has been able to overcome its difficulties and to carry out the policy laid down by it some time ago.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has said with reference to the police officials who are transferred here for the Parliamentary Session. I raised this matter last year with the Commissioner of Police, and pointed out the rnfairness of bringing some of these officials from the platteland, where the cost of living is cheaper, to Cape Town. They frequently have to leave their families behind, and pay high boarding charges here. The commissioner then said that if such an official hands in a receipt in respect of the boarding which he paid in Cape Town and the boarding which he paid in his home town, the difference would be refunded. I do not know whether that is done. The previous speaker said that they are supposed to be transferred temporarily. It is very unfair to catch them in this way. It is completely to their disadvantage. The salary of a policeman is not very high, and I think they ought not to be treated in this manner. As far as the recruitment of policemen is concerned, I want to point out that during the first year of the war 1,400 men were sent to the war zone, and our police force was therefore reduced by 1,400. That loss has not been made good. The recruitment did not keep pace with that at all. According to last year’s police report 141 passed the test, but at the same time the report says that no men would be recruited during that year, because they did not have the staff to train them. Consequently there is a great shortage of policemen. In actual fact, the force ought to be stronger during war time, but we now find that 141 passed the test during the past year, while the following left the service: Owing to expiry of their period of service: 89 Europeans, 47 coloureds; bought their discharge: 23 Europeans, 149 non-Europeans; became medically unfit: 79 Europeans, 49 non-Europeans; retired on pension: 98 and 36 respectively; became unfit for duty: 83 and 104; dismissed: 10 and 22; died: 56 and 38, or a joint total of 903 who left the service under ordinary circumstances, while the complementary appointments amounted to only 141. Hence the complaints that there are not enough policemen. Hence also the complaint amongst the police that they cannot obtain leave. Some officials have an accumulated leave of a few years to their credit, which they cannot obtain. I think that it is definitely necessary under these dislocated conditions in which we live, that the Minister should keep the police force at full strength. The report says that they do their work excellently. Of course, civilian forces are also used, but I just want to tell the Minister that those members of the civilian force cannot do the work of trained policemen. For that reason the training must not be reduced, but should be continued so that the police force can remain at good strength. The former Commissioner of Police and also the present head, are proud of their force, and they say that it is as good as any police force in the world, but if the force is not continually supplemented, the position will later become untenable. Then reference is also made in the report to the horses of the police force. At present they have 1,282 horses, small and big, but during the past year five stallions were hired—from whom? Then, too, a large number of mares was hired, namely 395. What is the position in connection with the breeding of horses? I do not think that it would be wrong for the Government to breed horses for police purposes, because what happens today is that speculators buy horses from the farmers at a small price, and sell them to the Government at a big price. There are, of course, also donkeys and camels, which are used by the police force. I should like the Minister to give us details in regard to this. The record of the police is excellent, because according to the report 91 per cent. of the serious cases which were reported were solved and brought before the court. That is a fine record. I should like to have a statement from the Minister in regard to the system of recruitment.

After many years of agitation, the Department has agreed partially to abandon horses and to replace them by mechanical vehicles. When that happened, motor cars were provided in certain privileged areas, and in the unprivileged areas, motor cycles were provided. Now I want to ask whether the Department has ever given thought to the difficulties experienced by people who have to use motor cycles in these areas, especially in the Nort-West. In big territories one finds poor roads which are very corrugated. One can hardly travel over them with a motor car, and now they are providing motor cycles to the police. It ruins their health. Will the hon. Minister not consider the question, where motor cycles have been given, of replacing them as soon as possible by motor cars? That will be appreciated very much. But the motor cycle has yet another disadvantage. On the platteland one finds very few people who have motor cycles. There are areas where only the police have motor cycles. One can hear a motor cycle approach at a distance of 6 or 9 miles, and the police are therefore only warning persons who may want to commit theft. One often hears the native labourers talk about the motor cycle which they heard approaching. This is a hopelessly ineffective means of transport, also from that point of view. Another point in regard to which I want to say just a few words, is that not only in the cities but also in the towns, the number of thefts has increased considerably. Nearly every day one sees reports in the newspapers of big thefts. One is surprised to see that a sum of £12,000 is stolen from the Railways, for example, and how other large sums disappear. I ascribe it to the fact that the police force is hopelessly understaffed. But I also want to draw attention to the danger which we have created with regard the farming community. The Minister will in the near future receive a strong deputation from the farmers of South Africa in order to bring to his notice the fact that not hundreds but thousands of sheep are stolen every year. This happens on an extensive scale. We have members of Parliament here who have lost 200 and 300 sheep within one week, and one cannot trace the thieves. The difficulty is that the one or two policemen in town cannot control the district. The policeman goes to a certain place and then the coloured people think that for a few weeks they will be safe, and that they can make a little beer, but it does not remain at brewing beer. The number of thefts has increased enormously, and the farmers are suffering great losses. There are some farmers who have kept an account of their losses, and there are farmers who say that they have lost from 8,000 to 10,000 sheep in the past 25 years. New the police force has been further reduced by the fact that a large number has joined the army. There is a large number of soldiers who have returned, who no longer want to fight, and who would like to leave the service. Will the Minister not appoint them? They are drawing salaries. Let them be used in the police force. The conditions are abnormal and the number of thefts great, and something should be done to put a stop to it.

The position in Durban is, as the hon. member for Durban, Point (Dr. Shearer) has explained, and the position is as he has stated, quite understandable for the reasons he has given. The position is undoubtedly very serious but it is particularly serious in one area where conditions obtain, described by people living in Durban, as almost amounting to a state of terrorism. I am referring to the district known as Stella Bush. There have been a number of crimes committed with which the public have become familiar through the medium of the Press. One particularly glaring case of murder was that of a member of the Durban Broadcasting Studio; but there are a number of lesser crimes—assaults, burglaries and so on—which do not even come to the notice of the police authorities, because the victims do not consider it worth while reporting them. They know that on account of the shortage of personnel the police find it hardly possible to cope with the position. One of the main reasons why crime is so prolific in this area is the existence of this very substantial bush area in which natives of the criminal type are able to hide. There have been instances of residents round and about that area having been attacked in broad daylight, and at night, of course, the position is still worse. I am assured that there are cases of womenfolk, who have not the protection of men in their homes—the men being away on active service—who are afraid to walk from their house to the garage for fear of being assaulted. These are representations which have been made to me. I don’t want to paint a picture of too alarming a nature, but the position in this area is nothing short than one of terrorism, and the residents live in fear, both of life and loss of property. Now the police facilities which are available in this area are, of course, precisely those used elsewhere, and I am told that the police van for an area of this character is quite unsatisfactory. It has been suggested that a far more satisfactory means of dealing with the people who haunt this bush area would be to have a few mounted police who would be able to arrive at the scene of a crime very quickly and deal with it expeditiously. I ask the Minister if he will apply his mind to the particular circumstances of this area where he will find, I am satisfied, upon investigation, a case that calls for immediate and drastic handling.

There is obviously a very easy solution to the difficulty which was raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen). He spoke of the motor cycles.

Let the Minister speak for himself.

Are you the Minister?

Sit down, man.

We should like to have those motor cycles. I want to suggest that the Minister should take those motor cycles away from Victoria West, and give them to the Ermelo district.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) that as far as leave is concerned my information is that they have not been recalled, except perhaps where a man has gone on leave, and where he had to give evidence in a case, without notifying the Police Department. But I shall be glad if the hon. member will later give me information on that point. I shall be pleased if he will submit specific cases to me. With regard to the policemen who are stationed here, my information is that in the case of married men, they receive the special allowance. The unmarried men are brought here and housed here, but they do not incur abnormal expenses.

But what about the regulations? The regulations say that they must get 2s. 6d. and they do not get it?

I shall go into that.

That is surely not necessary, the regulations are clear.

The hon. member has not given me notice of this.

Must we then prepare your speech for you?

Well, I have already said that the married men get the special allowance.

I can assure you that there are married men who have not received the allowance.

I shall go into it. They are entitled to the allowance when they are married.

Also if they are unmarried. You admit now that they are entitled to the allowance.

When they are married they are entitled to the allowance.

They are entitled to it, married or unmarried. When they are married they are transferred, however.

That is usually done.

Will you make it of retrospective effect if you find that the allowance has not been paid to them?

I shall go into the matter.

Why must you go into it; surely the regulations are clear?

Prima facie, I would say that they are entitled to it. With regard to the point which has been raised by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop), the Fourie to whom he referred, was not promoted. He did not receive any special promotion. I do not know where that story comes from. With regard to the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), as he knows, it is very difficult to obtain mechanised vehicles today. With regard to the question which was raised by the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard) I just want to say that a very good type of horse is bred on the farm. I shall give him the details later on.

I said, in fact, that that was the right thing.

And it may be necessary in certain areas to go back to horses where mechanised transport is difficult.

I may inform my hon. friend that as far as Durban is concerned, the crime position is very much improved. The police have taken drastic action with very beneficial results. As far as the special locality to which he has referred is concerned, I may state that this is periodically raided, and C.P.S. units are stationed there. Naturally, we are faced with the black-out, and we are also faced with the shebeen evil in Durban. I think the shebeen evil in Durban may largely be attributed to the early closing of bars. It follows that if you close your bars at 8 o’clock while people are still about who want drink, they are going to get it, they are going to pay abnormal prices for it. The police are doing everything in their power to deal with the shebeen evil, and to a large extent they have been successful. The police force has recently been very much strengthened in Durban, but with regard to recruiting, special provision is being made to obtain recruits from the army. We have not succeeded in obtaining anywhere near the quota we desire, but that is entirely due to military exigencies. As soon as the military can see their way clear to release the men, they will be absorbed in the police force. Quite recently 150 men returned from the North who have been absorbed in the police force. If we take the extra men we have recruited, and the men who have returned from the North, there is not a very great shortage. As far as the tracking down of criminals is concerned, we hold a unique record in this country, showing that our force is extremely efficient. I am most anxious that the police force should be recruited from the army with men who have passed the test.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 44.—“Native Affairs”, £850,000,

With your leave I should like to avail myself of the half-hour rule. I shall want to speak a little longer than ten minutes. We want to express the hope that this Minister who is a new Minister in the Department of Native Affairs, will also have the characteristics of a new broom, and that he will make a point of sweeping clean. But we also trust that he will be better than a new broom, in that he will continue to sweep clean. He has made a good start. We have read his speeches in the newspapers and in Another Place, and he announced a policy with regard to segregation, which nearly agrees with the policy of this side of the House. There are quite a few points with regard to the policy of the Government which deserve attention. These are abnormal times, and there is perhaps no aspect of national life which is so hit by a war as the natives themselves, because they number millions and there are many more natives than Europeans. They are particularly hit, and for that reason particular attention must be given to the natives as such. There are a few other aspects of his matter to which I want to refer. In the first place the Minister may perhaps be able to tell us to what extent he is going to make provision to accommodate the large number of natives who will be unemployed after the war. I raise this here because, as I have said, the war has created unusually abnormal circumstances for the natives. A large number of natives is affected by the war; a large number has been drawn by war circumstances into European areas. Many of them have, of course, joined the army. A large number of them, even from the native territories, has joined the army, perhaps not on such a large scale as one might have expected, because I was present on one occasion in Zululand when the Government even went so far as to slaughter a beast and only one recruit was enlisted.

That was poor business.

It was poor business from the Government’s point of view. But quite a number of natives from other territories did enlist. What I want to ask the Minister is this: What provision is being made to accommodate those natives after the war? I want to ask the Minister whether provision will be made for them to go back to their territories. Here we have a serious problem. Numbers of natives have come to European areas—whether they have come to do war work or whether they have come to fill the places of coloureds and others who joined the army. Here we have such a great problem that I think the Minister will have to take special steps to deal with it. I should like him to tell us to-day what the policy of the Government is in connection with the natives, and, in the first instance, I want to content myself by putting this question to him: Will those natives, who are affected by the war, who have come to European areas in the cities as a result of war circumstances—will employment be found for them in the European areas or will they be sent back to the areas from which they came, when the war is over?

Are you referring now to the returned soldiers or to the people who come here to seek employment?

I refer to both. In a moment I should like to say a little more in regard to the natives who come here to seek work. The other question is this: What is the policy of the Government in connection with the provision of land to natives? Has the matter come to a stop or is land still being bought for the natives? My next question is this: In view of the fact that quite a number of natives has left, why is it that there is an increase of nearly £250,000 this year in so far as wages and salaries are concerned? The other question I want to raise is in connection with the natives in the surrounding British territories. The question which I want to put to the Minister is what the policy of the Government is. Has the Government ceased to make efforts to have these native territories incorporated into the Union? I refer to Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland. Then I want to ask the Minister whether he has ever thought of approaching the British Government in connection with what I can only describe as the penetration of Asiatics in Basutoland? This is a matter which the natives have brought to my personal notice. I should like to say a word or two in regard to this. It cannot escape the notice of anyone who visits that territory that in the business sphere, the Asiatics are penetrating into Basutoland on a surprisingly large scale. I do not know what the figures are; the figures are not obtainable, but I hope that the Minister will give his attention to this matter if it is intended—and I hope that will take place soon—to incorporate those territories into the Union of South Africa. We do not want to inherit a Basutoland which has been occupied by Asiatics in the commercial sphere, and I should like the Minister to make representations to the British Government to give serious attention to this matter. I do not know if the British Government is aware of the fact that there is a penetration of Asiatic traders into Basutoland, in the cunning way in which only the Asiatic traders can do it, a penetration which is definitely causing unrest in the minds of the natives. Then I come to the most important matter, and that is the penetration of natives in the urban areas. This is a matter in respect of which I want to level an accusation against the Minister. I think he and his Department have not done enough to give attention to this circumstance which has been caused by the war. I want to make this accusation, that a Government and a department which allow natives to flood the cities, as the natives have done during the past month in our urban areas, cannot say that they have done their duty. It is not for the Government to tell us that it has done its best and that the municipality does not want to co-operate. The position in the Cape Peninsula is more acute than in other areas, but there is also penetration into other urban areas. The figures in regard to the penetration are not known. Natives enter the Cape Peninsula on a scale of which even the Minister is not aware, because the figures are not known; because we cannot obtain the figures. Many natives come as far as Parow, Bellville or the Cape Flats; they come by train as far as those places and then they disappear like scarlet pimpernels, like mist before the morning sun. The people in the Cape Flats say that there are more natives here than the Government imagines. I predict that with this stupid black-out which we have we are still going to create a “university of crime” in the Cape Peninsula. These people enter the city, and we have a Municipality which does not want to take any steps in the matter, a Municipality which is so pro-native that it does not want to lift a finger to assist us in taking a thorough census of natives. I want to ask the Minister whether he can give us the figures to show how many natives have penetrated into the Cape Peninsula during the past six months. When one moves amongst the police and talks to them—we are on friendly terms with the police—one gains the impression that the position is critical, that it cannot be more critical. The next question which I want to raise is what the Minister intends doing with these people. The coloured people have gone to the war on a large scale; the natives have come here. In those days when the coloured person could still hold his own the native was already ousting him in certain spheres. Even in those days the native ousted him in the building trade, in the sphere of milk delivery and at the petrol stations. In those days the coloured person could still hold his own. Now the coloured people have left. When they return at some future date, what is the Minister going to do with this large number of natives? What is the Minister going to do with those many natives who are still able in some manner or other to obtain work because there is a scarcity of labour? It is true that the natives who come from those territories are able to live on very little, but they are becoming a burden and will become an even greater burden to the State when the war is over, and when they have nothing to fall back on. I want to accuse the Minister of not yet having done anything tangible. It is true that he has not occupied that portfolio for a long time, but by this time he could have done something. I make that charge. I think that any Minister who has been in that Department for a month ought to have done something. I do not want to accuse his officials; I take it they are doing their best. But I say that during this Session already we should have amended the Native Urban Areas Act, so as to give us right to compel the municipalities. The Minister should have taken that power unto himself, and I think it was neglect of duty on his part not to do so, and today he is saddled with this difficulty and the municipalities do not want to assist him. I want to suggest this to the Minister: Let us make some sort of plan now; let us draw a cordon round the city. These natives create a problem which is almost insoluble. One native tells the other that there is work in the cities, and one by one they drift to the cities. In those days when we still had a permit system, things went fairly smoothly. This side of the House insisted that we should tighten up the regulations, so that the police could accost the natives and ask for their permits. Now the Minister’s predecessor has come along and thrown cold water on the system. I want to ask the Minister whether he is following the policy of his predecessor in this connection or whether he is again tightening up the regulations?

Are you talking about the pass laws?

Yes. In the South people do not like referring to the pass laws; they prefer to talk of the permit system, and I shall also refer therefore to the permit system. The Act gives the Minister power to tighten up the regulations in the case of the pass laws or the permit system, and I think the whole country will be grateful to the Minister if he gets up and makes a statement that he will take this matter in hand, that he will put a stop to this influx of natives to the cities, whether it be in Johannesburg, Cape Town or Port Elizabeth. Then just one other question and that is in connection with the recruitment of natives. Will the Minister tell us to what extent the mines are still carrying on with the recruitment of natives. Some time ago they had more or less stopped recruiting. The question is whether they are again carrying on with the recruitment of natives in the territories. My reason for asking that is this: If it is found that a number of natives has penetrated into the cities without finding employment, cannot those natives be used by the mines instead of continuing to recruit natives from the territories? We know that when these people obtain a permit to work in the mines, they can only work there for a certain period and then they have to return to the territories. If an investigation is made and it is found in the Cape Peninsula, for example, that there are 5,000 who ought not to be there, cannot the Minister then make some plan to have those natives absorbed by the mines, instead of aggravating this influx to the cities?

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) in all of what he has said, but what I am going to say this afternoon will, I think, incidentally provide an answer to what he has said, particularly in connection with the influx of rural natives to urban areas. The hon. member spoke about that particular problem as though it were one which could be dealt with with a stroke of the pen. It is a reflection of the results of the existing native policy of this country and has deep underlying causes which that policy has stimulated, as I shall hope to show. Mr. Chairman, a few months ago a report was presented upon the social and economic conditions of natives in urban areas. That was the report of a very strong Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Native Affairs. It contained very many valuable recommendations as to how the appalling conditions of poverty in the urban areas could be alleviated. Some of these recommendations, I am glad to note, have been adopted by the Government, and I think the great majority of them should be so adopted. The committee was prevented by its terms of reference from drawing attention to the fundamentals of the problem presented by urban native population. One of the fundamental facts of the situation is one which the hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to, and that is the continual movement of casual native workers from the countryside to the urban areas. Now the distribution of the native population of this country is this. About 15 per cent. only have their homes in urban areas; 30 per cent. are on European farms, and the balance of 65 per cent. are in the native reserves.

That excludes Basutoland and Swaziland.

I am talking now of the Union population. The policy of segregation which found expression in the legislation of 1936 and 1937 sought to stabilise that position through the purchase of more land in the rural areas, and the prevention of movement into the urban areas by administrative means. That policy has broken down, a fact to which we have time and again drawn the attention of the House. It was bound to break down for the following reasons. The numbers of the permanent native urban population were not sufficient to satisfy the labour requirements of the urban areas. The land which it is proposed to purchase, even if it was all purchased, would not be sufficient to stabilise the rural population, and with regard to the European farming position the fact must be faced, as was pointed out by the Secretary for Native Affairs, in the White Paper which he has issued, that rightly or wrongly the view of the vast majority of the native people is that urban industry offers far better material conditions than does rural employment on farms. On account of these three factors, on account of there being not sufficient of a constructive agricultural policy to maintain the native people in the Reserves, on account of there being no attempt to control the European farming conditions and ways in such a way as to enable the European farmers to compete with industry in respect of employment conditions—I have put forward the view in this House that if necessary farm wages should be subsidised—but due to the fact that there was no provision for counteracting these factors, the policy in respect of lessening the influx of native people into towns has broken down and such influx has been actually stimualted. More particularly since the war there has been a very considerable industrial expansion in this country, particularly, in the Cape, as the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) referred to.

What do you suggest?

What I do suggest is in the first place this: This is a reflection of a perfectly natural tendency. With the industrialisation of the country, people are bound to move towards urban areas. That has already happened with the European people.

It is much more than that.

Over 60 per cent. of the European population are now in the towns.

Over a long period.

With regard to the native people under 20 per cent. are permanently in the towns—less than 20 per cent. And this process reflects an economic tendency caused by expanding industry and I want to put it to the Minister, and against what the hon. member for Moorreesburg has suggested, that this cannot be dealt with by restrictive administrative means such as he suggested. He did not suggest how the labour requirements were to be met. He simply said: “Keep them out and see that the Municipality help you to do so.” This problem cannot be dealt with by these means. As a matter of fact it has been an utter failure. In 1939 the then Minister of Native Affairs promulgated a proclamation which purported to stop African workers entering the Cape Town Municipal area unless they were specially permitted to do so. The influx since 1939 has increased to a tremendous extent and it has increased because the labour of the people concerned was needed here. That was the reason for it, and that proclamation has not had the effect it was supposed to have. I attacked it at the time and I said it would not have that effect—I said the only effect it could have was to cause a great deal of personal injustice. A native who comes here, having paid a railway fare for a long journey, and wants to get a job, is given a little note ordering him to leave the Municipal area within three days. It has had the effect of causing injustice and it has had the effect of driving thousands of native people into the peri-urban areas, into the Cape Flats, and I say that the three years experience of the working of Proclamation No. 105 of 1939, illustrates, as nothing else I know of, the futility of attempting to dam up economic forces with administrative machinery. That attempt has failed. I want to put this to the Minister. I know he has been studying the subject. He knows the appalling conditions which have grown up in the periurban areas of Cape Town, and these conditions can be matched in other parts of South Africa too. On the other hand, people living under those conditions are employed here. Their labour is needed and they cannot simply be turned away. In any case it is economic pressure which has brought them here. Every administrative step in a restrictive sense which has been taken to deal with this problem has increased the gravity of the situation.

The pass system has never been properly applied.

I must say this to the Minister—there is no quick or easy way out of the situation, there is no short cut towards the solution of this problem. We are in a difficult transition stage and it has to be dealt with with patience.

What do you say about the application of the pass system?

A member of the Minister’s Department reported two years ago on the situation in and around Cape Town. It was a good report and many of the recommendations are good recommendations, but something more is required. We have to see if we cannot treat the urban problem in a different way, we have to study the reactions of rural conditions on the urban situation. The reason why there is this influx is that there are thousands and thousands in the Reserves—I would almost say millions—who cannot make a living there. And the urban population is insufficient to meet the ordinary industrial labour requirements. Now, that is the situation with which we are faced, and I want to suggest that this situation can only be dealt with on a long term basis, it can only be dealt with by a policy which is purposefully directed to changing the casual labour basis on which South Africa’s industry has grown up, and is growing up. What does the present policy amount to? It amounts to this, as many families in the rural areas are to have land as there is land for. That leads—on the basis of the natives’ present methods of agriculture—to an uneconomic sub-division of land. It throws the entire population of these lands into dependence on outside employment. The heads of the families drift to the towns for a limited period to earn wages, and then they go back again. That policy prevents the growth of a permanent native urban working class and it prevents also the growth of a stabilised self sufficient peasant population in the Reserves. I am not concerned with blaming individuals or with blaming the Minister. This is a historical growth which has grown up over generations. What I do want to suggest is that the ultimate solution of native urban and rural poverty lies in the reshaping of policy in the following directions—at establishing as many as possible of the native people of the Reserves and of other native areas on a self sufficient peasant farming basis. Those who cannot become farmers through inaptitude or shortage of land should be encouraged to form permanent connections in the urban areas, because one fact which no one can get away from is that it is absolutely necessary, having regard to the conditions under which industry has grown up, to have a native urban working class, and if the growth of it is to be encouraged, as it should be, then I say that that class requires the same kind of conditions with regard to social services, wage conditions, and, most important of all from my point of view, property rights, as do the workers of any other sections of the community. Let me say a word again about the rural side. The maximum amount, of land which a native peasant seems to be allowed to hold is 5 morgen. In some areas like the Ciskei it is less. Where there is irrigated land it is naturally less. Now, in the case of Taungs where there is a native irrigation scheme the Department appears, from what I can gather, to be doing precisely the sort of thing which I mean when I say that the policy should be reshaped. They lay it down that they want to establish people there as independent peasants. I know that there are special advantages in the case of Taungs—there is the irrigation scheme. They allot to each native plotholder 2 morgen of land and according to the White Paper of the Department they say that they hope in time to stimulate agricultural production to the point that 25 bags of maize and 25 bags of wheat per morgen will be produced at Taungs. That they regard as sufficient to establish a man as an independent peasant farmer. Now I know that these are favourable conditions. The Department there wants to stimulate the growth of an independent native community. Now I say that that is a policy which should be encouraged throughout. That is what I mean when I talk of the reorientation of the policy. In other areas, naturally, under dry land conditions, very much more land would be required. I feel it is much more important to have in any particular district a minority of independent and progressive native peasant farmers than it is for everyone to have land and for no one to be able to make a living on the land. And that is the point which I want to emphasise. Of course, there will not be enough land for everyone; there is not enough land for every European. Not every. European wants to be a farmer, but even for those who do want to be farmers assistance is available in regard to the land required. The same should apply to native farmers. And in regard to the balance of them, if they have to go into outside employment through land shortage or other factors, they should be encouraged to go into it permanently. In regard to those in the urban areas, it is not sufficient simply to build locations for them. Of course it is necessary to have housing schemes for the native people as for any other section of the community. But there is power under the present Native Urban Areas Act to permit natives to purchase land and to build their own homes. That power is not used enough, and if it were used more it would be an inducement for the natives to establish permanent homes in the urban areas. I feel in demarcated areas that these places should be established. Sub-economic loans should be made available to enable local authorities to sell these housing plots to native families who wish to settle in the urban areas. And it is only along these lines that the difficulties with which the Minister is now confronted can be overcome. The transition period of thousands of people constantly moving between town and country is responsible for the deterioration of the native reserves and it aggravates the conditions of deterioration which are developing. And it also robs industry of efficient and of sufficient labour. Dr. van der Bijl of Iscor has seen that. He is establishing this large village scheme at Vereeniging where his workers can live with their families as their permanent home. He is establishing it in pursuance of a deliberate policy because his experience has shown him that casual labour is not a suitable basis for industrialisation. And the Government should learn from his experience. I know what I have proposed is not spectacular; it is not the sort of thing which would appeal to people like the hon. member for Moorreesburg, but it is a policy—it is the only policy—which is capable of providing a solution for these problems. In the meantime I want to put this to the Minister—that very much more pressure should be put on local authorities, more particularly in the case of the City Council of Cape Town, to provide housing for native people. I doubt if it is an exaggeration to say that there is not housing for one-fifth of the native people in the Cape Peninsula and the adjoining peri-urban areas. And that is a contributory reason for the growing up of these temporary dwellings on the Cape Flats. Section 5 of the Native Urban Areas Act empowers the Government to proclaim segregation in any particular urban area. A proclamation was issued in Cape Town under that section many years ago, at a time when the housing position was perhaps not so acute. Under the existing system to talk about segregation is absolutely impossible because there is not accommodation for the vast mass of native people who come here to work, whose labour is required here, and who are here legitimately and are serving the country. It is to my mind a most appalling situation. The vast majority of the native population of the Cape are being forced to live under illegal conditions, and I do want to put this to the Minister, that where a local authority has not in fact provided accommodation, or set aside portions of its area, where native people can establish their own homes, where there is in fact not accommodation for the native population, he should de-proclaim these areas, or set a time limit for them to fulfil the fundamental conditions which Section 5 of the Natives Urban Areas Act envisages. You cannot have local segregation of this kind if there is nowhere where the vast bulk of the native population may legally live, and the vast majority of them have to live under these temporary and illegal conditions. I want to conclude by drawing attention once more to the fundamental facts of the situation, namely that the urban native population is not sufficient for the fulfilment of the labour requirements of the industries; that the industries draw on the rural areas. You get a constant state of influx. The remedy for that unsatisfactory situation is to carry out a policy in the reserves aiming at establishing an independent class of native peasants and to establish a permanent native working class in the towns.

I want to urge most strongly on the Minister in whose handling of the portfolio I have seen already a good deal to admire, that he will bring his gracious personality and influence to bear on his colleague, the Minister of Railways, with a view to alleviating the absolutely disgraceful conditions under which employees of the South African Railways and Harbours are housed, particularly in Durban, and more particularly again in the Bell Street Compound. I repeat the conditions under which the employees of the State who after all are human, even as we are, are required to live, are forced to live, are a disgrace to any civilisation. I am very glad to say that these points have been dealt with in the report of the Inter-departmental Committee on the social, health and economic conditions of urban natives. I just want to quote this, so that it goes on record. I say that something must be done, not as the Railways are apparently prepared to do departmentally, at their leisure, but something must be done at once. The statement to which I wish to refer is this—

I merely endorse this and then I shall sit down. It is a place which I know, and I am perfectly sure that the Minister, if he had the time to go and see that place, would agree to what I am asking, namely that decent conditions are provided for the non-European and native employees of the South African Railways and Harbours in Durban.

