I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to, and the Bill accordingly withdrawn.

By direction of Mr. SPEAKER, the Children’s Guardianship Bill, submitted by the Select Committee, was read a first time; second reading on 28th March.

I move—

The position is that Parliament will probably finish its work towards the end of April or beginning of May, and in those circumstances the date of the 11th April, when we propose starting to take Tuesdays as well for Government business, is not unreasonable. The legislation before the House is still the same as I announced some time ago and no fresh legislation excepting some of minor importance will be introduced in addition to that which is already on the Order Paper. In those circumstances I think the Government’s request is a reaonable one, and not only reasonable but in the interest of members who are anxious to know when the Session will finish. If we take Tuesdays as well there is no reason why we should not finish our business towards the end of April or beginning of May.

I second.

We on this side of the House are not opposing the motion. We only want an assurance from the Prime Miniser that as the motions now on the Order Paper for Tuesdays will fall away on and after the 11th April, and as matters which private members are anxious to discuss are involved, an opportunity will be given to raise those matters in connection with other measures which have to come before the House. We do not want the Prime Minister to propose any restrictions which will make this impossible. I think that that is a concession which he owes the House, in view of the fact that he is depriving private members of these days. I just want to say that as far as I can judge, with the work already on the Order Paper, legislation and otherwise it will be very difficult to dispose of all the business and finish the Session by the date mentioned by the Prime Minister. Seeing that the Government is also taking Tuesdays now I think the time has come when the Prime Minister should tell us which measures will be dropped. With the sitting hours we have now it is difficult for members to study all the Bills and they certainly have not got the time to study measures which are likely to be dropped. I think the Prime Minister, for the sake of private members, should give us some indication of the measures which will be dropped.

I do not think there is anything we want to remove from the Government programme. The Government programme still stands, but I am prepared to give this undertaking, that if we should decide to drop any Bills we shall inform members immediately so that they need not take the trouble to study such measures. I believe, however, that we shall be able to finish within the time I have mentioned.

Cannot you tell us definitely which particular measures you intend proceeding with?

We intend proceeding with all the measures appearing on the Order Paper. The hon. member will notice from 1 to 12 on the Order Paper. In regard to the question of restricting the time for discussions, which the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition has spoken about, it is not the Government’s intention to take such a step unless a debate is unnecessarily prolonged. It is not our intention to apply the guillotine. So far there has been no reason this Session to resort to that and I hope we shall continue in the same way, but, of course, that depends on the course of future events. If hon. members on both sides do not take any account of the time of the House we may be forced to do so.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, in bringing this motion before the House I should like to consider in general the policy that should be followed in selecting new industrial sites for the Union and in Particular the special advantage that the neighbourhood of Kimberly offers for the establishment of certain industries. A survey of the established industries in the Union reveals some very interesting but none the less disconcerting facts. I do not want to weary this House with a long list of such facts, but I just want to stress some of the cardinal points in support of my argument. Mr. Speaker, in this survey we are particularly struck by the situation of the industrial sites, by the square miles they comprise, by the proportion of industries they contain and by the populations they hold. I should like to remind the House that the private industrial activity of the Union is concentrated into four small areas. These four areas are: The Southern Transvaal of 8,711 square miles; the Cape Western of 2,834 square miles; Durban/Pinetown of 276 square miles; and Port Elizabeth of 645 square miles. A total of 12,466 square miles. In other words the private industrial activity of the Union is compressed into 2.6 per cent. of the total area of the Union. The total area of the Union being 472,550 square miles. The already established industries are divided among these four areas in the following proportions: Southern Transvaal 43 per cent.; Cape Western 16 per cent.; Durban/Pinetown 12 per cent. and Port Elizabeth 9 per cent. While the balance is widely distributed over the rest of the Union. In other words, 80 per cent. of the private industrial activity is compressed into 2.6 per cent. of the total area of the Union. Furthermore, we find that the white population of Southern Transvaal is approximately half a million, of Cape Western one quarter million, of Durban/Pinetown one tenth of a million, and of Port Elizabeth one twentieth of a million. A total population of approximately two million whites. In other words, Mr. Speaker, about 50 per cent. of the European population of the Union is crammed into an area of 2.6 per cent. of the total area of the Union. I should like to stress these facts, for here we have about half the white population of the Union of South Africa crammed into four small areas comprising 2.6 per cent. of the total area of the Union. And what is the result? In Cape Town we have a beautiful mountain and a magnificent bay, but to provide living space the bay is being filled with the mountain at considerable expense to the country; and in Johannesburg the congestion has become so bad that the only way out has been into the sky. An immediate result of this congestion is that any vacant land, industrial or residential, is bought up by speculators or held by vested interests, until industrial land sells at £4,000 per acre, while residential land in favourable areas may fetch up to £2,000 per acre. These facts make one realise the disconcerting results of over-centralisation of our industries. This explains the ruling high cost of production and the high cost of living. I think enough has been said to show that this over-centralisation of our industries is detrimental to the country as a whole. We need only look at the amount of unhappiness and misery in these over-populated areas to realise that a change of policy is already overdue. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, democratic South Africa is beginning to fear that if this movement of the population to the four areas concerned should continue in the future then these few areas would soon rule and dominate South Africa. We have now seen by merely dealing with some of the broad facts of industrial centralisation that this policy has had most unfortunate results on the economic and social development of the Union and needs drastic revision. I should therefore like to suggest that a policy of decentralisation be followed in the future industrial development of the Union. But, Mr. Speaker, before such a policy is laid down it would be necessary to have expert opinion on the subject, and I feel that the time is now ripe for the Government to instigate a survey of the Union with regard to the establishment of new industries in the country. I feel that the Industrial Development Corporation is the right body to be approached and asked to carry out this very important work. Surely there is no more competent body to undertake such a survey than the Industrial Development Corporation. Coming back to Kimberley in particular I should like the House to picture Kimberley as it was and as it is today. I do not think I shall be saying too much it state that our present economic prosperity dates back to the discovery of the Kimberley Diamond Fields. Diamonds formed one of the most important keystones in our whole economic development. Once Kimberley was prosperous today Kimberley is poor, and the gaping craters around Kimberley bear tragic evidence of a prosperous past. I should therefore like to recommend the establishment of industries for the manufacture of Soda Ash, Caustic Soda, and Glass, in the neighbourhood of Kimberley. These industries would be very suitable for this particular area, owing to the proximity of the Salt Pans and Lime Works around Kimberley. At present the Union is consuming about 20,000 tons of Soda Ash we start a Glass Factory we would need at least another 10,000 tons of Soda Ash. With regard to Caustic Soda we import about 60,000 tons per year and if we start manufacturing our own Caustic Soda we shall require at least another 10,000 tons of Soda Ash. With regard to the Glass Factory the sand can be brought from Witsand near Postmasburg. Mr. Speaker, I should like to recommend that these factories namely factories for the manufacture of Soda Ash, Caustic Soda and Glass, be started at Warrenton. Warrenton, I believe, is the most economic site as far as railway rates and living conditions for the workers and their families are concerned. Warrenton is just below the great Vaal-Hartz Dam. With this water ample electric power could be generated. Moreover, the great Vaal-Hartz Settlement is nearby to produce good healthy food for the workers and their families. I am sure if this could be brought about by good planning, Warrenton would become a veritable paradise of the Union. Mr. Speaker, the Economic Adviser will have to report upon the policy of the Railway Administration with regard to the creating of New Industries. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the tariffs of the Railways as at present laid down do not tend to encourage the creation of industries and I shall cite an example. The rates for carrying Manganese from Postmasburg to Durban for export are 156 pence per ton, over a distance of 753 miles, while the rates for the same Manganese from Postmasburg to Newcastle for our own Iron and Steel industry are 182d. per ton over a distance of only 624 miles. Mark the difference, Mr. Speaker. In the former case it was 156d. per ton for 753 miles, and in the latter case the rates are higher for a shorter distance, namely 182d. per ton for 624 miles. Why this discrepancy between the rates? Why this unfair privilege for export goods at the expense of our own industries. These are matters that need investigiation, and I am quite sure that it would be in the interest of South Africa if the Railways could revise these rates with a view to encouraging new industries in South Africa how and after the war. I should like to thank our Minister of Commerce and Industries for the very sympathetic manner in which he views the establishment of new industries in our country. I am sure our Minister is about to make history with regard to such new industries, and I should now like to ask the Hon. Minister and the House to start the ball rolling by accepting this motion which is now before the House.

In seconding this motion I want to say that this is not a matter concerning the little village of Warrenton only; this is not a parochial matter, nor is it even a provincial matter, it is something far greater—it is a matter of national concern. It is an effort to establish a basic key industry in a hitherto neglected part of this country; it seeks further to establish an industry not only on a sound economic basis, not only with a view to profit taking, but it seeks to establish a national industry on a sound basis, not only economically but also socially and culturally. What I mean by that is this—if an industry is established nowadays not only is it there for profit making, but is must be established in such a manner that proper care is taken of the people who work in that industry socially and culturally, and we want to show that if this place is selected for an industry—if an investigation is made and this place is, selected, then that industry, to my mind, will be a successful and a profitable industry. I do not believe many hon. members know these parts too well, and perhaps it will be just as well if I give a background in a few words to that part of the country. We call it today the Northern Cape, it stretches from Mafeking in the North to Upington in the South, and it naturally embraces quite a, number of constituencies. There are hon. members, not only on this side but on the other side of the House who are interested in those constituencies. It is a part of the country which I say has been neglected hitherto for several generations. It is a limb or an arm, if you like to call it that, and if that arm is allowed to become paralysed or withered or decayed, then naturally the whole country will suffer. The Northern Cape is a good country for horse and mule breeding in the limestone and dolomite areas. I know there are areas in this country in the Free State and in the Colesberg district where you can breed a good horse and a good mule, but they cannot breed a better animal than we. I am speaking from experience, and I know what it can grow in the way of horses and mules. Government experts—and Government experts sometimes tell the truth—say that that part of the country has a carrying capacity of 40 per cent. greater than parts of the Free State and the Karoo on account of the indigenous bush. We have in that aera also the Districts of Vryburg and Kuruman. These vast areas not long ago were looked upon as simply waste, they counted for nothing, you could buy ground there at 1s. 6d. a morgen. After the Boer War people would not even go there to look for ground, which used to be sold on the Market Square in Cape Town at 1s. 6d. a morgen. Today, and this is not an inflated value, ground is fetching 30s. and £2 a morgen. This is when one can start farms at a profit. At the time of the Boer War one could not get there, because there were no roads and no railways. Today the position is very different. In the Vryburg area there are eight factories today, and Vryburg district alone produces 8,500,000 lbs. of butter annually and 2,000,000 lbs. of cheese. That has been done in the course of a generation. I point to it to show how these backward districts have come to the fore. There are other possibilities also in the Northern Cape. The rivers of this country all converge in that particular part, and we possess some of the biggest irrigation schemes in the country. The Vaal-Hartz, the Riet Rivier scheme, the Douglas scheme and Buchuberg. I mention that to show how, we have developed recently in that part of the country, and it can stand more development. We are very grateful to the Government for enabling this development. Hon. members may say if you have all this development, what is it you are wanting? Sir, this development naturally leads to other developments, and opens up other prospects, and that is what we are looking for now. The Vaal-Hartz scheme gives us cheap water, for instance, and that leads to other developments and other possibilities. I won’t keep the House very long, but I want to touch upon other assets in the Northern Cape. Eighty per cent. of the salt produced in South Africa comes from that area. We know that there are heavy deposits of iron and manganese in the North Cape, and two new minerals have just been discovered, partridgite and gamagranite. There are also deposits of asbestos, gypsum, kaolin and of course, diamonds. Here you have an area of precious stones, base metals and minerals such as I doubt whether you can find anywhere else in the country. It is an Aladdin’s cave. When Dr. Broom, the well-known scientist, stayed in Douglas he used to tell me that we did not know what was in that country, as it has only been scratched. Sir, we are beginning to scratch it now. The time has come to develop these base metals and other industries. Up to now some of these base metals have been mined, but they have been taken away from our very doors, and I think that is a wrong policy. We have all read the report of the Rural Industries Commission, and although there are things in it which I do not agree with, it is a very good report. That report talks about bringing back industries to the rural areas. We are lop-sided in three or four areas in this country and we must bring our industries back to the rural areas where it is economically possible. There are such places to which you can bring industries, and so prevent the country from becoming more lop-sided. The areas I refer to are becoming congested and slummy, and all sorts of difficulties are arising, that is why we are seeking to rehabilitate the rural areas where it is economically possible. My hon. friend has touched upon the little town of Warrenton, which is a very suitable place for the establishment of the soda ash industry. I think if an investigation is made it will prove one of the biggest basic industries that this country has yet known, and it will be second only to our iron and steel industry. I cannot see why it should not become a national basic chemical industry, because there you have salt within 20 miles of Warrenton. The lime pits at Taungs, 35 miles from Warrenton, and also on the railway; coal 115 miles away, and you have all the water you want— 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 gallons a day at 6d. or 8d. per 1,000 gallons. That is why we say this is an excellent place to establish a real national basic chemical industry. We know that many things can be made from lime and salt, from poison gas to bicarbonate of soda. With the addition of sand you can make glass and water glass; you can make caustic soda, bicarbonate of soda and washing soda, and also substances that are used in the match industry. Half a dozen products of lime and salt are used in the gold mining industry.· Many chemicals that we require in this country today can be made from lime and salt, and here we have these minerals at our very door. As the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) has said, our policy is to bring, where it is economically possible, the industry to the raw material. The Government policy is to decentralise, and here you have an opportunity of decentralising this industry. This is the reconstruction period, the country is calling out for industries, every second hon. member who gets up to speak talks about industry and the postwar reconstruction period. Here then you have an opportunity of testing out a really big thing and providing work for people after the war. I do not know what the ihvestigation is going to show but I believe that if this industry were started we should be able to produce substances like caustic soda, bicarbonate of soda, and other alkalis, cheaper than we can import them now or after the war, and we shall be able to compete successfully with other countries. But, here comes in the question of railway rates. This is such an excellent proposition as far as I can see, that even if railway rates remain as they are it should not worry us very much. I would, however, like to see railway rates brought down; an industry of this description is not a two-penny-halfpenny thing. I would like to see it grow into a real, big national industry. I would like to see the rate on salt brought down from Rate 7 to Rate 9, the same as lime, and chemicals brought down from Rate 5 to Rate 7. Caustic soda, which comes under Rate 2, should come under Rate 4, and there should be a reduction of rates on machinery used in these industries. I do not care whether this is a state monoply or private monopoly, or whether it is mixed, private and state-owned enterprise. This is the opportune time; here we have inexhaustible supplies of raw material for a really big national basic industry; let us get on with the job. There is one danger. When you have a proposition like this in a young country, combines and vested interests from other parts of the world are on the look-out, and new industries are sometimes smothered. That is a position we shall have to watch. If that is going to happen to any new industry we are attempting to establish in this country, then we shall have to close our doors, put up our shutters and forget about industries, but I don’t think that will happen. The Government will help us when we can really show a first-class proposition. Here then is an opportunity to test out a really big industry that shows promise, and I hope that the Government will pay attention to my hon. friend’s resolution and have this proposition investigated, and the sooner the better.

