When we were discussing this matter last time progress was reported because we first of all wanted to have some information from the Minister about the state of affairs. We find that an additional £56,000 is to be voted here, of which £20,000 for rations and fuel, is required in respect of gaols. In the meanwhile, however, the Government has been able to empty the gaols to a large extent, and the Hon. the Minister has promised to give us information regarding the number of prisoners who have been released and to tell us what the position is today in the gaols, so that we may decide whether or not this extra amount is still needed. In the meantime the Minister has answered a question I put to him, but all the Minister has been able to tell me in that reply is how many prisoners have been released in the larger towns, namely 631 in Cape Town, 351 in Pretoria, 2,159 on the Witwatersrand, 70 in Bloemfontein and 606 in Durban. That, however, does not include those released on the platteland. I have been informed through the Department that it would take about 200 telegrams to find out how many have been released throughout the country. Our objection, however, is to the Minister coming here now and asking for this amount of money—our objection is that before he ordered these people to be released he did not know how many were going to be released. Now the question is whether it is still necessary to vote this amount of money? It seems a peculiar state of affairs to me that the Minister should come to this House and ask for this large additional amount. I assume he wants this extra money because he did not have enough money for his gaols last year owing to the gaols having got so full that extra money was needed. The Minister gives as the reason for the release of the prisoners the fact that the gaols were too full. I can quite understand the Minister requiring this additional money if the gaols were so full, but the gaols are no longer full today. He has released these large numbers of prisoners—he does not know how many, but he is asking the House today to vote this sum of money despite the fact that he has emptied his gaols to a very considerable degree. We do not know, either—and we would also like to have this information from the Minister—how many of these people that he has released have gone back to gaol since their release, and how much of that money was required for them? How much of the money is needed in respect of those who are back in gaol? We only read in the papers that the day after their release and on subsequent days large numbers landed back in gaol. I think we are entitled to more information. We therefore ask whether this extra money was needed because the Government during the past few years expected more people than originally, than normally, to get into gaol. If that is so, then we have no objection to this money being granted. But now the position arises that as a result of the Minister’s action thousands and thousands of prisoners have been released. That being so, is it still necessary to vote this money? Has not the Minister got enough money available? We still have two months of the current financial year before us, and we should like to know why this large amount of money is needed. I think we are entitled to be told what the true position is. Is it not now necessary for the Minister to have this extra money owing to a number of prisoners having been let out of the gaols? Or is the position this; that so many have again been arrested since their release that the money is still needed? On that point we desire full information.

I can tell the House at once that if we had not known that it would have been necessary at a certain juncture to release a number of prisoners, we would have required consider ably more money. Of course, one can never know exactly how many it will be possible to release, but we knew that if we reached a certain point we would have to release a number of prisoners, and that fact was taken into account when the estimates were framed. I may say that we did the same thing in December, 1942. At that stage we also reached a position where the gaols held as many people as they could hold, and a number of prisoners were released. We framed our estimates on that basis. We took everything into account, but of course it is impossible to say exactly how many one is going to release.

The Minister says that some time ago, I don’t know how long ago, it was decided to release a number of prisoners when a certain point was reached. When was that decision arrived at?

On his birthday.

No, the Minister’s birthday hasn’t come yet. Could not the Minister have ascertained how many prisoners were going to be released as a result of the action taken by him? He is not able to give us the information even now.

It is self evident that I could not know that because if one decides a few months before the time that more or less on a certain date a number of prisoners will be released, the number will depend on the number sentenced in the meantime. One can only make a calculation in accordance with the ordinary course of events, but one does not know how many are going to be released. I may also tell the House that we have tried to build more gaols, but on account of the scarcity of building material it has been impossible to proceed with the work. Consequently, we had to do what we did in 1942 because the gaols were full.

When was that decision arrived at?

In November or December it became clear that round about a certain date we should have to take such a step; I cannot give you the exact date. We made our calculation on that basis.

I should like to have a little more information. According to the Minister’s statement it now appears to be the fixed policy every year to decide to release a certain number of prisoners. The Minister does not know how many. According to the Minister’s statement that is the policy which is being followed, every year to release prisoners who have been sentenced to less than three months imprisonment. The Minister does not know how many people were sentenced after that resolution had been taken and before they had been released, and the Minister therefore tells us that he is unable to give an accurate estimate. I want to ask the Minister, however, whether that is the correct policy to follow, that when criminals are sentenced and given a sentence of three months or less, and they are sentenced during a particular period, it means that practically speaking they are not put into gaol at all? This is a most important point. It goes deeply into our judicial life. In other words, if a criminal commits an offence during a certain part of the year he is sent to gaol for three months, but if he happens to commit a crime during the time when the Minister has decided to grant an amnesty, he does not go to gaol. Is that a sound condition of affairs? We have the system in this country of suspended sentences but if this policy of the Minister’s is given effect to, it will practically mean the wiping out of the whole system of suspended sentences. I don’t think the House can be satisfied with the Minister’s explanation.

I should just like to put another question. I do not know whether I understand the Minister correctly, but I believe he said that in 1942 also a number of prisoners were released. We were not aware of that, but now suddenly 20,000 prisoners have been released with a great deal of fuss. Can the Minister tell us in which month of 1942 a number of prisoners were released how many were released, and what the effect of that release was?

In December, 1942, I think it was on the 22nd, we released a number of prisoners. The number released was around about the same as the number released now. It was necessary to do so because the gaols were full. There are many precedents for our action. The old Nationalist Party Government, for instance, on the occasion of a certain visitor to this country, granted amnesty on a somewhat larger scale.

I want to put just one more question. What is the position of people who were sentenced during that period, and who have not yet been in prison because they had noted an appeal? Will they have to serve their sentence?

Yes.

I should like to register my protest against the policy which the Minister is now pursuing.

The hon. member cannot discuss questions of policy now.

I want to raise an objection to the amounts of money which are being asked for while thousands of prisoners are being released. We should like to know whether we are to expect the same sort of thing to happen every year. If that is to happen in the constitutency which I represent.…

Order, order. The hon. member is out of order, he cannot discuss that question now.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 43.—“Police,” £250,

I want to register a serious objection to the adoption of the principle contained in this item, and I hope the House will assist me in getting this amount deleted. Let me say that I have no objection to there being a detective service in this country; we need detectives. Provision is made, however, for detectives and the Minister can appoint as many detectives as the country needs, and if inadequate provision is made on the estimates he can ask for an additional amount. I also admit that during times of war it is necessary to have a secret information service. Provision is also made for that. The Prime Minister has the right to spend as much money as he considers necessary on a secret information service, he need not account for that to anyone. Each year he merely gives a certificate to the Auditor-General to say that he has spent £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000 for that purpose, and the Auditor-General is satisfied, and we have been satisfied. We recognise the necessity of having a secret information service in time of war. We also find that during the year 1940-41 an amount of £4,600 was spent by the Government for that purpose. The year after it was a little over £3,000, and this year, according to the Auditor-General’s report, £5,800—that is to say, for last year. Consequently there is provision for a secret information service and we on this side of the House have not raised any objection to that, but now the Minister of Justice comes along and asks us to give him a similar secret weapon. Now he also wants to establish a secret espionage service. The question which arises immediately is, against whom does he want to institute that service? He is asking for money here for the formation of a secret fund of which no one in the world knows anything except the Minister himself. The money may be £200 or £250, and later on it may be £5,000. He asks for the money but he will not have to account to anyone. At the end of the year all he has to do is to give a certificate to the Auditor-General to the effect that the money has been spent. This is a dangerous principle. This is the first time an ordinary Minister of the Crown has asked for such a secret service to be placed at his disposal. I should like to know how the Minister can justify it? What exactly has he in mind? He cannot tell us that he needs this for the purpose of interning people because the camps are full and thus far he has managed to get along without such a vote. Now, why is this money required suddenly? One gets all sorts of ideas in one’s mind. We know that the Minister of Justice has certain aspirations. Is the idea to spy on the other aspirants? How do we know that the Minister is not going to appoint spies in the lobbies of Parliament?

A man who has never stood behind the door himself is not going to look for somebody else there.

No, but once one starts with such secret services one has to expect that sort of thing. Sufficient provision is made under our ordinary laws. The Minister may appoint traps, under the ordinary laws, and all he has to do is to say to the Auditor-General that he has spent the money, but now we find that he wants to create a secret service and a secret fund. Who is that secret service to be used against? How do we know that it is not going to be employed to spy here in Parliament?

Surely that’s not worthy of you.

When anyone starts a secret organisation, a secret. Ogpu or Gestapo, one has to expect those things.

Or the O.B.

It makes no difference, the moment one asks Parliament for secret funds one creates a suspicion, and we are entitled to know from the Minister why it has become necessary suddenly to create this secret fund. I want to ask the Minister whether he has already spent this money. If so, who gave the Minister the right to lay down this new and dangerous precedent without getting Parliament’s consent, and who gave the Minister the right simply to ask Parliament to accept an accomplished fact? It is a brand new thing in the administration of this country. This is not an ordinary secret information service in view of the war. The Hon. the Prime Minister can spend as much money as he wants to spend for that purpose. So far we have not raised any objections to that; then why this new thing? We shall be glad to get the information.

I also wish to raise serious objections to this vote. I have correspondence before me which shows that the position is a very dangerous one, and having raised this matter I should like to know from the Minister whether the money now asked for is to be used for the purpose mentioned in these letters which I have here. I have certain copies of letters here and also a number of original letters from which it appears that a certain lady whose husband is interned was unable to make a living. Eventually she urged the Government to intern her so that she might be able to live. The Minister simply replied that there were no facilities in this country for the internment of women. Some time after, this woman, was taken to Pretoria by certain detectives, and there she was offered £15 per month by the Government if she was prepared to undertake espionage work among pro-German people in this country. In the first place a letter was sent to the Prime Minister, and now I want to know from the Minister of Justice whether this is the kind of thing for which this money is required? It is undoubtedly one of the most contemptuous methods of exploiting the need and misery of a man or a woman.

May I ask the Minister whether he can tell us what this vote is intended for?

This vote contains nothing that is new.

Has it anything to do with internments?

No, it has nothing to do with internments; it is an investigation. What the results of such investigations will be depends on circumstances.

The hon. member may proceed.