On a previous occasion I brought to the notice of the Minister of Native Affairs the fact that there was a very unsound influx of natives to the Western Province and particularly to the Cape Peninsula. On that occasion the Minister said that he was not aware of it. At that time I excused him on the ground that he had only recently taken over the portfolio, but I do not think that the Minister is still prepared to say that there is not an unsound influx of natives into the Western Province. I take it that he is now aware of the true state of affairs. In this connection it is noteworthy that after this position has existed in the Western Province for months, viz. this unsound influx of natives, the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) now brings this matter before the House for the first time.

I have spoken about it for years.

The hon. member spoke in regard to something quite different from the undesirable influx of natives. He has not referred to that in this House before today. I hope that it is very clear that in that respect the hon. member has neglected his duty. I want to say very clearly that we on this side are not opposed to the necessary labour force being brought to this area. But what we feel particularly is that those natives are allowed to come to the Western Province without proper control being exercised over them. The authorities allow two or three trains with natives to come here in a matter of fourteen days, and the natives are simply left at the station to find their own way. The natives who come here in this way create a big problem as far as housing is concerned, as has already been shown. Then I also want to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the wages which the natives receive are so high that they do not all work. When there is a family of six, three of them work for one or two days, and the rest then work the following few days, and so it goes on.

And then they start stealing.

We must bear in mind that when the reaction sets in we will have the state of affairs which was predicted by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). We expect the Minister to give his serious attention to this matter. We cannot allow the natives to come here without proper provision being made for them. They must not be allowed to wander about here. They will eventually become a danger to the community. We feel that the Minister and his Department should ensure that there is proper supervision over natives who come to the Western Province from other parts of the country. Conditions will not always remain as they are today in the Western Province. There will be a reaction and then we will find that the natives will oust the coloured people from employment, and that the coloured people, in their turn, will oust the Europeans. I say, therefore, that proper control must be exercised. Then I should also like to know what the policy of the Minister and the Government is in connection with segregation as far as natives are concerned. Does the Minister want to continue with the policy which has been laid down, or does he and the Government intend altering the policy? We are on the eve of an election, and we feel that we are entitled to know from the Minister what the policy of the Government is in connection with natives, generally speaking. Is the Minister going to apply the policy of segregation strictly and in a narrow sense, or is he going to be lax and give free rein to the natives? We know that when you apply measures affecting the Asiatics, as we saw the other day, then you affect the coloured people, and when you affect the coloured people, then you affect the natives, and vice versa. The spirit of solidarity exists today, and we should like to know what the policy of the Government is in connection with the segregation of natives.

Mr. Chairman, in the larger towns of the Transvaal, a considerable demand is arising for simple vocational training for natives, both men and women. Last year Johannesburg Municipality established classes for the training in cookery of native servants and the employers of the natives had to pay a small wage in order to enable their servants to attend those classes. I have a report before me by a reporter of the “Rand Daily Mail” who attended some of these classes as an observer, and he says—

These particular classes were simply cookery classes, but I would ask the Minister whether he has considered the advisability of establishing simple vocational training centres in the larger urban areas, so as to enable natives to get some form of training before they go into domestic service. It could take the form of cookery, gardening and matters of that nature, and it would, I am quite sure, bring better wages, better conditions of employment, and better security for the natives, and it would add very much to the convenience of their white employers. The report of the Inter-departmental Committee on the social and economic conditions of urban natives referred particularly to this question of vocational training for natives in urban areas, and in paragraph 19 of the report they say this, after referring to the way in which young natives simply run about the streets and do nothing; the report says—

And then it goes on to say that in addition to some primary schooling it is equally necessary that there should be simple types of vocational training with emphasis on discipline, fitness and employability for boys and domestic science for girls. Juvenile affairs boards, the committee think, should be created to help them into employment. I do not know whether the Department has considered the advisability of spending money and establishing centres of this nature in the urban areas, and. I feel sure that if the Minister would mark his tenure of office by doing something like that, he would confer a very considerable boon upon these natives as well as upon the white communities. I ask him to consider the matter and do something in that direction.

The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) has asked what I regard as a very pertinent question at this stage, and that is what is the policy of the Government in regard to the native population generally? I think the fact that the hon. member has asked that question is evidence that we have all reached the point when we realise that the policy hitherto pursued has not so far worked out as was expected, that there is urgent need for reviewing the whole situation and trying to see it in relation to the industrialisation of the country which is taking place. The cry in the House today is against what is called the unhealthy conditions under which the native population exists in the larger urban centres. I think there are circumstances in which we on these benches can find some common meeting ground with other sections of the House in this matter. We here are no more anxious to have an unhealthy streaming of our native population into urban centres than other hon. members are. We are no more pleased about the conditions under which a great proportion of our native population is living in urban centres today, than they are. Where we part company, though I hope not permanently, is on the means of counteracting the present unhealthy state of affairs. We on these benches do not favour the idea that the native population shall have no permanent home in the town. The Opposition on the other hand insist, on this principle while at the same time providing only a limited foundation for the native population in the rural areas where they are expected to make their permanent homes. That foundation is indeed so limited, in our contention, that it makes it completely impossible for the native population to maintain itself in the rural areas from year to year without the urgent and increasing necessity for the men of the rural population to go into the towns to earn a livelihood. Now like the hon. member for Malmesbury I want the hon. Minister to tell us what the policy is going to be in respect of these circumstances although, I know that it is not fair to do more than ask the present Minister to consider the matter with a view to providing us with a reply sometime later.

Why?

Because I do not think he is yet in a position to give a final answer on this matter. But I hope sincerely that he will give it his consideration, that he will consider all the facts of the case and try and give his answer in the near future.

Must he wait for the Election?

I am not thinking of the Election. I am in the fortunate position that I do not need to think in terms of an Election.

But he is.

For myself this is not a matter of election propaganda. It goes far beyond any question of that limited kind. The last report of the Native Affairs Commission included what purported to be considered statements on what the members of that Commission considered visualised as the future of the native population in this country. One of those statements said categorically that the native areas should never be expected to carry even their present population without the men of that population going out at intervals to work in industry in the towns. It stated that it would require a complete change in the economic charcter of this country if we were to envisage a native population which, on the one hand would be a permanent rural population, and on the other a permanent town population. Now we have never heard what the Government thinks about that particular conception of the future of our native population. The Government has never said whether it also visualise the native reserves as merely the home, the foothold of the labouring population which will subsidise industry; or whether it envisages the possibility of building up a stable native population in the Reserves and a specific urban population which will serve the needs of industry. I contend that this House has never really made up its mind what it does mean by segregation. There is a great deal of confusion in that matter; the House is still not certain whether it means a population which will have a home in the country and go backwards and forwards to the towns, or whether it means a population which will partly live in separate rural areas and partly in separate urban areas. I do not believe hon. members on the Opposition side have made up their minds what this segregation policy really means, whether it means that the native population shaall have no stake in the country except in the areas scheduled or released under the Land Act, or whether it includes a native population which will belong to the town but will live in separate areas in the town. I do not think they have made up their minds as to what segregation really means, and I think if we could get a clarification of ideas on that point we should be taking an important step forward.

Our policy has been explained from time to time.

I know that, but I do not think the party has re-considered this question in the light of changing circumstances. In the last ten years, the whole character of the problem has changed, and we have an urban problem today that one never visualised when the country began to think in terms of what it calls a segregation policy. We have got to face this question of what we are going to do, whether we are going to have an industry built upon the basis of a temporary labouring class going to and fro from the rural to the urban areas, or on the basis of a permanent native labouring class which will live in the towns. We do not know what this segregation policy is going to mean or what it is not going to mean. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has told the House today that the Urban Areas Act contemplated the provision of separate residential areas for the native population, and that while the Act has been applied, the provision of the necessary accommodation has not been forthcoming to provide this separate basis and is not going to be forthcoming on the basis of what the Municipalities are doing. We must face the lamentable conditions which we all deplore, conditions which are growing up on the outskirts of all the large towns like Cape Town and Johannesburg and the other big centres in the country today; but these conditions must be faced by the country as a whole, since they are the natural result of a policy which keeps the native population in a constant state of flux between town and country and are likely to continue if that policy continues. Has the Government or the country calculated the social penalty that will have to be paid for that process of flux, a penalty foreshadowed in the horrible townships we see surrounding the large urban centres today? There exist social conditions which are contaminating the very roots of the life of the native population. How can we hope to build up and maintain a decent native population under conditions where their menfolk are away from their homes one year in two throughout the whole of their lives? How can one expect the rising generation of natives to grow up with any respect for society when the only control in the reserve is by the old men and the women. Where families are divided in this way, the children grow up without that parental discipline which is essential to social stability. Here, I think, is a fundamental problem to be faced in this country. [Time limit.]

I think the hon. member who has just sat down (Mrs. Ballinger) has not acquainted herself fully with the policy which this side of the House adopts in connection with the natives. I think that is quite clear. What is not clear is the policy of the Government in connection with the natives. This side of the House has put its policy clearly. We are not in favour of detribalising the native. As far as possible his tribal relationship must be maintained; But where native labour is required in European areas, the natives must be kept under strict supervision. In the third place, we are in favour of the application of the pass system. We want to use the permit system to control the movements of natives. That, in a few words, is the reply to the question of the hon. member. With reference to what I said just now, I should like to put a question to the Minister. I think he owes a statement to the country as to whether the policy of the Government is that which was recently announced by one of his chief officials. If the Press reported it correctly, he is in favour of relaxing the colour bar to some extent. I do not want to do that chief official an injustice, but that is the impression which the Press report gave one. The Minister works in close collaboration with his Department, and it is essential and important that he should tell us what the Government’s policy is in connection with the colour bar. Is he in favour of maintaing it, as is this side of the House? The unfortunate part of it is that we are dealing here with a dual policy as far as the Government is concerned. We have on the one hand the Prime Minister and especially the Minister of Finance, and they are liberal. The latter is very liberal; it is put on with a thick brush. When one listens to the Minister of Native Affairs and his statement in Another Place, however, it would seem that he has both feet planted on this side of the House, as far as segregation is concerned. We should like to know what the policy of the Government is in connection with native affairs. Is it the liberal policy of the Minister of Finance, or is it more or less the policy which was announced by the Minister of Native Affairs in the Other Place? I hope that it will be in the direction of the Minister’s announcement in the Other Place. Since the outbreak of the war there has been a blatant disregard of the existing laws in connection with the control over the movements of natives. One finds, for example, that natives congregate around Pretoria, and that hundreds of them congregate here under the trees in the Flats. They are very susceptible to the doctrine of Communism, and the danger is perhaps bigger than the Government realises today. But I also want to point out the economic difficulties which are going to be created. Under the previous Minister of Native Affairs, there was definitely a slackening of the permit system and the pass laws. We are in this unfortunate position that unfortunately the Government was not inclined to apply the legislation in connection with natives in urban areas stringently enough to compel the town councils to observe the pass laws. Today the position is more or less this, that any native who behaves reasonably well can go to the Native Commissioner and obtain a permit which exempts him from the pass laws. That was introduced by a special proclamation by the previous Minister, and as far as our information goes, between 12,000 and 13,000 permits have already been issued. When a native of good behaviour goes to the Commissioner, then the Commissioner is apparently compelled, practically, to grant him exemption from the necessity of carrying a pass. The previous Minister introduced that provision. He was one of the liberal persons in the Cabinet. Now the native is allowed to go where he pleases. Unfortunately we have this position in the Transvaal that the natives have to carry a pass. When they come to an urban area the police may ask them for their passes. But what happens today? Around Pretoria we find small towns inhabited by natives who work in Pretoria. They need not carry a pass, because they live just outside. What is the Minister going to do to combat these abnormal conditions? We are entitled to hear that. Is he going to enforce the pass laws? I again want to refer to the Cape Peninsula in order to emphasise what we are asking. In the Cape we unfortunately have this position that a native need not carry a pass. In fact, he does not want to have anything to do with a pass, but he has to have a permit to live in the urban area. But under the trees in the Flats there are hundreds—some people say thousands—who have no passes, owing to the lax municipality which we have here. I understand that the last census was taken by the municipality in 1938. I believe that figures are again available, but where they come from I do not know. It seems to be quite impossible to furnish figures, because there is no proper control, and there has been no census. The natives live outside the urban area, and they get there without a pass and remain there without a pass. In any event, under Proclamation No. 186 of 1940, the permit system in respect of the urban area of Cape Town was so relaxed by the previous Minister, that the police actually hesitate to ask a native for his pass. When they ask the natives for their passes, one would say that he has obtained exemption from the Commissioner of Native Affairs, that he got exemption on the strength of good character; the second native would say that his pass is at home, that he has forgotten it. He may live in Simonstown or in some other place, and the police have to go there together with the native, and they may have to give a hand in searching for the permit in the pondok. The position is quite unsatisfactory, and the laws are blatantly neglected. I want to tell the Minister that it is essential to tighten up the execution of the pass laws in the urban areas. He should withdraw the proclamation which gives the Commissioner the right to grant exemption to large numbers of natives of good character from the necessity of carrying a pass; otherwise the position will get out of hand altogether, as is the case today. Then he should take steps in connection with the large numbers of natives who come as far as Parow and Bellville, who leave the train there and then disappear like mist before the morning sun; tomorrow or the next day they are found in the city as milk boys, or at the petrol stations, or in the building industry, and they oust the coloured people more and more. When the coloured people return from the war, the natives will have all the work. The policy which is being followed is a stupid and shortsighted policy; it is not a policy at all. I hope that it is not only the approaching election which has persuaded the Minister to veer round a little in the direction of segregation, but I want to tell him that lip service to segregation means nothing. It is no use talking about it while these conditions continue to exist, and the pass laws are not carried out. The Minister must take effective action. I am sorry that the Minister has not deemed fit to introduce legislation even during this Session, so to amend the Native Urban Areas Act as to compel municipalities to do what we want them to do, namely, to guard their boundaries and to ensure that natives do not penetrate. [Time limit.]

I am not one of those people who expect the Minister to have done wonders in the course of the few months since he assumed office. We cannot expect the impossible. We are aware of the fact that both he and the Secretary for Native Affairs are giving serious attention to this important matter, but I cannot but point out the serious position which has arisen in big cities like Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. Natives enter these cities in large numbers, and the coloured people are forced out of employment, out of work which they have done for generations. When one looks about one finds today that in the garages and hotels and other businesses, where formerly coloured men did this work, there are no longer coloured people doing it but practically all natives. And one still finds numbers of natives who are looking for work; more are coming in continually. In Pretoria, too, the position is serious. The Europeans at that centre have natives, women as well as men, in their service, and it happens all too frequently that when they get up in the morning they find that the natives are missing with all their goods and chattels, and that some of the property of the employer has also disappeared. I wonder if it is not possible for the Department to introduce better supervision. These things ought not to take place. They disappear and they cannot be traced at all. I hope that the Minister together with the Secretary for Native Affairs will give serious attention to this. The question of the ousting of coloureds by natives is a serious one. We know that the standard of civilisation of the coloured person is higher than that of the native, and the result is that the native ousts the coloured person from work which he has done for generations. Not only the coloured community will suffer as a result of this, but eventually the European civilisation will also suffer.

I want to say a few words in regard to the detribalised natives. The majority of the natives are finding their way to the towns—more in recent, years than ever before. And I should like to ask the Minister if it is possible that native men who are gradually leaving domestic service, and going into industry as industries are developing in South Africa, may be replaced by native women. Native women will be taking their place more and more. We find that that is so in Durban. Now I want to know whether there are any steps being taken for the training of these native women, to fit them for this domestic service. Today in Natal it is almost impossible to get servants and the native girls one does get as servants know nothing or very little about domestic work at all. A native cook is almost impossible to find and I say if the men who are doing house work today in South Africa are more and more going into industry as they are doing, and their places are to be taken by women, steps should be taken to give these women some sort of training so that they may be of some use in the House. Today they are of little or no use. If there were some of these hostels where they could be trained as cooks—there are good jobs waiting for any number of them. This is a matter in which perhaps the native representatives might interest themselves. They would be doing a good service to everybody concerned. If such girls could be trained—if native women could be trained for a few weeks, it would mean that they would double their earning capacity. Today they earn a few pounds—and they are not worth any more. But if they were properly trained, properly taught, they could replace the male natives and the Indians, the male natives would be able to take up jobs in industry and there would be plenty of openings for the native women. The result would be that a great many of our present day difficulties would be removed. These are matters of considerable importance, particularly to the housewives of this country, and I hope the Minister will give them his serious attention. Now there are one or two other little matters to which I should like to draw the Minister’s attention—they are also matters which I think deserve his consideration. In Pondoland there is no dog tax.

What have you to do with Pondoland?

I take quite an interest in animal welfare.

And dog tax.

I have a letter here which was sent to me by the S.P.C.A. in Durban. If what is said here is correct I think it is a matter calling for the attention of the Native Affairs Department. This letter comes from Redoubt, Pondoland, and it says this—

I hope the Minister will do something in this matter because as a rule natives are very fond of animals—but that does not apply to every native—nor does it apply to every European. And if by means of a dog tax one could prevent people from keeping dogs if they don’t look after them, then I think action should be taken. Now I should like to read another letter in connection with cruelty to native cattle. This is an extract from an article written by Mr. C. K. Adendorf of Swaziland, and this is what he says—

The first point was raised by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). He asked me what the policy of the Government was with regard to the purchase of land, and whether we still proposed to buy land. Well, as he knows, it is the policy to buy land to the value of £6,000,00, of which approximately £4,500,000 has already been spent, and 1,500,000 morgen have already been bought. When the war started large numbers of our officials enlisted, and it was of course impossible then to continue with the purchase of land, although we are still buying a little here and there. But as soon as the war is over we shall continue to buy all the land as laid down in the Act.

Have you got money available which you are keeping for that purpose?

We still have £1,000,000 left which can be used for that purpose. Then my hon. friend referred to the influx of natives into the cities, and the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) also referred to it. I must say in all honesty that this is a very important question. It is a matter which is causing the Government a considerable amount of difficulty. As a result of the expansion of industries in the urban areas, and the fact that high wages are paid here, the natives flock to these parts of the country and to the Cape Peninsula. But I am glad to be able to say that in certain cases they are leaving on a bigger scale than they are coming in. I sent one of the officials to make investigations and to report, and he has given me the figures. These figures show that the natives are leaving on a bigger scale than they are coming in.

Are they going back to the territories?

I cannot tell the hon. member that at the moment. I can give him the figures in respect of the past two months. The number of natives who came in on the 17th March, the 24th March and the 31st March, was 209, 283 and 164 respectively. The number who left was 749, 763 and 686. But that may be a temporary phenomenon, and I do not want to create the impression that this matter is not very serious. It is true that there is an influx of natives to the urban areas.

The figures which you have given cannot be correct; you have no means of controlling it.

No, not at the moment. They live outside the municipality. When they come in they usually stay outside the municipality.

That is precisely our objection. We say that there are numbers outside in respect of whom the figures are not known.

I propose to have a conference next Wednesday with the municipalities to discuss this whole matter.

With the Cape Municipality?

Yes, and also other bodies, and I hope that areas like Windermere and other places, which today fall under the Divisional Council, will be brought under control. If I succeed in doing that, it will at least be an attempt to solve the difficulty. It was found very difficult to prevent the influx of natives into the Cape Peninsula, but as my hon. friend knows, we cannot prevent natives from freely moving about in the Cape Province.

What is your policy; are you in favour of the pass system?

It is the permit system which the hon. member has in mind, and the permit system has not been slackened at all. With regard to the pass system in the Transvaal—I am talking now without having the figures before me—but as far as I can remember approximately 348,000 natives were arrested in three years, of whom, except in the case of 30,000, all were put in gaol. The majority of them were young natives who had not before come into contact with the police. They come into contact with the police and the gaol for the first time, and I think that this is very dangerous, and for that reason my predecessor followed the policy of relaxing the pass law. But it still gives the police the full right to ask a man for his pass. It has only been relaxed.

Do you support the policy of the previous Minister in connection with this slackening?

I said in Another Place that at the moment I am prepared to allow it to continue in order to see what the position is, because it is a very dangerous thing to arrest and to imprison more than 340,000 in a few years, when the majority of them are young natives who have not yet come into contact with prison life or with the police.

In other words, your policy is to let things develop?

No, my policy is, since that policy has already been accepted, at least to see what the position is before I alter it. I have asked for the figures so that we can see what the position is in other parts of the Union where the regulations have not been relaxed. We want to see whether there are more criminals in those areas. Then the hon. member spoke about the Protectorates and the trading which is carried on there by Asiatics. It is, of course, a matter for the British Government to deal with, but during the recess I shall discuss the question with the British authorities. I am glad that the hon. member has drawn my attention to it.

I also asked what your policy was in connection with the incorporation of the Protectorates.

The hon. member knows that some years ago that was discussed with the British Government, but it is not in our power to force the British Government to hand over those territories to us.

Were there any discussions after Gen. Hertzog’s time?

No, not that I know of.

We want to know whether it is the policy of the Government to take over the Protectorates when the time is ripe for it?

You know that when we tried to take them over, there was objection …

That was the previous Government.

Yes. I do not know that anything further has happened since that time.

But surely, you are the Minister of Native Affairs; you must be able to tell us what the position is?

I shall investigate the position. The hon. member then asked me about the natives who go to the mines. Yes, as from January more than 1,000 have gone to the mines. My hon. friend also asked what our plans were in connection with the native soldiers when they return. As far as I know 80 per cent. of them come from the Territories, and it is proposed to send them back to the Territories, but those who enlisted and who were employed in the cities before they enlisted, as far as they are concerned, we propose to obtain work for them in the cities. That is the policy of the Government. My hon. friend also asked what the reason was for the increase in this Vote. It is largely attributable to an increased allowance for blind persons, £16,000, and cost of living allowance £36,000, and the appointment of temporary officials who have taken the place of many of our officials who enlisted. They have to draw their salaries and their places must be filled by temporary officials, who also have to be paid. Then my hon. friend on the other side referred to a speech which was made by the Secretary for Native Affairs. I do not know whether he wants me to go into that matter. I made a clear statement in Another Place in that connection. Briefly the position is this. Mr. Smit made a speech in his capacity as chairman of a Church gathering called “Pretoria Ministers’ Fraternal in furtherance of the Christian programme of reconstruction after the war.” Mr. Smit spoke there as a citizen in his private capacity. If he had been Secretary for Social Welfare or of any other department, there would have been no objection, and I feel that he has the right to express his private opinion in such a case. The misunderstanding which arose is due to the fact that the whole speech was not reported. The hon. member thought that Mr. Smit wanted to destroy the colour bar in the social, political and economic spheres. But that was not the case. The whole speech was not printed. I just want to quote that portion of the speech which was made by Mr. Smit and which deals with this. He did not speak of the social or political sphere; he referred only to the economic sphere.

What do you want to quote from now?

Mr. Smit’s speech is quoted in the latest issue of Hansard in Another Place—

It is clear that he referred only to the economic sphere.

Have you got that portion where he speaks of the colour bar?

Yes, I am coming to it now—

When one reads that one portion only, one may think that he spoke of the political and the social sphere, but that is not the case.

But he says that that standard will never be reached until we abolish the colour bar.

Yes, with regard to work. But that is not the policy of the Government. Mr. Smit never wanted to suggest that we should be on an equal footing in the social and political sphere. That was never his intention.

Do you not think that it is undersirable for an official to express his private opinion in regard to something of this nature? He occupies an important position.

Mr. Smit occupies an important position; with that I agree. But he spoke only as a citizen of the country. If he had been the head of any other department, there would have been no objection, but unfortunately—or fortunately—he is the Secretary for Native Affairs, and for that reason objection is taken to this statement. But he expressed his honest conviction at a Church gathering.

The Minister will admit that it is very difficult for the public to know when he speaks in his capacity as Secretary and when he speaks as a private individual?

Yes, it is difficult, but I just want to make it clear that Mr. Smit will honestly and loyally carry out the policy of the Government. If the hon. member were to become Minister tomorrow, Mr. Smit would honestly and loyally carry out his policy and the policy of that Government, unless he feels that his conscience will not permit him to do so, and then he will walk out.

The sooner he walks out the better.

Mr. Smit is one of the most honest men I have ever met; that is an unfair and unjust statement to make against an official, but I leave it at that. That, in any event, is the position. He spoke in his private capacity, and I hope it will be accepted in that sense. He did not speak on behalf of the Government, and I repeat that he will loyally carry out the policy of the Government. As I have said, if he were to be the head of the Department, and the hon. member for Malmesbury were to become the Minister of Native Affairs tomorrow, Mr. Smit would loyally carry out his policy; otherwise he would walk out.

But did he not contradict the Government’s policy.

No, he expressed his private opinion. We often hear in this House of the right of people to express their private opinions. I do not want to go into those matters now, but hon. members made a plea in this House that they should have the right to say what they pleased with regard to the war policy. Are we not going to allow the head of a department to express his private opinion? I do not want to argue about this matter. I just want to show that Mr. Smit did not speak on behalf of the Government. He only spoke in a private capacity at a Church function.

Is there not some danger of his influencing the Minister?

If a Minister is so weak that he is going to allow one of his officials to do with him as he pleases, after he (the Minister) has announced the policy of the Government in this House, then he should not be a Minister.

I do not mean that; but the Minister is in close contact with the Department, and I suppose he is influenced by the Secretary in formulating his policy.

Did the Minister repudiate what he said?

I do not want to go into this matter at greater length. I have explained the whole matter and I hope that hon. members on the other side will be satisfied with that explanation.

†The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), in his remarks, said there would never be enough land for all the natives in the Union, and like the rest of the community the natives will have to look to other means of subsistence. That, I think, was the substance of his argument. The policy we have in view, I state quite frankly, is that the natives in the reserves, that is the women and children, will continue to carry on their ordinary life and work in their fields as they have done for generations, whilst the men, instead of idling about their allotment, will periodically have to go out to work to supplement the living.

Is that the Government policy?

That is the only policy you can follow, if there is not enough land. The hon. member has said there is not enough land. The men will not remain away for long periods in which they have to work on industry and on the farms.

In other words, you do not build up a peasantry at all.

There is not enough land; it is impossible to give everybody land if there is not enough land to go round. Let us face the facts. In fulfilling its functions the Department employs a number of agricultural experts to try and develop the land, so that more and more people can be kept on it. We are doing a great deal in the way of irrigation, and the moment the war is over a big fencing scheme is intended to be taken in hand so as to create proper veld management, and all these things will increase the carrying capacity of the native areas. But I am giving you the position as it is today. The hon. member has raised the question of native tenure. I am in sympathy with the native being given an opportunity of acquiring an allotment in his own right in the native areas.

I was referring to urban areas.

I think I replied to that at considerable length when I replied to a motion by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) on the question of ground in urban areas. I thought the hon. gentleman was referring to the natives being allowed to buy land in native areas, which I am in sympathy with if it is possible. I am sorry if I misunderstood him. The hon. member for Durban, North (Rev. Miles-Cadman) spoke about the housing of railway labourers and referred to the Bell Street Compound. Representations have already been made to the Minister of Railways on this matter, and I shall bring the matter to his attention again. I want, as soon as it is possible, to see these things for myself, because until one has seen them one cannot give an opinion. From what the hon. member tells me things would appear to be pretty bad. If it is so I am certain my collague will …

I will enquire first.

I did not know the Minister was present, and I thought I could say what I liked in this matter. I shall have to be more careful. I will see who is speaking the truth.

†*The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) spoke of natives who flock to the Cape Peninsula. I think the reply which I gave the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) also replies to what he said. This is a difficult matter, and I therefore appointed one of my officials who, during the past two months, has made investigations into the position and submitted a long report. As I have said, I have summoned the municipalities and other bodies to meet on Wednesday, in order to discuss the whole matter with them.

But on a previous occasion you denied that there was an unsound influx.

When was that?

On the motion of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger).

Well, I went with the Native Affairs Commission to various places like Windermere, Blouvlei, etc., in the Cape Peninsula, and we found a critical state of affairs there.

But you previously denied this.