The motion of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) amounts to this, that he wants an investigation made in regard to the possibility of the establishment of a factory for the manufacture of soda ash, caustic soda and glass at Warrenton or some other place near Kimberley. I think, after the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) during the past five years, and the biting tone he has adopted, he really deserves to have permission granted to him for the establishment of an ash factory and a caustic soda factory, and perhaps he also deserves a glass factory, because glass is also an article which cuts sometimes, and sometimes it cuts very deeply. But I think the hon. member for Kimberley (District) and his seconder have, practically speaking, condemned themselves. They say that this is a national matter. They don’t want us to consider the provinces at all, but Kimberley is to have these factories. Well, if it is a national question why do they restrict it to Kimberley? The hon. member argued that the industries were today to all intents and purposes concentrated in four corners of our country, and those four corners are so full up that we must now have an expansion to other parts, of the country. I quite agree with the hon. member, but that being so he is quite wrong in just selecting one place instead of saying that the Government should make an investigation over the length and breadth of the country in regard to the establishment of factories. With a view to our being given the opportunity of properly discussing this matter I move the following amendment—

I am moving this today in order to give the House the opportunity of discussing this matter fully. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) said that the Government must consider the potentialities of these factories. If, after all these years, the Government still has to consider the potentialities in regard to the expansion of industry, I am sure we shall never get these factories in South Africa. The Government should long ago have considered the potentialities. But now the hon. member comes here and selects Kimberley or the neighbourhood of Kimberley as the area where these three types of factories should be established. We, however, cannot confine ourselves to only three types of factories. Immediately the war is over many factories will have to be established because if we do not establish them there will be large numbers of unemployed in this country. A great many factories have been established during the war, but many of them will shut down as soon as the war is over. That is why it is the Government’s duty to have a thorough investigation made throughout the country into the feasibility of establishing factories. If our economic position is to be sound factories must be spread as much as possible all over the country. Why then select Kimberley, and simply leave out the rest of the Transvaal, Natal, the Free State and the Cape? Why should not an investigation be made in the other parts of the country? Is it perhaps because the hon. member is out to catch a few votes by moving a resolution of this kind and by restricting it to his constituency?

People who have stood behind the door themselves usually expect to find others there.

That is why I cannot associate myself with his motion and I therefore move this amendment. There are other constituencies which also need factories. Just let me say a few words about my own constituency. The Minister of Mines knows that in my constituency the richest and best iron ore is found, but no private company can develop it because the Railway rates are too high. The matter has been properly investigated but the fact remains that the Railway rates are too high. It is, however, feasible to develop industries in my constituency, just as it is in other parts of the Transvaal and Free State. Then there are the mealie districts in this country where it is feasible to establish factories for the manufacture of petrol from mealies. We are dependent on foreign countries, and at the moment we are subject to all kinds of restrictions, but expert opinion is to the effect that petrol can be manufactured from the products of our own country. Why does not the hon. member introduce a motion here which will apply to the whole country? If it is a national problem it should be dealt with on a national basis. For instance, there is the question of the supplying of food, which is a national problem. How many factories have we in our own mother country which process the products for our own people who are today to a very large extent living below the breadline? We are still importing tinned meat from other countries, such as the Argentine and America—we are importing tinned meat, tongue and other products, and the Government has not moved a finger to see that steps are taken to provide for a long felt want there. After the war we shall again have to export and we shall have to apply new methods. Why don’t we establish factories in our own country to process our own meat, so that we may export it to other markets? Why should other countries come and market their meat here? We are always told that it will be too expensive if we manufacture these things here ourselves. I remember when the iron and steel industry we started that very argument was also used by the Government side, and both Houses of Parliament had to be called together to get the iron and steel industry established. Today they boast of it say: Look what the iron and steel factory is doing”. There are opportunities for the establishment of more iron and steel factories; there are opportunities for the establishment of a big meat industry. The Government does not stir a finger in regard to our cold storage institutions. The cold storages are the storage places for our perishable products, but they are in the hands of private individuals. Has not the time arrived for the people’s food to be regarded as a national matter? Has not the time arrived when our cold storages should be the monopoly of the State and of the Government? We cannot allow these things to pass unnoticed. We must draw attention to them and steps must be taken at once. We are continually being told in regard to every subject brought before Parliament that the Government is now engaged on the war, and that we have to wait until the war is over, but when the war is over it will be too late because other countries will come in. We must see to it in good time that factories are established in this country. I feel that it is not only meat and petrol factories and additional iron and steel factories which should be established, but there are many other potentialities. Take implements for instance. Agricultural implements are manufactured at Vereeniging on a small scale, but there are other parts of the country where such factories can be established. It will be cheaper in the long run, and it will be to the benefit of the whole country. I feel very strongly on this point, and the Government should not delay. It is a national question, and we cannot afford to wait until after the war. If we do so it will be too late. Hence my amendment. If the hon. the mover and his seconder really regard this as a national question they should withdraw their motion in favour of my amendment.

On a point of explanation, I don’t know whether the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was listening when I spoke. I said in my speech that the Government should make a general survey of the potentialities of industrial development.

I did not hear it, but the hon. member cannot, without the leave of the House, amend his motion in that spirit.

My motion still stands, but I did say it in my speech.

As usual the hon. member is straying from the point. He made a specific proposal for the establishment of factories for soda ash, caustic soda, glass near Kimberley. Are other places not entitled to have industries? The hon. member cannot remedy the position by referring to his speech. He should introduce an amended motion. He is on the wrong track and he cannot put the thing right by a speech. The hon. member says that he wants these factories at Kimberley and the rest of the country can get along as best it can. It is true that the hon. member in his speech did say that there should be a general survey, but he leaves his motion as it appears on the Order Paper, and afterwards he will go to his constituents and say : “Look at the motion I put before the House”, If the hon. member means it differently it is his duty to say that my amendment is better and that he is prepared to withdraw his motion. This is a national question and it affects the whole of the people of South Africa. I hope the hon. member realises that. I don’t want to detain the House any longer and I therefore move my amendment.

I have the honour of seconding this important amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in a very fitting and outstanding manner, and fully explained by him. This subject may this Session be regarded as one of the most important questions discussed here—I am referring to the industrial development of the country as a whole, and of the platteland in particular. We are living in abnormal times when industrial development becomes one of the most prominent subjects for consideration. In previous debates attention was drawn to the fact that we now have an opportunity to develop the country’s industries, and I am very sorry the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) has confined himself to a particular place. We are not asking for preference to be given to a particular place; so far as the development of industries on the platteland is concerned we do not want to confine it to one place, but we ask the Government to give its attention to the whole Union—we ask the Government, so far as this urgent question is concerned, to give it its immediate attention. We have all the necessary information on this subject. The Government only has to act on it. The Government has had a very important report from the Commission on Rural Industries which reported in 1941. If ever there has been a Commission which has done its work thoroughly—whether in certain respects it has done its work well is another question but if ever there has been a Commission which has taken the trouble to travel round the country, it is this Commission on the subject of rural industries. According to the report there is hardly a dorp in the Union which it has not visited. Some very small dorp may have been left out but it is not mentioned in the Report. The Commission has done more than that. It drafted a questionnaire containing about 40 questions which was sent to every municipality, to every village management board, and to other bodies, to get information from them. That information is important, and never before has information been collected in South Africa in such a scientific manner as has been done by this Commission. We have ample evidence of that. But knowing the Government, to whom it had to report, and in order to prevent the report being pigeonholed the Commission handed this information over to the Board of Trade and Industries in the hope that the Government would not hide that information but use it. I want to emphasise that this is the most important information which South Africa has had in regard to the development of rural industries since the establishment of Union. One can only express the hope that the Government is not going to sleep any longer on this information which it has in its possession, but that it will take active steps to give effect to this important report and to the information and recommendations at its disposal. I want to mention a few of the recommendations contained in this report, not with the object of enumerating specific dorps. If the hon. member for Kimberley wants to draw attention to specific dorps, we can do so too.

I suppose you want to mention Moorreesburg.

I would like to put Moorreesburg at the top of the list because it would be a very suitable place, but I can also mention other suitable places. The Commission in the first place says that our secondary industries in South Africa are not evenly distributed. It seems to me that the Commission has no suggestion to make in that respect, but the Nationalist Party has a suggestion on that particular point. The Nationalist Party’s policy is to establish a Central Licencing Board. The Party says it will do so when it comes into power, so as to enable South Africa to have proper control over its industries. In order to spread our industries all over the country a Central Licencing Board will be established which will control the geographic spread of industries in a businesslike manner, particularly on the platteland. Why? Because the platteland is becoming deserted, because this Commission, like other commissions, hammers on one point, and that is that if no plan is made in South Africa to back up the agricultural industry by the distribution of industries over the platteland, the platteland will become deserted and people will drift to certain other areas. I want to point out that this Commission says that the few industrial areas in South Africa, viz. : The Southern Transvaal, the Western Cape, Durban-Pinetown and Port Elizabeth, contain 80 per cent. of the country’s secondary industries. That should not be. There should be a better geographical distribution. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a few of the Commission’s recommendations—

That Bureau, of course, would have to advise him in accordance with the information the Commission has gathered. Now I ask: What has the Government done since 1940, when this important report was presented? This Commission makes an important recommendation here, and I want to know what has been done in that respect? Then the Commission makes another important recommendation which may perhaps not be acceptable to the Minister, because only recently he was not disposed to do it. The Commission recommends the strengthening of the Wage Board by the appointment of a member with a special knowledge of conditions in rural towns and in rural areas. Recently, when we moved for the appointment of someone to the Board of Trade and Industries, with a special knowledge of rural towns, the Minister refused to comply with our request. He said it was absurd, and that a man coming from a town had just as much knowledge of the rural areas. Here we have a commission which has been considering this question for months and it makes an important recommendation which I want to commend to the Minister.

I do not think the hon. member should go any further into that question.

Arising out of the amendment, I want to point out that the Commission draws attention to the facilities existing in South Africa for the training of young men and women for employment in rural industries, and may I tell the House what the Commission says? It says that not only are there insufficient trades and commercial schools in South Africa to provide for the industrial and commercial training of our young men, but it goes further and says that there are a number of trade schools and commercial schools spread all over the country, but that there is no co-ordination between them. But since 1940 the Government has not stirred a finger to remedy that position.

It has only shut down a number of them.

Exactly. Now, there is another matter, and this is even more serious so far as I am concerned. Our trade schools and our commercial schools should particularly in the rural districts, be one of the channels through which our young men can be trained for these industries, but this Commission says that if the young fellows have been trained in the trade or in the commercial school they will still have to pass through a preliminary apprenticeship of three years before they can reach full apprenticeship. That is a gap in our system. Imagine; after a young fellow has gone through a trade or commercial school he comes up against the Apprenticeship Act and it takes him another three years before he can become an apprentice. South Africa is crying out for young men and women with an industrial training, and now we get this bottleneck — his obstacle—in the way of apprentices. It is something inexplicable which I can hardly understand. The Government has had that report in its hands all this time, but it has done nothing yet in regard to this matter. Another important question is this, the Government is now hiding itself behind the Industrial Development Corporation. It has been proved in this House and outside that the Industrial Development Corporation not only neglects its duty but does not answer its purpose. It was established for the purpose of using Government money and also public money for the development of industries. Instead of doing so it goes along and invests money in all kinds of things, even in cold storages. Has anybody ever heard of a thing like it? A corporation which has been established for the purpose of encouraging rural industries by means of its funds becomes an investment company instead of a finance company, and having become an investment company and doing a bit of financing, the corporation only listens to big financial interests in South Africa and takes no notice of the small man. It is well known in South Africa that if an individual wants £500 or £1,000 from the Corporation, it has no time for that individual. It only concerns itself with large amounts. It does not want to pay any attention to the small man. Without going any further into this aspect of the matter I want to say that the Industrial Development Corporation was set up with a good object in view. It has not answered its purpose, and it seems to me that it is not going to answer its purpose. That being so it is our intention, on this side of the House, when we come into power, immediately to convert the Industrial Development Corporation into an Industrial Bank which will make cheap capital available for industry. It will make cheap capital available for what kind of industries? Only industries which have been licenced. And what industries will be licenced? Those licenced by the Industrial Licencing Board? And why must they have a licence? They will get a licence because they are established in areas where they should be established. In other words, if we have such an industrial bank we shall put an end to the situation which we already have in this country—according to the information contained in this report, a situation under which our industries are concentrated in a few places with the result that the platteland becomes deserted. As we have this Commission’s report and its recommendation we shall take steps immediately to give effect to the spirit of the report. I want to commend this report to the Minister’s serious attention and consideration. One cannot agree with everything contained in it, but it does contain a lot of very valuable information. The Minister has a lot of other information in his office. He has the replies to the questionnaires which were sent out and which have not been embodied in the report. I understand that there is some very important information, and that there are some very important details, in those replies.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When business was suspended I was explaining that the Government had neglected its duties in regard to the development of rural industries. I want to put the position just as strongly as one of the members of the Commission, to which I have been referring, put it. Namely, that rural secondary industries are the stepchild and that in all these years they have never had any financial support whatsoever from the Government. What we are pleading for now is an exhaustive survey of our industrial potentialities. This Commission has gathered certain information. That information is in the Government’s possession. Naturally, that information does not go far enough, because from the very nature of things the Commission could only send its questionnaire to the small towns and villages. About 350 dorps have replied to the questionnaire and those 350 dorps recommend about 170 rural industries which can be developed in those dorps. But those details will now have to be tested, and what we are asking for in this amendment is that with this information at our disposal, in which we are told that such a large number of industries are looked upon as feasible on the platteland, the Government should send people to the dorps to make investigations locally, to see whether the claims put up by these places are justified. And the second requirement is that the Government must make an investigation into the factors which should influence the siting of rural industries. We have not yet got sufficient information in regard to these two points and more particularly in regard to the latter point, and this Commission has not gone deeply enough into these matters. Hence this comprehensive proposal of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad for an exhaustive survey as set out in the amendment. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) did not render a service to his Party today. He pegged his Party down to one or two dorps or villages, and none of the parties in this House want the matter to be pegged down to one or two villages—they all want a comprehensive investigation with comprehensive investigations and effective assistance. On this point all parties are in agreement, and I do not think the hon. member has rendered his Party a service by trying to peg the Government down to one or two places. Now I want to make one or two recommendations which are not contained in the Report. My first recommendation is that facilities should be created in South Africa for thorough training in factory management. We have no such thing at the moment. What we are very anxious to have is a system under which a number of our universities, with Government assistance will be enabled to establish a Faculty where selected students can study factory management.

At Stellenbosch?

The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) mentions Stellenbosch. Yes, and there are other universities, too, where such facilities could be created with Government assistance. Our young students who want to study industrial subjects simply have no opportunity and I would therefore recommend that the Minister give attention to the question to what extent the State can give assistance to universities which are prepared to train specially selected students in industrial management? Then, there is another recommendation which I want to make, and that is that the Government, without delay, should make an investigation into the question to what extent a quota of labour strength can be set up in this country. I consider it an almost unforgivable gap in this country, that we cannot say with any accuracy what the labour strength of this country is, and how it should be allocated and distributed. We know that 1,250,000 out of the 7,000,000 natives are available for labour purposes. So far as the coloured people are concerned the number has not been determined, and the question is how those labour forces should be distributed and how quotas should be determined for the various requirements? Now, what is the position at the moment? There is great competition between various factors and no government considers it worth while to fix a quota. We must have a survey and a thorough allocation. At the moment the mines are quarrelling with industries. Industries are quarrelling with the farmers, and the farmers are quarrelling with both, and so it goes right round in a circle. The mines take most of the labour; the industries come second and the farmers have to do the best they can with the balance. The mines select, and to a large extent they get the best labour forces. I am speaking more particularly of the natives. The industries also take the best they can get, and the farmers are left with the old crocks or with those that are left behind. That, to a large extent, is the position in regard to our native labour. The mines recruit on a large scale and make their selections. The industries also select but not on as large a scale as the mines, and the farmers are left with the balance. The Government should, so far as native labour is concerned, make a survey and fix a proper quota so that all sections can get something, and so that the farmers also get their legitimate share. The same thing applies to coloured labour. The labour strength of the coloured section of the community is undetermined. We do not know what the numbers are. Here the mines do not compete to any extent, but here the industries and the farmers mostly compete. Our experience at the moment is that the industries take what they want and the farmers are left with the balance. I am not talking of abnormal times of war when the Government is responsible for the fact that the platteland has been completely deserted. I therefore want to make these two recommendations in all seriousness, viz. : thorough training for factory management, a survey of the factors for siting of factories in the rural districts, and a survey for the purpose of once and for all determining the available labour forces, and then to allocate those labour forces under a quota system, so that all industries and all concerns will get their legitimate share of those labour forces.