I regard the matter as very serious. What we object to is that at a time like the present the economic difficulties in which families find themselves are being taken advantage of, and a woman like that is offered a sum of money with a view to getting others into trouble and landing them in the internment camp. That is why I want to know what this money is intended for and whether it is also to be used for matters such as I have raised.

May I just explain. This matter was discussed by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, of which the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) is a member. There is nothing new about it. It has for a long time been the practice to provide such an amount; only, it used to appear on the estimates in a different form. It is the practice in South Africa and in every country in the world to have certain secret funds available for police services. When the hon. member for George was Administrator of South West Africa I am sure he, too, had such a fund. That fund is employed by the Police for secret purposes. The only difference is that it always used to appear under sub-head “O”, Secret Service. The Auditor-General thereupon held that in cases where vouchers could not be issued the amount must be specially voted by Parliament. This procedure in actual fact renders the position more satisfactory than it used to be in the past. It is incorrect to say that this is something new, something which did not exist before. A certain amount of money has always been spent in this way, but the Auditor-General now requires the amount to be specially voted by Parliament.

What was the amount last year?

Last year there was no such vote.

Are we not allowed to know what the money is intended for?

Of course not. These are secret services. If we do not issue vouchers it would be foolish to give the details here in Parliament. It is in the public interest that that information is kept secret. The position has always been the same, it is only the form in which it is placed on the estimate which has been changed.

We are not yet satisfied because the money is often spent in a scandalous manner. I believe that this money which we are now asked to vote is in respect of last year and I want to give an instance of what happened last year. In a certain Government Institution in the Free State a salary was paid to an official for the purpose of spying on his fellow officers. That kind of system is one which we cannot possibly approve of. One official is employed to spy on his fellow workers. When they talk in a friendly manner he picks up information which he carries to the police; that is what he is paid for. It does not necessarily mean that there are people suspected of subversive activities. I think it is a most serious condition of affairs when people in the Public Service are paid extra money in order to spy on their fellow officials in their offices day after day. We cannot possibly approve of that. I also know of instances such as that mentioned by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz). Let me mention one case. A man was interned, was released, and was paid to enter the Government’s secret service as a spy. It’s a dirty way of taking advantage of the difficulties in which these people find themselves. A man who is looked upon as dangerous is released from the camp and then employed in the Government service. It is not a case of ordinary investigation by the police. This vote is not there for the purpose of enabling the police to find out certain things, after a crime has been committed. There is no objection to that being done. If a crime has been committed and the police find that it can only get the necessary information by passing over some money—well, one cannot object to that, but here people’s difficulties are being exploited in order to induce them to spy on their friends and associates. That’s a dirty sort of thing.

The Minister is a good hand at telling us things in an innocent way, and trying to create the impression that there is nothing wrong. Let me give an instance. He gets up here and tells us that there is nothing new in our being asked to vote this money—he says it has always been done. Then he tells us that the only difference is that it is now done in a different way. If that is correct it means that on the original estimates an amount of money was already asked for this purpose, and now the Minister requires more money for that same purpose.

No, that is not so; this money was voted as part of another sub-head.

Then under that vote an original amount must have been voted.

The position is not that an insufficient amount was originally voted, but that the amount is now being specifically voted.

But then it is not an increase. It appears here as an entirely new item. Additional estimates are not there for the purpose of bringing in new things of that kind. Has one ever heard of anything like it? The Main Budget is to be introduced shortly, but here we find that on the Additional Estimates a new item is introduced. Let the Minister admit openly that that is wrong. When I ask him whether the money has already been spent he does not know.

Of course it has been spent.

If it has been spent, why then was not there an amount on the Main Estimates? Why cannot the Minister wait until the Main Estimates are placed before this House?

May I be allowed to explain the position? On the original estimates provision was made for £8,500 for general expenses in connection with investigations under the heading of “Detective Services,” In the past provision used to be made out of that amount for services of this nature. Now, because of the objection raised by the Auditor-General, it is proposed to make specific provision for that purpose and that is why it appears here.

Why?

Because the Auditor-General is of opinion that that is the best way of dealing with it.

Why is not this shown on the main estimates?

In the same way we have on these additional estimates a change in regard to the cost of telegrams and cables on the Prime Minister’s Vote, and on the Vote of the High Commissioner in London.

Then that was also wrong.

But the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) said that it had never happened, and now I have quoted another instance in these self same additional estimates. In any case the fact that the Committee is asked to vote £250 for that purpose does not prove that the money asked for is additional money and that it has already been spent.

I wish to protest most emphatically against the assertion of the Minister of Justice that when I was Administrator of South West Africa there was such a secret fund in South West Africa. I deny it. If the Minister of Justice makes such a statement he is guilty of an untruth. There was no secret fund of that kind. This is a secret fund in respect of which the Minister need not account to anyone. That is the difference. In the past the Minister was compelled to account for the expenditure, now he need not supply any vouchers but once this fund has been established he need simply say that he has spent the money. He can spend the money as he likes and he has not to account to anyone. All he has to do is give a certificate at the end of the year saying: “I, Colin Steyn, certify that the money has been spent.” That is all. What we have here is the establishment of a secret fund. We are starting a principle here of giving the Minister money without his having to account for it to anyone.

He can establish a sort of Gestapo.

In his case it will be a sort of Ogpu such as they have in Russia; an innocent little amount of £250 is being asked for here. We are disposed to say, “What is £250”? but what guarantee have we that this amount will not be increased from year to year in future—and for what purpose? We do not know for what purpose the Minister is going to use it. No, we are giving the Minister public money here and we are saying to him: “You can spend it as you like, you need not account for it.”

It almost sounds like a Reddingsdaad Fund.

Aren’t you ashamed of yourself.

I do not know what the object is of hon. members getting excited over this small amount. I did not state that there was a secret fund in South West Africa, but now that the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has referred to it I want to say that there was a secret fund in South West Africa, and it was there for the same purpose as this fund. Now, may I just explain further that this matter was dealt with by the Select Committee on Public Accounts because it was mentioned in the Auditor-General’s report, and I should like to quote the relevant paragraph in the report—

And then the Auditor-General says—

The position is quite clear. It is simply put here in a different form. Hon. members know what the position is, and there is no need for me to go into it any further.

The Committee divided:

Ayes—89:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Latimer, A.

Maclean, J.

Mare, J. F.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts. J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Noes—30:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouche, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. C. de W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens. J.

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

Vote 43.—“Police,” as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Vote 44.—“Native Affairs,” £3,000,

I do not want to hold up the estimates, because I know that the Minister of Finance is in a hurry to get these estimates considered in another place, but I would like to have some information about this amount of £3,000. One hears complaints throughout the country, in Agriculture, in Industries and everywhere, to the effect that labour is not available. I should like to know whether this money is only intended for sick and unfit natives, and whether the payments are made in areas where natives are domiciled, with the result that they are encouraged not to go and work in industries or on the farms. I am very anxious to have a clear statement. I am not opposing this amount but we should like to know what the money is intended for.

I shall be glad to hear from the Hon. the Minister what this £3,000 is for—why it is necessary to call for this additional grant for the relief of distress at this time. The Minister will remember that we on these benches challenged a similar type of claim for an additional vote for natives distress this time last year, when we discovered that the rise in the price of mealies was placing that commodity even more beyond the reach of the natives than usual, so that the Department had to come to the assistance of the natives. We challenged it on the ground that the distress for which relief was being called had been created by the Government’s own policy. We are opposed to the fixing of prices to the farmers without consideration of the capacity of the people to pay, and we consider that these grants for relief should be carefully watched so that the full costs of the policy of price fixation not only in money but in man power and human efficiency, should be kept before the country. I shall be glad to know on what grounds this money is called for now.

We should like to know from the Minister of Native Affairs whether this amount for relief of distress among natives, which now altogether amounts to £853,000, includes money for relief of distress paid to natives in urban areas. I am thinking of the large numbers of natives drifting into the urban areas, and for whom provision is being made. I can imagine the Minister tracing certain natives in the towns now in regard to relief of distress. If money is being spent on relief of distress among natives, then I take it that it is also being spent on those natives who are loafing about the towns and on those who are at the depots, and those who in large numbers are hanging about the huts on the Cape Flats, and the Minister will have to trace them. I should also like to know whether the Minister is having those people who are hanging about the streets without licences or permits traced, because the police no longer demand that these people show their permits. I am not allowed to discuss that subject now, and that is why I have to put it to the Minister in the form of a question. Now that the Minister no longer gets the natives who hang about the streets in large numbers for their permits I want to know how he traces them for this relief of distress, both on the streets where large numbers of them hang about, and on the Flats where many of them live in those huts and in the depots. My second question is this: Is the country not entitled to ask— what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has already asked—in view of the fact that such a large amount of money is being spent on relief of distress among the natives—whether some of those natives who drift to the towns from the platteland and from the reserves cannot go and find employment on the farms?

I want to point out to the hon. member that £850,000 is not being spent on relief of distress.

Yes, that is the amount for the whole vote. I am sure the Minister will be kind enough presently to tell us the total amount which is spent on relief of distress. Let me put my question in this way. It appears to me that the Department of Native Affairs is intent on finding employment for those natives who are drifting in to the towns in alarming numbers—it appears that the Department is intent on finding work for them in urban areas and not on the platteland. If the Minister were to look for work for them on the platteland he would find work for them, and it would be unnecessary to keep those depots running at high cost to the State. The position today is that the natives are loafing about the towns in large numbers without permits, a fact which causes considerable expense and trouble to the Minister when he has to trace them. It also leads to criticism being levelled against him and his department, and he could avoid all this if he were to tell the natives that he is going to send them back to their own country if they are not prepared to go and work on the farms. I want to appeal to the Minister and ask him to put his foot down in that respect. If we take urban areas like Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, Johannesburg etc., we find that the influx of natives into those towns is such that they are becoming a nuisance there.

This vote has nothing to do with that.

None the less I feel I am entitled to put this question to the Minister as he is asking us to vote on an amount here for the relief of distress, and in view of the fact that that money is undoubtedly also being spent on natives in urban areas.

No, it is not being spent for that purpose. I can explain the position.

May I just round off my arguments by saying this to the Minister: That as we have now raised this matter the Minister should give us information and tell us whether we are exaggerating the position when we say that his department is at its wits’ end because of the large influx of natives into the town. We know that that is so. I have suggested a way out of the difficulty to him, and I should like to know whether the Minister intends carrying out my suggestion and whether he intends telling the natives that they must either go and work on the farms or otherwise be sent back to where they came from.