I am prepared to accept the hon. member’s word, but I cannot recall it. I can assure him, however, that I fully appreciate the seriousness of the position. I visited some of these places twice, and I fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation. The hon. member also asked me whether I was prepared to announce the policy of the Government. I announced the whole policy of the Government on the motion of the hon. member for Cape Eastern. I did so again in the Senate, and it is not necessary for me to repeat it, since that was only a month or two ago.

Do you agree with the statement of the Minister of Finance?

Well, there was a time in the past when we did not agree. I do not know what the Minister of Finance said in regard to this matter. In any event, I announced the policy of the Government in my capacity as Minister of Native Affairs.

But do you agree with the policy of the Minister of Finance?

Then the hon. member must first tell me what the policy of the Minister of Finance is.

He said that segregation had seen its day.

I, as the responsible Minister, announced the policy of the Government.

†The hon. member for Pretoria, City (Mr. Davis) has spoken about training natives for domestic service, and has referred me to the example of Johannesburg. He asks me if I am prepared to establish similar vocational training for natives in other centres. Well, I may say £41,000 has been placed on the loan estimates with which to make a start in Johannesburg this year. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has raised some very important matters, which are receiving my earnest consideration. It is true, Sir, that the present situation in regard to the natives was not visualised when the 1936 Acts were put on the Statute Book. I admit that. The hon. member has repeated many of the things she said in a previous debate, and I do not think seeing that I replied at such length in that debate, it is necessary for me to go over the whole thing again. She has referred to the fact that while the Urban Areas Act has been applied, we have not provided sufficient housing to carry it out. A great deal has been done and large sums of money have been spent by way of sub-economic loan, and steady progress is being maintained.

†*The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward) said that the natives were ousting the coloured people from employment. I must say, in all honesty, that I am disturbed about this matter. Anyone who has seen during the past few months how the natives are occupying what was previously the field of coloured labour, will realise the seriousness of the position. I hope to be able to bring this matter to the notice of the conference on Wednesday, because it is a very important matter.

†The hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) has spoken about the training of women domestic servants. The establishment of training centres for adult persons presents some difficulties. At one centre it was found that housewives were not prepared to pay women who had been trained in domestic service any more than they were willing to pay the ordinary raw workers, and the result is that it is extremely difficult to get these people to train when they find it is going to have no benefit for them, seeing the ordinary housewife will not pay them any more than they pay the raw worker. The result is that it is difficult to maintain enthusiasm at these centres. I will, however, go into the matter again and consider it. Then the hon. member spoke about there being no dog tax in Pondoland. I do not know whether this has anything to do with the watchdogs of South Africa, but in any case this is not for my consideration at all, but a matter for the Provincial Administration. I should say in any case it is going to be extremely difficult to collect the tax for dogs belonging to natives. Then he raised the question of cruelty to animals. This is a matter for the police, and I wish he had got on to my colleague, the Minister of Justice, before he finished his task this afternoon. The hon. member will no doubt refer the matter to my colleague. I think that is all the points that have been raised up to now.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister in the course of his reply stated a moment ago that I had admitted that the land available for native settlement was not sufficient and that was why it was impossible to put into operation the policy which I recommended. That policy is that the natives should be encouraged to become peasant holders and independent of outside employment. My policy is that natives should be allowed to acquire holdings in the reserves of sufficient size to place them in this position. Previously I think I had not made my point clear to the Minister. My point is that there is not sufficient land if equally distributed, to provide an economic holding for every family. On the other hand, there is not sufficient accommodation in the urban areas even for the 15 per cent. of the native population which lives there, and insufficient of them to supply the needs of industry. My point was, and it was supported by my hon. friend the member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), that the object of our policy should be to encourage as many of the people in the reserves as possible to become independent farmers, and those who are landless, as a great many of them are, and many others who through force of circumstances become landless, should be encouraged to become part of the urban population, and thus counteract the tendency of which the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) spoke, the tendency of the natives to continually move about from the country to the towns and back again. The hon. member spoke only of the natives who come into the urban areas, but there is a continual stream out as well, and it is that continual state of flux which prevents them from becoming a really efficient part of the community. The Minister has said that the Government does not want to encourage the native mates to idle in the reserves. I was not talking about idling, but about natives who are prepared to maintain some standard of beneficial occupation of their land, and who should be given an opportunity of becoming independent farmers in the reserves. I can assure the Minister I was not speaking of idlers. At Taungs the policy of the Department has been to give facilities and instruction to native farmers, and the people who receive that instruction are not an idling community but a hard working community. I have been there and I know these people, and I have talked to the agricultural officers of the Department who are giving instruction there. This instruction has been taken advantage of by this section of the native community, and I know that the Minister’s Department has been struck by the way they are responding. I am not saying that everything is all right at Taungs nor am I saying that there is not a tremendous amount of progress still to be made. But all I say is that if one goes to see these people who have had special encouragement, it is quite clear that it is not a case of the women and children doing the work white the men idle. All we are asking for on these benches and all the native representatives in Another Place are asking, is that there should not be this flat maximum of a holding, but that the progressive members amongst the native rural communities should be encouraged to become independent peasant farmers, and that those who have no aptitude for farming should be encouraged to become urban workers. On the urban side both the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) and myself have drawn attention to this anomalous position that segregation has been proclaimed in the large urban areas of the country, while there is no provision for the native population to be segregated in. In the Cape Peninsula, including the Cape Town Municipal Area and surroundings, there is only legal accommodation for the native people to the extent of about one-fifth of their number, and I say that a policy which insists on a state of affairs in which the bulk of these people must live under illegal conditions, must be unsound. I ask the Minister to consider whether, the case of urban local authorities where segregation has been proclaimed, and where no provision for accommodating the native people has been made, he will not consider de-proclaiming those areas unless the municipalities are prepared to make proper provision. Now that provision should not be limited to only one type. Sub-economic schemes such as the New Brighton scheme at Port Elizabeth are one type, and that should be continued. But as the Minister himself said, a scheme of that kind takes time, and therefore I suggest that credit facilities should be given to native families who are prepared to build their own houses, and if you are going to assist them to build their own houses, what case can there be against allowing the family to own the ground on which the house stands? That is our case for allowing urban natives to purchase land. The local authorities cannot for years catch up with the lag in housing if they depend entirely on municipal schemes financed by the Government. To supplement such schemes there should be special economic loans to native people who wish to build their own houses on the Bloemfontein model, with this difference that the native should not only be encouraged to build his own house, but be allowed to own the ground on which it stands. It seems to me there is no case for not allowing the ownership of the ground. I do appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter in this light.

The hon. member for Pretoria, City (Mr. Davis) has asked the Minister to consider extending the scheme for training native servants in cookery, and the Minister has pointed out that £41,000 has been put on the Estimates for this scheme. I personally am not so much concerned with the civilisation of the natives as I am with the syphilisation of natives. The incidence of venereal disease amongst native servants is extraordinarily high, and I hope before the Minister encourages cookery lessons that natives will be given a clean bill of health.

I am afraid that is a matter which comes under the Public Health Department and cannot be discussed under this Vote.

The point is if that amount of money is being spent on cookery lessons, the Minister in his reply might tell us what is being done with regard to venereal disease in the native reserves, because the vast majority of the domestic servants come from the native reserves, and I should like to know what the policy is with regard to the control of venereal disease in the native reserves.

The hon. member who has just spoken and the hon. member for Pretoria, City (Mr. Davis) have raised issues of importance to the European employer. It is difficult to get much interest in the situation of our native population unless some feature of it touches the European employer. And that is significant of the general attitude towards this situation. We who sit on these benches find it very difficult to get any interest taken in this question unless it is on some side of the question which affects the European. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member who has just spoken to the fact that the Inter-departmental Committee on the social health and economic conditions of the urban natives discovered for itself that venereal diseases among the native population are largely due to the conditions under which the native workers live, and which my hon. colleague and myself are trying to urge the Minister to consider; that is to say this everlasting state of flux in which the native population lives, this continual divorce of the workers from the ordinary condition of family life. There is not sufficient land on which the native family can exist, and the men are therefore continually kept moving, that is to say the male part of the native population is kept moving to and from the urban centres without having their families with them. That is a condition which we continually contend is unsound. If we can get that into the heads of the community we shall be taking a step towards that sensible policy on which our future in South Africa depends. I want to return to the point which I was making previously. I am not suggesting that the Minister has not grasped it, but I want to emphasise it. Our present policy is dragging down the whole family organisation of the native people, destroying its integrity both morally and physically. A system under which the natives perforce have to go into European areas for long stretches is bound to destroy the whole character of our native population; it is in fact, creating the evils which we all deplore but the causes of which are entirely ignored. Our contention is that these conditions are inherent in our native policy which refuses to see the necessity for giving our native population the conditions of a stable life in both rural and urban areas. How can a country which believes in the sacredness of family life be a party to the sort of thing that is happening to the natives’ family life? Ten years ago the chief officer of the Native Recruiting Corporation told the Native Economic Commission that every able bodied man in the Transkei was out at a work centre for at least eleven months in every two years of his able-bodied existence. That was before the 1932 depression. In the 1932 depression the number of Union natives on the gold mines shot up to a level which had never been anticipated as possible, and that number has never declined since that day, which means that the able-bodied manpower of the natives is going out for considerably longer than twelve months in every two years. In the meantime we have had the increased demand for labour created by secondary industries. That in its turn has taken away a further considerable number, with the result that the native families in the reserves are growing up without any of those sanctions which are essential for stabilised existence and which keeps a people sound physically and morally. Under the Act of 1937 the native who goes into the town to work has no claim for the entry of his wife into the town unless he has been two years in continuous employment. To maintain a healthy life on a basis of this kind is impossible. That is why I feel that the Minister must reconsider the position, that he must reconsider the possibility of this policy developing to a point at which we shall not be able to control the evils to which it gives rise. The hon. member has asked the Minister what has happened to check venereal disease in the native territories. If the Minister will tell the hon. member that the Government is doing its utmost to see that the natives are able to lead a decent family life—if the Minister will tell the hon. member that the Government will do its best to support decent family life for the natives, both in the towns and in the rural areas—that would be the best possible answer that could be given.

Perhaps the greatest need with regard to our natives is adequate and balanced food. Our agricultural production is unable to provide for the increased consumption which the demands of war have brought about, and we need more food for the natives, while they themselves are making a very small contribution indeed in that direction. The position is this—in the towns we have a surplus of natives. They have been attracted to the towns by the privileges or the advantages which civilisation offers.

Not what it gives, but what it offers. They are attracted by the education which civilisation gives, by sub-economic housing schemes, by all the sundry attractions, which are seen in the papers, some of which never materialise. They are not only attracted to the towns, but are driven to the towns, because they have to pay poll tax and they want to see some reward for the tax which they pay. In the country the position is becoming more and more difficult with regard to production, because agricultural machinery is not available and there is a shortage of native labour. I want to ask the Minister to consider the question of offering the natives some inducement to attract them to the land, to keep them on the farms, so as to increase the agricultural production which is so highly necessary today. Let me explain what I have in mind. If for instance greater educational facilities, sub-economic housing facilities, greater facilities in regard to water, and hygiene, and matters of that nature could be offered to the native on the farms as is done in the towns, they, the natives, would be seeing some result, they would be seeing some return for the poll tax they have to pay today. I know, of course, that these things cannot be done. And that being so I would ask the Government to consider the matter from another point of view, and to see whether it is not possible to remit the poll tax to every native who can prove that he is a bona fide farm servant. If a native for instance can prove that he has worked at least nine months on a farm, the question of remitting his poll tax might be considered. I feel that that would go a long way towards solving this problem of labour shortage on the farms. It is not just the question of the native not getting a fair deal from farmers. The verility of the native races is built up in our rural areas. Hon. members may not be aware of the fact that we have not got the same degree of infantile mortality or of malnutrition on the farms as in the urban areas. Even in regard to venereal diseases, the conditions in the country cannot be compared with those in the towns. I feel that it is to the benefit of the native to keep him out of the overcrowded towns and cities, to keep him on the land where he belongs, and I feel that if that were done it would ease the congestion which exists in the towns today, and which seems to be complicating the situation, both in urban and peri-urban areas. I feel that this appeal which I am making to the Minister is one meriting his deep and sincere consideration. Not only will it help us to increase the agricultural production of this country during this time of war, but as I have said, it will ease the congestion in the towns, and above all it will enable the natives to feel they are not being taxed for nothing. It will create for them a feeling of contentment. We have in the country districts natives who every time their tax is due claim that while they pay their tax they get no return for it. In many cases the farmers pay the tax, but in spite of that the natives feel that if there is any extra money they should get it, and they see no reason why that extra money should be paid away in taxation. The natives feel that this tax, even if the farmer pays it, means a reduction in their wages, and to that extent they regard it as a hardship. I hope the Minister will give this matter his earnest consideration, and I feel that if he can see his way to give effect, to this suggestion it will go a long way towards easing this problem of labour shortage in our country districts—and it will also enable us to get sufficient food not only for the natives but for all sections of the community. Today our natives have not got sufficient food—and they produce little themselves. We feel that it is their duty to make a greater contribution to the food supplies of the country, and I am convinced that if the Minister would offer some inducement by the remission of this tax it might have most far-reaching results.

In regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) I am informed by the Department of Public Health that they are opposed to compulsory examination because their experience has shown that compulsory examination tends to drive the disease underground with the result that it is not dealt with in the way it should be. But I am quite prepared to discuss the matter with them again. I am always willing to listen to advice on matters of this kind. Now, with regard to the two points raised by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger)—and also by the hon. member for Boksburg—let me say that a great deal is being done to combat venereal disease among the natives, and free injections are provided now and a great deal of propaganda is carried out. But let me frankly admit that a great deal still has to be done among all sections. This is one of these dreadful things one has to face, but I can assure the Committee that I am fully alive to it. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) raised some very important points. The exemption of farm labour natives was considered by the Government which was in office in 1935, but that Government came to the conclusion that it would not be practicable to draw a distinction between one class of native and another class of native. The matter was subsequently again considered by the Native Farm Labour Commission, which presented its report in 1937. That Commission came to the same conclusion. I shall, however, again discuss the matter with the Treasury in the light of the views which may be expressed at a conference which I am calling in the near future. Then, on the question of subsidising maize I am sure my hon. friend will realise the difficulty of subsidising one section in regard to foodstuffs which another section also uses. There are white people of the poorer classes to whom maize is just as important as it is to the natives, and their purchasing power is almost as low. The Agricultural Department tells me that it will be impossible to carry this out.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 45.—“Commerce and Industries”, £434,000,

May I avail myself of the half hour rule? Although this Vote appears late on the Order Paper, it is nevertheless one of the most important Votes, especially in view of post-war economy in our country. We are in this difficulty today, that we are on the eve of going to the country in a General Election, and at this time one likes to know from the responsible Minister what is really the policy of the Government. At this time many industries are being established, and it is of the utmost importance to people who are now investing their money in those industries, to know what the Government’s post-war policy is. What must they expect? On that question will depend where they are going to invest their money, and how much they are prepared to invest in industries. The first point which I should like to know from the Minister is this: We have had the Atlantic Charter here. It is put very vaguely. The manner in which it is drafted has led to a good deal of mockery. But what we should like to know is how the Government and the Minister interpret Section 4 of the Charter. We have had an explanation in this House from the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood). He said that it meant a certain thing, but almost at the same time or shortly thereafter we had an interpretation of the same section by the chairman of the British Wool Commission. At Paarl he made a statement which is altogether at variance with the interpretation of the hon. member for Vereeniging. The preceding section deals with the rights of nations to choose the system of government under which they want to live, and the framers of the Charter said that they would see to it that the sovereign right of self-government is restored to those who were deprived of it by violence. But when it came to the point and the then Prime Minister of Burma specifically asked whether it would be applicable there, Mr. Amery, the Minister for India, stated: “No, this section of the Charter is not applicable to the British Empire, and those parts falling under the British Empire. Now we come to Section 4—

There we have certain words. What do they mean? We have had the interpretation of the hon. member for Vereeniging. He is very interested in economic matters, and he said that it must be interpreted in this light, that we need not be concerned at all about the protective policy of the Government with regard to our industries. That gave a certain amount of reassurance. But we are a little afraid of the Atlantic Charter, which is capable of so many meanings, all depending on the question of what is convenient and what is not convenient. On that will depend what interpretation is given to the Charter. Now we have had an interpretation by the chairman of the British Wool Commission, and in connection with the question of the establishment of a wool factory in South Africa, he warned the people who were interested in it that the implications of the Atlantic Charter must not be lost sight of, namely that access will be asked for, on equal terms, to the world’s trade and markets for raw materials. A South African factory must therefore be erected with due consideration to its prospects, not as a protected industry, but as one which will have to compete with the goods of a highly established Europe, whose members will exert themselves to seize the trade of this country in terms of the privileges granted to them under the Atlantic Charter. Which is the correct interpretation, the interpretation of the hon. member for Vereeniging or that of the chairman of the British Wool Commission? The latter pointed out the competition which there will be, and that we shall have to compete with world trade. It is of the utmost importance to the industries in this country to know what the position is going to be. If the interpretation of the chairman of the British Wool Commission is the correct one, then it is a very serious matter. It is important to know precisely where we stand. What is the Government’s interpretation of that section of the Charter, and can we take it that that is the interpretation of all the signatories to the Charter? Apparently that is not the interpretation which is already given to it, if one has to judge by newspaper reports, including the report which we read only this morning, that a simple article like a fishing hook will have no free trade, that it cannot be exported from Britain to America. When fishing hooks are manufactured in England they can be sold in other parts of the world, but they cannot be transhipped to America. That is the beginning of the interpretation of the Atlantic Charter. The signatures on it are scarcely dry, and already we have the first case of denial, the first case of which we know, of denial of the ordinary meaning which one would attach to these words. I am not concerned about the fishing hooks of England, but I am concerned about the industries of South Africa, and we want the Minister who now occupies this important post, and who, I take it, really takes an interest in the industrial development of South Africa, to give us an unequivocal reply to the following questions: (1) What is the Government’s interpretation of the Charter; (2) is that interpretation shared by all the signatories thereto; (3) what is the Government’s policy in respect of the protection of our industries after the war? We should like to have a reply on that. We will have a tremendous problem to provide work in this country after the war. On a previous occasion I referred to the tremendous hiatus which will exist in our national income, with the anticipated reduction in the production of the gold mines. All eyes are now fixed on industrial development to fill the gap, with regard to our national income, when in ten or twenty years’ time the gold mines will have caused that hiatus. The other day we saw a report by the Planning Council. In that report they pointed out that employment would have to be found for 230,000 people after the war. Where will that work be found? In the first place hope is centred on industrial development. A large section of the people will have to find work in the industries of the country. We are establishing industries, and these industries will now have to provide employment for these 230,000 people. But how can that be done if one does not know what the Government’s policy is in respect of the protection of industries after the war? That is the important part of the matter. Now I come to another point, and that is in connection with the Lease-Lend system. The other day we had a statement from the Prime Minister in regard to the Lease-Lend system, which amounted to this, that it was an act of philanthropy on the part of America towards the rest of the world, that America was influenced by altruistic motives in saying: “You can obtain what you want from us; it is not necessary to keep account of it; just take it.” I think the Prime Minister himself said on that day that “it was almost too good to be true.” Yes, but I am inclined to put it the other way: “It is too true to be good.” It may be a very dangerous thing, and I therefore want to put this question: What are the true implications of this Lease-Lend system; what is behind it? What is the excuse which is now given in connection with the fishing hooks from England? It is said that under the Lease-Lend system steel was given to England, and that therefore England may not send back to America fishing hooks which are made of steel. It is therefore no longer a matter of philanthropy but of reciprocity for assistance which is given under the Lease-Lend system. We would like to know how far the implications go. During the past months and years we have seen a movement of peaceful penetration. We not only have this penetration in Durban, but a penetration throughout the country, a peaceful American penetration. We have seen how propaganda has been made recently in regard to America on a scale unknown before, and a far greater number of newspaper reports than ever before in regard to America, is today being sent to South Africa. We find a tremendously increased interest in South Africa on the part of the United States. It makes us somewhat afraid. It is not only the interest which causes us concern, but one sees commercial travellers from America entering this country, and they are the people who are at the outposts to investigate business possibilities. There is a greater number in our country than ever before. As an English newspaper put it the other day: “They are like a lot of prospective buyers at a rummage sale.” They pry about and try to find out what the prospects are. We know that after the war America will have to look for new markets, and we want to know whether, under the cloak of this philanthropy in the form of the Lease-Lend system, we are not engaged in forging bands for ourselves, bands which will make us economic slaves to America. At the moment it may be but a small thread, a silver thread, but will this not later become a band of steel which will bind us to America? We trust that that is not the position, but we should like to have a frank statement from the Minister. He is a person who was in England for a long time, and who ought to be informed on these matters. We should like to know from him what the position is. We heard the other day from the Minister of Finance that the redemption of our foreign debt, with which we are busy, is a very good thing, because the interest which we shall have to pay on our State debt will then be paid out in South Africa. He extolled that very much. I do too. I think it is a sound position that our State debt should be owed in the Union. But when people from overseas are today searching for capital investments, the question arises whether we will not at some future date regret the fact that, by accepting foreign capital in our industries, instead of paying interest overseas on our State debt, we shall have to pay dividends from our industries which will go overseas. At the moment a sum of £20,000,000 in the form of dividends, is already going overseas annually. Is the effect of this system not going to be that even more money will go overseas? What is the Government’s policy in respect of industries and the provision of capital for industries? The Minister of Finance also said the other day that at this time many new industries are being established, and he almost suggested that the majority were unsound industries, and he said that in any event it was a good thing that his taxation proposals kept the industries in check to some extent. But if that’s the case, it is a fact that there are certain industries which have vitality and which have a right to exist after the war. What is the policy of the Minister of Commerce and Industries in respect of those industries? The policy of this side has been outlined time and again. We said that there should be a system of licencing. Industries which use raw materials from our own country and for which there is a market in South Africa, should be encouraged, and they should receive a licence, while the other industries should not be encouraged in this way. We advocate the establishment of industries which have vitality and which are an asset to the country. What is the Minister’s policy in that respect? What is the Government’s policy in respect of foreign capital in connection with industries? What use is being made of the Industrial Corporation to prevent the tendency which there will be after the war for foreign capital to flood South Africa, by first seeing whether there is not capital in South Africa for this purpose? For that reason we have the Industrial Corporation to establish our own industries with our own capital. These are all matters in which the industrial world is interested, and in connection with which we should like to know what the Government proposes to do? As I have already said, it is especially important with a view to the approaching election. We want to know from the Minister what we can expect from the Government’s policy or lack of policy. This is the time to state that policy. As far as we can judge—and that is the general feeling in industrial circles—the only characteristic of the Government’s policy in the industrial sphere is its lack of policy. It has no fixed policy. We ask the Minister what his policy is. Is he, for example, going to give industries which have been established, a reasonable opportunity of making a success? Is he going to provide for a certain measure of sifting so that those industries which offer a chance of success, will have an opportunity to develop with the assistance of the Government. There is another matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. We have read in various reports—I think also in the Van Eck report—that there is a tremendous hiatus between the wages of skilled and unskilled labour. This is an important question, as far as industrial development in the future is concerned. In this connection we should also like to know what the policy of the Government is. How, in the Minister’s view, should this gap be reduced, this hiatus between skilled wages and unskilled wages, and what methods are suggested to bring that about? This is perhaps a more technical matter, but it is not sufficient to say that a commission of investigation has been appointed. We have had enough of these commissions, and we also know that precious little comes from the recommendations of the commission. They are simply brushed aside, and we hear no more about them. I now want to ask the Minister to give us his general policy. The details can be left to the Planning Council to work out. What is the policy of the Government? There is a difference between your programme of principles and your programme of action. Your programme of principles contains your ideals, and your programme of action sets out how you should proceed to materialise those ideas. I do not expect a programme of action from the Minister today, but we do expect a programme of principles in regard to this matter from the Minister. In connection with this question of the hiatus between skilled and unskilled wages, Dr. van Eck made a proposal that there should be a devaluation of our monetary medium in comparison with those of other countries. I am not certain whether that is contained in the Van Eck report. Is that the Government’s approach to this problem? Then it will also be interesting to ascertain to what extent this proposed bancor system will make it possible for such revaluation of our money medium to be accepted in South Africa. These are matters which industrialists especially are entitled to know; what is the policy of the Government? Then there is another matter in regard to which I should like to have details from the Minister, and that is the black market in South Africa. Can he give us any information in regard to the scope of black market activities in this country? Can he tell us whether, in his opinion, the position is in hand? One hears many things outside; one hears of black market activities on a large scale. One knows that in other countries this has assumed particularly great proportions. I should like to know from the Minister what the position is in respect of black market activities in South Africa, and whether he is satisfied that he has the position under control. Have there been any convictions, and how many have there been; and has he any information which he can place at the disposal of this House and of the country in connection with black market activities? These are a few of the points in connection with which we should like to have information from the Minister. We think that the period which lies ahead of us is particularly interesting. Then I want to ask the Minister whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Planning Council: In the first place, that people who are interested in politics should not be on the Planning Council. As you know, four out of the eleven members of the Planning Council are people who actively take part in politics—Senators, members of this House or of the Provincial Council. It is noteworthy that all four members are supporters of the Minister. The Van Eck Commission condemned that in the strongest of terms. They said that that should not be so. The Government nevertheless appointed these members, and now I want to know whether the Government intends giving effect to this recommendation. Just let me quote what the recommendation was—

Now I want to know whether the Government is going to give effect to that recommendation, or do they propose to keep the Planning Council as a place where friends and party associates of theirs can find a safe refuge? Today there are four members of the Planning Council who are active supporters of the Government party. The second point we should like to know is this: In the first report of that Planning Council they asked that they be given a certain amount of independence, that they should receive a globular sum, and that they should have the right to appoint their own staff. Now I want to know whether the Government intends giving effect to that recommendation? This is a very important matter. This Planning Council is but a shadow of what we proposed, but it can still do good work. There are, at any rate, a few people on that council who know what they are talking about, but we want them to be able to speak freely; they must be able to feel that they are there to serve the interests of the country and not the interests of the Government party. They proposed a special Bill under which they would be given those rights and powers. Now I should like to know from the Minister whether they simply rejected that recommendation, or are they considering the matter? In any event, what is their policy in respect of this Planning Council, which will have to play such an important rôle in our post-war industrial development?

I would like the Minister to tell us something about his industrial policy, industrial development and planning. Most countries today are talking about planning, which is a much used and much abused word, and I take it that when the Minister talks about planning he means that he is going to plan for a better South Africa.

Hear, hear.

He is looking for more stability, more security, and I would like the Minister to tell us how he is going to set about these things. In the course of the last year or two I have seen pamphlets issued by municipalities who have put forward their plans. I have read those plans. Few are good, quite a number are indifferent, and some are bad. Those that I call bad have far too much of the pick and shovel work about them, and the people of this country are not looking for pick and shovel work after this war. I would like the Minister to tell us something about his policy. In another place he said, a few weeks ago, that there were three types of industry in the country, and he said also that his policy was to make the greatest possible use of South African raw material. That is the type of Minister we are looking for, we are looking for a Minister who will bring the factory to the raw materials. Up to now we have been taking the raw materials to the factory. We like to see that position reversed. The Minister said there would not be a free fight for markets after this war, that we would not have to compete with countries who are going in for mass production, and then he spoke of that blessed word “the Atlantic Charter.” He spoke about pooling of our resources and our ideas, and of development without high tariff walls. He also spoke about a certain measure of international control. Well, I am not so much concerned about the Minister’s three types of industry as I am concerned about the concentration of industries in our large centres, Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban, and I am more concerned with the smaller industries that should be established in the smaller towns and cities of the country. We have at present a serious state of affairs confronting us because we are developing along the same lines as Australia did some years ago. We are becoming lop-sided; you find practically all your industries, and your population in three or four big cities, and the countryside is denuded. In South Africa we have this same process going on. I know of towns, we all know of towns which have not progressed one iota in the last 50 years; some of them have even gone back, there has been retrogression. These are the towns I am concerned about, and I would like to see whether it is not possible to develop those areas where there is raw material, and where you have the right type of labour and where conditions are favourable to economic development. I am greatly concerned about this lop-sidedness. If an industry is established it is almost invariably established on the Rand, where you have this abnormal development. There is little development in other parts of the country. I am sorry I am becoming somewhat parochial on this point, but I want to tell the Minister why I am asking him to bring the factory to the raw materials. It is only in this way that the country will develop along sound lines. In the northern parts of the Cape you find the heaviest gypsum deposits. The gypsum from which the Pretoria Portland Cement is made comes from the Northern Cape. That should not be. If we are going to have the right type of planning the manufacture should take place where the raw material exists, and if the heavy deposits of gypsum are found in the Northern Cape, why cannot some of our cement be made there? The best type of lime is to be found there also.

