When this debate was adjourned on Friday I was drawing the attention of the House and the Government to the fact that for some time now we have had a Minister of Economic Development. We have also had a special Committee attempting to deal with economic reconstruction. Up to today we have received no notice in the House of any measures which will lead us to believe that social and economic reconstruction or economic development of South Africa is anywhere within the next future. We have, however, had the benefit of one or two speeches by the Minister of Economic Development, and the Minister’s speeches take the line that he believes that it is not the duty of the Government of this country to interfere unduly with private enterprise, and that his policy is rather to be one of encouragement to private enterprise. Now I want to deal with that point for a moment or two, and I want to begin by saying that it is because for so many hundreds of years we have had private enterprise in every country of the world with the exception of Russia, that we have found ourselves in the parlous economic plight which in its eventuality, I believe, was really responsible for the war, and if the policy of the economic development of the Union of South Africa is to be a policy primarily of encouragement to private enterprise then we can assuredly look forward to many years of depression in this country after the war. Let me put to the hon. the Minister the other side of the picture when we are at war. The hon. the Minister—and I believe even the most devoted adherent of private enterprise—will admit that it would have been absolutely impossible for the Allied countries in this war to have fought it with any degree of success if they have depended on private enterprise. Private enterprise was a dismal failure in providing the necessary materials of war. In every country the Government has had to step in, the Government has had to interfere in every possible direction with private enterprise. The Government has had to plan when private enterprise was incapable of planning. The Government of Great Britain on a number of occasions has even had to appoint the directors of companies in order that the materials of war could be produced on an adequate scale. We continually have reports issued that what South Africa needs is an increase in production. That is the burden of the song of the recent social security report. How are we going to increase our production after the war if we are going to leave this production to the haphazard mercy of private enterprise? How are we going to achieve any kind of a new brave world if we are going to leave production to the mercy of the private motive? It has to be remembered that private enterprise will only produce when a profit can be made out of it, and if there is no profit to be made out of it then quite obviously private enterprise will not, and in fact cannot produce, and I say I feel that already the Minister of Economic Development is embarking on a course which will not develop to any considerable degree the economic resources of the country. I know the hon. the Minister in this respect is backed very strongly by certain very strong vested interests, in this country, and even in the last few months we have consistently had the view expressed in the official journal of the Associated Chambers of Commerce that when the war ends the Government must give free scope to private enterprise, to solve our economic problems. They have never done it in the hundreds of years they have existed. They had the audacity the other day to tell us that they could even solve the housing problem of the country. If that is so, why has it taken them so long to do it? They tell us that they can solve the economic problems. If that is so, again, why has it taken them so long to do it? I want to suggest to the hon. Minister that the time has arrived when it has got to be made clear to the vested interests in this country that any economic development of the Union of South Africa on a scale which would be beneficial to the people will have to be accompanied by the retention of a considerable amount of the Government control which has been exercised in time of war, for the needs of the people and for our own self defence. If it is correct to exercise control over private enterprise in time of war, if it is correct because we realise that only by exercising such control can we adequately defend ourselves, surely it is correct to exercise adequate control over private enterprise in times of peace, when we need to be fed, clothed and housed. I know, of course, that this is not a Socialist Government and one does not expect to get measures which smack of real socialism from this Government, but I am not now pleading for socialism. We are told that we are going to have a planned economy. How can we have a planned economy if you are going to allow private enterprise free scope? The thing is a contradiction. We cannot plan and at the same time leave private enterprise to pursue its policy of rugged individualism, to make profits and declare dividends. The thing cannot be done, and if we are going to have economic development through the Minister of Economic Development, I hope we are going to have some intelligent economic development. The problem is a very difficult one. I do not envy the hon. the Minister his task, because we have built up during the war a very considerable number of industries, industries which have only been built up because of the impetus which the war itself has given. When the hostilities finally cease the demand for the articles which are being produced by these firms will automatically cease, and it becomes necessary then to divert the energies of these industries into some other channel; in other words, they will have to turn from producing the implements or the sinews of war to producing the materials of peace. During the war many of these industries have actually been subsidised. They have been spoon fed; they have been nursed. We have no objection to that whatsoever; they have to a very considerable extent been ordered about, and in the ordering about of these various industries South African production has risen to a degree which would astonish many people in the Union and if these industries are ordered about after the war, South African production can maintain that very high increased output. The economic Planning Council appeared to feel that South Africa is going to do very well if the Europeans increase their production by 2 per cent. per annum. That is an astonishing statement to make. I would like to know from the Minister of Economic Development just why we have an Economic Planning Council if the policy he is going to pursue is going to be a policy of allowing private enterprise free rein? Why have a Planning Council? If you allow private enterprise free scope, let them have free scope then. Do not delude the country into believing that something is going to be done for the planned economy of South Africa. I am satisfied that South Africa cannot exist without planned economy. I am satisfied that if the planned economy idea is thrown overboard and if private enterprise is given full scope, then South Africa is going to be in a very parlous condition indeed. We know that the chief source of income of South Africa is a waning asset at any time. Everybody seems to be optimistic at the present time as to the continuance of gold as the standard of exchange, but we still do not know what kind of world we are going to have after the war ceases. We know that we are going to win the war, but we do not know when, and I would suggest that we do not know how. We do not know what condition the world will be in when the war is eventually won, and so it is not a dead certainty to say that gold will continue as a medium of exchange, and the possibility of gold either being reduced in value or gold being eliminated in some percentage as a medium of exchange is something which I believe any far-seeing Minister, especially the Minister of Economic Development, with such a grandiloquent title, should bear in mind. Let me deal, to prove my point, with one particular industry in particular. Before I go on to do that I want to tell this House that the position has got to this serious extent that I understand that even in the war period, at the end of this year, we will be producing a surplus of steel which we will not know what to do with. We will actually be producing a surplus of steel in the Union of South Africa. We find, for instance, that the British and American Governments’ have already cut down the production of copper in Northern Rhodesia by 20 per cent. As far as I can gather Northern Rhodesia is the only country concerned. It seems to me a poor reflection on the high falutin’ principle of the Atlantic Charter, if a country like Northern Rhodesia is cut down by 20 per cent. in its copper production. These are signs which way the wind is blowing. South Africa may find out long before the end of the war that the demand for raw materials from this country is also cut down by 20 per cent., and it is possible for us to be confronted with serious unemployment, even before the war ends. That is why we want economic development, but let me show the hon. Minister how private enterprise will work. One of the tragedies of this war was the fact that at a dangerous period of the war the British Navy and the British Mercantile Marine were in very serious difficulties with respect to repairs to ships which had been damaged by enemy action. South Africa in this particular instance contributed something which might almost mean the turning point of the war, in that we readily improved a ship repairing industry in this country. That industry has been of incalculable benefit to the British Navy and the British Mercantile Marine. When the story comes to be told just how valuable it was, again many people will be astonished. But why was it that we did not have a fully developed ship repairing industry in South Africa when the war broke out? I will tell you why. Because the successive South African Governments were believers in private enterprise, and the ships which should have been repaired here, belonging to companies which had milked this country for many years to the tune of millions of pounds were taken to the East because it was cheaper to have it done there, and Great Britain through that policy found herself in quite a sticky mess. Because if South Africa had had at the outbreak of the war a highly developed ship repairing industry it would have been possible to get these ships back to sea probably in 80 per cent. quicker time than they were got back. I have seen ships here which had to be patched up in the ports of the Union and then taken all the way to America to be overhauled, and the result was that important ships, fighting ships, were kept out of the fighting line for three and four months, whereas if we had in this country a fully developed ship repairing industry, we would have been able to put them back to sea in a very few weeks.

You cannot talk about ships.

We can talk about ships now. It is a fact which cannot be denied, that even in the worst days for the shipping lines, just after the last war and during the depression there was one outstanding shipping company which always made a profit, and that was the Union Castle Company, and it made its profit out of the Union of South Africa. That company is the company which has the mail contract for which we pay, and yet that company never in any circumstances, unless a ship was on the point of sinking, had any ship repairs done in South African ports. This is going to be, or should be in the future, a very valuable industry for us. Will it be a valuable industry for us if we are going to leave private enterprise to carry on as they like, and to do as they please? I would suggest that the Minister go into the possibility of developing a ship repairing industry by laying it down that where companies are subsidised in order to carry the mails from any part of the world into the Union of South Africa, a percentage of shipping repairs must be done in the Union. I have heard stories about South Africa having a ship-building industry of its own. I think that is being a little bit optimistic, because South Africa has not the population nor the possibilities to develop the shipbuilding industry on any very large scale. The ships we could build would have to be very small indeed unless we went in for a policy of establishing our own shipping line. But I cannot imagine this particular Government adopting a policy of our having to run a shipping fleet. So I feel the possibilities of creating a ship-building industry to any large extent are not possibilities which are going to have any serious effect on the economic development of the Union. But ship repairing probably will be and is in fact today, one of the biggest and most flourishing industries of the Union. It calls for an exceptionally large proportion of skilled labour, and it gives employment to a very large number of actual workers in comparison with the amount charged for the specific repairs themselves; and it would be quite simple to frame all our contracts with this in view. I am only talking on the lines of what some of the Ministers have done in the past; there are still Ministers sitting on these benches who were not afraid to subsidise the Italians, and to pay them a subsidy of £100,000 to enable them to build up strategic routes all round Africa. Even if the industry has to be subsidised itself, it will in the long run bring us big dividends indeed. The Government will have to be prepared to interfere with individual enterprise. The Government will have to get away from this policy of saying that their idea is to encourage private enterprise; the encouragement of private enterprise is quite all right when it needs encouragement, but Mr. Speaker, control it where it needs controlling, and plan it above all other things when it needs planning. The Minister of Economic Development is a much travelled man, like the Prime Minister; and the Prime Minister has been telling us for some time back that he is a believer in pan-Africanism. The Minister of Economic Development, with his colleague the Minister of Transport, is also a believer in pan-Africanism, and a little while ago both of them made a journey to Southern Rhodesia. I have been in Southern Rhodesia quite recently, and I made a lot of enquiries about their visits, but I was not able to find out and still have been unable to find out why they went there, and what they did when they went there, and the result of their visit. That is a thing I believe that the people of Southern Rhodesia are completely vacant about. But that raises a problem. We cannot, I believe, go in for the economic development of the Union alone. Until before the war the problem was very clear indeed, but the war has accentuated it, and the problem should be clear to this Government and the people of South Africa generally—that the policy of economic isolation which we were pursuing before the war is not a policy which is going to develop to the full the resources of the Union of South Africa, and so give to the people that standard of living that everybody today believes we should have. Is pan-Africanism only to be one of those airy things one talks about in after-dinner speeches? Is pan-Africanism going to be held before us as an ideal of the very far and distant future? Or is it going to be something real; is pan-Africanism going to be part of our whole economic development, or merely the murmurings of a new brand of South African imperialism? That is the question to be asked. Today we have the position that just as we are attempting to build up industries, we have, a few hundred miles to the north, another co-partner in the British Commonwealth of Nations doing precisely the same thing. If you travel from Johannesburg to the copper fields you have your passport examined three times and your luggage twice, and if you are a politician you are told you can only stay 30 days in the North; of course if you are a copper miner they will be quite pleased to have you. That sort of thing is ridiculous. South Africa is embarking on a policy of her own, the building up of secondary industries. Those secondary industries will obviously eventually eliminate South Africa from the Rhodesian market, and it is the height of economic folly for a young country, a sparsely populated country, a country with such rich agricultural possibilities as Southern Rhodesia, to go in for a policy of economic development of secondary industries in competition with the Union of South Africa. On the other hand, you could either by amalgamation, co-operation or federation—I do not know which “ation” you term it—you could have a policy laid down for the mutual benefit of both countries. The Prime Minister said he is in favour of this pan-Africanism. I presume the Government itself is in favour of pan-Africanism, and it seems to me some steps should be taken immediately, because Southern Rhodesia is looking forward to the post-war period just the same as we are doing, and if steps are not taken now it is quite obvious that at the end of the war it will be too late. The Union of South Africa, I believe, takes the attitude that she is the oldest country in South Africa, and automatically is becoming the industrial country of Southern Africa. The Union should produce industrial products for the whole of Southern Africa. But she cannot do it unless she has some kind of agreement, some kind of federation with the countries in the north, under which these countries will also be allowed to produce their products and find a ready market for them in exchange. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility to lay down a plan between the Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, where in exchange for our manufactured products we would, in return, be prepared to buy her agricultural products. [Time limit.]

I wish briefly to touch on a few matters which not only concern my constituency, but which affect the interests of the nation as a whole. There is one thing certain today and that is that the wages of the workers in this country no longer provide a decent standard of living. During the last elections alarming conditions were put before the public. The one motto was: “War, war, war”. After that we got misrepresentations in regard to the language question, and to my mind this was done with a view to detracting the attention of the people from the misery in which large sections already find themselves today. But at every meeting one attended one heard speakers belonging to the other side of the House telling the public: “See what a good Government we have; it has now made provision for every schoolchild to get one free meal a day.” I say it is scandalous that the Government, in times of prosperity such as we have now, is forced to admit this and to tell the people openly that the citizens of the country are living at such a low economic level that the children have to be given food in order that they may have sufficient strength to pass successfully through school. The Re-United Nationalist Party says that steps must be taken to see to it that the fathers and mothers of the children earn enough to enable them to give their children food. Only then shall we be able to cope with the danger which lies ahead of us. We want to try and prevent a large section of our people being reduced to beggary. We know that about 50 per cent. of the children of school going age are living below the breadline. The reasons are clear. The first and main reason is that the incomes of the fathers of those children are not sufficient to enable them to give their children a decent living. In 1942 it was estimated that on the Witwatersrand the average income of a poor family of five was £6 5s. per month. In most cases £3 per month had to be spent on house rent. We talk of building up a new South Africa; we talk of building up a healthy nation in South Africa. Can one hope to have a healthy nation if one has to contend with such conditions? One cannot. And yet the hon. the Minister told us only last year that the conditions prevailing among the people were having the Government’s serious attention. If that is the serious attention which the Government is giving to this problem then I would not like to think of what the position would be if the Government did not give it its serious attention. We are in such a position today that we know the children in the schools have to be fed, but we say it is degrading. It is a disgrace that the Government has to admit that that is the position. We agree that under existing circumstances, while this Government is in power, the children must be fed, but then the Government should go further than that and not just feed the children at school, it should also feed the children who are too young to go to school and who are living below the breadline. I can assure the House that if members were to go to certain parts of the Witwatersrand today they would find children there suffering the pangs of hunger because their parents cannot afford to give them meat once a day—and there are hundreds of children who go to bed hungry every night.

Shame! Disgraceful!

It is a disgrace, but that is the position. I can mention the names of Afrikaners who came to the Witwatersrand, and who were fairly well off at that time. As a result of economic pressure the financial position of those people has deteriorated. Later on one came across them living perhaps in a garage; a few months ago we found the self same people under a few sheets of corrugated iron in some slum, and when we came there they ran away and hid their shame among the coloured and native people. They were ashamed to be found existing under such conditions. The Government day and night worships before the God of War, but it is essential that it should give greater attention to the conditions which prevail among our people. And while those fine scenes and pictures which I have referred to are held up before the public with the deliberate object of detracting attention from the conditions prevailing among the people, we find that immediately after the elections were over, we had our first strikes on the Witwatersrand. Before I go into any details I want to say that we on this side as Nationalists do not want to see strikes in this country if they can possibly be avoided, and the Government can take it from me that we shall do all we can to prevent strikes. It is clear to every one of us that there is always misery after a strike, and we want to do all we can to avoid that. Anyhow, we had that strike; it was only a small scale strike, but I want to tell the Government that that is only the beginning of the trouble which we are going to have in South Africa, especially when the war is over. I am glad the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is here. The first strike which broke out was among the telegraph messengers, and hon. members know what publicity those young fellows got on the Witwatersrand. We know what sympathy was extended to these young fellows by all sections of the population and by the public in general. I am glad also that hon. members opposite took a hand in the matter, and in this connection I am thinking particularly of the hon. member for Johannesburg West (Mr. Tighy). He took the whole affair very much to heart and immediately went to see the strikers. But he went further than that. He got a memorandum from the workers, from the “General Division of South African Posts Associations” and he felt so sympathetically disposed towards them that he promised to lay all the information before the Government and to rap the Government over the knuckles for making those people live on a starvation wage. We appreciate what he did, but I now expect the hon. member for Johannesburg West to stand up for them here and with us to plead their cause. Some of these young fellows came to me and said: “I am earning £7 10s. or £8 per month, my father is an invalid and I have to help to maintain my younger brothers and sisters, but I cannot come out on the salary I am getting.” It is an intolerable state of affairs. We are glad that these youngsters have been given extra cost-of-living allowances, and a higher allowance for their bicycles, but that does not yet justify the present position. The question of raising their wages should receive the Minister’s serious attention and it is essential that concessions be made to that class of worker because they cannot live on the salaries they get. We also want to bring the position of the postmen to his notice. This section of the postal staff is treated in a very stepmotherly fashion. Most of them get only £10 per month. Many of these young men, whom I know personally, have to pay £7 per month for board and lodging in my constituency; they need more than £1 per month for tram and bus tickets to take them to town, making £8 in all. How much is left to them after deducting their pension contributions, etc.? It is a disgrace. According to the Secretary of the South African Association of Postal Officials, this section of the workers has not had any increase in salary since 1918. That is a long time, and I think the Secretary knows what he is talking about and is right in his contention. Many of those people have given up their jobs and have joined the army—in many instances they have not done so because they wanted to, but because of economic pressure—they did so because they were able to improve their positions. Now, I ask whether these people are going to be satisfied when they return; are they going to be satisfied to again work for a starvation wage? They will not be satisfied. So far as the postmen are concerned, there are first and second grade postmen. In the first grade there are 1,116 white postmen, and 17 coloured postmen, and one of the grievances of the white workers is that the coloured postmen get exactly the same wage as the white postmen get. I say here again that the white man lives on a higher level of civilisation than the coloured man, and it is no more than right that economically he should be placed on a higher level than the coloured man. Regarding the second grade postmen there are 130 white postmen as against 152 coloured. The salaries of the first grade postmen range from £115 to a maximum of £300 after thirteen years’ service, and a second grade postman can rise to £240 after ten years’ service. Now, I want to ask the Minister what is the difference between a first grade and a second grade postman? Those people do exactly the same type of work and I therefore want to ask the Minister to raise the second grade postman to first grade postman; we also want to ask the Minister to improve the position of the white postman in relation to the coloured postman. We hope the Minister will take heed of our request. Do not let us lose sight of the fact that the postman’s prospects are very poor. For those 1,246 postmen there are only 242 higher posts which they can rise to, and it is no rare case of a postman, after 40 years’ service, to get a salary of only £23 10s. per month. The position is really a very serious one. There is another problem, however, in that connection, to which I would like the Minister to give his attention, and that is Regulation No. 142 of the Postal Service. Under that Regulation a postman cannot be transferred from the general division to the clerical division when he gets £200, and if he is less than 19 years of age, or over 24 years of age. This is an obstacle in the way of many of those people. If such a young fellow draws £200 and he is just under 19 years of age, or just over 24, the road is always blocked to him so far as promotion is concerned. We want to ask the Minister to remove that discrimination. Let these young fellows who are under 19 years and over 24 years have the opportunity of promotion when they get £200 per year. Why not? This Regulation is an obstacle in the way of many a capable Afrikaner. Many of them have obtained their Junior Certificate and some of them are matriculated. Why should their future be destroyed in this way? In August of last year the Public Service Advisory Board met and this was one of the points of discussion, that is to say they discussed the question of giving a 20 per cent. increase in wages. That is contained in the Minutes in my possession. We know that not only from the official side, but also from the side of the staff there was a hundred per cent. agreement on this question of a 20 per cent. wage increase. The Advisory Board immediately conveyed a specific resolution to the Public Service Commission and to the Cabinet. Now here we have a body which is there to advise the Government, yet its recommendations were completely ignored. This caused great indignation among these people and they called on the Minister of the Interior and again strongly supported the resolution of the Advisory Board. The Minister thereupon promised them that he would refer the matter back to the Cabinet. What happened? In the meantime a big protest meeting of Government officials took place—more than 700 people were present, and they unanimously supported the resolution. A little later the Minister asked for a deputation to meet him in Pretoria, and those people were then informed that he had not referred the matter back to the Cabinet but that he, the Minister of the Interior, had discussed the matter with the Minister of Finance and with the Public Service Commission and that they would not have anything to do with it. I can only say that there is dissatisfaction in the Public Service. No employers in this country today pay as poor wages as the Government itself pays to its officials, and that is why we want to ask the Government this morning to do something to meet the position of those people and assist them. We ask the Minister to remove the friction which exists at present. These people find it impossible to come out on their wages; the Advisory Board has recommended an increase, and it is generally felt that these officials cannot come out on what they are getting; in the circumstances the Government should not turn a deaf ear to the requests of its own workers. I mentioned the question of strikes earlier on. For a few minutes I want to deal very briefly with the position of the miner. One sometimes hears the mineworkers referred to in sneering terms, but do hon. members realise that every miner, before he goes down the mine, has to show his red ticket. Now what is this red ticket? The red ticket is proof of the fact that the man has been medically examined and is physically strong and healthy; no delicate person—no person who is not thoroughly sound, is allowed to work on the mines. Consequently the strongest and healthiest section of the people have to go and work underground. But what are the consequences? The mineworkers, the flower of our nation—as one of the members of the Labour Party put it yesterday—perhaps only work a few years underground and then contract tuberculosis. We on this side of the House are of opinion that the thousands of Afrikaners who are the producers of the wealth of the country have a first claim on the profits and wealth taken out of the ground, and we are of the opinion that the mineworkers should share in those profits. We know that the mines represent a waning asset; we know that the mines are being worked out, and we think of the future when the mines will be nothing but big holes, and when the children of those men who have helped to take the wealth out of those holes will play barefooted alongside those holes. The wealth finds its way into the pockets of a small crowd of people—the majority of whom are foreign parasites, while the flower of the nation is being sacrificed. I wonder whether the Minister of Mines has ever heard a mineworker coughing, when he coughs up bits of his lungs as a result of miners’ phthisis? I have many miners in my constituency, and I do not know a single one of them who after a long period of service is still healthy and strong. The moment a miner knows he has contracted the disease he knows that he is doomed. Let us realise how that man feels. He knows he is finished, whether he leaves the mine or stays there. He knows that the disease will develop until he dies. The miner not only gives all his services and his strength, but he gives his life to get the wealth out of the soil. We on this side of the House say that prevention if better than cure, and that is why we contend that those miners who have been in the mines for fifteen years should be made to leave. Fifteen years is quite long enough. As things are to-day, when they stay there for eighteen years—they are there too long. Further, provision should be made so that a miner, when he leaves a mine, must be given other employment. Those things we must insist upon. Every important report which has lately been put before this House is pigeon-holed, it is put off, with the result that very often nothing comes of it. This Government has for a long time been busy with the miners’ phthisis problem. The Government has had the report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission in its possession for months, yet it is not yet able to tell us what plans it has made and what it is going to do. Will that report go the same way as the report on social security in respect of which the Government has come here without any policy, so that it is now going to refer the matter to a Select Committee to work out a policy for it? We are alarmed. We want to know, and the miners want to know, where they stand. We on this side of the House want all miners, after they have worked underground for fifteen years, to get a pension. I want to add that I know of a young man who has worked underground for 22 months, and in spite of all our modern conditions he is rotten with tuberculosis today. That man has lost his health in the execution of his work. He is finished today, and provision should be made for a pension on which he can live for the rest of his life. He must be looked after, and so must his wife and children. These are two of the great things which we on this side want to have. We want to be human, and the great difference is this. We say that the industry must bear the expense, the expense must constitute part of the costs of production, but we also say that the Government must be held responsible for that expenditure. The Government must accept the responsibility and the Government can then impose the necessary levy on the mines for the purpose of providing the compensation fund with the necessary revenue.

