I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

Speaking to this motion, I wish to make it quite clear that I approach the subject entirely from a national aspect. In bringing this motion before the House I have no ulterior motives whatsoever. The motion suggests collaboration with Great Britain and other African states under British administration. But I personally, and I am sure everyone in South Africa also would welcome immigrants from Holland and the Scandinavian countries, and I hope if and when the Government puts this scheme into operation that the governments of those countries will also be invited to send immigrants to South Africa. In the past, successive South African governments have been urged to introduce immigrants into the country, but for political reasons no government has embarked on any such scheme. In support of this motion I wish to quote the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, the Hertzog Government being in power. In 1926 the right hon. gentleman suggested to the then Government that it should set aside £1,000,000 per annum in order to assist immigrants to come to South Africa, and I hope the right hon. gentleman is of the same opinion still, and that he will give support to this motion that I have introduced. If we have an immigration scheme we want men and women of virile stock; we want people who will be useful citizens, useful in every sense of the word. We do not want people to come here simply to make money, but we want people to settle as South Africans and accept the responsibility of full citizenship. I ask myself why successive governments in the past have declined to undertake any immigration scheme. To my mind there are two reasons. One is that the past governments have not realised, and the people of South Africa have not realised the extreme urgency of having a greater European population in our country. It has taken a second world war to make people realise that it is absolutely necessary, if we are going to survive, to have a greater white population in this sub-continent. The second reason why governments have refrained from doing anything is for political reasons. One section of the country, the section of the population that has had a preponderance of voting power, does not want to encourage immigrants for fear of losing their preponderance. I think the country is now convinced of the necessity for immigration, and I hope that the second reason will thus fall away. I hope my hon. friends the members of the Opposition will realise that from a national point of view we must have increased population. Not only have the governments in the past not encouraged immigration, but they have actually discouraged it. I know for a positive fact that would-be settlers who have been to South Africa House—and I am speaking not of the period the present Government has been in office—and they have been discouraged from coming out here. I know that for a positive fact. I was very sorry to see a report in the press to the effect that Col. Reitz, the High Commissioner in London, had made a statement to the press to the effect that the South African Government did not intend to assist immigrants to come out to this country. He went on to say that he hoped some would “drift” out here on their own. I do not know whether he was speaking with the authority of the Government—I do not think he was—but it is most unfortunate that our High Commissioner in London should make such a statement. During the period of fourteen years, 1925 to 1939, the official figures show that only 38,000 people, men, women and children, came out to South Africa, or an average of 2,700 per annum during those fourteen years. One can appreciate that that is absolutely a negligible number. What we should aim at is immigration on the scale of 100,000 per annum; then we would come down to something that is worth while. I come to the main point of my argument, which is this: My main desire in bringing forward this motion is for the stability and security of South Africa. Without an increased white population I am convinced that our position will be very unstable and very insecure. I would like to give some population statistics. The census of 1936, which was the last general census taken in South Africa, shows that the number of Europeans in the Union of South Africa was 2,003,000; South West Africa 30,000 and other African states, including the Protectorates, Rhodesia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika and Nyasaland, 105,000, or a total European population of 2,138,000. This is about the equivalent of the combined populations of Glasgow and Birmingham. Let us turn to the figures for the native population. In the Union of South Africa, according to the last census, it was 6,500,000, South West Africa 287,000, and the other African states which I have mentioned 17,300,000, a total of 24,000,000. That is to say, the total population is just over 2,000,000 Europeans and 24,000,000 natives. I think that is a very serious situation in this sub-continent, that the Europeans should be outnumbered by 12 to 1. I do not think that anyone will view this position with equanimity. I should like to refer to the number of men we put into the field during this war. It is a sad admission to have to make that South Africa should only be able to put three divisions into the field, during the present war, two up North and one in reserve. For a country of this size and importance to be able to put only three divisions into the field, is to my mind, a very serious reflection indeed, although I realise that a certain section of the community does not support the war effort. Let me refer to the danger that faces a country so seriously under-populated as South Africa. Take the examples of Malaya and Burma. In Malaya though they had a native population of 5½ millions, the Europeans numbered only 17,000. When war was threatening all the eligible men out of that 17,000 were enrolled as volunteers, and they did their best to defend the country, but what could they do against the millions which Japan was able to put into the field? They could not put up any resistance at all, and we all know of the tragic fate that befell Singapore. The same thing happened in Burma. I have not got the exact figures of population, but I believe that in Burma there were even less than 17,000 Europeans. The native population was useless for defence purposes, and the result was that Burma fell without any resistance being offered. My point is that if these countries had been well populated with a virile European race they would have been able to arm themselves and defend themselves in the same way as South Africa did, and they would have been able to put up considerable resistance to the Japanese. I make bold to say that unless the Europeans of the world stand together and are prepared to defend their countries and their rights, sooner or later they will be submerged by other races of greater numerical strength. The Europeans have to rely on themselves alone for defence. It is useless relying on extraneous races to help us when we are in trouble. We have to defend ourselves. I come now to those countries that are well populated, and I start with the United States of America. Could America have achieved the wonderful things she has done, starting from zero, if it were not for her manpower of 120,000,000 or more? She has been able to build ships; she has been able to build aeroplanes; she has been able to supply the Russians and the Chinese, and to a great extent the British forces as well, and even the South African forces. She has been able to do this on account of the strength she derived from her overwhelming population of 120,000,000 people, And take Russia. How has it been possible for Russia to stand up against the trained armies of Hitler? A population of 180,000,000 has enabled her to do that. And China, too. What has enabled China to stand up against the well-trained, well-equipped armies of Japan? The answer is provided by her overwhelming population. I contend that it is necessary if we are going to make ourselves secure, that we should have a greater white population. By the grace of God the war has not spread to South Africa; except for the submarines which have sunk ships round our coast we have been spared from the horrors of war. Who can foretell what the next alignment of nations is going to be? In the last war Japan was our valued ally; in this war she is our deally foe. No one can foretell what the realignment of nations will be in years to come, and it is not unlikely that the next world clash will be one between East and West. That has been foretold. If such a war did take place, South Africa would be the focal point of the whole war, and it behoves us to prepare ourselves for any such eventuality. Let us take time by the forelock. Let us not be found wanting, as Malaya and Burma were. Let me make a comparison between Japan and South Africa. The size of South Africa is 472,000 square miles, while the size of Japan is 263,000 square miles, that is to say Japan is two-thirds the size of South Africa. Now turn to the population. Our South African European population is just over 2,000,000, while Japan has a population of 105,000,000. One can realise how insecure we are while we have such a small European population. I have left out natives and coloureds in my figures of population, but at this stage I should like to pay a tribute to the natives and the coloured people for the splendid efforts they have put forward in the last war and in this war. I hope that I have made out a clear case on the grounds of security, that we need a far greater European population here than we have; it is necessary before we can have any feeling of real security. I should also like to pay a tribute to the 1820 Settlers Association for the valuable work they have done in furnishing information, and generally in assisting people who have intended to immigrate to this country, and also to immigrants for Rhodesia, to which I will refer in a moment. I should now like to borrow a few thoughts from an article which appeared in the “Forum” on the 16th January, 1943, and which I think are very germane to the motion we are discussing. I should like, first, to read the introductory paragraph to that article—

A certain school of thought is of the opinion that one should first persuade capital to flow into the country, and that immigrants will then follow. But again I should like to quote from this article—

Now I come to the economic question. I make bold to say there will be no greater strength to South Africa from the economic point of view than greatly to increase the white population and the spending power of the country. This article states—

It further states—

I think we have a lot to learn from those words. They are not my words but they are my thoughts. Now I turn to another point. If Rhodesia can embark successfully on an immigration scheme, as she did a few years ago, I cannot see why South Africa cannot do the same. In 1938-’39 under Southern Rhodesia’s scheme, 612 persons were brought out from Great Britain with assisted passages. I should like to quote from a report of the meeting that was held after the scheme had been in force for a year—

I think that it is very encouraging that the Southern Rhodesia Government could launch a scheme of that nature, and achieve that success. If Rhodesia can make a success of a scheme of that kind, I do not see why South Africa cannot do likewise. I turn now to the aspect of the purchasing power of our internal market. If we double the purchasing power of our internal market the difficulties of the farmer in the marketing of his products will be swept away at one stroke. Some people may argue that our first duty is towards our returned soldiers, with which I quite agree. The first thing to do is to settle our returned soldiers in occupations and on the land. But I contend that by adopting a bold immigration policy we are going to create more work for our returned soldiers. There will be more work for our factories, our offices and our farms, and that alone will create a much greater internal market, which will also be beneficial to our returned soldiers. I also would like to anticipate a question that may be asked, why should we South Africans collaborate with other countries in bringing immigrants out here? As it was inevitable that the four Provinces of the Union would unite as they did in 1910 under one Government—so it is inevitable that South Africa and the various states I have enumerated in Southern, Central and East Africa will unite in one federation; and if that is correct I cannot see why South Africa, with its wealth, with its power and with its influence should not assist our young brothers and sisters of this continent in embarking on a bold immigration scheme. I would here like to quote a few lines from Kingsley Fairbridge, which he wrote when he was in Rhodesia. These lines run—

• I looked and beheld—a country peopled with nothing,
• A country abandoned to emptiness, yearning for people,
• A mother well fit for the birth of a nation.

I think that those words are very applicable not only to Rhodesia but to all the other territories in Africa which I have mentioned. In conclusion I wish to address a few words to the hon. members of the Opposition side of the House. I want to say this, that for many years past they have been loud in their desire to maintain the supremacy of the white races in South Africa—this subject has been a main plank in their speeches for years past. I agree with them in that desire, but I am telling them that the position of the European in this country is slipping, slipping, slipping in a most alarming manner—a bold immigration policy is one way of stopping the downward curve.

In seconding the motion I do say that it is hoped that hon. members will realise that this motion is not moved with any political object. As the hon. member who has introduced the motion has said, it is a national step. Now, what I want to bring home is this: that if things go on as they are doing, and if the rate of increase of the various racial populations is maintained the fate of South Africa is one which is very horrible to contemplate and later on I shall submit figures to the House which will prove this, and not only prove it but make every one alive to the fact that in a few years we shall be in a very parlous position. When we consider the question of immigration from different countries we naturally want to ensure that such people as come to South Africa shall be people of whom we can be proud, people from whom we can learn, people who will be good citizens, and people who will advance the position of this country not only in its own eyes but in the eyes of the world. I should like to say that we require skilled artisans, we require men skilled in the professions, and we want people, men and women, who not only give their own services to the country but are able to teach those in our country who are not proficient in the same skilled lines. I myself am an example of such a line of thought. I was a skilled man in England, I came to this country to assist Natal. For forty years I have done so, and not only have I rendered service to this country but I have taught others to follow in my footsteps, and with my skill. That, I think, is a great advantage to the country if we can get the right type of immigrant, and this motion simply asks the Government to consider the advisability of bringing such people to South Africa. I now want to put a few figures before the House which I think will cause some surprise, and I hope will awaken members to the difficulties and the parlous position in which we shall be placed if we go on as we are doing. These figures are from the 1921 to 1936 official statistics. In the Cape, in 1921, the Europeans numbered 650,609. In 1936 the number was 791,394, an increase of 21.52 per cent. The natives in the Cape in 1921 numbered 1,640,762; in 1936—2,450,110; an increase of 24.69 per cent. The Asiatics in 1921 numbered 7,692; in 1936 10,692, an increase of 38.96 per cent. The coloured population in 1921 numbered 484,252, in 1936—681,831, an increase of 40.80 per cent. In Natal in 1921 the European population numbered 136,838, in 1936—190,551, an increase of 39.10 per cent. The native population in 1921 numbered 1,139,804; in 1936—1,553,930, an increase of 36.33 per cent.; the Asiatic population in 1921 numbered 141,649; in 1936—183,646, an increase of 29.65 per cent. The Coloured population in 1921 numbered 11,107; in 1936—18,513, an increase of 66.68 per cent. In the Transvaal the corresponding figures were Europeans in 1921—543,485; in 1936—828,620, an increase of 50.99 per cent. Natives in 1921—1,495,869; in 1936—2,445,045, an increase of 63.45 per cent.; Asiatics in 1921—15,991; in 1936—25,561, an increase of 59.85 per cent. Coloureds in 1921—32,291; in 1936—49,918, an increase of 54.59 per cent. The figures for the Free State were Europeans in 1921—188,566; in 1936—200,947, an increase of 6.57 per cent. Natives in 1921—421,978; in 1936—553,156, an increase of 31.58 per cent. Asiatics in 1921—395; in 1936—29, a decrease of 92.16 per cent. Coloureds in 1921—17,898; in 1936—17,772, a decrease of 0.98 per cent. Now the totals for the Union were as follows: Europeans in 1921 1,519,488; in 1936—2,003,512, an increase of 31.85 per cent. Natives in 1921—4,697,813; in 1936—6,597,241, an increase of 40.43 per cent.; Asiatics in 1921—165,731; in 1936—219,928, an increase of 32.7 per cent. Coloureds in 1921—545,548; in 1936—766,984, an increase of 40.77 per cent. Now, those figures are illuminating, but if a complete census is taken in 15 years’ time and another one fifteen years after, and the same rates of increase are maintained by the different races, the results will be as follows: The Europeans in 1936 numbered 2,003,512; in 1951 they will probalby number 2,650,000, and in 1966 probably 3,500,000. The natives in 1936 numbered 6,597,241; in 1951 they will probably number 9,300,000 and in 1966—13,000,000. The Asiatics in 1936 numbered 219,928 in 1951 they will number 290,000 and in 1966—385,000. The coloureds in 1936 numbered 757,984; in 1951 they will probably number 1,100,000, and in 1966—1,550,000. So the totals are 1936—9,588,665; probable total in 1951—13,340,000, and in 1966, 18,435,000. Now I ask hon. members from the Cape to listen to this. The position in the Cape Province as between Europeans and coloureds may be as follows: 1936—the European population was 791,394. In 1935 it will probably be 965,500, and in 1966—1,177,900. The coloured population which in 1936 was 681,931 will in 1951 probably be 960,500, and in 1966—1,353,790. These are very illuminating figures. Now, I have submitted these figures on the assumption that the same rate of increase will be maintained as has been maintained between 1921 and 1936. But we as a Government and the House as a whole are pledged to social security, we are pledged to the raising of the standard of life of the natives, of the coloured and of the Asiatic races; we are pledged to the education of the natives and of the other races. We are pledged to maintain their health, we are pledged also to lower the alarming death rate among the non-European population, and these figures which I have quoted will undoubtedly increase by a much larger rate than the rate I have mentioned. Moreover, it will have a snowball effect—the larger the population the greater the increase, and I would say that the possibility is that in 1966 the coloured population, with the enhanced increase and the lower death rate, will exceed the European population of the Cape Province. That is something which the people of the Cape have not taken into account. The remedy for this is that we must have a virile European race which will increase, and that can only be achieved by immigration of skilled men, trained men, professional men, and scientific men—not only men but men and women who will give their services to the country and teach those of us who have not been outside the country some of their skill so that we may carry on and improve the potentialities of this country. I think I have said sufficient to bring home to the House the serious position in which we as Europeans will be in days to come if we do not take pains to increase our population, and I would suggest that the Government should give of its abundance to the 1820 Settlers’ Association, and let them do something to bring out settlers of the right class. We do not want people introduced here with views and ideas foreign to our conditions. What I want to see is an increase of the European population which will counterbalance and possibly exceed the increase of the native and coloured populations. We do not want more traders in this country—we have all the traders we want—we want men of skill and men of science who will give us a preponderating number, and preponderating influence, over other races. I think I have said sufficient to open the eyes of the House to the necessity which exists for us to take definite steps in the direction of mass immigration of suitable people into this country. We have plenty of room. As a matter of fact if we look at the density of the population of South Africa, of all races, we find that the Cape have 8.91 persons per square mile, Natal has 44.35, Transvaal 18.55 and the Free State 11.61. There is plenty of room in South Africa for all these people, and I hope the Government will accept the motion and that every section of the House will endorse it.