Mr. Speaker, the wise King Solomon said : Of the making of many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. But there are some books which must be read. Here, Sir, is my chief contribution to this discussion, I want to express the hope that this matter will not end with this debate. The questions under consideration are so important that they may well be studied throughout the recess, on the farms, and equally in townhouses. As a member of the Library Committee, I would like to suggest that it would be wise for many of us to accept the willing and very able help of our Librarian of Parliament, in the matter of bibliography, so that we read the books that are best and most authoritative and not waste time on many so-called authorities which are valueless. My party and I are very interested in the wider aspect that has been suggested by the amendment. We are more than ordinarily interested that suitable industries, and especially those that are related to agriculture, shall be established in our country towns. The first reason is one of sheer physical safety. We are living. Sir, in a world that is called civilised, but we have abundant evidence that the veneer is very thin, and that just beneath there is something like primeval savagery which is liable to be roused at any moment. The implications of “total war” in the air are being forced upon us. Not merely 1,000 lb. bombs, but “factory-busters”, 5-ton bombs, “one bomb —no factory,” are being used, and it does not seem to be wisdom to concentrate our means of production in any one place. When they dropped bombs on my battalion in the war the order was “scatter”—it was not necessary to give it—the order we had already given ourselves was “disperse”; and Sir, the time for dispersal of factories has now come. I would suggest that far from its being wise to build up the dense human warrens that London and New York are today—7,000,000 and 8,000,000 aggregated—those vast cities are no longer evidence of wisdom but the complete reverse, and more like corporate insanity. For security’s sake we shall have to spread our industries over the country, and everything that we learn nowadays is telling us this. Another reason is that it would improve the feeling between town and country. At present cur policy is not one of town-and-country, it is a question of town-anti-country, or country-anti-town. There exists some show of reason for that, but that reason can be removed, and should be removed. At present the poorest people in the towns—because there is not always a superabundance of work even in a great city— regard the immigrant from the country as in some degree a job-snatcher. They are afraid of the immigrants from the country. In the towns where we are closely packed we get a sort of crowd psychology, which is easily translated into a feeling of superiority over the country dweller. We also buy the products of the farms, and we are tempted to think that we are in the position of patrons. Sometimes I think it might be a good thing if groups of rural psychologists put some of us who are townspeople under the microscope, and told us how funny, how narrow, and how ignorant even we sometimes are. When “Mr. Deeds comes to town” he does the town good, and that holds true also when the townsman goes into the country. We used to recruit the West Yorkshire Regiment once in every three years from the East End of the City of London, bringing a little variety into the battalions, a helpful Cockney spice. Somehow or other town and country have to interlock, somehow or other Industry and Agriculture must be integrated. Another good thing which will follow from starting up industries in villages or small country towns is this. It will make the interior of our country vastly easier to administer, if the population is made a bit more even and equal. The matter of social services is a very difficult problem in the country. Take even the question of roads. The roads in my own town, the city of Durban, may be well-nigh perfect, but that is not enough for me, as a townsman, if I have to break every spring on my car in the attempt to get to Pietermaritzburg. And it is not merly the roads, but clinics and health centres, and education, which Present difficulties in the country districts where there are few people and the distances and therefore the expenses are great. We must get the people into the country, relatively a sufficient number of people into the country; and to do that we have to present in the country social and industrial opportunities, we have to present openings and scope for intellect, and talent, and managerial ability in the country. We have, moreover, to offer in the country equal salaries to those that are obtainable in the towns, and I am telling this House, Sir, that other nations appreciate this and other nations are already tackling this very problem and having a considerable amount of success. Even in England, with rich soil and abundant rainfall, they have discovered that the 150 or 200 acre farm does not pay, and they are applying science to the business, they are breaking down the old divisions and turning the little farms into a 3,000 acre holding, and they are offering a new career to agriculturists. They are paying, even in England, £1,000 a year for the management of such a farm as I have mentioned. We must not be too far behind other nations. The fourth reason I would advance in favour of the establishment of rural industries is this, that they will provide a readily accessible market for farmers. What one notices in our trains is the emptiness of the country, the fewness of the people, and even a townsman like me can be sorry that the farmer has at present to send his produce so many hundred miles to find a buyer. If we build up the little towns, with rural industries, there will be openings for children who are born in the country, if they prefer to remain in the country, and we shall remedy this evil of the sparsity of population in the country districts. There is another point. I have mentioned that other nations have already got this idea, and that we must not be too far behind them. North, West and East of us there are already, in many different lands, schemes of this kind in operation. I am going to refer most briefly to four nations, to tell you what has been done. The first instance is taken from “Fields, Factories and Workshops,” by Prince Peter Kropotkin, who died in 1921. He was a Russian certainly, but he lived a large portion of his life in England, and although he was supposed to be a revolutionist, he was a most mild and gentle man. This is what he said 35 years ago, and it is something like what is being advanced in this House this afternoon—

And that is what we want, in my opinion, here in South Africa. They are already building industrial villages in the United States. Here is a quotation from “Looking Forward,” by F. D. Roosevelt, written in 1933—

We have recently been hearing the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) warning this country that industry, as indeed other things, are not just the same in India and Japan as they were 40 years ago, or even four years ago. While not agreeing with every one of the hon. gentleman’s conclusions, I endorse his facts: and I want to show you what even in India is already being done in the direction of this motion. This is from “The Rural Economy of India,” by R. Mukerjee—

Then there is this from “Agricultural Problems and Their Solution in Japan,” by S. Kawada—

Now, Sir, I want to give you one other instance. Whatever the opinions of this hon. member or that hon. member may be of Russia, there can be no doubt in any mind that they have greatly strengthened and unified their peoples, and they have done it most of all along the lines which the House is now discussing. This is from “Soviet Geography,” by N. Mikhaylov—

What they can do we can do, what they have done I feel we must do, and in advocating that new life should be brought to rural districts I am not showing any disloyalty towards the city I represent. A poverty-stricken province means a poor Durban or Cape Town. It is a truth for ever and ever that if one member of the body suffers all the other members suffer with it, and Durban will be a greater town and a more prosperous town if its hinterland has prosperous villages, thriving farms, and successful rural industries. Sir, this is the way of increased production, and increased production is increased wealth. If the country goes ahead the towns inevitably go ahead, and the interests of the one are the interests of the other. I support the motion, but I would myself rather vote for the amendment, because it goes further and it looks to the welfare of the whole of South Africa. It is looking along a very fruitful vista. Advance, in that direction, will bring strength and happiness to the Union.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is no member of this House who does not agree with the general principle of the establishment of industries. I listened very attentively to what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) had to say, and also very attentively to what the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) had to say. Both these hon. gentlemen touched upon the subject but did not see eye to eye with the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) as to the advisability of investigating certain possibilities in the Kimberley area at Warrenton. Now, we know perfectly well that in the establishment of any industry there are certain factors which have to be closely studied. It is, of course, futile to entertain the idea of manufacturing any article unless you examine certain factors, and the first must be proximity to your raw materials. We are informed by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) and the hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) that there is an abundance of raw material, and in the geological world we know that to be correct. The next thing to be examined is the availability of water. I need not stress that, because there is an abundance of water. We have already been told that the water is very cheap there, probably as cheap as anywhere in the country. Having the water and having the raw material, it is not practical to exploit your proposition unless you are near to the railways, and a great factor essential to this project is proximity of your raw material to the railway. The next factor is the cost of labour. Well, the cost of labour is relatively cheap. I may say I think somewhat too cheap. I would like to point out to hon. members that not only the question of raw material is involved, but the cost of manufacture. We in the scientific world know that the ocean is full of gold, and that gold can be extracted, but when we consider that it costs £2 to extract £1 from the ocean, we know it is not a practical proposition. That is not the case with this particular project as mooted by the hon. member for Kimberley (District). If the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, or the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) tell us that any other area in the Union can put forward a proposition whereby something can be manufactured economically, preferably in a country place, it will be looked upon with favour. The next thing I wish to stress is that the manufacturer of these three important substances, soda ash and sodium hydroxide and glass are highly important undertakings. Of all the metallic compounds the sodium compounds are far and away the most important. It is not only with soda ash that I am concerned, but also with the numerous products that can be manufactured using sodium carbonate as a base. One thing leads to other things. The manufacture of sodium carbonate is a comparatively simple and inexpensive process, and I suppose members of the House know that sodium carbonate or soda ash is an essential for the manufacture of soap, an article with which most are acquainted. And the manufacture of soap, again, gives us a by-product which is far more valuable, namely, glycerine, the father and grandfather of all your explosive material. So, by the simple process of manufacturing soda ash you can manufacture all these other more important compounds. I would like to emphasise this point, that recently we have been unable to obtain sodium compounds in South Africa. Britain has found that she is very short, and America has found that she is short, and the result is that we are completely cut off from sodium compounds, which is a very serious matter indeed, because from these sodium compounds we manufacture so many other things which are absolutely essential. We cannot make glass without soda ash. I am not so much concerned with manufacturing in Moorreesburg or Wolmaransstad, but I am concerned with the fact that if we have the opportunity of manufacturing we should take it. It so happens that we have the opportunity in this particular area.

That is our amendment; more general.

Yes, that is the amendment, but the effect will be to hold up this particular matter.

No, no.

The hon. member for Kimberley (District) does not come and ask that the factory shall be established, but he is asking the Government to investigate the possibilities of establishing an industry. If the hon. member for Moorreesburg or the hon. member for Wolmaransstad come to us and show us manganese ore or chrome or asbestos which conforms to these principles of availability, proximity to cheap water, labour and the Railways, I am perfectly certain the House will be only too pleased to investigate the matter and help them to establish an industry.

We can show you that in abundance.

There is no limit to the manufacture of these compounds. Glass without soda ash is impossible, but if the sand is good, as the hon. member for Kimberley tells us, then the manufacture of glass is very desirable. We had a factory here in Cape Town using the river sand from Palmiet River, and good glass was manufactured. There is no reason why we cannot continue the manufacture of glass provided conditions conform to the factors I have mentioned. I may tell the hon. member for Moorreesburg, and I think he will be pleased to know that at the University of Cape Town they have established a course of chemical and industrial engineering, and that course has been in vogue for seven or eight years. The student is taught engineering, practical and theoretical, chemical engineering, so as to fit him to apply his knowledge to factories and manufactures.

Is it Government subsidised?

I do not think so.

Then it is only for the chosen few who can afford it.

Well, the hon. member knows how the universities are treated financially, but as I have already been told that I misled the House, I will not pursue that. The more, I view this proposition, the more I think the hon. members for Wolmaransstad and Moorreesburg should support this motion, because by supporting it and proving the possibility, probably the certainty of being able to manufacture these articles in the area mentioned, it will be an encouragement for the future investigation throughout the country of manufacturing other articles of great use. I have great pleasure in strongly supporting this motion.

In days gone by there used to be a sharp division of opinion regarding the establishment of industries in this country. We had that experience not so long ago in regard to the establishment of Iscor. Anyhow, I don’t want to go into these differences of opinion because it is most gratifying to notice that in that respect there is a general concensus of opinion today. I am glad that all sides of the House today look upon this matter as one of great national importance, and that we all look at it now from a national point of view, and that we have come to realise the great potentialities which may result from the establishment of industries and the expansion of industries in this country. The things South Africa has produced these last few years are sufficient proof to all of us of the country’s potentialities, its productive ability in this respect; one thing is certain and that is that industrial development can no longer be held back in South Africa. The people of South Africa want it. We agree that industries must be spread, must be distributed, to a greater extent than they have been so far throughout the country. Since 1904 we have already had the fourth great trek from the rural districts to the towns, and surely that is an unhealthy state of affairs. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) have pointed out that the rural districts are becoming deserted in consequence of this drift to the towns, and in order to counteract this drift and to prevent the platteland from becoming deserted the establishment of such rural industries will do a great deal. It is an undoubted fact that after this war a considerable amount of employment will be wanted in this country. We are faced with that problem and we are scheming and making plans all the time, but not a single plan is given effect to. When we have the thousands and tens of thousands of people returning from the war on our hands the position in this country will become chaotic. Our great salvation will lie in increased industrial development in South Africa. The time is ripe for it, and we cannot delay any longer. Industrial development undoubtedly is one of the great solutions of unemployment for this country. But there is another important matter, and it is this, that so far the door has always been shut to our own young men, especially to the young men from the rural districts—these young men have always been kept out of industries. Let me mention a few figures and I hope that as we are at one in regard to this important subject we may also be in agreement with each other in seeing to it that the doors to industrial employment will be open to the young men of South Africa. We have young men, we have the brains, and they are waiting in their thousands to take up industrial employment, but unfortunately the gates are still closed to them. Let us take the two biggest industries in South Africa which employ over 80 per cent. of our skilled labour. What do we find there? We find that there are 9,934 skilled men employed in those spheres and 50 per cent. of them have been imported from overseas. We therefore have this position, that practically 50 per cent. have been imported from elsewhere, and the question arises: “Why should that be?” We do not want to go into that question now, but as we are in agreement about the expansion of industries we must also see to it that the gates are opened to the young meh of South Africa. Our young men have no opportunity of fitting themselves for this employment. Many of them who have come from the trade schools where they have been training for industries are perhaps only a few years over the apprenticeship age, with the result that they can never become skilled workers. This question will be raised in this House on some later occasion but it is one of those things which we must not lose sight of. Fifty per cent. of our skilled workers in these particular cases are imported from overseas, and I say that the time has arrived when we should see to it that every young man in this country who wants to be trained for industry is given the opportunity of becoming a craftsman. During the last twenty years there has been a fairly rapid development in our vocational sphere, but at the same time it is an undeniable fact, if we look at the figures, that nowhere has there been as great a development as there has been in the sphere of unskilled labour. I trust that this aspect will have the serious attention of this House. In view of the fact that we are all in agreement as to the importance of this subject, and although the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) meant well, he has not by his motion rendered a service to this country. If we want an investigation, we should not confine ourselves to one sphere. If the hon. member does that he will perhaps receive the thanks from that particular constituency and it may mean a personal step forward so far as he is concerned, but while we are dealing with this question we should have a general survey. That is where the solution lies. Don’t let us, when we take this step, hesitate and be afraid to go on. We cannot restrict ourselves to one place. The public outside expect us to take important steps because the salvation of South Africa is involved in this development. I therefore want to make an appeal to the hon. member. He in his speech admitted that he wanted an all round survey. I assume therefore that he is satisfied with our amendment and it would help the cause considerably if he were to withdraw his motion and accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). Let us have unanimity and tackle this question like men and put it through.