You have not got the right sort.

The purest lime is to be found there; there is no doubt about this. We have vast deposits of kaolin and asbestos and manganese as well as vast deposits of iron. This seems almost fantastic, but it is so. Moreover 80 per cent. of the salt pans in South Africa are to be found in that area of the Northern Cape. Well now with all those deposits, with all those base metals and minerals, with all this wealth, why on earth cannot we plan for some industrial development in that area? Why should all industrial development go to the Rand? We possess, for instance, deposits of chalk. It is taken to the Rand and manufactured. Why not manufacture it where it is produced and develop the country evenly?

The railway rates are against him.

That is what I am coming to. Presently there must be a revision of railway rates. The Minister possesses great powers. He has advisory boards upon which some of the best brains in the country are to be found. There is the Industrial Development Corporation which can give the Minister all the information he wants, and then he has Dr. van der Byl and the Electricity Supply Commission. This is another avenue I would like the Minister to explore. The supply of cheap power. I come now to the railage on coal. Unless something is done in that matter we shall never be able to have even development. Our coal rates are against development of the platteland, and against any industries that are any distance from our coal fields. A suggestion that has been made is that as time goes on the country should be divided into areas, and each area should possess its own power plant supplying power at a flat rate. If that is done we shall overcome all our difficulties, and we shall not want to look to the Minister of Railways—but I do not think that will happen soon—so I think the Minister should consult with his colleague the Minister of Railways in the meanwhile with a view to a modification of the Railway policy. After the war we shall be producing more than heretofore, and we shall be importing less. The time will then be ripe for a modification of Railway policy. An opportunity of that sort has not presented itself in our time, but I think it is going to present itself soon. That is what I feel—we want equal development throughout this country and not this lop-sidedness. It can be done, and I hope the Minister is going to concentrate on planning of this nature, so that the areas that really also should have industries and are entitled to them should come in for some measure of prosperity.

Mr. Chairman, before the war America was a bad client of South Africa. We bought from them something like £5,000,000 worth of goods, and they bought about £1,000,000 worth from us. There was also in America a very heavy tax against South African wool, something like 6d. a lb. in the grease, or 15d. in the clean. I hope that at some time in the future the declaration of America in the Atlantic Charter will be given effect to, and they will rebate some of their import tax on South African wool. I hope the Minister will go into this matter and see whether we cannot have that tax removed altogether. There is another matter. If the Minister will go into the prices for wool in America, he will find in the newspapers that America is taking over the whole of the American clip. If the information I have is right, in last May and June America was selling on a clean scoured basis at 4s. 2d. a lb., which is just about double the price that South Africa was getting. We would very much like to know what that basis is on which America is buying our wool. You may ask me why I ask this question, and it is because it has a lot to do with the future price of the South African clip. We feel that if the American prices are fixed at a certain level, then our Minister must definitely take up the matter in accordance with the prices fixed in America, and see if his Government will not fix our prices on more or less the same basis. Now I want to say that there were some regulations issued some time ago with regard to blankets. I went and saw the Minister about it as a member of the Wool Council, and he gave me certain assurances which I take it are quite correct. In those regulations he spoke about virgin wool, and I pointed out to the Minister at that time that virgin wool might be Argentine wool or any other wool which had not been manufactured before. There was a blanket made of South African wool plus karakul wool, which was a South African blanket, and that blanket has become world famous; it is far better than the American blanket. Something like 3,000,000 of these blankets have been exported, and I hope the Minister will see to it that there is a proper label put on these blankets, showing that they are South African goods. Then they have been making another blanket for the natives in this country, and I hope the Minister will see that nothing but South African wool, our own raw material is used there, but only virgin wool is used. Also the household blanket that they are going to manufacture. They should also be entirely of South African wool. Unfortunately it has come to our notice that some Argentine wool have been imported into this country. I do not know whether the Minister can tell us what quantities of Argentine wool have been imported, but we feel that some of our industrialists are out just to make money, and are not out really to use raw materials produced in South Africa. We are very keen that any development in the way of manufactures in this country should be based on raw materials from South Africa. I believe the Minister has prohibited the use of that wool which is also virgin wool, in our blankets. Those bales were something like 200 lbs. And it is a very serious thing if Argentine wool can be imported to compete with our wool in our factories. I have spoken to the Minister about it, and he has given us the assurance that these wools will not be permitted to be used. I want him to tell the House he has taken steps in these regulations; anyway, he has promised me. I would like to know what attitude the Minister takes up as far as our factories are concerned. I understand they are using something like 25,000,000 lbs. of South African wool in blankets today, and I understand that if other blankets are also made of South African virgin wool it will run into many more millions of lbs. This will be of enormous value to our farmers in South Africa. Before the war Australia was manufacturing something like 300,000 bales of wool and that was with a population of 7,000,000. Now she is manufacturing something like 600,000 bales, with still a population of 7,000,000. I feel that the time will come when South Africa, with her factories properly encouraged and protected, will be able to manufacture our entire clip. Unfortunately we feel that the British buyers have tried in some way to interfere out here by telling us that we have to be very careful that we don’t overdo this factory stunt. I think, however, we must look at it from the point of view of South Africa first, and that we should follow Australia’s example and work in favour of South Africa and not in favour of other countries like America and Great Britain. I hope the Minister will help us in that way. There is another thing I would like to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is his planning council. We all agree that it should be a business proposition and nonpolitical. The personnel of the council are excellent men. I do not wish to mention their names, but we all know them. But I do think that the Agricultural Union should get some men on this planning council. I am sorry that has not been done, because the agricultural people feel that they should be consulted seeing it is the farmers who produce a great deal of raw material. The hon. member for Kimberley, City (Mr. Humphreys) has spoken about lime. I don’t want to dispararge his claims, but at the same time I wish to tell him that in the midlands of the Cape there are enormous deposits of lime, and we hope that our Minister of Mines will take into consideration whether it is not possible to take away the monoplies now in the hands of the cement factories. The Minister of Mines assured me that he would go into the matter, and I hope the Minister of Commerce and Industries will also take note of that, and do everything he can to develop these industries.

I shall not talk at great length. I want to associate myself with what was said here by the hon. member for Kimberley, City (Mr. Humphreys) in connection with industries in the North-West. The hon. member referred a moment ago to lime in the midlands. I know that there is lime, but I think the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) is a stranger in the North-West. The best lime in the Union is produced in the North-West. Hon. members on the other side apparently do not know that; they are members of Parliament and yet they do not know it. At Barkly West there is a big factory where they are working day and night.

I did not say they should not work.

I fully agree with the hon. member for Kimberley, City. It is not right to build up all the industries around Johannesburg. I should like the Minister to take that into consideration. We notice that the whole Government of the country is shifting to one centre. If we go on at this rate Johannesburg will later govern the whole of South Africa, and that is not fair towards the other parts of the country. Kimberley and the North-West are also entitled to have industries, and I should like to urge the Minister and the heads of the Department to give their attention to this matter. In the North-West we have the water and the lime. The only thing which we have to take there is coal, and I should like to urge the Minister to give those parts a chance in the future. I want to ask him, when a further expansion takes place, to give those areas a chance too. We have the raw material there. The difficulties are very great. I am not going to talk at length in regard to this matter. I just wanted to urge the Minister to give his serious attention to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kimberley, City (Mr. Humphreys)

apart from the opening of his speech made a number of remarks which are really important, and especially two of them. The first was that he warns the Minister against the probable or possible centralisation of our industrial development in one or two areas. He says the Minister has got to approach this subject of the centralisation of our industries not merely from the industrial and the economic viewpoint but he has got to approach it from the requirements of the country as a whole. If we are going to centralise our industries in one or two places, it might be economically sound. It might be industrially sound, but I doubt very much if it is going to be in the interests of the country as a whole, because we are going to have a terrific concentration of population in one or two places and it will have to be absorbed and it is a process that is going to take a long time. It has been our experience in South Africa that where you take your urban population to large populated areas you immediately create a large number of very important and very difficult problems which did not exist before. It takes our population in South Africa at least a generation generally to adapt itself from country conditions to urban conditions, and we have already had in our large towns almost insuperable difficulties in adapting our people to these new conditions. If we are going to go on very rapidly increasing industrialisation in certain areas we are going to attract large numbers of people there who are not going to be able to adapt themselves and we are going to create problems which are going to be insuperable. In America they found the same conditions, and whereas they previously had a policy of concentrating their industries in large areas they have now broken away from that to a very large extent and they are bringing their industries from the large towns out into the country with very beneficial results. That is a matter the Minister has to keep in mind. He has to look at it not only from the economic point of view but from the point of the interests of the country as a whole. Another important point raised by the member for Kimberley, City is his perturbation and his interpretation of what the Minister’s policy is going to be in regard to our industrial policy in the future. It is perfectly obvious that questions of that sort should come from this side of the House because our Party has always been the Party which has been steadfastly in favour of protecting industry, and it will be remembered that members on that side of the House in the earlier days opposed the Nationalist Government’s efforts to foster young industries here, and I think I am correct in saying that most hon. members on that side have now been converted to the Nationalist Party in view of 15 years in regard to this matter. But I do not know whether the Minister or the Cabinet has been converted. The hon. member for Kimberley, City has definitely been converted. However, I do not want to say much more on what was said by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) in regard to this matter, except this that there is a feeling of perturbation amongst many people in South Africa that, here, when we are having what one might call an abnormal protection of our industries, because importation has practically ceased and we have had to produce these manufactured products ourselves in South Africa because we cannot get them elsewhere, we are building up a number of industries and the people want to know what is going to be the future of these industries after the war. Naturally there will be a certain amount of sifting out, but is the policy going to be to protect these industries after the war.

They are going to be nationalised after the war.

Now a speech was made a few days ago which I think was very important. It was a speech made by the Chairman of the British Wool Commission in South Africa at a gathering of wool growers in which he warned the wool growers in South Africa that they must take into consideration in the creation of a wool industry in South Africa Clause 4 of the Atlantic Charter. Now Clause 4 of the Atlantic Charter is rather vague. Of course most of the Atlantic Charter is rather vague, but Clause 4 is particularly vague. It is so vague that almost any interpretation can be put upon it but what we want to know is what interpretation is going to be put on it by our Government in South Africa, because the interpretation put upon it by this member of the British Wool Commission was this, that after the war all the signatories to the Atlantic Charter would be bound by that signature to have free trade amongst themselves.

Did he say so?

He said: “I want to warn the wool industry that they have to take that into consideration.” In building up that industry they will not have that protection after the war which to a certain extent they enjoyed before the war and are enjoying during the war.

Are you giving us your opinion of what he said.

Yes. I was not there myself, but I must say that was the opinion of people who were there, and as far as I could see from the report I read in the newspaper that is what he said.

Is that Mr. Guinness?

I do not know. At any rate he is an important person, and that is something which came as a very great shock to us in South Africa. Are we bound by the Atlantic Charter to cease giving protection to our industries, that protection which we gave before? Are we going to have to sacrifice all our industries here to help Great Britain and America build up that export trade which they have lost as a result of the war? It is a very serious problem and it is very essential that on that point, amongst others, the Minister should definitely say how far we are bound by the Atlantic Charter in the future protection which we are going to give to our established industries in South Africa and to any new industries we might wish to establish here.

It says “on equal terms”.

The hon. member for Gardens says “on equal terms”, but we can have very few industries in South Africa on equal terms with the old established industries of Europe and America who produce on an enormous scale and whose overhead expenses are considerably lower than ours.

It means “on equal terms” with all competitive articles coming in from overseas.

If it means I am perfectly satisfied, but that is not the interpretation put on it in that speech. That gentleman warned these people: “You have to be very careful in establishing this industry because after the war you will not have protection as a signatory to the Atlantic Charter.” Now my time is very limited, and I want to leave this, but there is one other problem looming up which the Minister will have to solve, and it is only going to be solved by somebody with the necessary imagination. That is the problem of the distribution of foodstuffs, perishable foodstuffs, from the producer to the consumer in South Africa. We are in a total mess because of the way people have played with us. People have tried, but we have never had anybody with sufficient imagination to tackle this problem as a whole. We have had this very queer economic principle in South Africa that we have paid large bounties to exporters of mealies and butter and other things to sell them in other countries over 6,000 miles away at half the price they were sold in South Africa while there were thousands of people in South Africa suffering from hunger.

That was the Nationalist Party policy.

Now we have got to revise our whole idea about the distribution of foodstuffs and especially perishable foodstuffs. We have got to do something with regard to our marketing to bring these foodstuffs directly from the producer to the consumer. I thought I heard somebody say “Dorfman”. He has done it but he has done it on a small scale; he has done it on an unorganised scale, but I hope that I will live to see the day where in a town like Cape Town we have not one market distributing centre but where we have distributing centres in every thickly populated part of this town.

May I apply for the privilege of the half hour rule?

I regret but the half hour has already been allotted to another hon. member.

Tonight I want to talk about three subjects. My time is very limited and I do not wish to discuss the major industry of South Africa which is politics. I wish to discuss three industries namely the fishing industry, the Federated Engineering Trade and Allied industries and the Textile Industry. In the first place I want to say that fish in an integral part of our food industry and as an industry it should command the attention not only of the Government but it should also command the attention of South Africa as a whole. In order to show how an industry has prospered through the years a very brief reference to its evolution is necessary. The history of fishing in South Africa dates back to the time of Van Riebeek and with it the growth in importance of the Cape in connection with the trade to the East Indies. There existed a superstition in those days that it was unlucky to pass the Cape on the long journey East without delaying to catch fish on the Agulhas Bank. But it was a long time before any concerted effort was made to develop the rudiments of an industry. The main reason for this was I suggest the direct, outcome of Van Riebeek’s policy to increase the wealth of the home country at the expense of any developmental processes. It is interesting to note that the early Cape settlers were enjoined by an official order not to “waste their time fishing.” The order was necessary because the inborn fishing propensities of the early Dutch Settiers soon manifested themselves. This official attitude existed for a number of years, and the echo of that. I fear still exists in our modern times. I sincerely hope I am not wasting the time of the House in merely talking on such a subject as our fishing industry. In one of his journals home van Riebeek casually mentions snoek. He records its capture in Saldanha Bay and because it resembled the fresh water pike of Holland so closely he named it “Zeesnoek”. This fish so carefully and unenthusiastically mentioned by him is familiar to all South Africans and in its salted form alone has an export value today of £14,000 per annum. Another casual reference was made to the occurrence of very fine large crawfish. I wonder if this House realises that the export value of canned and frozen crawfish amounts to £500,000 sterling per annum. It would be interesting too to mention here that some years back one of our experimental survey boats just outside Durban on the 200 fathom mark trawled and netted 10,000 crawfish in one hour. I mention this to prove how prolific our waters are. The fishing grounds of the Union comprise 100,000 square miles. Of this vast area only one quarter has been scientifically surveyed since 1895. Of the quarter of our fishing ground only one-third is being exploited by us. I want to emphasise that side because it has a bearing on the potentiality of this industry. We are therefore in this fortunate position of having vast fishing grounds in reserve if our present areas did begin to show signs of depletion. I say without fear of contradiction that in our 1,500 miles of coastline we have the richest fishing grounds in the world. And I go further and say that if every fishing ground in the world closed down South African waters could very nearly supply the world’s fish needs. The potentiality of our fishing industry is enormous. I should like to impress that fact upon the House. It is enormous. I mentioned a little while ago that only one-third of the quarter of our known fishing grounds is being exploited by us today. Taking the capital investment in the fishing industry and the gross turnover of our fish, considered in £. s. d., is this Government not interested in an industry which has potential value of between 40/50 million pounds if it is properly worked to its fullest capacity.

A year?

No. This is a total amount which might be considered as the total financial activity of the fishing industry. I am sure the Government, is interested but I am not so sure that that interest is being translated into the necessary action to ensure the well-being of our fishing industry. What has the Government done so far in fostering the industry? I know it has done a little but it has not done enough. We passed a Sea Fisheries Bill in this House in 1940. I sat on the Select Committee which reported on the Bill. We had hopes that at last a start would be made to improve things in the fishing world. I shared that optimism but with this reservation that unless the Government provided the necessary funds to put the provisions of the Bill into practice nothing much could be achieved. I expressed my fears very clearly during that debate which followed the introduction of the 1940 Sea Fisheries Bill. Of course then my fears and pleadings were made in this House before another Minister. Today we have a young, active, intelligent progressive Minister.

And a virile Minister.

Yes, and he is virile too. I trust that he will listen to the voice of one who is interested in the future of South African industries. He and I at least still have a large slice of life before us. He probably knows that this Bill in 1940 was primarily intended to improve the lot of the inshore fisherman. I know now that the Bill did not go far enough and I am not going to waste the time of the House discussing a detailed scheme as to how a good inshore fishing industry could be established, but if our young, intelligent, progressive, and virile Minister is really interested in the matter, I can give him a workable scheme which must be accepted in toto if it is to be a success. I know that the Department of Commerce and Industries may be conducting experiments to find out first how they work in certain fishing villages or settlements, but I contend such a method of procedure is nothing more than tinkering with the problems affecting the inshore fishing industry. A general scheme properly financed by the Government is the only remedy. When I refer to inshore fishing I want the House to realise that inshore fishing forms only a portion of the industry as a whole. The industry can be divided into three groups which conform roughly to the methods of fish capture. First there is the trawling group, then the line fishing group and thirdly there is the netting group. Deep sea trawling is the backbone of the Union’s regular fish supply, hut there is one fact which I must emphasise and that is although the trawling industry is responsible for 50 per cent. of the total fish landings it represents less than 10 per cent. of the total number of people engaged in the fishing industry. In other words 90 per cent. of the fisherfolk make their living outside of deep sea trawling. I feel if anything like real progress is to be made an entirely new Bill is necessary to meet the demands for a complete reformation of this industry as a whole.

I should like to confirm what the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) has said in connection with the regulations governing blankets which are made here, and I just want to refer to one point which, in my opinion, has not been sufficiently emphasised. The hon. member for Cradock and I personally interviewed the Minister in connection with the regulations because we felt that these regulations were to the disadvantage of the wool farmer in South Africa. One point in regard to which I felt strongly was that the maximum weight of the blankets would be 3½ lbs. I understand that that was done in order to provide cheap blankets, to a certain extent, to coloured people and natives. But in view of the fact that we are a wool producing country, I should like to know whether two classes of blankets cannot be made, the light class of 34 lbs. weight and the heavier class of 4½ lbs. weight. I feel that we have built up a fine reputation for South Africa with the blankets which have been manufactured here, and we all feel that those blankets should be marked with a special mark to show that they come from South Africa; and we are now going to injure that reputation if we make the blankets a pound lighter. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to allow two classes of blanket to be manufactured. Let us then have the lighter type for the coloured people and the natives, and in addition to that, the heavier type of 4-4 lbs. Then by reducing the weight we shall not injure the fine reputation we have. The cost of the type of wool for these blankets is 20d. per lb., and if the blanket is now made 3½ lbs. instead of 44 lbs. it means that only 20d. will be saved, and that ought surely not to influence us to prejudice the good reputation of South Africa. That is really not necessary. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see his way clear to give effect to the suggestion which I have made here. Then there is another matter which is of great importance to all the farmers in South Africa, especially those in the more distant parts. As the Minister knows, the petrol stations close at 12 o’clock on Saturdays. That represents one of the greatest disadvantages to the farmers. In the Western Province, at any rate, the people are near the petrol stations, but in the platteland they are 20, 30, 40 and even 100 miles away from the petrol stations and it is a very great drawback to farming in South Africa that the pumps should close at 12 o’clock on Saturdays. The Government asks the farmers to produce as much as possible. This practically means that today the farmers work five days in the week, because on Saturday mornings he has to go to town to fetch petrol, and his “bywoner” must also go to town, because the regulations are very strict; the petrol cannot be conveyed to the bywoner in a tin. Cannot the Minister make provision, as far as the distant parts are concerned, in other words, the platteland, for petrol to be provided, say, on Saturdays between 6 and 7 or between 7 and 8 in the evening. I can appreciate that difficulties may arise near the towns, but in the interests of farming I want to ask the Minister seriously to consider this matter, so that the farmer can obtain petrol towards the evening, and so that he need not go to town during the morning. The Minister may not be acquainted with the circumstances of the farmers on the platteland, and I want to tell him that this regulation is harmful in all respects to the progress of farming, because it means that on Saturday morning the farmer has to go into town instead of late in the afternoon. But there is also another point. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has already drawn the attention of the Minister to the cost of distribution of products in South Africa. We know that the Minister of Agriculture, as price controller, has fixed the maximum price of meat at 9½d. per lb. Nevertheless we find in Cape Town that meat costs as much as 1s. 6d. per lb. The Minister of Agriculture thinks that that gap between 9½d. and 1s. 6d. in the retail trade is not excessive. I should like to know from the Minister whether he is really convinced that the consumer is not being exploited, since he now has to pay up to 1s. 6d. per lb. for meat? I personally do not buy meat in Cape Town, but members of Parliament who have their own homes here and who buy meat, say that at the bottom of the meat account there is a remark to the effect that the delivery charge is so much. Up to 1s. 6d. per lb. is therefore charged for meat, plus so much for delivery. That seems to be far-reaching, and I should like to know from the Minister whether he does not feel that a change should be brought about in the interests of the consumers in South Africa, as well as in the interests of the farmers. Things cannot go on in this way. That difference is really too big. Since the price has been fixed at 9½d., and the meat is sold at as much as 1s. 6d„ it means that the consumer has to pay 100 per cent. more than the farmer receives. I feel, therefore, that the Minister should go into this matter, and I should like to hear whether or not he thinks that this gap is justified. Then there is another point which was also touched upon by the hon. member for Humansdorp. There is one time in the life of a country when industries should be established and factories erected, and that is during a time of war. During this time we have started numerous industries, but there is a danger that in future after the war, those industries will not be able to compete with the industries in countries where they have been in existence for years, and where in some cases they have cheaper labour than we in South Africa have. I am thinking, for example, of Japan, a country with which we have had a great deal of trouble in the past. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, when my time was up I was saying that I felt that if anything like real progress is to be made, an entirely new Bill is necessary to meet the demands for a complete reformation of the industry as a whole. It is no use introducing Bills in this House which ony tinker with a portion of the problem.

Order. The hon. member is aware he cannot advocate legislation.

Personally I feel that fishing in its entirety should be a State industry; in fact I go so far as to say that a separate portfolio for Fisheries should be created. The Minister concerned would be responsible for other maritime matters such as fish conservation in all estuaries, fleet air arm, coastal armaments and coastwise shipping, light houses and hydrographic surveys. Then surely too the control of seals and sea-birds should come under the jurisdiction of a Minister of Fisheries. An enormous amount of fish is wasted by sea birds, and this waste means money. The hon. Minister of Finance has repeatedly told this House that South Africa is a poor country. Then why this senseless waste of fish which means money? And why should guano islands come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, while the Department of Commerce and Industries has the greater interest in conserving our fish supplies? There is an annual guano yield of 7,000 tons which is indeed expensive. It works out at approximately £417,000 per ton. This amazing figure is easily substantiated Mr. Chairman if one considers that sea-birds consume their own weight of fish per day, and the average duiker weighs 4 lbs. and it is estimated that there are 25,000,000 of these birds on the East and West coasts of Africa, so the annual fish consumption of these birds amounts to one hundred million pounds of fish per annum, and valuing this fish at only a penny per lb. which of course is well below market value, we find that the annual guano yield is indeed expensive. And this is a poor country Mr. Chairman. A country in which agriculture uses guano which costs £417,000 per ton to produce! While on the subject of waste I should like to quote from a publication which I have here. It is called “Foreign Affairs” and I refer to an article by J. Ryley O’Neill on the inability of people to buy and use their own production. The writer of this article deals with such phenomena of over-production, under-consumption and gluts. Here are some examples: “The Danish Government in 1933 burning cattle at a rate of 5,000 a week. Under Roosevelt’s N.R.A. 33,000,000 dollars were allotted to pig sow slaughter. 350,000,000 dollars to corn hog production control, and 102,000,000 dollars to wheat acreage reduction. In New Zealand in 1934, 4,000 lambs were driven into the sea and every Autumn thousands of tons of fruit rot in British orchards. In Cuba in 1932 the economic position was improved by the destruction of thousands of tons of sugar.” You see, Mr. Chairman, great ingenuity has been displayed in dealing with these problems by creating artificial scarcity. The writer of the article, of course, could also have given examples of how we disposed of surplus South African citrus and how we wasted our fish. I contend that there is an artificial scarcity of fish. Let anyone try to buy a pot of fish paste today. There is none to be had while our waters are teeming with fish. Of course there exists an artificial scarcity. What I particularly want to know from the Minister is what he intends to do to help the industry and to put it on a sound basis. What are his plans? What is his policy for the future? Before I stop talking of reform in our fishing industry I want to talk about another industry which is worthy of the Minister’s attention. Let me remind the Minister that it was in March, 1940, that members of this House started pressing for State intervention in our fishing industry. Shortly afterwards, it was on the 4th May, 1940, to be exact, that a report of a speech appeared in the “Cape Times” on the same subject; it was an interesting speech and delivered by no less a person than the Prime Minister himself, Field-Marshal Smuts. It was headed “Union’s wasted asset”, and was in the following terms:—

I say by encouraging the fishing industry we are going to get that material. We have the manhood. Gen. Smuts went on further to remark about our valuable assets—

Those are his own words,—

Mr. Chairman, before we can arrive at a position where we can export fish we have to put the industry on a sound footing. I again want to ask the Minister what his policy is in regard to the fishing industry. What is he going to do to improve conditions? Mr. Chairman, there is another subject I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to, and that is the question of the engineering trade on the Rand. Our Minister of Railways and Harbours, Mr. Sturrock, has stated that the Rand will be the future “Birmingham of South Africa”, and anybody who takes the trouble to visit the engineering workshops in Johannesburg will realise the enormous progress which the engineering industry has made during the last three years. The war, of course, has given it the necessary impetus. I am not talking about an individual industry, but rather what I might call the Associated Engineering Industry. I am talking of an industry which employs 25,000 whites and 77,000 natives. The wages paid out by this industry amounts to £11,000,000 per annum for Europeans, and £15,000,000 per annum for natives. The Engineering industry has today co-ordinated itself into a Federation called the South African Federation of Engineers and Metallurgical Association, shortly known as Safema. Safema has put up certain suggestions to the Government and one of the main suggestions is that the Government should consider a post-war policy of industrial development, and the industry should be given some idea of the post-war wants of the Government and its various departments. I feel quite sure that the Government is fully alive to the possibilities of encouraging a big advance in secondary industries in South Africa after the war, and I trust that the Minister will consider the suggestions of those who are already moving in the matter. The Minister knows that Sir William Jowitt, Minister without Portfolio in the British Cabinet, who is in charge of post-war reconstruction plans, said a little while ago, I thing it was on Thursday of last week, that the various departments concerned were working under twenty different heads. [Time limit.]