I wish to move an amendment to the motion as follows:

First of all, in regard to the general policy of immigration I should like to say that I wholeheartedly support it, and I would further like to say, following on the remarks of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) that, as an English-speaking member of this House, when I speak of encouraging immigration into this country, I wish to make it clear that I do not take the view that such immigration should be encouraged with any idea of redressing the balance of English- and Afrikaans-speaking people in this country. For my part. I say with sincerity—and I hope my sincerity and the sincerity of the English-speaking members on this side of the House will be accepted by members opposite, when we say that we put South Africa first and foremost in all matters, even before England or any other Dominion. That is the sole test, and with regard to this question of immigration I approach it simply from the angle of what is or what is not in the interests of South Africa, and I take my stand on the general proposition that the welfare of the country, both material and spiritual, depends primarily upon its natural resources, and secondly upon the energy and the vigour of: its people; and when I consider a policy of immigration I ask myself the question: “Is it good for this country, will it increase the material and spiritual welfare of the country: if we get more people into this country from outside? Well, I believe it will. I believe it will promote our welfare to increase our population, because I believe that we have natural resources which, when worked by the energies of more people, will increase our natural wealth. Now I come to the purpose of this amendment. Incidentally I should hope that an amendment of this kind would claim the support not only of hon. members opposite but also of the mover, in fact I would even go the length of saying that had the amendment been suggested to the mover beforehand he would not have hesitated to insert it in his motion. None the less there are one or two reasons in favour of the amendment which I think are worth stressing. First of all, the amendment rests upon our duty to our own people: our duty not only to our soldiers who have fought for us, but also to the men in the factories who have worked with less glory, with less praise, more unobtrusively in the background, but who have none the less done yeoman service; it is for that reason that they are included in the amendment. Our first duty then is to our returned soldiers and our workers, a policy which I am sure has the support of this Government. The implications of accepting a policy of that kind when approaching the question of immigration are however substantial, and I should like in this connection to draw the attention of the House to the first report of the Social and Economic Planning Council, the first page under the heading of “Magnitude of post-war re-employment”, where they say—

Mr. Speaker I need not read the whole of the paragraph—I think the House is familiar with it—the total numbers to be absorbed according to the calculations, after this war, will amount to no less than 230,000 souls. Now, that is obviously a task of considerable magnitude. The re-absorption of that enormous number of people into civilian employment is not one which we can expect to tackle lightheartedly or to solve immediately. The Council itself points to some of the difficulties, and advocates broadly speaking policies along the following lines—first of all, considerable industrial expansion; secondly, considerable expansion in public works, and finally, land settlement on a fairly substantial scale. All these are long term policies with which no doubt the Government is grappling at present, but do not let us run away with the idea that the solution lies round the comer. Considerable difficulties lie ahead, and if hon. members accept the proposition that our first duty is to the returned soldiers and to the war workers, it seems to me that we must approach the whole question of immigration with considerable caution. At the same time I do not wish to suggest that we must delay, or postpone any immigration policy until all our war workers, and all our soldiers have been re-absorbed. I do not think that is necessary. On the contrary I feel that if our outlook on, if our approach to immigration is a sane one, we should be able to encourage immigration parallel with this re-employment programme. I believe that if we encourage into the country the right type of immigrant we may even assist our soldiers and our war workers to be re-absorbed into our industrial and commercial life. What I mean is something of this sort: We are adopting, so we understand, a policy of considerable industrial expansion. New industries are to be started. I question whether we shall have much success with these new industries unless we encourage into this country skilled artisans of the type needed in those particular industries, and I say that with my eyes on my friends in the Labour Party who I think will be the first to confess that however high the standard of our artisans may be, if we are to start new industries in which the artisans now living in this country have had no experience, we may well need advice and guidance from new men whom we can get from overseas. So that I suggest that there is no necessity to postpone this policy of immigration while we are re-absorbing our own men, but what I do suggest is that we should approach the matter cautiously, and that we should concentrate on the right type of immigrant, with particular reference to the kind of artisan necessary to encourage new industry. One other consideration which induces me in the direction of considerable caution in regard to wholesale immigration is the position of our native population. I call to mind in that connection a quotation from “A History of South Africa” by Prof. Kieviet of America in which he concludes a chapter with some such words as the following, “When the Union of South Africa thinks of immigration it should be borne in mind that their immigrants are already with them, and they consist of about 8,000,000 natives.” I have not got the exact words, but the purport of the writer, the idea in the writer’s mind is clear, that before we talk of immigration on a large scale, it is well to remember that we have within our own shores a considerable population, not fully employed, living well below the breadline, and to whom we also owe a substantial duty. I naturally feel that the idea of European immigration is in some measure directed towards balancing the European against the native population. I think it is quite right that we should have that approach when we are looking towards the distant future, but that does not detract from the fact that we have a duty towards these natives within our own borders, and it is pleasing to note that within the last few years that sense of duty has been quickening in this country, and that there is a more general recognition that substantial measures must be taken to absorb those natives into our industrial, commercial and agrarian life. That is not going to be an easy matter. If we adopt a policy of industrial expansion, it seems that we shall have to draw, indeed, that we should draw upon our natives very largely for our semi-skilled and unskilled jobs, and that to start with suggests that a brake should be put upon any immigration of a labour force of that character. In saying that I do not in any way imply that I do not feel we should in the course of time raise the standard of living of our native population, and educate them; but I think the native representatives themselves would be the first to agree that for many years to come it is in the lower paid groups, in the unskilled and semi-skilled tasks, that our native population will find their sphere. Let us consider them before we consider haphazard immigration of people of that type and with those qualifications. Those, very briefly, are my reasons for moving this amendment. I think nothing could be more fatal than that we should accept without any question, without the consideration, a sort of whole-hearted policy of immigration on the scale mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt). I am rather shy of figures like those which have been mentioned in this House—of 100,000 a year. I feel it will be some years to come before we can absorb immigrants in such large numbers, but subject to the qualifications I have indicated, let me conclude that I entirely agree that a general policy of immigration is, I believe, the right policy in the interests of this country; I believe it will assist development, and I look to the time when this country, with all its latent potentialities, will support a population not of 2,500,000 Europeans, but of 10,000,000.

I second the amendment.

There is really very little difference between the motion of the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt) and the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) who has just spoken. Both hon. members, according to their motions, aim at immigration on a large scale. I particularly want to draw attention to the words “large scale.” Both hon. members want the Government in the near future to tackle the immigration policy. The only difference between the motion of the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) and the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown is that the hon. member for Parktown wants to afford protection to returned soldiers and to people employed in war factories. The hon. member for Parktown is not concerned with the thousands of unemployed who are already in this country today. He knows nothing about them. He is not concerned with the poor whites already in South Africa. Oh, no; he is only concerned, like the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) and his seconder, with the immigration from other countries. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) isn’t even concerned with the soldiers. Both the mover and the seconder of the motion went out of their way to tell the House that they only approached this matter from the national point of view, and they stressed the fact that they had no political objects in putting these proposals before the House. I think I should remind them of the old English saying: “Methinks thou protesteth too much.” The seconder let the cat out of the bag. The mover of the proposal before the House was a little more careful, but the seconder let the cat out of the bag at the end of his speech when he intimated the type of immigrant he wanted, namely those who were encouraged and recommended by the British Empire Settlers Association. The word “European” is mentioned in the motion, but it is perfectly clear that the hon. member for Musgrave wants large scale immigration from England, from Great Britain. That is the object he and his seconder have in view. They have come here with their motion for immigration on a large scale at a moment when we have before us a Bill for the re-employment of soldiers; they come before this House with their motion at a time when we have a Select Committee sitting which is engaged on devising schemes in regard to social security; they come here with this motion of theirs at a time when right throughout the country the possibility of post-war depression is being discussed; even the Minister of Finance in his budget speech a few days ago referred to this when he issued a warning in regard to the future and when he went out of his way to issue a warning of possible unemployment. Under such conditions, under such circumstances, those hon. members come here and ask for immigration on a large scale. I tried to find out from their speeches what their justification was for the motion. I cannot find any justification for it. I don’t think I am unjust towards those hon. members when I say that rarely in the history of this House has a motion been introduced here for which there has been less justification, and that certainly never have any speeches been made here containing fewer reasons for the adoption of a motion. I really feel that the motion as introduced does not merit any serious consideration both as regards its contents and the reasons adduced for it. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) spoke very lightly here about a 100,000 immigrants per year. He even compared South Africa with Burma and Malaya. Those were his comparisons. How can we possibly take such arguments seriously? From this side of the House we attach very little value to the motion, nor do I believe the House as a whole will attach a great deal of importance to it. That being so I shall, on behalf of this side of the House, now move the following further amendment—

1. (1) as soon as practicable to repatriate to their respective countries of origin, all war-refugees, evacuees, persons in military service, and prisoners of war;
2. (2) to introduce legislation for amending the Aliens Act (No. 1 of 1937) in such a manner that its provisions will be applicable also to British subjects by birth;
3. (3) to restrict the issue of permits for permanent residence, and also entry into the Union under the provisions of the ordinary Immigration laws, to persons of European descent—
   1. (a) who are considered to be a suitable and desirable addition to the two main elements of the country’s population;
   2. (b) who are in possession of sufficient capital, and/or who are not likely to compete with Union Nationals in professions, trades or other fields of employment for which a sufficient number of Union Nationals are available;
   3. (c) who are not members of the Jewish race;
4. (4) to exercise a stricter control in regard to the issue of permits for temporary residence, and to allow the renewal of such permits only for good and sufficient reasons;
5. (5) to take the necessary steps to locate and to repartriate all persons who have entered the Union unlawfully, and also all aliens whose permits have expired and not been renewed; and
6. (6) to introduce legislation which will provide that no aliens may occupy any office of profit, or engage in any occupation or profession without being in possession of a permit issued by the Government department concerned.

The amendment, as hon. members see, is somewhat lengthy, but the reason is that the Opposition must clearly lay down its policy in regard to immigration, and it is for that reason that I propose at once discussing the amendment. I do not intend dealing with the separate points in detail. My seconder will do so. I want to point out, however, that this amendment in the first instance places on record the fact that there is a condition of unemployment which possibly may become aggravated. The object of the amendment further is, in the first place to draw attention to certain gaps in our existing legislation which must be filled up either by regulations or by amending legislation. The amendment furthermore points out that it is essential to carry out the existing laws more strictly in certain respects, and then we come to what is actually the immigration policy of this side of the House, namely the type of immigrant we want for South Africa. We have declared on several occasions both in this House and outside that we are not opposed to immigration as such, but always with this qualification, that no immigration should be allowed into South Africa at the expense of the Union population, either of the English- or Afrikaans-speaking section. In the second place our policy so far has always been—and we make that clear in the amendment—that immigration to South Africa must be selective. That is the object of this amendment. In other words, immigrants coming to South Africa must be people who will be an asset to this country. They must be people who will assimilate with the present white population of South Africa. The various points of the amendment will be discussed by my seconder. I want to say a few words, however, about the final part of the amendment in which the House is asked to express itself against participation by the Union Government in any international or British-Imperial schemes for the encouragement of post-war immigration. Anyone who reads the newspapers and the various periodicals will have noticed that there is a strong movement in England, and also in America, in favour of such international schemes. It is realised that a serious post-war condition of affairs is going to arise, and that, homes will have to be found for those people from Europe who have run away from their countries. And then, further, we have this position; in Great Britain work will have to be found for the returned soldiers and there will not be enough work for them. That is why those schemes are being put forward. A conference has already been held in the Bermudas. I do not know whether hon. members followed what happened at that conference, but the same type of plans were put forward as those in regard to Unnra, to which we are already committed. The Bermuda Conference suggested that post-war organisation should be started to attend to the distribution of the surplus population. In view of the conditions prevailing in this country and the protection of our interests now and in future, we should take up the attitude that this is not the time to talk about immigration, even less to talk of large scale immigration. Now, I should like to confine my remarks to Section 3 (c) of the amendement which says in regard to the issue of permits for permanent residence, that certain people are not to be given such permits, and it is provided, inter alia, that members of the Jewish race are not to be given permits.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

When business was suspended I was pointing out that the immigration policy of this side of the House was based primarily on the protection of the interests of our own South African citizens, and secondly, on the principle of selection. In other words that we want immigrants in this country who would fit in with and assimilate with the two white sections of the population already in the country.

What kind of immigrants?

I am coming to that. When business was suspended I was pointing out that our amendment provides that permits for permanent residence should not be issued to members of the Jewish race. The attitude of the Nationalist Party in regard to that question is that first of all the Jewish population in the country already is too large, and as a result of the surplus Jewish population a Jewish question has been created in South Africa; secondly, the reason for the amendment is that today already, as a result of conditions in Europe, and the anticipated post-war conditions, organisations are being established and plans are being devised to find a home for the Jews not only in other parts of the world, but also in the Dominions and in South Africa. It cannot be denied that feelings in this country are running high on this matter, and I want to add that those feelings are not confined to this side of the House.

Speak for yourself.

I can assure the hon. member that there are members on the other side of the House who feel exactly as we do on this point. I can give the Minister that assurance. The hon. member who interrupted me is perhaps an exception, but there are many hon. members on the Government side who feel exactly as we do, but the reason why they do not come into the open with their feelings is because they depend on the Jewish vote and because they need the Jewish money at their elections. We on this side of the House come clearly into the open and state what our attitude is.

You have never made your attitude clear yet.

There is a lot of feeling about the Jewish question, and that feeling is running higher all the time. There is a Jewish question, and that question has been created not by this side of the House, not by the Leader of the Opposition, but by the Jews themselves. Why is there a Jewish question? I do not intend devoting too much time to that point because there is certain other information which I am anxious to place before the House, but history teaches us that as soon as a Jewish population in any country exceeds a certain percentage, a Jewish question arises, and further, whether it is because of its virtues, or otherwise, we get the position that the Jewish population secures an excessive share of the trade and vocations of a country, which results in a Jewish question arising. And that is the position in South Africa too. It is unnecessary to point to the position in trade and commerce—in wholesale trade as well as in retail trade. Hon. members are aware of the position. We have the same position today in regard to our industries, and what has happened in regard to our residential areas? Let hon. members go to Sea Point and compare the Jewish population at Sea Point today with what it was 25 years ago. In regard to professions I want to draw attention to the fact that the Jews first of all secured an excessive share of the trade of the country, and now they are getting an undue share of our professions. I have before me the latest issue of the South African Medical Journal—the January issue—and there is an article here in English in which the number of people practising medicine is analysed, and the writer finds that the doctors of English descent constitute 38 per cent. of the total number of doctors; the doctors of Afrikaans and Hollands descent constitute 25.6 per cent., and the Jews constitute 31.3 per cent. One should bear in mind that those figures also include old established doctors, some of whom have already reached a high age, but the writer of the article goes further, and points out that so far as doctors and surgeons who have qualified in the Union are concerned, the position is that 22.5 per cent. are of English descent. 27.8 are of Afrikaans and Hollands origin, while the Jews constitute 46.5 per cent. That is the position in the Union today. The writer points out that nearly half of the doctors in South Africa belong to the Jewish group. He goes further and analyses the position at the universities. He finds that at the Cape Town University the position is that 23.8 per cent. of the students are of English descent. 35 of Hollands or Afrikaans descent, and 38 per cent Jewish. On the Witwatersrand the position is that 20.9 per cent. are of English descent. 18.3 per cent. are of Hollands or Afrikaans descent. and 57 per cent. of Jewish descent. He points out that the Jewish group predominates at the universities, especially on the Witwatersrand. It is unnecessary to quote any further figures. The Jews constitute about 6 per cent. of the whole of our white population but already they have nearly half of the medical profession in their hands. The third reason for the attitude of the Nationalist Party is that it is well known in history, and we have the same position in South Africa, that while the Jew is proud of, and loyal to his own race, he does not assimilate with other races. He is loyal to the country only as long as it is in his interest to be loyal to the country. But what happened in France? When the Germans crossed the borders of Holland, Belgium and France, the Jews left and sent their money ahead of them. What happened in this country? The Minister of Finance found it necessary to issue a special regulation imposing a tremendously high fine on the export of capital from South Africa. If an enquiry is made—and my information comes from a very reliable source—it will be found that it was the Jewish population in particular which after the fall of France was sending money out of South Africa. They are loyal to the country in which they reside as long as things go well, but they shake the country’s dust off their feet as soon as things do not go well; then they make a fresh start in some other country and there they are again just as loyal until things go wrong there. We are told there are exceptions. There are exceptions, but one swallow does not make a summer, nor do half a dozen swallows make summer. Hon. members opposite admit that there is a Jewish problem in South Africa and that the immigration of Jews to South Africa must now be definitely stopped. We find it necessary to issue a warning against Jewish immigration because we expect in the coming years a repetition of what happened in 1933 when Hitler started taking action against the Jews, and in 1930 when there was also an influx of Jews into South Africa. In 1937 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a speech in this House arising out of a motion he had introduced in which he referred to an organisation existing overseas which cooperated with Jewish organisations in South Africa to bring immigrants to South Africa. On that occasion the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) got up and denied this, and he said, inter alia—

And then the hon. member gave the history in regard to Stuttgart and he went on to say this—

Now, let us test the truth of that statement? In 1939 I introduced a Bill in this House on behalf of this side in regard to immigration, and in connection with this matter I referred to what had happened in 1930 when an amount of £5,000 was sent, after cable communication with the hon. member for Cape Town, by an organisation in Paris to be used as a guarantee for Jews who had come to this country and who would still come. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) then got up and denied that that was so. He admitted that £5,000 had been sent but he added that that had nothing to do with this matter. He said that that money was lying in the Bank merely to serve as a guarantee, and that he had consulted the Department of Immigration; but he concealed certain facts, and I think we should at this stage bring those facts to the notice of the House because those facts go to prove first of all that there has been a constant encouragement of Jewish immigration by the Jewish Board of Deputies and Affiliated Organisations; secondly, that there was co-operation between the Jewish Board of Deputies and Foreign Organisations, and thirdly, that there was organised propaganda here in South Africa. Now, the facts are as follows: At a meeting of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies held on the 30th March, 1930, the Chairman handed in the following report—

Now I want to emphasise this last sentence, because the point which the hon. member for Castle raised was that the Jews were already at sea when the new regulations came in. I admit that there was something to be said for those who were already at sea, but representations are made here on behalf of Jews still to come, and who wanted to arrive here before the 31st May. The report goes on to say this—

Representations were therefore made to the Government in respect of 100 who had not yet sailed, and who were therefore familiar with the new regulation. The report goes on to say this—

Now I want to draw attention to the next sentence—

Of course it was an unwise step to take because it was not known here in South Africa that money had come from overseas. It was not known in South Africa that that money was to be used to bring to South Africa Jews who had not yet sailed, and who knew what the new regulations were. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) apparently sent a cable to London to advise them what he had done, and the following reply was received from London—

Now I want hon. members to take note of this sentence, “Rely on your discretion.” If this whole business was as innocent as the hon. member wanted the House to believe in 1939 why then was it necessary to cable him these words, “Rely on your discretion.” I want to go a little further. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) then informed the Board of Deputies in Johannesburg of what had happened, and on the 4th April, 1930, he received the following letter from the secretary—

And listen to this—

The hon. member told the House that everything was above board; why then did he suggest that the matter must be treated as strictly confidential? Now, that is the position in regard to that £5,000. What makes this such a serious matter is that under the regulations a guarantee has to be given by somebody in South Africa. That is the point. The guarantee is in the name of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) but in actual fact the money was provided by an overseas organisation. It is quite bad enough if the local Jewish organisation put up guarantees to encourage immigrants but it is a hundred per cent. worse if the guarantee is put up by an overseas organisation. Secondly, this money was intended for guarantees for Jewish emigrants who had not yet left. But enough about that. Two years later the persecution of the Jews took place in Germany A serious position arose there and refuge had to be found for the Jews somewhere. We find that the Jewish Immigration Organisation in Paris wrote a letter to the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) which was a reply to a letter which he had sent to that organisation, and that letter read as follows—

I again want to refer the House to the reply which the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) gave the Leader of the Opposition in which he stated that he could assure the House that no money had been put up in South Africa to encourage Jewish immigration, and that there was no organisation in South Africa to encourage the immigration of Jews. The letter ends—

On the 30th April, 1933, a meeting of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies was held, and according to the Minutes this is what happened at that particular meeting—

That is the present Minister of Finance.

