I move—

This is a very lengthy Bill. I hope that the time which the House will spend on it will not be proportionate to its length. It does not need to be, because this is primarily a consolidating measure. It may be said that this Bill carries a step further forward the important and useful work that is being done in the consolidation of our laws. Two years ago the Excise Act was consolidated and amended, and in the process a great deal of dead wood was cut out of our Statute Book. We now have in this Bill the companion picture. We have here a Bill primarily to consolidate the law in relation to customs. This Bill cannot be dealt with in terms of the procedure initiated by Mr. Speaker two years ago, because it is more than a consolidating Bill. Although primarily a consolidating Bill it also amends the existing law in certain respects. The Bill consolidates two major enactments and a considerable number of amending statutes. If hon. members will refer to the Third Schedule they will find that in all twenty-five Acts or parts of Acts will be repealed, if this Bill is enacted. This Bill, therefore, will also cut a great deal of dead wood out of our Statute Book. I said we are dealing with two major enactments. The first major enactment is the Customs Management Act of 1913. That Act which was passed more than 30 years ago has served its purpose well but needs amending in certain respects. For one thing changes have taken place in the methods of commerce and international trade. In the second place there has been a good deal of industrial development in our own country. Then thirdly, air transport has come to be one of the features of our time since 1913, and provision has to be made for dealing with that aspect. Furthermore, the Act of 1913 was derived from the United Kingdom Customs Act. In the course of time, however, certain customs principles and practices have been adopted administratively, based on our own South African conditions and experience, and these are now embodied in this Bill. The second major enactment which is consolidated in this Bill is the Customs Tariff Act of 1925. That Act, as hon. members will remember, defined our fiscal policy. It has been the basis of procedure and of amending enactments since 1925. These various amendments are now also consolidated in this Bill that we have before us, and it is not proposed in this Bill to introduce any change of policy in that regard. We are merely taking the law as we find it at the present moment in that respect. Since this Bill is a consolidating Bill it is not necessary for me to comment on it in detail; I propose merely to refer to those clauses in the Bill which introduce significant changes in the existing law, and I think that in that way I can be of most assistance to hon. members. I mention, first of all, Clause 11. There power is sought to enable customs officers to open packages in the absence of the owner when circumstances require it. That is necessary because occasionally unclaimed and uncleared packages come into the custody of the Department, and the Department has to open these packages before the contents can be disposed of. Hon. members will see that there is a proviso to this Clause which ensures that all reasonable efforts will be taken before taking the action contemplated. The Department is considering a scheme for registration with the Commissioner of Customs and Excise, of marks which are usually employed by importers, and one of the sections at the end of the Bill will give the necessary power to make regulations to that end. Then I would refer to Clause 13. That purports to give us power to place an embargo on goods which have been released from customs control. That would only apply when subsequent discovery is made of contraventions of the law. It is, of course, in the nature of things impossible to subject all goods imported into the Union to actual physical examination before release, and sometimes information comes to hand later that the requirements of the law have not been complied with. It is desirable, where possible, to stop such goods passing into consumption, and on that ground the power contained in this Clause is sought. Then I would refer to Clause 26, which does not indeed contain any new principle, but which seeks to clarify the legal position in a matter in regard to which there is some misunderstanding today, and that is in regard to the liability for duty on imported goods. When a ship arrives at a Union port with goods consigned to the Union, those goods are regarded as imported unless it is proved that they were not in fact landed. Those goods are liable to duty. The question is, who has to pay that duty? Primarily the importer is liable; he is initially responsible for the goods coming into the Union; but then the case arises where the goods are not actually delivered to the importer and in that case the master of the ship is held to be liable. In dealing with this matter we are following the Hague Rules. Under those rules, if a carrier conveys goods under a contract which requires him to compensate the consignee for non-delivery, then if he fails to deliver the goods he is liable for customs duty unless he proves that in fact the goods were not landed in the Union. But if a carrier is conveying the goods at owner’s risk, then the carrier is under no such liability. That is the Departmental procedure which has hitherto been followed. It is based on the existing law, although the law is not very clear on the subject, and this Clause seeks to set out the law clearly. There is no liability if it is established that the landing of the goods did not take place. Then I would refer to Clause 81. This is a Clause which empowers the Minister by notice in the Government Gazette to reduce or suspend a duty which is in force. It may be said that this is a wide power which it is proposed to give to the Minister, but I think there is good reason for it. We have certain protective duties, but circumstances arise where the local production which it is sought to protect is not sufficient to fulfil those requirements, and where steps have to be taken to import to make up the deficiency. In such cases the cost of the commodity is then enhanced to the community by the extent of the duty which is no longer necessary from the protective point of view. We have had that position in recent years in regard to the importation of wheat where we have been compelled to import wheat over and above the country’s production in order to meet the country’s consumption. That imported wheat has then been subject to duty, but we have been compelled then to increase our subsidy so as to make up for that duty. We have had another case recently in regard to oil cake for animal food. There we have a protective duty, but here again local production has not been enough to meet the consumption, and so in order not to penalise the consumer we took steps last October to suspend the protective duty. That is still subject to confirmation, and the confirmation will be provided in this Clause if the Bill is passed. It seems to be much simpler and from the administrative point of view less expensive for us to be able to suspend or reduce such duties where it can be done. The power which this Clause will give us, will, of course, only be exercised after very careful consideration of all the relevant factors, and with due regard to the interests of all sections of the community. Then Clause 7 deals with refunds of duty overpaid. The onus of making a correct entry is on the importer, and in equity he has no claim, but in practice we do deal with claims for repayment of overpaid duty, and this Clause will now give such an importer a legal claim to a refund if he has made a bona fide error. There are, however, certain administrative expenses attached to dealing with such claims, and it is proposed therefore to levy a fee of 5 per cent. with a maximum of 5s. for each application. Then I would refer to Clause 142. It is not always easy to examine goods physically at the time of importation. The transactions of importers are, of course, subsequently reviewed by the inspection of their books and documents, and underpayments of duty are from time to time brought to light. The effect of this Clause will be to give us a line for such duties over goods belonging to the person concerned, which are still under the control of the Department. The only other Clause to which I need refer is a Clause which has attracted a good deal of attention and that is Clause 157. That Clause stipulates that persons who assume the responsibility of transacting business for others should be responsible for the payment of duties and penalties by their principals. Now, representations have been made to me—they have also been made to members of this House—from the point of view of agents who feel that this would place too great a burden upon them. I have decided to meet those representations, and I shall therefore take steps in Committee to amend this Clause so as to leave the law as it stands at present in regard to the obligations of these agents. Then, in conclusion, I only want to say a word about the procedure in regard to this Bill. This is a technical measure, and one which affects the interests of many people but which probably most members of this House would regard as falling in the main outside the scope of their own experience. Having regard to that fact we have taken special steps to make the contents of this Bill as widely known as possible and to give interested parties an opportunity to state whatever case they may wish to put. This Bill was published some time before the session commenced and it was made clear that any representations which it might be desired to put forward would be received and considered. We have already received representations in regard to a good many of the Clauses of this Bill and we are doing our best to meet the points which have been made. If the second reading of this Bill is adopted I shall be ready to give notice of amendments to many of the Clauses in the Bill as a result of those representations. I have already referred to one of those Clauses, Clause 157. But even so there is no intention of rushing this Bill through the House. I am taking the second reading now, but I think at least a month will elapse before the Committee stage is taken. In that way it would be possible to give consideration to further representations that may be made. May I merely express the hope that if hon. members think it necessary to move amendments on their own account, they will do so by giving notice on the Order Paper. Just because this is a technical Bill I think we should be given an opportunity of seeing the amendments that will be moved, but I hope that hon. members who have specific points to raise in connection with the Bill will discuss those points with me or the Department.

Will you give us sufficient time between the second reading and the Committee stage?

I have already said—a month will elapse between the second reading of the Bill and the Committee stage. The Bill has already been before the public for some months, and I hope, therefore, I may count on the co-operation of hon. members on these lines in order that we may make this Bill a workable measure and one that will give general satisfaction.

Before commenting on the Bill itself, I want to ask the hon. the Minister when we may expect some of our Bills to be drafted in Afrikaans? The Minister quite correctly said that this was a comprehensive and complicated measure, so much so that it was difficult to follow it. I have given a lot of attention to the Bill which was published in the Government Gazette, and I must say that I was disappointed in the many errors I found in the translation. There were many faulty translations and although the Bill which we have now before us is an improvement on the one in the Government Gazette, it still contains many ambiguities, to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention, in the hope that we may thus avoid a lot of trouble later on. May I just express the hope that we shall in the near future have some of our Bills drafted in Afrikaans? The fact that the Minister has come to this House with a consolidating Bill will undoubtedly be welcomed by everybody. This consolidation places before the House the history of the development which has taken place in the last thirty-four years, and that development is so interesting that it is a pity the Minister did not get someone to write a separate explanatory note setting out the developments of the past. The world has been passing through so many tragedies, there has been so much development in the last 34 years, that this Bill is really a summary of the historical development that has taken place in the industrial life of South Africa, and I am sorry therefore that hon. members cannot have a historical review before them together with the Bill. We welcome the consolidation of the laws, and so far as the amendments are concerned, I think we all know that these amendments are inevitable, as there has been tremendous development since the days when the former Acts were drafted, and, of course, our Customs Act has to provide for that development. This Bill contains a number of provisions which deal specially with the customs aspect of aviation. The recent announcement in regard to the establishment of a system of international coinage for aviation purposes should be taken particular note of. That is why we welcome this Bill in that respect and although the Bill gives one the impression of careful study it contains many clauses which will have to receive special attention in the Committee stage. It is quite impossible at this stage of aviation for hon. members to form any idea of the complications that may arise in future. I think I am speaking for this side of the House when I say that we welcome this Bill as a consolidating measure. I am sorry, however, that the Minister did not at the same time induce the Government by means of this Bill to remove a large number of the existing handicaps and drawbacks which today affect South Africa. I know, of course, that hon. members will accuse me immediately of dragging this measure into the political arena—I do not intend doing so, but I want to make this point, that the existing legislation—and I am referring now to the Ottawa Agreements—that these agreements have outlived their usefulness and that they are definitely detrimental to the development of South Africa. The implications of this Bill are far-reaching and comprehensive, and that being so I do not propose at this stage going into all the details, because if I tried to do so I could not say all I would like to say in the short time at my disposal. One of the direct complications of the Ottawa Agreement, however, is that South Africa has bound itself to give preference to a large variety of British manufactured goods, and by implication also to certain goods from Ireland and New Zealand. South Africa, in accepting the Ottawa Agreement, has bound itself to give preference to British products and it has faithfully carried out that undertaking. I do not think any objection can be raised by British manufacturers about the manner the Ottawa Agreement has been carried out. The Ottawa Agreement was an agreement of the most far-reaching importance to British trade and commerce. Some British manufacturers by means of the Ottawa Agreement, have captured practically the whole of the South African market. Let me just refer to two particular articles—let me take cotton-piece goods and electrical goods. I need only refer to those two. I think it has proved most important to British manufacturers to have had this provision in the Union’s tariff Act. That law has had implications which have cost South Africa dearly in the past, and as I see the position, they will cost South Africa even more dearly in days to come. Not only have British manufacturers had this great advantage, that the British market in South Africa has grown tremendously, but in regard to electrical machinery the British factories have, under the provisions of the Ottawa Agreement, captured about 98 to 99 per cent. of the whole South African market. British manufacturers have benefited tremendously, and as these principles are again embodied in this Bill, South Africa is compelled to look at what has happened and reconsider the implications of the agreement. One very definitely unequal preference is that so far as certain articles are concerned, England receives preference, while no exclusive preferences are given to a single South African product in England. Immediately the British Government gives preference to a product of one particular Dominion, that preference is automatically extended to the other Dominions. Consequently, although South Africa by legislation gives preference to Great Britain in respect of hundreds of articles, and to Canada too, in respect of a few types of articles, we have not been given one single exclusive preference. I think it is most important that we should get full reciprocity for the preferences which we have given. I know the Minister will probably be furnished with data to show that so far as financial advantages are concerned, we have not suffered, but the Minister should at the same time bear in mind that the basis of calculation, so far as the benefits from reciprocal preferences are concerned, is different in England from what it is in South Africa. I therefore want to object to this provision being again embodied in a consolidating measure, which, however, at the same time is an amending Bill, because South Africa is in return getting preferences equal in value to those she is giving. There is more than that, however. The provisions which have been in force for the last twelve years have had important implications, and the first one over which we have had trouble with other European countries, is the one particularly in regard to the export of cotton piece goods. I speak subject to correction, but I believe that since the Ottawa Agreement was entered into not a single commercial treaty has been concluded with any European country, simply because of the terms of that agreement. That agreement left us no opportunity to concede any benefits to any other State in any agreement we might want to make. We object to the one-sided preference which is given to the British Isles because it is badly balanced and detrimental to South Africa. Another important implication of the Ottawa Agreement is that South Africa’s development has suffered very severely from it. I don’t want to go into details here; I have occupied a privileged position and I do not want to use the knowledge I have acquired as a result of that position, but I want to put forward this contention that South Africa is today suffering from a shortage of many essentials, and that those essentials could have been provided if South Africa had not been restrained by the handicaps of the Ottawa Agreement. I therefore want to say this very earnestly: that our development has suffered severely as a result of that agreement. I go further and say that this agreement has to such an extent curtailed South Africa’s freedom to enter into trade agreements that not only have we been restricted from concluding agreements in the last twelve years, but if we do not change the present position there is no prospect of South Africa ever being able to enter into any trade agreements with other nations. If the world is faced then with the new conceptions produced by the war atmosphere, the conception that we are entering on a new world, that a new spirit of camaraderie will have to be created, then I ask how we can reconcile that with this type of legislation. How can we reconcile it with the creation of a reciprocal spirit of tolerance, of supplying each other with products; if that spirit has to prevail we cannot pass laws whose results will be that we shall be permitted to trade only with England and the British Empire. I therefore say that a fresh and far-reaching restraint is being embodied in our legislation, the effect of which not only is that we are treated unfairly, but also that we are prevented from having commercial relations with any other country. The Minister therefore owes this House an explanation—he should tell the House when the Government proposes reviewing and revising the Ottawa Agreement. It must be revised, it is inevitable, and the Government must undertake this task, and consequently the Minister owes this House a statement what the Government’s policy is about revising and reviewing the Ottawa Agreement. Inherent in these provisions—I am referring particularly to Clauses 67, 68, 72, and 73, is the implication that we are an integral part of the British Empire as an economic unit. Objections have been raised from time to time from this side of the House to that conception. We want to protest against it, and we say that this Bill should not perpetuate that condition of affairs. Yet not only is the perpetuation of that condition embodied in this Bill, but there is a further implication—I believe in Clause 69—under which the Government can no longer grant minimum duties to any other power or any other State, except the British Empire. South Africa, through those speaking on its behalf has also welcomed the new world, a world with fresh reciprocal relationships, but no reciprocal relationships can be established if we fail when entering into those relationships to look after our trade and commercial development. At this stage South Africa is prevented under this Bill from granting a minimum tariff to any other State except the British Empire. I think it is a most drastic step on the part of the Government of South Africa to say to the people and to this House that we are going to embody a provision in this consolidating measure under which South Africa will not be able to enter into a commercial treaty with any other country except the British Empire. What benefit can any other country have in entering into a commercial agreement with South Africa if such an agreement can at the most give it intermediary duties? By implication the British Empire becomes a closed unit economically, and I hope the Minister will make a statement and tell us when the Ottawa Agreement will be reviewed, and when we shall be given the opportunity of entering into trade agreements with other countries in the world. I hope to have the opportunity at some future time of making a few remarks about the implications of the Atlantic Charter but I just want to ask here what the prospects are of arriving at any understanding in this world, of having any participation in the spirit which is alleged to be at the basis of the Atlantic Charter when in our Customs legislation we lay down a policy which makes it impossible for us to conclude a trade agreement with any country except England. I think it is a serious implication, and in view of the comprehensiveness of this Bill and its implications I want to ask the Minister if he is prepared to accept the adjournment of the debate. Hon. members have had a lot of work and this Bill needs very careful study. Will the Minister give us a few days to study it?

The Bill has been before this House a long time and hon. members have had weeks to study it.