Will the Minister tell us whether any of this money is intended for the relief of distress among that increasing number of natives that one sees drifting in from the platteland to the large cities? I refer particularly to those mental and physical deformities that one finds at the corners of nearly every street in the bigger centres. I want to know whether any of this money is intended for relief in their case and I hope the Minister is not going to say that that is not his responsibility but the responsibility of the local authorities. It has been said that that is the position, but I want to point out that the large majority of these natives are rural natives and they come into the towns and set up at the corners and beg for pennies from the passers by, and it is very depressing to think that our modern civilisation should permit a state of affairs such as that to exist. I hope the Minister has taken into consideration the lot of these unfortunate people, and that some of the money is intended for them.

It is understood that this item is intended for the repatriation of natives from urban to rural areas.

No.

The suggestion has been made by an hon. member over there that these natives should be returned to the country in order to participate in rural industries and in agriculture. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to this fact, that industries established in rural areas are not so rural either. Today we find that there is no room in any of the locations around a town for any natives who seek work in these areas. It has come to my notice recently that certain farmers in contiguous areas as far removed from Paarl as Dal Josaphat …

I am sorry, the hon. member cannot pursue that point.

I am on the question of the repatriation of natives in rural industries.

The Committee is not discussing that.

We don’t know what this is; this is merely for the relief of distress and this is one aspect …

The hon. member can only discuss the reasons for this increase.

I am suggesting that this is a possible reason for the increase—I am asking if this is not one of the reasons. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has said that these natives come to the towns and are being repatriated from the towns. I assume that that is the distress …

Might I suggest that the Minister tell the Committee what this increase is for.

It will save a lot of delay.

I have been trying to get up for some time. I want to say that this is an estimate for the current year. We placed an amount of £3,000 on the estimates merely as a token and that has been found not to be sufficient. Now, while this is for the relief of distress it is not to be confused with pauper relief which comes under Social Welfare. This money is intended for relief of sudden distress caused by locusts, drought, flood, shortage of food or something of that kind. It is entirely for cases such as that, or for instance where animals have had to be destroyed because of East Coast Fever and the natives are running short of food. An amount of £3,000 was originally placed on the estimates, and that has not been enough, so another £3,000 is required. These amounts are needed for a number of areas in the Northern Transvaal, Kuruman and other parts. This has nothing to do with the beggars one sees in the streets.

Has this anything to do with the question of maize?

This is entirely a question of relief of distress but not pauper relief which is only for unfits or semi-fits. We have sold maize to those in need at cost prices plus 5 per cent. for handling charges.

†*I should just like to reply to the question of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp): This amount is only intended for physically semi-fit and unfit natives. If a man is in good health and fit he is expected to go and look for work.

†Now, I may just give some details of what is given to individual people. It is 1s. 6d. for a man, 1s. for a woman, and 6d. for children, excluding rations. Alternative rates are also provided, and I have them here and shall hand them to the hon. member for Cape Eastern if she wants to see them. Only semi-fit or people unfit for military service are given this relief. In Kuruman mealies have been provided at cost price plus 5 per cent. for handling charges. That is the whole position.

This is extra pauper relief.

No, it is for relief of distress to meet an emergency. It is not under the Social Welfare Organisation of pauper relief.

†*In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) I merely want to say that the suggestion which he has put forward has nothing to do with this vote. I may say in passing that I am aware of the difficulties he has mentioned, and in many respects he is perfectly correct in what he said about the great danger which exists. The hon. member spoke about the depots. The reason why we established depots was, as far as we possibly could, to put a stop to this sort of thing, to classify those people there, and find out how many came in to look for work in the towns and also to determine whether there was work for them. I am not permitted, however, to go into that question now — I am afraid the Chairman will not allow me to do so.

What is the amount of this vote?

£3,000 was voted, and we are now asking for another £3,000, so that altogether it will amount to £6,000.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote B.—“Public Works”, £75,525,

I should like to put a few questions to the Minister about the additional amount to be provided under this vote. On page 22 an additional amount of £10,000 is asked for in respect of repair and restoration work at Westbrooke I should like to know whether the work is given out by tender or out of hand? I also want to ask the Minister whether he thinks, in view of the housing shortage, that it is still desirable to maintain two houses in Cape Town for the Governor General? Is it still desirable to do so at a time when other people have to live in slums?

As hon. members know, there was a fire at Westbrooke and it was partially destroyed. This sum is to restore Westbrooke to the condition it was in prior to the fire. The item is a large one, but the destruction was severe. The work of reconstruction was carried out by the Public Works Department.

In regard to this amount of £10,000 we now understand from the Minister that that money has to be voted to restore the building since it has been destroyed by fire. I should like to know from the Minister whether the house was destroyed by fire at a time when it was occupied? Was it occupied by the Crown Prince of Greece or the King of Greece. How long did they live there? Did they live there free of charge, or does the Greek Government pay rent? Is that the way in which we provide for the accommodation of members of governments of other countries who are not here on a visit as guests but who apparently are domiciled here for a considerable time? I should like to know the conditions under which that place was burnt down?

Mr. Chairman, the point raised by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has nothing to do with this item. The fire took place when Westbrooke was occupied by the Greek Princess. The Public Works Department and the fire department tried to find out the cause of the fire, but the assumption is that they were never successful.

Was it a successful fire?

No, unfortunately; I had better not say any more in that direction. That is the position. I cannot say from memory whether the Greek Princess paid a rental or not. I do not think so.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote C. — “Telegraphs and Telephones”, £369,000,

I notice an additional amount of £299,000 here, nearly £300,000, here for “standard stock”. I only want to express the hope that this amount is being provided because the Minister has at last realised that he has done a grave injustice, especially to the platteland, in regard to telephone facilities in those parts of the country. Throughout the length and breadth of the country there are places where people have vainly applied for help so far as the provision of new telephone lines and similar facilities are concerned. The Minister has always made the excuse that he has not got the necessary stocks at his disposal. Now, we suddenly find an amount of £300,000 on these additional estimates for the purchase of stocks, and I hope it is the intention to come to the aid of the far flung platteland constituencies like mine. The people in the far distant parts urgently require telephone facilities and I hope the major part of this money will be made available for that purpose. If that is so we shall not object to this money being voted.

I merely want to put a few questions regarding this vote; we find here an amount of £23,500 for the development of existing telegraph, telephone and wireless services. I know of several people who have made application for telephones, and they are told that there are no telephone sets available. Even if one lets one’s house the telephone is removed. Now, I want to ask whether new instruments have come into the country, or whether new instruments are being made in this country so that we may expect the position to be easier. There is also an amount of £465,000 for reconstruction works. What is that? Is this in respect of old telephone lines which are being renovated? This increase constitutes half the amount which originally appeared on the estimates. In regard to the amount of £299,000 for standard stock, we should like to know from the Minister whether we may expect the platteland, where the need for telephone lines is very great, to be assisted?

I will not detain the Committee long, but I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), that a considerable amount of the Estimates of Expenditure should be applied to the provision of new telephones, and for telephone services generally in the country districts and particularly in the Eastern Cape. In the Eastern Cape we have for many years been urging the need for extended and additional telephone services. Applications have been outstanding for years past, and the plea usually has been either lack of material or lack of funds. I sincerely hope that the Eastern Cape will be given a generous proportionate share of the proposed increased expenditure whether for materials or other services, as considerable dissatisfaction at the apparent neglect of such areas is being expressed.

May I ask the hon. Minister to tell us whether there will be any relief in regard to telephones. He knows that we are very short. I should like to pay tribute to his department on this question; the officials help us as much as they can; they are most efficient and most courteous. I know the department has been short of telephones; is there any chance of any relief in Johannesburg and in the country as far as telephones are concerned.

Last year there was only £1,000 on the estimates for the purchase of stock, and now an extra amount of £299,000 is asked for. Has that stock been obtained since the estimates were framed? If so, will the Minister give the country the assurance that the people in the far distant parts, who are just as much children of the State as the people in the thickly populated areas, will share fully in the amount which the House is asked to vote for the purchase of material?

In reply to the various questions raised, let me assure hon. members that they have my sympathy, and I am sorry that we cannot give them the telephones they require. In the past it has been due to lack of materials. This sum is going to help the position very slightly. The material in question is still in London, at the London docks. We have bought it and we have had to pay for it, and that is the reason why the amount is appearing here. We have placed orders in anticipation, appreciating what the position is in South Africa.

Your colleague stated the other day that there was no deficiency in shipping facilities.

Who said that?

The Minister of Commerce.

I am not in a position to affirm or deny what the other Minister said. This money had to be found when the goods were delivered on the London docks. We know full well the requirements of the country in regard to telephones, not only in the country but also in the towns. I do not want to go into the figures; the figures are appalling of people requiring telephones both in the towns and the country. It will take five or six years, working full steam ahead, to catch up on requirements. Many demands for telephones are three, four and five years old. All I can say is that I want everybody to get a telephone, and everything is working in that direction. At least there was a time when things were working that way, but apparently the more telephones we get the greater becomes the demand. In regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in connection with the amounts of £23,500 and £46,500, this is due entirely to the requirements of the military. These are lines that will remain with the department. The department will use them in the future, but we have had to construct them at the request of the military.

I would like to know whether these two items will be the means of giving relief in respect of this double rate charge between 5 a.m. and 8 p.m.

Order, Order!

I would like to suggest to the Minister that instead of asking this House to vote a miserable £3,000 he should consider at the first opportunity, augmenting our telephonic equipment very considerably, and having the necessary funds voted so that he might take advantage of every available shipping opportunity, of every manufacturing opportunity, without waiting for the specific sanction of this House in order to improve the position in regard to the telephone service throughout South Africa.

This item is not all.

I want to ask the Minister what the possibilities are of our manufacturing the material required for the construction of telephone lines within our own borders. A large amount is asked here for the purchase of standard stock. Is it not possible, rather than to import standard stock, to manufacture a large proportion in our own country? I further want to draw the Minister’s attention to the needs of the platteland. The Minister knows that as a result of the curtailment of traffic facilities on the platteland telephone communication is more essential than ever before. People must have the means of getting into touch with doctors and so on.

I am sorry but the hon. member cannot discuss that question on this vote. The Minister has indicated that these amounts are for military purposes.