And then he gave an explanation of the position in regard to the Quota Act. We need not go into that. In the meantime they had again written to the Organisation in Paris on the question of immigration possibilities, and on the 19th June, 1933, there was a letter from that Organisation addressed to the Jewish Board of Deputies, reading as follows—

And the writer of that letter went on to ask what would be done to find work for those people when they arrived here, and the letter went on to say this—

But the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) who was dealing with these matters told the Leader of the Opposition that no money was being spent by Jewish Organisations and that there was no Organisation in South Africa which was engaged in encouraging Jewish immigration to South Africa. And then the letter went on to say this—

Now, what was this questionnaire? That questionnaire, among other things, asked what the possibilities were in the Union of finding employment for Jewish emigrants in the following occupations—

1. (a) For small factories with small capital.
2. (b) For commercial and technical clerks.
3. (c) For labourers (apprentices and those knowing already the trade).
4. (d) For artisans.
5. (e) For professional men (indicate the conditions required for the obtaining of necessary diplomas and to exercise the professions particularly as regards physicians, dentists, assistants, architects, engineers, etc.).

1. (3) Is it possible to send young women to occupy positions as governess, children nurses, general maids?

Now let me go on. On the 24th September, 1933, a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Jewish Board of Deputies was held, and among other matters the following questions were mentioned—

Hon. members should note the use of the word “organisation” and the reference to the “mass of correspondence” with organisations in Germany. On the 19th March, 1934, the Cape Town Committee met and the Minutes contained the following—

At another meeting of the 23rd March we have the following again—

I want to draw the attention of the House to the words “as unobtrusively as possible.” On the 31st December, 1933, a conference was held at Port Elizabeth and according to the Minutes the following transpired—

Then he gave an explanation of the Quota Act and the hon. member made the following remarks—

Is it necessary for me to produce any further evidence to prove that there was no truth in the assurance which the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) gave the Leader of the Opposition in 1937? I think I should repeat that assurance, especially now that hon. members have heard the contents of those documents. This is what the hon. member told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at that time—

Bearing in mind the statements which I have quoted hon. members can see how much value can be attached to the declarations of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle). Now I want to refer to something else. In 1933 a Jewish World Conference was held in London, and the Jewish Board of Deputies was represented by Adv. B. Mark Goodman. Now, what does he write in his report to the South African Jewish Board of Deputies—

And yet the hon. member says that they have nothing to do with overseas immigration organisations.

Order, order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.

May I move that the hon. member be granted an extension of time?

I object.

That’s because your name was mentioned.

I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I feel his speech must have made a great impression on the House. We can notice that from the fact that while we were discussing the question of Jewish immigration the hon. member opposite, who happens to belong to the Jewish race, got up and objected to thehon. member for Beaufort West being granted an extension of time. He did not want to give the hon. member an opportunity of going into the matter any further. If the hon. member had nothing to hide why then did he object to the extension of time? I want to discuss the amendment, however, from a different angle. When we debate immigration here, hon. members should take up the attitude that the subject is so important that it must be dealt with on its merits. Unfortunately, however, we find so often that when subjects of this nature are discussed here a smokescreen is at once put up, with the result that the subject at issue cannot be dealt with on its merits. Whenever we talk about a republic, hon. members at once look at it from a political point of view, and the result is that many cannot see the other man’s point of view. When we talk about the white problem one gets almost the same sort of thing. When we talk about the Jewish danger, or the Jewish question, we find that although even hon. members opposite admit that there is such a question a smokescreen is at once put up, and people talk about racialism and things of that kind, with the result that the subject is not discussed on its merits either. For these reasons I want to appeal to all sides of the House and I want to ask hon. members when discussing the question of immigration not to put up a smokescreen, and not to look on the subject as a political one—I ask hon. members to go into the merits of the case, and only to look at it from that point of view. Let us differ from each other—we can understand that, but I want to appeal to hon. members to discuss the subject on its merits and from no other point of view. I think before coming to the question of immigration it is highly necessary that we should cast our minds back over the history of this country. Let us go back a little into the history of the Afrikaner nation. I think it is essential for us to consider the history of the Boer population of South Africa. Some years ago the Boer population—the farming population of South Africa—consisted almost exclusively of Afrikaans-speaking people. Those people lived happily on their farms. They made a living on their farms, and they had a good deal less difficulty than they have today. The commercial population in the towns and in the cities was more English-speaking. They developed in that direction and were happy in the work they were doing, but we know that a change has come about. Why? The farming population has to a large extent left the farms; the English-speaking people are out of business to a very large extent. I say that the matter is so important to all of us that it must be dealt with on its merits, and we have to face the facts as they are. I think every hon. member will believe that what I have said did happen, and that that is the position today. The English-speaking people are no longer in business to the same extent as they were in the past. The farming population is no longer on the farms where they were before. We find English-speaking people on the farms, but we find large numbers of Afrikaans-speaking people in the towns where they have deteriorated, and where they are going down and becoming poorer and poorer. There must be a reason for it. Now, if we see who are the people running most of our business concerns in South Africa we find that a large proportion of those people are those who of late years have entered South Africa as immigrants. It is not necessary to argue about that, we all know it is so. These are facts which can not be denied. Now, the motion of the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) asks the Government to take special steps to bring more people from other countries into South Africa. Let us assume that we all want to see South Africa flourish, that we all want the South African people who are already here to be employed and make a living in their own mother country. Now, I think the hon. member will agree with me that the people who have come into the country are the cause to a large extent, together with other circumstances, of our own people suffering hardships here, that they are the cause of the population of this country being poor, although South Africa is a rich country. In spite of that the hon. member asks the Government to assist in encouraging immigration. Is it really necessary for a motion like that to be introduced in this House? Let us have another look at South Africa’s history. After every Great War, after every discovery in South Africa, there has been an influx of immigrants into South Africa. After the Second War of Independence there was a great influx of immigrants, although there has never been a motion introduced asking the Government to encourage immigration—that influx took place without any encouragement from any side. After the last war there was another influx of people from overseas. So many people flocked into this country that the Government in power at the time tried to stop immigrants from coming in. That policy introduced by the Government to stop immigrants from coming in was approved of by this House. In other words, it was not necessary to introduce a motion to encourage people to come here—rather did the Government have to take steps—or let me say it was compelled to stop people from coming in. At a later stage an Aliens Act was passed by this House; that, again, was not a step in the direction of encouraging immigration, but of stopping immigrants from coming in, or rather of stopping that class of people whom we were not anxious to have in this country. Now, let us deal shortly with the number of people who have come to this country in the last few years without any motion of encouragement or even without any co-operation on the part of other people. I shall quote the figures for two years. I did not select those two years with any specific object, or simply because they were the best years for the purpose of my argument. I simply took those years because they are the first and the last years dealt with in the Union Year Book for 1940. In 1934—17,043 white male persons came to the Union and 17,979 white female persons; then 2,568 non-European male persons and 930 non-European female persons, making a total for all races of 19,613 male persons and 18,917 female persons. They entered the country notwithstanding the fact that they were given no encouragement, either by a motion of this kind or by any Government action. In 1937 the Aliens Act was passed, and what was the result of the passage of that Act? One would have imagined that the effect would have been that fewer immigrants would have come into the country. But take the position in 1938. In that year 50,960 European male persons, and 50,316 European female persons entered the country, and the figures for non-Europeans were 3,199, and 1,408 respectively. The total number for all races was 54,159 male persons, and 51,724 female persons. Hon. members may tell me now that that was a considerable time ago. None the less those people came here without any motion of this kind, and without any encouragement whatsoever being given by the Government, and yet the hon. member introduces this motion and asks us to pass it which means that we are to request the Government to co-operate on a large scale with other countries to get immigrants here. This side of the House—whether hon. members opposite want to know it or not, is anxious to look after every section of the population of South Africa, and as the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has rightly said, this House is considering legislation to ensure employment for returned soldiers. And why is legislation of that kind required? It is required because the Government itself recognises and realises that after the war there is going to be unemployment in South Africa. That is why special legislation had to be introduced to provide employment for those people. If people are to enter this country on the same scale as in the past, it is simply going to aggravate the position so far as the returned soldiers are concerned. As I have already explained a large proportion of the Afrikaans farmers have already left the platteland, and a large proportion of the English-speaking shopkeepers are out of business. Is not immigration going to aggravate the position so far as they are concerned? No, if the Government were to encourage immigration, seeing that we are already being threatened with immigration on a large scale, the position would be made impossible for our own people in South Africa. Hon. members may tell me that the figures I have quoted deal with the position years ago and that immigration has perhaps come to a stop now. The hon. member for Beaufort West in this connection asked the Minister of the Interior a question, and I should like to read that, question to the House. He first of all asked—

The reply was—

The Minister tried to make the number as small as possible. The second question which the hon. member asked was this—

And the reply was: 8,376. I want to ask the Minister outright whether he does not admit that to allow these people to enter the country, even to allow half of them to enter the country, is a danger to South Africa? I don’t want to elaborate the figures any further—it is a dry business to quote figures, and one can prove almost anything by figures, but these figures have not been imagined by the Nationalists, they are figures taken from the Official Year Book. Now I want to go a little further and deal with the constitution of our population. Unfortunately we have not yet in South Africa got that co-operation between the various elements which we are anxious to have here. One still hears a lot about racialism and division, about anti British sentiments, and all sorts of other bogies which are held up against this side of the House. I want to appeal to members to consider this question on its merits. It is perfectly true that we have not got that co-operation between Afrikaans- and English-speaking people which we are anxious to have. Our outlook on certain matters in South Africa is still entirely different from what it is in other countries. For instance we have the colour line—fortunately we’ve still got that—and English-speaking Afrikaners as well as Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners—at least the great majority of them—recognise that the colour line—the dividing line between the various sections has to remain. But if one encourages immigration, and immigrants come into this country, no matter how rich they are, one will get people who with very few exceptions have a totally different outlook. On the Continent of Europe and even in Great Britain the outlook in regard to colour is not what it is in South Africa. Many of our difficulties here are caused by our colour problem. I want to ask the hon. member opposite, whose motion aims at encouraging white immigration, whether the country which he comes from draws the same distinction between whites and non-whites as we draw here. Has not his point of view changed since he came to this country? I have heard him talk about the Coolie problem, and I have heard him put up a fight to protect Natal against the Coolies. But very many people come to this country who do not distinguish between European and non-European. Consequently, if one encourages immigration one creates a serious danger to South Africa. Now, let me quote very briefly from a booklet I have here published by the Rev. J. G. Strydom, General Missionary Secretary of the Dutch Reformed Church of the Free State. This is what he has to say about the immigration menace [Translation]—

No, as the Rev. Mr. Strydom shows, since the discovery of gold and diamonds we have been getting the poorest type of people from Europe. I think all hon. members will agree that we are no longer getting the same type of people as those who came in when our ancestors came to South Africa? And he goes on—

In South Africa the result, unfortunately, has been even worse than in America, as I shall show later. The Rev. Mr. Strydom then points out that a large proportion of the Uitlanders live in luxury and have relinquished all moral and religious bonds, and he goes on to say that the same sort of thing has for a long time been going on in the Union, and that hundreds of thousands of our old population have become poor. Do not let us cast reproaches at each other, but the fact remains that every Afrikaans-speaking member opposite will also have to admit that that section which has become impoverished is the Afrikaans-speaking section, the old section of the population, and they are no worse than other people. There must be a reason. Now, here we find that in another country the same development process has taken place. There, too, the old and most settled section of the population has become impoverished. But here in this country the danger is very much more serious than in America, because in America they have eight whites to one non-European, but here the position is the other way round and here we have one European as against eight non-Europeans. The Rev. Mr. Strydom says—

And then he goes on—

What is the date of that book?

I have not got the date, no date is shown here.

It must have been written before your people came to this country.

I don’t know what the hon. member for the Mental Hospital means. But I should like to ask hon. members, with the exception of that hon. member over there, to try and consider the matter on its merits. The Rev. Mr. Strydom goes on to say this—

It is a pity that in Europe the same colour line, the same dividing line, is not drawn as in South Africa. If one studies the figures of the mixed marriages in South Africa one finds that the figures are alarming. I have tried to find out whether it is the old Afrikaans population, part of that population, which is indulging in mixed marriages, or whether it is the people who entered this country not so long ago, and a study of the position shows that most of these mixed marriages are not between members of the old settled section of the population, or between members of the Afrikaans-speaking population as such, but the people who are guilty of that sort of thing are those who have not been long in this country. Let me give the figures of the mixed marriages. I shall start from the year 1935.

You should go a little further back.

Unfortunately I have not got any figures to show the position before that, but I hope the figures I have will convince the hon. member of the seriousness of the problem, will convince him that the danger which threatens him is just as big as the danger which threatens me. I shall quote the number of mixed marriages in the Cape Province and Natal. In 1935 there were 91, in 1936 there were 73, in 1937 there were 100, in 1938 the number, was 99, and in 1939 there were 69 mixed marriages. Is it possible that any hon. member is so blind that he fails to see the danger? If we go further back the numbers may be bigger or smaller, but that does not affect the argument. We believe very definitely that the white race in South Africa has to maintain the guardianship, that the people of South Africa are destined to rebuild a white South Africa, a white nation, as our ancestors desired. Now I want to ask hon. members whether they fail to see the danger of immigration if they consider this question calmly and dispassionately, if they go into the merits of the case. I ask them to realise that immigration on a large scale may constitute a great danger to this country. I even want to make an appeal to hon. members who are not yet entirely Afrikaans minded (Afrikaansgesind).

What is Afrikaans descent?

The hon. member should know. If anyone says that he is Engelsgesind he knows what it means, but when somebody says that he is Afrikaansgesind then he does not know its meaning. I don’t blame hon. members who are not yet completely Afrikaansgesind even though it is a pity they are not. If there happened to be a bond tying us to some other country we might perhaps be in the same position, but fortunately some of us have entirely cut adrift from the country which our ancestors came from, and we regard South Africa as our only country—it is our Mother country. If hon. members ask me why this motion has been introduced then I am afraid I have to associate myself with what the hon. member for Beaufort West said, namely that this motion was not introduced so much for the sake of South Africa but for the sake of people in Great Britain who after the war will be unemployed, and who will then have to find a home in South Africa. I happened to be in Great Britain after the last world war, and it was pitiful to see the way people had to look for work and had to live on the dole. That same position may recur. However sorry we may be for such people our first duty is towards South Africa, our first duty is to see that our own people are looked after first before we bring in others who will not only aggravate the unemployment position here, but who may also become a danger to us in other respects. Before concluding I wish very briefly to deal with the various points of the amendment. The first paragraph says this—

Why do we say that? We have many people in South Africa today who are here on holiday, we have people here in the army, in the R.A.F. and so on. They say they do not want to return to their own country; they want to stay in South Africa. They have employment here now because they are in the army, but if they stay here there is a danger that they will not find work, or that they will push Afrikaans-speaking people out of their employment—there is a danger of Afrikaans-speaking people being kicked out of their work.

Who is going to kick them out?

Circumstances will kick them out. If I express myself badly I ask hon. members not to take my words literally but to take my meaning. I am not making propaganda, but it is quite possible that large numbers of our people will become unemployed. The second point is this—

As the law now stands it only applies to naturalised British subjects, and I feel that one gets just as bad British born people as naturalised Britishers. Why should we make a distinction between them? Then the amendment goes on to say—

1. (a) who are considered to be a suitable and desirable addition to the two main elements of the country’s population;
2. (b) who are in possession of sufficient capital, and/or who are not likely to compete with Union Nationals in professions, trades or other fields of employment for which a sufficient number of Union Nationals are available;
3. (c) who are not members of the Jewish race.