We are very busy and I am sorry the Minister is not prepared to accept the adjournment of the debate. I think he could have expected more assistance from members on this side if he had met us on this point. Still, if the Minister has definitely made up his mind that he will not adjourn the debate I shall have to carry on with my views on the Bill before us. There are a few clauses which I want to deal with. First of all I want to emphasise very strongly that the Minister must inform this House when these restraining, restrictive and humiliating provisions, to which I have referred will be removed. There is a provision in Clause 67 (2) that if we carry out the Ottawa Agreement, we shall be in a position to enter into fresh agreements. As that prospect is held out, I must assume that this is not just a meaningless provision but that it has a certain amount of significance, and that we can assume that the Ottawa Agreement will be revised. We have always declared that South Africa’s interests are best served if commercial treaties are also entered into with foreign powers in the interest of South Africa and that being so we feel that we can do no better than repeat the views which we have always expressed, and say that we condemn these provisions in the Bill as being in conflict with South Africa’s interests. We contest the point of view that South Africa is an integral part of the British Empire as an economic unit. We cannot emphasise this strongly enough—we cannot emphasise strongly enough that we reject this contention because it is in conflict with our own interests. I do not want to raise the question of international relationships here. That can be discussed at some later stage. But the Bill does not hold out the prospect of our entering a new world, because it adheres to the idea of the British Empire as an economic unit. I do not want to mention other nations by name across the floor of the House, but I want to repeat that if the Atlantic Charter has any meaning at all, then the provisions of this Bill are in conflict with the Atlantic Charter. It has been said repeatedly in this House, and also outside, that what is laid down in the Atlantic Charter is also South Africa’s policy. If that is so, then I assume that we should at least in our Customs Tariffs make the necessary provision to enable us to carry out the spirit of that Charter. I don’t want to plead for a change in our protective policy at this stage. A protective policy is our birthright and we must lay down that policy according to South Africa’s needs, but as there is embodied in this Bill a provision which ties us to the British Empire, I say that that is ethically irreconcilable with the Atlantic Charter. We want to insist that we shall not be made to appear before the world in a false light, and we say that we want to create new relationships and a new understanding. But when we say that we cannot in the same breath pass legislation making it impossible to achieve that object. It is wrong to do so. That is why we want to declare here, frankly and openly, that we are opposed to those particular provisions of this Bill. We want commercial relations based on the interests of South Africa. We believe that if the interests of South Africa are put first and foremost and if we want to have a better understanding in the world we must get away from provisions which make it impossible for us to trade with the world. I want to point out that the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech expressed his anxiety about securing the currency in days to come. The proper method of making secure the currencies in their international relationship is by means of barter and commercial relations. That secures the international value of our currency. One cannot secure, one cannot guarantee, that the currency will retain its value if one has no trade. Trade relations with the world must be the basis for the maintenance of the means of payment—of the currency. For that reason I want to say again that we object to the principle which is once more contained in this Bill, and which in all probability will not be reviewed soon. Now I want to make a few remarks about some of the clauses. I have studied the 1925 Act dealing with the rights of this House in respect of treaties entered into by the Government. According to Clause 8 of Act 36 of 1935 no commercial treaty made by the Government comes into force until it has been approved of by this House. In one of the clauses of this Bill, however, it is laid down—not that a treaty entered into between the Union Government and some other State will not be valid until approved of by this House, but it provides that it will be valid unless it is disapproved of by this House. If the House fails to take steps before a certain date to reject a treaty, it is valid. This seems to me to be a serious encroachment on the rights of this House. I know it is customary in certain countries for the Government to receive practically full authority from Parliament to conclude commercial treaties until such time as those treaties are disapproved of or are turned down by Parliament. I look upon it as an encroachment of the rights of Parliament to say, that unless the House disapproves of an agreement the agreement is valid. I should like to hear from the Minister what the reason for this change is. I believe it is Clause 74 which amends Clause 8 of Act 36 of 1925 in this respect. Under the old Act an agreement or treaty first of all had to be sanctioned before it could come into force. Now it ipso facto comes into force until it is disapproved of by Parliament. I feel this is an encroachment on the rights of Parliament. I don’t want to move an amendment at this stage but I should like to know from the Minister why that provision has been made. It is wrong to conclude commercial treaties without consulting Parliament. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think it has not become advisable to appoint a Committee of this House on the question of commercial relationship. I know that such a Committee must be subject to certain restrictions, but I feel none the less that the question should be considered by the Government, and that the Government should not have a completely free hand in the matter of concluding commercial treaties, and that it should not have the right to put Parliament before an accomplished fact. In regard to tariffs I cannot possibly go into details. It is impossible to deal in detail with the fifteen sections of the tariff. I assume that these sections are a continuation of the existing tariffs, and I assume that the basis of those tariffs is still protective; that being so I propose confining my remarks to a few aspects of conception of protection. I do not intend dealing with the Bill in detail. One of the important implications in regard to protection is contained in the clause quoted by the Minister in which he takes powers unto himself to suspend certain duties, and to apply duties in certain special events. I can appreciate the Minister’s difficulty in practice, but in spite of that I contend that he can remove these difficulties by embodying additional suspended duties in the tariff. In Clause 81, which the Minister also discussed, wide powers are taken by the Government. I feel that the Minister’s difficulties can be solved by including certain suspended duties which can be applied from time to time by the authorities on the advice of the Board of Trade and Industries. I want to refer to the future development of industries in South Africa and to the desirability of including more suspended duties in our tariffs. There are two commodities in South Africa which are protected by C.I.F. or K.A.F. I think there can be no doubt about the desirability of applying that principle under the protective system, and I want to suggest, in view of the natural development which we expect, that the Government should place additional products on that basis under our protective policy. I know that this is a most dangerous thing; I know that it is always said that there is danger in it because the consumer may easily be exploited as the result of such a provision. I therefore want to suggest that a watchful eye should continually be kept on the changes in prices. It is not enough just to rely on the provision in the law, that the Board of Trade and Industries must place a report before Parliament, every year. With all due respect to hon. members I know that owing to the amount of work they have to do, not 10 per cent. of them keep themselves informed of the implications of our customs legislation. I therefore want to suggest that the Board of Trade and Industries should be instructed to keep a constant watch over the abuse that may possibly take place under this system. Our Customs Tariff today is small and brief in comparison with that of many other countries. France and Australia for instance have tremendously lengthy tariffs, just to mention a few, and in view of the developments in this country I want to ask the Minister to consider extending our tariff at least to a certain extent. Article by article should be dealt with as far possible with a view to industrial development in South Africa. It is desirable to sub-divide articles. I am thinking for instance of woollen piece goods. There is a fixed tariff of 15/15/15. South Africa is looking forward to the development of our wool industry, the production of raw materials. But it is unthinkable that we shall in the near future be able to meet even to a slight extent South Africa’s requirements in various kinds of commodities. But it is thinkable, and it is possible for us soon to be able to produce certain wool weaving materials which under existing circumstances cannot be properly protected. I therefore want to suggest that certain articles in the tariffs, which will probably be produced in South Africa in the immediate future, be sub-divided so that in that way there may be an opportunity of affording proper protection without imposing unnecessary restraint. In the past the argument has always been that if increased protection is imposed, the local factories will still not be able to produce all that is needed. But if a tariff item is sub-divided into different parts it will be possible to give protection to a part of a specific article. I am sorry my time is up, but I want to ask the Minister particularly to give his attention to the question of revising and reviewing the Ottawa Agreement as the existing condition of affairs is not in the interest of South Africa.

As the Minister reminded the House in introducing this Bill, this is largely a consolidating measure. A consolidating measure where the principal legislation which is the subject of the measure has undergone many amendments is naturally welcome, but I am not quite clear as to the reason why this particular time has been chosen to consolidate our Customs Law, more particularly in view of the abnormality of existing conditions as compared with the conditions for which our Customs policy was framed. The Minister has reminded us that on the fiscal side the Principal Act which this measure replaces dates back nearly twenty years, and it was that Act which laid the foundations of our present tariff system. As far as the future is concerned there is unlikely to be any substantial change back to the conditions in the light of which our customs policy was framed. I say this not only in relation to the declarations of the Atlantic Charter but also in view of the fact that it is not only likely but almost certain that the post-war world will see a revolutionised condition of affairs in the international field and secondly our own internal economic policy—in the light of which any foreign trade policy must be framed-—our own internal policy must be re-organised if the mistakes of the past are not to be repeated, and more particularly if the promises which the Government has made in relation to the post-war world are to be carried out. It is in the light of these considerations that I desire to make a few remarks on the foreign trade policy. The time has passed when this question could be approached from the point of view of the classical issue between free trade and protection. The drift towards a planned economy will continue. A planned internal policy must of necessity be integrated with a planned external trade policy. The issue raised by a subject of this character is rather what the objective of our foreign trade policy should be, and what the means are by which that objective is to be attained. When I refer to the means, I am, for instance, suggesting a contrast between a policy which gives protection to vested interests and a policy of regulation of foreign trade by such means as State purchases abroad, State control of foreign exchange, and so on. Now this Bill continues the system of the past, the main features of which are a triple-scale tariff which is capable of administrative variation in relation to particular classes of goods, either in accordance with agreements concluded with foreign powers or in relation to definite considerations of policy in the country itself. The Board of Trade is established as the arbiter as to whether these conditions are carried out and it has power to recommend variations in the tariff rates according to the price policy of the industries concerned, as to whether or not they are taking advantage of the tariff to adopt monopolistic practices and finally, as to whether or not they are maintaining satisfactory labour conditions. I shall have some thing to say in a few minutes about that phrase “satisfactory labour conditions.” Now I certainly am not clear on what general principles protection is afforded in this country to particular industries, and that, as a matter of fact, was a question which was pointedly asked nine years ago by the Tariff Commission when that body reported. The Commissioners heard evidence by the Board of Trade as constituted at that time, and in section 251 of the Report, the Commission has summarised the evidence which the Board of Trade tendered on the subject. In paragraph 4 of section 251 the Board told the Commission—

And in sub-section (5) the Board of Trade and Industries continued—

1. (a) “that the industry concerned should be in existence and that without tariff assistance there was danger of retrogression, or no prospect of expansion owing to severe competition from imported goods”;
2. (b) that the industry “should develop along economic lines in the sense of productive efficiency, quality of goods produced, volume of goods produced in relation to demand (i.e. possibility of producing the bulk of the Union’s requirements within a reasonable period of time …) and that an increased duty should not be used for the purpose of raising factory prices.”
3. (c) that the industry concerned “should utilise South African raw materials as far as possible.”

And they go on to say that where the products of primary industries are processed, the needs of primary industries should be considered. Now the Commission made this pertinent observation on this evidence in paragraph 252—

Now, I do not know whether there has been evolved any definite policy since that time. On that the Minister would be in a position to give the House some information. But in paragraphs 173 to 177, referred to by the Commission, are embodied the recommendations as to what the policy should be, and the Commission there posed a distinction between a protective policy which aims at a secluded economy, and what they call integrated economy—the integration of national economy with world economy as a whole, and the majority of the Commissioners, on the grounds of practicability, recommended the latter. The difficulty which that recommendation raises is that no definition seems to have been attempted as to what are the limits of a tariff policy aiming at integration with world trade, and all the Commissioners say is that the tariff should be moderate. Now, what is moderate? It is a matter of opinion. I want to suggest that the only true test is, or can be, whether or not foreign trade policy is in accordance with a planned domestic industrial policy, a policy which has decided on a long term basis and in advance what local resources in regard to material, labour and skills this country is to utilise, and what proportion, and of what nature, of our essential requirements must be purchased abroad; and that seems the only principle, the application of which is capable of striking a proper balance between a policy of completely free imports on the one hand—a policy which may have, indeed would have, the advantage of lowering the cost of living, but in which there is a danger of that advantage being offset by the nonutilisation of local resources in South Africa of a value potentially beyond the extent of the initial advantage of lowered costs. That is the one side. The other is simply the subsidisation of private interests to enable them to levy toll on the community. It is between those two extremes that a foreign trade policy should aim to find a balance. And I have grave doubts whether the instrument of the tariff is an appropriate one for regulating external trade in accordance with the principle I have stated—a mere protective duty being placed on certain types of goods and local manufacturers being invited to produce behind that tariff duty. There is obviously no check to the extent to which they can levy toll on the community in excess of what is required to fit in with the general economic policy of the country. Where it is necessary in the circumstances of a particular case to subsidise vested interests I suggest that should be done directly by bounty paid from general revenue. The cost of protection would then fall on the shoulders of those who are in a position to bear it and there would be no danger of its strangling the industrial development of the country as a whole. Now I am perfectly aware of the difficulties of putting into practice a policy such as I have suggested in an economy which is dominated by a hierarchy of vested interests. But it is a difficulty to which sooner or later this country will have to face up. In the past the main determining factor for the imposition of a duty has been whether an article could be produced in South Africa without any co-ordination with other factors. If an article could be produced here it was sufficient argument for protection being given to it—for protection being given to those interests which were willing to produce it. Obviously if any duty is imposed, in the first instance it involves a subsidy from the consumer to the producer. The only justification for doing so therefore is that in time it will call into production new resources, which would not otherwise have been developed, and that the increased production it will stimulate is of sufficient value, in terms of contribution to the national income, to offset the concealed subsidy which the consumer pays through the tariff. But the point I want to make is that the only reason why a tariff can have this effect is because the conditions of a competitive economy may, in certain circumstances, make it impossible for an industry, which can subsequently become an economic proposition, to establish itself at all. It is therefore because of the operation of the laws of competition that tariff protection has been found necessary in the past. Tariff protection gives no guarantee that the objects its framers have in view will be attained, whereas those objects can be attained by a properly regulated system of foreign trade. The Tariff Commission, whose report I have referred to, attempted to estimate on the basis of the figures then available—of course, they would be completely out of date today—what the toll paid by the community to vested interests as a result of a protective policy was. They estimated at that time that the value of the production of protected industries was £19,500,000 and they then estimated that about three and a half million pounds (£3,500,000) represented the toll levied on the community. That would mean that nearly one fifth of the production—of the value of the production—was paid for by the community by way of subsidy. It is obvious that if subsidies of this nature were equitably distributed each benefit would cancel another out, and the result would not be of particular advantage to anyone. Therefore, again, I suggest that a better method of stimulating local production is rather through administrative regulation than financial subsidisation at the expense of the consumer. Another point was also brought out in the extracts I have read from the evidence of the Board of Trade before the Tariff Commission. The only general principle which they appear to follow in recommending tariff protection is expressed there, and that is to stimulate the employment of what the Board of Trade referred to as “civilised labour”. In practice, as we know, that means European labour. I want to emphasise the remarks of the Commission on this point, and they are to be found in various places in the Report. The general proposition is put shortly in Section 126 as follows—

Now, admittedly it was not then, and has not since, been found practicable to exclude non-Europeans entirely from employment in the field of protected industry. About 40 per cent. of European labour has on the whole been maintained as against approximately 12 per cent. in the main primary industry of this country, the gold mining industry, which set the standard for the wage rates which are referred to as “civilised” in the Report of the Customs Tariff Commission. In effect, therefore, what this means, what this objective means in concrete terms, is this: that the tariff policy of the past has been utilised as an instrument to maintain a ratio of about 7 or 8 to 1 in the value of skilled to unskilled wages, such as has been the practice in the gold mining industry which originally set the standard. The corresponding ratio, as the Commission again points out, in other countries such as Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, is about 3 to 2 between skilled and unskilled wages, and in some cases, more particularly in Australia, the ratio is about 5 to 4. But I want to emphasise my point, that that has been the objective of the policy. I am coming to the merits of the policy in a moment. And in the second place I wish to repeat what we on these benches have continually put forward in the past as to the disastrous effect of such a policy on the industrial development of this country. The high structure of costs has been commented on by innumerable commissions. The Minister of Finance himself the other day in his Budget Speech recognised that the high cost structure was the main obstacle to the development of a national income which would make a genuine social security scheme possible. Now, I am quite prepared to be faced with the contention of those hon. members who hold certain points of view quite opposite to mine. That contention would be that they would prefer to have a lower national income provided it is distributed in such a manner as to make the maintenance of the so-called civilised standard possible. That argument in the circumstances is quite academic. The customs policy in this country has for the last twenty years been used with that objective in view. Other aspects of national policy have been framed to attain the same objective, yet it never has been attained and never can be attained. In the first place we have the report of the Social and Economic Planning Council which says that on the basis of the present national income no satisfactory social security plan can be attained. Secondly, what appears not to be realised is this: that the maintenance of this enormous disparity between skilled and unskilled wage rates—which is really what a civilised labour policy means—is only possible of attainment on the basis of the employment of one European to eight non-Europeans, and the Chamber of Mines has always held that it cannot depart from that proportion and continue to pay present skilled wage rates. In secondary industries the proportion is about half and half. Now, the fact of the matter is that there are only about four natives to one European in this country, so that the result of a civilised labour policy bolstered by the Tariff has been, and will continue to be, the maintenance of this standard of wages for a few Europeans, and the growth in numbers of the unemployed, the poor whites, the relief workers, constituting a very large section of the European population. What I am suggesting is that there should be planned development for the benefit of the whole population of South Africa. I know that I have used phrases of that kind before in this House, but it is necessary to go on using them. Not only has the tariff policy of the past had the effect of lessening the real wages of the majority of the workers of this country, of the unskilled workers of this country—practically the whole of the African population and a large proportion of the European population—but it appears to have been framed in such a way as to lay the heaviest tolls on the poorer sections of the population, to whatever racial group they may belong. The original duty for instance on so-called “kaffir sheeting” was so exorbitant that following the report of the Tariff Commission it was lowered somewhat, but the fact that such a duty was put on such an article is an indication of the spirit of the fiscal policy of this country. Take some of these necessary articles used by the poorest and take the rates of customs duty imposed on them. Take blankets—25 per cent. is the minimum duty. If I quote figures I quote the minimum duty. Secondhand overcoats, 25 per cent. Shirts and jackets 20 per cent. Matches 2s. 6d. per gross of boxes. Salt 30 per cent.; those are articles of everyday consumption for every section of the community. It is on those articles that the heaviest burden is placed. Then there is maize—that carries a duty of 2s. per 100 lbs. or 4s. per bag. I personally do not see what the necessity for a duty on maize is; we only import it if we have a shortage. In Section 81 of the Bill the Minister takes powers to withdraw a duty altogether. I presume this will be done if there is a shortage of maize, which seems to be facing us in the near future—I presume it will be done if there is a shortage, and if there is a necessity for the importation of maize. But why then place a duty on maize at all? I presume that as the duty has been imposed it must have been collected some time or other. Those are the general remarks I want to make upon the past policy in this connection; it is a policy which has entirely failed in attaining its ostensible purpose which appears to have been to bolster up so-called “civilised” wage standards. It has entirely failed in that and it has entailed hardships on the vast majority of the people of this country. I want to suggest that the time is now ripe when a start should be made with putting into practice the principle which the Minister of Finance so admirably enunciated the other day, that is that, in the interests of the expansion of the national income, in the interests of the future welfare and development of all sections of the people of this country, we should cease to adopt a policy based on the subsidisation of particular groups at the expense of South Africa as a whole.

Before calling on the next member, I would like to draw attention to Notice of Motion No. 1 for today—House to go into Committee of Way and Means. A good deal of discussion has taken place on the principles underlying the tariff which is being re-enacted in the Bill before the House, and I would suggest that such discussion would be more appropriate on the motion to which I have referred.