My point is, will the Minister give us an undertaking that he will meet the requirements of the platteland as far as he possibly can.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote E.—“Irrigation,” £8,000,

I should like to know from the Minister, in regard to the additional amount of £8,000 for Soil Erosion prevention, whether this has any connection with the new division or sub-division known as “Country Service”?

No; this is in connection with the Vlekpoort scheme.

I should like to know from the Minister whether this vote has any connection with the recent washaways on the Vaal-Hartz scheme?

No.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote F.—“Local Works and Loans,” £2,700,

I just want to ask the Minister what the amount is under the heading “Loans to Educational Institutions”? There is nothing there to indicate which these institutions are. I should also like to have some information regarding the scheme of university loans to ex-volunteers

In regard to the first point it is not stated here which institution it is for. It only states “Double Storey Wing: Training College and School for Domestic Science.” The only institution of that kind falling under my department is the one connected with the Witwatersrand Technical College. In regard to the second question, we are not dealing here with a new provision. All that is asked for is an additional amount owing to more money being required for the purpose. This House last year approved of the scheme under which volunteers, that is to say ex-soldiers, can make application for assistance in respect of their university studies. Such applications are considered by a special committee. I may say that in regard to this scheme we have the co-operation of all the universities. They all contribute their share and take an interest in it. This particular Committee makes recommendations, and loans or allotments, or both, are made in suitable cases. The scheme was started on a very small scale and thus only £600 was asked for on the original estimates, but we shall need £1,300 to meet the applications which have been made.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote H.—“Forestry,” £99,000,

I should like to put a few questions to the Minister. There is an amount of £39,000 here which the House is asked to vote for afforestation. Is this intended for the purpose of expediting afforestation? Then I want to ask whether the amount of £50,000, Cost of Living Allowance, is intended for forestry workers? I hope so, because these people get very small wages and work very hard. If this £50,000 is for that purpose then it has my full support.

In regard to the Special War Allowance for which an amount of £10,000 is asked, I should like to know what that money is required for?

The £39,000 is made up of £25,000 for further exploitation of forests, sawmills, and whatever else is required. Of course, we shall get this money back over and over again from the revenue derived from these forests. A great deal more assistance is needed than we had expected. An amount of £6,000 is required for the employment of an additional 300 Italian prisoners of war. We cannot get any other labour. Then the other £8,000 is in respect of extra pay for forestry workers which I promised last year. Part of the additional expenditure appears under “Revenue” and another part on the Loan Estimates. Since December they have been getting 7s. per day and an extra £1 per month cost of living allowance. For the whole year it amounts to £30,000. In regard to the cost of living allowances—those allowances are for officials and forestry workers.

On the Barberton Settlement too?

Yes, right throughout the country.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote N.—“Commerce and Industries,” £2,400,

I should like to get a little more information from the Minister regarding the amount of money being spent at Stillbay? Will that money be spent on the same basis, and in the same way as money has been spent on other harbours? My objection is that these amounts of money are not used in the right way. Let me explain what I have in mind. In 1939 we completed a seawall at Gordon’s Bay. I should like the Minister to send his experts out to see how that wall is falling in. The reason for that is that the harbours along the coast have to put up with anything.If the money for Stillbay is also to be used in that way the wall there will also collapse.

All the Government’s walls are falling in.

So far as construction work is concerned our fishing harbours have to put up with anything. I protest against that. An amount of £2,400 is now provided here. Is that all the money that is to be spent? Fortunately in 1939 the construction work in regard to fishing harbours was, as I understand, taken over by the Minister of Railways and Harbours. Well, he is the man who is familiar with the sea and I hope he will see to it that our harbours are constructed more effectively, and that they will be able to resist the sea. The Minister of Railways knows that the sea more than any other element is destructive. In 1925 the then Government appointed a commission to investigate the whole of the coast line from Port Nolloth to Durban. That commission issued a report in which it stated that South Africa should spend a large sum of money on the improvement of our coastal harbours. The Government, however, later on came along with only small amounts of money, to improve things here and there. If another commission were to be appointed today and were to go through the country again, it would report that the construction work so far as the harbours are concerned have been done just anyhow. The Minister of Commerce and Industries has only recently returned from Europe and I have no doubt he has seen very fine ports and harbours there. He should benefit by his experience and not put such small amounts on the estimates for a place like Stillbay. If he looks at the trivial amounts spent on other harbours he will feel ashamed. Now, this has happened in spite of the recommendations made by that Commission. I do not know how he and the Minister of Railways and Harbours are going to divide their responsibility but I hope that jointly they will induce the Minister of Finance to provide large amounts of money. If they do not do so we will have the same thing as is happening at Gordon’s Bay, and the sea walls will very soon collapse. Trivial amounts are set aside for a slip-way here and an improvement there, and a little wall somewhere else, instead of the whole question being tackled on a comprehensive basis. We should not spend those minor amounts because it is simply a waste of money. It means working with bits and pieces. If a deputation approaches the Government and tells the responsible Minister that the port is so bad that the fishermen are unable to carry on their business, the Minister has a bit of a wall put up. It is nothing but patchwork, and it is quite ineffective. One has to make representations and deputations have to go to the Minister, and then a bit of patchwork is done. So far as my constituency is concerned, I want to tell the House that a deputation was sent to the Minister to ask for a lighthouse. The lighthouse was thereupon erected. Afterwards the deputation again called on the authorities to have some rocks blown up in the river mouth. That was done. But it is all patchwork, and one is sent from Pontius to Pilate. Rather let the Minister do what the 1925 Commission recommended; let him tackle one fishing harbour and do a good piece of work so that he does not have to do patchwork a few years later. Since 1933 particularly small sums of money have been spent here and there instead of the matter being tackled on a large scale. Take Gordon’s Bay. A small harbour has been built there — so small that the few boats there are hardly able to turn. And since the time the military people have also taken up residence there nobody can get accommodation at that place. The Minister may expect a deputation to wait on him shortly to tell him that the wall on the southern side has been knocked to pieces by the sea. Is he going to do a bit of patchwork again when that time comes? It does not pay. That is the way in which money is wasted.

The hon. member has chosen rather an unfortunate instance to launch a general attack on the fishing harbours, because this particular harbour has been built some years and has been a success. As the result of it having been a success an extension of it is required.

Have you seen it?

No, but it is fully occupied at the present moment, and it is necessary to extend it. The sum on the estimates will only take us up to the end of the financial year, and is no indication of what is going to be spent on the harbour. As a matter of fact, the total expenditure to date on this harbour is £3,500, and we are spending another £8,000, which according to the harbour engineers — and we get the best advice we can from the Minister of Railways and Harbours — will place that harbour in a position to meet all necessary requirements. The £2,400 is a first instalment of the £8,000 — we cannot spend all that money before the 31st March. There is the other point, of course, which the hon. member for Moorreesburg suggests — when we are going to build fishing harbours we should build them like minor Table Bays everywhere. Well, these fishing communities are often very small ones, and by spending a comparatively small sum of money, provided it is done on a properly thought out basis, so as to provide for extension by starting off with quite a small harbour, you may enable that community to do very much better than it was done in the past by giving certain facilities, you make it possible for the population to grow, and as time goes on the harbour may be increased. I do not want to enter on a general discussion on fishing harbours. But there is a good deal in what the hon. member says, that in providing these facilities one should make sure that the right scheme has been adopted. In the case of Melkboschstrand, we shall make sure.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote T.—“Police,” £100,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote U.—“Transport,” £75,000,

This vote for £75,000 is a new vote, and it seems to me that the position so far as our motor transport is concerned is becoming a scandal. On the ordinary estimates there is an amount of more than £200,000 for transport, and now a further £75,000 is asked for for certain purposes. I hope the hon. the Minister will explain the position to us. We find this on the estimates: “Formation of pool of motor vehicles for Government purposes.” If we have to pay more than £300,000 for the transport of officials, it would appear to me that it is high time for us to take transport away from the Government Garage. It seems that every official today has a motor car and, as I have said, I think the Minister of Finance should put on the brake so far as motor transport is concerned.

I had intended to explain the purpose of this particular Bill since it is a new vote on the Estimates. It has, of course, nothing to do with our revenue account at all. The position in regard to motor cars at present in the country is, as everyone knows, that they are very scarce, there are very few available for any purpose, and those that are available are carefully rationed so that country doctors and people like that who really need a car are able to be assisted. No car is wasted, but among the requirements that are important so far as the country is concerned, are the Government’s own requirements. The Government is not extravagant in the use of cars and is keeping its use of cars down to an absolute minimum. There is constant investigation as to what further cuts can be made. It is true that owing to other transport not being available, the Government sometimes has to meet other new needs. Now, the Government’s old stock has been very much depleted, and it has been decided in order to meet the requirements of the Government until such time as more cars will be available, to lay aside 257 cars. Sixty-five will be for the Railways, 152 will be earmarked primarily for the Government garages.

Are they new cars?

Yes, and 50 for the S.A. Police. These cars are not to be put into commission immediately, they are to be held until they are required—they are not actually required at once. They can, of course, be made available for anything which the Ministry may consider most essential, but it is important that these cars shall be held for the present. It is regarded as unfair to leave the cars in the hands of private dealers. For one thing under the price control arrangements these private dealers can add 1 per cent. for every month they hold a car which means an increase of 12 per cent. per annum in cost. So it is better to take these cars now and the arrangement is that 257 cars will be taken over.

Do these 257 represent all the new cars there are?

No, there are more cars.

So you leave some in their hands.

Oh, yes, but they are still controlled by the Motor Vehicle Controller. These are only the bare requirements of the Government calculated for another three years. The Railways are going to store these cars until they are distributed to the different departments. The Railways will pay for the 65 cars which they require, but the Railways cannot pay for the other cars for the Government Garage or the Police, so this £75,000 is to cover the cost of the 192 cars which are not to be taken over by the Railways.

Can the Minister give us an idea of the number of new cars in the country?

I cannot give the figure now, but tomorrow I am meeting the Transportation Council. We shall be going through the whole position in order to see what the latest figures are, and a little later in the session I shall be able to make a statement to the House as to what the position is. I intend doing that in any case on the Transport Vote. That is the position. These cars will cover our requirements before we can get new cars from overseas.