But they are their “boeties”!

Yes; they may be “boeties”, but they won’t stand it very long. So far as that is concerned I want to say that it will be impracticable and insufficient in the first instance to place the onus on the mines. Take a mine which is on the verge of being worked out, but in the meantime it has claimed a large number of victims. That mine closes down, and where is the money to come from then to compensate these people? That is why we say, “No, place the onus on the State, and the State can then get the money back from the mines by way of a levy.” I think hon. members will agree with me that there is no other way out of the difficulty. In the first place we plead for the mineworkers, we want them to share in the profits of the industry; secondly, we urge that the mineworker should not be kept underground until he is finished, but that after fifteen years he should be given another job. We go further and say that those who have contracted the disease before the 15 years are up should come under the same pension scheme for the rest of their lives. The mineworker does a very heavy job of work. If he is on night shift he has to sleep in the daytime, and he has no opportunity of developing his family life. If he works during the day the position is reversed. He has practically no time to devote to his family. These people are the cream of the nation and they must be looked after; that is what we on this side of the House are pleading for. Now I want to come to another matter. I am sure the controllers by this time know what the public think about them. So far, however, the petrol and rubber controllers have got off pretty well scot free. So far as rubber control is concerned, the position is scandalous in this country, to say the least of it. I know some people—but I do not want to mention their names—who have been using a motor-car for a year and although it is a new car and not a single tyre has been retreaded, they are granted five brand new imported tyres today. I want to take my own case. I applied for one new tyre since rubber was put under control, but I made my application in my capacity as secretary of the Nationalist Party. When I heard nothing about my application I rang the controller and he informed me that the matter was in the hands of the inspector and that I should call on the inspector. I established contact with the inspector; I went to see him. He picked up my file, looked through it, then threw it on the table and said to me: “A man like you should not have a car on the road.” Would the Minister have allowed that attitude to be adopted towards the secretary of the United Party during election time? Discrimination of a serious nature is being practised, and what is worse is this: I brought the matter to the Minister’s notice; I did so by letter, but he did not have the courtesy to reply to me. The position in regard to petrol is still worse. People who need petrol badly struggle to get a few gallons of petrol but cannot get it. On the other hand we find individuals who want to go on long pleasure tours, and they get as much petrol as they require. In this connection I want to quote a letter which I received from my constituency on Saturday—and I want to read it to the House exactly as I received it—

A scandalous conditions of affairs is brought to light here. People are continually taken to court for having illegally obtained petrol coupons. We disapprove of these things, but when there is this kind of discrimination then I say that people are driven to that sort of thing. A man is in trouble, he must have petrol for some reason or another but he cannot get it. On the other hand he finds certain people going on long holiday trips. He knows those people, and the result is that he resorts to this kind of thing in order to get it himself. We disapprove of it, but it is difficult to blame those people if they are in trouble and badly need petrol. It is the Government’s fault, but none the less those people are sent to gaol. We want the Government to give its serious attention to this matter and we want this discrimination stopped. Now, I also want to associate myself with what has already been said by this side of the House on internments. We on this side admit that things have been done which should not have been done. We also say that the Government was aware of the condition in the country, and that there were cases where the Government had to take action. On the other hand there have been cases where the Government acted too drastically, and where people who were already in trouble had greater hardships imposed upon them. With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I want to read a letter to this House in connection with this subject. Here, too, I want to read the letter exactly as it reached me—

The reply to this letter was as follows—

Here we have one of these cases where the misery and trouble people already find themselves in are aggravated by the treatment they receive from the authorities. The time for that sort of thing has passed. I do not, however, want to go into those matters any further. I only want to associate myself with this side of the House and I want to make an appeal to the Minister. We want to look at this matter from a humane point of view, and we want to ask him to do so too. From our side we have no political motives in regard to these questions. How can this side have a political motive? We have forty members and there are a mass of them on the other side of the House. We are pleading the cause of these people who have been undergoing punishment for years. We know the families of these interned men, and we know that they are living in misery and poverty. They have to sell their bits of furniture in order to keep going, and it will take them years to get on to their feet again. So far as South Africa is concerned the perils of war are over. The Minister tells us so, and that is why we say: “Very well, if that is so, these people have been punished as severely as they could be punished.” We now ask you to look at the position from a humane point of view, and to open the gates and let these people go back so that they may rebuild their domestic life. Hundreds of their dependants are living in misery and want. People who have committed crimes have been punished. The man who commits a crime should be punished, but none the less we feel that the time has now come for the Government to realise—with all the misery we have had, and all the misery which may still lie ahead of us—that these people have suffered enough, and we must not make their lot worse than it is. We ask the Government to open the gates and help these men. We on this side of the House will be very grateful if our request can be complied with. I do not want to go into details—I would merely be repeating what has already been said. To my hon. friends opposite I want to say that they must not imagine that we have any political motives in raising this question. We are making our request merely from the point of view of humanity. If I want a man to be released from the camp I am his guarantor. We on this side of the House are the guarantors of those people when the gates are opened.

Various matters have been touched upon in the course of this debate—a number of those I wanted to have dealt with, but I shall refrain from doing so because I shall have another opportunity of dealing with these points. There are, however, one or two matters on which I should like to say a few words. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has stated that the country’s liability is the rehabilitation of the returned soldier. This statement has met with universal approval—also with the approval of most members of this House. The country must keep faith with the fighting men and redeem the promises that have been made to these men when they answered the call to arms. We must create avenues of employment for them—new avenues of employment must be opened up. The second requisite—no less important—is the provision of housing and of health services. Improvement in education, and the elimination of malnutrition. To plan the re-entry into civil life of the tens of thousands of men who will be coming back, is obviously an extremely complex task. The opportunity to earn a decent livelihood must be provided. No provision of pensions or unemployment benefits will meet the case. It is not the dole that the man returning from the army wants—they want jobs to enable them to provide the necessities of life for themselves and their families. They are entitled to ask that they be given the opportunity to attain a standard more or less equal to that which they enjoyed before they joined up. I know this will cost a large sum of money. The men on enlisting were promised a square deal and it is our duty to see that they get it. This is a task not only for the Government, but for the private employer as well. This to me is priority No. 1—we must not break faith with the men who have answered the call. We have heard a great deal of criticism of the control boards in this Chamber during this Session. There is no doubt ample justification for the creation of these Boards in order to safeguard the public. Business men complain that they are inundated today with statistical forms which take up a great deal of the time of their staff. I would like the indulgence of the House for a few minutes to give the views of the leading merchants of East London on this thorny and important question. It is well that the responsible Minister should know the opinion of a responsible body of business men. I refer to the merchants of East London. I had the privilege of attending the annual meeting of the Chamber of Commerce and I had then the opportunity of hearing the views of these men who are greatly exercised about this matter. This is how they express themselves—

I have allowed the hon. member considerable latitude in reading a speech, but he cannot deal with the employment of returned soldiers because he is anticipating the Volunteers Employment Bill.

May I just conclude my quotation?

I would commend to the Minister and to members of this House these most important remarks which have fallen from a very important body of business men in my own constituency.

It is obvious that every hon. member in this House is anxious to help in the solving of the economic problems which face us, and have faced generations in the past. This is no new problem, it is just the old problem which our forefathers in the past also tried to solve, and there is no doubt when we see the abject poverty on the one hand and next to it the great wealth we realise that we have not really attempted to solve one of the worst features of what is known as the capitalistic system. As a member of the commercial community and of private enterprise which has at various times, and by various sections of this House been abused, in this particular debate, I should like to add that we also realise that there must be tremendous changes. But we say that these changes must be progressive, they must not be retrogressive. We say that they must be a process of evolution and not of revolution, and we must construct and not destruct. This capitalistic system which has been criticised has been built up over centuries. It could not have withstood the flood of time if it had not been a sound system, if it had not been built on a sound basis. It has been responsible for the great industrial development of the whole world, particularly in the United States, in Great Britain and even in South Africa. It has been responsible for the great benefits which certain sections of mankind enjoy at the present date. It was responsible for the motor car, the wireless, the telephone, canned fruits, dehydrated food and the wealth of ingenuity which man has discovered. All these came from this system which has been so slandered by this House. An analysis of capitalism is this. It consists essentially of private ownership, private ownership which gives stability and security. It has failed because it has given these only to certain people, but it nevertheless was and is basically sound in that direction. Private enterprise ensures that there is no economic wastage which is apparent in many other systems. On the other hand, it has a driving motive, a driving power for incentive, and that is the profit motive; and although hon. members, particularly the hon. members representing the Labour Party, decry this profit motive I cannot, for my part, see any replacement of the great force which drives the energy of man. Finally, it has the controlling feature of what is known as competition, competition which prevents monopolistic tendencies, competition which gives a fair payment for services rendered. Unfortunately this does not always come into play. But, sir, this system has many advantages. It has created the energies of men, and directed their energies. It has tried in this way to solve the greatest economic problem, and that is the waste of human labour. It definitely has not solved it 100 per cent., and I am quite confident that no system will solve it completely. It has also built up the individualism, independence and freedom which we know as democracy. Now, sir, there are disadvantages. I have mentioned the contrast of wealth and abject poverty. I have seen in the discussions on social welfare and social security and taxation an attempt to try to level up this sad state of affairs, and in that way I think we are making a definite move in the right direction. It also suffers from the evils of antisocial monopolies. In America they have had to enforce anti-trust and anti-cartel laws to prevent monopolies exploiting the consumer. But, Sir, under ordinary circumstances competition is a sufficient safeguard against this particular evil. We are now developing a new economy; we describe it as a national planned economy—a very nice phrase, nice-sounding words—but I regret to say that I, as a member of this House see it more in the light of the national bureaucracy and despotism. I do not see that this is in any way going to solve our economic problems. We must decide whether we are prepared to allow private enterprise or bureaucracy to rule this country. We must decide whether all the advantages which I have described in our system of private enterprise are greater than the disadvantages of the bureaucratic system. We know the disadvantages of the bureaucratic system. They are not confined to this country of ours; they are common all over the world. There is a narrow outlook, due no doubt to very poor wages, lack of opportunities, lack of promotion and lack of incentive to better oneself, and that in itself must be responsible to a large extent for the narrow outlook of the bureaucrat. Then, Sir, we know how he is bound up with regulations and red tape, bound up with returns and more returns, in duplicate and triplicate. We find him a great theorist, but with little realist appreciation of the difficulties of the world. We find him, because he is not in private enterprise, not concerned with the waste of public money due to extravagance or neglect, things that the capitalist system cannot afford to overlook. We also have his inability to attend to ordinary everyday things, his inability to answer correspondence—to such an extent that the mayor of Benoni described the pace of a letter sent from Pretoria as at the rate of 60 yards per day. The whole system of bureaucracy is bad. There is no such thing as dismissal for inefficiency; and even absolute neglect does not ensure dismissal. And with a system like that you cannot develop the efficiency which is to solve the problems of this world. Therefore, Sir, I add again you must decide whether you want private enterprise or bureaucracy to solve the problems of this country. Now, Sir, I should like to refer particularly to certain attacks that have been made on the commercial community of this country. These attacks have been general in their scope. They have attacked the commercial community—the distributor as a middleman, a profiteer, a parasite, something to be eliminated, and the attack has mainly come from the farming members on both sides of the House. From my experience of commerce, the men engaged in it are hard-working, conscientious and efficient. If the attack had been on the lines that under this system they are making too much money, I should be inclined to agree with it, but to take them and suggest an elimination process—I cannot accept that as fair comment. I would like to add in reply to those hon. members who have attacked commerce that at no time has commerce requested subsidies from the Government of this country. At no time have they asked for the operation of protection. At no time have they obtained appropriations to cover some extravagance which may have occurred or losses due to inefficiency or neglect. Sir, I have even heard an attack on the grounds that the commercial man was going into farming, and that he was escaping his taxation by investing his money in farming. I would ask why is he doing it. He is doing it because there is one section of the population who are able legally, as the result of legislation, to evade these particular income taxes which the ordinary man has to bear. The commerce of this country would welcome the farmer into commerce, but it would be apparent that the taxation methods of this country are not equitable. Therefore when a commercial man decides to go into farming, he is only doing what the farming community have done for years. Surely, Sir, this can always be rectified if this particular law were made more equitable and if capital expenditure of any sort was definitely not a charge against income as it is in this particular instance. I also find that all this has been built up by a system of propaganda which has been directed from the Agricultural Department, a system of propaganda which has accused the old system of distribution, abused its methods, and abused the individual. And I would like to say that I think that in this particular Agricultural Department there is a section of economists who are promoting bureaucratic nationalisation for their own ends, who are developing under emergency regulations methods, not for the purpose of helping the war effort, but for the purpose of establishing themselves in a bureaucratic system, and who today are fighting for the continuation of their powers not only during the war period—which every member of the commercial community is prepared to support—but to maintain them after the war period, so that they shall be established for time immemorial. This tendency in the Agricultural Department is, I find, a tendency in bureaucracy all over. I would now like to refer to the national planned economy which the producers of this country and which the Agricultural Department have evolved for us, and in that I would refer to the Control Boards which have been in existence for some considerable time. The first of these is that of the Deciduous Fruit Board. At various stages of the debate in this House we have had some glaring facts brought to our notice. I make bold to state that neither producer nor consumer has in any way benefited from this wonderful planned economy which is being evolved not only by the Deciduous Fruit Board—we should not blame them entirely—but by the economists of the Agricultural Department. And, Sir, it is not only for one year that these blunderings and mistakes have been made; it has been a matter of three years, and not only when there is a growing market in this country which could absorb all that we could produce, but bigger than at any other time. By their methods they have withheld fruit from the people, and less fruit is now being sold than ever before when it went through the ordinary channels of private enterprise and the distribution was in the hands of the middleman who acted in the past. In addition, there are these tremendous sums of money that have been paid to this Control Board, money which could have been better spent in trying to help the poorer farmers, the poorer people, and social services in this country. Money which has been wasted and thrown down the drain, in addition to the waste of good food which the country has experienced. One feature of a sound economic system is that there must be a minimum wastage of human labour. I ask you, can you say that that has been the case with this Deciduous Fruit Board. I would also like to say that this planned economy has no proper basis. You have a Board on which up to six months ago there was not one consumer member. There was not one man who knew the practical application of distribution, and yet it has been operated as a planned economy Board in this country. I put it you that the position is farcical.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When business was suspended I was trying to describe to the House the national economy planned by the Control Boards in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture. I had got to the stage where I was trying to prove that there was greater economic waste under this system of distribution than had ever occurred during a period in which private enterprise had distributed the commodities controlled by this Board. I mentioned the tremendous markets that were available not only due to increase in population, but due to the fact that there was a greater amount of money in circulation, and yet I am convinced that the amount of fruit consumed by the public was less than it had ever been in former years. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) gave certain figures in connection with this Board. He showed how the farmer received 8s. a case for pears, and how this Board distributed these pears at 37s. a case. Surely at no time has private distribution charged a figure of 29s. for distribution; and yet on this occasion there was a loss of £56,000 still to be met. No, this economy as planned is of no benefit to the farming community, and it is definitely of no benefit to the consumer; but it has been definitely of terrific expense to the taxpaying public. A most costly distribution system, the most costly we could ever imagine, has been built up. In the old days a farmer was allowed to bring in his fruit either to the market or to the retailer, and they came from Stellenbosch, Constantia and the other districts. But now all that has stopped—the cheapest form of distribution from the producer to the consumer has been taken out of the hands of the farmer, and instead we have this body with a monopolistic basis controlling the industry, and compelling the farmers to send every bit of fruit through its hands. You have the case of Mr. Molteno, who had developed an economy to meet his own case. He had put up his own stores in which he sold his products. He was told that he could not do that, and that he should not do it, and the result was that the Board bought his peaches at 2s. and sold it back to him at 3s. in his own store. I will leave the Deciduous Fruit Board. I do not want to continue flogging a dead horse. The Citrus Board is the next Board I would like to tackle. Its history, though not as bad as that of the Deciduous Fruit Board, shows that it has not been a great success. I need only refer to Report No. 1 of the Social and Economic Planning Council in which it took up this matter. This report states—