I rise to take part in this debate because of the great importance which the House attaches to the development of industries in South Africa, and because of the sympathy which has been extended from time to time to the matter of industries in rural areas. I take the motion to be an indication on the part of the mover that this is an instance in which the Government might prove that an industry in a particular rural area is an economic proposition, and would be of benefit to the national welfare. The claims of the North West Cape are worthy of our best consideration, but one readily admits that the introduction of a specific area for investigation opens up the wider and more important sphere of national industry as a whole. The motion asks the Government to investigate the possibilities of an industry—presumably the economic possibilities. It asks the Government to instruct one of its experts to enquire closely into the potentialities of that particular area in relation to an entirely new enterprise. It may be said that if there were anything economic in the proposition, private enterprise would have snapped it up long ago. If there were a possibility of attractive dividends from the establishment of such a industry it would have been undertaken by private enterprise. I think the mover had in mind something wider. Perhaps he had in mind that the State itself should look into this matter. We have had many representations on the general subject of rural industries, and a closer study of the report of the Rural Industries Commission would be of great value to all of us. But apart altogether from the work of the Rural Industries Commission we have a later report and that is the one dealing with the Social and Economic Planning Council in its reference to the provision of more employment as part and parcel of the general measures for social security for the people of South Africa. I want just to quote from page 87 of the report of the Social Security Committee and Report No. 2 of the Social and Economic Planning Council. I think this paragraph is relevant to the subject under discussion. I quote from Paragraph 43 : I would draw the attention of the hon. member for Kimberley to this particular paragraph—

I put that forward as a contribution towards the effort made by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) to secure the Government’s attention to a definite project, a project which the members for that area declared to us has possibilities of development in an area which after all will depend, I think, largely on the action that the Government will take. Some of us in this House feel that the time has arrived when our natural resources should not be left entirely to exploitation for private profit, and that if there are industries in this country which even at a small loss could be developed and provide work for the citizens of the areas concerned and in addition move population away from the already congested industrial areas, it would be a profitable proposition from the standpoint of the whole country, although not from the standpoint of the particular industry. We cannot afford just to look at particular sections of the State’s activities as separate units. As a national concern we have to look at the general effect of a particular movement or activity upon the country as a whole. Let me illustrate. If you had a proposition such as is put forward by the hon. member for Kimberley (District), by working it you would first of all increase your national wealth, you would circulate money through wages, etc., and the circulation of that money would bring sufficient profit to the general community to more than cover any slight loss in that particular industry, and thereby you would come to the conclusion from the national point of view that the development of an industry which would be uneconomic to private enterprise might from a national point of view be of considerable value. I am asked to be very brief. I regard this as a most important matter and I do want to impress upon the House that the time has arrived when we must look further than private enterprise for the full development of our natural resources. Now, I just want to quote from Mr. W. R. Skeeles, Vice-Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Association of Chambers of Commerce of South Africa, who in the course of an article in the August, 1943, issue of “Commercial Opinion” included the following observation—

I commend this to the consideration of the Government.

I think the House is indebted to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) for raising this subject of debate in the House again and for giving members an opportunity to express their views on a matter which is one of national importance and national interest. The hon. member, it is true, framed his resolution in somewhat narrow terms. He referred to Warrenton or the Kimberley District, but in discussing the subject he made it very clear that his view was not limited to the narrow horizon of the Kimberley District but that he was anxious that the whole subject be regarded by this House in its broad national aspect; he based his argument on the development of the siting of industries during the past 40 or 50 years, as industries have slowly developed in the Union and he drew a rather dire picture of the way in which industries were being centralised in the large urban areas. He said that as a result of the tendency of the last generation something like 80 per cent. of the European population of the Union was living in about 2 per cent. of the area. And he went further and suggested that this was the cause both of the high cost of production and the high cost of living. In passing I would like to correct him on that point and remind him of the fact that Johannesburg which is the largest city in the Union, certainly had the lowest cost of living figure before the war, and whatever anyone may urge against large cities one cannot urge that their cost of living is higher than it is in smaller places. But I think in the first place one should not over estimate the development of our larger cities. I should say here that I am in sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) and that the Government is in sympathy with the idea that insofar as possible we should make every endeavour to see that our national economy is a balanced one and that side by side with agricultural development industrial development should take place, or vice versa, as industrial development takes place, agricultural development should grow up around it. I do not think there is any difference of opinion that it is not desirable that we should in years to come have enormous black spots such as older countries have, but that we should take a lesson out of their book and start from where they have left off and start from where they intend to re-start after the war, and start so that the economic units of the country should be well-balanced and all aspects of national life to be represented, should be spread over the country as far as possible. On that we are all at one. But one, has to bear in mind certain facts, and the facts are that industrial development is bound to take place under certain governing impulses. Industrial development will always tend to take place at points favourable in the first place for obtaining the raw material, favourable for distribution, and favourable for the main markets, and that being so if we look back and see the unforeseen and the speedy development centred on the Witwatersrand during the past sixty years, and realise the advantages which the Witwatersrand has, not only by the size of its markets or by the development of the Railway system, but also because it has large sources of coal and water—and iron as we know now—suitably situated, plus the enormous purchasing power of the mining industry, it was inevitable that the industrial development of the country should centre itself in the first place around the Reef, and that tendency is bound to continue. But I do think, and I do believe that it need not continue in a disproportionate form. I believe that we can, and should arrange, that our industries should be distributed throughout the country at suitable points. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) also went on to say that agriculture was becoming nervous at this centralisation of industrial development in certain areas, that the population, the young men of the platteland, were being attracted into the towns that the platteland tended to become depopulated, and that in addition native labour was becoming affected. Well, that may so, but I would put it to the hon. member that the establishment of industries in the rural districts will not make the question of native labour any the easier. The development of industrial communities throughout the country is bound to have the effect of increasing wages and not decreasing them, so I do not think that one can put forward that argument as an argument in favour of developing industries in rural areas. So what does this policy of decentralisation amount to? Various hon. members have referred to the Rural Industries Commission, but one factor emerging from the various enquiries which have been taking place is that there are comparatively few parts of the Union which are favourable for any substantial industrial development. Those that are—or a good many that are—have already responded to the trend, and industries of varying sizes and in varying stages of development are already in existence. The report referred to some of them, but if you take places like Paarl, Harrismith, Rustenburg, George, Estcourt—they are all places where almost without any artificial stimulation industries have been established but the idea that it is possible to establish industries in almost every little area in the Union is, I think, somewhat over optimistic. Members who have read the report of the Rural Industries Commission will remember that the members of that commission found as they went through the country there was a tendency on the part of witnesses in the smaller areas to think that the commission had come around with a pocketful of industries ready to put them wherever people could make out a strong enough case—and I think we have to be careful in considering this question, not to be too optimistic as to what we can do. I think that factories, particularly factories based on processing agricultural produce, can and will be developed in different parts of the Union as they are doing now. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) suggested that since this commission’s report has been published there have been no developments whatever on those lines. But he is not correct. Whatever the reason may be, during the past four years there has been a very substantial increase in the number of canning and fruit processing factories in different parts of the Union, and the production and processing of foods in the Union has increased enormously during the past few years, and gives us every encouragement and hope that that will continue. The size of an industry like that is important. Because you take a question like that—take the question of processing food products—the question of tin plate immediately comes in. We have a tin plate industry in the Union, but to produce tin plate economically, a factory needs to have a market about twice the size of before the war, a productive capacity and a sales capacity of about twice the size it was before the war. As a result of our increased factory production the market for that tin plate has been increased and we are within measurable distance of being able to produce at a price competitive with overseas. In regard to meat canning we have not produced or extended our meat canning industry during the war, but I might ask the hon. member why during the fifteen years of peace when he was Minister of Agriculture he did nothing in that respect. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) suggested that we should ask the Industrial Development Corporation to make a survey of the Union. I do not think at this stage, even if the Industrial Development Corporation were the right body, that that is necessary. We have had a number of reports and I think as far as general surveys are concerned with the exception of the one now going on by the Board of Trade, when we get the Board of Trade Report, we should be in a position to come to a conclusion, with all the data at our disposal. The hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) who seconded the motion drew a very glowing picture of the possibilities of Kimberley and District. He explained at great length the natural resources of the area, both mineral and agricultural, and indeed he made one wonder why with all these resources it was necessary to say that they had not been exploited and I would say to the hon. member that I think in industrial development it is just as true as in other walks of life that heaven is inclined to help those who help themselves. In other words, I agree with the hon. member for Kimberley that there are opportunities for great development in the North Cape, but I do think it is essential that if those resources are to be developed those who live there should take a most active part in organising and realising the possibilities of these areas. When they have done that, and if they can come along with a concrete proposal, or a concrete proposition of some sort, they will find both the Government and the Industrial Development Corporation ready to co-operate and ready to give any assistance they can.

Do you accept the amendment?

I am coming to the amendment, but when it comes to a policy of decentralisation of industries the Government is faced with this difficulty. The Government does not start factories or own them as a matter of policy. This House has not yet adopted a policy of the State going in for the establishment wholesale of factories in different parts of the country. The Government cannot dictate at the present stage to private interests where they shall set up their factories, because obviously if they did that they would be liable to the private interests for any losses which might be incurred by these private interests in setting up these industries in places where they did not think it right for them to do so. Nor can the Government licence factories. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) says that his party is in favour of a system of licensing industries, and presumably if he licensed these industries he would lay down conditions where they should be placed and probably he would have to go very much further. Well, Sir, if he does that he will also have to accept liability for facing the music if the people who do what he has told them, are justified in the belief that their decision was the correct one. The hon. member for Moorreesburg will agree with me that just to announce that you are going to licence industries is not as simple as it sounds, and as he knows, the present Board of Trade investigation which is taking place has as one of its terms of reference, the whole question of the desirability or possibility of licensing industries in the Union, and as soon as we get their report, we shall see what data and information they have been able to get and whether in the opinion of the Board of Trade it is either desirable or necessary to go in for such a policy. The report of the Rural Industries Commission to which my hon. friend referred, as a matter of fact, is a most valuable report. Unfortunately it was published at a time when most responsible people were busily occupied with other matters, and the attention which might otherwise have been given to this report was not given. But at the same time—for the benefit of hon. members who have not studied the report— it was a very cautious report. The report did not come out with a glowing account of the way in which industries can be established all over the countryside—by no means.

It did make recommendations.

They made recommendations as to the steps which might be taken, almost for further enquiries as to the possibility of establishing rural industries in certain centres, and they made the point that rural industries should not be subject to the same wage determinations as the urban industries. But I must say on that particular point that I believe that the Commission was on very dangerous ground, because if your establish a prosperous industry, no matter where it is, it is only a very short time before an urban area grows up round that industry, under which cost of living and general living conditions become just as expensive and complicated as they are in the urban areas. The more successfully you develop your rural area, the quicker that particular area will become an urban area, and to base it on the fact that you are going to pay lower wages, than you need pay in the urban areas, seems to me to be an unsound foundation. But this Commission makes observations such as these in the course of its findings—

I only quote those few paragraphs to correct any idea there may be in the minds of hon. members that that Commission’s report was at all light-hearted in its ideas as to the quick and wholesale establishment of rural industries all over the country. On the contrary, they took a very balanced and a very cautious view, and I think that their opinion on the whole is very sound, and I hope I shall be able to implement some of the recommendations they have made at an early date. But what the Government can do in endeavouring to hold the balance even, and what it can do with a view to building up a balanced economy, is to see that no artificial discrimination exists against the establishment of industries in the rural areas. A good deal has been said about the effect of railway rates on the establishment of these industries. Hon. members will know that there was a very influential commission on railway rates which sat a few years ago when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was still a member of the Government, and that commission which included experts from overseas did report that fundamentally the railway rates policy of the Union was sound, and whether it is sound or not, it is certainly a higher complex and a very delicate piece of machinery today, and any alterations to the general rates policy will have to be done very carefully. But as the Minister of Railways has already told the House, when this present Board of Trade enquiry began, he wrote to me and said he noticed that transport was one of the terms of reference, from which he assumed that railway rates would come under consideration, and that his Department would be glad to co-operate to the best of their ability in such an investigation, and he placed at the disposal of the Board two of his senior rates experts to advise the Board on rates and all matters affecting rates. That means that the Board of Trade Report will give us definite information and recommendations in respect of railway rates, and I have no hestitation in saying that if it can be shown that the siting of industries is being adversely affected or rather that the siting of industries in rural areas is being adversely affected by railway rates as between the raw materials and the finished products, the Government will not allow that inequality to continue. At the present moment where industries are started the Railway Department is perfectly willing to give what they call a distribution rate, and I have had instances in the short time I have been back from overseas where industries in the rural areas have come along and discussed this question with the Railways and I found the Railway authorities very sympathetic and ready to help, but that of course, is an interim measure until the final policy is decided on. The Government will also see that the establishment of legitimate industries in this country, based on our own raw materials, supplying our own needs, is not hampered or thwarted by vested interests of any kind. I do not think it is necessary to issue a warning on the subject, because it is so obvious, but if it can be shown that we are in a position to establish a secondary industry in the Union on an economic basis and that that development is being deliberately thwarted or hampered by vested interest outside the Union, the Government will not permit it, and I do not think that is likely to arise.

I referred to heaven helping those who help themselves. I was present recently at the establishment in Kimberley of a body which called itself The Northern Cape Development Association consisting of a number of extremely energetic and enthusiastic people from the Orange River right up to Vryburg and Kuruman and including the whole Northern Cape, including people of all political persuasions and all walks of life, both men and women and I believe that that body instead of visualising one little area, is visualising the interest and the possibility of the whole Northern Cape area. I believe that that step is a step in the right direction, and under its auspices and guidance the Northern Cape may hope in the future to present an attractive picture to people with money to invest and with ideas to help the development of the country. I believe they may present a picture to investors which will result in considerable benefit to the whole of the Northern Cape. Now I come to the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). He sought to broaden the motion and to amend the proposal of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) to cover the whole Union, and he twitted my hon. friends, the hon. member for Kimberley (District) and the member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys), on being small-minded, confining themselves to their own districts and endeavouring to please a handful of voters. Well, Sir, he introduced a party political motive into the discussion. But I am afraid that party politics with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is rather like Worcester Sauce to an Englishman; he cannot help putting it on everything. But I was interested to notice that having criticised my hon. friends, he did not fail to tell us of the great needs of the constituency of Wolmaransstad, and quite rightly. I was going to say that the pot should not call the kettle black, but that is not quite the right way of putting it. He went on to instance as the incompetence of the present Government the fact that the cold storages of the Union are in private hands, that is perfectly true, but where were they during the 15 years that he was Minister of Agriculture? We have, at any rate, the excuse that during the last 4 years we have not only had to fight a war, but we have had to keep hon. members on the other side in order as well. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad had 15 years of peace and plenty to introduce a fresh cold storage policy. The fact that he did not do so, does not entitle him now to get up and twit this Government for incompetence. The hon. member for Moorreesburg then got up and seconded the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. But, to my mind, although he seconded it, he almost proved conclusively, if his arguments can be accepted, that there was no need for the amendment, because he told us that all possible information was already in the hands of the Government. He wanted to know why we were not acting on the information we had. In supporting the amendment, he then came down to two points which he thought did need enquiry. He thought that we should appoint officials to go round and enquire in detail into the local proposals which had been made either to the Industrial Commission or which would be made in connection with future plans. That was the hon. member’s interpretation of that amendment. He narrowed it down to two suggestions, firstly, that officials should be sent round to enquire into detailed proposals from the various small towns, and secondly to enquire into the factors of the local siting of industries. Well, Sir, on the question of the siting of local industries, I agree with the hon. member that we have all the information that we can hope to have. As regards the proposals of local areas, that will be obtained and obtainable by the Board of Trade as it goes round the country which it is now doing. He made two other suggestions, one in regard to training for factory management. I agree with him that the management of factories is a vital factor in success. I think that in our industrial development so far as it has gone, one of our weaknesses in many cases has been the lack of experience in technical and practical factory management, and any suggestion the hon. member can make for the improvement of that position, will I assure him, have my very sympathetic hearing and understanding. When he comes to the question of the distribution of the labour force, he is on much more difficult ground. I understood him to say that he would like to see the Government allot a quota of native labour to various activities in the country. He would like to say that so many thousands of natives should work on the mines, that so many thousands should work on the farms, and that so many thousands should work in the factories. In other words, the hon. member is advocating a system of forced labour in this country. I can only say that that is not the policy of the Government. If the day comes when the Government of the Union of South Africa is going to allot to every man what he is going to do and not to give him any freedom in selling his labour, it will be time for the Government to pack up; I hope I shall not be here. But broadly speaking I do not think the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad will help. We have had the Rural Industries Commission within the last three years. We have had the Agricultural and Industrial Commission’s enquiry and we have now the Board of Trade and Industries which is touring the country and will be touring the country for some months to come, investigating the industrial possibilities of the country, including those of the rural areas, and I do not think that further enquiry into rural areas is either called for or would serve a useful purpose.