This side of the House, through the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has made a request to the Hon. the Minister with which I want to associate myself. The Minister has pointed out that members have had this Bill before them for two weeks, but I do want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that this undoubtedly is the most bulky Bill ever introduced in this House, even if one leaves out the schedules. I also want to point this out, that certainly for the first time this Bill contains a special schedule showing all the laws which are repealed under this Bill. The Minister will realise that if one wants to study the Bill properly, one has to make comparisons with the 26 laws which are being repealed. No fewer than 26 Bills are to be repealed and they have to be compared with this Bill if members want to be in a position properly to discuss this measure. I think the Minister is somewhat unreasonable in the attitude he adopts. The general impression last night was that we would continue today with the Land Settlement Bill, and I was very anxious to put certain points forward in connection with this subject now before the House, which I shall not be able to do now. I therefore propose briefly to discuss the point raised by the hon. member for Ceres. It has been clear for many years that the policy which statesmen in England stand for is to turn the British Empire into an economic unit. We have had further confirmation of that in the widely discussed speech which Lord Halifax recently made at Toronto. We are again given the idea there that the British Empire has to be brought closer together, not only politically, but also in the form of an economic unit, and that is in direct conflict with the policy which this side of the House stands for. The attitude which we on this side of the House adopt is that we are not in favour of making the British Empire an economic kraal—we are not in favour of South Africa being brought into that economic kraal. Our attitude is that we want to be able to carry on trade with the rest of the world—we feel that trade must not be conducted on the basis of sentiment. I am sure everybody in this House who has anything to do with trade will agree with me that one cannot bring sentiment into trade or business. Unfortunately the basis of all the efforts that have been made to turn the British Empire into an economic unit have always been a basis of sentiment. Simply because one is a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations special concessions have to be granted to England and to the other Dominions. I say that one cannot bring sentiment into business. That is not only our attitude but it is important to note that that is also the attitude adopted by England. Take the recent incident in connection with Argentine meat. When England’s interests in the Argentine are at stake—and England has very big interests there—then England does not hesitate to give preference to a country like the Argentine over our own meat producers. England therefore, cannot, and refuses, to bring sentiment into trade when her own interests are affected. The attitude adopted by this side of the House is that we want to do business with all countries, including England. It is simply a question of business principles, but we all say that when we do business with England we must do so on business lines, and on business principles; we further contend that our attitude is that we want to buy from those who buy from us. We go further and say that our trade relations must not be regulated by preferential tariffs, but by business principles. When one does business with a country, the business must be regulated on the basis of quid pro quo. One has to take into account how much a country buys from us and on that basis one has to do business with that country. Everything must be done on a business basis and not on sentiment. Now I want to say a few words on another subject which was raised here by the hon. member for Ceres, namely, the question of trade agreements with foreign countries. I can speak with a certain amount of experience on that point. I can speak of the commercial negotiations which I have conducted with the French and Spanish Governments, when every time we got up against this difficulty of British preference. All one can offer these people is our intermediary tariff—but their reply to that is invariably: “England is exporting the same thing as we are exporting, how does it help us if England gets preference?” I can testify to the fact that negotiations with Spain were broken off simply because we were not able, owing to that difficulty, to satisfy the Spanish Government in regard to certain matters—the whole of our difficulty was due to England being given preference. The same thing happened when we had negotiations with France. The negotiations with France lasted five weeks and we continually came up against that difficulty. France in those days was a country which bought five times as much from us as we bought from her. France was anxious to extend her export trade to South Africa, but we were not in a position to negotiate with her on that basis. France is a big producer of steel and of other things which we need, but they could not export to South Africa because British exports were given preference. All we could offer was the intermediary tariff. I therefore want to associate myself fully with what the hon. member for Ceres has said. I have made a few remarks based on my own personal experience because I think it is valuable for us to know the practical difficulties we have met with as a result of this system of British preference. The policy of hon. members on this side of the House is to do business with all countries in the world on a quid pro quo basis, and on a basis of business principles. Now, there is another matter I want to refer to. This is a question I have raised in the House before—I am referring to the question of what South Africa’s position is going to be in regard to the Atlantic Charter. That is a matter which is also affected by this Bill. The schedule of this Bill deals with that particular question. According to a question which I put to the Prime Minister, and to which he replied, it appears that South Africa has signed the Atlantic Charter—

And in this Atlantic Charter we find the following, inter alia:—

It is no use the Government coming here now with this Bill, a whole long schedule of tariffs, when the Government is a signatory to the Atlantic Charter. I think we should be given an explanation on that point. I have an extract here from a paper in Australia named “Pastoral Review” in which concern is expressed at a certain clause which they call “The mutual aid agreement.” Let me quote from this extract—

And then it goes on—

I should like to know from the Minister what exactly the position is in regard to that matter and whether the Government is also committed in that particular respect? We as a Party stand for a policy of proper protection for our own factories, our own produced goods in our own country, and we are opposed to participation in any international agreement which will destroy that protection. I think we are entitled to a statement from the Minister in that respect.

I am sorry that several hon. members feel they have not had adequate time to study this Bill. I just want to point out that this Bill was published as long ago as December last. It was available then already and I think in view of that fact hon. members really have not got much ground for their complaints that the Bill is being proceeded with too quickly.

We have not got the Statutes at our homes to enable us to compare them with the provisions of this Bill.

In any case my hon. friend has been in Cape Town six or seven weeks now and surely he has had an opportunity during that time to do that work? Apart from that, as regards the Committee stage, it will take at least another month before we shall reach that.

It is clear from the debate which was conducted here this morning that this Bill is being generally welcomed—with the exception perhaps of a few mistakes in language. This Bill has been welcomed both as a consolidating measure and also as an amending measure. In regard to the translation errors, the position is, as the hon. member for Ceres has already said, that a great many corrections have been made since the Bill was published in the Government Gazette in the first instance, and I shall be glad if hon. members will bring to my notice any further improvements that may be considered necessary. As I have said, generally speaking this Bill has apparently been welcomed. As a matter of fact the debate on this measure has been made use of principally as an occasion for the discussion of general matters. The question of general international trade policy has been raised, the Question of our protective policy has been raised, the Atlantic Charter has been discussed. The civilised labour policy, and also the question whether it is better to promote local industries by means of tariffs or by means of bonuses or bounties has been raised. All these questions are very important, and I do not think I would be right in saying that these subjects do not fall within the scope of the Bill. But although that is the position these are mainly matters of general commercial policy or general industrial policy. For that, reason they are subjects which can be better dealt with by the Minister of Commerce and Industries than by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance, because he controls the Customs Department, has to create the machinery used for carrying out our trade and industrial policy, but it is the other department mainly which has to take the initiative in the use of that machinery, and in laying down the big questions of policy affecting this matter. The Minister of Finance does, of course, bear a certain amount of responsibility in regard to this matter, but as I have said, it is the Minister of Commerce and Industries who can talk with greater authority and with greater knowledge about these matters, and I do not want to anticipate what he will probably have to say on these general questions at the proper time. I have no doubt that these questions will be raised again when the Minister’s vote is under discussion. That being so I do not intend going into some of the matters raised here—I do not intend going for instance into those questions raised by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). One general point was raised by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) which perhaps falls more specifically within the scope of this Bill, although it is a general question—and that is the question of the Ottawa Agreement. It is also a question which touches on our general trade policy with which the Minister of Commerce and Industry is really more concerned that I am, but in spite of that I propose saying a few words on that point on this occasion. Listening to the debate one would have imagined that these Ottawa Agreements have a restraining effect, are nothing but a handicap so far as South Africa is concerned. The hon. member for Ceres started off by referring to existing restraints in the Ottawa Agreements, and listening to him one would have thought that. South Africa was detrimentally effected by those agreements and did not in any way benefit from them. Even the disadvantages were exaggerated this morning. I do not know whether I correctly understood the hon. member for Ceres, but he gave me the impression that he contends that since the Ottawa Agreements it has not been possible at all to enter into any agreement with a foreign country outside the British Empire. That, of cource, is not correct. I do agree that the Ottawa Agreements make it more difficult than would otherwise be the case.

Much more difficult.

Yes, but it is not correct to say that no agreement has been entered into, or can be entered into. Since the Ottawa Agreements trade agreements have been made with Germany, Italy, Holland, France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Brazil and Angola. The hon. member will see therefore that where he tried to create the impression that it was impossible to enter into trade agreements he was incorrect.

It would be interesting to know what the benefits of the Ottawa Agreements have been?

That is quite a different matter, but the hon. member cannot get away from the mistake he made. As I said, the Ottawa Agreement has also given us certain benefits and advantages. Some of our primary producers would very definitely raise objections if the Ottawa Agreement were to be done away with entirely. The hon. member says there are only three groups, but surely those are very important groups. There are advantages as well as disadvantages under the Ottawa Agreements. Those agreements were concluded by a Government of which the hon. member for Beaufort West and the hon. member for Ceres will surely not say that it did not want to promote South Africa’s interests. They will perhaps say that about us, quite wrongly, but they will surely not say it about that Government. Their leader was a member of the Government, which concluded those agreements, and the hon. member for Ceres was a member of Parliament in those days, and he supported the agreements.

Even the best Government can made a mistake.

The then Government made those agreements because they thought they were in the interest of South Africa. In that spirit the agreements were pretty generally accepted. But that, of course, does not mean that those agreements must be regarded as something sacred or inviolable. The revision of the agreements was under discussion, even in the days of the Minister of Finance, who was my predecessor. When the war broke out the discussions about this question were suspended for a time. But lately the discussions have been resumed and the matter is now being considered. I think it may be expected that changes will be made in the agreement. The matter has, however, not progressed to such an extent that a statement in that connection can already be made. Many interests are concerned. Interests in our own country are also concerned. The question of international trade policy is concerned, and meanwhile we can only do what we are doing in this Bill, and that is maintain the present position. If changes are now made in the Ottawa Agreements, so far as South Africa is concerned, then it will be necessary to amend this Bill. Beyond that I cannot take the matter at this stage. I therefore hope the House will accept the second reading, and that I can also expect further assistance from hon. members in regard to the introduction of improvements in the details of the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 20th March.

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (d) a magistrate orders under sub-section (2) that he be discharged; in line 69, to omit “or wife” and to substitute “wife or guardian.”; to omit sub-section (2) of the proposed new section 51 and to substitute the following new subsections:
   1. (2) Any person detained in an institution as a temporary patient may apply to the magistrate of the district in which the institution is situate for an enquiry into the grounds of his detention, and if on such enquiry the magistrate is satisfied that he is wrongly detained as a temporary patient, he may order that he be discharged.
   2. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not affect the powers of the Court or of the board under section 59 in respect of any such person.

These amendments have been moved in order to meet the case put to me by the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) during the second reading debate. Hon. members will recollect that the hon. member for Stellenbosch suggested that, where we are about to apply a new procedure under this new Chapter 7 of the Act, we should have an additional safeguard, to guard against the possibility of abuse. Hon. members will recollect that a person admitted to a mental institution in terms of the new Chapter 7 would be ringed round with certain safeguards. The husband, wife or guardian will have the right to apply for the release of a person so detained. Now, the new clause gives the right to the detainee himself to apply for his release. The effect of the amendment which I have proposed is to enable the person detained to apply to the Magistrate of the District, in which the institution is situated, for an enquiry. The magistrate may then go into the case and, if he is satisfied, after due enquiry, that a person detained should be discharged, he gives the decision and then in terms of another amendment he himself may order that the person be discharged. If a magisterial order is granted then the superintendent of the institution is legally bound to discharge the patient. I think with this additional safeguard there need be no fear that this new procedure introduced under the new chapter is capable of leading to any abuse.

I want to ask the Minister whether the old principle of a voluntary patient presenting himself at an institution for being detained is retained in this Bill. I know that that provision has been of very great service. Quite a number of ex-servicemen, whether in receipt or not of a pension, have gone to such institutions. I know of cases of service men who owing to the ravages of war have suffered from mental shock, and have found it impossible to maintain themselves; they have gone to such institutions as a sort of a sanctuary and a week or perhaps two weeks in such an institution has made it possible for them to rehabilitate themselves. They merely walked in and then walked out. I want that principle to be maintained.

The provisions relating to voluntary boarders in mental institutions are contained in section 44 of the Act, which provides that the Superintendent of an Institution may, with the previous consent of the Minister in writing—which consent shall only be given on a written application from the patient—receive as a lodger any person who is desirous of voluntarily submitting himself for treatment, but whose condition is not such as to require certification. That still stands, except that an amendment has been made in Clause 21 of the Bill. It will no longer be necessary for the Minister to give that permission, but the Commissioner will do so. It is a professional matter and it was thought desirable that the discretion should be exercised by a professional officer rather than by the Minister. But the right of a person to submit himself for voluntary treatment is maintained. The new Chapter 7 has been inserted to deal with the case of a person who is not in a position to exercise an act of volition. I quote the analogy of a man who met with a motor accident and who at the request of his friends or relatives was taken to a hospital for treatment. Now here we deal with the person who is mentally disabled and who is curable within a certain space of time in the same way. There is no stigma attached to a person being mentally disordered—it is simply a case of mental sickness.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 29,

In deference to the views expressed by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) and others, I am prepared to drop this clause. I take it that if you, Mr. Chairman, put it, it will simply be negatived by the Committee.

I am glad to hear the Minister say that he proposes to drop this new sub-section, but I would ask the Minister whether he would accept a small amendment in respect of sub-section (2) of this section. May I just say that according to sub-section (1) of Clause 79 of the Mental Disorders Act the charges for the maintenance of a patient detained in an institution of this description are a public charge. Then sub-section (2) goes on to say: “Maintenance and other expenses may be recovered from the estate of the patient …” Now the amendment which the Minister proposes—or rather, the subsection which the Minister has just said that he will withdraw, makes it unnecessary for a magistrate to make an enquiry into the position of those who are able to pay, but the object of my suggested amendment is this, to make it quite clear what is meant by the word “estate.” As I understand it the estate of a person is the estate of a person, whether he is deceased or not—the estate may be the estate of a person who is still living. I think it is singularly unfair that, if we have one of these unfortunate persons detained in a mental institution, and he happens to have a small estate, as the law stands now, the authorities can claim on that estate and that estate can be drained to clear the liability at the rate of 4s. per day. It can mean and very often does mean the clearing out of the whole of the estate. Now, will the Minister consider inserting after the words “detained person” in sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the Mental Disorders Act these words, “after the decease of such person.” The sub-section will then read: “The cost of his maintenance and other expenses may be recovered from the estate of any such detained person after the decease of such person.” I simply move to add in their proper place in sub-section (2) the words “after the decease of such person.” Then it will make it quite clear that the authorities will have a claim on the estate of the person after he has died. As the law now stands a claim can be made during the lifetime of a detained person. My amendment will clarify the position and it would mean coming to the rescue of some of those unfortunate people who are detained in Mental Institutions by what I might call an act of God. It seems a little bit hard that the few goods and chattels which they may have accumulated in this world, which they may have got together with a good deal of labour, should be dissipated in this way.

It seems to me that there is a great deal in what was said by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark). But I would go further and point out that if Clause 29 of the Bill is deleted the retention of Sub-section (1) of the Act still remains. Sub-section (2) of the Act imposes a liability on the estate of the deceased person, but it also imposes the liability on any person or persons liable by law for the maintenance of such a detained person. I take it that the persons liable by law would be the father of this person mentally disordered if he were not of age, or at any rate the guardian or the person who stood in the relationship which made him responsible for these expenses, and so we should get back to the bad situation which was pointed out by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll); we do not wish to have a liability imposed on the relatives of the person who is suffering in the way described here. I think the case would only be met by the deletion of Sub-section (2) because then you do away with the objection which the hon. member for Pretoria (East) has pointed out and you also do away with the possibility that some relation of the deceased may yet be called upon to pay. I would move the deletion of Sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the Act.

May I point out to the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) that in law the effect of his suggested amendment would be, not meaningless, but valueless. The effect of that amendment would not be to change the situation in the slightest. Sub-section (2) of Section 79 reads: “The cost of maintenance and other expenses may be recovered from the estate of any such detained person, or from any person or persons liable by law to contribute towards the maintenance of such person or persons”. That assumes that there may be persons liable to contribute.

Under the Common Law.

If this is deleted it does not interfere with the liability under the Common Law of persons who have to contribute. This would not affect the Common Law. But what this clause does is to limit the powers of the Commissioner of the Government. If this clause goes there will still be the Common Law liability on certain persons to contribute, and the Commissioner may then interpret his duty to apply the Common Law. As the clause now stands it is permissive. The clause says: “May be recovered”. In the absence of this clause the inevitable interpretation of the Commissioner may be that he must enforce the Common Law. It seems far safer to leave the position as it is where the Commissioner has the discretion and in actual fact he exercises such discretion. Under the Common Law many persons are liable to make contributions, but these persons are not charged with costs by the Commissioner because he treats each case on its merits. So I would suggest to the hon. member for Pinetown that he would not achieve the object he has in view if he asks the Committee to drop this subsection. Now I come to the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark). He has suggested that we should limit the recovery of maintenance costs from the estates of patients after those patients have died. It seems to me on a prima facie view that this question is rather linked up with the question of hospital facilities for members of the general public suffering from other diseases. Now, the whole question of health services and hospital services is under consideration by the National Health Commission, and it may well be that that Commission, when it submits its report, may make recommendations regarding the maintenance of patients in mental hospitals as well as in other hospitals, and it may be that we shall prejudge the position if we make special provision now. This clause is permissive. By administrative action we can prevent estates of patients from being mulcted in costs. Each case is dealt with on its merits. I think the best way is to leave the sub-section in the existing Act as it is, and then await the report of the National Health Commission and, in the light of that report, we may be able to act along different lines. We can act administratively. We can now decide that we shall not demand a single penny from any patients’ estates or from any relative, because this clause is permissive. That is my reaction to the hon. member’s amendment, and in view of that I would ask him not to press his amendment.

Yes, I am prepared to withdraw my proposed amendment.

In the circumstances I think it is better for me to withdraw my amendment, although there may be some purpose in considering it when it is brought up in the Report stage.

It is unnecessary for hon. members to withdraw their amendments because they have not been brought to the Table, or proposed from the Chair.

Clause 29 put and negatived.

Remaining Clauses and the Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments to be considered on 2nd March.

I want to move the amendment appearing on Page 272 of the Votes and Proceedings and reading as follows:

It is hardly necessary to move this amendment. To me it appears to be self-evident. This Board of Trade and Industries, as we heard in the second reading debate, is dealing with the economic life of the people in general. They will hear the evidence of many witnesses, especially men belonging to the two big sections of the population of this country—the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking. The fact remains that if a man wants to have the opportunity of expressing himself in the best way he can he must be allowed to do so in his own mother tongue, no matter how bilingual he may be, While there are two languages in this country I feel that for the sake of convenience if for no other reason the time has now arrived when we should lay it down that people appointed to high positions, such as, for instance, to the Board of Trade and Industries, must be thoroughly conversant with the two languages of the country. It should not be necessary, thirty-three years after the establishment of Union, after the principle of bilingualism has been accepted, to drawn attention of the House to this question—it should not be necessary at this stage to introduce an amendment of this kind. But unfortunately it is apparently still necessary to do so. I do not want to cast any reflections on the Board of Trade and Industries of the past. All I want to say is this, that it would be much easier for the representatives of the people, when they give evidence before this Board—whose powers are now being considerably extended—if we made sure that the members of the Board were fully conversant with both languages. I do not know whether the Minister is going to turn down the amendment. I shall be very astonished if he does. I shall be disappointed in him—I shall be disappointed if he turns down this very natural amendment which we on this side of the House feel obliged to move. A few days ago we had members on both sides of the House expressing the conviction that we should have bilingualism in this country, that we should respect each other’s language and that we should learn to speak each other’s language to the best of our ability. We have an opportunity today of saying, “I support the principle. I shall carry out the provisions of the Act of Union to the very letter.” The members of the Board in the the course of their activities will have to hear a lot of evidence and it is necessary for them to be bilingual. I shall be very disappointed if the Minister tells me that he considers my amendment unnecessary.