That shows who are the people we like to admit into the country. Hon. members will be able to see from that that we are not opposed to immigration as such, but we want to admit people who can assimilate, people who will be an asset to the country, not people who will make conditions even more difficult for our own people—whose position is quite difficult enough as it is. I want to add this to what the hon. member for Beaufort West, has already said—that as soon as one talks about the Jewish question one is accused of being anti-Jewish, one is accused of being animated by a persecution spirit. I say most emphatically that there are organisers of the Government Party who go about the country talking in exactly the same way as I am doing about the Jewish question. I have in my possession pamphlets which were given to me by the organiser of the Government Party which are worse propaganda against the Jews than the speeches which we make here. Fortunately I have witnesses who were present when those pamphlets were given to me. The hon. member for Beaufort West spoke on the merits of the case, but here I have these pamphlets, handed to me by an organiser employed by the other side of the House; this organiser appears on the same platforms as they do, and that is the sort of stuff which their organisers tell the country. Now I come to point No. 4—

One of the Minister’s predecessors (Mr. Stuttaford) admitted on the floor of this House that undesirable people were entering the country and were getting permits. The next point goes further into that aspect of the matter. Large numbers of people come in from Rhodesia on temporary permits and it is very difficult afterwards to locate them. We want the Minister to see to it that the existing legislation and the regulations are strictly applied so as to ensure that some of these people do not stay behind in this country. When war broke out and enemy subjects had to be tracked down large numbers of them were found who were not even known to be in this country. The same thing is happening today. Many people are coming into this country, especially from Rhodesia, with temporary permits and they get lost here. And then our sixth point says this—

I should like the Labour Party to take notice of this. I think we all agree on that point, unless the Labour Party has changed its policy since. We do not want people who are making their living here to be pushed aside by people from outside. In conclusion I want to say this, if we consider this question on its merits, without prejudice, and if we do not judge the motion and the amendment by the persons who have moved them, then I am convinced that the House will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Beaufort West because it is an amendment which is well founded, and it is in the true interest of South Africa.

I wish on behalf of my party, to propose a further amendment. The amendment does follow somewhat the same lines as that moved by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford), but the amendment moved by that hon. member does not, I think, clarify the position with regard to immigration at all. I think it must pass as an amendment drafted for the purpose of acting as an antidote to the ambitious scheme outlined by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt). Before I go further, may I draw the attention of the House, and from that I trust the attention of the Minister will be drawn to the specific statement made by the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. Neate) that if he, with others, would have had his way in 1896, he would have thrown the Indians into Durban Bay. I trust that his Leader heard the remark and that he will either agree with it or dissociate himself from that statement. It seems we have got to this stage when we are fighting a war in which India has been asked to make considerable contribution, that we still find there are members of the Dominion Party who can come into an assembly such as this, and say that if they had their way they would throw the Indians into Durban Bay. However that is only a side line. I move the following further amendment—

The hon. member for Parktown suggested that it may be possible to run a policy of demobilising the South African forces simultaneously with a policy of immigration. I am sure from my own knowledge that no such thing is possible. It is going to take us the best part of five years to reabsorb our returning army into civil life, and we have one very big job in front of us. We have, for instance, trained 1,500 boys in this country under what is known as the C.O.T.T. scheme. They have been absorbed into the army, mainly into the Air Force, where they are employed more or less as mechanics. These are boys leaving school mostly, who have never had any previous training, and who have been absorbed directly into the Air Force and other sections of the service. These boys are coming back after the war, and it is not going to be easy to re-train them and find them employment. That is only one aspect of the whole main problem as it affects the army, and the hon. members on this side of the House, and I presume the Dominion Party, would be the first to demand that we must first implement the promise we made to these youngsters when they joined up, namely, that they would be trained in the army to occupy some position in civil life where they could maintain a fairly reasonable standard of living. That is the problem that is going to confront South Africa. We are also confronted with the other problem, with the number of Europeans and natives and coloureds, and women also, who have to be reabsorbed into civil life. I am satisfied that there is no necessity for South Africa to have an unemployment problem. That depends, of course, on many other things which fortunately I feel that the Government, at this moment, are prepared to attend to. But there is no reason why we should have an unemployment problem, but these are the figures of men and women for whom we will have to find employment, and it is a job that will tax all our strength and all our ingenuity, and let me say now, tax our pockets as well; and side by side with this particular problem we are not in a position definitely in South Africa to go in for a large scale immigration policy. We cannot have it parallel with demobilisation. In other words we simply cannot have it at all for at least a period of six years. One knows, of course, that the orthodox economic argument is that if you bring an extra million people into the country, these extra million people will speed up the wheels of industry, will create a demand which will create work not only for themselves but for the other residents of the country. I have heard that story for so many years; it is like the story of economy that is preached so often; and that story may be correct in the long run, but the long run in this case will be something like 25 years, and the net result of flooding the South African labour market with large scale immigration, will mess up our demobilisation plans completely. In other words, it will be impossible to find employment for our ex-volunteers, our return soldiers, if at the same time we are endeavouring to find employment for large numbers of people brought from overseas. Let me say to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) that there is no necessity in South Africa for the importation of overseas artisans. The South African artisans have proved during the war that they are as adaptable as any people in the world, and I think the hon. member for Parktown would be astonished to know just what achievements have been accomplished by the South African artisans, particularly during the war, and there are very few industries which can be started in the Union of South Africa for which we cannot find an adequate and sufficiently well-trained number of artisans in the country. There may be one or two specialised industries, for instance the textile industry, where it may be necessary to bring a few artisans from overseas. But my experience has been that a few artisans who are brought in to train South Africans artisans, results very shortly in the South African artisan being able to do the job just as well within a very short period. In fact, I know of cases where artisans have been imported from overseas, and when they came here the South African artisans had to teach them their jobs. That happened in the case of artisans who were supposed to make bricks in a particular way. So much for that—and it is a very important point. I agree with much, that was inherent in the figures that were quoted by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate). But he cannot frighten me merely by quoting figures. But it does seem to me that we in the Union of South Africa—as a matter of fact, in the whole of Southern Africa—not only need an influx of European population but we have got to get it; but it is no use our setting out to get it in a manner that will eliminate the European population which we have already got; in other words it is no use our merely looking at principles and finding ourselves in the middle of a depression one of the most poverty-stricken countries in the world. It is a fact that most large scale immigrations that have ever been undertaken have been on the lines of placing people on the land. When America was colonised, when Australia was colonised, when New Zealand was colonised, they were colonised by immigrants who went there and who were placed on the land and who made their living on the land. That, of course, is a policy that cannot be undertaken in the Union of South Africa. I do not believe that we have a sufficiency of good land available for the number of returned soldiers who will want to go farming, and I believe the Government has decided that never again will men be placed on the land in South Africa who have no knowledge of farming. And it is quite obvious that the man who is brought from overseas, as far as South Africa is concerned, will have no knowledge of farming. He will therefore have no knowledge of South African farming, even if he was farming overseas. He, like the returning volunteer, whom it is proposed to put on the land, will first of all have to go to a farming settlement where he is taught South African farming. We have not got sufficient of those settlements at the moment to provide for the applications which are now being made by volunteers who have already been discharged. As you know, Sir, the Lands Department has refused to release any land at the moment. But the applications are mounting up, and if all the applications were acceded to, the whole of our land settlements would be very much over-populated, so the position is that there is no hope in the immediate future for any large scale immigration into this country for the purpose of putting people on to the land. These land settlements today are run on a very scientific scale. When the man goes to these settlements he is ready to farm, and these farm settlements take a considerable time to be put into that condition, so we can rule that out. Now we come to our solution. We say: Yes, let us have this immigration policy; we could, of course, make the arrangements beforehand, but let us embark upon it when we are finally satisfied that demobilisation has been completed. You will realise that probably at the close of hostilities it will take up to 12 months to bring back particular units of our army. Some of the troops may take at least twelve months to be brought back, so I think we are merely being conservative in saying that no immigration policy should be embarked upon until six years after the cessation of hostilities. Of course, we do not suggest six years as a hard and fast rule. The period can be revised in the light of future developments. But we have another solution, which, if embarked upon, a fairly wide scale, would go a long way in outweighing the arguments advanced by the hon. member for South Coast who quoted figures to show the large increase in the non-European population as compared with the small percentage of increase in the European population. We know that today in all the countries of Europe there are literally thousands and thousands of orphans. In Great Britain there are probably orphans of whom nothing is known concerning their parentage; children who have been dug out of the rubble in an air raid, children who are being looked after without, knowing precisely what their names are. Possibly I should imagine the figure would run into millions and there is nothing to prevent the Union of South Africa from embarking upon a large scale immigration policy directed towards the fetching to this country of orphan children. I do not think it is beyond the bounds of possibility for this country to start by bringing out, say, 15,000 orphans the first year, rising to 20,000 and 25,000 in the second and third years, and there we would solve two problems. The orphans naturally would not be accepted in this country if they were over a certain age. We ourselves say a suitable age, but it has been suggested to us that up to the age of 10 would be a very desirable age, which would mean that the orphan would not become a competitor in the labour market in South Africa for six or seven years. So you are not in any way disturbing the smooth flow of demobilisation; you are not interfering with the labour market at all, but you are in effect increasing your birth rate very considerably by the addition of 15,000 children in South Africa. You would then bring up the figures quoted by the hon. member for South Coast very considerably indeed, and not only that but you would be doing a very humane act to the children who are today orphans in the scarred countries of Europe. I understand, although I have no figures on which to base my understanding at the moment, but I believe that there are very considerable numbers of applications pending for adoptions in this country, and we want to make it clear that as far as we of the Labour Party are concerned, we are not prepared to consider any scheme of bringing orphan children into this country who are going to be placed in Government institutions or in anything savouring of an institution. If we are going to do something for the orphan children of Europe, we are going to do something in the most humane way, and we believe that if the Government adopted a large-scale plan for the bringing of children to South Africa under a strict system of control where each child was adopted by a foster parent, we could solve two problems at one time. In fact, we could solve more than two problems. We would increase our birth rate; we would be playing the game as far as we are concerned with an immigration policy; we would be safeguarding the inalienable rights of our exvolunteers who expect to return to this country and to be put into full-time employment, and we would be contributing in actual fact rather than in a great deal of talk, to the reconstruction of Europe.

I second. We of the Labour Party, Sir, are quite definitely in favour of immigration into this country, provided it is of the right kind, and provided further it is at the right time. It is obviously absurd that so few people shall live in so great a land as ours, a country 472,550 square miles in extent. There are seven million people in the City of New York; there are eight million people in London. In South Africa there are roughly but ten million souls, of whom about two million are Europeans; and this is the population tale of a country which is 9½ times as large as the whole of England. We say, Sir, that our population is quite absurdly small, and we add that it is dangerously small. Here, Sir, we corroborate the statement of the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt). We cherish no illusions as to our present position, because the war has shown us quite definitely that our numbers are not sufficient in the Union of South Africa to defend ourselves adequately against any first-class fully-armed power. It is a position of great danger, inasmuch as we are compelled to rely upon assistance from beyond our coasts, and for that reason we deprecate it. Thirdly, it is a position which involves great waste. South Africa is a country whose best soil is running into the sea, carried there by flood-rivers after every storm; and the land is the source of life. This is a country where just beneath our soil there are almost limitless treasures of metal and mineral; outside our coasts, within our own seas, are thousands of tons of food; mostly unexploited, although very badly needed, for the reason that, we are short of hands. This again is a strong reason for immigration of the right sort. And then the rate of our natural increase in South Africa is decidedly decreasing. The index figure of reproductivity at the present time is 1.3, which most members will know indicates that in a generation our population would increase by 30 per cent. Well, Sir, 30 years ago the rate of increase was 80 per cent. I admit that that was the flood time of immigration from Britain, Ireland and from Western Europe generally, and that a proportion of these immigrants came to South Africa and founded families. But the point is that now the idex figure is only 1.3, and even if any of us should live to the year 2000 A.D., our population would then have risen to only three million people. We submit that there is a very great necessity for immigration, but we see very great difficulties from our own point of view and from the point of view of those western nations from whom we wish to draw our supplies. It is quite obvious that Great Britain and Holland, Norway and France, will be very pre-occupied for many years to come in rebuilding their own stricken homes and their farms, their cattle sheds, their workshops and their factories. In the main street in Southampton people used to grumble because traffic was held up to a single line of cars to get through an ancient monument called Bargate. Well, they do not have to grumble any more, because today they can drive either side, port or starboard, of the historic gateway; the houses today are completely gone from both sides of the street, and the stores and factories have vanished too. I say that the most desirable sources of immigrants will be very busily occupied for many years to come in repairing the devastation of the war, which, after all, has not yet ended. And there is another point which may interest certain hon. members of the House. Great Britain has ceased to supply immigrants. She is a receiver of immigrants. Roughly during the reign of Queen Victoria, say from 1836 to the end of the 19th century, no less than 8,250,000 people from Ireland and Great Britain went overseas seeking health, prosperity, and a wider chance to live. In the course of one sovereign’s reign, 8,250,000 immigrants left their birthplaces in Great Britain and Ireland for new homes overseas; but long before the war the story was changed completely, and between the years 1931 and 1937, a matter of 5 years, Great Britain alone received no less than 450,000 immigrants, mostly into her great towns. That represents an average of from 60,000 to 90,000 per annum, and for the information of the hon. members of this House, that is the equivalent of all immigrants into Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa combined, say in the nineteen-twenties. I say that we need immigrants of the right type. We want them, as the hon. member for Fordsburg has said, not as distributors of the wealth that we possess, but as co-workers in the manufacture of wealth which we do not yet possess but which we can produce if we get down to the good earth and the great potential supplies which we have in this country. In a word, our suggestion is this, that instead of bringing skilled mechanics or professionals of any type, to make still harder the position, as it would do, of the soldiers, our defenders, when they return to their homes and their lathes and their machines—instead of that we should do an act of grace, we should offer and provide homes for the many thousands of children, of allied nations, who have become war-orphans. This is a thing that will be indeed worthy of this country of South Africa, and the very mention of which will heighten our credit amongst the distressed nations of the earth. It is said that no figures are known. The figures that are known to me run into hundreds of thousands of children. There are many desolate children in Great Britain whom nobody can identify, whom nobody knows. It might seem at first that it was almost unnatural to propose to bring orphans thousands of miles from their native country. There are so many of them so totally destitute that it would not be unnatural; it would be an act of great charity to do so. We venture to suggest that we can get 200,000 on demand, and we suggest that we should at least consider bringing these children to this sunny country of ours, this anti-tuberculosis country of ours, this empty country that wants the laughter of children and the growth and strength of youth; we ask that 200,000 of them be invited. The cost of their upkeep at £1 per week, would be £10,000,000 per annum, and I suggest that we could never have invested that sum to better purpose in all our history. The money would remain in the country. The £10,000,000 that we set aside for that purpose would be spent mainly on food and clothing. It would only be another and a better way of setting agriculture in South Africa on its feet. We on these benches never forget the claims of the land workers. We would like to see these children under the constant care of the Social Welfare Department, but we hope that they will go to the country where they can be adopted in private homes, and supported more wholesomely and cheaply than would be possible in the cities. There would be another advantage in this scheme. These children growing into manhood in the Union would not disturb the labour market in any way. There is bound to be what the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister called a time lag between the end of the war and the effective starting of the peace. The machines must be readjusted to the works of peacetime industry. There must come a time of difficulty, and we do not want to increase that difficulty in any way. The children would not affect the labour issue in any adverse respect whatever. Secondly, they would be brought up as South Africans. They would not come here and look down their little noses, as some people have done within my experience, and start talking not only about how things are done overseas but how much better everything is done overseas. They would be of us, and they would belong to us. They would understand South Africa, not only the two languages, but the heart of the country that held them close when they so greatly needed it. In 10 years’ time at the rate of 200,000 a year, our population would be doubled, a very different thing from the figures which I suggested to you at the beginning of this speech. The 1.3 index means that our population will increase by 50 per cent. in 60 years. In this way we can double it in 10 years, and do such a gracious thing as has never been done by a nation in the history of all the nations. And there is just one other point. I have not yet mentioned the people, whose interests I have very much at heart, in relation to whom we Europeans stand as guardians or trustees. I notice that our native peoples fail to get all the consideration, not only that they should have for their own sakes but that they ought to have for our own sakes. They ought to be built up. There is a native problem in this country, and I believe that if we brought in those children—as we brought our European population nearer and nearer to the numbers of the Bantu—fear would die and consideration would be born, and we would at last be able to do what at heart we would like to do, and that is to develop the natives instead of keeping him down, to develop the native not only to a decent material standard of living but to develop all the capacities that he possesses. Can we do all this. Can we provide sustenance for all these children, and also build up our millions of natives? They tell us that 85 per cent. of our land is riot suitable for growing crops, which leaves only 15 per cent. of real value to our purpose. That 15 per cent. represents over 70,000 square miles. If we take the figure of Dr. Willcox, who not merely did but does maintain now that one square mile of fertile land can be made to yield all the annual protein requirements of 32,640 people, the 70,000 square miles of arable land which we have would be enough to support the population of the world. The maintenance of 50,000,000 would be relatively child’s-play. There would be work for them all until every native was properly housed and clothed and fed. And beyond the Limpopo River are 150 million native people, waiting to have their standard of life brought into line with civilisation. I believe that if we brought in these children our native question would be very largely be solved, and that in itself is enough, I think, to recommend it to all the members of this House.

I am glad that I allowed the various parties in the House the opportunity of expressing their views on what I regarded as one of the most important matters facing the country. All parties including the Opposition are prepared to have suitable people come to this country. The Government is mindful of the position, but the first and foremost attitude they take up is to make proper provision for our returned volunteers, for the people engaged in the war, and also for the people inside South Africa—they must be fully occupied before provision is made in the direction.…

That is not the amendment from your side.

The position so far as immigration is concerned is one which we are going to encourage. There is every intention at the moment—but everyone realises that until the war is over the matter cannot be settled—to encourage people who have sojourned in South Africa, for training in the R.A.F., and men of that description, to return to South Africa. South Africa has had a wonderful opportunity to advertise its advantage—South Africa is the country to which many of these people want to come, and we shall give them all the advantages which we can give them. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) I want to say that I don’t think that the hon. member was fair to the mover of this resolution, because the hon. member made it quite clear and plain that he was anxious to have as many Scandinavian people come here as he was for the people from Great Britain—the hon. member said that he was anxious to get people here who could assimilate with the people of this country. The Labour amendment is that we should make a home in South Africa for as many war orphans as we can. Everyone sympathises with the sentiment behind that, and any effort made in that direction will have my wholehearted support. We cannot do enough in that direction. South Africa, as hon. members have said on more than one occasion this afternoon, requires to increase the number of people of European extraction if we are going to hold our own here. There can be no two questions on that point, and I can give hon. members the assurance that every effort will be made to see that the right and proper class of person is admitted into South Africa. I have not got the time to deal with the various points raised by the hon. member for Beaufort West, but I can say this, that some of the points the hon. member has raised are already the policy of the Government. Some, of course, are quite contrary to the policy of the Government.