I should like to avail myself of the half hour rule. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) on his speech, especially in connection with fisheries. I had the privilege of serving with him on a Select Committee in connection with fisheries in 1940, and I then gained the impression that the hon. member knows more perhaps about fisheries than all the other members of this House put together, and I welcome his plea today. I think we are making too little use of his knowledge in connection with the matter. We plead for the establishment of young industries with State support. I must say that I am almost inclined to move that progress be reported with leave to sit again, for the simple reason that, as I told the hon. member just now, we are really barking up the wrong tree. We make a plea for financial support for new industries, and we plead with a Government, the Prime Minister of which has delegated his powers to the Minister of Commerce and Industries, while he, in turn has delegated his powers to Dr. van der Byl and his committee. These powers have been delegated, and as far as I can see Dr. van der Byl is not even here. I have been told that his representative is here, and what I am saying here is not intended to cast any reflection on his representative, but we are here addressing the Minister of Commerce and Industries in connection with the support of young industries, which should be supported especially in war time, while the man to whom these powers have been delegated, Dr. van der Byl, is not even here, nor his special committee. I do not want to move that progress be reported, because that may be regarded as wasting time, but I want to say that I am very sorry, since we are dealing with such an important matter, an extremely important matter, that we have to address a Government which has delegated its powers to a special committee, while, to my surprise, Dr. van der Byl and his committee are not even here. With regard to the establishment of industries, I want to associate myself with those who said that this is the opportune time to give financial support in South Africa to young industries. There is no better time than war time for a young country to do that. The Minister is new to this position, and I want to ask him what his Government has so far done in connection with this matter. Without dragging politics into the matter, I want to ask hon. members on the other side what the Government has done during this war to establish young industries. The hon. member for Boksburg spoke of the treasures in our seas. I just want to put a few questions in order to show how impotent the Government has been in connection with this matter. We expect unemployment on an enormous scale after the war, unemployment which may even be greater after this war than is usually the case after a war. What is the Government doing in order to assist young industries, so as to enable them to employ people when these difficult times arrive? We continually talk about post-war conditions, and what will have to be done, but we look in vain for something which is actually done—except that a special committee has been appointed under the chairmanship of the Minister of Native Affairs to ascertain how work can be provided after the war. Apart from that I believe nothing has been done. I hope the Minister will get up and be able to say what the Government has contributed towards the establishment of young industries. This is the opportune time. In the days of the former President Roosevelt, when America experienced a tremendous revival, a tremendous re-awakening, he said: “One cannot make a success of a young country unless the State supports young growing industries.” That is the position in South Africa, and for that reason I got up in order to plead for young industries. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Boksburg, who spoke of the treasures at our coast. We have a longer coast line perhaps than any other country, from Walvis Bay to Kosie Bay, and we are one of those countries which—we are ashamed to say—has done least to protect and to develop its natural products. As much as a country should fight to keep open its sea routes, its trade, so much is any young country called upon to develop its natural industries, and I level this accusation against this Government—an accusation which I could probably level against any other government, but which I make against this Government particularly, which is in power at a time of war, which is the best time to help these industries on—I make this accusation that practically nothing is done to develop young industries, that nothing is done to make money available for the young industries to develop. We heard the other day that the Government is now beginning to develop the treasures of the sea, and when we asked what that meant, we heard that the Government was going to provide six small motor boats at Velddrift. This whole matter calls for solution. In associating myself with the hon. member for Boksburg in connection with the importance of our fishing industry, I want to say immediately that in order to develop it one must bring the fish within the reach of the many. That is the first point. In the second place one must remember that it is a perishable product, so that one must be in a position to deliver it quickly and direct to the consumer. On these points this Government and previous governments have failed. We did not enable the people to obtain fish. We know a few types of fish, but the best edible fish, as everyone knows who knows something about the matter, is deep sea fish. Facilities were not created in connection with that type of fish. Facilities were created on a small scale, but not on a large scale. The small boats cannot go far out into the sea to get this fish, and even if they are able to fetch it they are not in a position to bring it to the consumer in a fresh condition. They may be able to bring the fish to the land within two or three days, but then there are no cold storage facilities to bring the fish to the consumer. A third point of neglect of duty which I want to mention—and I agree with the hon. member for Boksburg that this is a matter for the Government—is that the Government does not advertise its fish. No publicity is given to it. Even where there are cold storage facilities, the consuming public is lacking. I just want to mention a few figures to demonstrate this. We, if I take only the European population, consume 5 lbs. of fish per head annually, Norway 70 lbs. per head per year, Holland 55 lbs., Britain 41 lbs. We consume 5 lbs. per head per year. And then I refer only to the European population. We have millions of natives who are potential fish consumers.

They do not eat fish.

The natives are only afraid of the eyes. When you cut off the head, they are no longer afraid. The natives can be taught to eat fish. We know that at first the natives were also afraid to wear sandals, they never wanted to wear them. But even before the war, thousands of natives wore Japanese sandals. We must create the facilities for marketing. Then another matter in connection with fisheries. We know that the fisherman, the man who catches the fish, wastes a good deal. There is no protection of fish, and that is also a matter for the Government. There must be proper protection if we want to build up a sound industry. I therefore want to make a plea that immediately after the war the Government should send a committee to Canada and the United States of America to see how this industry is protected. In Canada they protect and pamper the industry like a child, like a baby, but here we have only a few members in Paraliament who talk about the development of these potential riches, and one feels that one is crying out in the wilderness. I hope that the Minister will convey our message to Dr. van der Byl. This is the opportune time. But in connection with the treasures around our coasts, there are other points for development. The hon. member for Boksburg spoke of guano. We have a tremendous market for it. Then there is a big market for fish oil, which at present we have to import from other countries. The fish oil which is necessary for the natives on the mines cannot be obtained. There we have a big field for development. Now I want to mention three other undeveloped industries in connection with treasures in our seas. In the first place, I want to refer to sea bamboo. In California, in San Diego, it has been developed into an excellent industry. The country feeds its sea bamboo to the cattle. One finds in California that the cattle which gain first prizes at shows are cattle which were fed on sea bamboo: In South Africa we have more sea bamboo that we sometimes care to have, when we go fishing. We have a long coast line with sea bamboo everywhere, and here we have an enormous potential industry. Especially in our country with its droughts, it may mean a great deal if we can produce cattle fodder in this way. I want to ask the Minister of Commerce and Industries whether it is not possible to start this industry. I want to mention another industry. I refer to the vitamins which are taken from the livers of sharks. At the moment we regard sharks as pests. We find sharks around our coasts in large quantities, and the vitamins which can be obtained from the livers of sharks are of the utmost importance from a medical point of view. Especially during this war there is a great demand for shark livers, or at any rate the vitamins which are found in the liver of the shark, because it has been found to be of particular value to aviators, since it improves their sight. There are as many sharks at our coasts as we want, and consequently as much shark liver as we would care to process. Cannot the Minister invest some money in this? Will he not ask Dr. van der Byl for some money for this purpose? The vitamins are of the greatest importance for all sorts of purposes.

The price has risen in our country by 100 per cent.

A third point, and probably the most important which I want to mention, is the potential value of our shells. I believe that during hundreds of years shells have accumulated on our coasts, and according to calculations thousands of pounds can be taken out of those shells annually. What can be done with them? Phosphate for the farmers can be manufactured from them. There is a shortage of phospate. The Government says we must produce wheat, but the farmers cannot do so without phosphate, and at our coasts we have banks of oyster shells which have accumulated in the course of centuries, and the shells at Saldanha Bay and all along the coast are of the right quality for the manufacture of phosphate. What happened? Some years ago a small company started developing it, but America, which is the only other country which can produce the same type of phosphate from shells, was able, as a result of shipping facilities and other circumstances, to send phosphate to this country at such a price that the small company could not develop. I too have now heard of this for the first time. Nothing came of this, but I understand that the machinery is still there. Is there no opportunity to develop something in that direction? We have a great shortage of artificial manure, and an industry can be developed at comparatively small cost, because I understand that the machinery is still available. We owe that to the wheat farmers. Let us make available the necessary money to develop this great asset. War time is the right time for the development of new industries. If the Minister wants further details in regard to this matter, we shall be only too pleased to give them to him. I think I can leave it at that. But I do want to refer to one young industry, one which is quite distinct from those I have already mentioned. I want to come back to a matter to which I referred earlier this Session, and that is the development of our film industry. I am somewhat disturbed about the development, because we are drifting in the direction of Hollywood. The United States of America are unfortunate in that their film industry has got into the hands of a cartel, with the result that to a large extent Hollywood has succeeded in being able to prescribe to the Government what must be done. Hollywood has the film industry in the hollow of its hand. We must prevent anything of a similar nature occurring in this country, but we are moving dangerously in the same direction. I want to warn the Government in good time, therefore. We know that there is one person in South Africa—I need not mention his name here—who for many years has been particularly interested in the film industry, and he has availed himself of the opportunity so to develop his undertaking that today he is practically a dictator in the industry. Has the time not arrived for us to take this out of the hands of this individual? During the course of the debate I put certain questions, and every question which was replied to convinced me more than ever that that film magnate is getting us more and more into his power. I want to admit that we must have films for our people, for the bioscopes and for educational purposes, but why we should develop only in one special direction I do not know. Why only one particular firm should be selected for favoured treatment, I do not know. When I raised this matter some time ago, the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) stood up and said that I was wrong, but the reply which I got shortly thereafter to a question confirmed my assumption. I just want to warn the Minister. I got certain figures in connection with the purchase of film material in South Africa. The reply was that £150 worth was bought from Kodaks. I am only giving the figures; it does not matter over what period it was. One hundred of fifty pounds’ value was bought from Kodaks; from Utola films not £150, but £23 worth; from one other firm £3,496 over the same period. I just want to warn the Minister and say this to him: Do not let us get into the hands of a cartel; let us, as a young country, develop our own industries. I feel perturbed about this position. When a certain firm makes available its bioscopes for the Governor General’s Fund, and it contributes to the Governor General’s Fund, it suddenly gets facilities, and I want to tell the Minister that if we give that firm facilities today, we shall be giving it a grip which we will never be able to shake off. I resent that most strongly. I say that there is something wrong. Every time the Minister of Finance gets up, he announces an increase in the import, tariff on films. But this is always in the interests of one big firm only. This big firm is in favour of increasing the import tariff because that enables it to eliminate all young undertakings, with the result that today we have almost the same position in our country as in America. Today we have this position in South Africa that no young firm can import films, because the import tariff is prohibitive. Only the big man can import films. When one looks at the import figures of films, one finds that what I say here is correct. Only one gentleman can import them, and I warn the Minister that tomorrow or the next day this particular gentleman may come to him and ask that the import tariff be increased, and the Minister will only be too pleased to do so, because it would mean extra revenue for the Treasury, not knowing that this gentleman’s sole object is to eliminate all young industries. I think it is sufficient for me, at this stage, to ask the Government rather to spend money on the establishment of other young industries instead of favouring one firm to the exclusion of young firms.

I should like forty minutes on the fishing industry, but I am sure you, sir, would not like it, so I shall “make do” with four minutes. Chiefly, I have a request to make. It is a relief to me as a man born within the sound of the sea to hear the ocean mentioned in this House. As descendants from the great mariners of Holland and Britain one would expect to hear much talk of the vasty deep! But no such thing. Normally not a word is said, and from the silence one might imagine that there is not a drop of salt water within 1,000 miles of Cape Town. But there is, and it is full of food and full of wealth, and it is ordinary common sense to reap and gather in these products. The request I would make is this. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) has a vast store of knowledge on this particular subject, and it is pretty obvious to anyone who listened to him that the hon. member for Mooreesburg has also studied this very important question, and mv suggestion to the Minister is that before any scheme of State fisheries is adopted, those of us who have made a study of this question should be formed into a Committee so that we may advise the Department from the knowledge which we have acquired, before any scheme is completed. My reason for asking that is that the researches already made by interested members of this House should be made use of, and at this moment there is little or no evidence that the Government has any intention of so doing. I read in the Press of a scheme which is a fait accompli—the thing is done—and not over well done, so far as my knowledge goes. I read in the Press of a scheme at Velddrift having been completed, although line fishing is there to all practical purposes impossible. Moreover, the Department proposes to buy and to give to certain fishermen, some thirty fishermen, boats that weigh twenty tons, and would be 55 ft. in length—just about four times as big as boats suitable for use in that particular area should be. What I am asking is that the knowledge which we have should be exploited, and that people who have studied the matter should be allowed to put their suggestions to the Minister before decisions are reached; that practical fishermen who know what build a boat should be, and what the tonnage of a boat should be, and who know where the fish are, should be allowed to give advice. From interviews which I have had with practical and experienced men, I know that there are skilled fishermen who can help us a lot. And we should allow them to put their knowledge at our disposal.

I think I had better reply to some of the points that have been raised. The chief question raised by members this evening very naturally has been the general one—what is the industrial policy of the Government. Well, I should like to think that whoever may claim to have originated the industrial policy of the country—and I know that all parties lay claim to be responsible for it—I should like to think that today the industrial policy broadly speaking is one which has been taken out of party politics, because all parties who have been in charge of the Government of this country since Union have really followed a fairly consistent industrial policy namely one of trying to build up our secondary industries on the basis of our raw materials. The pace at which industries have been built up have varied, and the rate at which they have grown in the last two or three years is one of the reasons why it is difficult for anyone to sketch a clear picture of the actual industrial future of the Union today. The abnormal growth of industries under the impulse of the last three years has brought about a state of industrial development which will have to be reconciled with the conditions of peace when this war is over, and as I have pointed out on other occasions that entails very careful investigation of the various kinds of industries which have flourished during war time. Those investigations are being carried out at the present moment by various bodies, one of which is the Committee appointed by Dr. van der Bijl, to which the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) seemed to take such exception, and which, if I understood him rightly, he rather misunderstood. That Committee was appointed by the Prime Minister to advise the Prime Minister on the future handling of war industries which have been actually established by the Director General of War Supplies.

I did not take exception to the Committee. My only point was that the members of the Committee are not here to listen to what is being said.

At any rate I understood the hon. member to say that he thought the Director of War Supplies had been given authority to lay down the policy in regard to that matter. He has not. He has been asked to advise the Government as to the best method of reconciling these factories into peace time economy. That is only one aspect of the whole matter. The other reason why it is difficult to give a clear picture beyond saying that it is our desire and intention to do all we can to foster the industries of the Union, and to preserve the position which these industries have acquired, as a result of the war the other reason why it is difficult is because of this question of the Atlantic Charter to which the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has referred. I am not responsible for what the Chairman of the British Wool Commission may have said, nor am I responsible for what any other private individual may have haid, but I do believe that the meaning of the Atlantic Charter, talking from the industrial point of view, is that if the Atlantic Charter is developed along the broad lines which are laid down in it, it means that economic and industrial isolation cannot be pursued with success by any country after this war. I do not think for one moment that it means that there are going to be no tariffs, or that every country is to allow its industries to be flooded by cheaper goods from other parts of the world; that would be the very negation of the terms of the Atlantic Charter; that is the very question which we are going to try and hammer out with the other countries of the world—we are going to try and hammer out a system under which everyone may live at peace and develop their natural resources, and feed their people and provide a decent living for them by developing those resources.

Will our tariff walls be dependent on what other people do?

That is the point. The war industries have been developed; after all, it has been behind high tariff walls, worse than tariff walls—often there have been prohibitions—that many of those industries have been developed. We say that the only other way, short of prohibitive tariffs, short of prohibitions and restrictions of trade, leading to destruction of raw materials, and foodstuffs in different parts of the world—the only other way to deal with the position is to arrange your markets by agreement. And that is how I interpret the Atlantic Charter as a declaration, that we propose after this war—and we propose even before the end of the war—to plan out means whereby we may exchange our goods and employ our people and develop our markets and supply other countries as well with these goods which we can produce on an economic basis—it is on those lines that we shall try to arrange by agreement instead of by high tariff barriers and trade wars to continue the existence of our industries.

What we are afraid of is that we shall get hammered out in the process.

I appreciate the hon. member’s fear that we may get hammered out in the process. All I can say is that if the scheme for coming to an arrangement by agreement does not work, we shall not be the only country by a long way which will have to find other means to endeavour to exist. We shall not have the whole world coming on our neck. If the scheme cannot be worked out we shall all have to admit that it has failed, but personally I don’t think it will fail. There is an overwhelming feeling among the peoples of the world that the state of affairs which existed in the first half of this century should not be allowed to continue. And I think that feeling is going to be translated into concrete fact. The hon. member for Fauresmith went on to deal with the question of the Lease Lend Agreement and wanted to know what was the principle of it. I can tell him what the origin was. It was the determination of the people of the United States to see that Great Britain was not overwhelmed before they themselves were properly armed, before their turn came to be attacked by Germany. Well, we are, and we have been, always greatly concerned in this matter because we have been drawing large quantities of supplies from Britain. Then America came into the war, and we are now at the stage where we are discussing with America a Lease-Lend Agreement of our own. I am not in a position to go into details because the matter is under discussion, but I can assure the hon. member for Fauresmith on the point he has raised. His point is that by receiving so much under Lease-Lend he may incur such a debt to the United States … .

That we may mortgage our future.

I can assure the hon. member that the agreement we are negotiating will not tend to bring that about.

Then why all this generosity?

I have just tried to explain that. I hate having to remind the hon. member of it, but we are allied to the United States in a war which we are both trying to win, and the United States is in a position to make a contribution by way of materials …

Yes, but what do they want in return for that?

Victory.

They want to win the war.

And after the war?

They want to win the peace.

America is not conducting this war on a £. s. and d. basis.

On what basis is it then?

America is out to win this war, because she knows that if we don’t win this war, the United States will suffer just like ourselves and like the rest of the world. I don’t think we need take such a poor view of our neighbours and our friends. The hon. member went on rather to cast doubts on America’s peaceful penetration which he said had been taking place in recent months in the Union, and he mentioned the large number of American travellers who had come to the Union. I am not aware of there being largely increased numbers of American travellers in the Union—and if there are I think they are wasting their time. I may say that I have been approached more than once during this past Session with complaints from American manufacturers’ representatives in this country that they are not fairly treated by the Government, and that their businesses are liable to suffer under existing conditions. Well, I don’t think we need worry about that unduly. I take it as a compliment that the United States should take an interest in the Union. They are intelligent people and they show their good sense if they take an interest in the Union, and I think it would be a very good thing if we were to encourage them. Now, the hon. member also raised a question of the increase of foreign capital investments in the Union. As far as that is concerned, if our industrial development goes ahead as we hope it will in years to come I don’t think there is any doubt that a certain amount, of foreign capital will be invested.

Are you encouraging it?

I am doing neither at present.

That shows a lack of policy.

Oh, no, it shows a sense of balance. That is the whole point. You cannot go to one extreme or to the other. Anyone who says that South Africa can only be developed by foreign capital is talking nonsense, but anyone who says that no foreign capital should be allowed in the Union for development is equally doing a dis-service to the country.

Where do you strike your balance?

You can only do that by experience. The Industrial Corporation which has been formed with a capital of £5,000,000 for the purpose of assisting industries to develop is not confining itself solely and specifically to concerns financed only with Union money. If a firm or an organisation with technical experience and highly developed machinery were desirous of starting an industry in this country which the Industrial Corporation thought to be to the benefit of the country, and if we and our technical experts thought the same, I don’t think the Corporation would hesitate to assist them.

So your policy is one of laissez-faire.

Oh, no, the hon. member is too intelligent to misunderstand me. Now the further point he raised was in regard to the great difference between the unskilled and skilled wage, and there he raised a point of the utmost importance, and I must say that I entirely agree with him. The difference between a skilled wage and an unskilled wage in our industrial life is thoroughly unhealthy and unsound, it is an unhealthy factor which will have to be remedied.

In what way?

By raising the pay of the unskilled worker, but that can only be done provided in doing so you do not make it unremunerative to continue the industry. That can only be done by increasing efficiency and by increasing the output and the efficiency of the worker. And within limits, as you pay better wages, so you get a better type of worker—and within reasonable limits—the better wages you pay, the better you treat your employees, the better results you get, and the better you can afford to pay.

Do you agree with the suggestion that we should devalue?

That is a matter for my friend, the Minister of Finance. It is a highly technical matter and it is really linked up with the whole question of foreign exchange, and balancing our international trade which is matter for discussion at the moment between the various allied nations. The hon. member also asked me about the black market. We are doing our best to ensure that the regulations for the control of prices are being kept. We have a number of inspectors out. We have had something like 3,000 cases of contraventions of the price Control Act—of which the black market is one form—and we have collected over £15,000 in fines, which gives some indication of the activities and endeavours we are making, and there are many more cases under investigation.

Have you caught any of the big people apart from the small ones?

I cannot say that we have caught any of the big people, but we have cases pending against a number of big people. Whether they are guilty or not the courts will have to decide. The last point the hon. member raised was the question of the Planning Council. I just want to point out that there are no political appointments on that Council. The hon. member referred to the appointment of a full-time Council.

Surely the principle is the same as it is in regard to other councils and boards.

The Planning Council is a part-time body and pending the final decision whether we shall appoint a further full-time body, that part of the recommendation may remain in abeyance. I don’t think that is an important point at present. The hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys) spoke for a few minutes before he came to mention Kimberley—but I had a shrewd suspicion that he was going to do so. The hon. member is anxious to know what we are doing about planning the industrial development of the Union and particularly in regard to the policy of bringing your factories to your raw materials. Of course, we know that there has been a tendency through various causes to concentrate factories in or near the big towns. Railway rates—favourable rates of various kinds—have had a lot to do with that. As far as Johannesburg is concerned one must bear in mind that it is by far the biggest market in the Union, and there will always be a tendency for people to build their factories near the big markets. The Iron and Steel Industry is near there which made it inevitable that most of the big war factories should be somewhere near there. But I agree with the hon. member for Kimberley and also with the hon. member for Humansdorp that over-centralisation of industries is bad for the country. I have just spent some years in a country, in a city, which is probably the worst example of over-centralisation in the world. One quarter of the whole population of England lives in London and there you see what a bad thing it is. And I agree that what influence the Government has should be directed to the proper grouping of our factories, having regard not only to the raw materials, but also to the effect on the population as a whole in time to come if industries develop on big lines as we hope they will. The hon. member for Kimberley with whom I discussed this whole question recently, when he met me with a deputation, knows that this matter of Railway rates is being gone into by the Minister of Railways. Then the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) and the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) raised the question of wool. The hon. member for Cradock is worried about the duty on wool in the United States, and the price which the United States are paying for their wool. I am afraid that is not a matter in which my Department can interfere, but if the price which the American Government is paying for American wool is to be taken into consideration in negotiating a fresh wool agreement in years to come, with the British Government, it is a matter for the Department of Agriculture and not for me, since all the negotiations are done by them. Both hon. members asked for a fresh assurance about the blankets now being made not being made from foreign wool. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) who is not here tonight, has a question on the Order Paper asking me whether any foreign wool had been imported during the last twelve months. I have not been able to answer his question before now, because I was anxious to give him a full answer. I knew if I said yes or no that would not satisfy him, and I want to give him as much information as I can. I am prepared to answer it tomorrow. Broadly speaking, I do not know why there should be this sudden excitement at the thought of importing foreign wool, because it has been imported regularly for many years.

No, no, no!

Oh, yes, there was a report to the Board of Trades as late as 1939 which reported that the importation of crossbred wool for blending purposes in the manufacture of blankets was essential. That is as late as 1939, so that a certain amount of cross-bred wool was used for the purpose of making our blankets. But as a matter of fact that amount has declined, and since last October none has been imported. I may tell the Committee that the present position is this. No import permits or essentiality certificates have been given for the importation of foreign wool, and the manufacturers of blankets in the Union have been told that no imported wool is to be used, and that the word “wool” in the regulations to which the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) referred, is to be construed as meaning South African wool, and as including mohair as well. So that the position is now that although there are not very big stocks of foreign cross-bred wool in the country, such as there have been for many years, none of that wool is being used by manufacturers at the moment, and none will be used as long as South African karakul or cross-bred wool is available for the blankets. I hope that puts the position quite clearly to the hon. member for Cradock. The question in regard to the 3½ lb. blanket which the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) raised, is a smaller blanket than the normal 4½ lb. blanket. It is primarily intended for the native and non-European trade. There was a very serious position arising here owing to the shortage of blankets, and we are now turning or we should be turning out something like 250,000 of these blankets per month, and that should go far to satisfy the non-European. The other blankets will be of the ordinary weight. Now we come to the very important question of the fishing industry. I am sure the Committee does not believe that I want any converting on the subject of the fishing industry. In fact, I am glad to say that during my absence some of my pupils have become apostels in this matter. I always like discussing the fishing industry, because it is one of the few subjects on which the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) and myself have found ourselves in complete agreement. It is common cause that in the fishing resources of the Union we have a great primary industry which has hitherto not been fully developed. It is common cause that as the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) and the hon. member for Moorreesburg have pointed out, there are possibilities of raising the social living conditions and welfare of the fishermen, and improving the distribution and marketing of fish, and making it available for many more people than those who were able to obtain fish before. There is also the question of the value of secondary industries which can be developed from the primary catching of fish. There have been a number of enquiries since the Fisheries Act was passed, there has been a Committee sitting and various schemes have been put forward. It seems to me that the proper way to deal with the question of the whole fishing industry would be to produce a scheme capable of handling every aspect of the industry.

Was that a departmental committee??

Yes, a small committee to advise my predecessor on the question. At the present moment my Department is busy preparing comprehensive proposals which I hone in the course of this year I shall be able to put before the country. It will require legislation, and I hope with the support of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance we shall be able to deal with it at the beginning of next year. At that time, Mr. Chairman, the matter with which the hon. member for Durban, North (Rev. Miles-Cadman) has spoken, will be dealt with. The hon. member for Boksburg raised the question of the South African engineering trade. I can only say they have made representations to the Government recently along the lines taken by the hon. member, and their proposals are being carefully examined by the Government’s technical experts, and as soon as we get their reply we will get in touch with the federation. The hon. member for Victoria West complained of petrol pumps being closed on Saturdays. Well, Mr. Chairman, I told him if he would give me his complaint I would see that it went to the right quarters, and if legitimate we would deal with it. We have no desire whatever to hamper the farming community through lack of petrol, and if it can be shown it is causing great hardship, we shall be glad to remedy it. Then there is the question of the price of meat. I think the hon. member is rather misquoting the position when he says that the price of meat is 9½d. a lb. wholesale, and is being retailed at 1s. 6d., because he is taking the 9½d. per lb. which is the price of a whole side, while the 1s. 6d. a lb. is the price of the best cuts. If you take the whole of the side of beef and work out the average price at which the whole side is sold retail … .

It is much less than 9d.

It works out at about 11¾d. retail. You have to take into account the bone and everything else. The hon. member for Moorreesburg asked what the Government is doing to provide the necessary finance for the establishment of new industries, young industries. I do not quite uderstand the purport of that question, because at the present moment industrial development in this country is being amply financed either by private capital or through the Industrial Corporation, or through the War Supplies organisation, which is establishing large numbers of factories. The problem is not money now. The financial side, to my mind, is the simplest. If you have a good thing you can always find capital for it, if it is sound, either through the Government or the Industrial Corporation or private enterprise. They will always find money for sound enterprise. There can be no doubt the Government will always be anxious to help financially and otherwise just as in the case of the Iron and Steel Corporation. That was a long term plan, and it was necessary for the Government to find the money. The hon. member for Moorreesburg also raised the question of seaweed. Well, we have investigated seaweed and we find that it does not really contain a percentage of iodine of market value. He also referred to the question of shark oil. That is being very actively investigated by the Government, and I am credibly informed that shark liver oil is being recovered and the Fisheries Research Division is actually going is as far as investigating the breeding of sharks in case we run short of it.

What about the stock exchange?

With regard to the film industry, film materials are in very short supply, and I do not think it is quite the right time to go into this question of supplying films, but if the hon. member thinks this country is being unfairly treated in the matter of films and can give me the facts, or if he thinks on the other hand there is a chance of establishing a film industry in any particular specialised sphere, if he will be good enough to let me know I shall be only too glad to enquire into the one or go further into the other, and if necessary see if it can be established.

I just want to put a question to the Minister. There is a report circulating in the country that a body which represents the American Government is in the Union to negotiate with our Government in regard to the Lease-Lend system, and that the object is that America wants certain raw materials from us, and is trying to obtain a concession from the Government, not only for the duration of the war, but also in respect of the post-war period. This is an important matter, because we have already heard from the representatives of the Government that we want to develop industries on a large scale in our country, also after the war. That is quite correct. If we now negotiate with that deputation in connection with raw materials—let me mention coal and other raw materials—then you will agree with me that the Government will have to be very careful in making those negotiations; that it will have to look not only at the privileges which it is getting from America at the moment, but the Government must look to the future. The public outside is somewhat perturbed in regard to this matter, and on behalf of the people who take an interest in this, I want to ask the Government to be very careful with these negotiations so that we do not bind ourselves in the future with regard to the establishment of factories on a large scale. We must be careful not to do anything at this stage, which takes into account the present only, and which is going to bind us in the future. The information which I have is perhaps not quite correct, but because these rumours are circulating, I should like to hear from the Minister what the position is. A clear statement on his part would be appreciated. Then I also want to impress upon the Minister that an effort should be made to manufacture petrol on a large scale in South Africa. There is probably no other country which is in a better position than South Africa to manufacture its own petrol and to become self-supporting. At the moment the position is that we have various small companies. I do not want to refer to any particular company, but we are assured that with very little assistance from the Government they would be able to manufacture petrol on a much larger scale than is being done at the moment. We feel that the petrol company—the Big Five as they are called—controls the petrol position in South Africa at the moment. According to the latest figures which we received, 80,000,000 gallons of petrol were imported into South Africa in one year, at a cost of £3,000,000, which went out of the country. It will be in the interest of South Africa if we can keep that money in this country, and more particularly if we can be independent of other countries in that respect. I just want to point out to the new Minister of Commerce and Industries that he should encourage the undertakings in this country so that we shall be able to manufacture petrol in South Africa on a larger scale. He should encourage efforts in this country to manufacture petrol on a large scale, and he must also give every assistance to those companies which in the past were engaged on this. I should like to hear what the Minister’s policy is in that connection.

Which companies are you referring to?

