When the House adjourned I was discussing the question of the proposed meat control and as my time is very short I intend just to sum up the position and to emphasise why I feel that it is not in the interest of the country to continue this control. The meat control scheme cannot, and will not, be a success because first of all it is not total or complete control. I feel that to make it a success it must be complete control right throughout the country. Today the control only applies to the nine big towns of the Union, and not to the rest of the country. Secondly, it cannot be a success because it is a temporary scheme, it is not there for a long period of time, and that means the dislocation of our existing methods of buying and selling, and the system of distribution of our cattle, which has been built up over generations. Furthermore, the control is not in the interest of the consumer because the meat shortage which exists today is fast disappearing, and the townspeople will soon be able to buy their meat cheaper under the existing marketing scheme than under the control system which is calculated to keep prices high in the towns. The scheme is not in the interest of the producer either, because keeping prices high for a time may possibly be followed by a collapse of the whole slaughter stock market when the scheme is abandoned. And the grading of meat will also cause the farmer a lot of trouble, in the same way as the permit system did. The only section which may possibly benefit from the scheme are the companies or the company which control the cold storage accommodation. I should like to read the telegram which I received this morning from the “South African Voters Association of Port Elizabeth”—

Order, order! That telegram refers to a debate which took place in this House this session, and in accordance with the Rules of the House the hon. member cannot quote it.

Well, then I shall confine my remarks to saying that it deals with the question of soil erosion, and that the townspeople are very anxious about the position and they express their great regret that no money is to be voted for combating the erosion of our soil, and they urge that at least a few million pounds be provided. I feel that this shows that the soul of South Africa is being awakened, and that that section which possibly does not consist of farmers, is beginning to realise the position. They realise how important it is to have this question solved, and they hope that while there is yet time to remedy this national evil we shall tackle it with all our might and all our strength. I am sorry my time is limited and that I cannot go into the question any further.

The Budget that has been presented to the House by the Minister of Finance seeks to make provision for a national expenditure both from the proceeds of revenue and from Loan Account of nearly three times the corresponding figure before the war, and it seeks to do so out of the proceeds of the national income which, compared with the pre-war level, has increased probably not more than about 25 per cent. Now, Sir, that expenditure in the circumstances in which this country is placed is necessary. I am not quarrelling with any item of it. But the point which I desire to make is that to raise that expenditure by these methods, unless adequate counter measures are taken, must result in increased prices and costs, and failure to take those counter measures must result in an undue proportion of the burden being borne by the masses of the people of this country in the form of an inflationary increase in the cost of living. I am aware that in this debate a considerable amount has been said from the Opposition side of the House about the increasing cost of living, and hon. members have compared it with the position in other countries which are similarly at war. I do not fear being associated with the members of the Opposition in this matter, for when three years ago I criticised the increased borrowing for the purpose of public expenditure and I pointed out that this must sooner or later result in drastic cost of living increases, not one single member of the Nationalist Party stood up to support me. I am glad that they have become converted today but, they have become converted too late. I want to repeat what I said on that occasion. In conditions of full employment to continue to increase the amounts borrowed for the purpose of public expenditure, can only result in increased prices and an increased cost of living, which is unwarranted by new resources called into play by such expenditure. It may sound farcical to speak of full employment in the conditions of this country when the abilities and the potentialities of a vast proportion of our population are undeveloped and no adequate steps have been taken to develop them. That creates a bottle-neck which does limit the productive capacity of this country. I have emphasised that time and again in the past, but nevertheless in existing conditions those bottlenecks do exist, and I think the Minister has admitted in the past that we have reached a stage of full employment so far as full employment can be reached in the circumstances prevailing in South Africa today, and to continue to increase the amounts borrowed for the purpose of public expenditure, unless adequate counter-acting measures are taken, is bound to result in an increase of prices and increased cost of living. At that time three years ago, I also asked for a comprehensive system of price control. At that time a very small list of household commodities were subject to control apart from the control of traders’ profits—a type of control which appears to have been very largely ineffective judging by the fact that it has become necessary progressively to extend control over a wider and wider range of specific articles. Those steps, however, the Government did not take in time. They are borrowing today the sum of £68,000,000. The £68,000,000 which has to be raised this year is the largest amount ever borrowed in this country. Price control has been considerably extended. But this step was taken after there had been a considerable increase in the cost of living, and even then the regulations have not been fully comprehensive. It is only since the new Food Controller has been appointed that he has promised us a comprehensive system of control of food prices, not only in the large urban centres but also in the smaller urban centres, and to extend the control to primary products as well as other products. It is only now, after the cost of living has risen some 26 per cent. — if the official figure can be taken as reliable — that this step is being taken. I suppose the Minister would deny that inflation exists but, I want to remind the Minister that inflation is a purely relative conception, and the situation is essentially inflationary if credit is permitted to expand, if the currency upon which all credit must be based is permitted to increase, without a corresponding increase of productive resources being brought into operation, and that is not possible on a short term basis in the conditions which exist in South Africa at the moment. There are three familiar methods to check or reverse an increasing cost of living, a cost of living which is hitting the poorer sections of the community at the present time, and not least those whom I represent in this House. The first method has been dealt with fully by the hon. member for Pretoria, Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock), and I do not wish to repeat what he has said, except to remind the House of the fact that the measures that he indicated are necessary. A strict and comprehensive system of price control such as that to which I have just referred, is necessary, and where goods are in short supply, a system of rationing is also necessary. There was a considerable public demand during last year for the introduction of a system of rationing of goods in short supply, and that was officially answered by the Food Controller’s Department to the effect that in the conditions which prevail in South Africa, it is too difficult to do it, that it would involve people handling documents, and there are a lot of people in the country — and the African people were specifically mentioned — who could not be expected to handle documents on account of illiteracy — and that in a country where no African can move without a whole handful of documents, which he has to produce, at the present time. But when it comes to the suggestion that the documents should be carried for the benefit of the people, then we are told that illiteracy stands in the way. What is needed is a comprehensive system of price control, the rationing of goods in short supply and a system of subsidisation of consumption. As the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) told the House the other day, in Britain £150,000,000 was spent in 1942 on the subsidisation of consumption. I am not suggesting that a similar figure should be spent here, but a proportionate figure could bè spent here. There has been hardly any attempt to stablise food prices by subsidies. An attempt has been made to maintain the price of bread by such means, and more recently the subsidisation of a certain amount of citrus fruit was introduced after large quantities had been deliberately destroyed in previous seasons.