The Hon. the Minister in his speech said: “The Government is not extravagant in the use of cars”. I am glad to hear that, because I must say that the number of G.G. cars which one sees lately on the roads is very considerable. There are so many of them that the ordinary man in the street is already beginning to make remarks about it, and I myself have had experience— it may be an isolated case—but if it is characteristic of what is taking place in the department, then it is difficult to believe the Minister when he says that his Government is not extravagant in the use of cars. Some time ago a commission was appointed consisting of professors of the University of Cape Town and professors of the University of Stellenbosch. It was agreed that the meetings which were in the interest of some Government departments’ work were to be held in Cape Town, and the Stellenbosch professors thereupon said: “Very well, as the meetings are being held at night and as there is no convenient train service, we shall be glad to take it in turn to go to Cape Town with our own cars provided the Government supplies the petrol”. One would think that that was a very reasonable request, but what happened? They were notified by the Government that they could not get the petrol but that the Government would supply them with transport. Instead of those professors getting the petrol to take them to Cape Town a Government motor car was sent from Cape Town to fetch those professors at Stellenbosch. A Government car took them to Cape Town, and took them back to Stellenbosch. In other words, that car had to make the journey between Stellenbosch and Cape Town four times, while the private car would only have had to make two journeys. I do not know whether that is a general thing, but if that is the way the Government garages proceed in cases of that kind, then it is very difficult to believe that the Minister is correct in the information that his department “is not extravagant in the use of cars”. I hope that this is an isolated case, and that that is not the general policy.

I should like to say that there have been cases of extravagance, and I am very glad to have the particulars of the case which the hon. member for Humansdorp has raised, I shall have it looked into. Speaking generally it is preferable to have a Government car to take people in a case like this to a particular place and take them back, since you cannot ration petrol to cover exactly the distance that people have to cover. You have to give them more than is required. But, of course, the case mentioned by the hon. member is somewhat different. On the other hand, if a car is sent out, you know that the car is used for the specific purpose it is intended for.

Your Government car did four journeys.

Yes, in that case it was different. Sending a car all the way to Stellenbosch to bring someone back and then to send the car back again seems …

And there is a Government garage at Stellenbosch.

I don’t know whether there is a Government garage at Stellenbosch but I can assure the hon. member that if we hear of any cases of this kind we shall investigate them, and any members knowing of cases of that kind should assist the Government in laying these instances of wastefulness before us. We shall be only too glad to get that assistance.

I should also like to bring a matter to the notice of the Minister of Railways and Harbours in connection with this particular matter. I want to draw his attention to instances of extravagance which have occurred at Christiana where a number of Railway lorries, which had to cart the mealies to the station, went out on several nights with people they picked up on the road; those people were taken to a dance in Government lorries and with Government petrol. It was nothing short of a scandal. I do not know whether Minister knows anything about it.

Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported that the Committee had agreed to the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Funds without an amendment.

Report considered.

Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Funds, adopted.

Mr. SPEAKER appointed the Minister of Finance and the Chairman of Committees a Committee to bring up the necessary Bill in accordance with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure as adopted by the House.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE brought up the Report of the Committee just appointed, submitting a Bill.

I move—

This Bill has been introduced for the purpose of amending in certain respects the Act which in 1937 was placed on the Statute Book. That Act of 1937 was submitted to this House at the time, after consultation with the Provinces. There were certain agricultural trade schools. We are not referring now to the agricultural colleges but to certain agricultural training schools, such as for instance at Cradock, which fell under the Union Education Department. Experience had taught us that it was desirable to link up the work of those agricultural training schools more effectively with the work of the ordinary secondary schools than was possible while they came under the Union Education Department. It was therefore agreed that we should transfer those agricultural training schools from the Union Education Department to the Provincial Department. It was agreed at the same time that in view of the fact that it was fairly expensive to maintain schools of that kind, a special basis of subsidy, an ample basis of subsidy, would be fixed in regard to those schools. It was also arranged at the time between ourselves and the Provinces that this very ample basis of subsidy would only be paid so long as those schools continue to exist as agricultural training schools. That condition, however, was not specifically embodied in the Act at the time. As a result now of the experience gained in the course of the last few years—although the results of this transfer have been generally good, it has been found to be necessary to amend the nature of the instruction in the schools in certain respects, in order specially to make it possible to provide training in those schools which would enable the pupils to take the departmental senior certificate examination in all agricultural subjects. This to all intents and purposes means that the agricultural training schools have now been converted in certain respects. They are now becoming, practically speaking, agricultural high schools and the question is whether under the original agreement we are still compelled to apply this ample basis of subsidy in respect of those schools. It is felt by the Provinces that perhaps as a result of this development which has taken place in the work that is being done at these schools they are running a risk of losing the subsidy. So far as my department is concerned we do not want to handicap a sound development, and we have felt that it is desirable to place the matter on a definite basis through legislation. This legislation has been discussed with the Provincial Education Chiefs and with a view to fixing the matter definitely the change is being introduced, especially by means of clause 3, which lays it down that in these schools the training is to be principally of an agricultural nature; in other words, they need not continue in existece as agricultural training schools, but can now develop in other directions provided they give training mainly of an agricultural nature. The object of this is merely to place the matter on a sound basis, and no change will be made so far as the financial aspect of the matter is concerned. It will merely give the Provinces the assurance that so long as those agricultural training colleges exist they will get this subsidy.

I have no objection, of course, to the Hon. the Minister of Education placing this matter on a sound basis. I only feel that we have to be very careful in order not to curtail the rights of those schools.

No, not at all.

Has the Minister got in mind that such a school can be used for training which is not of an agricultural nature?

I shall reply to that later on.

I have not got up to oppose this Bill. I feel that wherever we can introduce improvements in our educational system all sides of the House should give their support. We are continually taking over certain things from the Provincial Administrations, and there are many things we are anxious to take over. Now the question arises in my mind: Is this one of the matters which we should take over from the Provincial Administration? I understand from the Minister that in 1937 an arrangement was entered into regarding the taking over of those schools because the costs were so high. It is now seven years since that arrangement was entered into. During those seven years the Minister and the Provincial Administration carried on without any legislation being introduced on the subject. I now notice from the newspapers that a further discussion is to take place between the Hon. the Minister and the Executive Committees. I should like to know whether it would not be better to wait until such time as this question has been fully discussed with them? I understand that this question has been discussed with the Chiefs of the Education Department, but I do not know whether the question was discussed with the Executive Committees when they met for the purpose of discussing the question of financial relations with the Minister, and for that reason I should like to know now whether it would not be desirable to let this matter stand over for a while. May not the Provincial Councils later on perhaps say: “Here are matters which we ourselves could have dealt with and you have taken them out our hands?” I think there are other things which should come under the Union Parliament but I do not propose going into that aspect at this stage. I only want to mention this in passing, in view of the discussions which still have to take place. As I say, I have just got up to put these few questions to the Minister, and I want to emphasise again that whenever a matter is brought up in the interests of education we on this side of the House do not propose looking at such a question from a party point of view; we look at the matter from a National point of view and that is how we propose dealing with this Bill. We are only a little bit afraid that the Minister may have the power of determining what is an agricultural training school, and if there is something he does not agree with he may perhaps take away the subsidy. I am glad to hear that that is not the Minister’s intention and that he would sooner go in the direction of expansion. For those reasons I have no objection to the passage of this Bill.

I merely want to repeat the assurance which I gave the House a short while ago. The object of this Bill is not to take anything away from the provinces. These schools were handed over to the provinces seven years ago. We are satisfied with the results of what was done at that time. We only want to perpetuate the present position and place it on a better legislative basis. It does not affect the question of the general financial relations between ourselves and the provinces. It only gives effect to the original agreement between ourselves and the provinces. In regard to the question of the hon. member for Cradock, Mr. G. F. H. Bekker, I only want to say that of course under this Bill it will not be possible for such an agricultural school to develop into an ordinary secondary school. It will continue to be a school which will principally be of an agricultural nature. If it develops into an ordinary secondary school it will naturally be unfair for us to pay this ample subsidy. What is required is that pupils can be prepared for the departmental final certificate in respect, of which a great many of the subjects are agricultural subjects, but the work is not confined to agricultural subjects. It now means that the pupils when they leave the school will be given a school final certificate. It will, of course, not be possible for the pupils there to take their matriculation examination with Latin and History and similar subjects.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

In the course of the 1942 session Mr. Speaker gave a ruling regarding the procedure to be followed on Bills intended to consolidate existing laws. The object of this ruling was to simplify the procedure regarding the consolidation of Bills. This Bill now is the first Bill of a consolidating measure which has been introduced since Mr. Speaker gave that ruling. It was drafted purely as a consolidating measure. In that connection I want to refer hon. members to the title of the Bill, “Bill to Consolidate the Laws in force in the Union relating to the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa.” Not for the consolidation and amendment, but purely for the consolidation of those Acts. This Bill therefore has been drafted to fall within the scope of the ruling given by Mr. Speaker, and the procedure suggested by Mr. Speaker will therefore have to be followed in regard to this Bill. I think it will be necessary for me to remind the House of that ruling of Mr. Speaker’s. I do so because this is the first time that we shall follow that procedure. This is what Mr. Speaker said on that occasion—