They point out that the estimate for the 1941 crop was 6,500,000 cases, and that some 1,700,000 cases of citrus fruit, including 380,000 cases of grape fruit were not made available for consumption. It gives other figures which I shall not waste the time of the House on, and states: “The council deprecates the loss of this very valuable food.” It is obvious that no producer wants to see the fruits of his labour go rotten on the land, and yet this is the solution put up to us by those two particular boards. I should like next to pass on to the Wheat Control Board, and I do so with a certain amount of temertity. On each side of the House there is a member of the Wheat Control Board. It is also the blue-eyed baby of the Agricultural Department, and yet I would like to point out a few little things which occur under its method of control. First of all I cannot see how you can possibly plan any economy through a body that is dominated entirely by farmers’ representatives. One consumer member on a body of fourteen is all the representation the consumer is allowed, and then the representative is not a very effective consumer member. The price of wheat, according to the Minister, was worked out at a cost of 34s. on a yield of six bags per morgen; that included all costs, including interest and, I think, a 5 per cent. return. How is it possible for this body, if it was a fair representation of the views of the people, to put forward the price of 40s. for wheat, a price of 40s. when the wheat producers in Australia are getting a matter of 12s. When in the old days of peace wheat could be imported into this country at 9s. per bag, they said to the consumer: “Look, we have difficulty in the production of wheat in this country; protect us; give us a certain amount of protection; give us a price of 22s. 6d. for wheat, and if war comes, when you need wheat the price shall remain stabilised. The consumers of the country will benefit then in return.” And yet this very body in time of war recommends a price of 40s. a bag for wheat. This Wheat Board handles not only the grading, but does the checking up and inspecting of the hygiene of bakeries, and yet is a Board dominated by the producers. What do they know of the hygiene of bakeries; what do they know of the millers’ margin? It is obvious that they are not in the position to know, and the result is this control is slipping out of the hands of the Board. It had become a bureaucratic institution—strong, with terrific funds behind it, and dictatorial in power. We had the case last year of the bread scandal, when ordinary private enterprise and competition was prepared to sell at 6d. The Wheat Board said: “Oh, no, you don’t; you are not allowed to sell at 6d.; you must sell at 6½d., and if you don’t you will be prosecuted”. And people were prosecuted for selling bread at 6d. and yet, who were these wonderful experts who decided that the price of bread must be 6½d. In most cases they were doctors of economics.

And bakers.

The bakers in Johannesburg were prepared to sell bread at 6d. and the hon. member should know that as a member of the Wheat Control Board. No, they were the experts. Without any knowledge these wonderful people must tell the rest of the country what to do. But there is a feature which in my mind is the worst of all and that is the protection which it gives to milling interests, the protection which it gives to established milling interests. It gives this protection in the form of controlling milling quotas and licences and the bigger the miller in the past the bigger his quota is and remains, and the smaller the miller, however much he may want to advance and develop, even though the market is round his door, he is not allowed to do so. To illustrate this point I want to refer to a case I know of in the Upington area. There is a Co-operative Society there. Large quantities of wheat are produced in the area. There is another mill at Kakamas. Their markets are around their doors, yet the Wheat Control Board insists that the wheat be sent to Port Elizabeth, Cape Town and other places: This is their planned economy. In fact the position has developed that the big thing about the purchase of a mill today is not its machinery but its wheat quota. Here in a necessary article like the food of the people we are developing a protective industry, like the liquor business. Nothing will make me appreciate the fact that this is a sound system. But no doubt hon. members know that the millers are on velvet. It is not only the private enterprise millers but also the co-operative millers. I refer to Sasko. This concern has built up a tremendous milling business—it has not built it up by competition or by its own energies, it has built it up by purchasing the quotas of other mills. How can we have a stable economy if that goes on? But there is a further point I want to raise. This concern of Sasko is also a baker. Its share capital is subscribed according to the amount of wheat a member produces and hands in. It does not pay taxation—no taxation whatever. I would not mind if that were to benefit the small farmer, the man who ekes out a livelihood, but that is not the position. This evasion of taxation—legally I admit, is of benefit to the big farmer, to the man who supplies thousands of bags. So the big farmer is not only a farmer, but he is an industry as well, and he makes a further profit out of Sasko. I think it is about time that this whole matter of the agricultural economy of this country was cleared up. I would also refer to the wheat members of the Board. Does one of them represent the small wheat farmer in the country, is there one member who represents the growers say in the Upington or Brits area? The people who produce 40 or 50 bags. No, it is a body representative of the big capitalistic farmer, it does not represent the people in the farming production as a whole. I will now refer to the Maize Control Board. This body also is not representative. It represents sectional interests. It has no true economic plan because if it had it would in the last year, when we had that tremendous shortage have built up a reservoir of maize, instead of which we had starvation and shortages all over the country—yet the years before it was exporting maize. Is that a policy? And yet under its control it has all stages of the industry, and even now it is trying to get further sectional control by means of the high sounding phrase of one way channel. I can show hon. members, as most people in the country know, that terrific quantities of maize have been damaged during the last year, and I make bold to say that this was due to the sectional policy of this Board. There is one Board which I want to let down lightly—I think it has really tried to carry its responsibilities to the full, and that is the Dairy Control Board which has made an attempt to solve the problem on national lines. From all this hon. members will see surely that in the hands of the economists of the Agricultural Department and in the hands of these sectional boards this country is being bled white. I am not prepared to blame at all times the producer members of these boards. If you see the meetings they have, you will realise that it is not their every day task to do this work—the job is really left to the organisations which have been built up—it is left to the Wheat Board which costs us £50,000, and the Maize Board which costs about the same amount of money, and the other Boards whose balance sheets I have not obtained. I feel it is the narrow approach which is given to our economic problem which is responsible. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) the other day made an attack on the housewife.

I did?

I quite appreciate there is no need for me to stand up for the housewife, but what occurred to me was the narrowness of his economy. This is the way his mind was working. He said: “Look, you pay 1s. for a marrow which is brought to your door.”

The hon. member must not refer to speeches made in a previous debate.

Very well, I shall leave that matter alone and I want to refer then to the economic planning that is taking place in industry. I am not satisfied that this also is a genuine attempt to try and get the best out of our whole system, and at the same time to correct its abuses. I see for instance the Industrial Development Corporation is undertaking certain things that to me do not look like a solution of our difficulties. We have this Industrial Development Corporation under nice sounding phrases, underwriting shares in the Imperial Cold Storage which surely—as every member of this House knows—does not need £96,000 of the Industrial Development Corporation’s money. Here I feel that we have failed miserably in the application of something which could really have been an asset to the country. Finally, I should like to refer to another venture in bureaucratic nationalisation, and that is our Bureau of Information, a body, the necessity of whose existence during the war time I acknowledge, but that body today is trying to push itself on to the country after the war period. I look upon this as also another bureaucratic tendency in the economic life of the people. I am quite prepared, if this country wants it, to go in for nationalisation, but is must be true nationalisation, not sectionalisation. It must be nationalisation which will ensure that the efficiency of the most efficient units is used, and that I cannot see developing out of the present scheme. I do not believe in nationalisation because I maintain that it would require revolution and not evolution. And the cost to this country and to the world in general would be tremendous. We hear that our national income has to be increased. If we adopt the policy of restriction which is being adopted at present we can never increase our national income. We all remember the debacle of the old gold standard—that is still fresh in our memories. A similar position will arise here, a position under which we shall go lower and lower, and when enterprise and capital will be chased away from this country. I would finally like to apologise to the genuine official who is the obedient servant of this country, the one who does work and who does set out to do the tasks he has to do. I will back him and I will back the principle that he must be adequately paid and not as he is at present. That is the type of man I will back—and I want to take that to its logical conclusion and say that you want the best man in the right job. But I will not back a system which changes our civil servants from obedient servants to ruthless masters. [Time limit.]

I wish to associate myself with hon. members on this side of the House who have expressed their thanks to the Minister of Justice for the release of those Union citizens who were locked up in the internment camps. But in thanking him I also want to ask him to give favourable consideration to the question of also letting out the other people who are still in the camp. I should like to refer hon. members to what happened in 1914—I want to refer them to the policy which in those days was followed by Gen. Botha’s Government in regard to the rebels, of whom I was one. Over a period of eight months all of us were brought to court and sentenced. After that, within a period of, say, fifteen months everybody was released and we were all back on our farms. The only restrictions imposed upon us was that we were to stay in our district, though, with the leave of the magistrate, we could go outside our district and even outside our province. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we compare the offences committed by the people who are still in the internment camps, with those committed by us in those days, then surely we must come to the conclusion that the crime of rebellion was much more serious than that of ordinary sabotage. And to show you how serious were the offences committed in those days I only have to point out that one of us had to sacrifice his life for having committed those offences. But we are also conscious of the fact that this would not have happened if hostile elements had not been at work behind the scenes to bring pressure to bear so that these people should be sacrificed. And I want to assure the Minister of Justice that the very same hostile spirit which was at work behind the scenes at that time is at work again today and is making itself felt to disapprove of the concessions the Minister has made. These voices are already being heard outside the House in regard to the concessions the Minister has made, but we want to tell the Minister of Justice that we greatly appreciate what he has done. We also want to say to him that, if we study the results of the policy followed by Gen. Botha’s Government in those days, one thing is clear, and that is that that policy led to peace and quiet in the minds of the population. We want to assure him that if he were to decide to also release the other Union citizens who are still in the internment camp, the direct result would be peace and quiet throughout the country, and satisfaction in the minds of a great many people. That is why I am pleading with this Government to pursue the same policy as the Government in 1914 pursued. I also want to associate myself with the appeal made by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) to the hon. the Minister of Finance in regard to the Oudstryders. When I speak of the Oudstryders I include myself among them, and I want the House to realise that although some of us give the appearance of being healthy and strong such is not the case. Most of us are broken men, broken in health. We are not enjoying the degree of health which we should be enjoying at our age. But I want to say this to the Minister of Finance that if we were to see the majority of these Oudstryders together I am convinced that he would never forget it, no matter how long he lived. Some time ago at Harrismith I saw forty of them together. They are people I knew in the days when they were young and in perfect health; strong, virile men. I was asked on that occasion to say a few words, but when I saw them I could not speak. There they stood—one could see from the look on their faces that they were hungry. There they stood, dressed in clothes unworthy of a white man, and that is the condition in which these men who were prepared to sacrifice everything for their people and their mother country find themselves in today. I had the privilege the other day of seeing the Minister in the lobbies accompanied by his mother. When I saw her there I looked at them, and I could not help thinking of the Oudstryders. When I saw her I could not help thinking of her as one of the flowers of the Afrikaner people, and my thoughts went back to the mothers of those days—those days of great struggle in our history. I have seen those other people, too, in that condition of virile health. I have seen those people, too, equally well dressed, but what do they look like now? Today I can see them there, hungry and badly clothed. They are in a state of neglect, and that is why I feel constrained to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance; I feel constrained to ask him to tell us what his attitude towards the Oudstryders is going to be. I must ask him whether he is willing to grant them this very small pension of £7 10s. per month, with retrospective effect. And now let me come to another matter—the question of the farm tenants and bywoners—or rather let me put it this way: that section of our population who are not land owners. We find that this problem is linked up with the Oudstryder problem. Let hon. members go to the Free State and see who are the people working on the roads? Who are the people working for our municipalities? They will find that 80 per cent. of those people are either children or grandchildren of Oudstryders. They are the people who are in a state of poverty today. They are the people who find it practically impossible to make a living. We can see them drifting from the farms, where they are no longer able to make a living, to the towns, and what happens to them there? We find them in the slums, and we find that it is in those slums that our nation is being destroyed. The children whom they have brought with them from the farms to the slums in the towns are not able to stand up to the conditions which they find there, and the immediate result is that a destructive process is making itself felt among them. I therefore want to appeal to the Government to give favourable consideration to the question of making provision for those who are tenants today and for those who have no land of their own. We know that in days like the present it is especially the farm tenant, who is still in a position to make a living out of a little breeding stock, who is getting into a very difficult position on account of the fact that his rent has gone up to such an extent, that it has become practically impossible for him to hire any land. The hiring of land is beyond these people today. The man who wants to hire land can no longer hire it today, and the direct consequence is that the cattle and sheep which he has bought with so much trouble are being neglected, and in many instances he has to sell them because he has nowhere to put them. We want to ask the Government to give this their earnest and favourable consideration and to make provision for that section of the population. Now let me come to another matter. The charge is often made against the Free State, and also against other parts of the country, that the farmers in these areas do not pay their servants adequate wages. The farmer will only be able to pay his servants better wages when the price of farm products is fixed on a proper basis. But now let us see whether the workers on the farms are really so badly paid. One should not forget that farm labourers are supplied with free accommodation, free water and fuel, and that they are allowed to keep a certain number of cattle and stock. Their children are paid, and in most instances their parents and dependants are also allowed to live with them. These old creatures who can no longer do any work live with them. All these are privileges which they enjoy, and I am convinced that if one takes all these matters into account it will be found that the farm labourers in the employ of the farmer are actually better paid than many of the workers in the large towns. There is one other point I wish to touch upon, and that is in regard to public health. It is a definite fact that the people are in very bad health. I am speaking now of my own constituency when I say that in some parts people live thirty-five and forty miles away from the district surgeon. It often happens that by the time the district surgeon arrives on the scene the people who needed his services are dead. We want to ask the Government to give serious consideration to the question of adopting a different policy so far as district surgeons are concerned. We on this side of the House favour a policy under which those district surgeons will be full time officials because only then will they be able to give their full attention to those services. At the moment the less privileged section of the community is in a humiliating position because if they want anything done by the district surgeon, or if they need him to come to their homes, they have to go to him like beggars with their hats in their hands. They have to go and beg as though they were asking for charity. It is humiliating and degrading that in a country like South Africa the less privileged sections of the community should be placed in such a position, and I therefore earnestly appeal to the Minister of Justice to see to it that that section of the population is also considered, and that provision is made so that justice will be done to them—because it is that section of the population which today is in the majority. If disease is not prevented I foresee a sad future for the people of South Africa. We shall never be able to turn a starving child into an asset to the State, and means must be found to prevent these conditions. I am convinced that if a sufficient number of district surgeons was available they would be able to look after all the sick and they would be in a position to bring about a change in those conditions.

The House has listened to a bitter attack by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) on our control system, and on our Agricultural Department.

Justified.

It may be from the hon. member’s point of view but one must remember that the hon. member for Orange Grove is the representative of the distributors in this House and he has put forward the case of the distributors against the Government’s policy of control boards and farmers’ co-operations in this country. Now, his one object is—when one knows whom he represents—not only to destroy the Deciduous Fruit Board but to destroy our Marketing Act and our system of control boards which would then give them the old control which we had—that was the control by commerce. Now I ask any producer on either side of the House whether they are willing to go back to the old system or not? Our present system of control means a fair price to the producer and a fair price to any distributor who is necessary in the distribution of our products, and also a fair price to the consumer.

The consumer does not say so.

Oh, yes; now, what control did we have in the past? In the past commerce used to say to the producer: “I shall pay you so much for your product,” and the producer simply had no say, he simply had to accept, and commerce would say to the consumer: “My price is so much to you for this product” and the consumer had no say as to what he was prepared to pay. That was an impossible position and that is why the Marketing Act and the system of control boards has come into force. Now the hon. member has attacked certain of our control boards. He made a special effort with regard to the Deciduous Fruit Board. I think every consumers’ representative in this House has done the same. The Deciduous Fruit Board is an unfortunate control board which only had control over the producers’ prices and not over the consumers’ prices. That is why they have been able to attack that Board as they did. I hope that the position is going to be changed when the Board will be given powers to dictate also the price to the consumer. He went on further to attack the Citrus Board, which I know something about. He said that in previous years, not this year so much, but in the previous years many hundreds of thousands of oranges were allowed to rot on the trees. That statement may be correct in a way, but the fact is that the Citrus Board sold more than double the amount of fruit at less than half the price that our middlemen did the previous year. The Citrus Board increased the sales of the fruit up to 100 per cent. and reduced the purchase price by half what it was. That fruit that rotted on the trees was unfortunate, we all admit, but the position that was created was due to the war. A certain amount of fruit had to be held in reserve in case shipping was available for export, and it is only out of export that the citrus industry has been able to make a decent profit. That fruit unfortunately got overripe, and was unfit for human consumption. But the critics have not gone into the facts of the case; they have mentioned only those facts that will upset the consumers. If they had admitted that under those conditions the price of oranges that were handled by the Board was reduced by more than half, and that double the quantity was supplied I think the consumer would be satisfied. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) also mentioned the Wheat Board. I do not know much about wheat as it is not a product that is produced in my area. But in regard to mealies, he said, the Mealie Control Board should have built up a reserve, knowing that our seasons are uncertain and that the consumers would be penalised if they have a bad season. The position is, Mr. Speaker, that these gentry, the speculators and middlemen, when our crops of mealies are ripe they go out to buy and get control of the whole of that crop at as low a price as possible. Our elevators are filled with their mealies, and when they have control of the crop they then fix their own higher price on the mealies to be sold to the public. They cannot do it today, but that is what they did when they were allowed to do so. Unfortunately, the Control Board was not able during the war period to build up a big reserve of mealies in this country, because unfortunately we have not had a surplus of mealies for that purpose. The position is that we have been short of mealies practically ever since the war started, and it was with the greatest difficulty that the Mealie Control Board was able to supply by rationing the needs of the people of this country. In fact, they had to ration mealies practically through the whole period of the war. In many instances farmers who had to feed stock had to go without mealies altogether, and humans who had prior claims on our mealie crop were not allowed to get the full amount that they required. I think that the middlemen’s case is a dead one; the people of this country know now what the position is. With regard to the Deciduous Fruit Board, the body to which the critics have directed most of their attacks, they now know that when the Deciduous Fruit Board were selling grapes at ¾d. retailers were selling these same grapes at 6d. and 8d. a lb. What was the justification of that? That was daylight robbery, and I am glad that the consumers of this country have had their eyes opened now. I quite agree with the hon. member when he states that he thinks Control Boards should have more consumers’ representatives on them. I would welcome it if more consumers’ representatives were on our boards.

Make it fifty-fifty.