Also butter.

That dates from the prewar days. There is subsidisation of butter for certain limited groups in the country. The second method of preventing an increase in prices and an increase in the cost of living is to stop this continual piling up of expenditure on loan account. If £68,000,000 is necessary, I realise that that money has to be raised from some source. The difference, however, between raising it on loan account and raising it from the proceeds of taxation is that by the latter method there is a guarantee that it will come out of the genuine savings of the country; it will not be subscribed by financial institutions who expand credit beyond what is justified by the national production, and hence pass the burden on to the public in the form of a higher cost of living. If the Minister thinks it is impracticable to raise any substantial proportion of that sum from taxation because he is sorry for the higher income groups who will have to bear it, then there is scope for considerable extension of the principle of the special savings levy. Under that principle a vast sum can be raised as a compulsory loan, and it can be paid back at a later date. The point here is that there is also a guarantee that it will come out of genuine savings. The third method is the control or nationalisation of the banking system. I have head the proposition of my hon. friends of the Labour Party for the nationalisation of banking criticised on the ground that State banking would lead to a free use of the printing press. Under conditions of full employment, credit should not be unduly expanded. That might happen either under the auspices of a nationalised banking system or under a private banking system. The difference, however, is that a private profit-making bank has every incentive to do it; a State bank has no incentive to do it. That is the difference between the two systems. The private banking system has an incentive to use the printing press, which a national banking system does not have. I know that the Minister of Finance says that he is working in close collaboration with the banks, but apparently that collaboration is not close enough judging by the increased cost of living. An attempt has been made to counteract the increasing cost of living by the grant of cost of living allowances. I naturally am not against the grant of cost of living allowances. They are essential in the present circumstances. But what I want to point out is that they are no solution for this problem. For one thing, they must always be behind the cost of living, because they are only worked out after an increase has already taken place, and they can therefore never fully compensate the wage earners to whom they are paid In the second place certain deserving and poor groups are left out of the cost of living allowances. I refer more specifically to State pensioners on whose behalf I made representations earlier this Session to the Minister. Now, on the expenditure side I want to say that I welcome the Minister’s action in extending old age pensions and invalidity grants to races which did not previously enjoy them, and particularly, so far as old age pensions and invalidity pensions are concerned, to the African people. This is a gesture which is appreciated on these benches, but I am bound to make it clear that we can regard it as as gesture only because the rates laid down are half those which the Social Security Committee has recommended. However, I welcome the gesture. I just want to ask the Minister whether he proposes to embody these pensions in statutory form or whether they are to be dealt with administratively only. I also welcome the contribution from general revenue which is being made to African education, and here again I want to express the hope that in the near future a satisfactory formula for the financing of African education will be evolved by which the Government’s contributions will increase as the number of children seeking entry to schools increases.