Now the position is as follows. If this House is prepared to accept the second reading of this Bill it will approve of this principle of consolidation, and a proposal will then be made to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. That Select Committee will then have to proceed in accordance with Mr. Speaker’s ruling. The Select Committee will then report to the House on the question as to whether the existing laws are amended in any way by this Bill, and if so, in what respect? After the Select Committee has presented its report the discussion on the Bill in this House will be confined to matters such as indicated by Mr. Speaker, namely, only matters in regard to the consolidation or explanation of the existing laws, and no discussion can be allowed, and no amendments contemplating the amending of existing laws will be allowed. As this measure has been drafted as a consolidating bill, it follows that it does not contain anything new. It is merely a consolidation of the existing laws. It will only perpetuate the existing legal position, and that being so there is no need for me today to go into all the details of the Bill. It will merely perpetuate the existing condition of affairs. I am not proposing anything new in this Bill; I am simply proposing that for the sake of convenience the existing laws shall be consolidated. I therefore propose confining myself this afternoon to a few general remarks regarding the history and activities of the Land Bank. Before doing so, however, I just want to say this. If hon. members should perhaps have any doubt as to the desirability of this Bill or the desirability of the consolidation of the existing laws dealing with the Land Bank, then I would refer them to the first schedule of the Bill on page 56. There they will see that what we are now proposing to do by means of this Bill is to repeal twenty-five of the existing laws or portion of those laws. In other words, instead of an interested party perhaps having to study twenty-five existing laws in order to ascertain what the law lays down on a particular point, such party in future will only have to study this one Act. That in itself is sufficient reason for this consolidation to take place. I want to point out to the House that with the exception of the year 1939 we have every year—year upon year for the past ten years—introduced amending Bills to the Land Bank Act, and that explains why there are no fewer than 25 laws today dealing with the Land Bank. I think I can say that we have reason to be proud of the Land Bank in South Africa. The Land Bank has rendered excellent services to the farming community and to South Africa as a whole. Before the establishment of Union there were three Land Banks in South Africa, and they were in three of the old Colonies, viz.: Transvaal, Free State and Natal. The old Cape Colony in 1907 passed a law for the establishment of a Land Bank, but that law was not given effect to before the coming into force of Union. Consequently, when Union was established, there existed three Land Banks. In 1912, under the first Land Bank Act passed by this Parliament, those three existing Land Banks were amalgamated for the purpose of establishing the Union Land and Agricultural Bank. If we cast our mind back to those days—more than thirty years ago—I think there are two names which should be mentioned in particular in connection with the history of the Land Bank. The first is the name of the late Gen. Botha, the first Prime Minister of the Union, and before that time Prime Minister of the Transvaal. I mention his name because he always took a personal interest in the old Transvaal Land Bank, and afterwards also in the Union Land Bank. And the second name I want to mention is that of Mr. Tom Herold. He was in the first instance Chairman of the Transvaal Land Bank. After that he was the first General Manager of the Union Land Bank and later on Managing Director of that institution. From 1912 to 1930 he was at the head of our Union’s Land Bank and in that capacity he rendered excellent services. The Land Bank, as it exists today, is principally Mr. Herold’s creation. Fortunately he is still with us— true, he is no longer in our service because he has resigned. I hope he will be spared for many years to come. He has rendered outstanding services to South Africa in that capacity. From the very start the Board of the Land Bank has been given power to act entirely independently. The object of that provision, of course, was to keep the Land Bank outside party politics, and I think I can say that successive governments have always acted in the spirit of that provision. Our Land Bank is above party politics, and I hope that will always be the position. I think it is to that fact that we can attribute a great proportion of the Bank’s success. At the start, at the establishment of Union, when the assets of the three then existing Colonial Banks were taken over, they amounted to a sum of about £2,800,000. That was the original capital of the Land Bank. Later on we shall see how that capital and the activities of the Bank have grown. In the first instance the Land Bank was entrusted with three main powers. In the first place—and that perhaps was in those days regarded as the main object of the Bank—the Land Bank Board was empowered to issue loans on bonds to farmers for agricultural purposes, but with the restriction that the amount of the loan was not to exceed £2,000, and was not to exceed 60 per cent. of the agricultural value of the security. Those bonds, in terms of the original Act, were to be repayable over thirty years. In the second instance the Land Bank was given the power to make advances to farmers without bonds in respect of fencing and dipping tanks. In the third place the Bank was given the power to grant loans to co-operative societies, but those loans were subject to the responsibility of all the members of such a society. The powers of the Land Bank were extended from time to time. Let me mention the chief changes that were brought about. I want to mention in the first place the fact that the advances without mortgage bonds which the Land Bank is able to make are no longer confined today to fencing and dipping tanks. Advances can also be made for forage tanks and for the purpose of providing water supplies. Then the power of the Bank in regard to cooperative societies has also been considerably extended. The Bank can today discount the Bills of such societies and it can in practically all respects act as the Bank of co-operative societies. I further want to mention the fact that the Bank can now make advances to co-operative societies with limited liability. It is no longer necessary for all the members to accept liability. The Land Bank can also make advances to control boards under the Marketing Act. I further want to mention the important fact that the Bank has power and very definitely uses that power to make advances to farmers on cash credit account. Finally, I want to mention the fact that the limit of £2,000 on loans on bond has been abolished. The period of repayment has been extended from thirty to forty years, and the restriction in regard to the value of the security was raised last year from 60 per cent. to 66⅔ per cent. Apart from these values which the Bank has in its own right the Government has also from time to time availed itself of the services of the Bank to do various other kinds of things. I mention for instance the fact that in 1916 the Bank was used by the Government in regard to relief to farmers, which relief had become necessary in consequence of drought and floods. When similar things happened in later years the services of the Bank were again used in the same way. In other words, the Land Bank was the precursor of what we now call the Office of State Advances. For a number of years the Land Bank has done the work which is now done by the Office of State Advances. I also want to mention the fact that in 1933, when provision had to be made for the taking over of private loans in consequence of the compulsory reduction of interest rates, the then Government took steps under section 20 of the well known Act No. 29 of 1933, to place the Bank in the position of taking over loans with Government money where the 60 per cent. limit of the agricultural value of the security had been exceeded, and such loans were taken over to the maximum of 100 per cent. Under those provisions of section 20 a total amount of more than £13,000,000 was taken over by the Bank in the form of advances to farmers. Of that amount £4,300,000 has already been repaid to the State. Further, £3,850,000 has been taken over by the Land Bank itself as those loans now come within the limit of two thirds laid down in connection with ordinary Land Bank loans. Consequently, the greater part of this loan of £13,000,000 has now been paid off, or has been converted into ordinary Land Bank loans. As a result of the extension of the activities of the Land Bank, branch offices of the Bank have from time to time been established. Today there are such offices in Cape Town, Bloemfontein, Cradock, Pietermaritzburg, Vryburg, Ermelo, Potchefstroom, Beaufort West, and now also at Kroonstad. This decentralisation has contributed greatly towards making the work of the Bank more effective, and it has also been found to be in the interest of the clients of the Bank. And may I be allowed to mention a few figures. In 1912, as I have already said, the capital of the Bank was £2,800,000. Today, the capital of the Bank is nearly £20,900,000, which includes a reserve fund of £1,630,000. The funds now under the administration of the Bank exceed £30,000,000 Since 1912 the Bank has issued 87,662 loans on bond. That is a very considerable number. The total amount of those loans on bonds exceeds £62,500,000. On all those loans the losses incurred by the Bank are, we can say, insignificant. The losses which have been made in isolated cases are more than covered in other cases. Out of this total of 87,662 cases, there have been only 1,634 where the Bank has had to resort, because of insolvency or other reasons, to having the property sold. Of latter years the receipts of the Bank, by way of interest and repayments of loans, have gone up considerably. In 1938 the Bank in that way collected an amount of £1,780,000. In 1943 the Bank collected £4,674,000. During that same period the demand for loans on the part of the farmers in these years of plenty also dropped. The commitments undertaken by the Bank in this respect amounted to £2,776,000 in 1938; in 1941 the amount was £1,567,000; last year, however, the amount went up again in spite of the plentitude of money in the country. In 1943 it went up to £2,826,000. I look upon this as proof of the fact that the farmers of South Africa still look upon the Land Bank as their bank par excellence. The general position of the Bank at the moment is a very strong one; I may say it is thoroughly sound. In that connection I only want to mention a few facts. The first fact I want to mention is in connection with the arrear amounts due to the Bank. On the last day of last year the amounts in arrear in respect of capital and interest due to the Bank altogether were just over 1 per cent. of the capital invested. That is a lower figure than was achieved even in the good year 1927-’28. In regard to loans under Section 20, as well, which are not really Land Bank loans, but loans made by the Bank on behalf of the State, the position is very good. Hon. members will recollect that the loans which are now left over are the weakest loans under this group, and even on those loans the amount in arrear on the last day of last year was less than 4 per cent. Apart from anything else, this figure goes to show—and I wish to emphasise what I have often said in this House.—that the farmers of South Africa, when they are given the opportunity, do not fail to carry out their obligations towards the State. The history of the last few years has abundantly proved that fact and the figures which I have just mentioned and which show the extent to which the liabilities towards the Bank are being met, further go to support that contention. I hope I have not wearied the House by this series of facts and figures which I have given it, but I do think that these facts and figures have tended to prove the good work done by the Land Bank and still being done by it. I feel that all of us very defintely wish the Bank to carry on its good work in the same way. The adoption of this Bill will not only, as I have said, be to the convenience of people who have to study the law from time to time, but it will also be of considerable assistance in the administrative work of the Land Bank itself. It is in that spirit therefore that I commend this Bill to the House, and that I move that the Bill be now read a second time.

It is not very often that I am in thorough agreement with the Minister of Finance, but it is a pleasure to me to be able to say that we on this side of the House heartily associate ourselves with the tribute which the Minister has paid to the Land Bank and also the tribute he has paid to the farming population of this country. We welcome this consolidating Bill and we wish to assure the Minister that we want to assist him to the best of our ability to get this Bill placed on the Statute Book. We admit that the consolidation of the Land Bank Act is something which has been urgently necessary for a long time. As the Minister has said, there are about 25 Land Bank Acts which we have to keep before us if we want to keep ourselves familiar with the provisions, powers and rights of the Land Bank, and the obligations of the farmers under those Laws. Our legislation has undoubtedly been in the nature of a maze and one practically had to have a library at one’s disposal before being able to find one’s way through that maze. The Minister of Finance specially mentioned the name of Mr. Tom Herold. We on this side of the House want to associate ourselves most heartily with the praise the Minister has bestowed on that gentleman. We, too, look upon him as the father of the Land Bank. He is the man who has taught us to have confidence in the Land Bank, and we are of opinion that his name is inseparably linked with the development of the Land Bank. Well, we want to say to the Minister that we are willing to help him with this consolidating Bill, but in saying that we do not want to intimate that our Land Bank legislation in its present form can be regarded as perfect. We are of opinion that it is possible for the Land Bank in future to develop further, especially in the direction of short term loans to the farming population. At the same time we feel that before we take a great step forward it is desirable to consolidate the position and to put our legislation in order. For those reasons I just want to tell the Minister that he may expect every support from our side in regard to this Bill now before the House.