I would not object even if it were fifty-fifty, because I think consumers are reasonable people and people with brains and that they would see the case for a fair price to the producers and assist us to control our products in the interests both of the producers and the consumers. In fact, I wish to say that I know the Citrus Board has now requested the Minister to put two consumers’ representatives on their board because they have one there in an unofficial capacity, Mrs. Jenkins, a lady well known in this country, and she has expressed herself as astounded at the sound way the Control Board conducts its affairs, that the consumers’ interests have been well served; and she has not a word to say against it at all. She also served on the Dairy Industry Control Board and made the same remark about it. She said the Board is run well and that the way the prices are fixed and the whole business is conducted is most satisfactory to the consumers in this country. So I feel that the consumers of this country, when they are educated by us, will know who are their friends and who are not. But I must say that these Distributors’ Associations, which have now formed a combine, are out to educate the consumers on what are false premises. They are out to create public opinion, to try to force the hands of the Government to abandon the Marketing Act, and to do away with the Control Boards, so as to give them a free hand to exploit the producers and the consumers as they did in the old days. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to pursue that subject any further. I wish to say to the Minister, who is a member of the Cabinet Food Committee, that we farmers who are consumers of mealies are very perturbed about the present position of the mealie crop for the coming year. We feel we do not want to experience what we did in 1942 when we had a crop of 15,000,000 bags and farmers who had to feed stock to produce essential foodstuffs—that is the most important protective foodstuffs, such as milk, butter and eggs—were unable to get mealies of any sort whatsoever, and our natives on the farms were short of mealies too, with the result that our shortage of native labour was further increased, because no native will work unless he has got his mealie ration. Now, Mr. Speaker, this last year we had a crop of approximately 25,000,000 bags, and that crop proved not to be sufficient for the needs of this country. The native traders in my area have repeatedly made representations that they were unable to get 50 per cent. of the mealies they required to feed their natives. In some cases their permits allowed them far less than 25 per cent. of the mealies they needed, and as far as feeding stock was concerned, for the production of milk and butter, and also the feeding of poultry, our permits were cut down to such an extent that many of our farmers went out of the business of producing eggs, and the dairy farmers sold their cattle to go in for the production of beef. That was the position when we had 25,000,000 bags, and I am quite certain from the present position, this year we will not get more than 15,000,000 bags. That means we are going to be in a terribly desperate position. It means that many of the essential foodstuffs that the people of this country must have will not be produced, because if you cannot feed your cows they cannot produce milk. It is the same with poultry—if you cannot feed them you cannot get eggs. I feel that something must be done now at once and that we should not wait until this position arises and becomes a crisis. And I should like to say to the Minister he has the Supplies Board as part of the food organisation, on which the Food Controller is himself, and I hope that he will take steps at the present time to try and import mealies into this country. I know that it is a difficult thing to ask him to (do, because I understand the Argentine also has had a very poor crop. But he must do his very best to import mealies, and to import as many mealies as he can into the country. I know that the Minister will set out all the difficulties with regard to this request, but we are importing into this country many things that are not nearly as necessary as mealies. We are importing more fertiliser and salt, which I understand we were producing in this country up to almost the extent of our requirements. There are, however, many other things which are being imported, and which are really luxury articles and articles that the people of this country can do without. I say that we should leave these articles out and concentrate on the importation of mealies, which is the most important foodstuff that this country requires. Our natives will have nothing else as food. You can give them any supplementary food you like, but if a native does not get his mealies he does not feel that he has had food. I know the Minister is aware of the serious position in regard to native labour on the farms. If we are going to be short of mealies, that position is going to be aggravated tenfold, and those natives that cannot be provided with mealies on the farm will drift to the towns, where they are not wanted. I hope that the Minister will treat my request seriously, and do whatever is possible to import as many mealies as can be obtained, and not let the matter slide and then have to meet an impossible position when the crisis arises. If he does the food position will become impossible and everybody will suffer.

I want to say at the outset that to my sorrow I noticed in the newspapers this morning that the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry is seriously ill, and has been taken to hospital where he will probably have to undergo an operation. Even though politically we entirely differ, we sympathise with him in his illness. In the circumstances I want to express my sympathy and also to express the hope that he will soon recover so that he may be able to resume the work resting on his shoulders. I do not want to interfere in the minor quarrel between the hon. member for Drankensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) and the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring). I prefer to leave it to them to fight it out between themselves. I merely want to say that we on this side of the House support the policy of Control Boards, but we want those Control Boards to have complete control. Only then will it be possible for them to be a success. But when I look at this House I cannot refrain from saying to the Minister of Finance that to my mind these empty Ministerial benches are in the nature of a scandal. We are here discussing important matters on the Estimates, and the policy of various departments is being discussed; this morning, for instance, questions of mining policy were discussed. Tuberculosis and labour questions were also discussed, and hon. members on the Government side discussed agricultural matters and questions affecting the food of the people, and all we can say is that the Government are showing contempt., not only for the Opposition but also for members on their own side when practically from the start only one Minister has been in his seat. From time to time some other Minister looked in for a moment but for the rest of the time Ministers have been absent. It must be an insult to members on the Government benches, I am sure, to have to talk to empty Ministerial benches, so that they cannot expect any reply from Ministers. I am not saying this in a vindictive spirit, but I am making these remarks in order to prevent debates being unnecessarily prolonged through Ministers not being here to listen to our difficulties. We also represent the public outside, and I therefore hope that Ministers will in future be in their seats. I want to express my gratification at the fact that the Minister of Justice has gone so far as to release people from the internment camps—internees who are citizens of this country. Now, may I be allowed to appeal to him not to release these people one by one—not to let them out like medicine drops from a bottle, but to open the gates and give these people their freedom. If he does so the Minister will find that the troubles he has been afraid of will not be experienced. I want the Minister to go a little further and also to release those people whom he still proposes to detain—those few policemen and the people who have committed acts of sabotage. I want to make an earnest appeal to him to adopt a big hearted attitude, and not to be small, by detaining a small crowd of people, which may have the effect of rousing further ill-feeling in the country. I want to associate myself with what was said this morning and on previous occasions by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and by the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) about our Oudstryders. The Minister may perhaps say: “Well, you were in power at one time, why did you not do something?” I want to reply at once that the Nationalist Party always had a Coalition Government and a Coalition Government to all intents and purposes has always been something in the nature of a punishment to the people and not a blessing. Consequently it was impossible to do anything for the Oudstryder. There used to be two organisations of Oudstryders, and the Minister of Finance told them that they should form one organisation as he found it impossible to negotiate with two of them. He told them that they should form one organisation and that if they did so he would discuss matters with them. Before the elections took place they were told that great things were going to be done for the Oudstryders. The pension the Oudstryder gets today is a scandal. The only thing the Minister has done is to put the age limit back from 65 to 60 years. Beyond that they get nothing more than an ordinary old age pension. The Minister should realise that the people are fighting in the present war, and those who took part in the 1914-’18 war, get their pensions from the very start. The old heroes of the Boer War—because that is what we can call them—have now been waiting forty years, and what have they been waiting for? Have they been waiting to get an old age pension if they are very poor? The Minister of Finance should show that he is big, and he should show that he appreciates the acts of heroism of these people. Only a small number of them are left—I do not think there are more than 25 or 30 per cent. The others have largely died off in poverty and misery. We can no longer fob those people off with a small old age pension. I shall be glad if the Minister, when replying to the debate, will make a statement. According to the late President Kruger’s proclamation those people are entitled to £300. That money has been outstanding now for about forty years, so what would it amount to at 5 per cent. interest? I ask the Minister to pay these people a round sum and give them a decent pension, not based on the old age pension but on the acts of heroism which these people have performed for the freedom, independence and well-being of the Afrikaner nation. We on this side of the House—especially the few Oudstryders who are still left—feel that justice should be done. I am not pleading on my own behalf, but on behalf of the people who are in a condition of misery and poverty. I am glad to see that the Minister of Native Affairs has just come in because I want to put a few questions to him. I notice his Department is now zealously interfering with the natives on the farms. I have a circular letter here from the Department of Native Affairs, a letter sent by the Secretary for Native Affairs, and it amounts practically to laying down fixed working hours, it amounts to laying down provisions as to how houses are to be constructed, the appointment of inspectors, and practically speaking to an instruction as to how the work on the farms must be done. I do not know whether the Minister of Native Affairs issued this circular letter after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture. I think if he had consulted the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Lands he would not have sent out this letter, because those Departments know what the conditions are and they know that the farmers are the best employers. But now the Minister of Native Affairs steps in and this is what he says in his circular letter—

In other words, he can proclaim certain districts and those districts are now to be treated in accordance with what is laid down in the circular letter. These, of course, are only provisional suggestions, but we want to warn the Minister of Native Affairs in good time. We do not want that policy of the Department of Native Affairs to be applied to our farms. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Lands should be strong enough to take action in regard to labour on our farms and in regard to the natives living there, if it becomes necessary.

It was only sent to the farmers’ organisations for the purpose of discussion.

I know it was only for discussion and that being so, is not this the proper time to discuss it? It is suggested that inspectors should be appointed, and further, that provision should be made in respect of housing, feeding and treatment of farm labour wherever they come within the scope of the definition of native labour. That is to say, they can form trade unions, and it can be laid down with the assistance of the inspectors for instance that the working hours are to be from eight in the morning until 6 o’clock in the afternoon. Now we know that dairy farmers for instance have to start as early as three o’clock in the morning but the trade unions will be in a position to make a condition that they shall not work those particular hours. It is further suggested that a registration system shall be introduced and that the employers shall pay for that. This circular constitutes an interference with the liberty and the freedom which the farmers so far have always had to arrange with their natives what hours they will work and what sort of houses they will have. I assume the natives are now to be given spring mattresses and that we shall have to build rooms for them in accordance with conditions to be laid down. I repeat that the natives living on the farms are the happiest of all natives. They are happiest in their own huts, which have been constructed in accordance with their own desires, and their own architectural ideas. Now we are supposed to destroy these huts and go in for all sorts of novelties. I want to ask the Minister to leave these things to the Department of Agriculture which knows exactly what the farmers require. Has the Native Affairs Department consulted the Agricultural Department about the circular? It seems to me that Communism is beginning to show itself here, and is going to be encouraged by a circular of this kind. I hope the Minister will recall it and that there will be no need to raise this matter again in Parliament. Now I should like to say a few words about the Department of Agriculture. I notice from the Press, and I hope it is correct, that the Minister of Lands has been appointed as Acting Minister of Agriculture. In the Transvaal unprecedented floods are being experienced and the machinery to deal with the position is in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. In 1927 a Drought Relief Act was passed, Act No. 25 of 1927, under which districts or parts of districts can be proclaimed as drought stricken areas, and farmers can then be assisted through the agency of the magistrate. That Act was amended in 1932 by Act No. 22 and the word “floods” was inserted in the provisions of the Law. Consequently, the machinery is available and all the Minister has to do is to put that machinery into operation. I notice that the Minister went to the Northern Provinces by aeroplane, and we had hoped that he would have availed himself this morning of the first opportunity to make a statement in this House. It is impossible for all of us to run away to the Northern Territories. Some hon. members have already been compelled to go up on account of the serious position prevailing there, but we should like to have a reassuring statement from the Minister, and we should like him to tell us that his department is taking all the necessary steps to help in cases where people are without roofs above their heads, and where they are threatened with famine. In Rustenburg, for instance, terrible floods have occurred and the same applies to Brits. So far as Wolmaransstad is concerned I have already handed certain telegrams to the Department describing the serious condition of affairs prevailing along the river. Many people are homeless there. In Christiana the position seems to be worst of all. We notice from the Press that an army of tents has been erected there, and that people are being housed in those tents. But if we can have an authoritative statement from the Minister we shall know that he has put the machinery into operation to provide relief for these people. We know it is not the Minister’s fault, we only want him to take the House into his confidence and tell the House what he is going to do and what he has already done in regard to the floods that have occurred in those areas. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) has left Cape Town to go to his constituency, but it is impossible for all of us to go. I have had to remain behind to bring these matters to the Minister’s notices. I have a telegram here which I want to read to the House. It reads as follows—

He wants to know what relief is likely to be given by the Government. I cannot telegraph what relief the Government is going to provide. I have been to the Department of Social Welfare and I have been told that they cannot tell me what relief is going to be given. After that I went to the Secretary for Agriculture and he was kind enough to promise me that he would at once send an official to Leeuwdoornstad to investigate the position. I have other letters here which go to show the seriousness of the position, but I do not at this moment want to go into the matter any further. I hope the Hon. the Minister will, when he has a chance, give us a full statement, seeing that he has been on the spot, and that he will take us into his confidence and tell us what the Government intends doing and what relief is going to be given to these people. We are anxious to have an assurance from the Minister that he will see to it that not a single man, woman or child will go hungry or without clothes. If the Minister can make such a statement at this stage it will certainly give a lot of satisfaction. We all know that it is not the Government’s fault, but when conditions such as these are created from above, it is the Government’s duty to take steps to give relief. The Government cannot leave it to private individuals. Now there are a few other matters I want to refer to, and I particularly want to touch on the Atlantic Charter. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) has already drawn attention to the dangers we may be exposed to in consequence of the provisions of that Charter. It seems that to all intents and purposes free trade is going to prevail all over the world. I want to ask the Minister what the position of our wheat farmers in South Africa is going to be if free trade comes into being, and wheat can be delivered here at 11s. per bag? If we break down those tariff walls entirely the farmers in South Africa will not be able to make a living. I do not know what the Government’s policy is, and that is why I am asking this question at this stage. One of these days the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will be going to London and no doubt these matters will be discussed there. I should like the Prime Minister to bear in mind that agriculturally South Africa is a poor country, and I also want him to remember that if the farmers in South Africa go under, a large part of South Africa will also go under. I hope the Prime Minister will bear this in mind when he discusses this question. I also wish to touch on a few other points, and the first point I want to deal with is our marketing system. I told the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) that this side of the House is in favour of Control Boards. We are in favour of those Boards continuing but we want them to be improved so that we shall have complete control over our products, but it is no use having those Boards if they do not have control over our marketing. This marketing on the Municipal markets is going to make the position hopeless. Why are our fruit farmers in such a hopeless position today, and why is the position today so hopeless that the consumers cannot get hold of any fruit? It is simply because the Municipal markets will not give the assistance that is required. In 1938 we were promised that a commission would be appointed. Even at that time it was realised that the position in regard to the Municipal markets was entirely unsatisfactory. A promise was made at that time that a commission would be appointed to go thoroughly into this question, but whenever one raises a question in Parliament the Minister says that it is a provincial question. Provincial administrations have not got the necessary technical officials for the purpose of giving advice; they have not got the necessary officials to lay down a policy. Consequently, whatever good work the Boards may be doing we can be quite sure that the farmers and the consumers will always get the worst of it. I am given to understand that some of the middlemen buy and sell their vegetables on the markets at a profit amounting to as much 500 per cent. I understand that the Agricultural Unions have stated that on investigation it was found that the profits of the middleman went up to as much as 500 per cent. If that is not a scandal, if that does not give the consumer and the producer cause for complaint, then I don’t know. Why does not the Government put its foot down and why does it not say to the Provincial Councils: “Your markets have been in a state of chaos long enough; we are now going to place those markets under the Agricultural Department.” That is the only Department able to control them. The Department of Agriculture has the necessary technical officials. I am glad to see that the Minister of Lands has now come in. I say again that those Boards will not meet with any success until such time as the markets have been taken away from the control of the provincial administrations and placed under the Government. The objection which has been raised is that it would not be right to take them away from provincial administrations? Well, how many other things have not been taken away from the provincial administrations without objections having been raised? And if the provincial administrations suffer any losses, the Treasury is there to compensate them. But possibly they will not suffer any losses. It is only in respect of certain auction sales where the provincial administrations may possibly suffer a certain amount of loss. Now, this is not a party matter; this is not a matter which affects just one section of the population, it is a matter which affects the whole of the farming population; it is a matter which affects the consumers, and the sooner it is squared up and put in order, the better it will be for the people as a whole. There are certain things which I want to ask the hon. the Minister about; I do not think those things are in any way secret or confidential. The hon. the Minister the other day quoted certain extracts from the report of the Reconstruction Committee. I have been told that that report has been referred to the Agricultural Advisory Board. Now, I should like to ask the Minister, seeing that that Board has studied the report, what it has recommended in regard to Municipal markets? Has any policy been laid down? Has that committee (the Agricultural Advisory Board) which consists of the best brains in the Department, made a recommendation that the Government should take over the markets, or have they decided just to let things run their course? What recommendations have they put forward? We are anxious to know these things, because this question of marketing is not one which we can afford to leave as it is; it is in the interest of the farmers, and it is in the interest of the consumers that something should be done. It would help us a great deal if the Minister were to tell us that the markets are to be taken over and that they will be put on a proper basis. Now I should like to say just, a few words on the subject of soil erosion. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us an assurance that the necessary steps are being taken to put a stop to over-cultivation—cultivation which exhauts the soil (roofbou). How many thousands of tons of soil have not been washed away to the sea during the present floods? I only want to know whether the Department is going to take any steps to tackle this question of soil erosion. I have not yet had a reply on the subject of agricultural schools. Are those agricultural schools going to be re-opened in the interest of the farming community? Is the Minister going to see to it that the agricultural schools are re-opened as soon as possible? That, more or less, is what I want to say in regard to this matter, and I am very glad that the hon. the Minister is in his seat now. I know that he is a man who sometimes goes on the rampage. When he takes the bit between his teeth, he sometimes goes on the rampage. When he takes the bit between his teeth he sometimes pulls away rather wildly. I don’t want him to go on the rampage now, I want him to put the markets on a sound footing, and we shall be glad if he will take steps in that direction. We, as producers, and also the consumers, will be very glad if he will take such a step. The hon. the Minister of Lands was not here a short while ago when I discussed the question of the floods, and that being so I should like to repeat a few of the points I made then. I said that we were very much alarmed at the terrific damage which has been caused by the floods which have occurred. We are glad that the Minister himself went to the Northern Provinces by aeroplane to see what the position was, but we are far away here from the spot where these things are happening. We only hear of the damage which is being done; we only hear of the cattle and stock that are being drowned; but we have an Act, Act No. 22 of 1930, which the Minister should put into operation. We should like him to make a statement telling us what the position of these poor people is. I repeat that the Government is not to blame for what has happened—the fault lies with nature. In South Africa we have bad weather conditions one year and next year the position may be entirely different. Cannot the Minister make a statement to this House? Now I want to say just a few words about our mealie industry. I called on the Secretary for Lands the other day and I showed him the letter which I have in my hands now. The position of our co-operative societies is such that those people have stored thousands of bags of mealies. Then the rains came and those bags of mealies burst open and they are now falling over. The Secretary for Lands was kind enough to promise that they would try at once to despatch these mealies. We are told today that a mealie shortage is expected. If there is going to be a shortage of mealies surely it is shortsighted on the part of those responsible to allow those mealies to lie and rot while the dealers in Cape Town say they have any amount of storage accommodation? I trust the farmers are not going to have to suffer losses as a result of mealies getting wet and rotting, because the Boards have already bought those mealies from them. The letter I have here is from the Secretary of the Leeuwdoornstad Co-operative Society, and it reads as follows [Translation]—

I discussed this matter last Saturday with the Secretary for Agriculture, and the Secretary for Agriculture wrote me to the effect that he would immediately get into touch with the Mealie Control Board to try and get those mealies despatched; I want to express the hope that the Minister will give the matter his attention and that the farmers will not be made to suffer any losses owing to the Mealie Control Board not having despatched the mealies in good time. I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister, and in this connection I want to say that if we had had grain elevators those mealies could have been carried over to this season. I therefore want to make an appeal to the Minister, seeing that the Railways have plenty of money, and I want to ask him to see to it that the ground work, the cement work, is proceeded with, so that there will be no delay, when the machinery arrives, in the carrying out of the rest of the work. Let us tackle the grain elevator question now. If there are no mealies in the country thousands of poor whites throughout South Africa will perish of undernourishment, and the natives are also suffering from the same complaint. Finally, I want to make an appeal to the Minister regarding his officials. I want to say that the Department of Agriculture has a lot of very competent officials, but I am afraid the Department is losing some of its very best people. The technical officials in the service have very good reason for leaving the service because the salaries paid outside the service are much better than those paid by the Department. I am afraid that in days to come, when we want to start building up, the technical officials who will be badly needed for reconstruction in various respects in this country will have left the Department, because since the outbreak of the war, and even before that time, a number of our technical officials have been employed by private firms, and some of these people are today getting £1,000 or £1,200 per year, whereas in the Department they were only getting £300 or £400 a year. We are losing some of our best people, and I hope the Hon. the Minister will see to it that those officials are placed on a better salary scale. The Government is an employer of labour, but my impression is that it pays worse salaries than anyone else in this country.