It is unnecessary.

I hope the hon. member does not express the opinion of the other side of the House. It would not be casting any reflection on our legislation to insert such a provision, because we already have it in many of our laws. We only want to make sure that people will be bilingual. It will facilitate the Minister’s task when he has to make appointments. He will know that he has to look for a man who is bilingual, and it will not handicap him in any way. Of course, if we had made a proposal like this many years ago, when experts in various respects were very scarce, it might have been more difficult to find bilingual people, although even there I do not agree, but during the last quarter of a century we have in South Africa acquired a number of economists of standing, men belonging to both sections of the population, men who know both languages, so that the Minister will have no difficulty in getting bilingual people for these appointments. He will be able to get South African economists of standing—men who are bilingual. I also want to propose my other amendment, but I shall discuss it separately.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) as emphatically as I can. During the second reading debate of this Bill I made a suggestion and I expressed the hope that the Minister would appoint people who were fully bilingual. I assure the Minister that I quite accept his statement that he intends appointing bilingual people, and this amendment is only intended to remind the country of the fact that the principle must be maintained. My experience in the past has been that bilingual people have not always been appointed. I do not want to cast any reflections on the particular member of the old Board who was not bilingual. I and the Minister and the House appreciate the services he has rendered to the Board of Trade and Industries, but this was twenty years ago, and the same conditions do not prevail today. I do not want to repeat what the hon. member for Moorreesburg has already said, viz., that there is no shortage today of competent men who are bilingual. I think it is desirable to have such a provision embodied in the Bill. I also want to assure the Minister that nobody can draw the conclusion that the acceptance of this amendment would be a concession on his part to this side of the House. We only say it is desirable to lay this down in the Bill. We must remember that a great change has taken place in our economic conditions. I do not want to say that there has been a shifting of trade and industry from one group to the other, but I do want to record the fact that the Afrikaans-speaking element is taking part in trade and industry to a much greater extent than one would have imagined in 1924. Not only are there many Afrikaans-speaking people in trade and industry today, but a good deal of capital has been invested by Afrikaans-speaking people in trade and industry. To my great satisfaction I want to say that a considerable proportion of the capital which is apparently capital belonging to Afrikaans-speaking people, and which has been invested in apparently Afrikaans-speaking enterprises, is not only capital coming from Afrikaans-speaking people, but also from English-speaking people. In view of the fact that so many Afrikaans-speaking people are today interested in trade and industry, and so much more capital coming from Afrikaans-speaking people is directly invested, there is all the more reason for steps being taken to see that bilingual people are appointed. That claim can be made with a certain degree of justice. As a matter of fact the relative position in trade requires that this shall be done. We are looking forward to the day when a complete feeling of equality will prevail. I well remember the days of the past when a feeling of tension was experienced when Afrikaans-speaking people had to appear before the Board of Trade and Industries and the services of an interpreter had to be requisitioned. This sort of thing is in conflict with our conception of equality, and in conflict with the constitution, and I therefore want to emphasise the need for this amendment. During the six years that I was a member of the Board of Trade and Industry I felt I could not possibly do my work if I, as an Afrikaans-speaking member, drafted my reports and my memoranda in Afrikaans. It led to much waste of time because the reports first of all had to be translated so that my fellow members could understand them. Today it is much more necessary in the interest of the work of the Board that the members should be bilingual.

I should like to appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. The two speakers on the other side of the House have put their case very ably, but I want to appeal to the Minister because it is the recognised policy in this country, once and for all, that as far as possible all appointments in this country should be bilingual; and the Minister would be showing that we on this side of the House are in earnest on that principle if he accepted this amendment. I hope that he will see his way clear to do so.

I agree entirely with what the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) and the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) have said as to the advisability and strong desirability of public bodies, including the Board of Trade, being fully bilingual, and I agree that the work of the Board can undoubtedly be made easier if all the members are fully bilingual. And I would like to give the Committee the assurance that in making appointments to the Board I have that very well in mind, and I would certainly appoint bilingual members wherever possible. I also have listened to what the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) had to say, and unfortunately it is a fact that this country is not yet fully bilingual. I do not comment on that fact, but it is a fact. My business in getting this Bill passed is to ensure that the best possible material shall be available for appointment to membership of the Board. Now, Sir, it is quite conceivable that in appointments of this kind at this time, and under existing circumstances in South Africa, that a man who in every way is most highly qualified and most highly desirable, to have on that Board, should not be fully bilingual. And at this stage it is essential in my opinion that the Government should retain the power, if necessary, to appoint such a man, and therefore much as I dislike—as he knows—disappointing the hon. member for Moorreesburg, I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment. I agree with the hon. member for Rondebosch that we do want the best Board, and it is because we want the best Board from a technical as well as a bilingual point of view, that I say that at this stage we have reached in South Africa so far, it is essential that the Government should retain the right to appoint, if necessary, men who are not fully bilingual. But as far as I am concerned, the Committee can rest assured that that right would only be exercised by me in cases where it is absolutely necessary. I find myself in complete sympathy with the view that wherever it is possible to find a fully bilingual man he should be appointed; but I regret in the present circumstances I cannot agree to the request made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg.

We are very disappointed at the Minister’s reply. Really, after the well meant appeal made by this side of the House we feel the Minister is making a mistake in turning down our request. We want to avoid any bitterness in this discussion but the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) exposed a most deplorable position when he told the House that during the years he was a member of the Board he was forced to draft his reports in English because one of the members of the Board of Trade and Industries could not understand Afrikaans. That sort of thing should not happen; it handicaps the business and causes delays. The Minister has assured us that as far as he can he will appoint bilingual people. We accept his word that he will try to do so, but he will not always be Minister of Commerce and Industries. We may get another Minister who will not hold the same views and who will say, “Well, I am going to appoint that man who only knows one language. I am not going to appoint a bilingual man, no matter what his qualifications are.” We take up this attitude, that a man who in 1944 is called upon to take up such an important position cannot occupy it, is not qualified to occupy it, if he does not know both official languages. The Board, when it goes through the country, has to call witnesses, and if evidence is given in Afrikaans the unilingual member does not understand a word of what is said. How can he judge, how can he do his work properly? Let us lay it down in the Act that it must be one of the qualifications of the men to be appointed to the Board of Trade and Industries. We have surely got to the stage now where we can put these things in our legislation. The Minister’s promises are all very fine and good but he must pardon me if I say that in the past we have often had the same kind of promises from the Government or from Ministers, but when it comes to carrying out those promises the principle is not adhered to. Then one is simply told: “I consider that man to be the best man for the post,” and a unilingual man is appointed. Surely the other side of the House has told us over and over again that they also aim at having bilingualism in this country. The Minister must pardon us if we say that we do not quite believe these assurances if hon. members opposite are not prepared to take up a stand on this point and say that from now on a man must be bilingual if he is to be regarded as qualified for this kind of work. A man like that comes into touch with all sections of the population; he must know both languages; he must be able to study reports and documents in both languages. Hon. members must pardon us if we do not quite believe them when they are not prepared to put their words into deeds. Oh, yes, the Minister is very kindly disposed towards the amendment, but his sympathy and his kind feelings don’t help very much. We want deeds, actions. Let it be a qualification for such an important appointment that a man shall be thoroughly bilingual. I want to appeal to the Minister to tell us that he is going to make a fresh start now and that he is going to lay it down that every man occupying this post shall be thoroughly qualified in both official languages.

It seems an extraordinary thing that after all these years of Union we should have to get up in this House and ask that a man appointed to a Government position should be bilingual. An English-speaking South African, like myself bilingual, is ashamed when my hon. friend gets up and asks these questions. Surely it is against the spirit of the Act of Union that anybody in this country should be appointed to a position if he is not bilingual. The Afrikaans-speaking people are, I am glad to say, coming along as commercial people. Why should they have to go to a board and not be entitled—although they understand both languages—to use their own language? Why should an Afrikaans-speaking man who appears before the board have to have everything translated? There are a large number of members on this side of the House who share that view. The Minister has just appointed to this board a man who is unilingual. It is not often I agree with my hon. friends on the other side of the House, but I entirely agree with them that we should have bilingual officials in a bilingual country.

I hope the Minister, after this second appeal made to him by his own side, will realise that he is faced here today with a serious position. It is not only the practical aspect of the matter which we are concerned with today, but a very serious principle is at stake, and as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) said, it is a peculiar thing that after thirty four years of Union a Minister can still get up in this House and decline to accept an amendment of this nature. I want to say this, that if a man is thirty four years in South Africa and does not yet know the second official language, then he is not qualified to occupy such a post, and as a matter of fact he does not deserve to occupy such a post. I want to remind the Minister of the speech which the Prime Minister made a few days ago when the motion on the subject of the language medium was introduced here by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). If the Minister heard that speech I wonder how he can still decline to accept this amendment. Let me put this test to the Minister. Would the Minister be prepared to appoint to the Board of Trade and Industries a man who does not know English or cannot speak English? As sure as I stand here the Minister would not dream of appointing a man like that. He would not appoint anyone who did not know English, no matter what his qualifications might be. And that is the acid test. Would he be prepared to appoint an Afrikaans-speaking man who did not know English? He would never do it. Apart from the principle, however, there is a provision in the Bill saying that the membership of the Board of Trade and Industries is to be extended to five years. The Minister goes further and he enlarges the Board. If he goes on in that way and appoints people who are not thoroughly bilingual we may afterwards get a position where half or more of the members may not be qualified in both our official languages. We are dealing here With a very serious position. Either the Prime Minister is honest in what he proclaimed here the other day, or he is not honest. It is either one or the other. The test so far as the Minister is concerned is this: Was the Prime Minister honest in his arguments or was he not? If he honestly meant what he said then I ask how a Minister of his Cabinet can decline to accept this amendment. If he persists in his attitude and refuses to accept it then we are entitled to say that the Prime Minister did not honestly mean what he said about the necessity of bilingualism.

I am afraid that we are losing our sense of proportion in dealing with this subject. After all, we are all agreed that in the general application of bilingualism all officials appointed to meet the general public should be and must be bilingual. But when we are dealing with this Board, the first essential is to secure the best men. My friends in the Opposition are now getting rather excited. May I put it this way. If it was not a question of a highly technical board dealing with commerce, but let us suppose a board dealing with medical or surgical requirements in this country, would my hon. friends take up the line they would prefer not to deal only with a surgeon who has only one language? I would suggest that if they were in a position to have a German surgeon who could proffer the best technical advice obtainable, they would avail themselves of his advice. I submit that this case is on all fours with the medical position; it is highly technical.

Nonsense.

Do not let us get so upset about it. I appreciate the attitude of the Nationalist Party in this respect, but I do say this that whenever they see the opportunity for whipping up something, they whip it up for the rest of the afternoon. To my mind this aspect of the matter, while it is important, becomes irrelevent when it is carried too far in the wrong direction. I submit that the principle which is being debated this afternoon is not applicable when it is a question of the availability of technical advice; it is an entirely different position when an official has to meet the public. The principle ceases to exist in a case such as this now under discussion. Our main requirements, Mr. Chairman, in matters of a technical character is to utilise the specific knowledge that is necessitated by the case, and the question of bilingualism is really of very secondary importance. We do concede that if we can have both it is the ideal position.

It is all talk.

Yes, after a certain time it becomes all talk, just as the republican motion discussed the other day also became all talk. I am the first speaker who has taken the opposite view this afternoon.

You won’t be the last.

I hope not, As, I hope, a sensible member of this House, and as one who appreciates and values the necessity for bilingualism, I say let us retain our sense of proportion in dealing with this matter.

Today we have had a strikingillustration of what the Government really wants to do, and what is merely lip service on their part. Did we not contest an election in regard to this question of bilingualism? Did not hon. members on the other side go about the country saying that there was only one thing they desired, and that was bilingualism? Every person must be bilingual. But when we come along and attempt to put into practice what they preached, they collapse at the first test. The hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) says that this is a technical board. Every post is a technical post, and when it is not a technical post, we have the old story that the man who was appointed does not come into contact with the public, and that it is therefore not necessary for him to be bilingual. It is necessary for Cabinet Ministers to be bilingual. I do not know what reasons will be advanced, but there is bound to be some reason when the motion of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) comes before the House in the near future. It is now said that these are technical posts. The hon. member for Ceres has testified to the fact that during the many years that he was a member of the Board of Trade and Industries, it was found that it was essential for the members to be bilingual. He gave a whole series of examples to illustrate how the work was made more difficult owing to the fact that those so-called technical members were not bilingual. Not only did it make the work more difficult, but it resulted in the work being carried out less satisfactorily. Of course, we know the Minister. He is not only an imperialist, but he belongs to the ultra-imperialistic wing of the other side. The whole party on the other side is imperialistic, but there is also an ultra-imperialistic wing of the party.

The British Conservative section.

No, the Hon. Minister is “true blue British.” We know what their innermost feelings are. They do not believe in bilingualism—not for themselves, at any rate. They do not want to apply bilingualism in practice. The concessions which they have made in the sphere of bilingualism, were made because they had no alternative. We compelled them to go as far as they did. But they do not believe in bilingualism, and they will never attempt to promote the cause of bilingualism. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll), of course, does not belong to the same class as the Minister. He is not ultra-imperialistic. He realises the necessity of applying bilingualism in South Africa in practice, and of not only leaving it at lip service. That is why he supports us. He realises that if members of the Board of Trade and Industries have to discharge their duties properly, it is necessary for them to be bilingual. The hon. member for Rondebosch discusses this matter on its merits. In the case of the Minister it is only lip service as far as bilingualism is concerned; when the first test is applied, he is found wanting. Now we know what this outcry for bilingualism means. We fought an election on it. It was not meant seriously; it was not actually meant; it was only meant to be applied in theory. If it was meant to be applied in practice and to be more than a theoretical question, the Minister now has an opportunity of giving practical effect to the policy for which he fought during the last election; and he will not do that.

I just want to point out to the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) that his argument does not hold water in my opinion. He is talking of the good old times of 40 years ago and we have advanced since then. Today we have technicians who are fully bilingual, in every branch of industry. I cannot believe that in this year of grace 1944 South Africa is so poor in technicians that we have to appoint unilingual technicians. I do not think the hon. member is serious when he says that. I cannot think of any branch of industry where we have not got fully bilingual technical men. I say that when there is a difference in technical ability, if that difference is of a quality that can be ignored, and the other man is bilingual, it is the duty of everyone in this country and of every member in this House, to give preference to the bilingual man.

It is a matter that, I think, should be regretted by all of us that this old question of bilingualism should be raised again in this House after 34 years of union. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) pointed out the difficulties that he experienced in the past when he served on the Board of Trade and Industries on account of the fact that one of the members of the Board of Trade and Industries was at that time unilingual. What is the position today, Sir? At the moment no less than 3 out of the 4 members are unilingual people, and as far as the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) is concerned, talking as a sensible member of Parliament, he raised the point that these men might have to be unilingual on account of technical qualifications. With all due respect I wish to correct the hon. member for South Rand and to tell him that the only technical qualified man on the Board of Trade and Industries is a bilingual man and I want to say further that the three unilingual members of the Board of Trade and Industries have none of them any specific qualifications in either economics or industrial economics or in commerce. So as far as the technical reasons are concerned, the unilingual men have no technical qualifications whatever, and the only technical man on that Board is bilingual. Furthermore I can point out—and I think this House knows—that these men need to have the necessary qualifications in commerce, economics and industrial economics. There are a number of properly qualified economists in this country who are perfectly bilingual. What is more, there are a few eminent men who are not fully bilingual, and I have the highest respect for those men, but they are a limited few. I wish to add to what has been said by members on this side and by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) on the other side. I wish to repeat what I said the other day on this matter that it is most important in the proper development of the industrial structure of this country that the men appointed on that Board should be properly qualified, not only in language but specifically on technical grounds. I repeat that there is no structure that I know of in this country and particularly no problem after this war that will be more complicated and that will need better brains and better administration than the development of our industries in this country. The first world war proved to us when the slump came how it affected the industries of this country and how it affected the industries of those countries which develop war-baby industries, as they are so often called. If we have not got fully qualified men, the Board of Trade and Industries cannot serve its true purpose, and therefore I wish to make an appeal to the Minister to reconsider this point, not only of the language qualifications but also of the technical qualifications in particular.

I find, it a tragic fact that after the lapse of 34 years, feelings should still run high in this House in regard to a matter such as this, and I think that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) has done more today, through his appeal to achieve co-operation in this country, than all the speeches during the past election, because those speeches were always looked upon with suspicion; but here we had an act today which attempted to bring about cooperation. We notice that the hon. Minister said that he fully sympathised with us, but I want to tell the Minister that his sympathy cannot improve the activities of the board. We do not only want sympathy. We want deeds. When one looks at the matter in its true perspective, one finds that this side of the House has come forward with accusations that English-speaking people were being promoted in the railway service, and one of the hon. members on the other side then claimed that English-speaking people were particularly suited to run the railways. Today we heard from the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) that they recognise the rights of the Afrikaans-speaking people, but that they are not prepared to give legislative recognition to those rights, because this concerns a technical matter. When we hear remarks from that side of the House that English-speaking persons are particularly suited to run the Railways, and that this is a technical board and that the Minister should therefore have the right to appoint bilingual persons, it strikes us as being very strange. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) said that there was only one bilingual person on the board. I am convinced that if the Minister accepts the amendment of this side of the House, he will not only be using words, but he will be converting his words into deeds.

It is with a certain amount of anxiety that I rise to address the House. An appeal was made in this House to the hon. Minister to accept the amendment of this side, an amendment which has no other object but to guarantee the rights of Afrikaans-speaking persons. But the Minister refused to accept the amendment. Since the Minister is adopting the attitude that he cannot accept this amendment, I want to ask him and his party this pertinent question, whether he, and also hon. members on the other side, realise the implications of this refusal? I am convinced that on the other side of the House there are many members who would like to see goodwill and mutual understanding brought about between the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking citizens in this country. If there is one way of destroying that expectation, it is this attitude on the part of the Minister to refuse this reasonable request. It is tantamount to nothing but discrimination in favour of the few English-speaking persons on the board. I want to accuse the Minister of discriminating against Afrikaans-speaking persons. There is no need today to look for unilingual persons for appointment to the Board of Trade and Industries. There are more than enough bilingual Afrikaans-speaking persons. The argument that the Minister has not the material to complement the personnel of the Board of Trade and Industries does not hold water at all. I am disappointed to find that the Minister of Economic Development wants to dismiss the House with this argument. We are not children. It is an insult to our intelligence to use such an argument. I want to accuse the Minister of presenting to this House an accomplished fact. He first proceeded to complement the personnel of the board, and now he is seeking legislation. I say that this is a negation of the rights of this House. I know that today five persons are eligible for appointment; only one bilingual member is employed and one bilingual person is unfortunately not in the country. I do not know anything about the capabilities of the other members. I take it that the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) put the position as it is. But there are two bilingual persons today who are entitled to membership, and if that is the case, the Minister, in taking this step, has entirely lost the confidence of the House by placing the House in this position, and then refusing to agree to a most important amendment. I feel that this action on the part of the Minister this afternoon will do more to cloud the future in the language sphere than any other measure, and I want to make an appeal to hon. members on the other side to realise that we are living in critical times today. Once again I want to make an appeal to the Minister and his colleagues not to let this opportunity pass of creating a better spirit between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking sections.