What is going to be done with the information you have?

When we get the information we shall act on it. I return now to the original proposal of the hon. member for Kimberley (District), and, as I say, I am entirely in sympathy with the broad line that he took, and I am entirely in sympathy with the House fully discussing this question. But the terms of the resolution are unfortunately not very practicable. The hon. member asks—

I would like to point out to the hon. member that the Industrial Development Corporation is a statutory body with a Board of Directors, and that the technical adviser of the Industrial Corporation is a paid servant of that Corporation, and it is the duty of the Board of Directors to decide what investigation should be undertaken. And secondly I would like to point out that the Corporation is not empowered to undertake the establishment or the starting of new industries without the consent of the Governor-General, and thirdly that the Corporation is very strictly limited in the terms of the Act to consider propositions purely and very severely on their economic merits, and therefore I do not think that it would be competent for me to accept the instruction that the hon. member suggests. However, his intention is quite clear. He wants to draw the attention of this House and the country to the importance of seeing that in our industrial development, rural areas are given a fair show and a reasonable opportunity of developing along with those of the bigger towns, and I am perfectly prepared to bring this resolution and the discussion which has taken place to the notice of the Industrial Development Corporation, which in its technical side is continually investigating proposals and suggestions from different parts of the country, in order to direct their attention to the fact that the House is greatly interested in the development of rural industries, and I am further willing to instruct the Board of Trade in their tour round the country and in their investigations, to pay particular attention to the rural aspects of their enquiry, and I hope that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) will accept my assurance that I will do that, and I hope that he will be satisfied with it and that he will not press this resolution.

I wish to say something upon this debate because this resolution, although in express terms it does not refer to the Mines Department and mining, is based obviously on the exploration of the mining resources of this particular district. There can be no industry at all unless there is, first of all, a successful mining exploration, and so it is right and proper that I should say something upon this subject. Let me say that I regard the spirit and the motive of the mover of this motion, the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) and his seconder with very great sympathy. Kimberley has had a very distinguished past. It has played an enormous part in the history of South Africa, and it has a very energetic organisation, and I hope to see the city of Kimberley and district go ahead and flourish. But when we come to the opportunities of this motion, there are some difficulties which arise and to which one cannot be blind. The hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) said that this district in and around Kimberley had been sadly neglected. Well, I should like to know by whom it has been neglected. It occurred to me while he was speaking, by whom has this district been neglected?

The Minister of Mines.

Was he referring to the Government or to industrialists; was he referring to the owners of mining rights or to the Department of which I have the honour to be the head.

He was referring to the hon. member for Kimberley (District).

No, no. In vain are these flies cast across the floor of the House. We are considering this question: By whom this district should be developed. Let me just state that in my opinion this question goes very far indeed, because it raises the whole issue of the relative parts to be played by private enterprise and by Government enterprise, and as I hold very definite views upon this, I wish to say something upon this subject; first of all, what is the position as regards the Mines Department in this district? It is not true that it has been neglected, and we have a very considerable knowledge of the mineral resources of the whole of this area, and if either of these hon. members or the people whom they represent wish to have a detailed map, it can be supplied, and if they wish to have detailed information with regard to one part or another, I have very little doubt that they would be able to get it. So far no concrete proposition has been put up to me, coming from this district in the mining world, with the request that we should assist it financially or technically. As the House is well aware, Parliament from year to year places at the disposal of the Minister of Mines funds which are adequate for the purpose of assisting the development of any mining proposition which has commercial prospects and which in the opinion of the technicians advising me, it is desirable should be given. I have not turned down any such proposition. And may I say this, that if any of these hon. members or those whom they represent, can put to me a detailed proposition with regard to any particular part it will receive, not only all the attention it deserves but very sympathetic consideration indeed. It is my desire, it is my aim—and in certain cases I have succeeded—to develop mineral properties with the financial assistance that Parliament has placed at my disposal, and that I am prepared to do. How far such an exploration would lead to the establishment of factories and industries, I leave to my colleague, the hon. Minister of Economic Development, to pick up the run, but let me say that if this association for the Northern Cape area has any reasonable grounds for believing that they can put up a mining proposition which can be carried out with reasonable chances of success and with reasonable opportunites of marketing, then there is no reason why that should not be adequately supported by the funds of the State, if indeed that be needed. But I said that this question raises the relative and respective spheres of Government and private enterprise. I myself hold that in our country we should develop by private enterprise as far as it is possible. I believe that private enterprise can do a great deal that the Government cannot do, and I believe that private enterprise is calculated to avoid many of the pit-falls which would befall government enterprise. I have had some experience now in the search for minerals and all the information I get, all the experience I have gathered confirms me in the opinion that mining, at any rate, is first and foremost a iob for private enterprise and is best conducted by those who have a financial interest in it. I am prepared under the amended law which Parliament has adopted in this House to establish a State mine where it is necessary. I am not prepared to touch such a proposition, however; I am not prepared to entertain the establishement of a State mine unless I find out that private enterprise is either unwilling or ill-equipped to undertake it. May I just point out one sphere not far removed from Kimberley in which there is a great call for further organisation; I refer to the salt industry. At the present moment the country is short of salt and I am advised that the shortage of salt is primarily due to the fact that the organisation at the back of this industry is too scattered and too ill-equipped in its different independent units. What is required at the present time is the establishment of a salt industry adequate in its equipment, adequate in its technical advice and adequate in its financial resource.

Is private enterprise going to take this up or is it going to leave it undone? The job has got to be done, and this is a challenge to private enterprise and if they do not respond, I am confident that the Government will have to take action.

How long will you give them?

They have had years; they have had all the time they needed.

Why not act then?

Well, so far we have gone along and it has not been pointed out to them perhaps in the terms in which we can now point it out to them, and the pressure has not been so great because imports have come in on reasonable terms from outside. But the pressure of the moment is intense. At the present time there is a chance of this particular industry being developed, and I respectfully commend it to the consideration of the hon. member for Kimberley (City) and the hon. member for Kimberley (District). I have been urged from time to time to take a hand from the Government side in the establishment of an industry in that particular locality, an industry which should interest those hon. members, and that is the cutting of diamonds. When I visited Kimberley from time to time, I have been urged strongly by a very representative deputation to establish diamond cutting in Kimberley. My reply has always been this, and it is still this, that in my opinion the province of the Government is to create conditions under which a particular industry may flourish, but it is not the province of the Government to plant that industry in one particular place or another. If it did do so, it would be led into a course which it would be extremely difficulty to justify or to extract oneself from. And I say that with regard to glass and soda ash and the kindred industries which are linked with the motion of the hon. member for Kimberley (District), that it is the province of the Government to create conditions under which those industries may flourish, but it not the province of the Government to take steps to plant them at Warrenton, Kimberley or any particular place. To that extent I am with the speech of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. When he went further and desired me to take steps in the development of an iron ore industry in Wolmaransstad district, I would remind him of this, that the reason why private enterprise has not developed is because there are ample supplies of that commodity elsewhere. That is where private enterprise comes in and is a useful corrective. It would be difficult for the Government to support an iron ore industry in one place when private enterprise said in another place, with equal resources and opportunities, it could make a profit. I say that at the present time we should develop private enterprise as much as we possibly can, and it is the province of the Government in mining, transport and everything else, to create and maintain conditions under which the private enterprise can be carried on in a profitable manner. Well, now, Sir, I think it is sufficient to say that while we commend the spirit of enterprise and sympathise with the sentiment underlying the motion before the House, we cannot commit ourselves to its terms. I do not think I need say more than that. I wish to dissociate myself entirely from the suggestion which came from the other side that we should adopt a system of licencing industries or wrest cold storage from the hands of private enterprise and place it in the hands of the Government. The only justification there is for wresting something from the hands of private enterprise is the failure of private enterprise to conduct that well. Unless and until that is done, I support private enterprise and my department will be conducted on that principle.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there has been an influx from the rural parts to the towns, but that is not exceptional to this country, because it has taken place in other countries where industrial development has taken place on a large scale. In Great Britain it happened especially after the Industrial Revolution, and in relatively new countries such as America the tendency is that, as the people rise in the social scale, fresh needs are created. What we are spending our energies on today is the production of luxuries for human beings, and those luxuries are manufactured in the cities. In this country the emigration from the rural areas to the towns has lagged behind that of other countries very considerably. We find that in the years 1911 to 1921, the period previous to and after the first Great War, there was a considerable increase in the population of the rural area. Again, in the period after the war up to 1929, there was another considerable increase in the rural population. It actually increased from 672,000 to 725,000. It was only after that time that the rural population actually decreased, while the urban population increased. That can be very easily explained if we take into consideration what happened in the industrial world, and South Africa was keeping pace with the rest of the world. From calculations which I have made I find there has been a very close relationship between the increase of industrial workers in the four areas referred to by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler), and the actual increase of population. In the Southern Transvaal mining development has been largely responisble for the increase of population. In the case of the Cape Western area the increase of industrial workers was 13.8 per cent. and that of population 14.2 per cent. In the Port Elizabeth area, the increase has been 28.1 per cent. of industrial workers and 29 per cent. of total population. In Durban areas the increase in industrial workers has been 26.3 per cent. and that of population 26.1 per cent. In the Union of South Africa these increases were 48.4 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively. There is therefore a very close relationship between the increase of industrial workers and the increase of population. Whether that is such a terrible evil I do not know. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) referred to 1,000,000 people living on so many square miles, but if we compare that with the big industrial cities of other countries it is absolutely nothing.

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 28th March.

When we were last engaged on this Bill I impressed on the Minister that he was doing a great injustice to today’s settlers by his retrospective provisions of this Bill, and I want to express the hope that the Minister will give in to the appeal which is being made to him, not only from this side of the House, but also from his own side of the House, not to apply this provision, under which a servitude will now be placed on all Crown Grants, to existing holdings already occupied by settlers. Surély the Minister is not going to tell us that he is not going to depreciate the land value of those holdings by such a provision? He cannot expect that a man who is financially able to buy land at a good price will buy land on which such a servitude is imposed. It amounts to this, that the only man the settler will ever get to compensate him for his work of many years will be another settler. I don’t think the Minister can get away from the fact that he is doing a terrible injustice to the people who have in the past obtained holdings under the Department. Now that they have struggled all these years under difficult conditions, and after having invested every penny in their holdings, the Minister comes along and tells them that he is not going to allow them to get a reward for all the work and all the money they have invested in their holdings. I hope the Minister will see his way, if he is not prepared to refer the Bill to a Select Committee so that we may produce a better Bill, to see to it in Committee that it is changed. There are other gaps in the Bill. The Bill from beginning to end is full of anomalies and shortcomings. I have before me the case of a man who for seven years was on a certain holding, and three years before that he was on another holding of the Department. He could not make a living there because neither the Department nor the owners could get water so the Department exchanged that holding for his present holding. He has been a settler now for ten years, yet the Department refuses its consent to that man getting his transfer. But if we go further into the Bill we find other gaps and other shortcomings. Under Clause 2 (1) we find that the Minister is now placing the obligation on the settler to prevent the ground from getting brackish. Does the Minister realise what he is doing? You have a problem there which the settler, with the funds he has at his disposal, will never be able to cope with on his own. Let us look at some other parts of the world, for instance America. We find that thousands of morgen are useless there—they have to all intents and purposes been converted into a desert. All one sees there are old walls—there is no life there. All this is due to land which has been fertile in the past having become brackish. Instead of the Minister and the Department making it part of their settlement policy to counteract this evil of allowing ground to become brackish, the Minister now wants to put the onus on the poor settler who has not got the necessary funds, and those settlers are now expected to tackle this terrific problem. Not only is it unfair and unjust but it is impossible for the man, and will only have this effect, that the best irrigable land we have in the country—these holdings—will deteriorate, and posterity, instead of having fertile valleys, will find a veritable desert there. I therefore want to appeal to the Minister to go into this question. We want to assist him; we want to help him so that the Settlement Act of South Africa will be the best Act of its kind in the world, not an Act put on the Statute Book for the benefit of a Party or of a Government, but the best Act from the point of view of the country as such, and we want to prevent the Settlements which are under irrigation today becoming useless to us in days to come. The State must do its duty in that regard; the matter has to be tackled by the State. It is no use spending millions of pounds on the construction of dams and canals, and then hold back a few thousand pounds for the construction of the necessary suction furrows. I know what the position is round about a big settlement like Vaal-Hartz even. The Minister knows that already the position there is such that if the Government does not step in that big settlement may perhaps even in our generation become a white elephant. Then there is another provision in this Bill, making it the duty of the settlers to eradicate noxious weeds, but the Minister himself undertakes no liability whatsoever.

Should the settler not eradicate noxious weeds on his holding?

He should, but the Department should also do so.

Should the Department assist him?

Certainly, because what is the position? The Department grows those noxious weeds and now it expects the poor settler to do the work which the State is not doing. In the first place the Minister, as a practical farmer, knows that with the dams which are being built there all the weeds are being caught in that dam and those weeds are sent all over the lands of the poor settler. But that is not all. Wherever the canals run the weeds grow to such an extent that they are a disgrace to the Department. And if a man comes along and says: “The police are compelling me to eradicate these weeds, but what is the Department going to do,” he is told that there is a war on, nothing can be done. The Department has no labour— that is what the man in charge tells the settlers. Surely we should not always hide behind the war, because if we do there will be nothing left for us to give our attention to. The settlers must eradicate their weeds, but the Department is doing nothing and it is growing those weeds. Right throughout the Bill there are gaps and shortcomings. I hope the Minister will yet realise that the best thing he can do is to withdraw this Bill so that we can come along with an improved Bill which will meet the needs of the country. Now, let me come to Clause 4 which deals with expropriation. I don’t want to accuse the Minister personally but our experience has always been that the Irrigation Department has the least business sense of all Government departments. Imagine! Here we have an instance of a man having owned some land. The Government wanted to build a dam there, so the Government stepped in and bought out the man. Very well. The man got a good price for his land, but the Government then only built the wall. It did not treat the whole business as one scheme, it did not deal with it as a whole, it only built the wall. After that they wanted to expropriate the land below the dam for settlement purposes. But what happened in the meanwhile? In the meanwhile, people who had sold their land to the Government bought up land below the dam because it became clear that the Government would require that land. In the case I have before me one man bought land for £7,000 and the Department offered that man, I believe, £14,000 or £15,000—a hundred per cent. profit in a short space of time, but even that the man refused to accept, because gradually land was being sold at a much higher price than that. Land which is lying there useless today went up like that in price. The man went to court, owing to the shortsightedness of the Department, owing to their having no business sense, the Minister was eventually compelled to pay that man £24,000, whereas if the matter had been dealt with on a business basis at the time it was decided to build the scheme, and if the whole scheme had been dealt with as one whole, and the Department had bought the necessary land, or had taken options on the land, it would have got that land for £7,000 instead of £24,000. We hope that that sort of thing will be avoided in future. And so there are any number of gaps in the Bill, but the worst thing of all about this Bill is that one never sees the word “European” in the Bill. In these days in which we are living, in these days of Liberalism, when the non-Europeans are agitating for equality with the Europeans, in these days when even Government Commissions declare that the time has arrived for removing the colour bar, we must lay down these things in our legislation, but we find it nowhere in this Bill which the Minister has asked us to accept; yet we know what is going on today. Very near him there is land where non-Europeans, coloured people today get identically the same benefits on the same scheme as the Europeans get. The colour bar has already been removed there.