I also want to say a few words. It is with a feeling of gratitude that we as farmers in this House can get up today and associate ourselves with the statement of the Minister of Finance. We are further engaged here in paying tribute to that great Afrikaner, the late General Botha, for the work he has done for our farmers, and we are paying a tribute to everybody who has contributed to that work. I think all of us know that he was an active and practical farmer, and the establishment of the Land Bank is one of the great things for which we are grateful to him today. Another thing which we are grateful for today is that the State is not being compelled now to write off large amounts of money. People have often urged the Government to write off liabilities, but we have refused to do so, and not one but every party has always said: Give the farmer a market and he will be able to pay his debts. Fortunately, since 1939, we have secured a market, and one on longer hears people insisting on large amounts owing to the Land Bank being written off. We have secured our market and we feel happy that we as farmers are able to say: That is what we have done; we have carried out our duties and we have paid our debts, but in spite of that I feel a little jealous; here we have a farming population which is eagerly looking forward to having its own banking institutions. The Land Bank has so far always been looked upon as a Bank established by the taxpayers for the purpose of helping agriculture along, but all those years I have been advocating the establishment of our own banking system for the farming population. Today we see how the farming population wants it own banking system. There are thousands of farmers taking shares in other banks simply because they are not given the opportunity of instituting their own banking system. I want to give expression to this idea today—I know that it cannot be done at once, but we should hold on to the idea that the farmers of South Africa must be given an opportunity of converting the Land Bank into their own bank, and the way in which it can be done to my mind is by abolishing all the levies on products because most of those levies slip through our fingers and are lost, and one does not know what becomes of them. I want to put up a plea again, as I have been doing for years—I have often been laughed at—for the institution of a system of levies on farming products, and I want to advocate the collection of the moneys by the State, and I want the farmers to be given fully paid up shares in their own bank for that money. I have often discussed this question in this House. When I as a front bencher sat here as member of the old Nationalist Party, I proposed a scheme of levies on farming products. I held meetings in the Cape, the Free State, the Transvaal and Natal, and at those meetings of farmers such a scheme of levies was approved of. We would have got an amount of close on £1,000,000 per year out of such levies. If we were to accept that principle for the future—I don’t want to advocate it for the present—we shall get a Bank in which every farmer is a shareholder, and all the farmers will be liable and responsible in respect of that bank. It can no longer be said today that the farming population is unable to do these things. I know the Government will have to assist, and as the Government will have to attend to the collection of the levies, it will at least for a start also have to assist in regard to the management, because the Government will have a responsibility in that direction, but I do not believe that we can still say today that the farmers are not competent to manage such a concern. Look at all the big organisations the farmers have built up, the large co-operative societies which have been developed. What I am getting uneasy and afraid of today are the banks which are springing up, and which are approaching the farmers to buy shares. The farmers are all too keen today because they want their own banking system but I am afraid of the future in the event of things going wrong.

Which bank are you referring to?

I am not referring to any specific bank, but banks are being started and if they end up in failure the farmer will be the sufferer.

They have not failed.

I do not say that any one of them has failed, but there have been a great many failures in the past, and that is why we have to be careful. The scheme which I have suggested is a sound one. If that is taken up it will become financially the strongest institution in South Africa. If the Nationalist Party at the time had adopted my suggestion we should today have had a bank with £20,000,00 or £25,000,000 at the back of it. The farmers will be secured because the Government would have been compelled to look after the money which would have been collected by way of levies.

You are dragging politics in again.

Hon. members opposite are always seeing politics in everything.

You are now making an attack on Volkskas, are you not?

One is not allowed to discuss anything without being told that one is bringing in party politics. In days gone by there have been many failures in connection with enterprises in which farmers have been induced to take shares, and that danger exists again today.

Which bank are you referring to?

Hon. members now want me to mention names. I am not going to do so. I don’t want to belittle or to handicap anyone who has a spirit of enterprise. Hon. members want me to mention names, but I won’t do so. They know which banks have gone bankrupt in the past, and they know how many thousands of pounds the farmers have lost.

Which bank has gone bust?

I am not mentioning any names, but the idea has taken a hold among the farmers that they must have their own banking system, and people are now going all over the country and inducing the farmers to invest money in banks, and then they say: “Mr. Steytler is also in favour of this scheme, and is pleading for our own bank.” Quite correct. I want the farmers to have their own bank, but it must be their own bank in actual fact, and there must be a guarantee that it is going to be a success.

I wish to give the Hon. the Minister and the House the assurance that I do not desire to introduce a note of discord in the expressions of praise which have been so rightly voiced in regard to the work of the Land Bank. To us who have become familiar with the work of the Land Bank it is a pleasure to associate ourselves with those expressions, and to express our appreciation of the work the Land Bank has done in the interest of the country. That is why we are glad to be able to agree with the Minister and those hon. members who have spoken and paid a tribute to this national institution. I should like to add one point—a point of which the Minister is perhaps not aware, and that is this, that as far as I know the best relations exist between the Land Bank and the commercial banks. It is a particular pleasure to me to be able to state this, and I think it is a fact which the House should bear in mind because hearty co-operation between the different banking institutions in the future is a matter of the utmost importance. I also think that all of us are in thorough agreement that it has become practically impossible for anyone who has anything to do with the administration of the Land Bank to gather all his information from about 25 Acts. On the other hand I must say that I doubt whether the time is ripe to introduce a consolidating Bill which cannot ensure that it will not be necessary again within a short while to introduce further amendments. I do not know whether the Minister imagines that it will not be necessary very soon again to amend such a consolidating measure. Bearing in mind the schedules and amendments since 1930 alone I doubt very much whether the Minister can cherish such an expectation.

No, there will have to be more amendments.

Well, none the less, in view of the stage which we have reached and the amount of legislation there already is it is no more than right that an effort should be made to render the existing legislation as practicable as possible. For that reason I welcome this consolidating measure. In regard to a few of the principles in this Bill I should like to have some further explanation. I accept the Minister’s statement that there are no new principles here which are not contained in former Bills in regard to the Land Bank, and which today do not have the force of law, but in view of the good relationship between the Land Bank and the Commercial Banks I should like to have a statement from the Minister telling us how the application of the principles are going to work in practice. In the first place I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to Clause 20, Sub-clause 1 (d). As it reads here, power is given to the Bank to accept deposits from any individual, co-operative society or body. If that is the position then it is a right which is being given to the Banks, a right which at any rate, so far as I am concerned, has not been made any great use of so far. In the negotiations which I have had in that connection, that at any rate has not come out. In Clause 21 (g) provision is made to cover the requirements of the Land Bank so far as capital is concerned. The relations between the Land Bank and the Commercial Banks are sound at the moment, and co-operation between those institutions is highly desirable. I agree with the manner in which the Land Bank under clause 21 (g) will be able to acquire money, but with a view to the good relationship between the Banks I should like to have some further explanation from the Minister as to the use which will be made of this provision, that deposits can be made with the Bank. As the Bill now reads the Land Bank can develop into a new deposit accepting institution on a basis of equality with other banks and other deposit accepting institutions. But provision is being made now to the effect that the Land Bank can accept deposits without being subject to certain conditions. Under the Banking Act of 1942 certain provisions have been laid down to which all commercial banks are subject and which all deposit accepting institutions have to comply with, and the people making deposits are specially protected by those provisions. Now I do not wish to contend that the Land Bank is not safe enough, but here the Land Bank is absolved of the provisions to which other commercial banks which have to co-operate with the Land Bank are subject. I think that on that point the Minister owes us some explanation and he should tell us whether it is his view that the Land Bank Management should not be made subject to provisions similar to those which the commercial banks are subject to. The next clause to which I wish to draw attention is 21 (1) (iii). Provision is made there for advances to borrowers in the form of cash credit accounts. The Minister mentioned that that provision already exists, but cash credit accounts are now made available to practically anyone, because the definitions in paragraphs 34 (1) (a), (b) and (c) are so wide that the advances on cash credit accounts are available to practically anyone who in any way is connected with agriculture. Here we feel that we are dealing with an important principle; we feel that it is a dangerous principle to lay down that anyone connected with agriculture can get those facilities. If that is done it means that the balance in the relationship between the Central Banks, the Special Banks and the Commercial Banks, is going to be completely disturbed. The world today is not content unless there are four different systems of banking, in which the commercial banks play their particular part. In South Africa, too, it is essential that we should maintain the equilibrium. One must not cut out one of the banks because if one does so the economic system is interfered with. For that reason I am anxious to see a sound relationship maintained. In view, however, of the definition of “farmer” which now includes anyone interested in farming, according to clause 2, practically anyone is entitled to get an advance by way of cash credit account, so long as he just has any interest in farming. I should like to know how that provision, if it has been in existence in the past, has worked? Is the Minister willing to place such a power in the hands of the Board? Will it depend entirely on the policy of the Board how that dangerous principle is applied, and whether the sound relationship between the Land Bank and the Commercial Banks will be disturbed? Those are the two items which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice, and I should like to have an explanation from him because there is a feeling of uneasiness among the commercial banks, which are rendering a service to the country, and a feeling that the good relationship may be disturbed. We should like to have the assurances from the Minister that they need have no fear that a right will be given to the Land Bank which may lead to the disturbance of our economic system. The Land Bank is indispensable to South Africa, just as the Reserve Bank is indispensable, but by the same token the commercial banks are indispensable. We must therefore see to it that the balance is maintained.

I should like to add my congratulations to the Minister for bringing in this consolidating measure. To those of us who have a good deal to do with the Land Bank this consolidating measure will be of the greatest assistance. I am also indebted to the Minister for the very interesting and informative review he gave of the history of the Land Bank since 1912 and I associate myself with the tribute he paid to the pioneers of the Land Bank Act. I do not admit, however, that the Bill is perfect. Last Session many of us criticised the section in the 1943 Bill which is now again embodied in section 26. And that is with regard to the advance of only two thirds of the pastoral and agricultural value of a farm. We feel that policy is too conservative and the Minister should adopt a more liberal policy. I submit that the Land Bank, popular though it is, could be more popular, and could be made more use of, if that clause were amended to give expression to the wishes and sentiments of a large section of the community, and I say again that I think the Minister would be well advised if he adopted the suggestion which was made at that time, namely, to increase the percentage for which an advance can be made to three fourths of such value. Then I would like to say that I appreciate the definition of the word “farmer.” The wider term of that definition is undoubtedly one which is going to cause a great impetus as it constitutes a more liberal outlook with regard to the definition of what is a farmer and that liberal outlook, I submit, can be applied with regard to section 26 as well. I would also like to urge that there should be greater expedition by the Bank in connection with applications for loans. This would avoid a good deal of inconvenience at present caused by applicants having to wait for two months and sometimes even longer.