It is really a shame that we should have to plead today for the principle of bilingualism to be applied. I want to support the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) in the charge which he has just made against the Minister, and we hope that the Minister will have the courage to get up here today and defend himself against this type of charge which is being made against him on the floor of the House. He has left a loophole for himself in the reply which he has just given. He said that he promised the House that he would do his best in the future to appoint bilingual persons on the Board of Trade and Industries, but only in the case of persons who have the necessary technical qualifications; in the case of a unilingual person, he wants to leave a loophole for himself to be able to appoint that person. Since the Minister has already augmented the personnel of the Board of Trade and Industries, I want to ask him—and we hope that he will give his attention to it, because we want to give him the opportunity of defending himself this afternoon—we want to ask him to explain to the House the qualifications of those members who are at present on the Board of Trade and Industries, in order to convince us that the unilingual persons whom he appointed had the highest technical qualifications. We challenge him to prove to us that those persons are the most highly qualified persons in the subjects concerned, so that we can see whether he has left a loophole (skuiwergat) for himself.

He does not know what a “skuiwergat” is?

A loophole.

We want to give the Minister an opportunity of proving that it is not only lip service on their part when it comes to the question of bilingualism, but that they are prepared to convert their words into deeds. It is a deplorable state of affairs if members of this House still have to make an appeal to the Minister to have justice done towards Afrikaans-speaking persons in this country. It is a disgrace that notwithstanding those appeals the Minister lacks the courage to rise and to defend himself.

I do not think it is fair to accuse the Minister of not wishing to promote bilingualism. That is out of the question. Hon. members are opposed to the appointment of unilingual persons on this Board, and they refer to the necessity of appointing unilingual persons. But this Bill has nothing to do with bilingualism. What is the object of this Bill as it stands?

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

They have to take evidence.

It is only necessary to recall the days when the old Nationalist Party was in power. Let us go back for a moment to the days when the United Party was in power under the late Gen. Hertzog. At that time a similar motion was introduced. Then it was in connection with “electricians.”

What is that in Afrikaans?

The Minister who was in charge of the Bill at that time, did not want to accept the motion in regard to bilingualism, and he was an Afrikaner and a Nationalist. If the present Minister refuses to accept a similar motion, why must he be accused of not wanting bilingualism in this country? The hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) said that there was no longer any position of a technical nature in this country for which Afrikaans-speaking technicians could not be found. I cannot agree with that. Take shipping, for example; take the various branches of industry. If hon. members on the other side can satisfy me that Afrikaans-speaking persons are available for certain technical work which is now being carried out by persons who have to be imported from overseas, we will accept them immediately. But today the position is that we have to get people from overseas for the development of certain branches of our industries. There are Afrikaners today who possess technical qualifications, and whom we would like to get, but there are so few of them that they have all been absorbed in the technical works in this country. If I may make the suggestion, I would say that the Minister should improve the personnel of his Board by appointing people with more practical training and experience to that Board. I am not referring now to all the members who are at present on the Board, but to some of them. Even if a man were able to speak German only, if he were to know one foreign language only, he ought to be welcomed on the Board if he is an outstanding expert and if his knowledge can be used to the advantage of our country, because, after all, what is the aim of the Board? This Board is of immense value to the Government in the development of the country generally, and I cannot therefore appreciate the attitude of hon. members on the other side. The first essential surely must be technical capability. I am 100 per cent. in favour of the appointment of bilingual persons, where they are obtainable. It is a question of policy. Our policy is that we will appoint bilingual persons.…

On paper.

No, that is the policy; and if my Minister, for example, were to appoint anyone who is not bilingual, although suitable bilingual persons are available, I would be as ready as any other member to criticise the Minister. I am not in favour of incorporating the amendment in the legislation. It has never been done. The Minister is doing no more and no less than all the previous governments have done. What he did state was his policy, and we adhere to that. That policy is to appoint bilingual persons.…

What is the practice?

I do not see, therefore, that any fault can be found with that. If the Minister departs from that policy then it will be time enough to criticise.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) endeavoured to guide this Committee towards the direction of suggesting that bilingual members are on one side and unilingual members on the other side. The hon. member shakes his head, but that is how I understood it; and furthermore he suggested that the refusal to accept the amendment was a negation of the rights of this House. I want to suggest that far from it being a negation of the rights of the House, I think the acceptance of the amendment would be a negation of the rights of this House.

You must not think.

If my hon. friend thought a little more, he would be a little wiser and have a little more control over his tongue. However, some people cannot restrain themselves. Let me make it clear that I was not speaking of the hon. member for Ceres. I have too much regard for the hon. member for Ceres to suggest that. My remarks apply to the hon. member who was interjecting. I want to make that point clear. It does seem to me that the acceptance of this amendment would be a negation of the rights of the House. I want to put this to the Committee, that in the whole question of the appointment of Boards by the Minister, which in effect is by this House, there is nothing in the Act of Union to say that the members must be bilingual. I want to a certain extent to reiterate what the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) has said. It has been my experience in this House from 1921 under the Prime Ministership of the late Gen. Hertzog and the Nationalist Government right up to 1933 that that principle has never been accepted by the old Nationalist Party. Up to 10 years ago it was never accepted and the position is exactly as put by the hon. member for Vereeniging. The whole question of bilingualism is one that we are advancing rapidly, so rapidly that in the appointment of all Boards, in the appointment of individuals, a great majority are bilingual. The unilingual appointment is the exception today. That applied in the Hertzog cabinet and it has applied up to now, and I question very much if the effort of the Opposition to force this clause into this Bill is a proper or a reasonable way to achieve what we have in view. If they wish to apply it, then the proper and the legitimate way for them to approach the whole subject is to bring in either a Notice of Motion or a Private Member’s Bill to make it law that no Council set up by this House, or by a Minister, shall have unilingual members on it. That would bring the whole matter before the nation.

I wish.…

I wish you would shut up.

Order, order.

The hon. member is so carried away with his own foolishness that he does not realise that he is interjecting foolishly, and if there is one thing that I appreciate it is a healthy and reasonable interjection, but not a foolish interjection. I want to suggest that to bring this amendment forward in its application to this one Board only is entirely unfair. I was going to say it is a sinister move, but I withdraw that because I know that I shall be called to order. But I say that if they are honest, if they are sincere politically to have this whole subject put forward, then let them treat it in the proper sense. If the members of all Boards must be bilingual let us have it out in a Bill covering all Boards.

Will you support it?

Of course not.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) argued high and low and round about, but the fact remains that the policy of South Africa is one of bilingualism and there are a large number of us on this side of the House who agree with that, so I do not think the Minister need take much notice of what is said by the Opposition because they are out to make political capital and nothing else. And we know by their antics of a few days ago that they are not in favour of compulsory bilingualism. The best chairman the Board of Trade and Industries ever had was the late Mr. Frank Fahey—not a technician, not an economist, but a lino-operator, and the last man appointed was the Secretary of the Reduction Workers. Neither of these gentlemen were economists so the question of a man being a technician or an economist does not come into it. We hear a lot about economics from the other side but they do not know much about it. Their great economist is a doctor of medicine! But I want to ask the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus). It is no use going back to the past. I was one of the members of the Committee to go into the question whether we should use Nederlands or Afrikaans in our official documents and I was the first to publish an Afrikaans newspaper in the Free State. I have done a lot for bilingualism and for Afrikaans, but hon. members opposite have not done much about it. They even speak English in their own homes.

What do you know about it?

In my home my children and grandchildren speak to me in Afrikaans. We are determined that we shall have two mother tongues. We do not trust hon. members opposite because we know they are not in earnest. I am not going to vote against the Minister—I am not going to play into the hands of the Opposition—I am far too old a parliamentarian for that. But let me tell them this—I am going to plead and plead for compulsory bilingualism in South Africa.

How do you vote?

I vote as I like.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) gave us the assurance that he would not vote for the amendment. We can expect that of members on the other side after the Whips have gone round to warn them not to say anything in favour of the amendment. The Minister of Commerce and Industries promised that he would appoint bilingual members on the Board of Trade and Industries, but he added that it might happen that he would have to appoint a unilingual member, if he could not get bilingual persons with the necessary technical qualifications. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) then made this accusation against the Minister, a very serious accusation, that of the four old members of the Board, three were unilingual, and that those three members were not technically qualified. The only technically qualified member is the one who is bilingual. If that is not correct the Minister must say so. But the Minister is silent. We must therefore take it that that is the case, and if that is so, what value can we attach to the promise which the Minister made that he would appoint bilingual persons, but that he might have to appoint unilingual persons—where necessary in order to get technically qualified persons? Here we have the position that the only technically qualified person is bilingual, while the three unilingual members are not technically qualified. I just want to say this, that latterly the Government has gone out of its way to create the impression that it is in favour of bilingualism, and that the country should become bilingual. But here where we have the first test as to whether the Government is prepared to apply that policy in practice, where we have the first test as to the sincerity of the Government, we find once again that the Government keeps bilingualism in the background and retains the right to appoint unilingual people. I think it is a very reasonable proposal, 34 years after Union, that in appointing the members of the Board of Trade and Industries, bilingual persons should be selected. If the Government is in earnest, if it wants us to believe in its sincerity, the Minister must accept this amendment. The fact that he does not want to accept it means that when he speaks of bilingualism it is no more than lip service, but that in practice very little is done to give effect to a policy of bilingualism. If the Minister does not accept this amendment we shall know what value we can attach to the claim on the part of the Government that it is in favour of bilingualism.

Once again the snake has reared its head. Once again it is the old story of racialism, in regard to which we hear so much from members opposite. That old story has again been revived today, namely, this question of bilingualism. It has always been our contention that people who are intent on destroying bilingualism are the very persons who are the cause of racialism and of racial quarrels in South Africa. The Minister has now had the fullest opportunity of removing that cause of friction, but just as in the past, he refuses to do so. If the Minister is in favour of bilingualism and does not begrudge us our language rights, let him accept this amendment and let him close the loophole which he has left open in order to appoint unilingual persons. It is no more than logical that when a person is appointed by the State and when he is paid by the State for his services, he should be bilingual. The Board of Trade and Industries has to make investigations with reference to both sections of the population, but how can the Board discharge its duties satisfactorily and do justice to both sections of the people, if the Board members cannot understand the language of both sections? We want to make an appeal to the Minister therefore, again to give this matter his serious consideration. It must be clear to him that we are in earnest. Anyone who has been in this country for the past 30 years and who is not yet able to address his fellow countrymen in both languages, well, the sooner he take his leave the better. He does not deserve such a post in our country.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister and I should like to draw his attention to some facts, of which he himself is aware. When he visited Mossel Bay shortly before the last elections he addressed a public meeting there. He started his speech by saying that he was sorry he did not speak Afrikaans well but he stood for full bilingualism. Now, we have come here with a proposal which aims at the practical application of bilingualism, and we find that the very same Minister who shortly before the elections made that speech declines to give effect to the policy of bilingualism, a policy of bilingualism laid down in the law of the country. He refuses to accept that policy in practice.

Surely Mossel Bay did not believe him.

No, Mossel Bay did not believe him and Mossel Bay was quite correct, but let me get a little bit closer to the hon. the Minister. During the Provincial Elections in Hottentots-Holland—I am sorry the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) is not here, because he would be able to tell the House that what I am saying is correct—the candidate of the United Party issued a pamphlet to the voters in which he said that tips side of the House was opposed to giving our children a bilingual education. That was his propaganda from every platform. That was the propaganda which he made against this Party. Yet today we come to this House of Parliament and find that the very people who cast those allegations at us are not in practice prepared to accept the policy of bilingualism. I don’t want to indulge in personalities, but it is a pity the Minister is not thoroughly proficient in the second official language. Still, in that respect he has this advantage, that if he as an English-speaking member had accepted this amendment it would have done more good in the country than it otherwise would have done. He is a young Minister and had a very good reputation in this House: he was looked upon as one who would listen not only to his own side of the House but to all sides of the House. That was his reputation. Now I want to make an appeal to him—I want to appeal to him not merely because of his official position, but because of his reputation. I want to appeal to him and ask him to rise to the occasion and say that if we on this side of the House feel so strongly that this amendment should be accepted, he will accept it. There are Afrikaans-speaking members on the other side. I said here recently in a speech that it was a peculiar thing that when we on this side pleaded the cause of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population we hardly ever found anyone on the other side getting up and doing anything to assist us. On the contrary, it was looked upon as racialism on our part if we stood up for the rights of our own people. There are Afrikaans-speaking members on the other side of the House; there are Afrikaans-speaking Ministers but they never got up to plead on behalf of their own people. They will always try to justify anything that is being done, to justify anything which amounts to contempt for the Afrikaans language, and to an injustice to the Afrikaans language. There are members opposite who at one time used to belong to the Nationalist Party; they always say that it is we on this side who have changed. Now, I want to ask them who has changed in this respect? Was it not the policy of the old Nationalist Party, wherever it was possible, even twenty years ago, to appoint only bilingual people and thus maintain the principle of bilingualism? Are not they the people who have drifted away from those principles? Well, the fact of the matter is that if anyone starts drifting he keeps on drifting further and further away from his own people. They now have a chance to advocate the cause of bilingualism and to plead for the rights of the Afrikaner. If they fail to do so then they must pardon us if we say that they no longer have any feelings for the language of the Afrikaner. They have become so Anglicised that they can no longer feel that the Afrikaner and his language must have justice.

Clause 10 of this Bill provides that the Board of Trade and Industries, for the purposes of the enquiries it understakes in connection with any matter, may subpoena or summon any person to appear before it, and may place such person under oath and examine him. The Board of Trade and Industries is being given additional powers now. As a result of this Bill the Board will come more and more into touch with the public, much more than it used to, and that being so it is self-evident that the Board will come more and more into touch with both the English- and Afrikaans-speaking sections of the population. Now I want to put this to the Minister: How can the three English-speaking members of the Board of Trade and Industries follow an Afrikaans-speaking witness—a man summoned by the Board itself to appear before it, and put under oath by the Board? How can those three members of the Board who only know English follow the evidence of an Afrikaans witness? The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) spoke about five members of the Board. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) spoke of four members. Let us look into this matter a little more closely. They all agree that Col. Kriek is still a member of the Board. He is de jure a member of the Board, even though he is not de facto a member. At the moment he is a prisoner-of-war in Germany, but if he should return tomorrow he would again be a member of the Board. I am afraid we are therefore compelled to mention the names of the other members. In the first place there is Dr. A. J. Norval, who is the Chairman. He is bilingual. Then we get the three unilingual members: Mr. Hendry, Mr. Sneed and Mr. Moore. Does the Minister maintain that these people are bilingual? I am told they are unilingual. The Secretary of the Board of Trade and Industries is Mr. Harry Levi.

He is bilingual, but neither of his languages is Afrikaans.

The Minister can tell us whether that is so. I do not know these gentlemen but I have been told they are unilingual. Now I want to ask the Minister how these members are to take the evidence of Afrikaans-speaking people if they do not understand the language of these witnesses? That’s my first question. My second question is whether the Minister does not think that he owes the House an explanation in regard to these appointments? Col. Kriek is still a member of the Board. Now, under the present law the Board can only have four members, but the Minister has now appointed five. Col. Kriek is still a member, and so there are five members. It seems to me the Minister must have anticipated this Bill.

No, the arrangement is a temporary one.

I do not know what sort of temporary arrangement it can be to have five members if the law says that there shall only be four members.

One of them has been appointed in place of Col. Kriek.

Does Col. Kriek’s salary go on all the time while he is a prisoner-of-war ?

Yes.

So Col. Kriek continues to be a full member of the Board, yet the Minister appoints another four members, so that there are five members now, and we have to pay the salaries of five members instead of four. The Minister owes the House an explanation. When this question was discussed on the Minister’s own side, he gave the House to understand more or less that one of the members of the Board, if it came to the point, might perhaps be unilingual, and that the others would be bilingual. Is not that what the Minister said, because I do not want to misrepresent what he stated here?

No.

Then it means that there can be more than one unilingual member of the Board. He gave hon. members on the other side to understand—he turned towards them—that it might be that in the circumstances he would perhaps not be able to find any bilingual person, and now he says that there may perhaps be more than one. Now, that brings us to a point where we must put this question outright to the Minister: Is he going to keep the members who are already on the Board, and the Secretary (Mr. Levi), who are unilingual—is he going to keep them there? I think the Minister should take this House into his confidence because he owes both this House and the country an explanation. The Medical Council was quoted here as an instance, and we were told that many members of the Medical Council were unilingual. Let me tell the hon. member who made that remark that the analogy is bad. The Medical Council in 99 per cent.—probably 100 per cent.—of its contacts has to deal with medical men, that is with qualified men who are bilingual, so that analogy does not hold. The Board of Trade and Industries has in the past come into touch very largely with both sections of the population, and in future it will come into touch even more with both the Afrikaans and English-speaking sections. We know that the Afrikaans-speaking people are more and more coming into their own in trade and industries, and it is self-evident that the Board of Trade and Industries will more and more come into contact with the Afrikaans section. A further argument was put up here, namely that the old Nationalist Party had appointed three bilingual and one unilingual person. That is so, but we have got very far away from those days, not only in respect of language but also in this sense, that the Afrikaans-speaking section has a much greater share in our industrial life today. The Afrikaans people are more and more entering industries, and the Minister is now slapping them in the face by refusing to accept the principle of this amendment. The Minister tried in his speech to give the House the impression that he was going to appoint bilingual people. Does that mean that he will tell those gentlemen who are already on the Board that they can go? I hope he will tell this House clearly what he intends doing. If he has told the House what he intends doing, and if he does intend appointing bilingual people, then we want to know how he is going to achieve that object with a Board which already has three unilingual members? Does he mean that he will tell those gentlemen to go? That is a question to which we want a reply. Then there is this further point. We feel that South Africa has advanced to such an extent in this particular respect that it can rightly say that all public bodies must, and can be, bilingual. The Minister’s argument that it will be difficult to obtain bilingual economists is a reflection on the Afrikaans-speaking section, a reflection which cannot possibly be justified. I hope the Minister will withdraw that because if he does not it will be held up against him for a long time to come. He will not get away from it. It was uncalled for on his part to make that insulting reflection. We do not find now-a-days that unilingual Afrikaans-speaking people are considered for such positions, nor has the Minister any idea of appointing any unilingual Afrikaans-speaking people. Therefore, having made that reflection he made that reflection against the Afrikaans-speaking section because his contention was that there were not sufficient Afrikaans-speaking people who could be considered for such an appointment. It can be nothing but a reflection on the Afrikaans-speaking people, and it is an unjustifiable reflection. Nobody has asked the Minister to do a thing like that, and I don’t think the Afrikaner deserves that reflection. [Time limit.]