You are speaking from experience.

I do not deny that, and I am not pleading “not guilty”. I feel that Government officials are not getting the salaries they are entitled to—as was clearly proved here this morning by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz). I am sorry the Minister of Mines was not here this morning to listen to the hon. member’s plea in regard to tuberculosis. At the moment there is an agitation going on in the mines for increases of salary. I want to appeal to the Minister not to wait until matters have developed. I want to ask him to negotiate with the workers now and come to an understanding. It is better to arrange matters now than to allow them to develop, because if these things develop and have to be suppressed afterwards it will have a detrimental effect on the whole country. Rather give it now. I think the Government would be well advised to accept this advice, because I am not anxious to see a large scale strike in this country. We should do all in our power to settle these matters.

I am very sorry that I was not present when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) started his speech. I was engaged in Another Place. I was not absent deliberately. I should like to reply at once to the points raised by my hon. friend. First of all there is the question of Municipal markets which he referred to, the question of erosion, agricultural schools and the mealie position.

And the floods.

I hope my hon. friend will realise that I only took over from my colleague who unfortunately is in hospital this morning, and that therefore I am not able to give him a reply at this moment. Later on I shall give a full reply. I got up, however, to say a few words about the flood position. I travelled by aeroplane to the affected area at the time when the floods were at their worst to see what the position was. I can say this to the House, that it will take some considerable time before it will be possible to determine the full extent of the damage caused by the floods. But this I can say—it will be colossal. The losses and the destruction are colossal. I flew along the Vaal River as far as the Vaaldam above Vereeniging, and from there I flew over Pretoria and Hartebeestpoort; I also flew over the area near Lichtenburg and then again over the Vaal River. It is tragic having to tell the House that when I went to those areas the floods were not yet at their peak, but in spite of that there were any number of farms where the houses were completely under water. In some places the river was miles wide. Cultivated lands were completely destroyed, and when I returned the flood was at its height at Christiana and Bloemhof. Part of Christiana was under water; a large part of Bloemhof was under water; all the farms within the area of the dorp were under water, and everything was destroyed. There was a tremendous flood at Hartebeestpoort. The destruction just below the dam was not very great except that on the lands just below the river the tobacco crop at Brits and even at Rustenburg was destroyed to a large extent. But the greatest destruction along the Crocodile River was where the Pienaar’s River runs into the Crocodile River. All the crops, tobacco and mealies have been destroyed there, and the position in regard to soil erosion was most tragic. At some places there is nothing left on the ground; the water has gone right over sheds, and some of the houses have been completely washed away. After that I also flew over the area near Lichtenburg and Barberspan. The mealie crops have been destroyed in many instances. Now the question arises, what is the Government going to do in regard to this matter? I have already said that it will take a considerable time before it will be possible to determine what the amount of the damage is. In the meantime the Department of Social Welfare has given instructions to the magistrates to take action. Wherever people are homeless provision has to be made for those people. Tents belonging to the Defence Department have been set up. The magistrates have to supply people with food and blankets where-ever necessary. Those instructions have already been issued. The Cabinet will decide within the next few days what steps we shall take in regard to the terrible destruction which has taken place. At this stage I can say no more. The Government will tackle the matter and hon. members can rest assured that we shall do all in our power to come to the aid of these people as quickly as possible. I do not think I can say any more on the subject.

I feel it would not be unbecoming if a member from one of the districts now stricken by these floods were to thank the Minister for the statement he has made in this House. All we can say is that we on this side of the House, and I am sure the whole House, deeply sympathises with these people who have been so hard hit and who have suffered such tremendous losses as a result of the floods. We are also glad and grateful for what the Department of Social Welfare is doing, and we also want to express the hope that as the Cabinet is going to meet shortly to consider what steps should be taken to assist these people, we shall be given an opportunity later on in this House to thank the Cabinet for the steps which I am sure they will take. Now, I just want to say this so far as Brits is concerned. The hon. Minister said that a large proportion of the tobacco has been destroyed. I have already received a telegram to that effect. It is estimated that about 60 per cent. of the tobacco crop has been destroyed. All we can say is that a serious calamity has struck the constituencies of Rustenburg and Brits. I listened attentively both this morning and this afternoon to what hon. members had to say about internments. The hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) spoke here as an Oudstryder and also as a rebel, and what he said made a very deep impression on me. Now, let me say this to the hon. the Minister of Justice, that Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners are deeply grateful for the assurance he has given regarding the release of internees. An Afrikaner who feels the distress of his fellow Afrikaners as if it were his own distress, shows by his feelings that he and his fellow Afrikaners share the feelings of the nation as a whole. I only want to say that everything said in this House, everything calculated to contribute to an improvement in the lot of the internees, deserves the support of every upright Afrikaner. But when views are expressed which are calculated to harm the internees, people who are fellow countrymen of ours, I can only say that those remarks are in bad taste and that they of necessity must lead to bitterness. We fail to understand how one of our fellow Afrikaner’s mind can become so blunted that he has no sympathy for his compatriots who are in the internment camp. I want to say that Christian sympathy has always been one of the outstanding characteristics of the Boer nation, and we want to ask the Minister of Justice, now that he has made this statement in this House, that a large proportion of our interned people will be released and now that he has also said that two types of people, the police officials and I believe the people who have committed acts of sabotage, will be detained in the camps, to act in a spirit which will be in accordance with the Afrikaner characteristics of humanity and justice. We on this side of the House feel that Christian sympathy should be the deciding factor, should be the spirit which we should try to stir up in the Minister towards these compatriots of ours who are in the internment camp. While I am talking about internees, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Lands has made his statement here this afternoon, I feel that I should say a few words about internment. At Brits two of our settlers have been interned; they have been detained in the internment camp for a considerable time. During their absence their farms and homesteads have been occupied by their wives and their children. Those homsteads, in terms of the law, have been beneficially occupied. After the internees had been in camp for some considerable time their wives were notified that the allotments on which they were living would be taken back by the Department. Now, I should like to make a request to the Minister of Lands. He has returned the allotment to one of the internees who has been released and we are grateful to him for his sympathetic action. We asked him, after he had made that statement, whether he would be prepared also to return the allotment to another internee. He replied that he could not return that man’s allotment. We want to ask the Minister to reconsider the matter in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice is adopting a sympathetic attitude towards the internees; and as he has already returned the one man’s plot, we ask him to do the same in the other case. This would contribute greatly towards quiet and peace on the settlement. The position at the moment is that the Minister of Justice has interned certain people. This means that they are unable to occupy their plots, and then the Minister of Lands comes along and takes up the attitude that because they are unable to occupy their plots, their allotments have to be cancelled. I am glad to notice that the Minister of Lands shakes his head.

That is not correct.

Perhaps I am not putting the position correctly, but it is not my fault if I am creating a wrong impression. I am glad that the one man who was interned has had his plot returned to him. But in the other case that has not been done. The Department of Lands wrote that man a letter saying that because he could not occupy the plot, the allotment had been cancelled. If I have misrepresented the position, it is not a deliberate distortion of the truth. The way in which I have put the case is devoid of any deception. Let me at the same time touch on another matter, and that is in regard to the settlement policy. I do not want to be nuisance, but I want to say to the Minister of Lands that the ideal object of our settlement policy should be to give Government land to people who have no land but who have practical experience of farming and who have a love of farming, and who are attached to farming, so that they may eventually become independent and self supporting farmers. The eventual result of a sound settlement policy must be the creation of independent and progressive farmers. Now I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Lands to a few matters which have come to my notice and which have given me the impression that so far as his policy is concerned he does not take any account of the principles which should govern our settlement policy, and that he does not take any account of the psychological and social welfare of a settlement. The Minister takes up a very unsympathetic attitude towards the old people. It seems to me that the older the Minister gets the more unsympathetic he becomes. The old people on the settlements feel that that is the position and if they could appear in this House many of them would express their surprise at the fact that there was such an institution as the Union Cabinet which appears to be the refuge of old men. Not only are these old men being driven away from the farms if they have no right to be there, but the Department has now addressed a letter even to those who have a right to be on the farms. In that letter they are told that there is a shortage of labour, and that they have insufficient capital, and then they are asked whether they would not prefer to hand the plot back to the Department in which case the Department could give them another place at Sonop. I do not want to cast any reflections on Sonop, but to send them there would mean that the sun would set for a number of them. The hearts of these old people are in the soil they are working on. They have worked the soil there, they have cultivated it with all the love that is in them. Why now take up this unsympathetic attitude towards them? The Minister is the cause of those people becoming panicky. Another point, however, is that the Department in its letter admits that there is a shortage of labour, that these people have very little capital, and that for that reason they are offered another place. Many of those people have come to me—quite a lot of them have come—and they have said to me: “Look here, we feel that the way in which this matter is being handled is not to our benefit or to our good.” I want to ask the Minister to give his attention to these cases. I am not saying that he is going to cancel their allotments, but these people have cause to be afraid. They have now received a letter which appears to be sympathetic; they are told that on account of shortage of labour, on account of their old age and lack of capital, they should return the plots, in which case they would be given another place at Sonop. But those people are afraid that some regulation may be issued applying to them and they may be told that they are not properly cultivating their plot and that no consideration will be shown to them in their old age, that no consideration will be shown to them in respect of the difficult position, and that their plots will simply be cancelled. We want the Minister to act sensibly in this matter and to take the psychology of these people into account. We want the Minister to contribute his share to the Social Security of these settlements. I have referred to the labour question on the settlement. Several hon. members in this House have also discussed the difficult labour problems of the platteland. The Minister of Agriculture is not present, but the Minister of Lands is here and I therefore want to link up the labour question with the settlement question. It has struck me as peculiar that notwithstanding the precarious labour situation on the settlements the Minister is applying a regulation which is causing what almost amounts to an exodus of young labour forces. I am referring to the regulation under which sons of settlers who have reached their majority have to leave the plots. These people regard this regulation as most unfair. What is more, they look upon it as a ministerial hunt to chase away the old people and their sons who have reached the age of 21. In view of the fact that the Minister in this circular letter from the Department admits that there is a critical labour shortage on the settlements, we want him to consider the question of allowing the great majority of these young men to remain on those plots. I need hardly remind the House of the fact that these plots are being intensively cultivated. It is a question of tobacco culture and of irrigation, and from November to the end of May the farmers are engaged day and night on cultivating their tobacco. It is a matter of working day and night. The labour problem is having a paralysing effect on the farmers. They are unable to do all the work, and the methods which the Minister is now applying by means of these regulations are robbing the settlers of their best labour forces. These young men on the plots are not only working for the precarious wages they earn, but they are working because of their love for the soil. It is a service of love which they are rendering on these plots; they assist their parents and naturally they also expect that one day they may themselves get the plots or perhaps some other plots. I want to ask the Minister of Lands to adopt a sympathetic attitude in regard to these matters. When the Bill comes before the House we intend going very fully into the whole settlement policy, but as the Minister has now made a hurried trip to the settlements and also to Brits, and has seen conditions there, this may be the right moment to bring a few of these matters to his notice. I have mentioned these matters and I hope he will give them his attention. I hope he will approach the position in such a way that it will have the general approval of the settlers. I also want to say that an interesting phenomenon has appeared to me in connection with these estimates, namely the internal division among members opposite. We noticed at once that the champions of the middlemen felt constrained to get up on various subjects which have been discussed in this House. Those champions were on the other side of the House. As against those we found champions fighting the cause of the consumers and also of the producers! Let me say at once that if we want to save the farming industry we must try to get full control and nothing but full control. We want to bring the consumer and the producer as closely together as possible. The middleman has only a moral right to existence if he acts in such a manner that he does not become the master of the consumer and the producer, but if he remains the servant of both. We shall put ourselves out on this side of the House to see to it that the speculative element between the consumer and the producer is done away with. I don’t want to go into this question any further now; I merely wanted to bring these few matters to the Minister’s notice.

I am very pleased with the statement made by the Minister of Lands regarding the floods, because I have in my hand a telegram stating that terrific damage has been done at Winterton and Belmont. Many families are homeless and have no food and I am grateful to the Minister for the statement he has made, and I am also grateful that he has given instructions to the Magistrates to intervene and assist the people. We accept what the Minister has told us and are grateful. Now I want to say a few words about the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring). It would appear that the hon. member and myself are up against each other on the question of Control Boards.

And you deserve it.

The hon. member who has just interrupted should remember that it was the old Nationalist Party which has consistently been against the policy of control and compulsory co-operation.

Never.

Anyhow, I do not propose going into that now. Hon. members can look up Hansard reports where they will find that the control policy is a policy which was introduced by the Coalition Government. In the days of the old Nationalist Party I, as a front bencher of that party, advocated it, but the Nationalist Party would not have it.

Who introduced compulsory co-operation in the tobacco and dairy industries?

Yes, they said that tobacco and wine were luxury articles and that compulsory co-operation could be applied there, but so far as wheat, mealies and such commodities were concerned they would not hear of it. That was the reply of the hon. member when he was a Minister. But we can quite understand that the hon. member for Orange Grove is beginning to feel uneasy about Control Boards. The farmer has come into his own through the Control Boards. The farmers have succeeded in calculating what it costs to produce commodities and they have succeeded in laying it down that they are going to supply at cost price plus so much profit, the same as the Chamber of Commerce has done all these years. Their policy is exactly the same as that of the Chamber of Commerce, and I fail to see why the hon. member for Orange Grove is so concerned about the control boards. I do not know whether he is a member of the Chamber of Commerce or of some other concern.

He told us that he was a member of the Chamber of Commerce.

If we are doing what the Chamber of Commerce has been doing all these years then I cannot see why the hon. member should be so concerned about it. I am glad to notice that the hon. member is worrying such a lot about the small farmers. He told us here that the Wheat Control Board only represented the big wheat farmers.

At the moment it is only representing the big millers.

Oh, please keep quiet. I am a member of the Wheat Control Board and I represent a Wheat Co-operative Society to which 100 per cent. of the farmers belong, and 80 per cent. of those farmers are small wheat growers. I am afraid that it is not the small farmers the hon. member is concerned about, but about himself. He used to trade in that commodity. I do not begrudge him his livelihood but I want to tell him that he should put up arguments here and should not hold himself out as the protector of the small farmer, because he is no such thing. I feel that I am the protector of the small farmer. The hon. member stated that Sasko was buying up quotas. He said that the Wheat. Control Board had laid down the policy that every miller was to get a quota. The traders who import goods today also get permits and they also get a quota. The quota system is in force throughout the country and it is applied here as well. The hon. member knows, of course, that there is a great surplus of milling capacity in the country.

Who says so?

Well, we can give the hon. member the figures, the hon. member should know that the milling capacity of this country is more than enough to cope with the wheat we have. For that reason the Wheat Control Board has given every mill a quota and that quota is based on the quantity that was milled in 1939 and 1938. I cannot see anything wrong with that. Now, the hon. member says that Sasko is buying up quotas, and in the same breath he tells us that the millers are making thousands of pounds, and that Sasko is buying up quotas. One of the biggest milling companies, namely, Daniel Mills and Son, was bought up by Sasko. If they had been making thousands of pounds profit why were they prepared to sell? The hon. member further says that Sasko does not compete. Where does Sasko get the money to buy up a firm like Daniel Mills? We have to repay every penny we get from the Land Bank, and we are not given any special privileges. There is one privilege we get and that is that we do not pay income tax, but that is a policy which was adopted in this House years ago.

It’s a wrong policy.

Sasko is proud of what it has achieved, it is a co-operative society of farmers who have taken a hand in the milling industry. And why did they do so? They did so because the millets compelled them to do so. Hon. members know what the idea was in the Central Co-operative Society—it was to take joint action in the interest of the wheat farmers. What did the millers do? They appointed a man in Cape Town and they said: “If you want to sell through one channel, then we shall buy through one channel.” They appointed Mr. Machanick to buy on their behalf, and they induced the farmers not to join the Cooperative Society by buying outside. We know that the millers were in the habit of leaving the farmers’ wheat until the wheat was full of weevils. That forced us to step in and start our own mills. We are proud of the work done by the Co-operative Society. I have the honour of being its chairman; we are simple farmers from the platteland. Now we are told that we have no experience of these matters, but we have made a success of this enterprise. Sasko and Bokomo are milling 1,000,000 bags of wheat.

Why don’t you mill the lot?

If all the millers would sell the farmers would become the owners of all the mills and it would be in the interest of the farmers and of the consumers. We are in favour of this type of control. The hon. member spoke about the consumer. If the Control Board had not fixed the price of wheat and if it had not controlled it in that way and kept it down, the price last year would have been £3, £4 and £5 per bag. What would have been the price of flour then, and the price of bread? This Control Board is there for the benefit of the farmer, but it is even more to the benefit of the consumer than of the farmer. It is no use saying any more on this matter. Hon. members opposite have told us that there are differences between us. On this point, of course, we are at variance, just as there was a difference of opinion in the old Nationalist Party. I always stood for compulsory co-operation and for sale through one channel, but the old Nationalist Party would not have that; in exactly the same way there is still a difference of opinion between them, because some of them want a republic and some do not. In exactly the same way do we on this side differ on the subject of control boards.

There is no such difference of opinion between us.

There are thousands of members belonging to the Party of my hon. friend who laugh at members over there when they talk about a republic. Just as there are also differences of opinion on the question of control boards among us on this side of the House. New I want to say a few words about the release of internees from the internment camp. I merely want to say that I am glad that the Minister of Justice has taken up such a sympathetic attitude and that he has made the statement which he did make.

There we agree with you.

But let me say this; I am very sorry for those people, and I have succeeded in the past in getting a number of them released by pleading their cause with the Minister. Now I listened to the speeches made by hon. members opposite. A lot of tears are being shed on behalf of these people. The hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) said that he was very grateful for what the Minister had done for them, but the next day when I looked at “Die Burger” I saw this—

In this House hon. members are very grateful for the sympathetic attitude adopted by the Minister, but on the platteland the public are told that they compelled the Minister of Justice to give in. That is the kind of exploitation that goes on. Why don’t they tell the country that the release of the internees is due to the sympathetic attitude of the Government? They did not force the Government, and they cannot force the Government, but that is how they carry on from day to day; things are distorted. I know that hon. members opposite have pleaded their cause, and this side of the House has also pleaded for a better spirit in the country, and for fewer personal attacks in this House. I welcome this, and I think we should be ashamed of the personal attacks we indulge in in this House. It is in the interest of the whole country that a friendly spirit should prevail, but how can we have a friendly spirit if things of that kind happen, and if the public are misinformed in that manner. Take the speech I made about the Land Bank and read what appeared in “Die Burger,” and then read the Hansard Report. Hon. members will see the way the people are misled and stirred up against us. Somebody remarked the other day that hon. member opposite were political murderers. I don’t want to repeat that, I stand here as a Hollands-speaking Afrikaner.

An Afrikaans-speaking.

The hon. member is splitting hairs; I stand here as an Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaner, and I am consistently misrepresented in “Die Burger.” The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) got up here the other day and said that the soldiers were coming to the Nationalist Party with their grievances and that they did not come to this side of the House. I interrupted him there by putting the perfectly reasonable question: “Is that why they did not vote for you?” And what was the hon. member’s reply: “I take no notice of a renegade.” I am a renegade now because I put that question.

We did not say that.

The hon. member for Waterberg, who is one of the leaders of that side, said so. And I am not the only one who is a renegade, but the hon. member has on more than one occasion said that the soldiers are also renegades.

Where did he say that?