If the land is along the canal is he not to get any water?

I thought we stood for segregation in this country. I thought Parliament has passed a law, and I thought we had voted millions of pounds here to remove the black spots from the white areas, and the white spots from the black areas. Yet we have this sort of thing here.

Are you talking about natives or coloured people?

Coloured people.

The old Free State Government gave them that land.

The hon. the Minister does not know what he is talking about if he says the Free State gave them that land, but my time is limited, and I therefore want to move the following amendment—

The amendment speaks for itself. There we already have an example of what the conditions are, and it is not denied by the Minister. An untenable position is going to be created if in future we are going to proceed in that direction, and if on the same settlement we are going to have whites and coloureds in competition with each other. I make bold to say that in this specific case which I am bringing to the Minister’s notice a breeeding ground for loafers is being created. These people have never done any work in all their lives, and they are now being given a means of livelihood. What are they going to do? They are not going to do any work themselves, but they are going to let the land to somebody; they are going to give somebody else the chance to live there and they will collect the rent; they will take that small amount of rent and refuse to do any work. Labour is scarce enough as it is on the settlements. On all those settlements there is a shortage; at Vaal-Hartz and Riet-rivier, which I know, there is a great shortage, and if this policy is pursued it will be a disaster to the country. That is why I have moved this amendment. If such a provision is not put in the Bill an impossible position will be created in these areas in days to come.

I am very pleased to second the amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier). The Minister has told us that already there is a Coolie running a shop at Vaal-Hartz.

No, I didn’t say that.

He has some land there. The Minister spoke about the hundred morgen and a piece of that land has been sold to a Coolie. We thought he was a business man. If it is a fact that that Coolie already has land there, there is all the more reason why the Minister should accept this amendment. I don’t want to take up too much time on this question. The Minister of Lands has introduced this amending Bill. All of us who have listened to him during the last few years have been trying to find out what really is at the back of his mind. Because settlement in South Africa has a history. It was the Church which started settlement. The State came In afterwards. The Church laid down certain conditions and the State, which came in later, also laid down certain conditions under which the settlers were to occupy their holdings. The Minister of Lands has seen fit to get up here from time to time to make violent attacks on the Church settlements. I hope the Minister has finished his private talk so that I can go on. If he does not want to listen to what we are saying here, I shall have to move the adjournment of the debate. I was saying that the Minister has from time to time attacked the Church and criticised its settlement policy, and he has given the public the impression that the Church is keeping Its settlers in a condition of slavery. The Minister has also made an appeal to the Church to stop its settlements and to hand them over to the State so that the State can help these settlers in accordance with its own schemes so that these men may become free and rehabilitate themselves. Now, the Minister has introduced a Bill, the effect of which is going to be that these people will be under even worse conditions of slavery. That is going to be the effect of the amendments he is proposing. There are three main provisions in this Bill. The first is that even if a man has his title deed and even if he has paid for his holding, he will still not be allowed to sell his land without the Minister’s consent. The Bill goes even further than that. If a settler sells his holding to a private individual, that private individual cannot sell again without the Minister’s consent. There is a perpetual servitude, a system under which the man will always have to turn to the Minister for his consent. Now, I want to ask the Minister what his policy really is. He gets up here from time to time and he criticises the Church and he tells us that the Church refuses to give these people transfer. Now, I want to ask him what is the difference between what the Church is doing and what he proposes in the Bill. If, as the Minister says, the Church is out to keep those people in a state of slavery, then I say that he, as Minister of Lands, is doing the very same thing to all intents and purposes.

That was in the Act.

If it was in the Act and the Minister agrees with it then he is even less entitled to attack the Church. Then he should have said on the contrary, that the Church set about things in the right way. To refresh the Minister’s memory in regard to what he said about the settlements I want to quote from his speech when he made his attack on the Church. He said this—

He even talked of slavish subjectiveness and now he comes here and does practically the same thing. But he has gone even further. This restriction which the Minister is applying does not only apply to new titles which are to be issued. No, he has also made this restriction retrospective. Hon. members will realise how a holding is going to drop in value and how unfair it is to the owner of the holding. A man buys land without a servitude, and twenty years later the Minister comes along and by means of a law of this Parliament he imposes a servitude on the land. But let me come to the provision under which the Minister lays it down that the settlers are not allowed to have a son who is more than twenty one years of age on their holding, and under which a son is not allowed to have an aged parent on the holding. The settler is not allowed to get anyone to help him on the farm—he is not allowed to have a bywoner to assist him in his farming. The Minister does not allow that. Now I want to put this question to the Minister: What is the policy in regard to his settlements? Does he not intend that such a holding will one day become the property of the settler’s son who has worked that holding? Does he not want the farmer, when he has rehabilitated himself, to have the right to have at least one of his sons on the holding to help him develop it further? The Minister cannot say that he does not want that. During the Minister’s speech I made the following interjection—

And the Minister replied—

My next question was: “Where is that provided?” The Minister did not reply to that. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, let me say in all fairness, that the Minister of Lands is a Minister who has not the slightest idea of what he is saying here. Let the Minister tell us where it is provided. He further tells us that he has been to Vaal-Hartz and that he has told the settlers there what the Government’s policy is, and that the settlers thoroughly agree with him. He tells us that this was what he told the settlers—

That is practically on the same page. In reply to my interjection he said it was provided that the child was to inherit the farm and two minutes later he said that he had told the settlers that they were settlers, that the Government is assisting them but that they should see to it that none of their children ever became settlers. One might think that this was a slip on the Minister’s part but let me read what he said further. The Minister said this—

He practically insists upon their not becoming settlers. But when I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister has no idea of what he tells us here, my contention is borne out by what he says two lines further on—

On the one hand the Minister lectures the people and tells them that their sons should not become settlers, and in the next breath he tells them that that man should use his £1,000 to help his son buy land under Section 11 of the Settlement Act. Well, then that boy is a settler. I have never seen a bigger bully in this House than the Minister. He is a bully. He comes here and plays with words. He says things here without knowing whether what he is saying is correct or not. And do you realise, Mr. Speaker, that if this holding is sold to a private individual by the settler, that private individual comes under the same regulations? Assuming a settler were to sell his holding to me. I would not be allowed to keep my son, who is more than twenty-one years of age, or my old father, with me. I would not be allowed to have a bywoner on my farm. Now, has the Minister the right in those circumstances to tell the Church that they are trying to keep the settlers in a perpetual state of slavery? But let me give another instance of what the Minister has told us. The Minister has explained the Bill, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) made an interruption in reply to which the Minister said this—

Good heavens, Mr. Speaker, sometimes one can hardly put up with the absolute irresponsibility displayed by the Minister. Here he is explaining his own Bill and surely these are the very things contained in the Bill. Has he never read the Bill? His officials drafted it for him but apparently he has never read it. The Minister made one frank and honest statement when he said—

That is true, but still, he could try to understand his law. If he himself does not understand them he should go to someone and get them explained to him, and he should not get up in this House and make misleading statements which he, as Minister of Lands, definitely did when he said that the Bill was not retrospective. I don’t want to say any more about the Minister of Lands. We have got to know him during these years, and he will be known in history as a bully; I think that this Bill will always be known as the Conroy Act and it will be a faithfull reflection of his political career.

I want to say a few words about the amendment which has just been moved. We quite believe that while the present Minister of Lands remains in office there will be no intermixing of white and coloured, but there is a very strong feeling in South Africa today in favour of the colour line being removed in every sphere of life. Last year the Government appointed a commission to deal with questions affecting the coloured population, and this appointment was strongly objected to because its object was to bring about separation, and because the coloured people looked upon it in that light. We know that salaries were raised by the Provincial Council some time ago and that different scales were laid down for Europeans and non-Europeans, with the result that a strike was threatened unless the coloured teachers were given the same increases as the white teachers. The day may come when we may have a Minister of Lands who may be indifferent towards the traditions of the Afrikaner population, and we may then get the position of whites and coloureds being placed on the same settlements. That is why we have moved this amendment. We want to ask the Minister to accept this amendment in the interest of the country. It is in the interest of every white man in South Africa, and also in the interest of every coloured man in South Africa, and as the original law, with all the amendments, does not make the slightest provision in that respect, and in view of the fact that we have already had instances such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) of a number of coloured settlers making their way among white settlers, it is no more than right for this House to take steps to prevent this sort of thing happening. With these few words I wish to support the amendment.

I understand that under the Bill before the House it is proposed to alter the conditions attaching to certain titles and that the intention is to impose additional servitudes on land bought under the Land Settlement Act. I am not very conversant with the position but I am asked to inform the Minister that there is widespread dissatisfaction in regard to additional servitudes being introduced on the contracts of settlers who have purchased under Section 11 of the Act. I understand that representations have been made and I hope the Minister will take cognisance of these few remarks of mine.

Before the Minister replies I want to say a few words about the amendment of the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier). The amendment talks about separate settlements for Europeans and nonEuropeans. I want to say very clearly to the Minister that this amendment is thoroughly honest in its intentions and its objects. The object of the amendment is not to amend the Transvaal and Free State Laws. We know that in those Provinces non-Europeans cannot become land owners, but in the Cape the position is entirely different. Here, nonEuropeans can become land owners, and actually we already have coloured settlers. It now transpires, however, that non-Europeans are beginning to force their way into white settlements, in areas such as Vaal-Hartz. That is why we have to be very clear and explicit on this point. This amendment is therefore proposed in view of the position in the Cape, and it is intended to prevent such penetration in future in the way indicated in this amendment. I don’t want to say that the present Minister of Lands would approve of anything of that kind, but he will not always be there. We may get somebody in his place with communistic tendencies, and we know that communists are in favour of the doctrine of equality, irrespective of the colour of a man’s skin. Therefore, as guardians of the white civilisation, we want to maintain that civilisation in the same way as our ancestors maintained it, and we want to see to it that a colour line will continue to exist in South Africa so that the white man will retain his trusteeship over the coloured man. I trust that the present Minister will see to that. In order to avoid a wrong interpretation, however, I want to explain that our amendment is not intended, so far as the Transvaal and the Free State are concerned, to allow the penetration of coloured settlers because this would be in conflict with our laws. Those laws are not being repealed, but it might perhaps be interpreted that our amendment has the object of coloured settlements being established in those provinces and I just want to explain that the amendment only applies to those parts of the country, such as the Cape Province, where non-Europeans can become land owners. That is the position in the Cape Province, and as I have already said, there are coloured settlers in the Cape Province. I do hope that when further settlement lands are given out the Minister will be very strict and see to it that white settlements will continue to be pure white settlements. I also hope that he will go further than that and will not only see to it that non-European settlers are not allowed on such white settlements, but that all trading facilities on such settlements will remain in the hands of white people. When we get to the Committee stage we shall move a clause to make this perfectly clear. It is our intention then to extend our amendment in that spirit. I hope the Minister will support us so far as the Cape Province is concerned, so that we shall not get an intermixture of white and coloured on the same settlement. We realise that there is an infiltration of non-Europeans everywhere into white areas. We find this everywhere today in our municipalities; we find that municipalities themselves are laying it down that certain things are not to be done by coloured people and that certain things are not to be allowed. We want to put a stop to the present tendency; we want to put an end to Europeans and non-Europeans intermixing. It is better to have segregation in the interest of the coloured people and in the interest of white civilisation; that is why we have moved this amendment.

I only want to deal with one point of this amendment. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) said that in the Free State we had no intermixing of white and coloured; that is a heritage which has been left us by the old Republican Government of the Free State, but one instance was mentioned by the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier). He lives in the Koffiefontein District and the Minister of Lands knows that there is an area of land there known as the “Opperman Lands.” That land belongs to the nonEuropean section of the population and it happens to come under the Kraaipoort Dam in my constituency. I want to put the position very strongly, before the Minister—I have raised this matter before in this House. In principle we are not in favour of intermixing. I have pleaded very strongly in this House for these non-Europeans being removed from that area; I have asked for the land to be handed over to Europeans and for the non-Europeans to be placed in a part of the country where coloured people are segregated. I have raised this question in previous sessions, and I am doing so again now. Nothing has been done in the past and the position is becoming serious. If part of the land comes under the Dam it means that water is supplied to the non-Europeans on the same conditions as it is supplied to the Europeans. I understand that that is already happening today. We do not want this evil to be created in the Free State as well, and we are afraid it is going to happen in that area. It will be in conflict with the spirit and the conceptions of the people of the Free State. In this Bill we have the opportunity of giving effect to that principle by saying that in no part of the country will white and non-European settlers be allowed to intermix. We give the Minister the opportunity here of showing his disapproval of this type of intermixing. Many hon. members opposite, if they had the choice, would refuse to allow their families, their children and those coming after them, to be mixed up with non-Europeans, or to live in a nonEuropean area, whether it be in town or in the platteland. Many hon. members opposite, if given the choice, would say that they would not allow their children to live in the same areas as coloured people. They would probably refuse to allow their families in the towns to live in coloured areas where their children would be surrounded by nonEuropeans. As this intermixing is not allowed in urban residential areas, hon. members opposite should also agree that so far as our settlements are concerned we should be given the right to see to it that no such intermixing shall take place on the farms. That is why it is the Government’s duty to put a stop to this infiltration whereever this intermixing may start. As we want to make this provision for our own children we should also allow the children of all the citizens of the country to be placed in the same position. If we want something for our own children we should advocate the same thing for the children of the citizens of the State as a whole. It should be clear to everyone who is honest, to everyone who is looking forward to our maintaining a pure white civilisation, and to our leaving a heritage such as we have received ourselves that this amendment should be accepted.

I hope the Minister will be very careful about the Opperman grants. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) says that the whole of the Free State would like to see them removed. I don’t intend detaining the House for any length of time but I want to tell the Minister that the Oppermans fought with the Boer Forces in the 1886 War under Louw Wepener and they were granted this ground by “Besluit’’ of the Free State Volksraad in perpetuity. They are there today because they helped the old Burghers of the Free State. They were given that and by the Republic of the day for services rendered to the Republic, and I hope the Minister will be very careful how he disturbs these people.

I should like to start by replying to the last soeech namely, in connection with the coloured people who live on the Opperman lands. I do not know the size of the land, but that land was given to the coloured people in the old Free State days. The old Volksraad gave it to them. I did not know that the land was given to them because they fought for the republic; they fought for the Europeans, and they were given this land. The Kraaipoort scheme runs through these lands, and because we have given these people the right of access to water, my hon. friend now comes along and wants me to remove those people from the land and deprive them of their rights.

You know that I did not put it that way.

They do not live amongst the Europeans. They have been living for years and years on a separate piece of land which the old Free State Government gave to them. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I am noţ going to violate those rights. They are citizens of this country who fought for this country, just like other people, and they must retain their rights. I shall protect those rights as long as I can.

You will always protect the rights of coloured people.

I shall protect the rights of any person, whether he be white or black, as far as it is within my power to do so. It does not matter who he is We have discussed this Bill for quite a few days. It was stated here that I was introducing slavery. From the time the first hon. member spoke, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), the accusation was levelled against me that I was in favour of slavery, that I bore malice against these people, that I was imposing servitudes which can only result in these people being deprived of their rights of citizenship, that it was a Fascist measure, hateful, and I do not know what else. Let me say at once as far as this Bill is concerned, that no provision is embodied in this Bill which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad himself did not have in his Act of 1937. I challenge them to prove what additional provisions have been inserted in this Bill. The hon. member cannot accuse me. I am not introducing anything new.

How is it that this Bill …

Give me a chance. I did not interrupt hon. members. I allowed them to make all these accusations against me. All I am doing is to fill up the gaps which at that time the hon. member for Wolmaransstad left in the Act in his capacity as Minister.

These are changes.