A few hon. members opposite have spoken against this amendment, and among other things they have said that similar Boards were appointed in the past and that unilingual members were on those Boards, so that that justifies them in appointing unilingual members to this Board. Have hon. members over there forgotten that we on this side a few years ago put up a big fight in regard to the appointment of Rent Boards? The Minister of Labour had a Bill before the House and we on this side fought very hard to make sure that only bilingual members would be appointed to it. The argument is now being used that because that Bill was passed we should not do anything now. I say definitely that that is wrong. Whenever a case of this kind comes before the House, where the interests of the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people are at stake, we shall take up the cudgels and do all we can to remedy the position. We do not want unilingual Afrikaans-speaking men on those Boards; we want bilingual people there, for the sake of both sections in the country. If we wanted unilingual Afrikaans-speaking men on these Boards hon. members opposite could have accused us of racialism. We do not speak just on behalf of one section, we speak on behalf of both sections. The hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) said that if there was a German doctor who was better than another doctor we would go to the German doctor. Well, that is a personal matter and no public money is spent in a case like that. The Prime Minister the other day spoke about the “poor bloods”—the unfortunate people who came from the platteland and who were not fully bilingual. I can quite understand his concern about Afrikaans-speaking unfortunates (bloetjies), and not about the English-speaking unfortunates who only know one language, because the latter enjoy the Government’s protection, and even if they can only speak English they are still looked upon as being quite competent to occupy such posts. But we can see how these unfortunate people who only speak Afrikaans are pushed aside. I want to repeat that when cases of that kind come before the House every one of us here will get up and put up a fight for the principle that members of these Boards must be bilingual.

I am not one of those who speaks often in this House, but I do want to say a few words about what has happened here. I think it is deplorable that we Afrikaans-speaking people should be treated in this way. The Minister of Commerce and Industry gave us to understand that he would do his utmost to satisfy both sections in the House, but now we are told that three people who only understand English, and only one man who understands both languages, have already been appointed to the Board of Trade and Industries. That’s the sort of thing that makes one’s blood boil. If that sort of thing is to go on how can we accept what the Prime Minister told us the other day, that we should try and bring about a policy of bilingualism in this country? That is what he told us the other day and now we find that when people are appointed to the Board of Trade and Industries the Afrikaans language is completely ignored. No, I cannot believe the Minister. I have never yet caught him telling lies, but I now believe him less than I ever did before. It is regrettable to note that there are members on the other side of the House who are out to fight the Afrikaans language after all our efforts to bring about co-operation. It is regrettable. I assume the Minister does not follow what I am saying too well. I am talking here as a plain farmer, and I want to tell him that if no change is brought about, so that we can co-operate in regard to this matter, the position will become impossible and we shall not be able to expect good results from our work in this House. I expect the Minister in future to prove to us that he wants both sections of the population of South Africa satisfied so that we shall be able to see that the real policy of South Africa is to have men and women in this country taught both languages, so that both languages will receive full justice. Then we have a member like the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood), who told us that there was nothing surprising in the attitude of the Government in appointing a board like the Board of Trade and Industries, and appointing the type of people whom the Government had appointed, because the selfsame thing had been done in the past. I very deeply deplore the attitude of Afrikaans-speaking members who get up here to oppose the rights of the Afrikaans-speaking members. It practically amounts to this, that they are fighting their own language. When they go to their constituencies they pretend to love the Afrikaans language just as much as they love the English language, but when they are in this House they oppose the Afrikaans language. I want to make an appeal to the Minister and to ask him to see to it that we get what we are entitled to and that every section of the population of this country is treated in such a manner that it can be satisfied, and that things in future will not be allowed to be done in the way we now find them done in regard to the appointment of the members of the Board of Trade and Industries. I trust the Minister will still see his way to accept this amendment.

May I just say this to the Minister of Commerce and Industries, that the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) asked him a few very reasonable questions. The first question was whether he had illegally appointed five members instead of four. If he has made an illegal appointment, then for the sake of courtesy to the Afrikaans-speaking members on this side he might have told us that he had not the right to do so and that he proposed coming to this House to get his action approved of, because he knew he had taken a wrong step in the past. The second question referred to the three unilingual members who are now on the Board of Trade and Industries. The question was whether he was going to keep those three members who only knew English on the Board, or whether he was going to put them off. If he is going to keep them on the Board what are we to think of the Minister’s promise then? He told us here: “I shall meet the wishes of the Afrikaans section of the population as far as I possibly can and I shall appoint bilingual people.” He does not even deign to reply to reasonable questions. He does not tell us whether he is going to put those people off. If that is the position I am afraid we cannot take his word because it means he has no intention of meeting the wishes of the Afrikaans-speaking section. That old story that we haven’t got technical people in South Africa to occupy those posts is worn out by now. There are more technical men in in this country than there are positions to occupy. We on this side of the House are entitled to demand—it is our birthright—that justice shall be done to the Afrikaans-speaking section when it comes to appointments. As other members have said, the election cry was that there was to be bilingualism in this country, and we were told that the Nationalists only wanted unilingual people. It now transpires that hon. members over there deceived the public during the elections.

They don’t believe it themselves.

They do not believe in bilingualism. That is why they carry on in the same old way. I want to ask the Minister to reply to the questions of the hon. member for Moorreesburg, because if he does not do so we shall continue to hammer on this point until he does reply.

I am very pleased we have had this debate because it has clearly shown that bilingualism only exists in theory so far as hon. members opposite are concerned; as soon as it comes to practice they don’t worry about it. There is really no necessity to have taken up so much of the time of the House on this matter here today. If the Minister had had the slightest respect for bilingualism he would immediately have agreed to the amendment. The Afrikaans-speaking section of the population is entitled to take serious objection to the Minister’s attitude. It is absolutely unpardonable in this year of grace, 1944. The second point I want to refer to is this, that if anyone commits a breach of the law he is a criminal. Now the Minister breaks the law, and instead of appointing four members and paying only four salaries, he appoints a fifth man and pays a fifth salary. If the House were to say that the Minister himself should pay that man’s salary, one could quite understand it, but the Minister taxes the country to pay that fifth man’s salary. The Minister is guilty of a breach of the law. He may think it a trivial thing, but he is creating a precedent, and the Minister must realise that when this side of the House comes into power we shall summon him for having broken the law.

I think the hon. member is getting rather far away from the clause; he should confine his remarks to the clause and to the amendment.

Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, but the Minister himself told us that he had appointed a fifth member and that that fifth member drew a salary, and that is a breach of the law. I don’t want to go into that any further, however. We find this position now, that the principle of bilingualism is being violated today more than ever before. In the past it was often ignored and men who only knew one language were employed. We have no objection to the Minister appointing four English-speaking people who are bilingual. We would be quite satisfied even if there were not a single Afrikaans-speaking member on the Board, so long as all the people who were appointed were bilingual. If that were done the Minister would be complying with the provisions of the law, and after all he is entitled to choose whatever people he wants. We don’t claim that the members must be Afrikaans-speaking. But I want to say this, the Afrikaans-speaking people are more and more coming into their own in trade and commercial affairs, and not all the commercial men who are Afrikaans-speaking can be said to be bilingual. Now they have to appear before a Board which does not understand them. Is that fair? It makes one’s blood boil to think of the injustice that is being done in regard to the principle of bilingualism. I hope this will be the last time the Minister will come to this House to defend the appointment of unilingual meh to such positions. The taxpayers have to pay for the salaries of these people, and we are entitled to demand that these members shall be bilingual.

I used to think rather a lot of the hon. the Minister when he first came to the House, but today he is treating this House, and particularly this side of the House, with contempt. One would think that he came from Germany and that he was a friend of Hitler’s, if one were to judge him by his attitude in this House. I feel he has a feeling of contempt for us as Afrikaans-speaking people. Does he realise what he is doing? We are asking him in all fairness to make a statement. If he fails to do so, it means that he has something to hide. I wonder whether the appointment he has made, and which we know nothing about, means that he has appointed someone from Eastern Europe, and that he does not want to tell us the name of the man he appointed. I think we have had enough of this importation of people from abroad, of people who are not competent to do their work. We hear a lot about their ability, but when it comes to the point we find that the men who have been appointed perhaps have committed a crime in some other country, and that they are given appointments here over the heads of English- and Afrikaans-speaking citizens of this country. The time has come when we should only appoint people who can speak both languages in the Public Service. All this intriguing must be stopped. The public is going to realise the value of all these promises that were made at election time. Those promises were nothing but hypocrisy. The Minister is again starting a language controversy in this country, and I do not believe there is any justification for what he is doing. I feel he is bringing in people whom he is not entitled to appoint, and at the same time he is treating this side with contempt. He refuses to tell us what the qualifications are of the people he appoints and what language they speak. Possibly they may speak German, Italian or Russian. In a democratic country like ours it is the Minister’s duty to get up in this House and give members the information they ask for.

We, the Afrikaans-speaking members on this side of the House, feel that bilingualism must be given effect to in the interest of the country. We feel that people entrusted with such important duties as the Board of Trade and Industries is entrusted with, must know both languages. That is one of the reasons why we feel so strongly that the education of our children must in future be bilingual. The Opposition, however, is engaged on a campaign of calumny against this side of the House because we, the Afrikaans-speaking section, are not in favour of their amendment; on the other hand the Minister is being attacked because he has appointed people who know only the one language. I feel, however, that the question at issue is not one of bilingualism—it is a question of technical ability. I do not believe that the Minister, when making the appointments, considered the question whether the people he was appointing knew one or both languages—what he was concerned with was that the people he appointed were able and competent to do the work required of them. That was his main consideration. The competence of a person appointed to a position like this is a matter of supreme importance. I am quite convinced that the Minister had no intention of ever doing an injustice to the Afrikaans-speaking section, but knowing what he required he thought the people he appointed were the right people in the right place.

I fail to understand how the Minister, if he cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Srasmus), can still say that he is a believer in bilingualism. Just let us see who are the members of the Board of Trade and Industries. There is Dr. Norval and Col. Kriek. Both these men have been trained for this class of work, and they have special qualifications for that work. They are both bilingual. But now let us take the other three members of the Board, Messrs. Hendry, Sneed and Moore. These three members know only English. And another striking point is that they are people who have not had any training to qualify them for those positions. How can the Minister defend his attitude, how can he say that wherever possible he believes in the appointment of people who know both languages? His whole attitude is in conflict with his statement. If he is honest in his intentions regarding the principle of bilingualism then he should carry it out in practice. He has the opportunity of appointing people who know both languages. There are sufficient competent people in this country. If I go to live in another country and I intend staying there, and I cannot speak the language of that country after a number of years, well, I go to a doctor because there must be something radically wrong with me. If a man is thirty years in this country and cannot yet speak the second language, I won’t say that he is incompetent, or that intellectually there must be something wrong with him, but it does prove to me that he does not want to learn the other language, and if he does not want to learn the other language then he is not entitled to such an appointment. We have heard the other side of the House talk a lot about mother tongue medium, and dual medium, to make people bilingual, but the only way to make people bilingual is to lay it down as a hard and fast rule that nobody will be appointed to such a position unless he knows both languages. But these people know that it is only talk, so far as the Government side of the House is concerned, and as soon as there is a chance of making an appointment bilingualism counts for nothing. If the Minister tells us that he could not get competent bilingual people, all I can say is that I do not agree with the Minister. The Minister has shown contempt for the Afrikaners and their language. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. H. J. Bekker) spoke about competence. We are not afraid of the principle of bilingualism; we shall see to it that we know the second language. But let our English-speaking friends on the other side also see to it that they are bilingual, and let them make a point of treating the two languages as on an equal footing. If the hon. member for Witbank is honest he will not be afraid to accept this amendment. There are quite sufficient bilingual people available.

I want to appeal to the Minister and ask him to reply to the point which has been raised here. I think the Minister will be acting in his own interest if he does reply. Now I want to put another question to the Minister. I want him when he gets up, to tell us whether these three people, Messrs. Hendry, Sneed and Moore, are going to be retained in their position as members of the Board of Trade and Industries? If the Minister is going to keep them there will he tell us that he has gone out of his way to get the most competent people he could get? I have the Union Year Book before me and I notice that 20 years ago, under the old Nationalist Party Government there was one unilingual man on the Board of Trade and Industries, namely Mr. Fahey, but the Chairman of the Board was Mr. A. J. Bruwer, and the other two members were Dr. de Kock and Mr. G. S. H. Rossouw. These people spoke both languages and they had the necessary qualifications. If the Minister can tell us here, 20 years later, that he could not find people with a knowledge of both languages who were competent to do the work, he only proves that he is not honest in his intentions towards bilingualism. We hope the Minister will reply because if he does not we shall have to continue this debate. We do not want to waste the time of the House, but in all fairness we have the right to expect the Minister to reply to our questions.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) and his colleagues have raised two points, quite apart from the original amendment, upon which I am quite prepared to give the information they ask for. With regard to the appointment of an additional member, the position was this: When Col. Kriek became a prisoner of war, Mr. Hendry was appointed by an executive council minute with a special proviso that on Col. Kriek’s return he should immediately vacate the position. In other words, he was on a temporary appointment, to act in the absence of Col. Kriek, while he is a prisoner of war. So we did not appoint a fifth member in the ordinary course of events. This was a special and an exceptional appointment, to fill not an unexpected vacancy, but one for which no provision exists in the law.

How many members are there?

There are four member’s of the Board of Trade, and one is acting for the fourth man, who is in Italy. If you take the four actual legal members, two of them are certainly bilingual; they are both Afrikaans-speaking. Regarding the other two, I cannot say definitely, but I am under the impression they are not fully bilingual.

Who are they?

Dr. Norval and Col. Kriek are the actual statutory members of the Board. Mr. Hendry, who was appointed to act in Col. Kriek’s place, in his absence, is a retired public servant of many years’ standing, and I am not in a position to say whether he is fully bilingual or not. In regard to the other question that was asked, whether these appointments would continue when this Bill is passed, the position is that with the exception of Mr. Hendry, these gentlemen are all under contract.

When does their time expire?

I cannot tell you when the period of their appointment expires, because they were appointed before my time. I think that Mr. Sneath has another year.

Are you going to re-appoint him?

When the contract expires it will be a question whether they will be re-appointed or not.

That is not my question; are you going to re-appoint them?

That is not a question I am going to answer now; but I will say this, that in considering re-appointments the question of bilingualism will be given very serious consideration by me. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg that where possible fully bilingual people should be appointed.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—31:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—81:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

I now come to my next amendment which is probably just as important as the one we have just disposed of. I move—

I hope the Minister will accept an amendment coming from this side, and I think this is a very good opportunity for him to do so. In regard to South Africa’s development we have already told the House that the rural areas are more and more beginning to take their share in industries. A few years ago we had a very important report placed before us by the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission. That Commission handed in its report in 1942 and it gave special attention to the development of rural industries. In its useful recommendations to the Government it suggested, among other things, that attention should be given to the development of rural industries. Our argument now is that if more and more industries are going to be developed on the platteland, there should be at least one man on the Board of Trade and Industries with a knowledge of rural industrial conditions. There are rural industries which have almost reached the stage of great development. There are rural industries which are on the eve of great development, and if one studies this report one gets the impression that it is intended to have a large number of these industries established on the platteland. A number of industries are recommended as being of a type which can easily be established by the Government on the platteland, and any Government which decides to concentrate all industries in the big towns in future would be committing a gross error. I need not draw the attention of the House again to the fact that the basis of South Africa’s economic policy is industrial development. Let me point out that only 15 per cent. of our land is suitable for cultivation and production. On top of that that 15 per cent. is subject to fluctuations. As against that we have the gold mining industry which in the course of years will steadily deteriorate and will in the long run go entirely out of existence. At the moment the gold mines give us two fifths of our public revenue, but that’s not always going to be the position. The mines at the moment are responsible for a very large proportion of our exports. Before the war we exported goods to a value of £150,000,000 and the mines were responsible for £110,000,000 of that total. In other words, the rest of the country exported products to the value of £40,000,000. In due course the mines will disappear. In other words, we are all in agreement that the basis of South Africa’s economic policy must be development of industry, and in that connection we also agree that attention must be given to rural industries. The question may now be asked which industries should be considered in this connection. In the first place we have the development of the artificial fertiliser industry. Then we have the development of motor fuel from agricultural products, and coal. Then the development of industrial grease oils. Before the war we consumed about 5,000,000 gallons of grease oil, and in a sense we wasted it because we did not use the offal oil by refining it again. We have an excellent opportunity now for the establishment of a factory for the refining of these grease oils—as has already been done in other countries. We are on the eve of the development of meat factories, which have already been developed on a large scale in Australia. We are also on the eve of the development of wool factories. I understand that steps are already being taken in that direction. Then there is another matter, the manufacture of wooden boxes. We use wooden boxes in South Africa for the packing of fruit and vegetables to a value of not less than £800,000 per year. The value of those which we manufacture in this country today does not exceed £200,000. We still import wooden boxes to a value of £600,000, and in that respect too we are on the eve of great developments. Great developments can be achieved on the platteland especially in regard to the manufacture of bags, woolbags etc. We can also expect development to take place in regard to the manufacture of agricultural implements. We actually at present import agricultural implements from Britain, Canada, the United States, Australia, and before the war we also imported from Germany and Czechoslovakia. We are on the eve of great agricultural developments, and this industry is deserving of attention because so far we have done very little indeed in the way of providing for our own needs in agricultural implements. I have mentioned a few types of factories arising out of the Commission’s report, and I say again that a Government which wants to establish all those industries in urban areas will be making a very serious mistake if it does so in South Africa. What this side of the House feels is that those factories and industries should not be concentrated in the big towns, but that a large proportion of them should be established on the platteland. We want the Minister to meet us here. The Minister may reply that he will do his best to meet us, but we want to see some provision made in this Bill. The Minister may have good intentions but he will not always occupy that position, whereas this Bill will be law for many years. He must appoint someone on the Board of Trade and Industries who has a special knowledge of urban industries, and at the same time he must appoint a man who has a special knowledge of rural industries. It appears to me that this proposal is so fair and reasonable that we are entitled to ask the Minister to accept it.