There are quite a few. I have in mind the Torbanite Company in the Transvaal, and one company in Natal. I do not know what type of assistance they want, because I am not au fait with the working of those companies, but I do know that with a little assistance from the Government they can manufacture more petrol than they are manufacturing at the moment. I believe that at least five or six times the quantity which is manufactured at the moment could be manufactured in the future. I hope that the Government will meet them so that they will be able to compete with the five large companies which have the exclusive say in South Africa. I mention this matter because I think that it is of great importance to South Africa, and I hope that especially during the war period—because now it is more essential than ever—those companies will be assisted so that that industry can be continued in South Africa on a larger scale than is being done at the moment.

I want to mention to the Minister a recommendation of the Committee with regard to fishing harbours presented to the Department a few years ago. Amongst the fishing ports recommended were Port Shepstone and Scottburgh. A fishing harbour at Port Shepstone was promised 40 or 50 years ago but has not materialised yet. Estimates were taken out by the Minister of Railways, and I am informed the cost was in the neighbourhood of £250,000. What is half a million? It has been spent in the Cape on fishing ports, and there is no reason why it should not be spent on Natal fishing ports. Now, this is a point I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. Quite recently boreholes have been put down on the river banks, and in the Umzimkulu River to test foundations for bridges, one for the Railway Department and one for the national roads. What I want to impress upon the Minister is that if unsuitable bridges are put across the mouth of the river, then there is no hope of Port Shepstone ever being a fishing harbour, because no ships or fishing boats may pass under them. If suitable high bridges are provided all will be well, but on the other hand if low level bridges are put in we shall never have a fishing harbour at Port Shepstone. It is for that reason I have risen tonight. I want to refer to this Lease-Lend Agreement pending between South Africa and the United States. A few days ago I put a question to the Minister of Finance asking him if any Lease-Lend Agreement between the Union and the United States existed. I also asked a supplementary question. The Minister was not very frank; he said “there is no agreement”, and therefore the second question fell away. But the Press, a few days later announced the arrival in South Africa of a mission to negotiate a Lease-Lend Agreement. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a provision which I believe exists in the Lease-Lend Agreement between the United States and Great Britain which practically mortgages British industries to America after the war. I ask that no agreement nor any clause in the agreement shall in the future imply that the United States’ financial interests shall have any directive effect on South African industries. That I believe is the position under the agreement between the United Kingdom and America. I do ask the Minister to guard against any implication that American financial interests shall direct South African industries to produce what the United States is not producing, and not allow South Africa to produce what she wants to produce. That, I think, is a very grave danger, and I am asking the Minister to guard against it.

With all the disaster and disappointment which this war has brought, and with all the heavy burdens which have been imposed on us, the war has had one beneficial effect, and that is that South Africa has learnt to know itself. South Africa has learnt to know itself; it has discovered what it is able to do. Necessity is the mother of invention. As a result of the scarcity of requirements, young industrialists have come forward in South Africa, and today they are manufacturing articles in South Africa which have never before been manufactured in this country. If it had not been for the war, because all these goods were imported from overseas, we might still have been under the impression that we could not do those things here. We now have these new industries in the country; and what is the Government going to do with a view to protecting these young industries? There are many of them which have sprung up. Recently a factory was established which purifies dirty, old motor oil, and which is doing so on a large scale. What is the Government going to do to protect such an industry? There is a scarcity of that commodity in the country, and this is an industry which sould be encouraged. Then there is another industry which manufactures Vitamin A. It is a young industry which is manufacturing this vitamin; and it is something which is in the interests of the country. These people are faced with many difficulties. They cannot market their commodities in this country. They have to send them overseas, because they cannot obtain bottles to put these things on the market. The question is what the Government is going to do to assist enterprising undertakings in our country. Reference was made here to fishing boats. A young industry has also been established to make these boats. In one case they made a boat of 60 feet in length by 18 feet in width, of steel plates which they welded together. It is the first time that something of his kind has been done here, and we should like to see that such an industry is properly protected. I hope the Minister will ensure that these undertakings are protected. There is a great shortage of agricultural machinery in this country. We cannot import those things. America is no longer exporting them, because they have decided to concentrate on war production only. What is the Government going to do to encourage the manufacture of agricultural machinery in our country? We have the iron here; we have the steel, and I feel that all that is needed is to encourage such an industry. What about baling wire? There is a great shortage of baling wire, and the farmers are at their wits end because they can no longer bale lucerne owing to a shortage of baling wire. Will the Government not adequately encourage such an industry? I believe that they are at present manufacturing a certain quantity of baling wire, but it is not altogether effective, and I should like to know from the Minister whether the Government can encourage the manufacture of suitable baling wire which will be able to compete with the imported article? When that type of article is manufactured, and when we have these undertakings in the country, what is the Government going to do after the war in order to protect them? Is it going to allow those industries to be smothered from overseas by allowing imported articles to come in to compete with them? No, I think that at this stage the Government should take steps to ensure that the interests of this country are protected against countries which want free trade in order to kill our young industries. Then I come to another matter. We have the wine industry in our country. The Minister of Commerce and Industries served on a commission to see whether we could not limit the expansion of our vineyards. Little did he know that the time would arrive when we would not be able to produce enough. Our wines are the best in the country, and our old brandies, such as Klipdrif, are now being drunk. It is good brandy, and people who previously drank the imported articles, are today drinking our brandies. Is the Minister going to protect our articles after the war, or is he again going to allow whisky to be imported on a large scale so that the people will again start drinking whisky? No, the time has arrived for the Government to see that our young industries are protected. There are many of them in the country. More is being done than the Government is aware of. Take an undertaking like the copper foundry. Unfortunately those people are restricted because they cannot obtain sufficient copper, and I should like to know what the Minister is going to do with a view to giving them sufficient raw materials, so that they will be enabled to obtain sufficient copper to carry on with their work. I put these questions because I think that it is of the utmost importance that those young industries should be protected. We should all like to see our country progress, and we must therefore do this. I say again that with all the disaster which this war has brought in its wake, it has had one salutory effect, and that is South Africa has learnt to know itself.

Mr. Chairman, I will be on my feet, not more than 3 minutes. I would suggest to the Minister that possibly there could be a tightening up as far as the issue of petrol coupons is concerned. We have heard from the opposite side of the House, and from this side of the House a certain amount of criticism, but we have not heard any suggestion as to the way that the Minister could possibly improve it. I know that at the present time these coupons are being issued by the different post offices, and there I think the Minister and all on this side of the House are very grateful to the S.A.W.A.S. who are handling a big portion of this work. They are doing it voluntarily and I think the country’s thanks are due to them. But Sir, what control have we got over this issue of coupons. They are issued willy-nilly to all post offices and all you do is produce you motor car licence and these petrol coupons are issued to you. Your 12 coupons are issued for your one month’s basic ration. But what control has the Minister got at the present time over the number of coupons issued from that particular post office or from any post office? I have read in the newspapers too that even electioneering tours are being conducted throughout the country. Six thousand miles are being driven for electioneering purposes. I suggest in all earnestness to the Minister that petrol coupons for extra petrol should be issued only on payment for each coupon. I think that any extra petrol which is applied for, the applicant should be prepared to pay for. That surely is a very reasonable thing, and I think that is the way the Minister can tighten this up. If one is allowed only 12 gallons for an ordinary car and one wants 30 or 40 gallons excess petrol, if the price per gallon of petrol is 2s. 6d., those extra coupons should be 2s. 6d. per coupon extra. I am sure the Minister will then find there will not be the excessive demand which is going on for extra petrol now. I suggest that is the way the Minister could tighten up and then I am sure he will not have demands from all over the country, of people coming forward and applying for terrific excess amounts of petrol when they do not need it.

As far as the difficulties experienced by farmers in respect of petrol are concerned, I want to point out to the Minister that especially in the North-West, farmers sometimes live 60 miles away from the nearest petrol pump. Such a farmer requires three gallons to reach the pump, and three for the return journey, and consequently he loses six of his twelve gallons. The farmer needs his motor or lorry to continue his farming operations, and I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to introduce an amended scheme by which a man who has to travel such a distance to a pump, will be able to get additional petrol to cover that distance. It will mean a lot to those farmers, if the Minister can find a way to meet them. I also want to ask whether it is not possible to enable these farmers to get their petrol on a Saturday afternoon. It may all be very well to impose such a restriction on people living in a town, but where a man has to cover 60 miles, he may arrive just one minute late in the town, and then he is stranded and has no petrol to return to his home.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Minister in his reply said he favoured spreading our industrial development in rural areas as it will give our small merchants who have been forced out of business by price control an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. It ill behoves me to criticise our Government control system. I realise that price control is a remedy against inflation and post-war depression. I contend though that our present system calls for improvement and that it is far from satisfactory, if one judges by results. One result is that small businesses are closing down and another result I know is general dissatisfaction with the administration of control by our loyal supporters. I also feel, Mr. Chairman, that the controller in fixing prices made no allowance for increased wages paid by employers under the new wage determinations. To get back to the small merchants who have been forced to close down you must remember the small man had to cut his profits before the war in order to live. Now he only has half the turnover and the factor system binds him more or less to the same profit per article as he made before. The factor system is complicated to apply and aims at reducing the percentage of profits as costs increase so that the profit per article remains more or less the same with only a slight increase in percentage of profit. For each percentage of profit per article there is a factor. As the pre-war profit varied on almost every article one can realise the enormous amount of work involved. In fact it is almost impossible, as prices are continually changing, to conform to this factor system, and that means that practically every merchant is a potential criminal and this creates great dissatisfaction and discontent. For people who could not define their pre-war profit the controller has fixed a percentage profit, and I would just like to quote a few of these. For instance crockery is fixed at 40 per cent. which is 28 per cent. profit on return. Ladies dresses are fixed at 45 per cent. and is 32 per cent. on return. Now no retail trader could live on these profits before the war. I have no complaint as regards the fixed prices. Take for instance coffee. On coffee the merchant, is allowed to make a profit of 33⅓ per cent. On ladies’ dresses on which they used to make a profit of 100 per cent. pre-war they are now cut down to just over 40 per cent. It is quite impossible for the small trader to live under these conditions, especially if you take into consideration his reduced turnover on account of the scarcity of stocks which are barely half of what they should be. I feel that we should aim at fixing the prices of essential articles of clothing required, and for blankets etc., and that with fashion articles, haberdashery and things of that nature we should not be so strict. I feel there should be a little more liberty about the profit allowed for such articles. When one realises how merchants have to take home this complicated factor book and make a study of it to see what rate of profit they are allowed on each article—it seems the controller presupposed that before the war the merchant ran on one percentage of profit throughout his store. Of course that is not so. A merchant sells every article at a varying article he has to and it means that every article he has to study the factor that applies to that article in this factor book, and it involves an enormous amount of work. I feel with the loyal effort these people are making and as they are making up the salaries of their men on active service and helping the war effort in numerous other ways—we should try to minimise the difficulties under which they labour in conducting their businesses.

There is one small matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, and I want to ask him what the rights of travellers are as far as the distribution of petrol is concerned. I want to relate my own experience. I was travelling from Carnarvon to Williston, a distance of 80 miles. Half-way there is a pump belonging to a certain Mr. Stein. In the afternoon, at 20 minutes to five, I stopped at the pump and wanted to get petrol to be able to reach Calvinia. He told me that he only kept petrol for his customers. Now I want to ask this: If every village and town only keeps supplies of petrol for those living in that particular town, what is to become of travellers who require petrol? What is the position? Unfortunately I arrived five minutes past 6 at Williston, and it was too late to get petrol there. I had an appointment for 9 o’clock at Calvinia, but was unable to reach Calvinia and had to stay over at Williston until the next morning at 8 o’clock. Are petrol suppliers entitled to discriminate as to whom they want to give petrol to, and whom they want to refuse?

Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat disappointed with the reply the Minister gave this evening in regard to the fishing industry. He said his Department is busy on working out a scheme now. Hon. members probably know that for the last three years this matter has been before that very Department. The point I want to make is this that unless a special department is created who deals with fisheries nothing will come of it; nothing much will be achieved. We have had the reply that our maritime interest is divided among three departments, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce and Industries and now Social Welfare Department has stepped in as well to take a hand in the organisation of fisheries. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to warn the Minister that he has not got the men in that Department at the present time who know very much about it and they are definitely unsympathetic towards the whole of this scheme. They are sunsympathetic because probably in the past the Department has been overworked. There has been far too much thrown on the Secretary for Commerce and Industries for him really to attend to that important industry that is crying out for development. I had the honour to serve on a small departmental committee dealing with fisheries and three years ago I recommended that a special department wherein both the scientific and the economic aspect of this fishing industry would be handled should be established, and therefore I want to implore the Minister and I want to appeal to the Minister of Finance that the creation of this special department will cost very little. Divided attention is no attention, and unless it is done I am afraid we are not going to see that industry established properly. With the best intentions in the world the Minister will not accomplish very much. Now here I should like to pay a tribute, before I sit down, to the ex-Minister of Commerce and Industries. He definitely had his heart in the development of this fishing industry, but time after time he told me how handicapped he was in putting his schemes into execution through the want of the proper men in his Department. And so my final appeal to the new Minister is: “Let him profit by the experience of the ex-Minister of Commerce and Industries, and see that a new Department of Fisheries is established under the control of a man who understands the whole scientific and economic aspect of it.”

The hon. Minister said that his views coincided very much with those of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) in regard to certain matters concerning the development of industries. Now I want to read to the Minister what he wrote, or his Department, in connection with development, and ask him whether he thinks that this is the right way to encourage industrial development. I am referring to the Salamander Company at Still Bay. They wanted to build a cold storage there, and they asked the Minister for permission to construct cold storages on a piece of Crown land which lies idle, and which is not used by anyone. The Minister’s reply was that he would grant permission for the erection of this building on condition that his Department could demolish it when they thought fit. Which company will erect cold storage if the Department reserves the right to demolish them at any time?

What is the date of that letter?

I have not got the original letter, but a letter from someone who writes in this connection; but this letter must have been sent somewhere in April of this year. That is surely no encouragement for any company. I hope that the Minister will remove this restriction.

Mr. Chairman, I will not keep the Committee very long, but I just want to refer to one item of price control. There are three methods that the Price Controller has adopted. The one is the fixed maximum price, the second method is the percentage on cost, but alternatively that allows merchants to use the so-called factor system. Now I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the factor system is based upon wrong premises. The factor system works out something like this: If a man in pre-war days made a profit of say 100 per cent. today he is allowed to make a profit, of say 75 per cent., but if his competitor in pre-war days made a profit of 10 per cent. he is today allowed to make only 7.5 per cent. Now the premises that I consider wrong are that the system is based upon the assumption that the turnover would be increased and therefore the trader could come out on a smaller profit. Actually today the position is that owing to the shortage of goods many of our smaller traders are not able to keep up even their pre-war standard of turnover and their profit therefore, if they have to work on the factor system, is very much lower than it was before, and therefore their total income has come down. That in itself is not a bad thing because we are all supposed during wartime to make some sacrifices. It is a just thing that we should make sacrifices, and as long as it does not pay our men at the front to go there and fight, so long as mothers do not make anything out of giving their sons for the country, so long is it right for us that we should not make extra profits during war-time, but unfortunately on this factor system it leads to things such as came out in the Public Accounts Committee Report. There we found that it is reported that an article which cost 1s. 1½d. could be sold at 4s. 6d. Under the present system if a man was accustomed in pre-war days to make excessive profits that man is still allowed to make excessive profits. I think it is all wrong and I feel that that system now at all events wants revision.

Mr. Chairman, in a few words I want to touch upon one aspect which has not been raised in this debate, but before doing so I want to say that while I appreciate the explanations the Minister has given in regard to perhaps what might be the future industrial development of the country, in so far as the Minister is able to make a statement owing to the exigencies of the war and other problems, I do want to point out to him that there are many of us in this country who are particularly interested in social security. Social security as we see it is a fund to provide against the major contingencies of life. There is another school of thought, and rightly so, that considers that to have social security one must have a job, get food and clothing, and when those facts are borne in mind and at the same time the Minister has indicated, and quite rightly so, that in the future development of this country we must of necessity raise unskilled wages, we will realise that what is going to happen in this country is that there is going to be an increased cost of production. I have never quarrelled about fair and just prices being paid to producers and manufacturers, but I do want to believe that if the consumer is to be met in this regard—and it has often been complained that there is a wide gap between the consumer on the one hand and the producer on the other—I want to put it to the Minister that it is not a question of lessening that gap. In my opinion it is a question of removing the mountain, and it is in that respect that serious consideration has got to be given to the future policy of distribution in this country. We realise that South Africa is fast becoming a country of shops and offices. There are too many people today in this country who are handling distribution and not producing, and it is in that respect that the Minister in his Department, while giving every consideration to industrialisation in this country, should give his attention to lowering the cost of distribution in this country. I do appeal to the Minister that I hope, if we are to take the words of the Prime Minister that there is a great industrial future for this country, the time is ripe when if we are to increase the cost of production by increasing the wages of unskilled labourers, the baby should not be pushed on to the consumer, but that in its stead the gap between price to the consumer and the producer should be reduced by a reduction or by an elimination of many of the methods and channels which raise the cost in this country in regard to distribution. I would even go so far as to say that if the producer is on the one hand to get a fair price and the consumer is to pay a fair price then I think it is time that the Government stepped in in this country and took the place of the middleman. I hope during the recess the Minister and his Department will have an investigation made into the question of distribution in this country. As I indicated previously we are on the verge of great industrial development in this country with this question of distributive channels, and I hope they will be removed and as industries develop in this country they will be gradually absorbed into the industrial side so far as production is concerned, and thereby, as I say, not lessen the gap between the producer and the consumer but remove what I consider to be a mountain.

I should like to put a question to the Minister in connection with a matter which is fairly important, and which has engaged the attention of the public, namely, the emergency regulation which was recently promulgated in connection with the price of goods sold at public auction. There was quite a row about this. I do not know whether the Government has decided to alter it. I am also an auctioneer.

A cheater of farmers?

When one lives in a glass house one does not throw stones. I want to ask the Minister what he would do if he were to hold an auction sale and he had to sell a lot of furniture? How would he know what the value of furniture is today? One article which is worth 6d. may fetch £1, and another article which is worth £1 may be sold for 6d.

Cheating.

That is how the people choose. When a man wants anything he buys it; when he does not want it he will not buy it, even though he can get it for practically nothing. How must the auctioneer know what the article is worth; and when people bid, is he expected to say that they must not bid any further because they have reached the maximum price? It is so ridiculous that I thought the Government would not allow such a regulation to be made. The only manner in which you can fix it is when the whole sale is over, and you know what the value is; then you fix the price. When an article is worth £2 and you cannot get more than £1, you have to sell it for £1 and lose £1 on the transaction.

How are you going to adjust this? A strong agitation was started in connection with this matter. I just want to tell the Minister that if they do not adjust this position they will be doing an injustice to a fairly big section of the community, and not only an injustice but they will be taking a step which one does not expect of a baboon.

There are just one or two points to which I should like to reply. I am not going to reply at great length. Some of the members who asked questions are out of the House at the moment. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) asked me about the fishing harbour at Port Shepstone and the Bridge which might ruin the fishing harbour if it was built. I shall pass on his warning but I feel bound to say in fairness to him that Port Shepstone is not regarded as a favourable site for a fishing harbour in the future.

It was promised to the Norwegians.

I know it was promised to the Norwegians, but experience has shown that Port Shepstone has not got the facilities for making a successful harbour as far as we can see. It is not, however, a denial that we will build one. So far as Lease-Lend is concerned, Mr. Chairman, he need not be afraid that the United Kingdom has now mortgaged the whole of their assets to the United States of America. They have not done it and we are not likely to do it. Several hon. members raised the question of personal hardships which they suffered in regard to petrol supplies, or hardships suffered by other individuals. I have made a note of their remarks and I will have them gone into by the Petrol Controller. There is no desire, Mr. Chairman, to impose hardships on people, and if their requests can be met without interfering with the general system of distribution, I am sure that we shall be prepared to do it. The hon. member for Point (Dr. Shearer) referred to the question of social security. Mr. Chairman, he takes it for granted that higher wages for unskilled workers must necessarily mean an increase in the cost of production. I differ from him. I believe that increased wages may mean a decrease in the cost of production. You may get better results. It is common cause that the distributive costs in this country are very high, but there are various factors which are responsible for that, and which will have to be overcome if there is to be a decrease in the cost of distribution. As your markets increase so distribution costs will decrease pro rata. A reason for the high distribution costs is because the markets are so small and there is a great deal of overlapping. If we increase the purchasing power of people the present distribution scheme can work very much more satisfactorily than at the moment. The distribution costs will not go up proportionately to the increase in wages. That, I think, is the real answer to the question in regard to increased wages and increased costs of production. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) raised the question of auction sales. He reminded the Committee that he is an auctioneer. I take it he is also a sworn appraiser and therefore he should not find it difficult to value furniture, and broadly speaking this regulation seems to be working out fairly satisfactorily. Of course, there are difficulties but we were faced with those difficulties when we passed this regulation. The price of secondhand furniture and other things was being pushed up and people were being made to pay far more than was equitable. So this regulation was passed to overcome that position.

They always did pay more.

For secondhand furniture?

Yes.

I am not an auctioneer, but I have sold secondhand furniture, and I did not get anything like what I paid for it when it was new. In any case, if the auctioneer is selling for a householder, he is not governed by the regulation.

Isn’t he?

No. If an auctioneer is selling furniture for a householder the regulations do not apply. The regulations were really devised to deal with people who were making a business out of buying and selling furniture; in other words, trading in furniture. Regulations were not really designed to prevent the householder who was disposing of his furniture in the ordinary way. It was to prevent speculation.

By the auctioneer?

No, by the people who were buying furniture.

The auctioneer bought the furniture.

The people who were speculating in secondhand furniture. That was the intention of the regulations. If the auctioneer, however, in the ordinary course of business, is selling furniture for a householder, the regulations do not apply, and if on the other hand he is selling for a trader he ought to know what the price should be. If he buys furniture from the trader or the manufacturer he should know what the price is, and there should be no difficulty about it at all. Mr. Chairman, I think those are all the points that were raised.

Vote put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Votes Nos. 10 to 18, standing over.

Vote No. 10.—“Miscellaneous Services”, £32,900, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 11.—“High Commissioner in London”, £120,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 12.—“Inland Revenue”, £303,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 13.—“Customs and Excise”, £374,500, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 14.—“Audit”; £135,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 15.—“State Advances Recoveries Office”, £115,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 16.—“South African Mint”, £137,600, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 17.—“Union Education”, £1,387,900.