He said it there in his seat. Does the hon. member want to deny it?

Show us in Hansard where he said it?

We want to have a good spirit in this country, and then we get this kind of interjections from the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman): “Oom Louw, you shake hands with coloured men (‘hotnots’); you should keep quiet.”

Do you deny it, you mischiefmaker?

I do shake hands with coloured people who are civilised, who are the leaders of their people, who have degrees of M.A. and B.A. I do shake hands with them, and I do so openly, but what did the hon. member do in my constituency? Did not he go there at night to call on coloured people to get their votes?

On a point of personal explanation. The hon. member made that allegation before today, and I got up in this House and said that it was a lie. The Speaker called me to order and I said that the hon. member knew that what he said was untrue. I very emphatically want to deny that ellegation, and I challenge the hon. member to produce a single individual who can say that I have asked a coloured man for his vote.

You called on them at their houses.

That’s a lie.

I take those people’s word.

Whose word?

I shall give you the name of a coloured man, a certain man named Williams, at Winterton, who was hired by his party to go about and distribute money among the coloured people to get their votes. The hon. member knows that that is true. And then hon. members opposite say that we must cultivate a good spirit in this country! In regard to co-operation the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg knows that I was the father of the Albert Co-operative Society. The hon. member has spoken here contemptuously about the Ossewabrandwag, but. I want to remind him of the fact that one evening he called the members of the Ossewabrandwag together, and what were his instructions? “Louw Steytler must be kicked out tomorrow as Director of that Co-operative Society.” They out-voted me, and I wonder whether the hon. member feels satisfied about that now. And why did they do so? I established that Co-operative Society, I was its father, but I had to be kicked out because I was a Government man, yet they talk of a better spirit in the country!

But you are still in the Society.

Hon. members have been speaking here about the release of internees. I am very sorry for those people, and if it were possible for the Government to release all of them tomorrow I would be very glad. I say so because I have sympathy with those people, and because they have been misled. Hon. members over there with their Keerom Street paper misled those people, and they are the cause of these unfortunate men having been locked up in camps. I remember the day when the rifles were called in by the Prime Minister. On that occasion the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg at a meeting told his people: “Don’t give up your rifles, let Smuts come and fetch them on the farms.” Does the hon. member remember that he told a meeting at Burghersdorp that the time had come for us to link our finances with the German Reichsmark. And then he talks about the Ossewabrandwag! There was never a greater pro-Nazi than he, but he is now scared. I again want to thank the Minister for the conciliatory speech he has made and for the concession he promised to make in regard to the release of these people, and I hope it will not be long before it will be possible to release all of them.

I hope that we shall now come into a calmer atmosphere after the little excitement we have had. The matters before us have been very fully debated in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I fear I shall find it somewhat difficult not to repeat a good many of the arguments which have been used. I shall confine myself more particularly to certain features affecting my constituency. We have had it practically from the lips of everyone who has addressed this House that it should be the aim and object of everyone to endeavour to create a better world, with freedom from want and the people contented. That is a very desirable state of affairs, to have a healthy community. But in order to have contentment in any country, in order to bring about a state of affairs where nobody will suffer from want, where employment is found for everybody and where worklessness is unknown, the Government itself in that respect achieved a tremendous lot when in September, 1939, it decided upon taking part in this war. As a result of that decision we had industrial development in this country on a scale that up to then had been undreamed of and which had been quite outside the range of possibility. We are today producing in this country to an extent that we never imagined that it would be possible to produce. We are today converting a tremendous proportion of our raw materials into useful articles, and in the process we have found employment for thousands of our people. I know it is the policy of this Government, as we have heard from the mouths of our Ministers, that they are aiming at expanding that industry still further and are creating new industries. In doing that we shall naturally find new avenues of employment for thousands of our people. We know the Government has also in view a land settlement scheme under which the Government expects to provide holdings for a very large number of likely farmers. But I think that the possibilities in respect of land settlement are of a somewhat limited character. It is not everyone who is built for a farming life. It is not everyone who is going to stick to that life. And I quite conceive that when the various schemes have been put into operation, and when the settlers have come on to the land, it will be found that land settlement, in relation to industry, will provide a very small outlet indeed in finding openings for our people. While on the subject of industrial development, I think I am right in saying that some time back the Minister of Railways said that in order to assist the industrial development of this country the Government intended either to assist towards the opening up of industries in different parts of the country, or doing so on its own. And I am coming now to that district that I have the honour to represent, the Paarl district. Everyone knows it; it is the pearl of the Western Province, one of the most beautiful parts of the country and one of the most fertile; and I think that it is really wonderful what industrial development has taken place there recently. Let me say that we have a very enterprising Municipality, and some years ago they set aside a large area as an industrial centre; it is situated along the main line near Daljosaphat station, and since then we have had a number of industries springing up there. There is abundant water supply, magnificent electricity supply, and we have in fact everything that is necessary to attract industries to that spot. I commend Paarl and its surroundings to the consideration of the Government in case they have in view the establishment of industry, the creation of factories or the acquisition of industrial sites in any part of the country. I should add that we have a fine labour supply. We have available, too, most excellent building material; the building sand on the Berg River is second to none in the country, as the Government will bear out, because they have had experience of it, having removed tons and tons. We have also magnificent granite stone; you have only to look at the Municipal buildings there for evidence of that. So we have every amenity there, and I trust that when the time comes for the Government to look about, that it will bear in mind this magnificent district of Paarl and give us the opportunity for further industrial expansion. If the members of the Government will honour us with a visit, they will find that I am not over-colouring the picture. I am sure they will be greatly impressed with what they will see, and that they will have no hesitation in saying: You are right and we will bear you in mind. While on this subject, there are one or two little matters affecting the welfare of our community at Paarl. One of the speakers who addressed the House referred to the need for a better world, and in this connection he laid it down that there ought to be work for all, and also leisure. We have in our district, and I am glad an hon. member referred to it, a Forestry Department settlement. It is wonderful now the people there have adapted themselves to the life. It was a real treat to go into their homes. They are leading a decent, respectable life. But they are struggling, and there are certain grievances which I think the Government should take into account. The majority of them are middle-aged, and it is most strenuous work they are doing, and many of them have been down there for a period of from ten to fifteen years. Firstly, there is absolutely no recreation provided. The holiday period is fixed at only four days a year. If you look at those labour enactments, you will find that the ordinary workman enjoys a minimum of, I think it is fourteen days a year. Then their pay is not very good; they get about £7 a month, with a free house, it is true, but invariably they have to support a wife and family. Another grievance they suffer under is the question of sick leave. I am speaking subject to correction, but I think they are only entitled to six days’ sick leave a year. Even if they are so unfortunate as to have to remain at hospital a month or more they lose their pay. These people are doing good work. By their labour they have established a forest station in our part, and have done good work for our country, and as the years go on some of these forests will be materially enhanced in value. They are a decent class of people, and have been compelled to come into this settlement mainly on account of circumstances that have been beyond their control. Many of them have lost their farms, sometimes through drought and other adversities. By their hard work they have established in this country such a valuable asset that I do feel that when they have grievances our Government should do something towards removing them. Hon. members may think that because Paarl is such a beautiful and fertile district, it has rather too many grievances. We have in Paarl a gaol, a very nice gaol, completed at great expense to the Government some years back. Now we find that the Government has graded it as a third class gaol, with the result that prisoners who are sentenced in Paarl for a period of two or three months are not kept in our gaol, but removed to Bellville. These people are invariably farm labourers, and the consequence of this is that our farmers suffer considerably. The Bellville farmers get the benefit of our labour. It would be some compensation to the efforts of our progressive municipality if some step would be taken which would enable us to keep our prisoners in our local gaol so that the farmers would have the benefit of this labour. I trust the Government will bear that in mind. Then there is another little matter, the question of old age pensions. There I do feel, as many hon. members have said, that the old age pension should be revised, and that the pensions all round should be increased, and that those for non-Europeans must certainly be raised. The majority of them receive a miserable pittance of 15s. a month; they cannot exist on it, and they cannot afford to pay for a room. I trust that when the Government gives consideration to projects for the social betterment of our people, that they will devote special attention to the old age pension. I want to refer very briefly to the operations of the fruit boards. I hold no brief for the fruit boards, but I do feel that some of the criticisms that have been passed have been somewhat harsh. When members describe a board as hopelessly incapable I think that is going too far, because one must remember that these members cannot defend themselves in this House. I happen to know some of the members of the Deciduous Fruit Board; they are men who have made their mark in their own line of business, and have established themselves as completely up to date. Their farms are model farms. It can hardly be argued that there must be control. I do agree with the speakers who have urged that control is essential, but where I think the boards have laid themselves open to a certain amount of criticism is that they have not paid sufficient attention to the distribution side. I know that some of my farmer friends may say: “We are against distribution, we have got the prices fixed. The farmer gets his fixed price; the consumer gets his price, there is a retail price.” But there must be an adequate machinery of distribution. The board has made this error in cutting down distribution to a minimum. They have set up a couple of agencies here and there, whereas in Paarl and other towns there are distributors who have been established for many years, and who have been in the habit of receiving the farmers’ produce and sending it to the markets immediately. If the board had paid more attention to the utilisation of more channels of distribution, I do not think we would have so much criticism, and the board would be well advised if they endeavoured to open up further distributing channels. An instance came to my notice where a farmer had a big order from Bloemfontein, from a firm he had dealt with for many years, a firm which has agencies all over the northern part of the country. But unfortunately as the Deciduous Fruit Board has a special depôt at Bloemfontein, they would not allow the farmer to consign his produce to this agent, and the result was rather unfortunate. That I think is wrong. The board might well allow some of these old established firms to continue to assist in the work of distribution. That is where the board has made a mistake. There should be no discrimination. Unfortunately I am not a farmer—I belong to that noble profession known as the side bar, sometimes known to the farmers on the platteland as “Boere - verneukers”, but members of the House know we are good friends. Well, as a member of the side bar farmers come to me with all their troubles, so I am well acquainted with the requirements of our farmers and their shortcomings. I do want to say this, that hon. members on this side of the House have been somewhat hard on the board in regard to their lack of policy in coming to the assistance of the farmers. I feel that our farmers have derived a substantial benefit due to the wise policy of our Government in setting up special organisations. There is no denying it. Take the foresight of our Government in connection with the wool contract. I remember that the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. H. F. Bekker) was strongly against it, but his voice was like one crying in the wilderness. I do feel that I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) when he called upon this side of the House to get away from all these little things, particularly where they have no practical application, and to let us work together, shoulder to shoulder. That is after all quite possible; there is very little that divides us in this country. It is the duty of everyone who loves this country to co-operate, to bring about that better world we are all striving for. After all, it is our country. I have no other associations, neither have the majority of us, and the welfare of this country is our aim. But if we find there are other countries that are good to us and mother us, do not let us throw our mother overboard. I was struck with the address given by the hon. member for Frankfort. He may have been somewhat rhetorical, but he was, I believe, sincere, when he observed that he had no doubt whatever that the Almighty had willed the destiny of South Africa, but he carried it further, implying that it was the will of the Almighty that there should be a “Boerenasie” alone. Because he says, our South Africans have been created by the Almighty and this is our country. But then, Mr. Speaker, is there not a stronger argument. I should be the last to draw allusions to the Almighty, but would it not be a stronger argument to say: I must look at this country, and I find that we have here two sections, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, both belonging to this country; it is a big country, and we must suppose that the Almighty ordained that we must live together and work together. I think the hon. member might bear that in mind.

Here is my humble pledge.

But do not let us forget this, that the hon. member also said: “I am a British subject by conquest.”

There is nothing wrong with that.

But then the hon. member must also say that God has willed it that way, and “I must be satisfied.” Hon. members here are known as occupying the kitchen of the House; well, the kitchen is a very important adjunct of the dwelling, but we would appreciate it if hon. members would endeavour to raise their voices so that we can hear what they say. We are losing, no doubt, some very fine and strong arguments. We want their help, we want to hear what they say, and I agree that all our problems should be tackled on political lines and not from a religious standpoint. But unfortunately these ideas are put before the House, and they must be taken up. If the idea was that these matters should be brought up here without political bias, why introduce this unfortunate bogy of a republic? We all know that a republic is absolutely impossible. That part of the motion should be taken right out. I should like to say this, in conclusion, one hears a good deal about the ideal of a republic on this side of the House. We have heard the arguments about a republic propounded by the hon. member for Frankfort, and we know what is meant by them. It is a republic for Afrikaners, but of course the members of our party are not supposed to be true Afrikaners. In other words, what is asked is a republic for a section of our community. Do not let us be advocates for a section of a section of the community, but for every man born in this country who is prepared to put his shoulder to the wheel and to make this a great and progressive country.

While the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) is still plucking up courage to come in, I want to give him a little more chance before I deal with him, and in the meantime I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) who has just spoken. The hon. member said that we must remember when speaking here that England was our mother. Well, I do not want to argue with the hon. member about it, because this was his first speech. But I just want to say that there are two types of mothers, your own mother and your stepmother. I do not want to mention all the things which the step-mother did and said, but the hon. member said something else which sounded very strange to me. I am certain that he was a follower of the late Gen. Botha, because he comes here today and says that there are two sections in the country and that we must take it that the Almighty so wished it. Someone then pointed out: “But we are a conquered nation.” The hon. member then replied that we must take it that it was also God’s will and that we must be satisfied. This reminds me of a speech which the late Gen. Botha once made at Moorreesburg. He put it in the same way to the Boers. An old gentleman then called out: “Some time ago I became insolvent and lost my name; must I now remain bankrupt for the rest of my life and never make an attempt to restore my name?” I do not think it is necessary to waste any more time on the hon. member. I want to give the hon. member for Kimberley (District) a little more time to put in an appearance. He wrote a note to me that he wanted to say a few things about me and asked that I should remain here. I remained here throughout the debate, and I have now written a note to him, and I also asked the messenger to call him and to let him know that I want to reply to what he said about me. It seems to me, however, that the hon. member cannot pluck up sufficient courage to come here. Well, in the past he never lacked courage. When a person loses his courage, one no longer has any inclination to fight with him. I hope, however, that he will still come in. In the meantime I want to say a few words to the Acting Minister of Agriculture. I said something in regard to this the other day, and I shall be glad if he will give his attention to this matter. I refer to the question of the shortage of non-European labourers on our farms. Latterly the position has become worse, and today it is a big problem. The people ploughed a great deal and sowed a lot of wheat, because the price rose from £1 10s. to £1 16s. When the wheat was on the lands they could not get labourers to reap it, and they consequently suffered great damage. A number of farmers drove their cattle to the land in order to get some return in that way. Now I want to draw the attention of the Minister to a few places where the coloured people go. When one looks at the workers in the employment of the Railway Department, one finds that on the 31st March, 1942, there were 53,859 non-Europeans employed on the Railways, but on the 31st March, 1943, the number was 56,870, an increase of 3,011 in the number of non-Europeans. During the same period the number of European railway workers, that is to say, the lower paid workers, decreased by 524. Then there is the Department of Defence. The greatest portion of the coloured labourers undoubtedly go to the Department of Defence today. We have already made representations to the Minister of Defence on various occasions to cease recruiting coloured people and natives. The so-called danger has surely passed, but they still continue to draw these salaries, and they are not keen to return to the farms. The Minister gave me a few figures in connection with the number of coloured people who have returned from the fighting line since the beginning of the war. Eight thousand six hundred and ten returned, and of those 5,219 returned to their former work, but 2,350 were still in the discharge depots. I maintain that the returned coloured soldiers do not want to go back to their former work, that is to say, the 2,350 who are still being kept in the depots at State expense. I would like the acting Minister of Agriculture to talk to the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Railways and to persuade them not to take the coloured labourers away from us. Then there are also the natives, who obtained land on a large scale and who have their own businesses, and they are today making more money out of those farming concerns than they did previously. Where formerly they received £5, £6 or £7 for an ox, they are now getting £17 for an ox. It is no longer necessary for them to take up employment. The mines are drawing the natives on a large scale; the national roads draw them in their thousands, and it is almost becoming impossible for the farmers to advance their farming operations. What do I suggest? I say that we ought to give attention to the Department of Railways and the Department of Defence, and that they ought to cease recruiting natives. Surely it is not the intention to send the natives overseas. I notice that the Minister remains silent. If there is no intention to send them overseas, what is happening to the natives who are still being recruited? The point to which I want to draw attention is what the mines are doing. The mines have recruiting agents in Kaffirland, and I should like to say this to the Minister. There are certain times when the farmers require many labourers, and we who live close to the native Territories want to know whether it is not possible for the Minister to co-operate with the magistrates to make a survey as to the number of native and coloured labourers required in the various districts. If that is done, a recruiting bureau could be established in Kaffirland to get natives to come and do this work. I know that in those parts where the Minister himself farms, there is not a great shortage of non-European labourers. I know what type of farming they engage in. In the North Western parts the scarcity of non-European labourers is not yet felt to any serious extent. But the situation is becoming impossible in those areas where the people have crops. It is of no avail to fix the price of wheat and to give seed to the farmers, if they know beforehand that they are not going to have labourers to reap their grain. I would like the Minister as a practical farmer to give his attention to this matter. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) is not here at the moment, but for my own sake I shall say a few words about him in his absence. The hon. member said, inter alia, that I had visited coloured people at night for the sake of their votes. The hon. member has just come in. I am very glad that at last he has plucked up courage to come and hear what I have to say.

That does not call for much courage.

I want to ask the hon. member at once who gave him £1,500 in 1938 to fight the election in the Kimberley District? He says that he represents the farmers. I know who gave him that money, and people who fight with other people’s money no longer represent their electors; they represent their masters who gave them the money. That is the reason, in fact, why the farmers of Albert thought, fit to get rid of him.

But what do the farmers of Kimberley District say?

I would like the hon. member to listen to what I have to say. I came to this House in 1938, and the hon. member then stated that I went about at night in an attempt to obtain the votes of coloured persons in the location of Burghersdorp. I asked him to tell me where he had heard that, and I challenged him to give me the names of anyone who could say that of me. He then said that the people had told him this. Today he again gets up here and shamelessly repeats this statement.

This time it was in Kimberley.

Now that. I ask him to give me the names, he flees from Burghersdorp and says that he knows a certain friend of his, a man named Williams, who tried to get the votes of coloured people in Kimberley.

No, he was your friend.

Williams is supposed to have told him that the Nationalist Party did that. Let me tell the hon. member this. He has changed a great deal, but I never thought that he would descend to such a level as to walk about greeting coloured people by hand, for the sake of an election. In Ī929 he held it against Mr. T. P. N. Coetzee that he shook hands with kaffirs in Queenstown. He always held that against him, and now he is doing it himself. At the beginning, when this question was put to him, the hon. member replied that he only greeted the decent coloured people by hand. When the question was put to him the second time, he said that he greeted those who had an M.A. degree. I must point out to him that it is not only coloured people who become M.A.’s.

I suppose you visited the other M.A.’s in order to get their votes.

I just want to say this to the hon. member. There are two types of people. I do not know whether the hon. member has ever heard of a kleptomaniac. But we also get the type of kleptomaniac who no longer knows what the difference is between truth and untruth.

That apparently applies to you.

I can only say that some of my voters voted against me because I said that I did not want the vote of any coloured person. They said that I was going too far.

And now you are paying them to canvass votes for you.

That is the biggest untruth which you have ever uttered.

On a point of order, I challenge the hon. member to obtain a sworn declaration from Williams as to whether he worked for the Nationalist Party.

The hon. member was dealing with me, and now he is again running back to the Nationalist Party in his constituency. He keeps on fleeing from the sinking ship to the White Cliffs.

Were you not there on behalf of the Nationalist Party?