I can conceive of the Minister asking: Where are the rural industries which are to be represented on the Board of Trade and Industries? If the Minister should ask that question, we want to draw his attention to the fact that there is the processing of primary products and also the processing of forestry products which take place on the platteland. There is development taking place in regard to the wine industry, in regard to the fruit industry, and so on in the Western Province, and in other parts of the country we can point to small branches of the leather industry and the processing of forestry products. In the Transvaal it is more particularly the processing of forestry products. Even today there are a number of small industries which are engaged on the processing of the primary products of agriculture and forestry and other things. Still it is not on account of the existing rural industries that we are anxious to have this provision made on the Board of Trade and Industries, but it is particularly with a view to the future, that we want this amendment to be accepted. It was the policy of past governments that industries should not necessarily be concentrated in the large towns, and in the thickly populated areas. It is not only in connection with populations and with social problems that this policy has been considered. I had the privilege of giving attention to that problem in Ireland. There we find that attention has been given to the same problem to decentralise the industries as much as possible, so that the accumulation of population should not essentially be in the big towns. I know that there are certain problems connected with platteland industries. There is the question for instance of cost of transport. One of the difficulties in regard to platteland industries is the question of cost of transport. But we are all looking forward to an increase in agricultural and forestry products, and with a little imagination we can see a wool factory established on the platteland—at least to this extent, that the wool can be washed there and prepared for a wool weaving industry. Taking into account that that has been the policy of the South African Government, and bearing in mind the attention given to the plattteland in the investigations made by the Rural Industries Commission, and also bearing in mind the development which is going on in the country, it would be well worth the Minister considering this amendment. It is possible, in view of the information which he has given us, that he may not have the opportunity at the moment of appointing such a person on the Board, but we hope that in making future appointments he will bear this in mind.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we both attended the Northern Cape Congress and that the question of industries in that area was carefully considered on that occasion, and he expressed himself as sympathetically disposed towards this particular aspect. I can only say that there are quite a number of very essential things in the Northern Cape area calling for the establishment of industries. A short while ago a pamphlet was issued in regard to steel works which they are anxious to establish there. If they want to do so, it is self-evident that they would like to have a member on the Board of Trade and Industries who would be sympathetically disposed towards such developments on the platteland, and that he would be a man conversant with the needs of the platteland. I also want to point out that it is important to have industries spread more widely over the whole country from a population point of view. May I just say in this connection that in the Northern Cape we have iron and manganese. We have the water there and the electric power, and in that connection I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister and to ask him to appoint someone who will take these facts into consideration. I also want to point out that a step in that direction would be in the interest of the defence of the country. Russia has proved that to us. Russia did not concentrate her industries in a few big places, but she spread her industries in the interior of the country, and that fact gave Russia very great strength in this war. If a country’s industries are concentrated in a few places those places can easily be attacked in war time, but if the industries are spread all over the interior they are not so easily vulnerable. It is very essential to have a man on the Board who can take those aspects into consideration, and who can study those particular features, and I therefore feel that the Minister should accept this amendment. I also want to add this, that if the Minister were to appoint such a man for the platteland areas it would give him an excellent chance of appointing a bilingual person, and in that way he would be able to extricate himself from the dilemma in which he has landed himself with hon. members opposite. These are the few points which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice and I hope he will come to our assistance on the platteland where one day we are stricken by floods and next day by droughts. If industries are established they will help very considerably towards turning those parts into a greater asset for this country.

The object of this amendment, I take it, is to assist the development of rural industries. So I understood from the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus), and if it could be done by the adoption of this amendment, I would do my very best to accept it even if there were difficulties. Because I am once again in entire agreement with the hon. member for Moorreesburg that decentralisation of our industries is highly desirable. If we can develop our industries rather than centralise them in one spot, if we can develop them near the raw materials, it will be all to the good, and I shall do all I can in that direction, but I find great difficulty in accepting this amendment—first because I don’t know what it means: “One of whom shall have special knowledge of urban and one of rural industries.” How are you going to define someone who has special knowledge of rural or urban industries? There are so many kinds of industries, and so many aspects of these industries, that it would be very difficult to find any one man who could be said to be specially qualified because of his special knowledge of purely rural industries.

There are such people.

But again, what is the essential difference between a rural industry and an urban industry? The hon. member referred to fertiliser factories, to timber factories where boxes are made and so on. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) referred to fruit processing concerns. These are all to be found, both in urban and rural areas, and as far as I know, provided they are sited in a proper place where they can be usefully employed, the actual problems of these factories are essentially the same, and therefore prima facie I do not see that the appointment of one such individual would help the objects which we both have in view, very substantially. There is the further point that the Bill only provides for five members, which we have thought sufficient, and if you are going to specify that one should have a special knowledge of rural industries, and another of urban industries, there are other qualifications which one might say are even more important. One might say that one, if not two, members should be highly qualified economists, that another should be a cost accountant, and another an engineer, and once you start specifying in that way, then it is most difficult to say which is the most important qualification a man should have. I would suggest that the provisions of the Bill which provide for the appointment of temporary members in the case of special enquiries goes a long way towards meeting the hon. member’s case. That is to say, where the Board of Trade is making an enquiry into a rural industry we have the power to appoint in a temporary capacity not one, but as many experts as may be required in order to make sure that the Board has the very best technical advice it can get.

How do we know that they will?

Know that they will what?

Know that they will appoint members who know about rural industries.

That is the purpose of this provision in the Bill, and if the hon. member asks me how I know that the Board will do that—well, I don’t know. But I know that as long as I am Minister of Commerce and Industries, that is what I shall do. I don’t know what the hon. member will do when he is Minister of Commerce and Industries. I hope he will follow my example. But that provision meets that difficulty and it leaves one free to appoint people who are in a general way regarded as the most useful people, who know most about a particular thing which the Board is enquiring into. That provision leaves the Board’s hands free to appoint the best man, to get the men with the widest and broadest knowledge of a particular subject, it enables the Board to get all the specialists’ advice by way of temporary members, and I hope therefore that the hon. member for Moorreesburg will not press his amendment but will agree that the new provision for temporary members goes far to meet his difficulty.

I want to point out that this is a most important question which has to be borne in mind when the Board of Trade and Industries is constituted. We know that there is a tendency to develop what is called a parochial outlook. One gets a type of industrialist in Johannesburg and also in Cape Town to whom South Africa is only Johannesburg or Cape Town. If this Board of Trade and industries is constituted in such a manner that it does not take into account the interests of the various industries, and of the different parts of the country, if it is not constituted in such a manner that it takes proper account of the necessity of spreading the industries over the whole country, we shall aggravate the position which we are already beginning to get—notwithstanding the Government’s wishes, and in conflict with the interests of the country—that everything will be centralised and concentrated in one place, or in one area. If the Board of Trade and Industries is constituted in such a manner that it does not seek to concentrate all the industries in Cape Town or in Johannesburg it is self-evident that when the Board discusses various matters the interests of other industries, and not only the interests of those two localities, will be considered; and that being so I feel the Board should be constituted in such a manner that those interests will be properly brought to the fore. What do we find at the moment? An hon. member recently stated in this House that as a result of the tremendous concentration in one area in Johannesburg certain parts had become so expensive that one would almost imagine one was buying a diamond when one tried to buy a plot of land. That is a result of the concentration of industries, which in turn leads to population troubles, to troubles in regard to transport, to difficulties about plots; simply because everything is concentrated in one place. We find even in the older countries it is realised that this is wrong, and consequently it is necessary so to constitute the Board of Trade and Industries that the interest of all parts of the country are considered. I can see no objection to a man being selected to the Board who for instance will keep his eyes open and who will have special knowledge of rural industries. There can be even less objection to selecting a man who is thoroughly conversant with, and who has a good knowledge of urban industries. I am taking part in this discussion because I again want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that when industrial development is discussed the big centres sit up and take notice; they take up the attitude that everything must be concentrated in the big centres. The result is that the platteland is deserted. We have often drawn attention to the undesirable emigration from the platteland and to the influx to the towns, and we can only manage to prevent that sort of thing if we arrange our industrial development in future in such a manner that a proper investigation is made into the potentialities of every area, and if after that investigation we tell the various parts of the country that they are suitable for this or that particular purpose, and that because of that we are prepared to give preference to certain smaller places. All things being equal in a large centre and a small centre the industry should go to the smaller centre.

Even if the smaller centre is a little backward?

Yes, that is the view which I have expressed repeatedly in this House, and the Minister must pardon me if I say that I am afraid commerce has had far too much say in the past and has had a pretty selfish outlook, with the result that we have the unstable position in South Africa that the people do not know what direction we are going in. There is always the question: “Is a particular industry, a particular enterprise, going to Johannesburg or to Cape Town?”—because everybody’s eyes are focussed on the big towns. Many years ago we had a motion before this House on this very same point in which we drew attention to the fact that instead of having an increased population there were twenty five towns where the population had dropped—and this is the cause of that decrease in population. It is no longer a question now of talking about this position. The time has come when the Government should have a very definite policy on this subject. We have been discussing this question for years, but no definite policy had been pursued so far, and it is high time the Government gave the necessary lead. The Government must say definitely and positively that it is going to provide facilities in the smaller towns, and that in future it is going to provide more facilities in the small towns than in the large towns, because if that is not done we shall later on get this position, that we’ll have a very big country with four or five industrial centres which, of course, is most unsound for the existence and development of this country in every possible respect. I want to emphasise that we have discussed this matter a lot, but we now expect the Government to lay down a definite policy, and it is for that reason that I have got up here to put forward a plea on this point.

I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus). Our experience in the past has been that the platteland is becoming depopulated and that more and more people are going to the cities. There must be something radically wrong, and the trouble is that all the industries are established in the big cities, that the people are attracted thereto, so that, the platteland becomes depopulated, notwithstanding the fact that the cost of living in the cities is high. We must bring our people back to the smaller places, and it is therefore important for the Minister to nominate someone to this Board of Trade and Industries who has a knowledge of the platteland, so that the industries which are established there may receive proper attention. In this connection I want to mention something with reference to my constituency. We go in for dairy farming there. At times there is an over-production of cheese and butter, and that could be prevented if we had our industries there—for example, an industry to make dried milk or condensed milk. These are all matters which must be rectified so as to prevent the migration from the platteland. Then there is the canning of vegetables, fruit and similar commodities which could be undertaken in the platteland. The opportunity exists, but if everything is concentrated in the larger cities, there is no prospect of development for the platteland. Take an item such as the manufacture of agricultural implements. Up to the present we have been importing those goods; and in many cases, although the articles complied with the requirements of the countries where they were manufactured, they were of such a nature that they were not suitable for the land and the climatic conditions in our country. And it is of importance even in that respect that we should have persons on the Board who have a knowledge of the platteland so that all the different aspects may be investigated; and I hope that the Minister, in complementing the personnel of the Board, will take this request into consideration and rectify this deficiency. We do not want persons who are out and out technical persons and who have not got a wide experience.

It surprises me to find that the hon. the Minister expresses the opinion that he is in agreement with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus), but that he objects at the last moment to the actual application of the principle.

He has already made the appointments.

Nevertheless, there are future appointments to be considered. If this becomes law in the future, the House will be assured that the Minister will take this matter into account. But what happens today as far as our industrial development is concerned? We are in the platteland. The raw materials are conveyed from the platteland to the large cities, to the big centres, where it is manufactured, and then it has to come back all the way to the interior for consumption. We have experienced that. We see what goes on on the Rand. I fully associate myself with what has been said here by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). Everything is concentrated in the big centres. The platteland towns can offer the same facilities in many cases, but those people think only in terms of the big cities. Everything must be concentrated in Cape Town or Johannesburg or Vereeniging, otherwise those factories will not pay. I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister to accede to this request, and not to hold it out merely as an ideal that he is of opinion that industries should be extended to the platteland. We should like the Minister to give us the assurance that that will be done and that it will be done in the near future. Most of the members of the Board of Trade and Industries concentrate on the city industries; they do not look at these matters in the same light as we do. I want to ask the Minister to give us the assurance that, although the Board has already been constituted, he will in future give his serious attention to the request which has been made by this side.

I just want to refer briefly to another aspect of the matter. In the first place I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the establishment of industries on the platteland will provide work to the sons and daughters of the platteland. In the second place that development will create a bigger market in the platteland. Today the platteland is entirely dependent on the cities. Everything which the platteland produces has to go to the cities. In the third place we have to think of the native territories. There is a tremendous influx of natives to the cities, and with the development of industry, there is an even greater influx. I am speaking subject to correction, but I think there are already 170,000 natives in the Cape Town area. Later on we will have the entire native territories in the big cities. Imagine the chaos that would create. The natives have no means of livelihood in the native territories, and apart from the development of industries in the platteland under the European population, I think it is of the utmost importance that we should provide work to the natives in their own territories. With the development of industries in those territories, we could stem the influx to the cities. I particularly want to impress this point on the Minister. Then, in the appointment of Board members, we must have due regard to bilingualism. But apart from bilingualism, the Minister must remember that there is a Party in this country which is rapidly growing, and he must remember that the Nationalist Party can with justification demand that he should also appoint a Nationalist to that Board. We surely do not want to do in this country what is being done in America. I want to assure the Minister that we would all be ashamed of ourselves if we got into power and appointed only Nationalists to the boards. Is that not a danger to the country? We have highly qualified people in the Nationalist Party, and they are being pushed aside; they are pushed aside because they are pro-Nationalist.

Where was that done?

I could mention dozens of cases where Nationalists were pushed aside. They were not really pushed aside, but the fact remains that they have high qualifications and they do not get the appointments. I say that we would appreciate it very much if the Minister were to appoint qualified Nationalists to these boards. It would be a fine gesture; it would be a gesture which would prove that the one side appreciates the other side. We are not going to tolerate that iniquitous system of America in this country whereby, when a government gets into power, it gradually pushes aside all opposition members and appoints only its own members. I shall be very glad if the Minister will take these few suggestions into consideration.

If ever a cat has been let out of a bag, it was let out of a bag when the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) spoke. We have just heard what their definition of bilingualism is. One is only bilingual when one is a Nationalist. They are making a plea here on behalf of the platteland industries. I see no objection to it, and there is no provision in this Bill which stipulates that an industry cannot be established on the platteland, and I do not think they want to give the House to understand that the Government would adopt an unsympathetic attitude towards any industry which is established on the platteland. If the hon. member for Namaqualand wants to establish an industry in the platteland, no one will stand in his way. But what I would like to ask the hon. member is whether he would invest his money in it. I should be very glad if those hon. members who are today pleading for platteland industries will invest their money in those industries. But the sting lies in the tail. During the last election they discovered that they have no say in the towns, and now they want to incite the feelings of the people on the platteland against the Government. [Interjections.] The truth always hurts. I say that those hon. members are exploiting the feelings of Afrikaans-speaking people. They want to feed the Afrikaners on sentiment. I have never known sentiment to appease hunger. I am convinced that our industries, will be safer in the hands of the Government than in the hands of the Opposition.

The last speaker …

Preacher?

Yes, one might almost say preacher. I just want to say to that hon. member that when I buy wood in Knysna in order to have furniture made and I send it to Johannesburg, I have to pay 1s. per lb. on the wood, but when I make the furniture in Knysna, I have to pay 2s. 9d. per lb. on the wood. I could go on the whole day giving examples of this.

He does not know anything about it; it is Greek to him.

I do not hold that against him. When he speaks of propaganda, I can only say that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. He does not realise what the position is and he knows nothing about it. We who have made pleas in this House year after year for industries in the platteland have never got anything from this Government which places us on an equal footing with the towns. The Labour Board has now come along and fixed the same wages for the worker in the city as for the worker in the platteland, but when it comes to question of old age pensions, the Government says that the man in the city must get £5 per month, while the man in the platteland receives only £3 per month. The Government says that it is cheaper to live in the platteland. But when it comes to the fixation of wages, we hear quite a different story. This Government has never encouraged industries in the platteland. To give one example only by means of wage fixation, they have forced the platteland printers out of the platteland. They fixed the wages not on the basis of cost of living, but because they felt that they were being affected by the competition. For these people to say that they are doing something for industries in the platteland, well, that does not hold water. In the platteland one finds that the industries are gradually collapsing. People who formerly were satisfied with the wages they received in the platteland, now want higher wages. On all sides the policy has been to kill the industries on the platteland, and this Government is encouraging that policy. They do not want to have industries in the platteland. That is the position, and this is no propaganda. It is the truth. I should like hon. members, like the last speaker, when they get up to speak, not to talk such nonsense, or otherwise they should first investigate the matter more closely and ascertain what the true state of affairs is. We in the platteland know what the position is, and we are not afraid to say it. We are not afraid to prove it. These hon. members must not talk of expanding the industries in the platteland. If it is not one difficulty, it is the other, and I say that the sooner the country realises what the position is, the sooner the people will compel this Government to make room for a Government which really has the interests of the platteland at heart.

The hon. Minister has expressed an opinion which, I hope, is the opinion of his side of the House, namely, that he is prepared to be sympathetic when we talk of the expansion of industries in the platteland. But the hon. Minister is like a horse which is brought to the water to drink, but refuses to do so. This report to which I have previously referred, the report of the Commission in connection with industrial requirements, points out the tremendous depopulation of the platteland, and further points out that it is a remarkable phenomenon that the sons and daughters of the platteland have left to such an extent that today there is a disproportionate number of men and women under the age of 55 years. South Africa realises that there is no other future for it except through industrial development, but the policy which is being suggested this afternoon, is making the plattelander afraid of that future. We must face facts, but what will be the result of the policy which the Government has announced today? The result will be that the platteland will be completely depopulated if the development to which we have referred today is to take place only in the cities, if special facilities are not granted to assist the small industries in the platteland. It stands to reason that the platteland will be completely depopulated, and then the nation will suffer immense damage in the cultural sphere. We want to develop South Africa industrially, but we must be very clear on this point: do we want all the big industries to rush to the cities, or do we want to follow a progressive industrial policy as suggested by this side of the House, namely, that subsidised industries should be developed on the platteland as much as possible. I want to ask hon. members on the other side who represent the platteland to rise and to say that they agree with this side, that they would welcome industrial development in the platteland and that they are going to assist this side in bringing about that development.