Let me say what those gaps are. In the Act which he passed provision was made for these servitudes which I am now embodying in this Bill again, and if that is slavery then he is responsible for it.

What were the gaps?

Do not interrupt me. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) said that the other day that the Farmers’ Association had sent a telegram to him asking him to request the Minister not to place any further burdens on the settlers. A few days later I received a telegram from the Secretary of the Tenant Farmers’ Association, to this effect—

That was signed by the Secretary. Now I want to give the hon. member for Marico the assurance that there is not a word of truth in the statement that I am introducing new servitudes or placing fresh burdens on the people. I give him the assurance that I am incorporating into this Bill no more than the servitudes or the prohibition on division or the prohibition in connection with bywoners which were contained in the Acts of 1937 and 1912. I am doing no more and no less.

What about the provision introducing the Bill with retrospective effect?

When I moved this Bill, I told the House that there were three important provisions in this Bill. What hon. members read out were the provisions which were already incorporated in the old Act and which I took over in that form. I have introduced only a few amendments with which I shall deal in a moment. I said that there were three important provisions in this Bill; one in connection with bywoners, one in connection with division, mortgaging or sale of land, and the third is in connection with the 100 morgen which are granted under the Irrigation Act to owners from whom the land is expropriated for the purpose of establishing a settlement. Hundred morgen are allowed and in that connection I am introducing an amendment. Those are the three provisions. Let me say at once that the question of bywoners is nothing new. That is contained in the existing Act. There is a regulation, No. 3 (c) in the case of certain leases, which reads that the lessee cannot without the prior written consent of the Minister keep any male, major person or any male person of the age of 21 years and over, on any holding. But, so the regulation reads, nothing contained in this regulation prevents the lessee, subject to the approval of the Minister, from keeping such European, coloured or native worker on a holding as may be necessary for the cultivation of the holding, or as a domestic servant. That is contained in 3 (c) of the regulations in regard to certain leases. In the Act of 1912 the following provision appears—Section 19 (f) of the Land Settlement Act—

It does not state clearly that it shall not be a son, aged 21 years, but that is what it means, because in practice, where anyone has applied for a holding, he has never been allowed to keep his sons who are over 21 years on the holding. He states that he, his wife, and so many children are going to live there, and he gives their ages.

The Act of 1912 makes no reference to a son over the age of 21 years.

I said that it did not specifically refer to 21 years, but that is the intention and I have explained it. This is in respect of the bywoners. What am I now proposing in this Bill? I have already explained to the House that the Act prohibits the residence of sons or bywoners on the holding, but—and that is where the Act is deficient—as soon as the man obtains his Crown Grant Letter, this prohibition falls away.

But surely that is a big change?

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad is laughing. In a moment I shall read what he said in this connection; and it is remarkable that this letter should come from Marico. That is the place where the hon. member told the people that they possessed nothing which was unencumbered, that everything was mortgaged, except their wives.

Am I expected to cry now?

The hon. member is accusing me of introducing slavery because I am imposing the same servitude which the hon. member introduced. I shall read it in a moment. But the position is that as soon as the man obtains his Crown grant, this prohibition falls away. The result is that as soon as the prohibition falls away, overcrowding takes place and that leads to poor white-ism on a larger scale than there was at the time when these people were placed on the holdings at great expense to the State. It is my intention, therefore—and that is all this Bill is doing—to remove this defect in connection with the residence of bywoners and sons on the holdings, so that these people will not revert to the condition of poor white-ism. That is all the Bill proposes in connection with bywoners. I want to emphasise once again, with all the power at my command, that the prohibition in regard to bywoners was embodied in the Act of 1912, in some of the leases which were granted in this connection, and the Act of 1937 which was introduced by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad confirmed that. I shall, quote that in a moment. Now I come to the second important provision in connection with the division, mortgaging or sale of land. I am now reading the clause which the hon. member had in his Act of 1937. Section 9 of Act No. 45 of 1937 reads as follows—

Aha!

This Bill of mine does not include people who have already obtained their Crown grant. They are excluded. I am taking this section as it stands here. Any settler who obtained his Crown grant before that date, is exempted. Hon. members accused me of not knowing what I was talking about, of misinforming the House, of having said that this was not applicable to people who hold Crown grants, while that was the case. I say that those people to whom Crown grants were issued, people who had Crown grants in their possession, were excluded in the Act of 1937, and I am still excluding those people today.

Is this provision of retrospective effect?

†* The MINISTER OF LANDS : How many times must I still read it? What are the gaps in the existing Act? The defect in this clause is that it was the intention of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) while he was Minister—and I shall quote from his speech in a moment—that the land should remain for the protection of these people, and I agree 100 per cent. with that, because if the man is allowed to mortgage or alienate the land as he pleases, the result will be that he will lose the land. It will fall into the hands of speculators, companies and rich people. These people can gain possession of a whole settlement, and in that case all the money which the State spent will have been spent in vain. The defect in the Act was that once the Minister has given his permission to sell, after the man obtains his Crown grant, the land can fall into the hands of companies or rich people. The settler comes to the Minister and asks for his permission to sell. There are numerous cases where people, obtained Crown grants, and where they were granted permission to sell. But as soon as the Minister gives his permission to the settler to sell his land, Section 9 falls away. Once the holding has been transferred to settler B, the provision falls away. My Department adopted the attitude that it should not fall away, that it must continue to be of legal force. We went to the Law Advisers, and they explained that that was the intention, but unfortunately the Act is so worded that they are afraid that we cannot apply this provision once permission has been granted to sell. What does that mean? It means that once the Minister has granted permission to the first person to sell, the second person may sell or mortgage or alienate the land as he pleases. The land then falls into alien hands, and the object of the settlement is undermined. One cannot do it. All I am doing now in this connection is to prevent this. It has always been the intention that this should not be permissible, but that was not clearly stated in the Act of 1937. I have mentioned certain cases to show the defects which existed in this clause. Do you know that we have numbers of settlers, especially in the Transvaal, who, because they live in areas which are subject to drought, where the carrying capacity is low, have been placed in a singular position. We enlarged their holdings and in some cases doubled them, but the Government went further and said—and I think the hon. member for Wolmaransstad knows that— that people in the proclaimed area would not have to pay interest at the rate of 3¾ per cent. but one per cent., because they were living in areas where the conditions were particularly bad. They pay only one per cent. Today the position is that as soon as they are allowed to sell, the land is unencumbered. Do you know that people who were paying interest at the rate of 1 per cent. to the State, borrowed money at 8 per cent. and 10 per cent? They then come along and repay to the Government the money for which they paid interest at the rate of 1 per cent.—and very often certain amounts were written off. They borrow money at the rate of 8 per cent. or 10 per cent.

Why?

Because they know that if they can get a Crown grant, the prohibition in regard to bywoners and sons falls away, and they therefore pay 8 per cent, and 10 per cent. on money which they borrow in order to pay off a loan which they obtained at 1 per cent.

In order to be free?

Yes, and then there is overcrowding again; they keep their sons on the holding and as many by woners as they please, and the result is that they revert to poverty. One cannot allow that. Let me mention this case. Where I discover that people are borrowing money at 8 per cent. and 10 per cent., I do not grant the necessary permission. A man comes to my department and says : “I owe £660 on my holding,”—I am speaking from memory— “Here is the money; I want my Crown grant.” We give it to him and he pays. We think it is his own money. Not a month or six weeks later the Land Bank tells us that this man wants a loan of £660, and asks whether they can give it to him. We ask him what he wants to do with the money. It then appears that he wants to pay the moneylender who advanced the money to him, so that he can have unencumbered possession of the land. Reference has been made here on a previous occasion to the moneylender at Brits. Let me tell hon. members that there have been cases where the people have paid interest at the rate of 10 per cent. to a financial institution on small amounts. They had to pay 10 per cent. plus banking costs. When they come along after three or four months to pay off the loan, i.e. at the end of the period for which they borrowed the money, they find that they have to pay this 10 per cent. plus banking charges, which is equivalent to a rate of interest of 20 per cent. or more. I have proof here that in one case the rate of interest went as high as 55 per cent. per annum. Can we allow that state of affairs? What becomes of the settlers? I say again with all emphasis, that if this state of affairs continues, it will mean the end of settlements in South Africa. One cannot do it. I have a letter here which I should like to read. It is dated 1st February, and was sent from “Klipfontein, P.O. Northam” [translation]—

In some cases the people sell or let their farms for a large sum. They then take over farms and pay the occupier a small amount for his improvements. There have been cases here where the land was taken over four years ago, and that land is again on the market at a very high profit. As you will perhaps agree, these farms are gradually going from the poor men to the rich men, and since there are cases in the Rustenburg district where men who sold their farms to rich persons are wandering, we shall be very pleased if you, as Minister, will bring about a change, even in the case of small farms, to prevent this land from falling into the hands of landowners.

I did not ask for this letter. I do not know this man. But that is the position in connection with the Bill. One clause after another has been read out. If the hon. member for Wolmaransstad had been here during the debate, he would have heard his own Act quoted. Three-quarters of this Bill consists of clauses taken over from his Act, with the alterations and additions to which I have referred. I am doing no more and no less than to lay down what the hon. member said in the old Act, whether it be slavery or malice or Fascism. If that is so, it is his fault; he must not hold me responsible. I now come to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). He, or at any rate so he told me, is the lawyer to whom the examination of this Bill was entrusted by the other side of the House. He followed the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and made a speech which consisted from A to Z of a misrepresentation of the objects of this Bill, or the contents of this Bill. He represented matters wrongly. As usual, he started by adopting a condescending attitude towards the two members who spoke immediately before him. One of them was the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson). He told the hon. member for Ermelo that he did not know what he was talking about, that he had never read the Bill, because otherwise he would not have spoken as he did. The hon. member for Ermelo, however, and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg), who were attacked by the hon. member for Swellendam, in actual fact, correctly represented the objects of this Bill. The hon. member for Swellendam said of the hon. member for Krugersdorp that even if he had read the Bill, he would not have understood it. I want to tell the hon. member for Swellendam now that he has never read this Bill, or otherwise his legal knowledge is so pitiable that heaven forbid that I should ever fall into his hands and have to be dependent on his legal knowledge. He speaks as though he has a lien on all wisdom and knowledge. He says that he has never seen a Bill which violates private rights to this extent. In my turn, I say that in that case he apparently does not understand the Bill at all. I am not a lawyer; I am an ordinary farmer, and I have difficulty in reading the Act. I say that in spite of my friend, the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Boltman). The hon. member for Swellendam says that this Bill violates private rights, and he then quotes clauses which have been taken over from the old Act of 1937. It is not I who drafted those clauses. There are a few amendments, it is true, and I shall deal with them in a moment. The hon. member objects to the fact that this Bill will be introduced with retrospective effect. He says that he does not mind if I insert this provision in future contracts, but he objects to its insertion in contracts of the past. He now wants me to withdraw the Act of 1937 and to undo what was done under that Act. He does not mind my putting it in future contracts. I want to repeat that if he reads Section 9 carefully, he will see that the man who has his Crown grant, his deed of transfer, is excluded. That is Section 9 of the Act of 1937, and those people are again being excluded under my Bill. But the hon. member goes on to tell the House that there is an individual at Robertson who many years ago was a settler of the Government; he became so prosperous that he bought other farms, and today he possesses a number of farms. But, the hon. member says, the Minister is apparently assuming the right under this Bill, even in the case of a man who has had his deed of transfer for a long time, to subject him to new conditions in his deed of transfer. Such rubbish has surely never been heard from a man with legal knowledge. I have explained repeatedly that the Crown grant owners are excluded in the Act of 1937, and they are again being excluded. How can one, where the man has obtained lawful transfer, repeal that and insert new conditions? That is a misrepresentation. It is not true. He reads Clause 3 and states that this clause will also apply with retrospective effect to people who have obtained transfer. Let me explain. The hon. member, who is a lawyer, has quoted the section which relates to certain irrigation settlements. I just want to explain that we have various settlements where there are blocks of farms, where a large number of farmers are together. Let me cite the Belgium block in Waterberg. There we have a block of 40 farms. Then we have the irrigation settlements of Brits, of Vaal-Hartz. These are areas which will be proclaimed, and the hon. member says that anyone who has a holding there and who has obtained transfer will fall under this provision. Yes, that is correct inasmuch as the proclamation of such a settlement is intended to prevent a company or a rich person from buying up a large number of holdings, and having the right to gain possession of the whole settlement, whether it be dry or irrigable. This prohibition is imposed in order to protect the man, to prevent a company from buying up all the land. It is aimed at those companies who want to buy up the land. They are not allowed to do so. What is the hon. member’s explanation in this connection? As has been stated, it is only a provision to prevent companies or rich people from buying one farm after another. What is his statement in this House? He quotes Clause 4, 75 per cent, of which is the same as the old Act, and he tells me: “You do not understand the Act; why do you want to appoint another assessor; why is that necessary?” If I had been a lawyer, I might have been able to tell him that what he read from the Act was precisely what is now contained in the Bill. But the hon. member read from an Act which was amended a long time ago, and fortunately the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) came to my assistance and said that that clause was amended some considerable time ago. So much for his legal knowledge. But he let the cat out of the bag. He said that the settlers in Riversdale—and Riversdale is in his constituency—were disturbed about the servitudes which the Government proposed to impose on them. As hon. members know, this Bill was introduced last year already. I could not go on with it, because we were too busy. The hon. member knew of it. He says that I approached them and explained the Act to them, and that I won votes by doing so. He explained it as he did to the House today. He absolutely misrepresented the position, just as he did in the House, and he says that I won votes on the strength of this Bill I repeat, may the Lord keep me from ever being placed in the position of having to obtain legal advice from him. Now I come to the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, who made this speech and accused me of slavery. He said with tears in his eyes and a sob in his voice: “You must teach the Afrikaner to develop a love for his land. And once he has learned to love his land, you must let him do as he pleases. You must teach him to acquire a love for his land.” The hon. member accused me of slavery. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) said it seemed as if I bore malice against the people. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) said that it was a Fascist measure. He says that I explained to the House that large sums of money had been spent at Loskop, and then he went on to say that my Land Board had gone there to negotiate with these people in connection with the 100 morgen which they are entitled to hold back in terms of this clause. We said: “If you sell the land to us you will not have the right to hold back 100 morgen. We shall give you a piece of land; we shall give you 30 morgen, but we shall give it to you at a place which we decide on, and you will get this under the regulations of the Settlement Act. We shall treat you in the same way as a settler as far as the regulations are concerned.” In actual fact one person obtained not 30 morgen but 100 morgen, and another person was given 60 morgen.

We told the people this, and with the exception of two or three persons every farm which we required for that settlement at Loskop was sold to us. The people are satisfied with the price, and these two or three persons who are left will now fall under this Act if we pass it. The hon. member says that I forced them. It is most unreasonable to say that I forced this on them. He also had a great deal to say about the fact that this Bill will apply with retrospective effect. His own handiwork, his own baby!

If I made a mistake, does it justify you to perpetuate that mistake?

Was it a mistake?

No, I am not asking you.

I say it was not a mistake. I said a moment ago that I agreed with it 100 per cent. The hon. member must not tell me that it is slavery when I give effect to his policy.

You are not carrying out his policy.

I now want to quote from Hansard what my hon. friend said when he introduced this Act in the House. Let us hear what he said. The quotation is somewhat long, but I think after the speech which he made here in comparison with the speech which he made at that time, the House should really hear this. He said—

Now they must develop a predilection for their land!—

Just listen to this; I am supposed to be introducing slavery!—

So that he can acquire a love for the land!—

Under Section 11 of the Act they sold land to the value of £193,000 and made £200,000 profit on 284 farms which were granted under Section 16. The hon. member says that time and again people asked for amounts to be written off and for a revaluation, that they then go along and make those huge profits.