Won’t you tell us which?

Take numbers 4 and 5—

1. (4) To exercise a stricter control in regard to the issue of permits for temporary residence, and to allow the renewal of such permits only for good and sufficient reasons.
2. (5) To take the necessary steps to locate and to repatriate all persons who have entered the Union unlawfully, and also all aliens whose permits have expired and not been renewed.

Doubts have been expressed by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) about these immigrants being able to find occupations in South Africa. From the position which I occupy—in another Portfolio—I have no doubt that the advance of South Africa in the next four or five years will be such that not only will we be able to provide for our returned soldiers, and those working in war industries, but we shall in our own interests have to augment the supply of labour in South Africa. I have only to refer to the building industry. Today we are lamentably short of artisans. The position is so bad in Johannesburg that we are restricting the issue of permits because there are not enough people to do half the work which Johannesburg requires to be done, and in other directions industry will advance and opportunities will be available for the right and proper type of man. I feel that this question is one which deserves the consideration of all sections, and I would appeal to hon. members of the Opposition to help in the direction of getting the suitable people we require in South Africa and not to take up an attitude of mere hostility towards immigration.

Is that how you read the amendment?

The hon. member for Beaufort West in his remarks, if I understood him correctly, said that he and his Party were not against the proper type of immigrant.

At the right time, not at this time.

Well, I can assure hon. members of the Opposition that we are not going in for a huge wholesale scheme of immigration tomorrow. This is a thing which has to take time.

That is the scheme before the House.

This is a thing which has to take time, but the sentiments and principles involved in the motion must have the support of all people who want South Africa to progress, and even members of the Opposition cannot take exception to a remark like that. This is our country, we know no other country, and I want to endorse what the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) said in that respect, namely South Africa first, and we shall do all we can to further the interests of South Africa. Just imagine what the position would be in South Africa if instead of having 2,000,000 whites, and 8,000,000 coloureds and natives, our European population were 5,000,000—we would not only be a happy contented country, but many of our difficulties would be behind us, and certainly the farming community would have the markets which they are clamouring for. My time is limited—I cannot go into some of the questions which I would have liked to have dealt with, but I do want to repeat that I am one of these super optimists who look upon the future of South Africa as very, very bright. We have had an advertisement such as has never come before to South Africa—we have had our diamond mines and our gold mines but this war has brought to South Africa a prosperity which far outweighs either of those others—it has put South Africa on the map. We must prepare for the future and prepare to get the right and proper people who are anxious to come here, and make this country their home. The hon. member for Beaufort West dealt with another question. I am sorry he introduced it when we are dealing with a matter which should be dealt with objectively. He dealt with the question of Jewish immigration into South Africa. We shall have an opportunity of going into that and of dealing with it on another occasion.

What occasion—when?

When we deal with the Vote of the Minister of the Interior. Hon. members are bound to raise it then.

Why not here? This is the right place—this is a special motion on immigration.

One cannot go into it in a minute. I am sorry the hon. member should have introduced that particular aspect on a debate when we are dealing with the question of immigration.

At 4.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 3rd March.

The House thereupon proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

When the debate was adjourned yesterday I was showing the House how impossible it was to give effect to the amendment of 1934 under which an owner of land which had been expropriated for settlement purposes had the right to take a hundred morgen of land just where he wanted, and to use it as he wanted. I should like to explain to the House that at that time, when I took over the Department of Irrigation and the Department of Lands—that was in 1939—two irrigation schemes were nearly completed. That was the Loskop Irrigation Scheme and the Lindleyspoort Irrigation Scheme. Loskop is a big settlement on the Olifants River, near Middelburg, Transvaal. Unfortunately when the dam was built no provision was made for the land which would be required for the irrigation scheme. When I took over, the dam was completed, and we had to buy land for settlement purposes. Loskop is a big settlement and I immediately came up against the same obstacle which I had experienced in connection with the 100 morgen on the Vaal-Hartz. I did not want a repetition of that at Loskop. If I could buy the land voluntarily from the people then all would be well, but if I had to expropriate the land then it would mean that as on the Vaal-Hartz I would have to give 100 morgen to the owner, wherever he wanted it, and without any restriction in regard to sub-division, in regard to sale or all the rest of it. I could not possibly carry on on that basis and I did not want a repetition of the Vaal-Hartz affair, so we proceeded to buy the land and fortunately we succeeded in purchasing what we needed, except in the case of one or two owners. But instead of giving the owner a 100 morgen without any restrictions we gave the owner about thirty morgen. That is more or less the size of an allotment, and that land was given to the owner subject to all the conditions which ordinary settlers are subject to. The sellers voluntarily agreed to those conditions and we fortunately succeeded in purchasing the land with the exception of a few cases which I have mentioned. That land is still lying there. Those people do not want to sell and I have been obliged to hold over the matter until such time as this Bill before the House is passed. If this Bill is passed, and the Governor General gives his consent to expropriation, 30 morgen can be given to the owner subject to all the regulations of the settlements. The position therefore in regard to Loskop is that we have been fortunate enough to succeed in the purchase of those lands. If we had not succeeded in buying the land we should have had to fall back on expropriation and the danger would have been that we might have got the same unsatisfactory conditions as we have had on the Vaal-Hartz. Having that in view the amendments in this Bill are proposed so that we shall not again be faced with that same difficulty. Now I come to Lindleyspoort which is a very fine dam on the Elands River. It is a beautiful dam, although it’s not very big. It can only irrigate 1,500 morgen. We had to buy the land from the owner and if we had expropriated it an impossible condition of affairs would have been created. As I have said, there are 1,500 morgen there which are irrigable, and those 1,500 morgen belonged to no fewer than 49 owners. Of those 49 owners fourteen have from less than 1 morgen up to 5 morgen; one man has 5 to 10 morgen; five have from 10 to 20 morgen; 19 have from 20 to 50 morgen; seven from 50 to 100 morgen, and three have more than 100 morgen. We therefore had 49 people there from whom we had to buy 1,500 morgen. And if we had to expropriate the land under the amendment of 1934 there would not have been enough land to divide among them. I mention this to show hon. members how absolutely impossible it is to provide for the 100 morgen. I also want to point out that whenever the Government expropriates land for irrigation purposes, or for settlement purposes, the price paid is more than twice or three times the ordinary market value of the land. That has been our experience, and that being the case, and in view of the fact that the owner is entitled to 100 morgen under expropriation, hon. members will realise that the situation would be quite impossible. At Lindleyspoort it was impossible to carry on. The dam was completed nearly two years ago and we have been waiting for this amending Bill now before the House before going any further, so as to make it unnecessary to carry out the provisions in regard to 100 morgen. In the meanwhile we have told these people that we would give them the water for their use, but that we reserve the right at any time to take the water away, and as a matter of fact we shall do so the moment they start speculating in land. These people have started speculating. One owner has sold his farm at a high price. Fortunately we got to know about it, and we immediately notified the purchaser that we were going to cut off the water; we did so because we did not want people to have the impression that they had to pay high prices for the land because there was water there. The water does not belong to the ground, it belongs to the State. In that way we have stopped speculation. But I mention this case to show hon. members how necessary it is to make provision and to insert these amended provisions in the Act as soon as possible. In Clause 4 of the Bill the discretion is left to the Governor General to return to the owner part of his land after it has been expropriated. If the land is expropriated for settlement purposes then a piece of the land can be returned to the owner—say 30 morgen, as happened at Loskop—but that land will be subject to the regulations applying to the settlement. The owner will have to submit to the settlement and the regulations connected with it. This Bill does not apply to owners who have already been permitted to keep back certain land for themselves under irrigation schemes. It is only intended to apply to settlements which will be established in future. It is with a view to the future that this provision is inserted, it is not retrospective. In a case like the Vaal-Hartz, where people got their 100 morgen, we do not touch those rights. In passing I may say that at Vaal-Hartz, where the conditions which I have described have prevailed, and where speculation has taken place, the State has already bought in a good deal of that land at economic prices. It has, however, cost a lot of money and there is still a good deal of ground outside. I was asked yesterday under which Law we were acting to prevent bywoners staying on allotments. First of all I want to say that the necessary provision is made in some leases. I might quote paragraph C (3) from such a lease in reference to that particular point. It is laid down there that the tenant cannot, without the previous written consent from the Minister, keep or retain a male person of the age of 21 years or more on the allotment, but nothing in that connection prevents the tenant keeping, with the consent of the authorities, a coloured or native labourer required for the work of the allotment, or as a domestic servant. That is the provision made in the lease. There is a similar provision in the Karos-Buchuberg contracts, and in other leases the tenant undertakes to comply with the provisions of the Crown Lands Settlement Act. Clause 19 (b) of that Act provides that an allotment may be given to a person, but that it cannot be given unless he—

Hon. members will see that Nederlands is still used as the second language for that Act—it shows how old that Act is. The law is that if a man applies for an allotment he has to fill in an application form and in that application form he declares that he will keep his wife, his daughters and his minor sons on the allotment, and he undertakes to work the allotment for himself and his family only. When the sons come of age the position becomes different. I don’t think I need give any further explanation to show the need and the importance of the provisions of this Bill, nor need I explain to the House how necessary it is for this Bill to be passed as soon as possible. I have already pointed out how the work on settlements such as Loskop and Lindley’s Poort is being delayed. The dam at Lindley’s Poort was completed as long as 18 months ago and we cannot establish a settlement there owing to the fact that the existing provisions of the law cannot be given effect to in that particular case. Before I sit down I just want to say that I have tried to explain what the present position is in regard to excessive occupation, sub-division of lands, the selling of lands, mortgaging of land and so on, and I have pointed out that we cannot allow those conditions to continue on settlements established by the State. Those settlements cost the State millions of pounds, and if we allow the present position to continue, then there is the possibility of such a settlement in one generation getting into the hands of rich private individuals, or of companies who will then be the heirs of all the money invested by the State in such a scheme, a scheme which it has perhaps written off. It is an impossible condition of affairs. I want to emphasise that as long as I have the honour of being at the head of this Department, I shall never ask Parliament to invest millions of pounds in such undertakings. Knowing that to be the position, we cannot expect the taxpayer to consent to his money being spent in that manner, and that is why I want the law to be amended.

I listened very attentively to the statement which was made by the Minister, and he convinced me that if ever there was a Bill that should not be accepted it is this Bill, because it has only one object, namely, the enslavement of Europeans who have been placed on settlements. That is the whole object of the Bill. One of the points which the Minister made yesterday and which he again made today was that he would not have the audacity to come to Parliament, and to ask that millions be spent on settlements, if this Bill does not go through and if he does not get the control he wants. When one listens to the Minister’s arguments, one comes to the conclusion that the settlements were established as an act of mercy on the part of the Government, and that his money was spent on the settlements, instead of Government money, and that the settlers never repaid a penny. What are the facts? They buy Government land under Sections 10 and 11. The people are assisted under Section 11 if they have paid a certain amount but under Section 10 land is bought for them. The land is not given and distributed to them as a present. No, these small holdings are valued and the people are expected to repay the money. I was Minister of Lands for quite a few years, and in my time certain amounts were also written off. But certain amounts were written off only because the small holdings had been sold at too high a price. The settlers are people who try to pay their debts. Now the Minister wants them, however, even after they have paid off their debts, to be tied to his apron strings for the rest of their lives, and the land will never become the property of those people. It seems to me that we are going back to the days of Egyptian slavery, when all the land was the property of the state. I am not in favour of that. The Minister mentioned a few cases on which I should like to comment before I come to the Bill itself. The Minister told us that he had certain people on the Vaal-Hartz scheme, and that they decided that no child of theirs would ever settle on the settlements but that their children must find a haven elsewhere.

I gave them that advice and they accepted it.

The Minister says that he gave them this advice. Let us assume that this advice is accepted by the whole population; in that case we would not have a single farmer left on the land one of these days, and everyone would be on the gold fields and in the mines or industries. I think that the Minister gave them the wrong advice. After all, these children grow up on the land; they are attached to the land, and it is perhaps this very piece of land on which they would like to settle in the future. But the Minister did not leave it at that. He mentioned other cases and tried to hurt the feelings of the settlers. He says, for instance, that he visited a settlement in Natal and that the people asked him not to give land to outsiders. Did he interpret them correctly? Was it not the intention of these people that he should not give the land to people who were not acquainted with the climatic conditions, who would be a failure there, and who would not feel at home? Was not that the intention of these people when they made this request to him? I gained a good deal of experience in connection with settlers, and I am sorry that the Minister is trying to convince the House in this manner that the settlers are of a poor type. The Minister went on to say that there was a tendency on the part of the settlers to think that the State must take care of them from generation to generation. As far as I know the circumstances, there are many children of settlers who saw that their fathers’ places were too small and who looked for employment elsewhere—on the mines, in the civil service, in the industries. They did not remain on the small holdings. The Minister went on to say that there was a man in Zululand who had 400 head of cattle. Before that he was at Brits and could not obtain land there; he was then sent to Natal where the late Minister Grobler let a piece of land to him. This man built up his farming business until he had 400 head of cattle. The Minister then came along and said: “You must now get away; I want to give the land to someone else.” Is that reasonable? Has this man not every ground to be dissatisfied? And that is the example which the Minister mentions in order to prove that the people are wrong and that this is a necessary measure. Naturally, this man got to love the place. He built it up until he owned 400 head of cattle. Was it not the duty of the Minister to leave this man on the land? Then the Minister talks about settlers who sell their land. He mentioned the cases of settlers who had sold their land and made a profit on it. He mentioned the case of one man who, I believe, bought his land for £150, and who disposed of it for £1,500. Every member of this House, every businessman, every farmer, every industrialist, every plot holder, is entitled to sell his property if he can make a reasonable profit. He has the right to sell his property if he thinks that it is in his interests. But in the opinion of the Minister it is wrong for a man, because he was a settler, who bought land under the valuation of the Land Board, to have the right to sell his property when the price of that land increases, and when the land has been developed by him—the Minister does not mention that at all. This man must remain a slave and he can never sell his land. There is nothing to prevent a man from selling his farm or his house. But the Minister says that settlers, people who got their land from the State, have no right to sell their property. The Minister went on to say: Today you have these difficulties at Vaal-Hartz, difficulties which arise under the Act of 1904, difficulties in regard to the grant of 100 morgen. I am aware of the difficulties which arose there; but they can be removed. If the Minister is of opinion that they took the land in the wrong place, why does he not instruct the Land Board to go into the matter and to lay down which ground shall be given out. I understand that there are difficulties, but they can easily be surmounted, without depriving these people of property, which they may have inherited from their forefathers. There is such a thing as love for a piece of land. The Minister spoke of Loskop, and he said that when the Department of Lands took over there were certain difficulties. I have correspondence to the effect that these people were practically forced to sell. I have letters to the effect that these people were told: “If you do not sell, we shall pass a law and take the land from you for much less than we are prepared to give you now.” The Minister spoke of the position at Lindley’s Poort dam. Originally that was not intended for settlement, but as far as I remember it was the intention to help the people who are resident there, and it was the late Minister Grobler who was instrumental in having the dam built, so that these people could make a proper living there. I think there the Minister was wrong. He brought out certain things and said: “Last year I promised that I would introduce legislation, and as promised, I shall introduce consolidating legislation.” “But,” says the Minister, “when I took over the Department of Lands I came across alarming conditions. There was one small holding which was granted to a family, and I found that there were three families with thirteen children on it.” That is the alarming position of which the Minister spoke. Now I want to ask him whether he does not know of the alarming conditions which one often finds on farms and in towns where three families are thrown together under really alarming conditions. I want to ask him whether he does not know of the alarming conditions in District 6 and other parts of Cape Town. No attention is paid to that. What is the housing position in Johannesburg? The position is really alarming, but nothing is done in that connection. I think we now have the fourteenth amendment to the original Act. The original Act was drawn up in 1912, and since that time we have had fourteen amendments to the Act; and this Bill with which we are now dealing contains the most drastic amendment which has ever been proposed. This amending Bill is a humiliation for the settlers. And not only that; there is such a thing as love for one’s own possessions. One loves one’s father and one’s mother, one’s children, one’s own family and one’s own farm and house. That love must now be destroyed, and it is now laid down that the original occupier may stay on the plot but no one else. Because this man borrowed money from the State, he must remain there for the rest of his life. What about the man who borrows money from the State to build a house? If he compelled to live in it for ever, for the rest of his life? If the man who obtains the land is never able to call it his own, one cannot expect him to acquire a love for that place; that he will get to love his own little house and garden and water furrow. The Minister is now destroying that. The result will be that the man will say that in view of the fact that it cannot become his own, he must try to get out of it as much as he can, and if the Minister then comes along and tells him to go, he will not be affected to the same extent The Minister is killing the love which one has for what is one’s own. The Minister is engaged in killing that love completely. Will there still be people in future who will want to settle on the land if they know that it cannot become their own? In the towns many houses are built which eventually become the property of the buyers. They are built through the medium of all sorts of money-lending companies. These companies advance money, and the house eventually becomes the property of the man who borrows the money. These money-lending companies know that the people will look after the houses, that they will develop a love for the house, because it will eventually become their own. But the Minister now proposes to kill that love, and in future he refuses to allow the man to become the owner of the property. But the Minister has condemned himself. He himself said that in terms of the contracts, the Government has the right to refuse to give transfer. Why does the Minister not make use of the legislation. No, he wants this Bill to create a position of power for the Department of Lands, so that the Department will, for all time, be able to dictate to the settlers. We know how that can give rise to abuse in the political sphere. We know what it means when there is always a sword hanging over one’s head, and when election agents go about telling the people to beware. I say that the Minister must not act in this way, that, he must not make slaves of our people. I just want to deal briefly with the Bill itself. The Minister referred to certain principles embodied in this Bill, and he particularly stressed three principles. The first is that, no European may reside on the small holdings after reaching the age of 21 years. The second is that he assumes the right of expropriation, and the third is the question of unbeneficial occupation. As far as unbeneficial occupation is concerned, the Minister tried to put the responsibility on me. I shall reply to that in a moment. But first of all I want to deal with his first argument. He says that no European over the age of 21 years may reside on the small holdings. I have already touched on this matter. Let me say very clearly that the Minister proposes to grant land to returned soldiers. It is generally said that the returned soldiers must have certain privileges. I do not want to oppose that. But how many of the returned soldiers will be wounded and sickly? As the position now stands they will not even be able to get a European over the age of 21 to assist them in working and cultivating the small holdings. Moreover, people who are in sound health may become sickly. They are not allowed to get a European to assist them if the person in question is over the age of 21. The hon. Minister is laughing, but that is the truth.