I should like to avail myself of the half hour rule. In previous years, in 1939 for example, I raised the position in which Afrikaans-speaking students at our technical colleges find themselves, and I put certain questions to the then Minister. This dealt with the injustice done to Afrikaans-speaking persons as a result of the fact that in practically all our technical colleges justice is not done in any respect to Afrikaans-speaking students in so far as facilities for their instruction through the medium of Afrikaans is concerned. Just let me say this; that information which was given at that time when I raised this matter in the first instance, reflected everything but the true state of affairs, in my opinion. I leave it at that, however. During this session I put certain questions to the Minister in connection with this aspect of the matter. According to the reply which I received from the Minister, this appears inter alia: Let me first deal with the personnel, the teaching staff at the various technical colleges, with regard to their capability to lecture in both official languages. Just let me quote a few points from the Minister’s reply. Take the position, first of all, with regard to the Witwatersrand technical college, with its various branches. Let me first quote from the Minister’s reply with regard to the ability of the staff to lecture through the medium of Afrikaans—to what extent they are Afrikaans-speaking unilingual and, to what extent they are English-speaking unilingual. First of all, with regard to the students, nearly 65 per cent. of the students are English-speaking, and 35 per cent. are Afrikaans-speaking. With regard to the personnel, I am informed that without a single exception the whole staff is thoroughly bilingual. There is not a single English-speaking member on that staff who is unilingual. With all respect to the people who furnished this information, I want to say that I cannot accept that as being correct, and I should like the Minister to get up here this evening and to tell me whether it is correct that all the members of the teaching staff at the technical colleges on the Witwatersrand are thoroughly bilingual and are able to lecture through the medium of both languages; and if that is not the case—of which I am quite convinced—then I should like to know how it came about that this department gave such a reply to that question, especially when it is considered that according to my information only 45 lecturers of the 200 who were employed at the thirteen most important departments of those technical colleges, were thoroughly bilingual in 1938. That was my information at the time. If that was the position at that time, namely that only 45 lecturers out of 200 were thoroughly bilingual, then I should like to know from the Minister what has become in the meantime of all those unilingual lecturers? That is the position with regard to the Witwatersrand Technical College. Now I come to the other technical colleges. Take Cape Town, for example. According to the calculation of the Minister’s department, nearly 64 per cent. of the students at the Cape Town Technical College are English-speaking and 36 per cent. are Afrikaans-speaking; a fair percentage of the students is therefore Afrikaans-speaking. Now we come to the teaching staff. Notwithstanding this high percentage of Afrikaans-speaking students, I am informed that 49 of the teaching staff are bilingual; 25 of them are English-speaking unilingual and not able, therefore, to lecture in Afrikaans. Of course, not a single one is Afrikaans-speaking unilingual. Not a single lecturer at the various technical colleges is Afrikaans-speaking unilingual. According to this statement, 25 at Cape Town are English-speaking unilingual, and of them 16 were imported from overseas, as though there are not suitable men for this work in South Africa. Now I come to Pretoria. In Pretoria 50 per cent. of the students are English-speaking and 50 per cent. are Afrikaans-speaking. One half of the students, therefore, are Afrikaans-speaking. Notwithstading the fact that half the students are Afrikaans-speaking, there are only 35 lecturers who are bilingual, 20 who are English-speaking unilingual and, of course, again not a single lecturer who is Afrikaans-speaking unilingual. So much with regard to the teaching staff. In Port Elizabeth, according to the calculations of the Minister’s Department 65 per cent. of the students are English-speaking and 35 per cent. Afrikaans-speaking. Here again, notwithstanding the high percentage of Afrikaans-speaking students at that technical college, 42 of the lecturers are bilingual; 26 are English-speaking unilingual, and here again there is not a single lecturer who is Afrikaans-speaking unilingual. Throughout therefore, we have this position that there is not a single Afrikaans-speaking unilingual lecturer, but numbers of English-speaking lecturers who are English-speaking unilingual. Now we come to the real test. It is no use saying that you have so many lecturers who are bilingual if in actual fact no lectures are given in Afrikaans. Let us look for a moment at the information which the Minister gave me in reference to the subjects which are taught through the medium of the two languages. I asked the Minister in how many subjects at each college instruction was given through the medium of both official languages; in how many subjects instruction was given only through the medium of English, and in how many subjects instruction was given only through the medium of Afrikaans. The Minister’s reply was that at the Witwatersrand Technical College eight subjects are taught through the medium of both languages, and in all the other subjects the lectures are given only in English. I do not know how many other subjects there are; the Minister did not give me that information. But when I notice that according to his figures instruction is given in Cape Town in no less than 90 subjects, I take it that at the Witwatersrand technical colleges there will be at least 90 subjects too. On the Witwatersrand where 35 per cent. of the students are Afrikaans-speaking, instruction is given in only eight subjects in both languages, and in all the other subjects instruction is given only in English. Then I come to the Technical College in Cape Town. In Cape Town notwithstanding the fact that 36 per cent. of the students are Afrikaans-speaking, instruction is given in both languages in nine subjects only, and in 80 subjects instruction is given only through the medium of English, and in only one subject instruction is given in Afrikaans, in other words, only in Afrikaans. We notice how unfair the position is in relation to the Afrikaans-speaking students. Now we come to Pretoria. We have seen that half the students at that centre are Afrikaans-speaking, and notwithstanding the fact that half the students are Afrikaans-speaking, in a city like Pretoria where more than half the people are Afrikaans-speaking, we find that the position is this: In 36 subjects instruction is given in both languages; in 26 subjects instruction is given only in English, and instruction is not given in a single subject in Afrikaans only; not in a single subject. Then, just one further example, and I take Port Elizabeth again. The other cases are even worse. I refer only to those cases where on account of the big percentage of Afrikaans-speaking students, one would have expected something to be done in order to see that justice done to those Afrikaans-speaking students. Take Port Elizabeth. At Port Elizabeth, instruction is not given in a single subject through the medium of both languages. Of course, in no single subject is instruction given in Afrikaans only. In Port Elizabeth instruction is given in all subjects exclusively in English, notwithstanding the fact that 35 per cent. of the students at that college are Afrikaans-speaking. I need not take this matter any further. I just want to say this to the Minister. They continually talk about equal rights and co-operation. I want to ask him whether the time has not arrived to put a stop to this disproportionate arrangement, this uneven position in which the Afrikaans-speaking student finds himself at these various technical colleges. The Minister may tell me that they do not possess the necessary staff. If he tells me that, I want to draw his attention again to his reply with regard to the Witwatersrand, where he tells me that nearly all the members of the teaching staff are able to give instruction in both languages. I want to ask him whether that is really the case, since at the universities, at the secondary schools everywhere, there are more than enough Afrikaans-speaking lecturers—whether it is really the case that the position is quite different at the technical colleges. I simply cannot accept that. It is clear to me that the goodwill is simply lacking. I do not really blame the Minister; but there is not the goodwill on the part of the people who are at the head of the technical colleges. They do not show the goodwill towards Afrikaans-speaking people which there should be. I want to urge the Minister that attention should be given to this matter, and that a stop should be put to the unfair treatment which has been meted out all these years to Afrikaans-speaking students. Now I want to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister, and that is the position which exists at the Cape Town University with regard to the medical school, and with regard to the position in which Europeans find themselves in relation to non-European students. You know what the position is. In Cape Town many natives and others are being trained as future medical practitioners, and my information is that for all practical purposes there is absolute equality as between the students, a state of affairs against which all the European students object most strongly. The students sit in the same classes, of course, on the same benches, next to each other, sometimes with a European woman student. They have to use the same apparatus. They have to use the same pipettes, for example—a small glass tube through which the student has to draw chemical substances. The same pipettes are used for Europeans and non-Europeans. In so far as the second year course is concerned, coloured students are even allowed to do their anatomical analysis of corpses in the same hall as European students. I cannot imagine in a country like South Africa, where we have a European population and a coloured population, and where the relation between European and non-European is what it is, that such a state of affairs can be tolerated here; I cannot understand how the authorities of the university or the Minister can allow such a position to develop here. I am informed that at the university as well as at the hospitals, in the medical school, the European students have the same rest rooms as the non-Europeans, that they use the same dining rooms and tea rooms, that they use the same instruments—Europeans together with coloured people. There may be natives and Indians, but I confine my remarks for the moment to coloured students. Now I come to another mal-condition in the same connection, and it is this. Up to the end of last year coloured students who studied medicine here could not progress further than the fourth year, because they were not allowed in the hospital. Because they were not allowed in the hospital they could not go further than the fourth year course, and that in itself was a protection not only for the European student but it was a protection for the European patient. The students who go to the hospital to receive instruction there and to do experimental work, have to work with poor white patients; together with the doctors they have to experiment on and doctor these patients. Now there has suddenly been a change in the position. This year, as a result of petitions which were signed by the students and which were signed by certain people on a large scale—petitions which urged that this injustice, in their opinion, towards the coloured student, should come to an end—it has now happened that fourth year students have made their appearance in the Groote Schuur Hospital together with European students. This was a shock not only to the European students but it was a shock to the nurses and a shock to the poor European patients who had to be attended to by coloured students. Let me draw your attention to a few matters in this connection. The coloured student has the full right to send the European nurse who assists there, to fetch any apparatus which may be required at the moment. This places the European nurse in this position that she has to wait on the non-European students who come there together with European students. We have this further unpleasant state of affairs that European nurses have to stand by when a coloured woman is examined by coloured students, and what is worse, the European nurse has to use the same overall which is used by the coloured student. There again the same appartus is used by the coloured and the European students. That is not the worst. The European patient, the poor person who cannot afford hospital fees and who has to receive free hospital and medical treatment—I say according to my information they are practically put at the disposal of these coloured students. Lectures are given on their bodies; they must subject themselves to coloured students attending to them; they are inspected by coloured students, and if the Minister has any doubt on that point, I shall give him the details. I now want to give him the names of European patients who have had to suffer this unpleasant experience. I also want to give him the dates. On Friday, 9th April, 1943, a lecture was given in medicine by Prof. Forman, on a European named Harry Lavendar, 140 Loop Street, Cape Town, at which the coloured students were also present. Then there is the case of a young girl, Elizabeth Graber; she was twelve years old. Her lungs had to be examined. You can imagine what happened, and that in the presence of non-European students. Then there is a European male, A. R. Feare; his index number is 3778. This European male suffered from heart trouble, and he was also examined by two coloured students. My information is that European students who were present at that lecture, all walked out in protest because they did not want to witness the humiliation of the European. That is how far things have developed already, and if an end is not put to this I want to ask what further developments there will be, and what we can expect in the future. There is a danger that worse things than this may happen. Does the Minister approve of this, and if he approves of it does he realise what the next step is going to be; does he realise that in the future the coloured student in that institution will also be admitted to the maternity institutions? They will have to receive instruction in that aspect of their work as well, and since at the present time we have the position in the Groote Schuur Hospital which I have described, the next step will be that those coloured students will also have the right, in the maternity institutions, to attend to European women in that condition. And what about the nurses who, to a certain extent, are under the orders of the coloured students? Does the Minister approve of this; and if the Minister approves, do the Afrikaners on the other side approve, and are they going to allow this state of affairs to develop further in South Africa? If this type of thing already takes place, will the Minister approve of coloured students being accommodated with Europeans in the same hostel? They are already using the same dining room and the same tea room, and the result will be, if a stop is not put to this, that later on they will be admitted to the same hostels as the European students. A stop should be put to this matter. I have said this on a previous occasion, and I want to repeat what has so often been said on this side, that we want to see justice done to the coloured person and the native in South Africa, but that can only take place where everyone is on his own ground. I want to warn the Minister and the Government that if this state of affairs continues in South Africa, and if this process is speeded up, I say again that there will be an explosion in South Africa in the future. The interests of the European as well as of the coloured person, must be so administered that everyone will receive what he is entitled to—everyone on his own ground. A stop must be put to this intermingling. The Minister is a liberal, and he wants justice to be done to every section of the community. But I want to tell him that he and his adherents are creating conditions in South Africa which will only have bitter consequences for the coloured community. One can only have justice done to the coloured person and the native if there is a barrier in every sphere between European and non-European. Now I should like to deal with a third point, and that is the treatment of Afrikaans students at the University of Cape Town by the university authorities. I refer to those students who belong to the football club. The Rugby Union of the Western Province has dragged rugby into the political arena. I shall not enlarge on that. I shall just say this, that the rugby club of the university rebelled against this as did the rugby club of Stellenbosch; and the Gardens, Paarl and Maitland clubs also rebelled against this. With an overwhelming majority the students who take part in football, expressed themselves against the Rugby Union of the Western Province. What happened then? Instead of maintaining the sound principle that the people who are to have a say in this matter should be the players themselves, and instead of acting in accordance with that decision, the university authorities acted with a high hand, and deprived these students of the right to go on to the rugby field and to play football there. The university authorities decided that those students who comprise the greater majority of the players will not even have the right to come to the sportsfield and play rugby, although they have to contribute sports fees. The Minister may say that he has no power to intervene. Is that the position? Does not this Government and this House vote the necessary money for the University of Cape Town? If the Minister is convinced that justice is not done to both sections of the community, and if justice is not done to the Afrikaans-speaking section of the students, then he has every right to intervene. He can simply tell the University of Cape Town that this money is given on the condition that the two sections of the students of the university are not treated on a different basis. Does the Minister approve of this action, and if he does not approve of such discriminatory action against the Afrikaans-speaking students, I want to ask him to use his influence with the university authorities to act differently. He cannot tell us that it is not his duty. The Minister of Education definitely owes it to this House to take up a firm attitude. Assuming, for example, that an injustice is done to the non-European community, he would not hesitate for a moment to exert his influence, where in his opinion the rights of non-European students are affected. If that is the case, we can demand that he should exert the same influence where it concerns Afrikaans-speaking students, and that he should ensure that they enjoy the ordinary privilege which is enjoyed by any other student at the university. I hope the Minister will intervene in this matter. [Time limit.]

I just want to say a few words in connection with the Witwatersrand University. At the head of that university we have a principal who was imported from overseas. I understand he was imported on the recommendation of the Minister personally. He apparently thought that there was no one in South Africa good enough to do this work. Instead of this person confining himself to this work as head of an institution, he made a speech a little while ago in which, instead of encouraging the students to prepare themselves for the future, he told them that their duty was not in the university, but elsewhere. In other words, he encouraged them to abandon their studies and to leave. I have no objection to Mr. Raikes encouraging himself and his friends to go on active service, but he has not the slightest right to address students, who go there for the purpose of receiving higher education, in such a way as to impress upon them that their duty lies elsewhere. That is a total misconception of the whole position, and he has no right to do this. He goes even further. These students are free people who go there in order to study. They need not take part in the student associations, but Mr. Raikes is using his influence to persuade them to take the Africa oath. Some of the parents objected to this, and as a result of that we find that on 10th April, 1941, he sent a letter to the parents of the children. He is not satisfied with directing himself to the students only, and encouraging them to enlist; he now addresses himself to the parents as well. I should like to quote his letter—

Yes, the position is absolutely clear. As soon as the student has completed his studies, there is absolutely no guarantee that he will not be called up. He may even be called up now at any moment if the Department of Defence thinks that that is necessary. I have no quarrel with the Department of Defence. My whole case is against the principal of the University, who is trying to influence the parents to allow their sons to enlist. When a parent receives such a letter, he begins to worry, because he immediately thinks that there may be discrimination against his child at the examinations. I want to say something in that connection. Only one-third of the students in this course passed, and we find that the university has now written a letter to some of those students, or rather to their parents, advising them that the students cannot return. The parents say that they have no objection to their children failing if they did not do their work. But I want to quote one of the letters which was written to the students. Here is one of the letters which was written on the 13th January, 1943, by the Registrar of the University—

And now we come to a very important paragraph—

We have to pay these salaries, and then we find that this imported principal and the imported registrar of this university are acting as recruiting agents for the Government. They frighten the students and they annoy the parents. Students whom no one expected to fail, failed in their examinations—students who had always done well. But they failed, and then these letters were sent to them. This is nothing but victimisation in order to compel these people to enlist. They are not good enough to return to the university, but once they have enlisted and fought, then they will be good enough to return. This is discrimination which we cannot allow. I am not referring now to the war policy of the Government. I am not referring to the recruiting methods of the Government. My charge is that here we have a university which is acting as a recruiting agent to intimidate students. This is a scandalous state of affairs. The students who go to the Witwatersrand university go there in order to receive training, because there is an engineering course and there is a course for dentists, and then we find that when they go there to qualify for their professions, the university acts as a recruiting agent for the Government. We seriously object to that type of thing, and if a university does this, we cannot but express our strongest disapproval.

I do not rise to talk as an expert on educational matters. I just want to speak on the little experience I have had of student life, and more particularly of the students who carried away fruit, who stole grapes.

And then still the grapes of Jan Taks!

We must remember that the students are perhaps 19 or 20 years old. They stole grapes, and now although their parents are far away, they are put out of the hostels and they are stranded here. I noticed recently that the students had held a meeting of protest. I want to ask the Minister to use his influence. Unfortunately I cannot imagine that the Minister himself ever committed an unlawful act of this nature. I have got the elevated status of being a member of Parliament today, despite the fact that I did this frequently. I mean this in all seriousness, however, and I want to ask the Minister to use his influence in connection with this matter, and not to leave those students in the difficult position in which they find themselves today. He is an influential man and I think he ought to do this. We usually say that a man who can play cricket is a sportsman; the Minister is the captain of the Hofmeyr cricket team and also of the parliamentary team. Let the Minister act like a sportsman now. Where would I and many other members be today if we had been punished for every bunch of grapes we took? But all joking aside, I want to ask the Minister, in all seriousness, to use his influence to settle this matter. If he cannot settle this matter and solve this difficulty, then the whole of the Government is doomed. If they cannot solve such a small problem, how could they solve a big problem? I hope the Minister will take these words to heart, and that they will soften his heart. I hope that the Minister wil take these few words into consideration, and that we shall read in tomorrow’s paper that this matter has been settled.

This matter which the hon. member has just discussed has its jocular side, but also its serious side. The jocular side is that it had to be the Minister’s grapes which were stolen. Before I go any further I just want to say this, that I do not believe that the act of picking a few bunches of grapes from the Minister’s vineyard was meant against him personally. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) showed what discrimination is taking place in our universities. These students who picked the grapes unlawfully, appeared before the authorities, and there again we have discrimination. That is the point I want to make. There were nine of them. Five of them who had Afrikaans names were expelled from the hostel; the other four were fined; one was fined £4 and the others £3 each, and that is why I say that there was discrimination between the students. The five students with Afrikaans names were expelled from the hostel; the other four were fined, and three of them belong to the Training Corps. That is the difference. I want to know from the Minister, therefore, whether he intends to allow this discrimination in the universities to continue. I want to tell the Minister that I know a good deal about the circumstances of this case. He did his duty in the first instance by letting the university know that the students should not take these grapes. The students asked his pardon, and as far as he was concerned the matter was disposed of. I know that the Minister wrote a letter to the mass meeting, in which he said that he had not given the names to the university authorities. It is said, however, that the university authorities told the students that if they admitted who the culprits were, no further steps would be taken. But what happened then? Those who confessed were punished, and in this way there was discrimination. When we study the letter which the hon. member for Winburg read in this House, we see what the reasons are for that discrimination. It was political discrimination, and I hold the same views, therefore, as the hon. member in front of me, that the Minister should take steps to settle this matter. I admit that the Minister did not act wrongly in any respect in connection with this matter, but he can now use his influence in that connection; and since there has been discrimination in this manner, those students should be allowed to return to their hostels, so that that insult and humiliation will not be inflicted on them.

I want to go a little further than the hon. member who has just sat down, and I want to tell the Minister what my information is in regard to this matter. It is indisputably true that there was discrimination. I am speaking subject to correction, but I have been told that the students were brought under the impression that if they openly admitted their guilt they might be censured, but that no further steps would be taken. They were asked to be honest, and those nine students were honest enough to admit that they had done it, while the others stayed away and did not do so. I am sorry to say it, but names have been mentioned of students who are closely related to members of the Cabinet—but they were not honest enough to admit their guilt. These nine students admitted their guilt, and they were then punished, while those who did not have the courage to admit their guilt got off free. I think that in these circumstances the Minister should use his influence in order to see that this unfair punishment which was imposed, this blot on the character of the students, is removed.

Was it the son of the Minister who did not admit his guilt?

That is my information. I just want to ask the Minister to remember that. He will agree with me that in student life we do little things which in the strict legal sense may be regarded as criminal, but it is not a crime in the case of the student, because he does it more in a light student spirit than anything else. That is what happened in this case, and now these students are punished so severely that their future is prejudiced, merely because they picked a bunch of grapes. I am certain that the Minister could go further, and if he exphesses the desire that these people should not be punished and that this blot should be removed, the Minister would be doing the students a great favour. The Minister must understand that humanly speaking it is not a case of theft. Sometimes when one goes out, especially after an Inter-varsity, one does things which one would not otherwise do. The Minister understands student life, and I want to ask him to intervene and to approach the authorities. I must say that there is one professor who is very vindictive, and who wants to have the students punished as severely as possible. I hope the hon. Minister will do a last good deed before this Parliament dies.

I really did not think, especially since our time is so precious, that we would devote so much time to a grape case. May I say, in the first instance, that I did not expect even the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Jan Wilkens) to approve of what happened here. It is not a matter of stealing a few bunches of grapes once, but of stealing grapes on a large scale, using baskets and pillowslips. As far as I personally am concerned, I have twice asked that the students should not be punished. I have said that as far as I was concerned this matter was disposed of, after they had made their apologies. I am quite satisfied with that. I then asked that nothing should be done by the authorities, and that no punishment should be imposed. After the punishment was imposed, I again made such a request. Personally, therefore, I did everything I could. But as Minister of Education I am certainly not prepared to intervene in a disciplinary matter which is purely a domestic affair. If I, as Minister of Education, had to intervene in a matter of this nature, my position would become untenable, and it would also create an impossible state of affairs as far as the university is concerned. As far as this matter is concerned, therefore, I cannot do anything further.

May I just tell the Minister that the honest students were punished, those who admitted their guilt.

This is not a matter which concerns me as Minister of Education. It is purely a matter for the university. I regret that as the result of the fact that I was compelled to lodge a complaint, this investigation took place.

It strikes one as a matter of bad taste on the part of the principal that, he took these steps after your request.

For the same reason I am also not prepared to intervene in connection with the football dispute at the Cape Town University. This is a domestic affair, and I as Minister of Education cannot intervene. But there is no evidence that action was taken against the Afrikaans-speaking students.

That is splitting hairs.

Of course not. Nor am I prepared to admit that the Afrikaans-speaking students at the University of Cape Town are all united. The Afrikaans-speaking students there are as much divided as we are divided in Parliament. Now I come to a more important point. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) spoke in regard to the position in the technical colleges. Let me first explain that the technical colleges are statutory institutions which are not controlled direct by the Minister. They are not departmental schools, but they are controlled by their own Boards which have certain powers and rights in terms of an Act which was passed by Parliament. The question of the language in which instruction is given, for example, is a matter which falls within the scope of the Boards which control the colleges. The hon. member has put certain questions in connection with the position, and in reply thereto I provided certain information which I received from these institutions. I was not, of course, in a position to control the information which I received. The hon. member doubts the accuracy of the information in certain respects.

As far as the Witwatersrand is concerned.

Let me say that as far as 2 (a), (b), (c) and (d) are concerned, it is impossible to determine with certainty when an individual is fully bilingual, and I therefore added in my reply that as far as the information was concerned, it was subject to that proviso. We do not know what standard is applied at these institutions in regard to the question as to whether or not anyone is bilingual. The hon. member and I may not regard certain persons as bilingual, who are shown by the institution to be bilingual. I was not in a position to control this information. I gave it to the hon. member as I got it, but subject to the proviso which I have mentioned. With regard to the general question of Afrikaans in the technical colleges, we must not forget that this is a matter of gradual development. Precisely the same thing happened in the case of university establishments which are much older. They existed long before the technical colleges were established, and long before the technical colleges they drew students from both sections of the population. Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking, but for a time the university institutions remained purely English-speaking institutions. I do not know, but it may still be the case today that even at universities like those of Pretoria and Stellenbosch, lecturers will be found who are not fully bilingual. A few years ago that was certainly still the case. This is of course something which we have inherited from the past. It is a matter of gradual development until Afrikaans is given its rightful place. What has happened in the university institutions will happen and is still happening, to a certain extent, in connection with the technical colleges. They started a good deal later, and when technical colleges were established, they were established for a public which was almost exclusively English-speaking. In those days the number of Afrikaans-speaking students in the colleges was very small. In later years the number of Afrikaans-speaking persons in industries, especially in the cities, increased, and also the number of Afrikaans-speaking students in the technical colleges. When the technical colleges were established, the demand was for education through the medium of Afrikaans in the subjects in which they provided instruction, something which practically did not exist. It is only now beginning to develop. I am assured that it is the policy, and I told the hon. member this, to provide instruction through the medium of Afrikaans where there was any demand for it. Up to the present the demand has been comparatively very small, and the provision was therefore very small, but I do not think that there is any reason to doubt that with the development of the demand, there will also be a development in the provision, and just as Afrikaans has taken its rightful place at the universities, it will also take its rightful place in the technical colleges. Then the hon. member raised the question of the non-European students, especially at the University of Cape Town. Here again we are dealing with something which in the first instance is a matter of university policy, for which the university is responsible, in connection with which the university has certain powers, under its statutes, to lay down its policy. With regard to the Government, we cannot, generally speaking, adopt the attitude that there should be no facilities at all in our country for the training of non-Europeans in the professions. We cannot adopt that attitude, and provision is being made to a certain extent today for non-Europeans at the universities of Cape Town and Johannesburg. I say again that this is a matter of university policy. If certain universities act in conflict with the wishes of the community they serve, and in conflict with the feeling of their students and the feeling of the nation, such universities will very soon suffer in consequence and lose their students. In the past there were only these two universities with medical faculties. A start has now been made with the medical faculty at another university, and this consideration will weigh more strongly than ever in the future. So much with regard to the general question of the training of non-European students, and their admission to the universities. But there still remains the question of the manner in which the students will receive instruction where there are also European students who receive instruction. The hon. member made certain statements which I am not in a position to control. I have no information in that connection. There are certain things which he alleged here which, if they are correct, I as an individual certainly do not approve of. With regard to the universities, I also want to say this, that it is certainly not in the interests of the universities if they do not take into account the sentiments of the people. In this case especially it is very important that the universities should take into account the sentiments of the people, and since these statements have been made by the hon. member for Waterberg I shall certainly bring them to the notice of the university authorities. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has now referred to the attitude of the Witwatersrand University in connection with the recruitment of students. I have before me the speech which was made by the head of that university, a speech which he addressed to the students at the beginning of the university year six weeks ago. He said this—

With that I fully associate myself. Any student who is trained at our universities today must deserve his right thereto, by exerting all his powers to do his work properly. That attitude on the part of the rector of the university I fully and wholeheartedly endorse. Reference has been made to certain students who failed in their examinations. This matter was brought to my notice, and I asked the rector who sent that circular letter, in which circumstances he had done so. Let me first explain to hon. members who were not here just now, and who did not hear what was said, that the revelant circular letter read as follows—

And thereafter the following paragraph appeared at the end—

It is particularly the last paragraph which has apparently caused misunderstanding. In the first place I asked the principal to which students he had directed this letter; in other words, in which cases the university had used the power which Parliament gave the universities a few years ago, a power which Stellenbosch and Pretoria also use, namely, to refuse admission to the university to students who have not passed their examinations. I then wrote to the principal asking in which cases he had sent this letter, and he replied as follows—

In other words first year students only receive this letter when they fail in all four subjects in the first year medical course. Then he goes on to say—

A student who has failed in all four subjects in the first year still had a chance to take the first year over again, with the possibility of a supplementary examination, and if at the end of his second year he did not pass in all four subjects, such a student also receives this letter. I ask hon. members whether it is desirable in the interests of the university, and of the student himself, when he has such a record, to grant him admission to the university? I go on to quote—

In other words, the university is prepared to accept any reasonable excuse, and the students are further given an opportunity of stating their reasons as to why they should be allowed to return to the university. Then I come to the last paragraph, and that is apparently the cause of most of the misunderstanding. Some of the students had already joined up by the end of the first year, and they did not have an opportunity of availing themselves of the chance which the university offered to all students of submitting their cases. We therefore have this final paragraph in the circular—

There is every opportunity for students personally to interview the head of the institution in order to submit special facts to him, but there is not that opportunity in certain cases where students join the army, and therefore this opportunity is given to them according to the last paragraph of the circular.

It is very difficult to accept that. Why then do they also send the circular letter to students who did not enlist?

This is the all-embracing circular letter which is sent to everyone who finds himself in this position. The university does not even know who enlisted. If they have enlisted they are given this special opportunity, because they did not have this opportunity, in the first instance, of submitting their case.

Why this distinction?

Because the students had already joined the army, and were not therefore in a position to plead their cases. I am sorry if the hon. member has misinterpreted the letter, but I am assured that the letter was issued with that object in view, and I accept that.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 18.—“Industrial Schools and Reformatories”, £232,500, put and agreed to.

The Prime Minister is not here, but we are being asked to vote a lot of money for Madagascar, in respect of salaries, residential premises etc. We on this side of the House do not accept Madagascar as part of the Union, that it was only cut off from the Union by a “great cleavage”. We would like to know, therefore, what this money is intended for.

The House is asked to vote this money in connection with the opening of an office for a representative whom we want to appoint in Madagascar. During the past few years we have opened various offices in Africa, as for example in the Belgian Congo and also in Egypt. We now propose to do the same as far as Madagascar is concerned. There is important work to be done in connection with the promotion of our trade with that territory.

Has anyone been appointed yet?

Not as far as I know, but we propose to do so, and the House is being asked to make provision in respect of the ensuing year for such an appointment eventually.

Will the salary also come out of this £1,000?

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 5.—“Defence”, £2,000,000, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—46:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus J. G.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Noes—23:

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, P. M. K.

Loubser, S. M.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Vote No. 5.—“Defence”, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Vote No. 8.—“Pensions”, £130,000,

I should like to ask what is being done in connection with civil servants, civil pensioners who are experiencing very difficult times in the existing circumstances?

This vote is intended to give effect to what I indicated in the estimates. In other words, we are prepared, where civil pensioners can prove that they need assistance, to grant a special cost of living allowance. We are here making provision for that. We have also taken steps to appoint a committee, and we are now voting the money which will be necessary for that purpose. As soon as this money has been voted, the committee will be ready to function. We shall then immediately publish a notice in the Press.

Will every case be dealt with on its merits.

Yes, as I explained under estimates.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 13.—“Customs and Excise”, £30,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 16.—“South African Mint”. £190,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 17.—“Union Education”, £400, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 19.—“Agriculture”, £20,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 20.—“Agriculture (Assistance to Farmers)”, £500,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 21.—“Agriculture (General)”. £125,000,

I should like to have information in regard to this vote. I want to hear from the Minister whether it is absolutely essential for us to import wheat at this stage, and what the reasons are. We were assured by the Minister of Agriculture at that time that the wheat production in this country was sufficient for the country’s requirements. Now we find that there is a special amount on the estimates for the import of wheat, and I should like to know where it is being imported from, and what the price is landed in South Africa.

The Minister of Agriculture has gone into this matter, and he is of opinion that there will be a shortage with regard to the requirements in this country in respect of wheat during the year which lies ahead. It will therefore be necessary for us to import wheat. It is not possible, of course, to say at this stage where it will be imported from and at what price. It will probably be from Australia, but it is expected that we shall have to import on a fairly large scale.

I should like to know from the Minister whether the amount which is being provided here has become necessary because the price which has to be paid for the imported wheat is more than the price which is paid to the farmers in this country. Is that the position?

There will be a loss on our customs duties which we would otherwise have collected. If we have to collect the full customs duties, the price will be higher than the farmers receive locally.

Then it seems to me that the farmers in this country are getting too little. If there is a shortage, it seems to me that the farmers are not getting the price which they ought to get, even if one takes into consideration the customs duties. Before the war the farmers could compete, even on the basis of the customs duties which they had to pay. It is therefore quite clear, as far as the wheat farmers are concerned, that they are not getting the price for their wheat which they ought to get.

I should like to have this from the Minister: He has an amount of £125,000 under this vote, but what is the quantity of wheat which they expect to import? If the Minister can tell us that we shall be able to see more or less how much damage the farmers have suffered per bag.

This figure was estimated on the expectation that perhaps 1.000,000 bags of wheat would be imported. The customs duties amount to £267,000, and of that we have to forego £125,000, and it is that sum which is being asked for here.

I should like to know from the Minister what our average wheat yield is in respect of this year?

No, I cannot say that.

It is remarkable to us that the Minister of Finance should reply here on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, and still he cannot give us the necessary information.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 25.—“Public Works”, £2,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 27.—“Interior”, £100,550,

With regard to this supplementary £100,000 in respect of Civilian Protection Services. I feel that this money cannot be voted for that purpose. These are people who remain at home, who do not fight, who receive a uniform, and now a further £100,000 has to be added.

This is to protect you.

I want to ask the Minister to be good enough to tell us in respect of what this extra sum is required.

There was a time when we on this side of the House heard that South Africa was in great danger of being invaded, and that local people should be trained, to a certain extent, to provide protection to the civilian population. But today—and the Press tells us this—we hear that in the near future the enemy will have been driven into the Mediterranean. I mean this in all seriousness. At a certain meeting at which I was present, the Minister of the Interior said that there was a danger that South Africa might be invaded, and at that time I realised the necessity of training the local people. But is there any danger today which justifies the continued existence of these Civilian Protection Services? There are even Civilian Protection Services in the small towns in the interior. Is it still necessary today to retain those people? The Minister of Finance told us that every £1,000,000 which is spent on the war means that £30,000 less will be available for social services. Once and for all we are in this war, but we should not like to see money squandered. The taxpayers, and that includes hon. members on the other side, will eventually have to pay for it, and I do think that the time has now arrived to call a halt. If the Minister feels that these people should be trained, or if the Government thinks that it is really essential to give them the necessary training, then call them up and let them drill in camps.