Do you begrudge them this profit?

The hon. member went on to say—

Who said that?

There the hon. member sits, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad—

We agree.

You must justify your own actions.

I do not think it is necessary for me to add a single word to convince the House how misleading every speech on that side was. They did not on a single occasion represent this Act correctly.

On a point of order, the Hon. Minister says that this Act was not correctly represented in a single instance. I just want to say that that is not the truth.

That is not a point of order.

I wrote down what my hon. friend said, and I have shown that the Act was not correctly described in one single case.

Then you wrote it down incorrectly.

My hon. friend is now trying to be too clever again. He quotes from an Act which was amended long ago, and he bases all his arguments on it. It is not necessary to repeat that I am doing no more and no less than my hon. friend did, except that I am now filling up the gaps in Section 9, in connection with the sale, division, etc., of this land; and then there is the question of the 100 morgen. I ask the House to pass this Bill.

Question put: That the words “the Bill be”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—76:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steytler, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk. H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

NOES—31:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludiek, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Olivier dropped.

Question put: That the word “now,” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—78:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard. C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Wares, A. P. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

NOES—30:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

˙ Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludiek, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Gen. Kemp dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 22nd March.

I move—

The Bill which is now before the House provides for the ratification of the agreement recently entered into between the Government and the Rand Water Board for the supply of an additional 65,000,000 gallons of water per day from Vaal Dam, for which additional storage equivalent to the abstraction of 50,000,000 gallons per day is guaranteed by the Government. A brief history of the Rand Water Board’s transactions with the Government in regard to the water it is enabled to take from the Vaal River is as follows: Under the Board’s own Act No. 18 of 1914, in terms of which it received authority to build the barrage near Vereeniging, a quantity equal to 20,000,000 gallons per day may be abstracted. Under the Vaal River Development Scheme Act No. 38 of 1934, the Board acquired the right to abstract a further 60,000,000 gallons per day, the total of 80,000,000 gallons per day being guaranteed by the Government under that Act and the agreement appended thereto. Later the Board made representations for further rights to water from the Vaal River, and by Act 4 of 1937 a further guaranteed abstraction of 70,000,000 gallons per day was given to the Board. In respect of the quantities guaranteed in 1934 and 1937 the Board undertook to pay to the Government the sum of £520,000. This sum is at present being liquidated at a rate of interest of 3½ per cent. per annum, £240,000 being repayable over a period of twelve years and £280,000 being repayable over a period of twenty years. The Board has thus at present the right to abstract a total of 150,000,000 gallons per day from the Vaal River. At the beginning of 1941 the Board again approached the Government for a further guaranteed supply from Vaal Dam of 50,000,000 gallons per day. It was asked to furnish an estimate of its future requirements and in doing so it informed the Government that it anticipated that within 25 years, i.e. by 1966, a supply of 180,000,000 gallons per day would be exhausted. After negotiations between the Board and the Government a final offer was made to the Board by Government to grant rights to a further 65,000,000 gallons per day, of which the Government would guarantee storage equivalent to an abstraction of 50,000,000 gallons per day, in return for the payment by the Board of £650,000, the date fixed for payment of this sum being 31st December, 1941. The Board was at first not prepared to accept this offer but eventually agreed to the terms and to pay interest on the capital sum at 3½ per cent. per annum as from 31st December, 1941. An agreement embodying this arrangement is appended to the Amendment Bill as a schedule, and with the passing of this legislation the Board will have acquired the rights to abstract a total of 215,000,000 gallons per day for the payment of £1,170,000. Summarised, these rights are made up as follows—

Government guarantee for abstraction of first 50,000,000 gallons per day—guaranteed storage in Vaal Dam of 70,000 acre feet. Government guarantee in respect of abstraction of further units of 1,000,000 gallons per day—guaranteed storage in Vaal Dam of 800 acre feet up to a total guaranteed capacity of 190,000 acre feet, equivalent to a daily abstraction of 200,000,000 gallons. The Rand Water Board has intimated that it has concluded arrangements to borrow the amount of £650,000 plus interest thereon, and will have the funds available to pay over to the Government on 1st April, 1944. It is therefore desirable that if possible the Bill before the House pass all stages in the House of Assembly and the Senate before that date.

What is the capacity of the dam?

The capacity of the Vaal Dam is 873,000 acre feet. The commitments at the present moment are these: we are committing ourselves to pass 200,000,000 gallons per day to the Rand Water Board. It is just possible that by 1966 they may have to come for more. We have the Vaal-Hartz, which is developed, and we calculate that when it is fully developed we shall be irrigating there at least 40,000 to 45,000 morgen. Apart from that we are expanding and we intend to extend further canals on both sides of the Vaal River which will give water to quite a number of farms on the extensive system.

Also on the Free State side?

No, the Free State will come in at a later stage. We can do it physically at Parys. With these commitments and the development which is taking place at the Witwatersrand, which is on an enormous scale, we anticipate when the post-war conditions set in, and industrial expansion takes place, the consumption of water will increase very considerably, and we believe that before 1966 the Rand Water Board will come back for further supplies of water. In addition, Pretoria has been in a very precarious position so far as water is concerned, and is at present. They have been wanting to take water from the Government from Hartebeestpoort, but we cannot spare water from there, unless we deprive the Settlement of Brits, which we cannot do. We could not agree to that, but my Department advised the Pretoria Municipality that they should endeavour to become a constituent authority of the Rand Water Board and so become a partner in the scheme from Vaal Dam, and get their water supplies from there in future. These negotiations have been completed. The Pretoria Council has become a constituent authority of the Rand Water Board, and as soon as they can get the necessary equipment, the water will be taken from Johannesburg across to Pretoria ….

What was the total cost of that scheme?

It was about £1,500,000. Now, in order to provide for the future expansion and the increased demand for water which I have just outlined to the House, provision has been made; when the dam was made in the first instance provision was made so that it could be raised, and if that is done the capacity of the dam will be just about double what it is today. Now, if the wall is raised by 18 feet—which can be done—the dam will hold 1,859,000 acre feet so that it will be practically twice its present capacity. I mention that to show the House that as far as the water requirements are concerned from the Vaal Dam both for irrigation and for the Reef and Pretoria, I think they are well secured for a long time in the future. I just want to add this. The rates which the Rand Water Board is paying to the Government for this quantity of water are the lowest rates for agricultural and even for domestic purposes right throughout the Union. There is no cheaper water. It is the cheapest water for industrial purposes, and also for domestic supplies which any corporation has in South Africa.

I should have liked a good deal more information than the hon. Minister gave us. As far as I can remember it was laid down in the first contract with the Rand Water Board that the Rand Water Board would have a preferential claim to the water in this dam over and above the rights of the irrigators. If the dam becomes empty, the irrigators will not be able to get water, because it will have to be kept for the Rand Water Board. It is all very well for the Minister to Say now that the Rand Water Board is paying a large sum of money but that will not help the irrigators if there is not sufficient water in the dam for the scheme at Vaal-Hartz. This dam was constructed in the first place for the irrigators at Vaal-Hartz. The Rand Water Board had its own dam and pump at Vereeniging, and the Rand Water Board then approached the Government for permission to take water out of this dam for primary purposes. They pump the water out to Johannesburg. Since this scheme was originally constructed for irrigation, it did not seem to me to be reasonable for the Rand Water Board to obtain a preferential right to this water. That will mean that if there is a shortage of water, the irrigators will be the first to suffer. It may be said that there never will be a shortage. If that is the case, why did the Rand Water Board want a preferential right. I realise that a big city like Johannesburg must have water, but it is a large and strong city which can make provision for itself, and I would therefore like more information from the Minister. I wanted to know, for example, what the dam cost, what compensation was paid to the owners at the dam, and what amount the Rand Water Board paid for this preferential right. I would have liked to know how much water is required for these 44,000 morgen of irrigation land; how long the dam will last, and whether this provision will not result in the irrigators having too little water. That information was not given. I therefore put these question in regard to the cost of the dam and the quantity of water, because this is the second contract entered into by the Rand Water Board. I am sorry that we could not get this information. I expected the Minister to give it to us. As far as I personally am concerned, I am not in favour of selling the water when a dam is built for irrigation purposes, unless it is surplus water. I would like to be convinced that that water is in excess of requirements. The Minister went on to say that the Rand Water Board gets this water at a cheaper rate for domestic and industrial purposes than any other municipality gets its water. It seems to me that the Government did not do good business in this case. I am not prepared to make a sacrifice in order to give water to Johannesburg at special low tariffs. Now it is also proposed to supply water to Pretoria. It seems to me That at some future date they will go so far as to take water from the Orange River. We know that the public has certain primary rights to water. But the greater part of this water is surplus water, and to that the public has no greater claim than the irrigators. I shall be glad, therefore, if the Minister will postpone this debate in order to enable us to get the necessary information. If it can be dealt with tomorrow, a good case might possibly be made out for the contract. We may then be in a position to approve of it. At the moment I do not understand the position. I did not get the information which I wanted. I cannot work out how much water will cost per cubic foot, and if the Rand Water Board gets the water so cheaply, it is quite possible that it might have paid a little more. We shall be able to get this information from the department, and we shall then be able to judge. As the matter stands at present, I cannot decide whether or not I should support this Bill.

I thought I had given the information which my hon. friend wanted. I told him how much water there was in the dam, and that we do not expect a shortage, even if Pretoria, too, were to be supplied with water. I said that this water was being guaranteed to the Rand Water Board. I also mentioned the quantity of water which is guaranteed to Johannesburg. The reason for that is that they receive preference over the irrigation lands. We cannot allow a community of half a million people to perish of thirst and use the water for irrigation land. I added that there would not be a shortage. We say that the available quantity of water will be sufficient until 1966, but if that extension takes place and the quantity of water is not sufficient, we shall add another 18 feet to the wall of the dam, and we shall then have nearly twice as much water and a supply for an indefinite period. I gave that information. My hon. friend asked what the dam cost. It costs £1,663,840, and that includes compensation in respect of servitudes amounting to £827,500. Altogether we have now obtained £1,170,000 from the Rand Water Board. I do not know that I can give any further information.

You said that they were getting water at the cheapest rate in the country.

Yes, that is of great importance to the industrial development of the country. My hon. friend wanted us to increase the charge to some extent. Well, we are of opinion that we are getting enough. Except for £500,000 the Rand Water Board has now paid for the whole dam and all the servitudes.

And that is as it should be, because they are receiving preference.

The Government thinks that it entered into a good business transaction. In addition to that we must remember that the Witwatersrand is a large undertaking; it is a large city, and enormous development takes place there. It is of great importance to the country that the Government should provide water as cheaply as possible to such an area, so that that development can take place. Having regard to all this, I am satisfied that the Government did good business, and that we did the right thing in giving the water to the Rand Water Board on these terms.

Motion put and agreed to; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 22nd March.

I move—

It is difficult, without being long-winded, to deal consecutively with an amending Bill which deals with six different Acts, which have often been amended in the past. But hon. members have the right to demand that I should explain the Bill as far as possible, and for that reason I should like to do so. In fact, it is my duty to do so. I shall be as brief as possible, and I can only hope that hon. members will bear with me. This amending Bill is necessary, in the first place, to give effect to certain recommendations which are contained in the report of the Native Affairs Commission in regard to beer in the urban areas. Furthermore, it is desirable to introduce other provisions in this Bill with regard to native administration in the urban areas, for which sufficient provision was not made in the Native Urban Areas Act, as that Act now reads. There are also defects in connection with other Acts, especially in the Native Taxation and Development Act, the Native Administration Act, the Native Service Contract Act and the Private Locations Act of 1909 of the Cape Province. In this Bill provision is now being made to solve those difficulties in the existing Acts. I am now going to refer to the changes brought about in this amending Bill, and I should like to start with the Native Urban Areas Act of 1923. Paragraphs 1 to 18 of this Bill deal with native administration in urban areas, and paragraphs 5, 10, 11, 12 and 14 deal with kaffir beer. I do not propose to say anything about the history of kaffir beer, and hon. members who are interested in that will find it fully set out in the report of the Native Affairs Commission, which I laid on the Table of the House last year. But I want to refer to the fact that in the urban areas it is not completely prohibited, because the Native Urban Areas Act was amended in 1927 to make provision for beer halls, or for the domestic brewing of beer by natives in their own homes—in locations or in native villages, of course. Provision was also made for the issue of licences to sell beer, but up to the present that provision has not been taken advantage of. These provisions gave considerable satisfaction to the natives, but where there is a beer hall, natives are not allowed to brew domestic beer and it can only be lawfully obtained in the beer halls. In view of the fact that in certain cases the beer hall is situated in a place far removed from the location, it is very inconvenient for the natives. Then there are unmarried natives who do not possess homes. They are not allowed to brew beer at all, and if there is no beer hall, they cannot obtain beer except by unlawful means, and in the long run this means that they obtain beer unlawfully and are then punished.

As from what age are they allowed to go into the beer halls?

Men from the age of 18 and women from the age of 21 years. But for the reasons I have mentioned, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, and the Native Affairs Commission suggested in its report that both systems should be allowed in the same areas; that is to say, beer halls and domestic beer brewing. Clause 10 of the Bill gives effect to these recommendations, but I should add that where the system is abused, the right to brew beer at home can be taken away. I hope, therefore, that hon. members will not be worried about this matter. I know that certain hon. members were somewhat reluctant to allow this. As the Act stands at present, natives cannot lawfully obtain beer outside a location or a native village. Why not? In many urban areas there are no locations and native villages, and in such cases they cannot obtain beer, with the result that they obtain it unlawfully and consequently get into difficulties.

What is the position on farms?

I am coming to that. Clause 10 of the Bill will remove this difficulty, and will allow the brewing of beer outside a location or outside a native village under a permit system. And here again the privilege can be withdrawn if it is abused, The Native Affairs Commission felt that the profit which is made on beer consumed in municipal beer halls should be used for social welfare only, and not to cover the cost of roads, street lighting, water provision, sanitary facilities or administrative costs. After investigation the Native Affairs Commission was of opinion that there was a tendency to use the profit for such purposes, and it was felt that such costs should not be covered in this way. For that reason Clause 5 of the Bill makes provision for the deposit of profits on the sale of kaffir beer into a subaccount of the Native Revenue Account. A kaffir beer sub-account is created for that purpose, and all profits have to be deposited into that account, and these funds can then be used for social services, etc. Once a municipality has obtained the right to build a beer hall, the Government has no power to lay down what type of building must be erected or where it must be erected, and recently it was brought to our notice that a hall had been erected at a very undesirable place. In terms of Clause 11 they must obtain the approval of the Minister of Native Affairs before they can build the hall. Clause 12 only contains an amendment which is in pursuance of previous amendments to the existing Act, while Section 1 of paragraph 14 of the Bill makes provision for regulations to control the brewing of domestic beer, and also deprives a native who was found guilty under the Liquor Laws of the Union, of this privilege. Section 14 of Act No. 43 of 1941 lays down that fines in respect of beer contraventions under the Native Urban Areas Act shall be deposited into the Native Revenue Account. The intention has always been that any fines imposed in connection with beer should be so dealt with, but instead of the police charging transgressors under the Native Urban Areas Act, they have charged them under the Liquor Act, and the result has been that these fines have been deposited into the Treasury instead of the native account. In other words, the Minister of Justice all along has been depriving me of these fines and increasing the revenue of the Minister of Finance. But I am glad to say that he has agreed to alter it. Clause 5 of the Bill gives effect to the original intention, and in future the Native Revenue Account will derive benefit, irrespective of the Act under which the charge is laid.

Is it known what average amount this will bring in annually?

I think so, but I have not got the figure here. I can give it in Committee.

Does this refer only to fines in respect of liquor contraventions?

Yes, only fines for liquor contraventions. I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 22nd March.