He can allow them to do so.

Yes, those who vote for him, as I shall show later. It is crystal clear. This Bill is intended to create a position of power for the Minister to keep the settlers in firm check, and to do as he pleases. I am sorry to say, therefore, that as far as this section is concerned, we cannot agree to it. We are as much opposed to overcrowding the small holdings as the Minister is, but the Minister possesses the power to prevent it. Why does he not invoke the existing measures? Let us take this case. An elderly father lives on the plot. He is old and sickly. But his son aged 21 must leave the plot and is not allowed to assist him. The Minister replies that he can give permission for the son to remain there. The knowledge which we on this side have gained, however, does not allow us to agree to the Minister having that power.

Did you pilot the Act of 1937 through Parliament?

Yes. The Minister is referring to the Act of 1937 in connection with overcrowding.

I am not referring to the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act, but to the amendment of the Settlement Act of 1937.

There you have all the powers which you need. Now the Minister comes along and says that there are gaps in the Act. There are no gaps. The Minister wants certain powers; that is all there is to it. Now we come to unbeneficial occupation, and the Minister is trying to put the blame on me. Let me say at once that there were cases of unbeneficial occupation where I had to intervene. One can however, count those cases on one’s ten fingers. One hundred and thirty years ago the Voortrekkers went to the North, and since that time there has been so little overcrowding that one can count the cases on one’s fingers. And what it the reason? Love for the land, for the farm which the man occupies. The father simply used to say: “I am not going to push my child aside when he does not know where to go.” And the will of the parents was usually framed in such a way that if there were 1,000 morgen the farm would be divided equally amongst, say, ten children.

You passed the law to expropriate.

Yes, because these people could not make a living. If these old people had known what the position would be, they would have drawn up their wills differently, but they did not know. And this had to be rectified. The Minister now has the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act, and during these 130 years there were only a few cases where the State had to take over. There is one case which the Minister mentioned, where it is not a question of the will. If the Minister goes back he will find that the first will was framed in such a way that the children had to keep the farm amongst themselves. Let me say at once that I agree with the Minister that one cannot put too many people on a farm, that it does not pay them, but one can go about things in a different way. If the Minister had more extension officers on the settlement in order to advise the people how to conduct their farming, we would make much better progress than we do under this Bill. This is going to lead to hatred and jealousy, and quarrelling and dissension, and the people will feel that an injustice is being done to them, because they can never become the owners of the land. I hope that the Minister will in time to come realise that. The second point which the Minister raised was in connection with the powers which he is taking unto himself in connection with the sub-division of land. At the moment land cannot be sub-divided without the permission of the Minister, but the Minister is now taking the right to say under the deed of sale that the land which is granted may not be sub-divided. Why the Minister should now come along and take powers which he already has, is beyond my comprehension, unless he has a special purpose in doing so. I want to say again that I adhere to the opinion that if a farm is cut up into too many small holdings, it is unbeneficial, but the Minister has the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act, the terms of which he can apply. In the second place, he has the right when land is granted, to say that it shall not be sold or let. He has that power. The Minister now wants legislative powers which are very drastic. In the third place, the Minister referred to the 100 morgen which are granted. If I interpret the Act correctly, it is not only 100 morgen. This is merely an excuse on the part of the Minister to say that where people still have farms, which at the moment do not fall under an irrigation scheme, but where the furrows overflow, the Minister can expropiate. If a man has a farm of 2,000 or 3,000 morgen it is not clear whether the Minister can expropriate only that portion under irrigation, and allow the man to retain the rest. I hope he will explain that. Now I come to points which the Minister did not touch on. He says that there are three important principles, but, as I see it, what is very much more important, is Section 3 of this Bill, which gives the Minister the right to proclaim certain territories in which no land, which is owned in terms of a Crown grant or deed of transfer issued under a settlement Act, may be expropriated. It seems to me that the Minister has taken a leaf from the book of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance imposes a tax, and then he says that it will be law as from a certain date. Here the Minister of Lands comes along and does the unheard of and unjust thing of introducing legislation with retrospective effect. The man has got his farm, and the Minister’s signature is there to show that he bought the farm, but now it is laid down that the third or fourth or sixth owner cannot sell the land. The law is applied with retrospective effect, and it is laid down that a farm which in 1912 was a settlement farm, may not be sold, except with the permission of the Minister. The man must stay on it for the rest of his life; he may not sell it. I think it is most unfair to pass such legislation with retrospective effect. Once we start with settlements, it will not be very long before the Government will come along and say that no farmer may sell his farm. There is already a tendency in that direction. There is already a tendency to forbid a farmer who has a Land Bank loan to do this, that or the other. Apart from that, there is the position of the natives. The natives are more privileged than the Europeans. This Bill excludes the native territories. What happens in the case of a place which borders on a native territory? One might build a beautiful irrigation scheme along a native territory to supply water to the native territory, and bring 200 or 300 morgen under irrigation. There is a place below the Pongola scheme with approximately 100,000 morgen under irrigation. It will not be possible to bring this scheme under this Act. The natives are protected, and they cannot be deprived of their land, but the Europeans can be so deprived. I am not in favour of the Minister having powers to make inroads on native legislation, but in such special cases where a furrow has to be led over native territory, one creates a position of favouritism as far as the natives are concerned, which is altogether unjustified. I know that the Minister is very strongly in favour of irrigation schemes. Of course, it gets no further than surveys. In any case I hope that he is going to make a start with some of these schemes. He has been Minister of Lands and Irrigation for five years, and I do not know of a single scheme which he has built. He had a great deal to say about Loskop, Lindley’s Poort and Vaal-Hartz. But those schemes had already been completed when he took office. He must not tell us that he built them. If in five years’ time he has not built a single scheme, what can we expect of him, even if he remains Minister of Lands for 100 years? No, I am afraid that as far as this Government is concerned, these schemes will remain schemes on paper. It gets no further than speeches. There is something else in connection with this Bill which I forgot to say. The Minister refuses to allow the settlers to keep their major sons on the small holdings, so that they can assist their parents in cultivating the small holdings or farms, unless they specially obtain the permission of the Minister. But let us see what happens in the case of the natives. The State spent millions of pounds in buying land for them. The native is allowed to remain in his pondokkie with all his children; he can live a grand life, and let the small native boys and girls cultivate the land. But the Minister tells the European that even though his children want to work on the farm, they cannot be allowed to do so. They must get off the farm. The natives do not pay for the land which is given to them. That is the difference between the manner in which the settlers are treated, and the manner in which the natives are treated. I think that the Minister is preaching an altogether wrong idea, namely, that the settlers receive everything from the State, and that they live at the expense of the State. He spoke here of millions of pounds which are paid to establish settlements, while those people live at the expense of the State. That is not the case. If he had said that that was the case as far as the natives were concerned, I would have agreed with him. They are living at State expense. We bought the land for them; we must pay for their education. I recently visited one of these territories. I saw how the natives lived; and I found that some of them sold cattle for anything up to £150 at one sale. They live in their kraals and they have the necessary assistance, while the European in South Africa is deprived of that assistance. No, I say that this Bill is too drastic and too far-reaching; it is so far-reaching that the Minister cannot expect this side of the House to approve of it. The Minister will probably pilot this Bill through the House with the support behind him, but when we come to the Committee stage, we shall do our best so to amend the Bill that it assumes a different complexion. That, however, will come at a later stage. We feel so strongly in regard to this Bill, that I want to move the following amendment—

I think that we, as the responsible representatives of those people, should not place them in the position which obtained in the days of slavery in Egypt. We dare not allow legislation of this nature to go through the House. We as the people who represent the platteland—we on this side represent the platteland particularly, and we have many of these settlements in our constituencies—cannot allow this drastic measure to go through the House. We cannot allow all these people to be treated alike, simply because there are a few weaklings on the settlements. We must remember that some of our best people are today on the settlements. Their positions have become worse, through no fault of their own, but because their places were burnt down, trodden out and destroyed. They did not have the necessary assistance, and they were impoverished. The Minister must not put such drastic legislation through the House and treat all these people alike. I hope that the Minister will withdraw this Bill. He will, of course, say that he is not going to do it. He will go on with the support which he has behind him. I am not, however, going to beg him. It is not my practice to beg people. It is my practice to say what I think, and if the Minister is not prepared to deal with these cases on their merits, we are not going to beg him. We are pleading here for right and justice for our own flesh and blood. We are not asking for favours. If we had asked for favours, it would have been a different matter, but every penny which these people get is repaid to the State. I admit that in some cases certain amounts were written off. We know that there was an investigation in 1932, and that certain sums were written off. But which section of the community has not had debts written off? Even the debts of town councils have been written off. Debts were generally written off. Why, because in the case of certain settlers, debts were written off, must it be said that those people live at the expense of the State, and why pass such a drastic measure such as this to place them under complete State control? I want to say definitely that we are not going to support this Bill, and that we are going to do everything in our power to prevent a humiliating measure of this nature, which is of retrospective effect, from being passed by the Minister and applied to the settlers. It is simply left to the Minister to proclaim a territory, and then this Bill will apply retrospectively to that territory, and no sale may take place there. No, we cannot accept it. In my constituency we have not only got rich people. There are many poor people. I went through my constituency recently, and I think that for the greater part the settlers have repaid nearly all their debts to the State. Those settlers who obtained land under Section 11, are paying off their debts. I know of one case where land was given to a man ten years ago. He paid off his debt, and he is now asking for transfer. I wrote to the Minister in that connection. There are numerous cases of this nature and then the Minister comes along and talks of favours to poor whites. Since 1912, when this Act was called into being, up to the year 1944, the Minister mentioned only one case where there were too many people on the small holding. The Minister also spoke of Brits. Some of our best people live at Brits, and they pay for their small holdings. Certain debts had to be written off, because the land was bought at a high price, or because some of the people were not acquainted with the climatic conditions. Some of them did not make the success of these small holdings which we expected them to make. But that still does, not give the Minister the right to treat all these settlers alike. There are places which have to be cleared up, but this Bill is too drastic and too far-reaching. The Minister has the majority behind him, but I hope he will still withdraw this Bill. At this stage I merely wanted to confine myself to these few points, and I move the amendment.

I should like to second the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) because I am convinced that the hon. the Minister of Lands has not acted in the way he has said he would in the past. Hon. members will remember that two years ago I drew the attention of the Minister to the fact that our land settlement laws were very antiquated, that new circumstances had arisen, and that new economic problems had presented themselves. I pointed out to him that there is an increased demand for land for settlement purposes, that that land must be bought to appease the land hunger of the people, and that more systematic schemes must be evolved in connection with land settlement. I pointed out that we should not buy land just to hand over to settlers, but that we must undertake the task of training these settlers, so that they may may be successful. I indicated that we should make use of schools such as the Oakdale School at Riversdale, and of the school at Clanwilliam, where a class of lads is being trained to become our settlers of the future. A start was made in that connection under the direction of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad when he was Minister of Lands, namely, at Olievenhoutdrift in my constituency. But that was just the beginning, and we should really make provision for the sons of settlers who cannot remain on the lands under present conditions, but are obliged to go elsewhere to find a haven. The Minister then said that the State provided adequate facilities for education in other directions which those children could make use of, and accordingly, in the case of the children of settlers it was not the responsibility of the State to worry about providing land for those children, because there were other occupations open to them. This is a very short-sighted policy of the Minister of Lands. If we have people who have been brought up on the land, who have grown to love the land, and if we have cases where an aged parent requires his son to help him on the farm in order to develop it, then it would be a short-sighted policy indeed to prevent that child from remaining on the land. I know that the Minister of Lands, especially of late, has been active in preparing settlements for future settlers, and that he has built houses and prepared the lands very well; we also hear of schemes which will be launched to provide the settlers with draught animals and with everything that is necessary for the development of their, plots. But this Bill does not only apply to those people who can obtain prepared plots. It also applies to people such as there are in my constituency who have only got ditches and scrub and to those cases where a man has obtained a piece of land, and with the assistance of a small subsidy from the State, has gone gradually to work to develop the holding. These people have developed an affection for their holdings, and now we find that they are placed on the same footing as the man who is going to sit at a good table in future. I am surprised, therefore, that the Minister of Lands has now come with an amending Bill like this. He is a man who sees visions, who travels round the country and talks about the tremendously large schemes which are mooted. When the Minister of Lands is in the country, and he describes these grand and wonderful schemes, the people begin to imagine that heaven has come down on earth. I should have thought that the Minister of Lands would have come along with a consolidating Bill which would have dealt with every aspect of settlement, and not with an amending Bill which will, indeed, be the fourteenth amending Bill in connection with land settlement. Last year the Minister of Lands has a similar Bill on the Table of the House, but it did not come before the House. Then I still cherished the hope that the Minister would produce a consolidating Bill taking all these points into consideration, and reveal to us what a great brain he has. The Minister ought now to look after three sorts of people. He should look after the man who has come to the end of his tether as the result of adverse conditions, such as droughts, etc., and try to get him back on the land. He must look after the young man who is a capable agriculturist, but who is not in a position to buy land; and then he should tell us what he is going to do in connection with the returned soldiers, whom he is also going to place on the land. We know that at the moment no further land is being granted. It will only be granted after the war, and then it will be for the returned soldiers. The returned soldiers must be satisfied with the provisions of this Bill, and I can only tell the Minister this, if he expects that of these men, he will actually get no returned soldiers on to the land. I hope that I shall have the time to read some extracts from the legislation that has been introduced in other countries in connection with the placement of returned soldiers on the land. Is this Land Settlement Bill not part of the Minister’s future rehabilitation scheme; and if so, why does he not come here with something definite, and not with this piece of patchwork. We must bear in mind that legislation is now being introduced to deprive people of vested rights that they have obtained and enjoyed in the past. In that respect, this Bill is in certain aspects of a retrogressive nature. It is far-reaching. The Minister of Lands would not accept this sort of thing if he bought a farm. If he bought a farm with vested rights, whether he obtained it from the State or from anyone else, and if legislation was later introduced to deprive him of those rights, would he be contented with that? No, not at all. He would go to court, or he would start a tremendous agitation. Why then should we commit this injustice on that small section of the people who have no land, and who have to be rehabilitated? Why must it happen to them that they should be deprived of their vested rights? It has always been the prerogative of this House when legislation has been introduced in connection with specified vested rights, to emphasise that the existing vested rights must protected. Now I come to the Clauses of the Bill itself. I begin with Clause 2. I have told the Minister in the past that he is acting in an unlawful manner in turning these lads away from the holdings, because his action has been based on a regulation, and if one of those persons whose sons he has cleared out went to court, then the Minister would lose his case. The Minister has acted under regulations, and now he comes here with legislation. But in the old law there is a definition of beneficial occupation, and if the Minister finds that there is someone who has not usefully occupied his holding he can always act in accordance with that definition and say that a stop has to be put to this. But now the Minister comes and he lays down in the law that it is definitely forbidden that any European juvenile person may remain on the holding, and the Minister has given us reasons for this. I can only say that it is very far-reaching. I know myself that in my own constituency there are people who have usefully occupied their holdings, but they have become old and they no longer have the energy to enable them to work their holdings as they had in the past. Now they happen to have sons on their holdings; the son helps the father, and he reckons on being the successor to his father in the future. He works there; his father devotes little attention to the farming, and should the father one day pass away the son steps into his shoes. Now the lad is no longer allowed to remain there, and the result will be that such holdings will deteriorate and depreciate, for the father will no longer be able to devote his full attention to it, because his strength is failing him; nor is he allowed to keep his own flesh and blood on the holding to help him out. This provision is a two-edged sword. There will be only very few parents with a whole bunch of adult sons on their holdings, for the holdings are small. But there are big farms in the Kalahari where one or two of the sons could farm with advantage when their parents become old. But it always remains within the province of the Minister to decide if such a person is beneficially occupying the holding, and if he is not occupying it beneficially, then the Minister can intervene. I think that this provision is absolutely superfluous. It is a provision which injures people. They have already been helped by the State, and now that they are old and no longer in full possession of their powers to enable them to attend to the development of their holdings, they are prevented from having their children there. The Minister will say now that they can come to him, hat in hand, and ask may they please be allowed to keep their son on the farm. What sort of personal influences cannot be exercised if such an application is made? It is possible that a man may have an unfriendly neighbour; this neighbour will know that such an application has been submitted to the Minister, and people of that sort will then carry tales to the Minister. I am not in favour of this discretionary power remaining here. The Minister has enough rights under the law to enable him to act if a man is not beneficially occupying the holding, and if there is overcrowding on a holding then he can intervene under that section. Why must a greater obligation now be laid on these people. In Section 2 (1) (ii), beneficial occupation is defined in the following terms—