I should also like to avail myself of the opportunity on behalf of the platteland of the Transvaal to pay a tribute to the great merits of the Land Bank by the valuable services which it has from time to time rendered to the country. The Land Bank undoubtedly is the one State institution which cannot be regarded as a charitable institution. Any other aid rendered by the State may perhaps still be looked upon as charity, but the farmers have so far always regarded the Land Bank as their bank, and they have accepted any assistance they have received in a business spirit and they have met their obligations to the best of their ability. We not only want to pay a tribute to the previous management, but we want also to assure the present management and the staff of our thanks and appreciation. In the present management we have a competent and sympathetic body. The Land Bank serves the public with a great degree of courtesy and patience. I do not think that there is a single instance where a farmer has had cause to complain of the Land Bank having treated him impatiently or unsympathetically. We appreciate the willingness to assist and we want to express our thanks. I feel, however, what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. V. G. F. Solomon) has also felt, that if criticism can perhaps be levelled then it is that the Land Bank is a little too conservative so far as land values are concerned. The Minister has already referred us to loans under Section 20, and he has pointed out that advances have been made up to 100 per cent. of the value of the land. The Minister also said that only 4 per cent. of the cases where loans were granted, people are in arrear, and as he told us the loans granted under that section are perhaps in respect of the weakest cases, we feel, therefore, that although the Land Bank naturally has heavy commitments and obligations, and is compelled to act carefully—because the Land Bank borrows the money from the State and has to be very circumspect in whatever it does—we feel that the Land Bank need not be quite as conservative as it is so far as land values are concerned. Land values have gone up tremendously during the past few years. We can almost speak of a dislocation in values. It is felt that the high price level of today will perhaps not be maintained after the war. That may be so, but on the other hand it is felt that we shall never get back to the low level of land values which prevailed for several years before the war. Perhaps we shall have fluctuations in land values after the war but none the less it is felt that those values will never again drop to what they were ten or fifteen years ago. In addition to that we feel that if the Land Bank is encouraged not to fix the values on such a conservative basis they will help the farming industry considerably without in all probability losing any funds by doing so. If possible there should not be a single farmer who has a bond outside the Land Bank. There is no doubt that there is no private concern able to offer the same facilities and the same assistance as the Land Bank. If we can achieve a position where all the farmers are assisted as the Land Bank so far as bonds are concerned, then we feel that it will never be possible for our farmers to be ruined, because the Land Bank is an institution which was brought into being on their behalf and it is there to assist them. We therefore again want to express our appreciation and our gratitude to the Land Bank for what it signifies to us, and for what it will still do for us in the future. The Minister spoke about the consolidation of the existing legislation. We are grateful to him. Where he has made a start with the legislation in regard to the Land Bank we want to express the hope that the same policy will be followed in regard to other legislation because it has become extremely difficult to look up provisions in our laws in regard to certain matters on account of the multiplicity of amendments and supplementary legislation. We hope that the example which has now been set will be followed by other Ministers.

I just want to say a few short words about this Bill, but before doing so I want to express my regret that the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) is not present. It has become second nature with the hon. member to introduce a note of discord in every debate. This afternoon, again, whilst pretending that he wants to help the farmers he made a covert attack on a certain bank in this country. The hon. member did not have the courage to mention the name of the bank but I know perfectly well that on the platteland he is agitating against Volkskas and I am sorry he is not here this afternoon because I want to challenge him to repeat in this House what he had said on the platteland to certain individual people. The hon. member always has to drag something unpleasant into the debates. Well, I shall leave him at that. We have repeatedly brought to the notice of the Minister the fact that the rate of interest of the Land Bank is too high. The report of the Land Bank even for this year refers to that and draws attention to the fact that the alarming position has developed of farmers now taking up loans with ordinary commercial banks at a lower rate of interest than we have to pay to the Land Bank. They are able to get money at 4 per cent. They had to pay the Land Bank 4½ per cent. Well, the Land Bank itself has issued a warning to those farmers and has warned the farmers against those banks for which the hon. member for Kimberley District has pleaded here. When money is plentiful they ask the farmers to take up money at 4 per cent., but when bad times come they start pressing the farmers and then they have to get back to the Land Bank. The annual report of the Land Bank Board mentions this. The Minister himself has warned the farmers to avoid that sort of thing. I think that the best way of preventing this condition of affairs is for the Minister, now that he can get money, at 3½ per cent. and 3¾ per cent., on loans entered into during the present period, to charge an interest of 4 per cent. if he finds that he cannot let people have money at 3½ per cent. and 3¾ per cent. That will stop people from going to the, commercial banks and from borrowing money from those banks at 4 per cent. The Minister knows that he is quite right in warning the farmers, and that when difficult times come those farmers will come back to the Land Bank. It will be no use telling them then that they have been warned. That is not going to help them. A human being, being what he is, will, if he can borrow money at a cheaper rate of interest, do so, and when difficult times come again the Minister or some other Government will have to take mercy on the farmers and will have to again give loans. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to stop the farming community from following that course, and I hope he will reduce the rate of interest so that it can be brought into line with the rate of interest on facilities which are available today.

I am sorry the Minister has not yet seen his way to extend the security for Land Bank loans to 75 per cent. of the agricultural value. I agree with the last speaker as to the danger there is on the platteland at present with the plentitude of money of people going outside the Land Bank to get loans at 4 per cent. I am not afraid of the position of the man who is independent; but the Land Bank was established principally with the object of keeping the farmers out of the hands of the Commercial Banks, and we cannot allow the position which is being created today to develop any further. Then there is a section of people who are not protected by the Land Bank—that is the section requiring bonds of between 66 and 100 per cent. of the full value of the land. If the Minister wants to rescue those people and get them out of the hands of the money wolves, he will have to extent Land Bank loans up to 75 per cent. of the agricultural value of the land. We advocated some such step being taken last year. When the Agricultural Union approached the Minister about it, he expressed himself as willing to do so. The Land Bank Board made the same proposal last year. When the Board went to the Minister, however, they again stood by the 66 per cent., although the Minister was willing to go to 75 per cent. I want to ask the Minister once again whether it is not possible to agree to this extension. There is no danger in it. I do not want the land to be valued at inflation prices; I do not really believe the land is worth those prices. It should be done on a sound basis. If land is worth £5 and it is being sold at £10 per morgen, then I am not in favour of the loan being made on the basis of £10. We must make our valuation on the old conservative value of the land. If the Minister does not follow that course, he will find that after the war, when hard times come, he will again be approached with requests for help. We know what the money-lenders are. When the weather is fine they are willing to lend money, but when the storm clouds appear on the horizon and interest has to be paid, they adopt a very different attitute. I hope the Minister will see what he can do for this section of the population.

I should like to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and also to other hon. members for the manner in which they have received this Bill. I very definitely feel that as this attempt at consolidation is practically the first attempt in that direction since Mr. Speaker gave his ruling, the way this Bill has been received will encourage Ministers to carry on with their attempts at consolidation. The hon. member for Ermelo quite correctly stated that there are several other Acts on our Statute Books in respect of which consolidation is essential. In expressing my thanks, I also desire to do so on behalf of the Land Bank. I am quite convinced that all that was said here in praise of the Land Bank was fully deserved in every respect. This Bill, of course, is a consolidating measure, it is a stabilising measure and it contains nothing that is new. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) asked whether it constitutes the last word. Of course not. I am convinced that the experience of the last few years will repeat itself and that further amendments will be introduced in regard to this legislation. The confusion that existed, however, became such that we could not delay the consolidation, and as we have now in this Bill proceeded to consolidate the existing Acts, it is not possible at this stage to consider amendments in the existing laws. It is for that reason that we cannot make provision in this Bill for raising the limit from two-thirds to three-quarters. That point, as well as other points, can be considered at a later stage, but I am afraid it is out of the question to consider them in connection with this particular Bill. In any case I propose discussing those matters again with the Board of the Land Bank. The hon. member for Ceres also referred to the relationship existing between the Land Bank and the Commercial Banks, and I must say that. I quite agree with him in regard to the tendency of his remarks, namely that there is a definite sphere for the Land Bank and a definite sphere of activity for the Commercial Banks. I also quite agree with him that we must maintain the balance between the Land Bank and the Commercial Banks, The hon. member referred to certain clauses in the Bill giving the Land Bank some comparatively far-reaching powers. For instance, there are the powers given under Clause 20 under which the Land Bank can accept money on deposit; furthermore, there is the provision allowing the Land Bank to open cash-credit accounts. What my hon. friend said in this regard is quiet correct—that if the Land Bank were to use these powers on a general basis, the balance between the Commercial Banks and the Land Bank would be disturbed. The Land Bank, however, only uses these powers to a restricted extent. So far as cash-credit accounts are concerned, it uses those powers in regard to the sugar industry, and in regard to the acceptance of deposits it uses these powers mainly for the co-operative societies, and I take it for granted that the Bank has no intention of extending its use of these powers beyond what it has done in the past. My hon. friend would perhaps like to see further guarantees introduced in this Bill in regard to these points, but it is impossible to insert any amendments of that nature in this Bill. All we can do in this Bill is to perpetuate the position as it is today, and as the Land Bank has these powers at present, it is not possible in the Bill now before us to deprive it of these powers. In any case I am quite confident that the Land Bank in its own interests will be most anxious to continue to maintain the balance with the Commercial Banks and I am satisfied that there is no danger of that balance being disturbed.

Will the Minister’s Department give its attention to this aspect of the matter?

So far as the future is concerned, I shall be prepared to give attention to that aspect of the matter. I also want to say a few words about the point raised regarding the rate of interest. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) spoke about the transfer of loans from the Land Bank to other banks. This, possibly, is not the occasion to go into the general question of Land Bank rates of interest; I can only say that although there was a period when farmers were disposed to transfer their Land Bank loans to other banks, our information and data tend to show that that tendency has now disappeared. That sort of thing hardly ever happens now. We also have the interesting fact that last year there was a considerable increase in the number of applications for Land Bank loans, which goes to prove that the farmers realise that the Land Bank is their bank and that they prefer availing themselves of the facilities offered by the Land Bank rather than those offered by other banks. That is a healthy development and I hope that development will continue. I move.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I now move—

I second.

Agreed to.