I want to reply to this one further point which the hon. member made. He held it against me that I held a meeting of the O.B. in my house and that I was the cause of the hon. member being relieved of his seat as director of the Cooperative Society. The policy which the Government of his side carried out at that time against the Ossewabrandwag, was that members of the O.B. were not allowed on relief boards, licensing boards, school boards, school committees, etc. In other words, they detested the O.B. and since that was so, and since the majority of the members of the Cooperative Society were members of the O.B., I thought, since the hon. member himself did not have the decency to get away from the O.B. members, that we should relieve him of his post.

Order! Order! I think the hon. member should refrain from continuing in this personal manner.

I am nearly finished, Sir. I thought that we should make the hon. member get away from the O.B. members whom he so abhorred, and if he did not do it himself, that the O.B. should kick him out. That is the reply which I gave the hon. member. In conclusion I just want to say this. One is never too old to become converted. The hon. member is extremely unhappy about the position in which he has found himself during his lifetime. When he goes to Burghersdorp today, there are only a few Jews who greet him. Formerly he was the hero of Burghersdorp.

I must again ask the hon. member not be personal.

The hon. member asked me to be here because he wanted to attack me personally, and I am glad that you have afforded me the opportunity of saying these few things to him. I only hope that his conscience will so prick him where he is now, and that eventually he will come back to his people.

I think the wholehearted sympathy of this House goes out to the victims of our floods and we appreciate immensely the assurance of the Minister of Lands that the Government will give a generous helping hand to the sufferers. I want to support the defence put up by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) as regards the citrus industry. Before the war the great bulk of our citrus fruit was exported and fetched enormous prices—according to South African ideas. Pre-war prices used to go up to 25s. per case. Of course, it meant that the British consumer of our fruit virtually subsidised our consumers of fruit here as they got the surplus cheaply. That appertained as regards our best deciduous fruit also. Now, I am afraid that much of the opposition to boards in this House is due to incorrect evidence which comes from outside the House. I also want to support the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) in his defence of the wheat control scheme. That scheme and that control has assured us of wholesome bread during the war period. More than half of the wheat produced in this country is produced by the small grower and he is the man whom we must definitely encourage. Without his assistance we would have had a serious shortage—we should have had to put mealie meal into our wheat or barley and then I think the country would have had good reason for complaint. But as wheat has been subsidised so that the white consumer gets the benefit, I hope the Government will also subsidise the maize to the native consumers—at least in the territories and the native reserves. I feel that we owe that to them. They earn very poor wages and they cannot afford to pay the price which we anticipate must go still higher in this coming short season. I want to ask the Minister of Finance what is the Cabinet’s reaction to the Rural Industries Commission’s report. This report is four years old now and the commission was appointed with the idea of formulating some plan in regard to preventing the drift to the towns. Now, this drift to our larger towns is taking place at an appalling pace. Poverty, crime, malnutrition, infantile mortality and tuberculosis are definitely on the increase in our larger centres and all the housing schemes and all the ambitions we may have in regard to improved health conditions will not solve the appalling situations that exist in some of the slums and in some of the native locations of our larger towns. Take for instance Cape Town with its 45,000 natives. I could take any Minister to District 6 and show him the most appalling conditions of whites, natives and coloureds living together. He would there see a definite increase in the native population. If we proceed to the area of Buitengracht St. we would find that the housing shortage there has become so acute as regards natives and coloureds that it is not only a case of letting rooms to families—they are actually letting bed space at 10s. per month. No large housing scheme will solve these difficulties, and I feel that the recommendations of this Rural Industries Commission are long overdue for recognition by our Cabinet. As you know, Mr. Speaker, even in some of our rural towns the native population has increased to such an extent that it is in excess of the white population. In Queenstown, I believe, there are almost 12,000 native and coloured people, and in Grahamstown about 10,000, whereas the European population of these towns is only about 7,000. Take Port Alfred. There are about 3,000 natives and coloured people there and only about 1,200 whites. These conditions cannot be allowed to go on. They exist in many rural towns. In Graaff-Reinet, for instance the slums and poverty are appalling. The Commission recognised this drift to the towns, and it recognised the necessity of rural industries to keep the people on the land and to have an industrial rural population. I do not want to burden the House by reading out some of the recommendations of the Commission but the House may not know that raw products exported to the larger centres are carried at low rates whereas manufactured goods are carried at higher rates. Of course, that militates against the rural areas as regards industries. The Rural Industries Commission has asked the Government to rectify the position. They have also advised the extension of our electrification in this country so as to make more electrical power available. If that power were extended on our railway system a larger extent of rural areas would be served with electric power, and this would largely assist in the solution of our labour problems. For instance, I think these areas should have electric power for milking cattle, which is definitely the most hygienic way. The Rural Industries Commission’s Report has a table giving more than 200 names of rural towns which are suitably situated for rural industries but I do not know whether the Government has done anything which would stabilise industries there. We still have preferential rates in favour of the larger centres and against the interests of the rural areas. I am also afraid that some of our rural industries may have had a leg up during this war which may be lacking when the war is over. In the town which I represent we today have a flourishing brick and tile industry. This has been better established during the war. I hope the Minister will do something to stabilise that particular industry. Anyhow, I think we have made a strong case for the development of our rural industries, and I do hope that we shall have some response from the Minister of Finance as regards the Government’s attitude on this matter. There is no doubt—I can assure the Minister that some of these rural industries will come into being if we can only have an assurance from the Minister that instead of the larger centres having preferential railway rates in their favour the process will be reversed and the preferential rates will be in favour of rural development. As we all know, the rural areas are supplying the great bulk of the raw material for industry, and it is stated in this report that many millions of pounds of raw materials go from the rural area to the larger centres. I think the Government instead of further promoting these industrial concerns in our larger centres should take a hand in promoting industries in the rural centres. Now I want to say a word about the Fishing Bill of the Minister of Reconstruction. I hope that that is not going to be the last word in regard to the assistance which the Government will give.…

The hon. member cannot discuss that matter now.

I apologise. As regards coastal shipping I feel that after this war there will be any number of small ships available to promote coastal shipping, and I feel that these small boats will assist the Railways, so that there will be no necessity to build more double lines, but that it will be possible to have some of our commodities such as coal—which is so essential—for industrial development—and on which we pay at present a railway rate of 19s. 3d. per ton against a pithead cost of 7s. 6d.…

The hon. member had better discuss that on the Railway Part Appropriation Bill.

I am putting forward a claim for the development of our coastal shipping trade, and for the development of our fishing harbours—which are matters not contemplated in this Bill which you have debarred me from speaking on now. Well, Sir, I feel that a place like Port Alfred has a prior claim to development over any other small place.…

The matter of harbours comes under the Portfolio of the Minister of Railways and Harbours. The hon. member will have a full opportunity of discussing that on the Railway Part Appropriation Bill.

I shall confine my remarks to the development of harbours as applying to the Minister of Reconstruction. The Minister of Reconstruction has a report on the Port Alfred harbour. We are glad to think that he has taken so much notice of our claims that he has sent an authority on harbour construction to Port Alfred who has framed a report. £300,000 have already been spent on the development of Port Alfred. Over £100,000 was spent on the development of the harbour by private enterprise. Even the railway line to Grahamstown was built by private enterprise, and if ever there has been an effort by private enterprise worthy of praise, it is the development of the Port Alfred Harbour. Even before I was a member of Parliament the Government must have had some conscientious scruples about Port Alfred, and decided to establish a fishing harbour there. Well, they started building that harbour without any report whatever from an efficient engineer, and they accepted a tender from a firm which had no knowledge whatever of marine work. They sent a small crane which did not even average putting one block of concrete twice a week, into the ocean, and this work went on for over a year beyond the contracted period, and then the war came. The then Minister of Commerce and Industries at that stage came to Port Alfred and appealed to the patriotism of the people there. He told them that on account of the war the Government could not afford to go on spending money on development when it had no assurance as to how it was going to find sufficient funds for the war. The people of Port Alfred were patriotic and so the work came to a standstill. Now, the old Port at Port Alfred was so designed that its entrance was narrowed. So outgoing tides had a scouring effect on the bar of the river. In the new work the one wall has been lengthened 66 ft. and it has made the position worse. Sand accumulates in the river. It is very essential to open that river for fishing boats there today. It has been stated that we did not have a fishing population at Port Alfred. Let me tell the House, Mr. Speaker, that Port Alfred’s decay is something which I have seen with my own eyes. I have seen trucks rotting on the harbour frontage. We used to have a Port Captain and a trawler went out almost daily, and we had fishing boats going out regularly. In those days we had a fishing population there. These people have grown old. The wealthier people have left Port Alfred and poorer people came to buy the houses in which the others used to live. So many people there are poor today. Port Alfred was intended as the harbour to serve our Eastern Province and the then Government recognised this by building the first Customs House, on the East Coast of the Cape Province, there. In 1889 more than 200 ships called at Port Alfred, but Port Elizabeth swung heavy political influence and the Prime Minister of the Cape lived at East London and it seems that overnight Port Alfred died. I do feel that the Government owes development to Port Alfred, even if it costs £100,000 to establish a fishing harbour there. I think that expenditure will be justified, and I appeal to the hon. Minister for more consideration for Port Alfred. It serves one of our most valuable agricultural areas in the Union of South Africa, an area where no soil erosion exists. For instance, we have dozens of farmers with millions of pineapple plants; we have a farmer with over 7,000,000 plants, but in the peak period we find the crop rotting because it cannot all be conveyed by the Railways. I feel that that area has justified the recognition of this Government, and I have no doubt that only industries will establish our rural people, and no national wealth is lasting unless it is based on a well established and industrious population. We have heard much about social security. But the urge for social security, if this provision is not made, will end like a wave spent on the beaches.

I had looked forward to an opportunity to say a few words in connection with the interests which I represent. My greatest interest, of course, is the grape farmer. I wanted to say the wine farmer. But I understand that the wine farmer is a fairly unpopular fellow in this House. His industry is very unpopular, but his product is fairly popular. I want to express my deep gratitude at once to the hon. Minister of Agriculture for what has been done in the past and for the combating of some of the difficulties and pests and plagues with which the wine farmers are faced. I need only mention two of those, the “vlamsiekte” and the Woolly Louse. The farmers are indebted to the Department for the steps which have been taken. But a considerable amount of research will still have to be done in connection with the Woolly Louse. It is a terrible plague and it is difficult for a farmer, especially a small farmer, to combat this plague; and the grape farmers especially are looking forward to more assistance from the Department in that respect. The other problem of the wine farmer is the question of irrigation. The wine farmers are almost 100 per cent. dependent on irrigation and in some respects it is very difficult for the wine farmer to get the water on his farm if he does not get assistance from the Irrigation Department. A great deal of assistance can still be given to the farmers to enable them to lead the water from the river on to their lands, and I should like to see a little more assistance for the farmers in this respect. But there is another aspect of irrigation in regard to which I have heard very little in this House, and that is where farmers live along the river and cannot protect themselves against floods. When the slightest thing happens, a great deal of damage can be done if the Department does not assist those farmers with a view to seeing that they are protected against floods. I hope that the Department will take an interest in this matter. Then there is another point which I should like to raise, and that is the impression that I as a new member received in this House. I came here with an open mind, and the first impression made upon me was the friendly spirit in which new members were received. I want to express my deep gratitude for that reception, and I want to associate myself with the remark of an hon. member on these benches who said that it is very difficult for us on the cross benches to follow everything that goes on. There is another sore point. It is something for which I strive that there should be more co-operation between the various sections in this House, and I want to express the hope that where matters arise where politics do not enter, both sections will stand together and exert all their powers for the promotion of the interests of the country. I do not like being personal, but I just want to say that it does not become hon. members to wash their dirty linen in this House. It makes no impression on the man and the woman in the platteland, and it makes no impression on the man and the woman in the street. The people in the country expect members who come here to do their best for the country. There is a great future for this country. We are all looking forward to the development which lies ahead, and whether or not we agree as to the reasons for the present state of affairs, the fact remains that we must tackle these conditions as they exist today. It is not necessary for us to come here with trivialities and to drag politics into the discussion on every occasion. I therefore want to make an appeal to both sides of the House. I should like to see that we refrain from dragging politics into matters concerning economic conditions. I cannot imagine that there is anything which cannot be done if both sides of the House co-operate and exert their powers towards promoting the interests of our country.

At the outset I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) said, namely, that we are very sorry that the ministerial benches are so empty, that we are sorry that the Ministers are not present to listen to the arguments we advance when raising matters of the utmost importance in this House. In the first place, I want to deal with the appointment of the Food Controller, Mr. Keegan. I do not know this gentleman at all. All I do know is that he is a representative of commerce, and as every member in this House knows, the biggest enemy of both the producer and the consumer is this very middleman. We do not know how this gentleman can act in the best interests of the consumer and the producer, in view of the fact that he represents the middleman. We have not had an authoritative statement from the Government to indicate, for example, what they are going to do in connection with the stabilisation of prices, the grade and weight system. We do not know whether this new Food Controller is going to fix the prices which producers will get. It is known that the Government has already appointed a commission to go into this Question of over-distribution, and to examine this question of excessive profits. We, as producers, accuse the middleman that it is they who pocket these enormous sums, and that in this way the consumer and the producer are set against one another. During the first half of last year the wholesale price of mutton was fixed at 9¾d. per lb. for the producer. We worked on the basis of a sheep weighing 40 lbs., and the price to the consumer was also fixed on that basis. There was a margin between what the producer gets on the one hand and the consumer pays on the other hand, of 15s. which went to the middleman. You will agree that we therefore have reason for concern, and more so when the Food Controller represents the middleman. In connection with the marketing of our vegetables, we pointed out that a farmer received 7½d. a bag of cabbages, containing 30 to 42 cabbages. But those cabbages are sold to the consumer at a minimum of 4d. up to 1s. per cabbage. We say that it is the middleman who is responsible for these large profits. With regard to green beans, a farmer received 5s. for 18 bags, in spite of the fact that those green beans were sold in Johannesburg and Pretoria for not less than 6d. per lb. You will therefore understand that we look forward with some apprehension to the action which is going to be taken by the Food Controller, who represents the middleman. But there is another matter, and it is this, that commerce by its methods of exploitation, is trying to set the consumer and the producer against one another. The middleman attacks the control boards, and he blames the control boards for these large sums which he pockets. He tells the produers that it is the control boards which do not allow them to receive prices on which they can exist. He tells the consumer that it is the control boards which prevents him from selling the products more cheaply. But he does not say that he makes enormous profits on the producer’s products which he sells to the consumer, and the time has arrived for the consumer to realise that his best friend is the producer. It is necessary for these two interested parties each to have its own co-operative society, with a central body with which the Department of Lands can deal. The hon. Minister of Agriculture asked the other day how many bodies he would then have to deal with. We say that the consumers’ and producers’ board must have only one body with which the Minister must deal, and then we shall discover that it is the middleman who throughout has pocketed all the profits between the producer and the consumer. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member said, that we can only have success if we have full control. It is quite impossible to put all the various interests on a control board and then to expect complete success. Since we are now talking about complete control in connection with the consumers’ and producers’ co-operative societies, it is necessary—and it is necessary now; we must not wait until after the war—for our marketing system to be put in order. The hon. Minister quoted in this House the other day from an unpublished report to show how they intended assisting the people after this war. War time is the best time for the producer to get the highest prices. Today we find that the Government stepped in at the beginning of the war and fixed the maximum prices which the producer could get, while it did not protect the producer at a time when the prices were uneconomical, and the producers know that if there were an open market today, they would be able to get much higher prices. But they realise that it is in the interests of the country that the prices of foodstuffs should not rise unduly. But since the consumers are submitting to the policy of the Government, it is the duty of the Government to take steps to put the marketing system in order so that when the war is over the producers will not have to go back to the position in which they found themselves after the last war. We say that the Government cannot expect the marketing system to become stabilised unless they eliminate over-distribution and unless they assume full state control of our markets. As long as our markets remain under municipal control, so long the marketing system will be defective. We know that there is the report of the Meat Commission, where stabilisation of prices is suggested. We know that that is a war measure. We should like the hon. Minister to tell the country now whether that is going to be a long term policy. The farmers realise that in all probability they will get lower prices under this system of the Government, but since the farmers are now making this sacrifice, they want to know what steps the Government will take to prevent this position, that after the war they will get no prices at all for their products. It is the producer particularly who suffers first at a time of depression, and it is again the producer who recovers last after everything has returned to normality. We ask the Government to tell us what its policy is in connection with this stabilisation of prices, this grade and weight system. I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad in connection with agricultural schools. A shock was experienced by the farming community when they learned that the Government proposed to close agricultural schools. In the past it was said that the agricultural schools were not properly supported. Later on there was an increasing number of young farmers who wanted to receive training, and the result was that many young men could not be admitted to the agricultural schools. The time has passed when one can farm on the same lines as one’s father; the time is past when one can farm on the old system, and today it is necessary for farmers to be trained people. I cannot believe that these 200 or 300 students of the agricultural schools, who are now being deprived of this privilege, could influence the ultimate outcome of the war in any way. Since the Government is now going to train soldiers—we have no objection to that—but we want to ask that claims of the young farmer who had to produce the food of the country, should not be overlooked. Then there is another matter which I raised on a former occasion, but in regard to which I feel very strongly, and that is the question of fencing material. It is an absolute impossibility to farm unless your farm is properly netted and fenced. The Minister knows that in the past, even before he became Minister, he joined me in urging the department not to look at the bonds on the farm, but to assist the farmer. The Minister can support my testimony that at that time there were farmers who got hopelessly behind, but those farmers are today in a sound financial position since they obtained jackal-proof netting. The North West is the best area in the country, and is as healthy as it can be for small stock and even large stock. I particularly want to make a plea today that the Government should regard it as war measure No. 1 to make provision for the supply of jackal-proof netting. We are told that there is no fencing material. I want to ask the hon. Minister to go to Green Point and to see how many hundreds of rolls of jackal-proof netting are being used to fence off the Cavalcade grounds. We are told that there is no wire in the country. Is it fair that the farmers should be treated in this way while this wire is being used for such purposes? In November I went to the Department of Agriculture in connection with this matter. They sent me to the Controller of Farming Requirements. I was also sent to the Controller of the Iron and Steel Industry, and both of them told me that as from the beginning of January they were going to make plain wire. We can make it in South Africa. We have the machinery for it in South Africa. They have not got the galvanised metal to galvanise the wire. We say that if the State is in a position to do this, the Minister ought to exert all his power to influence the Government to manufacture wire immediately. I go further. In South Africa we have the Premier Gate Company, a company which makes thousands of tons of wire. They have the machinery. We want to ask the Government to supply the material to the Premier Gate Company so that they can manufacture the wire. We also want to ask the Minister to give preference to these districts which require the wire so urgently.

I would not advise any farmer to buy wire at the existing prices.