How do you propose to do it?

The hon. member asks how we propose to do it. I cannot go into that now. There is no time for it. But steps can be taken which will not have the effect of strangling the platteland industries, as is the case at the moment. At the moment our transport facilities exist only in the interests of the city industries and not in the interests of the platteland industries. There is one fine class of the population which we are gradually driving away from the platteland. An established class in South Africa is being driven away. I refer to the small shopkeepers in the platteland, English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking. This is a class which will die out if the present policy is followed. These traders whom we have known for so many years, will have to disappear if this policy is followed by the Government. They have been established in those towns for many years, and today they are eking out a poor existence as a result of this strangulation on the one hand and as a result of the depopulation of the platteland on the other hand. One would like to help them, but owing to the policy of the Minister, one is unable to do so. I expected the hon. Minister to rise and say that he would welcome industrial development in the platteland. The Minister comes forward with the argument that he cannot differentiate between the man who has a special knowledge of platteland industries and the man who has a special knowledge of city industries. But may I accuse him of being a stranger in Jerusulem? Has he not made a study of what is done in other countries of the world? The Minister was overseas for some time and he ought to know. Other countries of the world draw a very great distinction between their platteland industries and their city industries. The Minister knows those countries. It is not necessary for us to mention them. The Minister must not make a statement of that kind, that they cannot see any difference between the platteland industries and the city industries. There is a very wide difference and because there is that difference in other countries, a distinction is also made with regard, to the industries. One need not search very long to find economists in South Africa who have a greater knowledge of platteland industries than of city industries, and others again who have a greater knowledge of city industries. That is why the motion of this side of the House is so reasonable, and we cannot understand why the Minister rejects it.

I do not think that this side of the House has any objection to the development of industries in the platteland. But I have not yet heard any speaker on the other side of the House say what he suggests the Government should do to expand the platteland industries. There are two ways in which industries can be expanded. One is by the State itself, and the other is by private enterprise. The undertakings which are being expanded by the State are electricity and steel, and no fault can be found with either of those industries. But it is not the function of the State to develop industries in all spheres. Such factors as water, power and coal must be taken into account. Then, too, there is the housing of the workers. It is not easy to obtain people in every country place to work on the spot. Workers from other towns have to be taken there to undertake those works. These are factors which must be taken into consideration when one speaks of the establishment of industries in the platteland. Why is the Government being blamed? Any private undertaking is free to develop an industry wherever it pleases; there is nothing to prevent it from doing so. Any member in this House can develop industries wherever he pleases, even the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen). When one establishes an industry one either has to find all the money oneself, or one has to approach the public for that money, but before one can do so one must first make out a case to show that the proposed industry will be economical, that is, if one wants the public to subscribe; and if one then selects a place which will be uneconomical, the necessary capital will not be forthcoming, with the result that the industry cannot, be established. It is no use blaming the Government. The majority of industries which have been established in this country were not establisher by the Government but by private enterprise, and why were most of those industries established in the large cities? It was because the experts decided that those were the most suitable places. If an industry cannot stand on its own feet it must either disappear or be subsidised by the State. If the Government had to subsidise every industry which is established in the platteland, I should like to know where the money is to come from.

It would be better to invest it in the I.C.S.

The hon. member says that it would be better to invest it in the I.C.S. But if an industry can eventually stand on its own feet, it is necessary for the Government to subsidise such an industry. If such cases arise in the platteland, there is no reason why those industries cannot approach the Government for a subsidy. We do not know what is going to happen after the war, and there is great anxiety today. The factor of locality must therefore be thoroughly considered and must play a great role in the establishment of an industry. Take any big industry, for example, where a great deal of water is required. Unfortunately I was not here when the Rand Water Board Bill was discused, but I want to remind hon. members of the fact that there is practically only one big river in the country which can de dammed up, and that is the Vaal River.

What about the Caledon?

The Government, must therefore take into account the water position before proceeding to establish big industries all over the country. Hon. members on the other side have referred to small industries. I do not know what exactly they contemplate, but surely the Government is not going to establish small industries all over the place. If it is only a question of tariffs, let them put their case before the Government. The Government will consider it, if it is satisfied with the case which is made out. I do not think that up to the present the Opposition has brought one concrete case before the Minister, where they can accuse the Minister of having killed platteland industries. The Railways adopt the policy that where unprocessed raw materials are conveyed to the factory, a cheaper tariff is applied than in the case of the processed article. But there is a further reason for that. If one were to establish a furniture factory at Knysna, for example, how many people would buy that furniture locally? There would be no market. The market is in Johannesburg and in other big centres, and that is a factor which must be taken into consideration. When hon. members speak of industrial development on the platteland, they mean industries which can provide work on a large scale to the people of the platteland, and in establishing large industries these factors which I have mentioned must be taken into consideration. The criticism of hon. members opposite is, in my opinion, not altogether reasonable.

The hon. member who has just sat down has stated that we have never brought forward any concrete suggestions for the development of rural industries. We definitely have on several occasions in this House brought forward the suggestion that the railway rates are definitely operating against the development of industries in the rural areas. It is surely a basic principle of economics that waste should be avoided, and yet our railway rates are based on the principle that we must carry the raw materials at a very much lower rate than the manufactured materials.

I do not think the hon. member can now go into the question of railway rates.

There is a debate pending on that question and I am sorry that I have intruded there, but I am just mentioning it as one of the concrete suggestions that we have put forward on previous occasions. It is unfortunate that this particular motion which is coming before the House prevents us from discussing the railway rates and the advantages that would accrue to industries if a different railway rate were laid down. But we are all definitely agreed that it is essential for our country to have the rural industries developed. This war has shown us how essential it is to have your industries scattered throughout the country. We will find in those countries where we have had the industries destroyed, that they will get down to spreading their industries right through the area and that they will not concentrate their industries in a few isolated spots. This concentration leads to a depopulation of the rural areas. The younger generation goes over to the towns. The smaller rural areas find they are being denuded of their younger men. These younger men all go to the only place where they can find the necessary employment. This is very bad for the country, but I must totally disagree with the Opposition members when they say that we on this side are not keen on the extension of rural industries. We are definitely very keen on the extension of rural industries, and we would like to see them scattered right through the country. It is one of the principles of our side that we want to see a distribution of industries right through the country. That distribution will definitely help our farmers. It will give us markets right on the spot. It will help us to market the readily perishable produce. It will also help us in regard to our native question. It will help us to use our natives without having to concentrate them in compounds, and it will also help the country in many other directions. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I feel that on account of other motions before the House, we are being rather restricted today in our arguments in connection with the development of rural industries.

One hears rather remarkable things when one listens to the various speakers. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) wants to make us believe that Vereeniging is the only place where industrial expansion can take place. He indicated that one needs water, housing and coal etc. There are many places in the Free State where you have coal and there is a plentiful supply of water in the Free State and also in other parts of the country. But the hon. member, remarkably enough, can see only Vereeniging. The hon. member who has just sat down has the same views in regard to this matter as we have. He is also in favour of the extension of industries to the platteland. Unfortunately, however, they say one thing and do just the opposite. They are engaged in hoodwinking the people and in making them believe that they are in favour of bilingualism, as we heard a moment ago, but they do not practise what they preach. They are also in favour of the extension of industries to the platteland, but when a motion is introduced, such as that of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus), they are not prepared to accept it simply because it emanates from the Opposition. I think we must be honest. We all realise that the platteland is being depopulated, and it is necessary to take steps to remedy the position. The best forces in the platteland are being lost in the course of this influx to the cities to seek employment there, but if industries were established in the platteland it would check the tendency to migrate to the cities.

Might I say that I think we are discussing Clause 3. Is that right, Mr., Chairman?

No, it is Clause 2.

Evidently we are discussing the principle of the Bill on the question of rural industries.

The Committee is not discussing the principle of the Bill, but Clause 2 and the amendment.

What is the amendment?

I am sure I do not know. I am, Sir, trying to understand the position, and as far as I can learn it is this. As far as the Board is concerned, the tendency of the debate is that provided there are members on the Board who are from rural areas there is more chance of getting consideration in connection with rural industry. I want to deal with that particular point. As far as I can see, if you are going to establish rural industries then rural industries have to be established on the basis of economics, and it is not going to make any difference whether you have members from rural areas. What is required are members who are suitable. It comes to the question of the establishment of rural industries and the principle is one that I accept in toto, for the simple reason that if we take an objective view of industry in this country, what do we find? We find that today industry as such is being concentrated in the main areas of population in this country. It has been calculated that in New York—and the same thing applies to Cape Town—20 per cent. of the energy of the public is taken up in travelling; you can see for yourselves in the movements from the suburbs of Cape Town and Durban. Furthermore, there is the question that presents itself right through South Africa, namely, the difficulties in respect of health and hygiene that arise in highly industrialised areas. From my point of view I consider that it would be a wise policy provided the economics of the matter warranted it, to spread our population. An attempt is being made to follow that practice in other countries, and although we may not always subscribe to the ideology of other countries, I think that we should take a leaf out of their book in certain directions. For instance, as far as Russia is concerned, they are doing the right thing; they are taking industry into the rural areas. I think it is eminently suitable at this particular juncture, when we are considering the future, that we should keep this clearly in view, especially as we are giving much thought to the re-settlement—I shall not say the rehabilitation—of our returned soldiers, and they are going to be spread all over the country in irrigated areas. Most of their produce in these irrigated areas will be commodities of a perishable nature, and if you are going to make a success of that venture, you will have to establish industry in connection with these undertakings.

I think the hon. member is wandering very far from the clause.

I am of opinion that we should takes into consideration very seriously in the post-war period the establishment of rural industries for the reasons I have mentioned.

I want to associate myself with the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (mnr. F. C. Erasmus). We on this side of the House feel that it is in the interests of the country that we should spread out our industries. In order to attain that end, we ask that someone be appointed to the Board of Trade and Industries who is acquainted with the conditions in the platteland and the industrial possibilities there. This is not a new principle. It is generally accepted. When a Minister of Agriculture has to be appointed, someone with a knowledge of agriculture, preferably, is appointed. It stands to reason that when a person has a knowledge of a certain subject, he will take a greater interest in that subject. If one of the members of the Board of Trade and Industries possesses a special knowledge of industries in the platteland, it stands to reason that he will take a greater interest in the platteland and ensure that our industries are spread over the platteland. We regard this as a matter of very great importance. Today we are engaged in creating capitalists in South Africa. When the industries are concentrated in the big cities, it later becomes impossible for the small industrialists to compete with the bigger industrialists. Let me give an example. Take the building of houses in the cities. I think the time has arrived to lay down the policy in South Africa that houses in the city shall not have more than a certain number of storeys because the result of building huge, high houses is that the poor man cannot compete. Only the rich people are able to buy in certain streets of the cities and the poor man cannot compete because the land is exorbitantly expensive—thousands of pounds per square foot. The time has therefore arrived to prohibit even the building of houses exceeding a certain height. The same principle applies in connection with industries. If all the industries are concentrated in the big cities it stands to reason that there is little scope in the platteland towns for the small industrialists to compete with big capital. I feel therefore that the time has arrived to have someone on the Board of Trade and Industries who is keenly interested in the platteland. As I have said, that principle is applied in connection with the Ministry. If a Minister of Industries has to be appointed, a man with a knowledge of industries and who moves in industrial circles, would be appointed. When a Minister of Agriculture has to be appointed, a man with a knowledge of agriculture would be appointed. Since the aim ought to be to have a more equitable distribution of industries, we should appoint a person with a knowledge of the platteland. As far as that is concerned we are in favour of decentralisation. But the Minister is a peculiar man. He agrees with everything we say but when it comes to giving effect to the proposals, he refuses to take action. When we propose that a man be appointed to the Board of Trade and Industries who has a knowledge of the conditions in the platteland and of industrial possibilities, the Minister agrees with us, but when it comes to practical steps, he refuses to take them. The Minister must not hold it against us therefore if we are under the impression that these statements are only for political propaganda. As an hon. member said a moment ago, he agrees with us on the platforms in the country, but when it comes to deeds, he is found lacking. The time has arrived for the Minister to convert his political platform stories into deeds.

It was not my intention to intervene in this debate, but the fact that the question of a rural representative on the Board of Industries has been raised causes me to do so. I would like to put to the Committee that that principle could very well be met by the appointment of temporary members under Section 4 of the Bill. I think that it would be far better to have on the central board members of wide experience, who could give advice and make decisions from the national point of view. There has, Mr. Chairman, been a good deal of discussion in regard to the desirability of spreading industries in South Africa over as many districts as possible, and also that we should give urgent consideration to the establishment of more industries in the rural areas. The Committee should remember that a Rural Industries Commission was appointed.…

I have already reminded certain hon. members that that subject should not be pursued too far. The Committee is now discussing an amendment by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) referring to the question of the appointment of a person with knowledge of rural industries, and I cannot allow the hon. member to go too far on the subject of the establishment of rural industries.

I just wanted to make this remark: The Commission was appointed to go into the question of rural industries some years ago, and they made certain recommendations, which are relevant to the points put forward by the hon. member for Moorreesburg. I do not wish to go into details, but this subject of representation and various questions affecting rural industries were thoroughly gone into by the Commission, and with deference to your ruling, Sir, I think its report could very well be brought into consideration in connection with the question of the representation of rural industries on this particular Board. In those recommendations reference is particularly made to the difference in the wage levels in the principal towns of the Union and in the towns which are or might be the centre of rural industries. Another feature that could be considered is that the Minister will take into account the very valuable recommendations of the Rural Industries Commission in dealing with applications received from those who wish to venture on industrial enterprise away from the principal towns of the Union.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—30:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F,

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—64:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk. H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Waring, F. W.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move the following small amendment in line 39, as printed in the Order Paper—

Section 9 sets out the matters to be investigated by the Board and in connection with which it has to advise the Government. It is said here, for example, that they must give advice in connection with transport facilities and in connection with markets. We just want to add that they should also investigate the question of advertising in that connection, and that they should advise the Government in that regard. As far as the Railways and other industries are concerned, advertising has become a big question, and I shall be glad if the Minister will insert the word “advertisements,” failing which he will not be making provision for a necessary portion of the investigations to be conducted by the Board.

I shall be glad if the hon. member will explain why he wants the word “advertisements” put in here. I rather think he is misunderstanding the word “market”. “Transport” in this particular instance refers to the cost of transport, and “market” refers to whether there is a market in a particular place for an article, either in the Union or outside.

It says “transport facilities.” In connection with transport, there is a good deal of advertisement.

I am not clear about it. Perhaps the hon. member will make it a little clearer what he means by “advertisement”. In the meantime I have one or two amendments to move. I move—

I want to explain briefly what I meant. The Board of Trade and Industries is instructed to give advice in connection with conveyance and transport. Our most important means of transport is the Railways, and they do a great deal of advertising in that connection. We have two bodies which deal with advertising—a special department of the Railways and also the Tourist Corporation, which gives special attention to the matter. We are a young country, and advertising is an important factor, and since this is practically the first board which can report to the Government in connection with matters such as these, one would like to see the Board of Trade and Industries having the power to investigate the question of advertising in order to advise the Government in that connection.

I am sorry, I still do not understand the relevance of advertisement in relation to transport. I do not know whether the hon. member is referring to tourist traffic as an industry and whether he wants the Board to find out whether the advertisements are effective or possibly too expensive. Transport here deals with Railway rates on the raw products, and the word “market” means whether there is a market for any particular product, or whether there is any demand for it which justifies protection. In that case it seems to me that “advertisements” is not well placed there. I would point out that after all there are matters which may be referred to the Minister, and sub-section (3) is very all embracing in the aspects of the enquiry the Board has to undertake, and I cannot imagine that in the case of any industry which it is asked to investigate it can fail to look into the advertising side of it, insofar as advertising forms part of the overhead costs. The business may be spending too much money on its advertisements and that would certainly come under sub-clause (3) if an industry is being investigated. But if the hon. member is referring specifically to Railway advertising and to advertising in regard to the tourist industry I feel he is not putting it in the right place.

I should like to move the following further amendment—

1. (1) facilities for industrial training within the Union;

1. (m) the issue of commercial and trade licences especially with a view to sound competition and the elimination of superfluous trade units and undesirable elements.

I think we should add these matters to those which can be referred to the Board of Trade and Industries for investigation. This Board has to conduct full-time investigations into industries and factories, and it will therefore come into contact with the training facilities for those industries. It will continually come into contact with apprentices and also the facilities which exist for industrial training, and which are so poor at the present time in our country, which are so divergent, and which are entrusted to so many different departments in the country. I think it would be in the interests of the country to know that the Board of Trade and Industries can make recommendations in this connection. I do not know whether the Minister fully appreciates the necessity for this. In South Africa we have four or five schools and colleges and institutions which provide facilities in their own way for industrial training, but there is no co-ordination, and in this respect South Africa is very backward. We have not yet reached the stage which has been reached in other countries, where co-ordination in that respect has been achieved. Since the Board of Trade and Industries deals with factories and industries, it will continually come up against the training of apprentices and others, and for that reason it would be desirable if it could advise the Government in connection with this matter. The second portion of the amendment deals with the issue of licences. In the first place I want to refer to the arbitrary issue of licences for commercial purposes, and in the second place I want to refer to the undesirable elements in trade. Now with regard to the first. I think the advice of the Board of Trade and Industries could conveniently be sought in connection with the issue of licences. There is no co-ordination in the issue of our commercial and trade licences. Since on the one hand the issue of licences falls under the provinces, and on the other hand under the Union Government, I would almost go so far as to say that the position has become chaotic. There is no co-ordination. The reasons which hold good in one province in issuing licences for commercial purposes do not hold good in another province, and the sooner we get uniformity in connection with this matter, the better it will be, and that is why I propose that this matter too, should be referred by the Government to the Board of Trade and Industries for investigation. The second matter is in connection with undesirable elements in trade. We find that various bodies issue licences to Europeans in coloured areas, and to coloureds in European areas. This is also a matter in connection with which the Board of Trade and Industries could advise the Government. The Government would be well advised to tighten the regulations in South Africa, as far as the issue of commercial and industrial licences are concerned. There is definitely haphazardness and a deficiency in the system. When we see how arbitrarily the local bodies issue licences, we are surprised that the position in the country is not more serious than it is today.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

House to resume in Committee on 2nd March.

Agreed to.