What worries me is that word “brackishness.” Every farmer who takes his work on a holding seriously will endeavour to see that his land does not become brak; and if he is negligent then the superintendent is there to give him advice. But there are portions of the land, and they are to be found also in my constituency, where brak is occasioned by the lie of the land, and on account of the way in which the settlement has been laid out. Is not the Department at work here shunting its responsibilities on to the owners of the holdings? It appears to me that it is a point to which the Minister should direct his attention; or is he endeavouring here to evade some of his responsibilities? I know of a scheme in my constituency where there is great danger of brak, and it is a result of the furrows having not been properly treated with cement. Now it is laid down here that it is the duty of the occupier of the holding to see that the ground does not become brak. We should aim at clarity in connection with this matter. Then we come to the second principle in this connection. This is the provision that the people can never become owners of their ground. Everything that they do in connection with the alienating of land, if they want to take up a bond or if they want to lease the land for a long time, must always be referred to the Minister with a request for permission to do these things. In the past the position was, as the Minister of Lands has explained to the House, that they paid for and sold the holding, then subsequent owners could sell the holding without consent. But this provision is very radical. Title to that ground can never be changed during the lifetime of the occupier if the Minister of Lands does not give his consent. And now I come to an important point, and that is that the Minister of Lands is terribly anxious about the returned soldiers. Are the returned soldiers going to be satisfied with this provision? They are people who, as he has said, have fought for the freedom of their country, for the right to have their own bit of ground, and now that they have fought they will come on to land which will never be their own, and when one day they want to sell it they will have to obtain permission from the Minister of Lands. History has taught us—I have previously told the Minister of Agriculture this—that most of the schemes for returned soldiers have proved unfortunate. To prevent this we find that in countries such as Canada and New Zealand they are giving their attention to this matter. I have here the May, 1943, issue of “The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.” The title of this special article is “Our Servicemen and Economic Security.” In connection with the attitude of Canada and New Zealand it is stated—

Now I should like to put this question to the Minister. Can he tell these men who return there: “I have placed a land settlement Act on the Statute Book for you, in which I show appreciation of your services in the past, and I am so frightened that you are not going to make a success on the land, that I am now going to create better conditions for you so that you can be your own baas, instead of every time that you want to sell having to go to the Minister with cap in hand.” If the Minister expects that they will come to him every time cap in hand, I can assure him that this will be very unacceptable to the returned soldiers, as it will be equally unacceptable to those men who have not gone to fight. Provision is made here for certain exemptions. I refer to Clause 9 (3) (c), under which the Minister, on the recommendation of the council, can exempt any company, corporate body, association, partnership or person from the provisions of this law. I will say at once that I do not hold with that. Why cannot the Minister simply exempt certain lands? I do not like this discretion that is given in certain cases where personal influence can be exercised. The sub-paragraph reads—

I wish to lodge my objection to that, especially when I see to whom these exemptions may be granted. Why should exemptions be granted in connection with the bodies that are mentioned? If it is desired that the companies or associations should have no rights then such a provision should not be inserted in the law, because it is a back door through which the enemy may appear, and render abortive the Minister’s scheme. Then I will just say this, that it seems to me very strange that the hon. Minister should introduce such legislation when I know what his attitude is in connection with other places that fall under other organisations; but I know that I may not discuss that now. The attitude of the Minister in connection with this Bill is exactly the attitude that is adopted by other organisations that have settlements under their jurisdiction. Why is there all this difference between us?

You know that is a misrepresentation of the position,

It is no misrepresentation. When you analyse the logical consequences of the owners’ rights, then it is exactly the same.

It is absolutely a misrepresentation.

It is not a misrepresentation. I do not think it is a misrepresentation. I join issue with the Minister there. Here is a right of alienation in regard to which no cession can be made without the approval of the Minister. In the other case there is a right to possession which cannot be ceded without the approval of the other body. What is the difference? The Minister may say: “Well, in the first case the people are selling their holdings for £1,200 to £1,500.” In the other case the settlers are also selling their holdings for £1,200 and more. What then is the difference? In the one case the Minister holds one opinion, and in the other case another. It strikes me as very strange. This clause to employ a legal phrase, is: “Vague, embarrassing and bad in law.” I cannot see why the hon. the Minister has introduced such a provision in such a manner, because in the first instance it falls under the ordinary irrigation rights. Now the Minister comes and he introduces the provisions of the Irrigation Act of 1912 in connection with the obtaining of a servitude for the leading of water with the object of expropriating settlers’ ground. If there is a difference of opinion regarding the value of the holding, for instance, should application be made to the Water Court; and what has the Water Court to do with the matter? Moreover, is it not possible to let such expropriation take place so that the owner surrenders little of his previous rights. It is true he obtains 100 morgen of land, but now the Minister lays down where he must get it. Cannot the Minister by inserting one or two clauses in the Bill, so change the position that the bad conditions that now prevail cannot occur on this land? It is very simple. If one reads this Bill, it takes one a long time to understand what it means, and even after the Minister has explained it to us, it is not yet clear to me whether his explanation is correct; and it may well be that as a result of this Bill, many cases will be brought to court, which naturally will be good for the advocates, but we must remember that our Chief Justice said not so very long ago in an appeal case, that our laws are drawn up in too complicated a manner. That is proof that if the hon. the Minister had come with a consolidating Bill we would not have had this patchwork.

You cannot incorporate amendments in a consolidating Bill.

The Minister does not need to incorporate amendments in the consolidating Bill. He can make provision in it for these requirements. But the difficulty is that the Minister is too busy running round the country telling people about his big plans. His duty is to draw up a constructive Bill, not to run around the country parading his plans. I know that the hon. Minister means it well, but he should sit down and reflect over these things, and he Should summon his senior officials together and say: These are the things I want, and I want a lawyer to draft the Bill. If the hon. the Minister had done this, then he would not have come along with such patchwork as we have before us.

It is a lawyer who has drafted the Bill.

This Bill will very possibly lead to a whole crop of law suits in the future, and especially in the Water Court, about land that was intended for settlement purposes, because this law has been so ill-considered, and because it makes provision for certain things that are quite unnecessary, and casts reflections on the settlements. That is why we do not think it would be in the interests of the country for this Bill to be adopted.

I should like to refer to the introductory speech of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). He has talked about a preference for the land. Well, if he is serious about, that then he ought to support this Bill, for he must admit that the greatest heritage that any man or any nation can possess is his land, and the Minister’s object in connection with this Bill is to look after that land. The responsibility rests on the Minister to ensure that that land is preserved. Recently there appeared an article in the “Cape Times” that referred to the work of a certain writer on soil erosion, and he was of the opinion that all the difficulties with which we have to contend today are in a large measure to be ascribed to the fact that we do not look after our land properly. If then we have a preference for the land, if that is the way that hon. members opposite also feel about it, why should not the same liking for it also exist in the heart of the Minister? That is just why the Minister feels impelled to introduce this Bill. It seems somewhat strange to me that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has taken it on himself to lead the opposition to this Bill. The hon. member said that the Minister possesses all the powers that are necessary to secure the position. The Minister has in his opening speech explained that while it is true that powers have been vested in him under the law as it has been amended from time to time such alterations have no permanent application; in other words, if we refer to the 1937 law we find that certain restrictions were imposed in regard to the sub-division of land, and the sale, alienation or preservation of it, but later on there was a legal decision, and arising from that legal decision, it appears that once a transfer has been made those restrictions fall away. If the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, who was at that time the responsible Minister, had deemed it advisable to introduce a Bill about the unbeneficial occupation of land, and to amend legislation in regard to land settlement, why is it that he cannot support the policy of the present Minister? All that the hon. Minister is doing today is to give permanent effect to the changes that were introduced at that time.

Now you are dreaming.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad, intentionally or otherwise, put through that law. I will take it that it was not his intention—I will assume that the intention at that time was to apply the restrictions in respect of every transaction. But then the lawyers said that once conveyance was issued the holding could no longer be deemed to be a holding, and when transfer then took place in respect of that ground the restrictions fell away. The hon. member ought to evince his thankfulness to the present Minister and to say to him: “I am grateful that today you have rectified the defects which at that time I could not see in the law.

How do you know what I should have done? It seems to me you are seeing visions.

The hon. member ought to be thankful to the Minister for having remedied these defects. The hon. member says that we are active here in creating a condition of slavery. Perhaps he has forgotten when he went to Marico during the by-election in 1938. The then hon. member for Marico, Rev. Du Toit, at that time introduced a motion in this House registering the strongest protest against the then Minister of Lands having told the settlers the following—

We did not expect from an hon. member who has borne the responsibility of a ministerial post for many years, that he would go round sowing suspicion, and that he would frighten the life out of the settlers, though there is no justification for that in the present Bill.

What can one expect from you?

The hon. member talks of slavery; he talks about the undesirability of leaving this discretion to the Minister. I should like to put this question to him: During his term of office as Minister has he ever exercised his discretion unreasonably? Can we not all testify to the fact that when we go to the present Minister and say to him: “This man has two or three sons, he is short of native labour, he may be only 55 years of age, but he is physically incapable and he wants to keep his sons with him.” Does not the Minister in those circumstances always agree to make a concession in respect of the man concerned? I challenge the hon. member to show that the present Minister has acted unreasonably in such cases. Hon. members will agree with me that if there is one department with which we members from the platteland have to deal, it is the Department of Lands. We can thus testify from personal experience, and I say with emphasis that if there is one department with which we come a great deal in contact then it is the Department of Lands, and if there is one department that has gone out of its way to accommodate us, it is the Department of Lands. If that is so, and if the hon. member for Wolmaransstad deemed it desirable to introduce this legislation in 1937, then I cannot realise why it is that today he is so strongly opposed to the principles that he laid down at that time. He went further. Take, for instance, his measures concerning unbeneficial occupation of land. That Act applies not only to Crown settlements, it also applies to private lands.

It only applies to private land.

I was under a wrong impression. If the hon. member in his capacity as Minister considered that the Government should take the right to exercise control over private land, where he can expropriate, where he can take away the land entirely from these people, where does the difference lie? And in that law of 1937 the then Minister laid down that if the State could prove that a man was not beneficially occupying his land for farming purposes, the State had then the right to intervene. In other words, so long as he could make a living out of that land it did not matter if he impoverished or exhausted the soil, and if he allowed the best of his land to be washed away into the sea. That law can only be applied when the State can prove that a man does not enjoy beneficial occupation of his land; in other words, he must simply derive benefit from that land, and so long as he can prove that he can make a living, the Department has no right to intervene. But that was perhaps not the then Minister’s intention. He intended to protect the land, but the fact remains that the law does not say that. The present Minister, however, goes further. He says that he wants to preserve our land in South Africa, not only for the present generation but for future generations. We talk about love for the land, and of property rights, but who of us has the right to say that the ground is our own property? We are only the trustees of the land, which goes down from generation to generation, and when we have passed away it must be given over to the generation that follows, and has not the generation that follows the right then to expect from us that we shall take care of the land? The Minister has in view in the present Bill the proper care and maintenance of improvements on the land, the maintenance and improvement of the fertility of the soil, the extermination of vermin and the eradication of noxious weeds. Is this not praiseworthy? And if a man has really a love for the land, and he wants to improve it, this law will never be applicable to him. What objection can be made to it? The hon. Minister mentioned to us a case at Brits. I would like to ask the Minister how much money the State has already lost in connection with those cases which he has mentioned here. I am astonished that the hon. member for Gordonia has raised an objection to this. He is a member of the Select Committee on Crown Lands, and he knows how many thousands of pounds have to be written off every year. I make bold to say that those settlements at Brits have by this time cost the State more than £2,000,000, and that every settler costs the State at least £2,000. Have we not then an obligation to the Treasury; have we not an obligation towards the taxpayer; cannot the Minister say: “I want to protect you against yourself”? The price of land has soared tremendously of late. A man sells a piece of land, because perhaps he can get an attractive price for it. He may be able to pocket £1,000, but later it becomes necessary for him to buy more land; then he finds that he cannot buy it with the money he has got. So he has to be protected against himself. Within a comparatively short time that man will be without land and without money if he is not protected against himself, and when he finds himself in that position it will be useless for him to go to hon. members on the other side of the House and say: I am sorry you have put me on the wrong track; I am today without land; I have no money, nor have I any earnings today.

Why did your Minister then give such a rebuke to Kakamas?

We have that responsibility. If the law is explained in the proper way to the settlers they will also support it, but if feelings are stirred up then I can well understand that difficulties may be caused. But if the people understand that this Bill is intended for their own protection they will be satisfied with it. I have had several cases where we have gone to the Minister and where we have asked for permission for a son to be kept on the holding. I cannot think of a single case where that permission has been refused. Take the question of alienation. The right has existed for several years, and we cannot mention a single case where that right has been abused. Take the Vaal-Hartz scheme. Over £4,000,000 has been spent on that scheme. At the most 2,000 settlers can be placed there. This means that so far as land alone is concerned, every settler costs the State £2,000. If you take the interest on that money, and if you take the costs of administration into consideration, as well as other incidental expenses, it will work out at about £10 a month that every settler costs the State. Where that is the case, has not the State the right to say to that settler: We must see to it that you do not misuse these assets. No, hon. members are not serious. If they are really concerned over the future of South Africa then they must support us in taking every possible step which will ensure that the land is preserved. I should like to go further. I want to ask the hon. Minister that where the man is already in possession of a small slice of land, and where he is anxious under Section 11 to purchase another piece of land, the Minister should come to his assistance. As the law stands today the Minister is unable to help such a man, because he is already an owner. I should like to see the Minister take the right in this Bill to be able to intervene in such a case, so that where the settler has a small piece of land he may be entitled to purchase an additional portion, and accordingly I ask that the Minister should take that supplementary right in this Bill. I am also sorry that the Minister is not in a position to bring in a consolidating Act, but we realise his difficulties in this connection. We are very anxious to see that no stumbling blocks are placed in the way of this Bill, and I want to make an appeal to hon. members on the other side of the House to support it, if they want to assist in protecting our greatest national asset, the land and the fertility thereof.

I wholeheartedly support this Bill. There is one important point that has been made by hon. members on the Opposition side, and it appears to me that they are attempting to attack this Bill from the angle and on the basis of what they think is the foundation of this Bill, while to my mind it is not so. They talk of slavery being implied in the Bill. I cannot see myself how slavery comes into the present Bill any more than it has appeared in legislation in the past. But what I do realise, and why I give the Bill my wholehearted support, is that we have called on the Government and appealed to them to create certain settlements in order to rehabilitate families. The State goes to great expense and undertakes large schemes which cost enormous sums of money. Let me mention a few figures, and those I am quoting here are official. I want to take a few figures giving the average cost per morgen on the settlements. I want to quote these figures, and then show why it is necessary that the Government should exercise full supervision and control over these schemes in the future, even though the holdings have been paid off. Take Buchuberg. This costs the State £150 per morgen. If we assume that the holdings are 30 morgen in extent, that means £4,500 per holding. Take Hartebeestpoort. That scheme costs the State £87 per morgen, and if you take it that the holdings are of the same extent, this means £2,610. Calculating the cost at Marico on the same basis, the holdings there cost £3,900 each. Rust-der-Winter costs £2,500. The Olifants River scheme holdings cost £3,300, Vaal-Hartz £2,000, Loskop £3,000, Riet River in the Free State £3,000 and Pongola £1,000. The State embarks on schemes for the rehabilitation of people at a fairly high cost, and now in the present Bill settlers are merely prevented from quitting the land. What happens? The holdings are allotted and developed, and now the objection is raised by the Opposition that when a man has paid off his holding he has not the right to sell to a person who does not want to purchase for the purposes of settlement, but with a view to speculation. I am not opposed to the idea that after a man has paid off his holding he should be able to sell it at an increased price, provided that the holding passes into the hands of an approved settler, and not into the hands of an undersirable class of person who does not require it. If we do not take measures against this, then you will find that the State will incur expenditure up to £150 per morgen in experimenting along the Vaal River, the Modder River, Riet River, Pongola River, and all the rivers, and as soon as the scheme promises to be successful, a man will come along with an eye to speculation and scoop up the land. Then we will obtain over a period of, say, 100 years this position, that on the settlement along these rivers, which were originally intended for the rehabilitation of people, and which have been created at great, cost to the State, people will have bought up the land, because they have speculated on the chance of the price going up, and we will not have on these settlements the people who really require such land. That means that you will be doing nothing else but undertaking experiments at the cost of the State—big experiments along these rivers for the benefit of land speculators. In this manner we will miss our objective entirely. What right have we to spend Government money on that? Take Vaal River, or Pongola, or any other of the big schemes. After 25 or 30 years, we find that three-fourths of the people are bought out, and that the land is in possession of people who have land elsewhere as well. A man will have, for instance, holdings at Vaal-Hartz to cultivate lucerne, while he is also farming in another part of the country. I ask again what right have we to allow that sort of thing? If we do not carry out what is proposed in this Bill we shall have a powerful agitation from the side of the public, and the public will say: You take great amounts of money and launch schemes, and now the land has been bought up by people who do not utilise the land for their own needs, but who have purchased it with a certain object. We must not be surprised if, as the result of that, strong public opinion is formed against land settlement. You defeat your purpose. Within twenty years we shall be just where we started, and then the public, the taxpayers, will have the fullest right to say: “You begin these schemes, but what becomes of them? To whom does the ground now belong? We shall no longer allow you to play this trick on us.” Then in the course of 25 or 30 years you will find that the door has been closed to land settlement. The public will have every right to say that they will not stand for that sort of business. The Bill has been described as slavery if he must live there. If he is in a man can make a living out of the holding, and even have a prospect of making enough to pay off that holding later, then it is not slavery if he must live there. If he is in a position to pay it off and wants to sell the holding later on, if he feels that he is no longer interested in settlements and that he would like to move to another area, let him sell the holding to another man who will then have the opportunity to progress. Then we will ensure that the scheme that has been built up at the expense of the State will be preserved for settlement for all time. If you do not proceed along those lines then you will defeat your purpose. That is the principal reason why I am supporting this Bill, and I should like hon. members to take the figures I mentioned into consideration. An agitation has already commenced in the country in connection with the settlement schemes which have cost so much money. There are also certain individual farmers, fortunately not many of them, who say that with these schemes they have to compete with farmers who are not settlers. They will have the fullest right to take up that standpoint if we allow the land to fall into the hands of people who cannot be regarded as bona fide settlers. You get that today. Let us say then that this land will be retained for settlement. Let hon. members direct their attention to this: love for the land or no love, there comes a time when the attractiveness of an amount of money totally eclipses that love. It is not everyone who appreciates the value of land. There are many people who think that if they can get £1,400 for a house and 30 morgen it is a lot of money. They run to sell; to my mind that is folly. In my opinion a man would only do that if he did not realise the value of a dwelling place and a spot where he can make enough to provide his family with food and clothing. We must realise that the idea of land speculation which has already taken root in our country is the most baleful thing in South Africa. The idea has already developed too far that land may be regarded as a thing for speculation. If we place people there, and they then grow weary of it, and want to take themselves to another area, in another atmosphere, then I am fully convinced that they will obtain the right to sell to other people who are bona fide settlers. On account of speculation we shall lose sight of the objective that we have in the establishment of settlements and I want to express the hope that an end will be put to this once and for all. Our land settlement policy, if I may describe it as such, is still in its infancy. The reason I say that is because viewed from my standpoint land settlement has had only a short history; I am not taking the old settlements of bygone days so much into account. We are living today in different circumstances. Settlement must be so planned that as many people as possible are rehabilitated. I should like hon. members to take an interest in the short history of Vaal-Hartz for example. They will discover that there were very few failures there. I make bold to say that there were less than 5 per cent.; I speak subject to corrections.