I want to refer the Minister to the first farmers who put up jackalproof netting in Graaff-Reinet. A farmer told me that that wire cost him £127 per thousand yards, and it paid him. If the Government could give us wire costing £60 per thousand yards, it would still be a success. Then there is one other matter which I want to discuss, and that is the labour question. I want to tell the hon. Minister of Native Affairs that the farmers cannot support the document which was issued from his office. The agricultural unions reject it. This document asks that there should be fixed hours of work, that a certain type of house should be built, that a certain type of food should be given. I just want to say that the Department which drew up this document has not the faintest idea of farm labour, and I endorse what was said by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, that when the Department of Native Affairs makes proposals to the farmer, it must go to the Department of Agriculture for a little advice. I want to ask the Government whether they will not consider the advisability of introducing a Vagrancy Act, which will be applicable to everyone above the age of sixteen who does not attend school. The great evil that we are up against today is this. The various location laws are different. In certain places the law is permissive. One finds locations where there are scores of vagrants who do not want to work. I am not referring at the moment to casual work. One finds the type of vagrant who works once a week and earns perhaps half-a-crown or five shillings, but for the rest the Government feeds him through the magistrate because he is idle. I too believe in Christianity, but when people do not want to work, the State should not give them food if there is work to be had. It is already becoming an evil because the State is giving these vagrants food. I also want to suggest that a recruiting depôt should be established in every town. The Government should inform this recruiting depôt from time to time where labourers are to be obtained and how many. The Government should establish a recruiting depôt in places where the labour can be drawn from, and then notify each district from time to time where they can apply if they require workers. Now I should like to say a few words in regard to telephones. If there is one factor which has retarded the development of the country and especially the development of telephone lines, it is the war. As far as telephones are concerned, South Africa is very backward. If you make a survey in the North West, those parts which I represent, you will not find twenty telephones in those scattered areas. How on earth can these people reach a doctor in times of serious illness, bearing in mind the petrol shortage, motor-car shortage and tyre shortage? An hon. member spoke here of farms which are 40 miles removed from town, but in the North West there are farms which are 100 miles from the nearest town, and it is necessary that the Government should make available on the Estimates a few million pounds for farm and public telephones for those scattered areas too. I want to touch upon another matter, and I do so diffidently. But as a Protestant I am compelled to raise this matter. I refer to the banning of the book “The Roman Catholic System.” South Africa is primarily a Protestant country. It was the haven of those people who on account of their religious convictions were persecuted in Europe; and the Roman Catholics represent 5 per cent. of the European population. What does one find? One finds that a book which appeared in this country in 1890, a book which was re-printed 50 years later, was seized by this Government for the purpose of confiscation. It is so incredible that one can hardly believe that any government could take this step to hurt the Protestant churches in South Africa. What do we find? We find that on the 8th September a letter was addressed to the Minister asking him why this was done. This letter was sent to the Protestant churches. They then addressed a letter to another Minister and received no reply. On the 15th November they wrote to the Minister of Finance and received a reply to the effect that the first two letters had been mislaid, and that they were going into the matter. On the 29th November they addressed a letter to the Prime Minister and were again informed that the matter was being gone into. But the Government then proceeds to send the police to the homes of ministers of religion to search for the book, until the end of January. But what is even more distasteful is that only Afrikaans ministers of the Protestant churches were visited. According to the reply of the Minister no English ministers were visited. Is that the policy of the Government? We should like to ask the Prime Minister frankly whether this happened with his knowledge and approval, whether the confiscation took place because a small section of the people asked for the confiscation of a book because that book was supposed to contain something to the detriment of that section? The Protestant churches have never asked for the confiscation of books because they were written by Catholics, or issued by the Catholic church. We feel somewhat anxious when we see what goes on. We find that a certain archbishop, Spellman of New York, came here and stayed here as the guest of the Prime Minister. We do not know whether the Prime Minister has ever invited a Moderator of an Afrikaans or English church to stay with him as his guest. We feel concerned when we realise what a small percentage of the population belongs to the Roman Catholic church, and how much power they have already got in South Africa. We are disturbed when we see that there is a Government contract, under which every railway employee who becomes ill has to go to the St. Joseph’s hospital in Pinelands. If he does not go there he loses his privileges under the Sick Fund and has to pay his own expenses. These are things which cause us concern. What does the Roman Catholic church do in other countries where they are strong? In Australia, where the Roman Catholics are in the majority in Parliament one finds, according to the statement of their officials, that they aim at appointing Roman Catholics 100 per cent. in the civil service, and according to this information, 93 per cent. of the teachers appointed in the state schools in the year 1942 were Roman Catholics. This shows what the church does in a country where it has the power. Has the time not arrived for the Protestant church in South Africa to awaken? I ask that of hon. members who are Protestants, English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking. If the Government today submits to the wishes of 5 per cent. of the European population, what is the position then? I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here because we would have liked to have a statement from him, and we will again raise this matter on his Vote. The Minister of Justice said that he issued instructions that the books must be returned. Up to the present that has not been done. What is the reason? That instruction was issued fourteen days ago. Do you think it is pleasant for ministers of religion to have the police enter their residence and nose about amongst their books looking for this book? We want to express the hope that this type of thing will never happen again in South Africa. South Africa is a country enjoying freedom of religion, and we hope that the Government will respect that freedom of religion enjoyed by our people.

With almost regular monotony, hon. members have got up and asked the Minister of Finance if he would help them in one direction or another by the provision in the estimates of money to meet their particular schemes or fancies. I want to alter that monotony this afternoon by suggesting to the Minister of Finance a means by which he can find some revenue. I want to deal with the question of sub-economic housing. The general formula by which the Government or the local authorities carry out a programme of sub-economic housing is for the Government to lend money to these local authorities at three-quarter per cent. interest. From time to time mention has been made of the heavy burden of interest which falls on the lower paid classes of the community. It might seem strange in face of that fact, that I am here and now going to suggest in connection with the sub-economic housing scheme, that the Government should lend money to the local authorities not at three-quarter per cent. but at two-and-a-half per cent., and that this will entail a considerable saving of money to the Minister of Finance in his budget. In order to illustrate clearly what I have in mind and what can be done, I want to make reference to the post-war reconstruction programme of the Durban Municipality; and all I have to say, and the figures I propose to use will be figures based entirely on their post-war reconstruction programme. The figures from that example, can be taken in general as a standard for most of the local authorities or municipalities in South Africa. The Durban post-war reconstruction programme provides for housing to the extent of £10,635,500. It is divided up and the housing to be provided for the different sections of the community is as follows: Indians £8,820,000; Europeans £575,500; coloured £1,242,000. It is clear from those figures that the people in and about Durban who will require to be housed under the sub-economic system are, in the main, Indians. The proportion of the coloured population in Durban is small compared with the vast number of Indians who live in Durban, and who are compelled by their economic existence to live in circumstances which necessitate their being assisted in housing through a sub-economic formula. Instead of the Government lending this money at three-quarter per cent. I suggest that they lend the money to the local authorities at 2½ per cent. thus effecting a considerable saving to the Government. During the period of the post-war programme, the burden imposed by the expenditure of that amount of £10,000,000, will be heavy, and I suggest this alteration in the greater interest which will effect a saving of no less than £5,583,375 to the Government. I am going to make a further startling suggestion, that the municipality of Durban can also save that amount of £5,583,375 over the course of that post-war reconstruction programme of theirs. The proposals which I am making and which have been submitted to the City Council of Durban mean a saving to the municipality on that programme of theirs of £186,112 per annum, which is equivalent to 1d. per £ on the rates at Durban. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Government and the municipality will appreciate such a saving. Now I go still further than that, I say that the other party to the sub-economic housing programme, that is the person to occupy the house, can also effect a saving, and that it is possible for a £400 sub-economic house in Durban (that is £350 for buildings and £50 for land) to be sold outright to the occupiers of the property at a lower weekly payment than that which they are expected to pay in ordinary weekly rents. The figures work out in this way. On a £400 house under the Government formula the annual interest and redemption comes to £10 19s. 6d., insurance 3s., repairs and depreciation £8 15s., vacancies £1 17s. 3d., management fee, being 2½ per cent. of rental, 11s. 2d., and rates £5 0s. 6d. That means that under the Government formula, the present formula, that for that £400 proposition in the sub-economic programme, the annual figure is £27 6s. 5d. Then we reduce that by the 1¼ per cent. that the local authorities are expected to contribute in the way of subsidy, to £22 6s. 5d., which is 8s. 7d. a week. Instead of asking these people, who we accept we must subsidise through our sub-economic housing programme, to pay 8s. 7d. a week as rental for a house which they shall never own, I submit that it is possible to sell those houses outright to the occupier of the house, and that they should be asked to pay no more than 7s. 2d. per week; that is a sum of 1s. 5d. less per week for a house that they would ultimately own after a period of 30 years. Those are the figures I propose if the Government lend the money at 2½ per cent instead of three-quarter per cent. which would mean that the house occupier would have to pay annually in capital and interest £18 17d. 5d. less 1¼ per cent. corporation subsidy, being £5 a year, reducing it thus to £13 17s.—5s. 2d. a week to which must be added rates and insurance 2s. per week, making a total of 7s. 2d. The reason why it is possible under my proposal is because I submit that it is necessary for us and for this House to take an entirely different view and to examine the needs of the people who require sub-economic housing from an entirely different perspective. Instead of our proceeding in the orthodox manner in the belief that these people must pay rent, if we view it from the perspective that we should make homes available to these people, then you will see that by adopting such a principle you eliminate the very heavy cost which has to be charged against home renters in the way of depreciation and repairs. Under the Government formula it eliminates repairs and depreciation of £8 15s. a year, and it eliminates vacancies £1 17s. 3d. Further, it eliminates management fee of 2½ per cent. on rentals. I submit this, that if instead of renting houses to these people you allow them to become owners, they will look after those houses, which will eventually become their own by purchase. It is impossible to expect that people will look after property if they are merely occupying it at a rental. What happens in actual practice is that instead of the Municipality of Durban having to make provision for this subsidy of 1¼ per cent., they are compelled to make provision for a loss of 3 per cent., and I am doubtful if there is a single municipality in South Africa which has a sub-economic housing programme, who will get away with it for as little as 1¼ per cent. The general complaint of all local authorities is that the Government loss is fixed. The extent to which they are asked to subsidise housing is fixed, that is they lend the money at three-quarter per cent. and presumably it is largely money that comes from post office savings, on which they have to pay 2½ per cent. So the subsidy they make is 1¼ per cent. They expect that the municipality shall bear the same loss and subsidise the scheme to the same extent, but by reason of the fact that depreciation is much more than ordinarily budgeted for, the Durban Municipality has had to budget for a 3 per cent. loss. On many of their housing schemes they are losing as much as 6 per cent., and the sole reason for it is that the occupants are renters instead of, if we had a sane outlook, been encouraged to own the properties. They would then have the house for their exclusive use and for their accommodation, and if we encourage them in that direction it would afford proof of the arguments which have been advanced by hon. members on the Government benches from time to time regarding private property. As a matter of fact it is an argument which they frequently use against the claims put forward in the name of the working class by the Labour Party from time to time. It is true that if people own their own property they look after it better than they do after property belonging to anybody else. There are very few people in Durban today who are prepared to build houses with a view to letting them out to other people. The only form I know of today is building for speculative purposes, and very few people remain satisfied with renting houses out for others to occupy. One form that rental exploitation takes in urban areas today is the building of flats, where a number of dwellings on a limited space brings a higher rate of return than can possibly be secured on a house. The reason is that it is difficult to get the same returns from housing proposition that you get on flats. The Government have had to take steps in recent years to protect those family people with children who are absolutely excluded from housing accommodation, because house-owners are not prepared to let their houses to a family man with children on account of the damage that they do. It is an argument that cannot be gainsaid that if a family man has children living in his own house he will see that they do not damage the walls, or do any other unnecessary damage to the house, whereas if the property belongs to someone else they are not interested in, the landlord is faced with a bill for repairs. Similarly, if the proposals I am making are accepted it means control of the cost of depreciation and largely it means its elimination, to the interest of all three parties concerned. Let us see in detail now what actually happens in a sub-economic housing programme. A very minor fault is discerned in the house—it may be that the sash or the window cord gets broken—a perfectly simple thing to repair. If the person occupying the house was the owner he would repair the sash at very little cost by purchasing the necessary cord and making good the fault himself. But if he is merely a renter and if the landlord is a very benevolent municipal council, then instead of repairing the fault himself he will ring up probaby the Works Department and tell them that the sash has gone wrong and he wants it repaired. If they send out someone it will probably be a European artisan who will get into a truck, probably with a couple of assistants and a pair of step ladders, and off he goes to repair the sash; and the job that would have cost a house-owner a matter of 3d. or 6d. will be entered in the municipal books at 15s. or 16s., and ultimately that will be a charge against the sub-economic housing scheme.

You would have an objection from Labour to the man doing the job himself.

You have never heard any member of the Labour Party raising an objection to a person doing any job in his own house. The Labour Party does not object where it is a matter of seeing that people who are in economic circumstances which does not permit of their having homes are fitted into a scheme of this kind.

And if he helps his neighbour?

It is not cutting into ordinary trade union rates or trade union standards, and in any case there is no distinct line or division which can be drawn. If you like to submit to me any particular set of circumstances, asking whether the Labour Party or the trade union movement would object to such and such a thing in such circumstances I could answer the point.

Will the hon. member please address the Chair.

I cannot say that there is any line of division, and I cannot imagine the trade union movement taking any exception to a man making repairs on his own property. Let me emphasise the point. If we have a sub-economic housing scheme in which the person who occupies the house will ultimately become the owner, it will not only be beneficial from a financial point of view, not only beneficial to the occupier of the house in that you can ask him to pay a smaller rental than would be the case under the Government scheme, not only beneficial from the point of view of the Durban Municipality, but it will have saved a sum of no less than £186,000 or an equivalent of 1d. in the £ on the rates. Not only are there these financial savings, but it will have a tremendous stabilising moral effect on the people occupying the house. It is stabilising to the community as such if people can be encouraged to have their own home rather than pay rent indefinitely for a house they will never own. I suppose it is much better for the community as a whole if the people are encouraged to own their own homes, and no matter where you go and in what local area you may proceed, you will find a number of people who should be helped, people who ordinarily work in industry and have worked for a number of years in a given industry, and their work is, in fact, centred round the place of their residence. These are the people we must help with the sub-economic housing scheme. The Labour Party does not like this sort of scheme; the Labour Party considers that every person should be paid a standard wage which would enable him to live in decent circumstances without looking to the Government for some form of charity or subsidisation of his house; but while their circumstances are such that they get low wages and it is consequently necessary to subsidise their houses, then we submit it is better to sell the sub-economic housing scheme houses at a lower weekly figure than to rent them at a higher figure. I am submitting the figures to the Minister concerned and these figures have been submitted to three city treasurers in South Africa, all of whom confirm their accuracy, and I do not want the hon. member sitting on my left (Mr. Neate) to question them. Let me give him the assurance that the accuracy of these figures has been checked by three city treasurers, and if they cannot find fault with them I do not believe that he can. I will submit them to him in detail and he will have the opportunity at a later stage in this debate of submitting his criticisms, if he will be able to find any. I have indicated the ways in which a saving can be be effected. It is effected purely on the principle of ownership. I hope the House is interested in the statement that I have made. I hope the Minister will be equally interested. I believe the City Council of Durban will be interested, and I believe every municipality in South Africa will be interested because of the financial gain to the Government and to the municipality, and because of the benefit it will confer on the occupants of the houses by enabling them to become the owners. I want to say one other thing. It is unfortunate that in South Africa the people in the main who are occupying sub-economic houses, where they have been put up by the municipalities, are not chiefly persons who are engaged in ordinary industry as employees. They are principally employees of the State. It is regrettable that the Government of South Africa should be the principal employer of people who are compelled to look to the State for subsidisation under the sub-economic housing programme. One other point I want to make in regard to this, and I want to make it at this particular stage, because I want to indicate how a municipality can evade its responsibilities, how it can say: “Well, it is the responsibility of the Central Government,” and probably the Central Government in turn will shuttlecock the workers back and say: “No, it is the responsibility of the municipality.” Some years ago a decision was made by the Durban Municipality that the premises known as the Magazines Barracks should be demolished and a new building put up in its place, and that provision should be made for municipal employees—Indian employees—to live in the Municipal Barracks. Now, anyone who has seen the Municipal Barracks or knows about them, must have heard the outcry about the Magazine Barracks and despite the fact that two years ago the Durban Municipality agreed to the demolition of these barracks, and agreed that the Indian employees should have other provision made for them, no start has yet been made, and I have a letter here from the employees’ organisation concerned, in which they say that the Municipality say that the responsibility is that of the Central Government, and that the Central Government is not making any provision for materials. If that is so I should like the Minister concerned to say so in this House, so that we can have a record of that statement, and the Municipal authorities can be challenged about their statement that the Central Government is holding up the erection of new barracks for the Indian employees. One other point I want to make before I pass from this. In Durban, as the figures have indicated, the people for whom most provision has to be made in regard to sub-economic housing, are the Indian workers. These Indian workers are to a considerable extent the employees of Indian capitalists and these Indian capitalists are not worried about the condition of the people of their own race. They exploit them as much as they can.

What about the European capitalist?

Well, they do the same. But I want to say this, that if there is any section of the European community in South Africa for whom provision will have to be made in the way of sub-economic housing, it is mainly the Afrikaners. They are the people who are in this economic position, that they have to look to the Government for provision in the form of sub-economic housing. I do not know whether any of our Afrikaans friends will suggest that. But let me say this, that, there are 400,000 Afrikaners who will require this type of housing—they are the people who are in the main classified in the group of poor whites, and they are not poor whites by reason of British conquest—they are poor whites because they are from the land, and the land, because of our economic system, cannot make provision for them to enable them to enjoy a decent standard of living. And they are exploited by their own race and their own kind in the rural areas. Today they are drifting into the towns.

Are they not exploited by someone else too?

Oh, yes, by all capitalists. But I don’t want hon. members to believe that Afrikaners—Afrikaner capitalists are excluded from that. But in this case I am quite sure that these are the people who will have to be provided for. Now I come to another point. I have a wire here, and I have no doubt other members have had similar wires from the Springbok Legion who were assembled in Congress in Johannesburg during the last week. The purport of the wire is to inform members of this House that representation has been made to the Prime Minister, his secretary and his undersecretary, asking the Government of this country to recognise the Springbok Legion as an organisation of soldiers and returning soldiers. They claim a membership of something like 40,000. The membership may be an exaggeration. On the other hand, it may be a perfectly true statement that their membership is in that region. All I want to say is this, that there is very little sense in any member here—whether it be the hon. member for East London (Mr. Christopher) or any other member, getting up and talking platitudes about the soldiers who have made such wonderful sacrifices, and who have to be looked after when they return. All these things remain pious platitudes unless the Government is prepared to forthwith do what the Springbok Legion asks for, that is through their principal spokesman here to make a statement that it recognises the Springbok Legion as an organisation of soldiers and returned soldiers which has justified itself as speaking on behalf of the soldiers—and let me warm hon. members, an organisation which will in future play an important part, an extremely important part in seeing that soldiers when they do return do not just go wild. We know that quite a number of soldiers have already been demobilised and we know that there are large numbers of them who have got out of the army without a job to go to. Now I do not want the Minister of Labour to get up and tell us that they are protected by law, that they are supposed to have a job, before leaving the dispersal camp. It is true that provision is made under the law for these people. But we knew what happens. There is often an urgent desire on the part of a soldier once he has finished his service, to get back to his home. He often does not worry about the protection of the dispersal camp; it is true that such soldiers have often made mis-statements to the persons in charge of the dispersal camp, so that at the earliest possible moment they may get back into civilian life, with the result that perhaps they have to walk about looking for a job; and let me say this, that in spite of the period of prosperity in which we are living today under war circumstances as a result of the Government spending a lot of money—despite all that it is sometimes difficult for a returned soldier to get a job, and these soldiers in increasing numbers will become discontented. They will go knocking about the labour bureaux and the employment bureaux and they will fall an easy prey to the vicious demagogues of this country unless the Springbok Legion is able adequately to express the desires of the returned soldiers. I suspect one thing. I suspect that the Government is a little bit afraid of the Springbok Legion, because of a certain action that body has taken. At its last conference the Legion took a decision which may displease the Government. Nevertheless it was a sensible decision to take. They decided that they would identify themselves with the trade union organisations of this country because those people assembled in the Springbok Legion’s conference were well aware of this fact, that the soldiers in uniform are merely workers in uniform.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate adjourned; to be resumed on 15th February.