Mr. Chairman, the vast bulk of this amount of £100,000 is in respect of past expenditure incurred by local authorities in connection with Civilian Protective Services Organisations. I am sorry that the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) should have raised the matter in the manner in which he has done tonight, because I think he is doing an injustice, not only to those local authorities who have taken reasonable precautions for our protection in the last three years against possible attacks from the air or from the sea, but he has also done an injustice to a very large number of men and women who have trained themselves in a voluntary capacity to meet any emergency which might arise. This £100,000 will be spent mainly to re-imburse local authorities for expenditure incurred by them in the past in the organising of the Civilian Protective Services in their own area. Hon. members will remember that when Italy entered the war in 1940 the Government asked local authorities, particularly local authorities in coastal towns and on the Witwatersrand, to make proper provision against any possible air attacks. I think it was a reasonable request made by the Government to the local authorities. There was a danger that there might be attacks on the larger centres of the Union from the Air from East Africa. The danger from East Africa was removed as a result of a large number of South Africans responding to the call made by Gen. Smuts to fight for their country, despite the efforts of hon. members of the Opposition. At a later stage, however, we had the danger of a possible invasion by Japan, and it was very necessary that our coastal towns, especially Durban. East London, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town, should take precautions against such possible invasion. The local authorities have done their duty, and the Government have felt that it is a measure of justice that they should contribute some portion of the costs which were incurred by those local authorities in that connection. A special committee has been set up by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and myself, consisting of a representative of the Treasury, a representative of the Department of the Interior, and an official of the C.P.S. This committee will go into the question of the expenditure incurred by the local authorities, and it will make an allocation of this sum of £100,000 shortly. Mr. Chairman, I think that is perfectly fair. These local authorities did their duty at a time when South Africa was in great potential danger. If they had not done their duty, they would have been failing in a very responsible civic service.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 33.—“Social Welfare”, £86,550,

I should like the Minister to give us an explanation in connection with this £10,550 with reference to the rehabilitation of fishermen, and also the £700 in connection with fishing boats. I just want to say that I have a suspicion where it is going to, and if the Minister had been present earlier in the evening when we made certain criticisms in this House, he would have heard that we objected to the fact that this problem is being solved piecemeal. The Department of Social Welfare is now coming forward with a scheme at Velddrift for the rehabilitation of fishermen, a scheme for which we shall be grateful if it is well carried out; but is this a sensible way of dealing with this problem? I should like to know whether in this connection the Minister of Social Welfare has negotiated with the Minister of Commerce and Industries. I want to say immediately that I welcome this proposed expenditure, but it is not adequate. Will the Minister tell us whether he has negotiated with the Minister of Commerce and Industries? We must take this as an indication that the Government proposes to tackle the fishing problem. But the fishing problem exists all along our coasts. To spend an amount of £10,550 at one harbour is ridiculous; it is paltry. I am grateful for it, but it is no solution to the problem. Is this an indication on the part of the Government as to how the fishing problem is to be solved?

I should like to say something with regard to vote “M”, where the Minister has an increase of £50,000 in connection with the butter, milk and cheese scheme. This, I believe, is the £50,000 with which a warm meal per day will be given to all the children in the country. I should like to know whether that is so or not. I just want to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that there were numerous applications under this scheme which were not agreed to because there was not sufficient milk, butter and cheese, or otherwise it was partially granted because there was not sufficient milk, butter and cheese. I should like to know whether the Minister is aware of the fact that there is a fairly acute shortage of those three commodities in the country, and, according to statistics, there will be a greater scarcity of those three commodities in the near future. The prices have risen tremendously, and if the price of those commodities is much higher, it means that so much less can be obtained which can be awarded to those schools and institutions. In these circumstances that small sum of money is really worthless. Now I should like to know from the Minister whether this £50,000 is the only amount which will be granted, and whether it means that the children will no longer get that warm meal? The impression has been created in the country that the Government will give a warm meal to every child, and that seems to be out of the question now. I want to ask the Minister whether this scheme cannot be extended.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) senses in the list of items of amounts for fisheries a sort of division between the Minister of Commerce and Industries and myself as Minister of Social Welfare. Let me say at once that it is not so. The attention of the Department of Social Welfare was first drawn to the situation of fishermen as fishermen and following it up by a general principle and scheme which the Government has in view of endeavouring to rehabilitate all our brothers and sisters in this country, we turned our attention to the fishermen who were in a parlous condition. That is not the whole tale. We tried an experiment at one place. My hon. friend will be the first one to condemn us if we commenced a scheme which embraced the whole of our coast line. We are merely feeling our way and testing it out and in concert with the Minister of Commerce and Industries we are hoping to make a big and successful scheme of it. In addition to rehabilitating the fishermen I am hoping that we are going to build up a big fishing industry in South Africa. My hon. friend over there is very worried about this £50,000. It is really a token vote. It is merely the beginning of the scheme. My hon. friend knows that we are proposing to give each child one full hot meal per day in conjunction with the Provincial Authority. The Provincial Authorities will pay one-third of the cost and the main Exchequer will meet the other two-thirds.

And if they refuse?

Then we will have to pay it. It is going to be done.

They have refused.

Some of them are rather shy. The Transvaal has agreed.

But not the Cape.

The Cape has not and I am hoping that my hon. friend will use his good offices with the executive committee of the Cape Provincial Administration and try to assist us in connection with this matter.

You said local authorities.

I meant provincial authorities.

In the first instance you said local authorities.

No, it is the provincial authorities. If my hon. friend by local authorities means the municipal authorities, then it is not so. It is the provincial authorities. The £50,000 is merely a start and I indicated to the House when we were dealing with the estimates of my Department and hon. members were attacking me on my vote, that we are contemplating spending at least £1,600,000.

It will not be regarded as a hot meal if you give a cup of hot milk only.

No, my hon. friend is trying to get rid of his surplus wine in that fashion. That is the explanation and my hon. friend can rely on it that we are going to do our best.

How many boats are you going to have?

We are starting with three motor boats and the necessary lorries for taking away the catch.

Will the scheme be explained to the fishermen?

Yes, it has already been explained.

I understand that it is proposed to house and to feed 500 Polish children in Oudtshoorn. I should like to know whether the Government has anything to do with that scheme. My information is that there are children who faint in the classrooms owing to hunger. I hear that some of our own children faint in the classrooms because they cannot get sufficient food.

What are you referring to now?

I am referring to Polish children. The Minister must get a better interpreter.

I thought you were referring to your own children.

I would rather not say anything. It is the first time that I hear that the Minister thinks. I want to ask the Government whether they are aware of the fact that a place has been established to house 500 Polish children, and yet there are children in the schools in Oudtshoorn, even children who are in the fourth standard, who faint in the classroom owing to hunger. They are totally undernourished. I have this information from a first-class source. And now I should like to know from the Minister whether he thinks it is right to make provision for people from overseas when his own people are perishing of hunger.

My hon. friend is worried about the Polish children.

I am not worried about the Polish children. Look after your own children instead of the Polish children.

We are.

You are not.

My hon. friend’s first-class information is rather third-class.

It is first-class information.

Let me say to my hon. friend that the Polish children, and I say it advisedly, Mr. Chairman, are being supported by the Polish Government and not by us.

There is no necessity for the hon. the Minister to be nasty, Mr. Chairman. He is not funny by any means. He has never been funny yet. I merely wanted to know what the position is. I heard that 500 Polish children are being looked after in Oudtshoorn and that the public are contributing towards the cost thereof, and I want to know what the Government is doing. Mr. Chairman, I know that the public have taken this responsibility upon their own shoulders and they are not receiving anything for it.

That is a different matter.

I have information that in the public school at Oudtshoorn six children fainted because they did not have any food to eat and that the other children had to give them some of their lunch in order to revive them, and that is the state of affairs, Mr. Chairman, which does not only exist in Oudtshoorn but in other parts of the country as well. We are feeding emigrant children from other countries.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow that to go unanswered. The underlying suggestion, in fact the charge made by the hon. member, is that the Government of South Africa is feeding Polish children and not feeding our own children.

Yes.

That is not true. I say it is not true. I agree with him right up to the hilt, however, that our own children are not being cared for in South Africa as they should be, but when he tries to suggest to this House and presumably to the country through this House, that we are feeding Polish children at the expense of our own children, I must deny it completely and conclusively. If other people are shouldering this burden, that is to say private individuals, surely he is not going to complain about that. Why blame me if they are doing it?

Does the Government pay anything towards it?

The Government is not paying one penny. I told you that previously.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister now admits that our children are not fed. Just now he told me that my information was third-class. I just want him to understand how irresponsible he is when he replies to members in this House. I told him that I had information which was from a very good source. He told me that my information was third-class. Now he admits that there are starving children in South Africa and also admits that the Government does not do what it ought to do. I am pleased to hear that the Polish Government is going to pay for it although I doubt it very much.

Mr. Chairman, I still say that the information of the hon. member is third-class because he suggests that his informant was absolutely it, and his suggestion is also to the effect that we are feeding Polish children and not our own children.

I deny that. Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister has listened to what I said he would have known that I never said anything at all of what he tries to make out I said. I said that I had first-hand information that the Government was feeding Polish children. If he had listened carefully he would have known that I asked what the Government was doing about it. Mr. Chairman, you cannot blame the hon. the Minister; he is so wrapped up in himself that he cannot see anything but himself.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 35.—“Lands”, £32,900,

I should like to have certain information in connection with this Vote. In the first place I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the amount of £300 which appears in this Vote under M6— “Purchase of portions of land for transfer free of cost to certain landowners within the Irrigation District of Ladismith, C.P.” This is a small amount, but there is a principle involved in this matter, and because there is a principle involved in it, I should like to know from the Minister of Lands how it comes about that they can transfer certain land free of charge.

That is in terms of a resolution which this House has already accepted. I shall explain.

I should like to have an explanation. Then there is an amount of £30,000 under N. Must I take it that the Government is now farming in connection with this matter exclusively for themselves in connection with the sugar settlements in Natal? Or is this an amount which is being awarded to the settlers? I then come to Item O, an amount of £1,600, in respect of camping and bathing facilities for coloureds. This is altogether a new Vote on the Estimates, and I think the House would like to know why special provision is made for a bathing and camping place for coloureds. This is a privilege which the State does not grant to Europeans. Nevertheless this item is specially paced on the Estimates for coloured people, and I want to know what the idea is. I do not want to look for motives, but this gives one the impression that the Government is doing it to seek favour with the coloured community. I think this is a wrong principle, because if anything of this nature has to be done, it is the duty of the municipality concerned to find the money for that type of service. It is their duty to provide this type of facility for the inhabitants of such an area. I do not think it is the duty of any Government to place anything of this nature on the Estimates.

With regard to the first question of the hon. member, we are dealing here with a recommendation of the Select Committee on Irrigation, namely, to cede a certain portion of certain farms free of charge to the present owners of those farms. That resolution was adopted, and it is necessary for us to find the funds. This matter has already been dealt with fully by the Select Committee, and by this House. With regard to M, the position is that the Government obtained certain lands in the sugar area of Natal, and the Government is now making that land suitable for settlement purposes. This money is required for preparation work.

And eventually there will be settlements?

Yes, later. With regard to Item O, the hon. member will remember that about a year ago a protest was lodged on behalf of the coloured community in connection with their right to the beach in Somerset Strand. This matter went to the Supreme Court, and it was postponed in order to see whether a compromise could not be effected. As a result of the action of the Committee a compromise was then reached, and the Strand Municipality is prepared to put aside a certain portion of the beach for the coloured people and to provide certain facilities, and also to effect certain improvements, in order to make that portion suitable for the purposes for which it is intended. That will cost £1,600, and as a contribution towards the settlement of something which might have caused great difficulty, the Government is prepared to contribute £800. As a first step we have undertaken to provide the full amount, and the Municipality will, at a later date, repay the £800.

This question in connection with facilities for the coloured people at the Strand, is not as innocent as the Minister makes out. It is a distasteful matter. At the time of the by-election in Hottentos-Holland there was a great and growing dissatisfaction amongst the coloured community. The coloured community would not hear of getting a separate place. Eventually, with great difficulty, a compromise was reached, and here we now have the result on the estimates. During that election the coloured people were dissatisfied, so dissatisfied that they would not vote for the Government. The Minister of Lands then appeared on the scene, and the result is to be found in this £1,600 on the Estimates, At the last moment the Minister of Lands made a gentleman’s agreement with the coloured people. We did not know why at a given moment the coloured people became satisfied, and now it all becomes apparent from the estimates.

The Committee was appointed long before the by-election.

I want to mention here what happened. At the time of the by-election in Hottentots-Holland, the Government was in danger of not getting the coloured vote at the Strand. At a given moment, the Minister of Lands appeared on the scene and a gentleman’s agreement was arrived at, and at that given moment it was as though the coloured people became satisfied all of a sudden. When the Minister of Lands arrived they boycotted his meeting. That was the extent of their dissatisfaction; but at a given moment it was as though a complete change had come about; and they were suddenly prepared to vote for the Government. Now we have the reply on the Estimates in the form of this £1,600, as to why the coloured people became satisfied. I take it that the Minister of Finance believes what he said here. I just want to lodge my protest against this type of thing. It is not nice, and it leaves a nasty taste in one’s mouth. Have we any bathing place here to which the Government contributes? No, we have not. But in this case, where the coloured people were dissatisfied with the Government at a by-election and threatened to vote against the Government, we find that the Government made provision for a bathing and camping place for the coloured people. It is said that the Municipality will contribute £800. At the moment the Government is providing this £1,600, and it remains to be seen whether the Municipality will contribute £800. This thing leaves a nasty taste in one’s mouth.

My hon. friend is representing this matter in an unreasonable light. This arrangement was made as a result of an investigation by a committee of which Mr. Broeksma, the Attorney-General was chairman. That committee submitted its report, and eventually this arrangement was made on the basis of that report, and that was only done at the beginning of this year.

When was the report of the committee made known?

It was made known only in January to the Strand Municipality, and it was then agreed to deal with the matter in this way.

I am sorry that the Minister of Lands is not here, because I should like to have certain information in regard to this matter. Somerset Strand has been a bathing resort for Europeans for years and years. I read the report in the Press three times, but I could not understand which portion of the beach was being given to the coloured people. It seemed to me that portions were being cut out for the coloured people.

No, they are getting the portion on the Gordons Bay side.

I should like the Minister to be clear, because according in the Press report it seemed that the coloured people were getting a certain portion, then the Europeans, and then again the coloured people. Personally I feel that there are coloured people in that neighbourhood, and we cannot give them a portion of the beach in Cape Town. They must get a portion of that coast. Now I should like to know whether they are getting a portion on the Gordons Bay side, and also on the Melk Bay side, which they did not want at first?

No, only on the Gordons Bay side.

I accept the Minister’s word, because if that is not the case then it would be in conflict with the principle of segregation. I want to be reasonable towards the coloured people and give them a bathing place too, but not amongst the Europeans. I accept the Minister’s assurance that the position is as he has described it. Then I want to draw attention to the £30,000 in connection with a sugar settlement in Natal. There can be no doubt that before the war there was a great overproduction of sugar. The result was that sugar was exported cheaply and sold at a higher price in our country, in order to give the sugar farmers a reasonable livelihood. Sugar was sold here at £1 7s. 6d. per bag—now £1 9s. 6d.—while before the war it was exported at 11s. per bag. Will this sugar settlement not increase the overproduction after the war?

No, it will not mean greater production.

Why not?

Because the existing sugar farmers are surrendering a portion of their quota.

If that is the case then it is right. I was only afraid of further overproduction.

I just want to protest against this amount of £1,600 in respect of a camping and bathing place for the coloured people, but I want to do so from another standpoint. The ground on which I protest is the dangerous precedent which is being created here in asking the House to make a contribution to a local undertaking. Where is the Government going to draw the line in future? It is an acknowledged fact today—and it is also interpreted in that way by the Supreme Court—that we can have segregation, but then equal facilities must be offered to both sections. In other words, if we have equal facilities for all sections, there is no objection to segregation from the legal point of view. But now the Government is paying a contribution out of the Treasury to make these things possible. The financial principle in this matter is one in regard to which I feel disturbed. Here we are creating a precedent, and I am afraid the Government will find it difficult to draw a line in future. If there is any place where there are not sufficient facilities for the coloured people, the Town Council concerned will demand a contribution from the Government on the pound for pound basis, because this contribution has been paid to Somerset Strand, and what will the Government’s reply then be? I think we should be very careful, whatever the reason may be for these things, not to create a precedent, because this is a dangerous precedent which is going to cause trouble in the future. This means that the reproach can be levelled at the Government that it has done this in one case, and that it should do so in other cases, too. A number of dissatisfied coloured people may become rebellious if they have not got certain facilities; there may even be collusion with the local Government and money may be extorted from this House to make provision for something with which it has nothing to do. I want to lodge my protest against this practice of spending State money in this way, because this is a dangerous precedent which is going to cause great difficulty in the future.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 40. — “Superior Courts”, £3,400,

I should just like to have information in regard to this increase of 1,000 per cent.

That is the loss as a result of the Retief case.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 45.—“Commerce and Industries”, £4,000,

Here fishing again falls under Commerce and Industries. A moment ago it was under Social Welfare in connection with the solution, to a certain extent, of the difficulties of fishermen. Now it is under Commerce and Industries again. I should like to have information in regard to this amount of approximately £4,000 in connection with an investigation into the question of fish oil. Was that investigated by the State, or does this represent assistance to a private company in connection with the investigation? Then there is also an amount in respect of investigation into fishing harbours and vessels, and I should like to know what this means.

On the second additional estimates of the past year provision was made for the use of nets in connection with an investigation into the question of fish oil. That money was not spent during the past year, and it is necessary to make provision for it again this year.

Is it given to a private undertaking?

No, this investigation is being undertaken by the State.

Vote put and agreed to.

I attempted to speak on the subject of the proposed new Railway workshops at Durban and Harbour Development, on a previous occasion, but unfortunately I was pulled up by Mr. Speaker. I put certain questions to the Minister of Railways on 2nd February and from those questions and answers I found that out of a total of 395 acres the Railway Department proposes to appropriate 300 acres for new workshops. Out of 395 acres—the Department proposes to take no less than 300 acres. I was somewhat staggered at that reply. Then I asked whether the Railway Department was carrying out the recommendations of the Committee which was appointed to enquire into a long-range policy of Harbour development in Durban, which Committee reported in February, 1939. The answer I received from the Minister was in the affirmative. Well, I was astounded to hear the Minister’s reply—it seems to me he is depriving Durban of Nature’s gift. This land owing to it’s proximity to the Bay, is most suitable for industry relating to shipping,—in fact I make bold to say that it is probably the only land owned by the Government which is suitable for the shipbuilding industry, and I also understand that this industry is making good headway. I understand that expert advice has been taken and this advice is to the effect that the land at the Bayhead is most suitable for shipbuilding. I think it is most unfortunate that the Administration is going to absorb three-quarters of this land for Railway workshops. As far as I am aware, the area which is occupied by the present workshops in Durban is approximately ten acres. Now, why should it be necessary to appropriate 300 acres for the new Railway workshops. Administrations of one generation seldom look ahead and provide for the needs of future generations. I should like to cite the case of the Town Gardens in Durban. Originally 10 acres were provided as an open space. But the various administrations have nibbled away at this space. First it was for a market, then a post office, then a police station, then the town hall, and now out of ten acres only two acres remain as an open space. I am sure the Department is doing a great injustice to the development of Durban by appropriating such a large space for Railway workshops. I consider that the whole of the land at the head of the Bay should be in Government hands. The whole area between the South Coast Road and the Bay foreshore, and between the Bluff Railway Line and the Bay Foreshore should be in Government hands. There are great possibilities for industrial development there. I am aware that the Government is at present negotiating for the expropriation of some of this land, but the longer it is delayed the more expensive the land will become. I strongly urge that the Government should take steps to expropriate the whole of this land, so that a complete and comprehensive scheme might be laid out. I think consideration should be given to making a ship canal, so that additional land can have wharf frontage. I hope the Minister will take this matter into serious consideration. There is a school of thought in Durban, which has even greater ambitious than I have in regard to the canal. There is a school of thought, sponsored by Mr. J. H. Farrell, of Durban, which considers that the Government should examine the possibility of making a canal from the Bay to Isipingo Lagoon. That is a very ambitious scheme and personally I cannot see the need for it. [Time limit.]

I just want to say that, in view of the fact that according to a decision which was taken, we must terminate the debate at 12.20, we do not propose at this stage to discuss Railway matters. We just want to inform the Minister of Railways and Harbours, however, that he will have to be on his guard tomorrow when the Appropriation Bill comes before the House. Let him therefore have a good rest tonight so that he can hold his own tomorrow.

As I was saying, Sir, there is a school of thought in Durban sponsored by Mr. J. H. Farrell which thinks the Government should make a canal running from the Head of the Bay to the Isipingo Lagoon, a distance of four miles. That is a very ambitious scheme which may be worth considering, although I personally do not see the necessity of going to that length. Four years ago the Government appointed a committee to go into the question of the future development of Durban harbour. This committee reported in February, 1939, and much has happened since. I think the committee should be reappointed to reconsider the whole question and that the Natal Provincial Council, the Durban City Council, the Durban Chamber of Commerce and the Durban Chamber of Industries should be represented. Since the war we have realised the very great importance of the harbour at Durban, and I think the Minister should take into consideration what I have suggested and reappoint the committee to frame a long-range policy, and if possible carry out some of the suggestions I have submitted.

I may just explain for the benefit of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) that it is quite clear that he and I are at cross purposes in regard to the questions and answers to which he referred, but I shall try and discover where we have been misunderstanding one another and clear up the situation. I am sorry the hon. member regrets that we are putting down extensive workshops in Durban.

I did not say that.

Most centres are only too pleased if we put down extensive workshops in their midst. The fact that the workshops in Durban today are hopelessly congested; far too much work done on far too small ground makes overcrowding inevitable, and the fact that we are now going to take plenty of room should be a matter for congratulation rather than condemnation. In regard to the expropriation of land, that is quite clearly a matter which should be referred to the Minister of Lands. The Minister of Railways is not concerned in any way with the expropriation of land for future industrial development; that is a matter for the Lands Department. As to the idea at this stage of re-appointing an old Commission, I suggest that that time is now past. So far as Durban is concerned the time for action has come, and the time for Commissions and Committees has gone. I suggest that he allows the Minister to proceed with the plans which have been initiated, discussed and agreed to between the Railways and the Town Council.

I repudiate what the hon. Minister has just said. I did not say that I disapproved in any way of the construction of new railway workshops in Durban. What I complained of was the appropriation by the Railway Administration of 300 out of 395 acres for railway workshops. Durban will never agree to that. I think he must have made some mistake. I do urge again that the time is ripe, in view of the war and the development since the war started, that a fresh committee should be appointed to go into the whole question again. I strongly urge the Minister to carry that out.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 2.—“Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works”, £4,844,001, put and agreed to.

Head No. 3.—“Maintenance of Rolling Stock”, £5,279,261, put and agreed to.

Head No. 4.—“Running Expenses”, £7,620,122, put and agreed to.

Head No. 5.—“Traffic Expenses”, £6,929,551, put and agreed to.

Head No. 6.—“Superannuation”, £813,500, put and agreed to.

Head No. 7.—“Cartage Services”, £684,220, put and agreed to.

Head No. 8.—“Depreciation”, £3,735,131, put and agreed to.

Head No. 9.—“Catering and Bedding. Services”, £1,054,115, put and agreed to.

Head No. 10.—“Publicity, Bookstalls, Advertising and Automatic Machines”, £274,483, put and agreed to.

Head No. 11.—“Grain Elevators”, £220,667, put and agreed to.

Head No. 12.—“Road Motor Services”, £1,177,824, put and agreed to.

Head No. 13.—“Tourist Service”, £75,150, put and agreed to.

Head No. 14.—“Interest on Capital”, £5,251,846, put and agreed to.

Head No. 15.—“Interest on Superannuation and other Funds”, £1,651,450, put and agreed to.

Head No. 16.—“Charges in respect of Lines Leased”, £13,500, put and agreed to.

Head No. 17.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £3,766,442, put and agreed to.

Harbours:

Head No. 18.—“Maintenance of Assets”, £477,566, put and agreed to.

Head No. 19.—“Operating Expenses”, £625,343, put and agreed to.

Head No. 20.—“General Charges”, £49,692, put and agreed to.

Head No. 21.—“Superannuation”, £24,000, put and agreed to.

Head No. 22.—“Depreciation”, £208,115, put and agreed to.

Head No. 23.—“Lighthouses, Beacons, Bells and Signal Stations”, £62,651, put and agreed to.

Head No. 24.—“Interest on Capital”, £675,971, put and agreed to.

Head No. 25.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £292,662, put and agreed to.

Steamships:

Head No. 26.—“Working and Maintenance”, £1,696,490, put and agreed to.

Head No. 27.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £2,510, put and agreed to.

Airways:

Head No. 28.—“Working and Maintenance”, £24,602, put and agreed to.

Head No. 29.—“Interest on Capital”, £2,502, put and agreed to.

Head No. 30.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £28,896, put and agreed to.

Net Revenue Appropriation Account:

Head No. 31. — “Betterment Fund”, £1,200,000, put and agreed to.

Head No. 32.—“Deficiency in Pension Superannuation Funds”, £487,000, put and agreed to.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works on the South African Railways and Harbours.

Head No. 1.—“Construction of Railways”, £56,919, put and agreed to.

Head No. 2.—“New Works and Open Lines”, £2,963,451, put and agreed to.

Head No. 3.—“Rolling Stock”, £604,164, put and agreed to.

Head No. 4.—“Road Motor Services”, £5,500, put and agreed to.

Head No. 5.—“Harbours”, £1,627,625, put and agreed to.

Head No. 7.—“Airways”, £700, put and agreed to.

Head No. 8.—“Working Capital”, £31,900, put and agreed to.

Head No. 9.—“Unforeseen Works”, £300,000, put and agreed to.

I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. On a previous occasion I drew the attention of the Minister of Defence to the kaffir barracks which were built at Bloemfontein immediately in front of the houses of Europeans, and I pointed out the inconveniences which were caused thereby. Unfortunately the Minister of Defence is not here at the moment, but in reply to a letter which he wrote he said that he would go into the matter, but up to the present, nothing has been done in the matter. I shall be compelled to raise this matter tomorrow under the Appropriation Bill, and I want to ask the Minister of Finance to inform the Minister of Defence that we should like to have a clear statement from him in regard to the position. He is in possession of all the details, and I raised this matter three months ago already in this House. An untenable state of affairs has arisen there.

I shall ask him to reply to that tomorrow.

This Vote gives me an opportunity to say a few words in connection with the undesirable position in which we are placed. Here an amount of only £50,000 is being asked for for Defence, without a single word of explanation! The Minister of Defence is not even present. If that had happened in the past, I wonder what any Opposition would have said. But we are muzzled. We are being driven here, and in a few minutes’ time we must conclude the debate. This is an unheard of state of affairs. I have never experienced anything of the kind in this House. We are expected within a few minutes to vote £66,000,000 without a single word of explanation. Why are we really here? If I had been on the other side, I would have known that I was a “yes-man”; but we on this side cannot tolerate such a state of affairs.

I just want to point out that it was agreed that we would dispose of the estimates in 110 hours, and hon. members were apparently satisfied with that.

We did not expect a Minister to talk for hours about Kakamas.

Hon. members also discussed that., but in any event the agreement was that 110 hours would be sufficient.

We have never agreed that 110 hours would be sufficient. Last year we had 100 hours, and we asked for it to be increased this year by at least ten or twenty hours. We said that we would accept 110 hours without offering any objection, but we accepted that without agreeing to the principle of this limitation.

At 12.20 a.m., on the conclusion of the period of one hundred and ten hours allotted for the proceedings in Committee of Supply, the business under consideration was interrupted by the Deputy-Chairman in accordance with the resolution adopted by the House on the 11th March.

Loan Vote M.—“Defence”, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—43:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander. A.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B. Jackson, D.

Klopper, L. B.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Mushet. J. W.

Neate, C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Noes—18:

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys. C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Loubser, S. M.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jan

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

Loan Vote M.—“Defence”, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Loan Vote N.—“Commerce and Industries”. £3,183,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote O.—“Public Health”, £1,250,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote P.—“South African Mint”, £49,700, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote Q.—“Native Affairs”, £41,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote R. — “Governor General’s National War Fund”, £600,000, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—43:

Abbott C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B. Jackson, D.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Noes—18:

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Loubser, S. M.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jan.

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

Loan Vote R. — “Governor General’s National War Fund”, as printed accordingly agreed to.

Loan Vote S.—“Printing and Stationery”, £35,000, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported that the Committee had agreed to the Estimates of Expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund without amendment, the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Funds without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure from Railway and Harbour Funds without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, South African Railways and Harbours without amendment, and the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds without amendment.

Estimates of Expenditure adopted.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER appointed the Minister of Finance and the Chairman of Committees a Committee to bring up the necessary Bill or Bills in accordance with the Estimates of Expenditure adopted by the House.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE brought up the Report of the Committee, submitting two Bills.