Much less.

The reason is that the holdings are large enough and that the dwellings there are attractive enough; and another reason is that farming operations are conducted under expert advice which is of such a character that if the advice is faithfully followed the people there can make a living. I think that Brits was less successful but in spite of having been less successful there was this development, that people who had bought their holdings for £150 sold them for £1,400, which in my view is quite wrong. In 90 per cent. of the cases I make bold to say they lost their money. It will be very much better if the man could spend his life there and make a living. When a man has worn himself out on a settlement—that is a point over which hon. members are now worried—and the old man wants one of his sons to take his place I am convinced that there is no Minister of Lands who will say that his son cannot take over. This is self-evident. If all the sons go away to find a living elsewhere, which is the wish of the Government, then well and good. If an old man has seen the best of his years and wants to dispose of his holding let him sell it, but let him sell it to someone who is going to live on the settlement. Otherwise you will get the position, which already exists at Vaal-Hartz, that you will get undesirable people there who it was never intended should come near the settlement. I support this Bill and I hope that the Minister will not accede to the request of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) to withdraw the Bill. I want to emphasise that the Government must exercise full supervision over the land at all times. If this is not the case, even if the ground has been paid off, we shall make a failure of settlement. The Government has the right to say that thanks to the enterprise of the State, the settlements are there today and they offer a living. But the State must ensure that the settler does not alienate his land and again become impoverished. I am in favour of even more extended powers being put in the hands of the Minister, and I base my opinion on what I have seen of settlement schemes where people farm in a proper manner and make progress under expert advice. If there is no proper control then you can have this position that the people may plant the wrong crops; they may sow mealies when mealies should not be produced. I say that the State itself must have the right to tell a settler that he must rotate his crops, that he must no longer deplete the soil but that he must grow beans and other leguminous plants in order to build up the soil rather than to exhaust and impoverish it. I have seen many of the settlements, and I want to conclude with again expressing the hope that the policy that is now being proposed by the Minister will not be modified, but that it will be further developed. Then the settlement policy of the Government will be a success both in the immediate and in the distant future and the people and the generation that follows will be grateful for that.

I have listened to the two previous speakers and they reminded me of the proverb: “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise”. It is quite clear to me that the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) did not go to the trouble to read the Bill, and as far as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) is concerned, even if he had read it, he wouldn’t have understood it. I can, however, understand the statement of the hon. member for Krugersdorp in a way, because he is a socialist and naturally he wants the State to have possession of the land and to place people on the land as “bywoners” to cultivate the land and make a living there. He wants the State to retain control. But I would be glad if he were to go to Riversdale in my constituency and to tell my settlers what he has said here. If it is such a good thing as the hon. member for Ermelo has said, why is he not in favour of a provision that he should not be allowed to sell his farm without the consent of the Minister.

His farm has not been bought with State money.

State money? All the difficulties we have had in connection with settlers are due to the fact that the Governments of today bought land which was too expensive for the purpose. However we do not want to bring up these old stale matters. One does not want to throw mud, because it sticks to one. But I want to tell the Minister that I have only been a member of Parliament for six years, but never yet have I come across a Bill which encroaches on the private rights of the people as this Bill does. I thought, Mr. Speaker, that I should ask your ruling as to whether this is not a hybrid Bill because it encroaches on private rights. These people have entered into contracts with the State and now the Minister comes and wants to amend these contracts.

Appropriation.

They are people just as we are, but the hon. the Minister wants to retain control over the land permanently. The hon. member for Ermelo talked about votes. I do not believe that of the Minister, though I do not say that there are not thousands of other people who would believe it. I do believe however that the Minister takes these steps for that purpose, but I would like him to go and meet the settlers. Then he will hear what they have to say about it. They will tell him that they are afraid of the control of his department, that they are even afraid to talk to other people. They feel that they are on land over which the Government holds control and they do not know what the Government is going to do. The Government is their master. Inspectors come round. They have even appointed a man by the name of Moll. I do not know him, but people who know him say funny things about him. Now the hon. member for Ermelo says that legislation was orginally passed to get the votes of these people.

I never said so.

He asked the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) whether he did not amend the Act in certain respects in order to get the votes of these people. In other words, we know what is at the back of his mind—he gave me the impression whilst he was speaking that he was talking with his tongue in his cheek.

On a point of explanation. I never stated that the Bill was introduced in order to get votes. How can one catch votes with a Bill which causes a position of slavery, as hon. members there contend? I have never said so. The hon. member has misunderstood me.

Did the hon. member not accuse the hon. member for Wolmaransstad that he went among the settlers and when he found that they did not want to vote for him, he introduced legislation?

No.

Did the hon. member not refer to votes? Yes, he did.

I referred to a by-election which took place in 1938 or 1939, and the Act was passed in 1937.

I do not know what the hon. member refers to. But it is not necessary to continue this kind of dialogue. The position is quite clear that the settlers outside are afraid. They were afraid of the 1937 Act and they are still more afraid of this Bill. A few days ago, when at Riversdale, I was asked to address the settlers and to tell them what the contents of the Bill are. They are afraid. And during the election they were afraid to say on what side they were going to vote, because they knew that they were under the control of the Government. I do not say that that is the intention of the Minister, but there are thousands who think otherwise. The position merely is that I also want to make a success of land settlement. I always tried to get a piece of ground for poor Afrikaners. There are hundreds of them in my constituency who are entitled to a piece of land. A few of them went to Vaal-Hartz and were very successful. These are people from my constituency and that is the reason why Vaal-Hartz is such a success. I listened carefully to the hon. the Minister. I want to be convinced. I want to do the right thing. I am prepared to assist where I possibly can be of assistance. I have read the Bill and carefully studied same, and I have listened to what the Minister had to say, and it appears to me that the purpose of the Bill is to prevent, overcrowding and the division of land, because the holdings are too small. That is the first thing. The second point is the policy that the land should never get out of the hands of a family by a bond, or otherwise. The Minister wants to prevent the land changing hands. I think the Bill is wrong in that connection and at a later stage I intend to explain why I say that. I think the Bill starts from wrong premises. That is the object the Minister has in view with the Bill. He has quoted cases to us and I take it for granted that these cases have been correctly stated. He said that there is overcrowding and that there are people waiting to buy up plots as soon as the owners obtain title. I want to tell the Minister that I have not yet lost confidence in our Afrikaner nation. I know there are some who have to be watched and to be looked after. But I want to tell the Minister that he is not going to attain that end by means of this Bill. He is not going to improve these people by means of this Bill, but he is only going to attract an undesirable class of people to these settlements. There are Afrikaners who are farmers and who have not got a piece of land, but who are anxious to get a piece of land in respect of which they can obtain transfer, and where they can have their own home and maintain a family. It is the duty of the State to see to it that these people get in possession of a piece of land. We have to go back to the original Act to see the object of all this legislation, the original Act and the various amendments. The object was to provide for these people I have referred to, to provide them with a plot and it was the aim and object to provide them in a proper way. What I do not like is that the hon. the Minister places the man who buys under Section 4 in the same position as the man who has nothing and never had anything. The man who has nothing is placed in the same category as the man who buys his own holding and pays off part of the amount, who has saved a little bit of money in order to buy his own piece of land. The Minister treats them in the same way. I go further and I say that the man who buys under Section 11 is treated worse than the other. It is quite apparent that wherever a servitude is attached to a holding, the value decreases. It is easy for the hon. member for Krugersdorp to talk. He knows nothing about it. If I want to buy a piece of land which will remain under the control of the Minister for ever and always, even if I pay for the land, then I will tell the Minister to keep the land. The effect of this Bill is going to be that we will not attract decent people, the people you want to have there, to the settlements. A decent man is not going to a settlement to exert himself for 30 or 40 years in order to pay off the holding, and then to find that he can never become the owner of his property. If that is the policy of the Government, let the Government make it known that that is their policy. Let them tell the people: “We will never grant you the right to call your land your own. You will have to come to us for everything, if you want to do anything in connection with land, you will have to come to us, you first have to obtain our approval.” Are we going back to the socialistic system that land belongs to the State and that the people only are allowed to cultivate the land? Why then should the people go to the Government for assistance? Then a man may just as well remain a bywoner all his life under conditions which afford him the opportunity to do just as well as on a settlement. I have experience of bywoners, I have some on my own property, and I want to tell you that the life of a bywoner is like that of a bird of the air. He never knows where he stands. Now the Minister comes along with legislation of this nature which subjects the people to all kinds of conditions. Look at Clause 2 and the restrictions imposed on the holdings. Restrictions are imposed on a man who bought his land 30 years ago when there were no restrictions. What right have we as a Parliament to come and to say: “You have entered into a contract with the Government but we are going to alter that contract and to impose other conditions?” What right have we to do that. Do you realise that in Clause 3 the Minister even goes so far as to say that if land was acquired by a settler prior to the 1912 Act, the Minister can issue a proclamation for that district and impose certain conditions which will diminish the value of the land? That is the position. That is why I say that I thought I would have to ask Mr. Speaker’s ruling as to whether in these circumstances, where a contract entered into with the Government is altered by the Government and the people are compelled to accept new conditions, conditions different from those which were originally imposed, whether that does not amount to an infringement of the private rights of settlers and whether this Bill should not be dealt with as a hybrid Bill. Let me tell you what happened. If I want to buy a piece of land under Section 11, I go to the owner of the land and ask him What he wants for his property. I am allowed to go up to £3,000. If he informs me that he wants £2,500 then I acquire an option for three months and then I forward an application to the Land Board. If that is approved of, I pay a certain percentage of the purchase price and the Government pays the balance. If the land is bought, the Land Board is sent out to inspect the land and to approve of the purchase. After approving of the land, they also make enquiries concerning the man, and if they find everything in order, the Government grants the land to the man on lease. The person who wants to buy the land, informs the Land Board that the price is, say, £2,500. He has to pay a small instalment and then he has the right to pay off the balance in instalments. During the first 4 or 5 years he does not pay interest, but that interest is added to the capital. After he has paid for 20 or 30 years, the land is his own. The man has paid for it with his sweat and blood. After he has paid the Government to the last penny, he owes nothing on the land and it should be his property. I admit that in some cases capital amounts have been written off. But whose fault was that? The man has gone through this process. The Land Board has valued the land and advised him to buy. But I can mention various cases where not a penny has been written off. I can mention the case of a young man and his father who had no land. They both bought under this system, some 20 years ago. Today that man is rich and he can buy me out. He bought his father’s farm and another farm as well. He is the owner of a farm with a hundred thousand vines and he makes 500 or 600 leaguers of wine. Now the Minister comes along and says: “Look here, I am going to take the right to place conditions on your land.” He proclaims that area and stipulates that in that area land may not be sold to certain people. What right has the Government to do that? It is an encroachment on private ownership. I protest against that part of the Bill. I have no objection to the Government adopting a policy from now on that land settlements will be treated in that manner in future. Then the people know what the the position is and they buy with their eyes open. Then it is the man’s business to enter into a contract or not, though I am convinced that people who have a little money are not going to buy on that basis. But in view of the fact that the Minister is going to make this part of the Bill retrospective, I cannot see how we can possibly vote for the Bill. We are anxious to assist the Minister, because we realise that there are people on these settlements who in their own interests should be placed under supervision. But we cannot make 75 people suffer because 25 people were selected wrongly. One must bear in mind that all the settlers are selected by the Land Board, and if the Land Board makes a mistake and selects the wrong people it is their business, but you cannot try and rectify the matter in the way suggested by the Minister. I can only say that the settlers I have come into contact with are alarmed and that they feel very much hurt. They feel that there is something contemplated which is not right. I do not hope that the Minister is going to advance the excuse that he is not going to proclaim this or that area. He will not always be there. This Bill will still be there after he has gone, though I do not hope that he will die soon. There may be another Minister, a man who is not so favourably disposed towards the farmers as the Minister. We are not passing a Bill for the duration of the term of office of the Minister. That is why I say that if the hon. member for Ermelo had studied the Bill, he would agree with me that we cannot make this Bill retrospective. We are going to bring these people into difficulties by imposing conditions which were not embodied in their contracts.

Was the Act of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad not retrospective?

He and I were not here, when that Bill was passed, and the hon. member knows just as well as I do that two wrongs do not make a right. It does not help us to advance that kind of argument, because we now have to judge this Bill. I can only tell him that that particular Bill was passed in 1937 and the settlers were up in arms against it. I have explained the matter to them and I gained a number of votes because the Government of the day passed that Bill. If you read Clauses 2 and 3 you will find that the Minister is imposing conditions on the transfer of people who have not yet taken transfer, and in cases where the people have had transfer passed, the Minister in Clause 3 goes to the length of laying down—

Then it is laid down to what people that land may not be sold. The man has obtained his land under lease. He has paid everything to the Government. It is his property and he has the right now to say what he is going to do with the property. The position simply is that the Government goes much further than the hon. member for Wolmaransstad went at the time. The Minister is simply laying down conditions of transfer by telling the people that they will be compelled to sell their land to so or so. We all know that if conditions are attached to property we cannot get the same price as we would otherwise have obtained. The man buying the land takes into consideration that if he wants to sell the land again one day, certain people will be excluded as buyers. I am sorry to have to agree with the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) that this Bill has been framed in a vague manner. It is not my experience of Bills of the Minister of Lands that they are framed in a negligent and inaccurate manner. Turn to the first page of the Bill, and you will see that there are two paragraphs (b) in the same clause.

I have noticed that.

I do not like that kind of thing in a Bill. It takes up one’s time. Then I would like to know the meaning of the following—

It seems to me to be one and the same thing. How can a person occupy a holding personally if he does not live on it?

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

I move—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then it goes on—

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

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

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

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

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

Much more difficult.

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

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

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

Even the best Government can made a mistake.

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

Motion put and agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 29,

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

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

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

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

Under the Common Law.

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

Yes, I am prepared to withdraw my proposed amendment.

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

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

Clause 29 put and negatived.

Remaining Clauses and the Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments to be considered on 2nd March.

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

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

It is unnecessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsense.

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

It is all talk.

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

You won’t be the last.

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

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

The British Conservative section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

He does not know what a “skuiwergat” is?

A loophole.

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

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

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

They have to take evidence.

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

What is that in Afrikaans?

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

On paper.

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

What is the practice?

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

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

You must not think.

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

I wish.…

I wish you would shut up.

Order, order.

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

Will you support it?

Of course not.

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

What do you know about it?

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

How do you vote?

I vote as I like.

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

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

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

Surely Mossel Bay did not believe him.

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

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

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

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

No, the arrangement is a temporary one.

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

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

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

Yes.

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

No.

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

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

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

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

They don’t believe it themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many members are there?

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

Who are they?

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

When does their time expire?

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

Are you going to re-appoint him?

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

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

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

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—31:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—81:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

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

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

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

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

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

There are such people.

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

How do we know that they will?

Know that they will what?

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

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

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

Even if the smaller centre is a little backward?

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

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

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

He has already made the appointments.

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

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

Where was that done?

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

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

The last speaker …

Preacher?

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

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

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

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

How do you propose to do it?

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

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

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

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

What about the Caledon?

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it is Clause 2.

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

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

What is the amendment?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—30:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F,

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—64:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk. H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Waring, F. W.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I should like to move the following further amendment—

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

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

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

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

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

House to resume in Committee on 2nd March.

Agreed to.