First of all I want to bring a matter of great importance to the notice of the Hon. the Minister and of this House, a matter affecting the most profound principles and the outlook of the Afrikaner, a matter which during the past few days has caused considerable feeling among the Afrikaner people and among the whole of the white population of this country. I refer to what happened in a garment factory in Germiston. The factory manager at that place decided to employ non-Europeans in the machinery department of the factory. The white workers objected, and I assume the manager realised their difficulty and complied with their demands. In any case he decided not to employ any non-Europeans for that work, and that settled the matter and peace and order were restored. Unfortunately the local committee of the Garment Workers’ Union immediately afterwards summoned two of the women objectors to appear before it. Under the leadership of Mr. Solly Sachs, the Russian apostle of racial equality, a resolution was passed that steps were to be taken against these two women, and they were deprived of their membership of the Garment Workers’ Union. As a result of that reslution and because the closed shop principle applied in that factory, those two women, a Mrs. Moll and a Mrs. Nel, were dismissed. All the women working there considered this to be a great injustice. They looked upon the dismissal of these women as an injustice because it was clear that the real reason why Mr. Solly Sachs and his Committee had taken action, was because those two women had objected to Europeans and non-Europeans being made to work together in the same department. The girls appealed to the local churches for their assistance. Protest meetings were held, and a sit down strike is going on at the moment. To our Afrikaner people this is a most serious matter. The principle involved is the same as that for which another woman Martha Bezuidenhout, braved the bullets of the non-European soldiers. It is the principle for which the European workers of this factory are now fighting, and I hope the Minister will give the matter his immediate attention and that these two white women will be restored in their employment. But this occurrence also proves that the time has arrived, in fact that the time is overdue, for the policy of European and non-European workers being separated in our factories to be carried out, whenever it is possible and wherever it. is advisable. And I further say that the Government should take steps for the introduction of a quota system in regard to the employment of European workers and non-Europeans workers in the country’s industries. There is no doubt that things are going entirely wrong in this connection. We actually have the position in this country that our industries are getting more and more black while the ranks of the poor are getting more and more white. I want to mention a few instances and in the first place I want to mention the iron and steel industry in Pretoria. It is a well-known fact that while white workers have established and built that iron and steel factory there are non-European workers today waiting to benefit from the labour of the white workers. Let me draw attention here to the significant figures published in the journal “Industry and Trade”. In that publication it is stated that huge numbers of people have been taken on by our factories during the past few years. It. is stated, for instance, that in 1940, the number of white workers in industry increased by .6 per cent, and the number of non-European workers increased by 6.1 per cent. In 1941 the number of white workers increased by 4.3 per cent. and the number of non-European workers by 12.6 per cent. In 1942 the number of white workers increased by 7.2 per cent. and the non-Europeans increased by 16.2 per cent. Until October, 1943, the figures were 5.3 per cent. and 6.6 percent. respectively. But let me mention another instance, that of the South African Railways. In the Railway Report we find that in the past few years 2,000 Europeans were employed as against 5,000 non-Europeans. Hon. members will realise that if matters are to go on like that the white man will not only become uneasy but also very dissatisfied. We should bear in mind that the white man has to lead a civilised life. And what is more it is in the interest of the Europeans, as well as the non-Europeans, that this civilised standard should be maintained. The time has really come for us to face the position squarely, and I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to give this aspect his serious attention, and to bring about peace in the country by having these two people immediately restored in their employment. Now, I also want to say a few words about the racial policy of this country. I hope I may have another opportunity on some future occasion of saying something more on this subject. It cannot be denied that everyone who watches the position carefully feels deeply concerned about the extent and the dangerous form which racial questions have assumed in this country during the past few years. Not only has the sound relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans been disturbed to a large extent, but in many cases it has been completely dislocated. The presige of the white man, and the hold of Christian civilisation are now being undermined to an extent unprecedented in the history of this country. The traditional mode of living of the non-European races is being shaken to its very foundation, and the place and the task of the non-European races in the economy of the State are becoming completely dislocated. A report was recently published in Cape Town about the skolly menace. That report contains a warning to the whole of South Africa. I predict that unless a change is made in our racial policy in South Africa, and if matters are allowed to continue as they are doing today, the time is not far distant when a report will have to made, not only about the skolly menace in Cape Town but the skolly menace in South Africa. In the first place it should be laid down—and I know that this is a delicate matter—that no body, movement or doctrine affecting the sound and healthy understanding and relationship between European and non-European, which tends to undermine the recognised policy of the country, will be allowed, and that no body of that nature will be permitted to conduct subversive propaganda in this country. And a regulation of that kind should also apply to all individuals resorting to actions of that kind. Never before has such a flood of agitation come over this country as we have experienced in the last few years. All kinds and all classes of agitators have a free hand in this country. Without being checked, they have already undermined the happy racial relationship in this country, and they have actually succeeded in creating a smouldering volcano in regard to the relationship between the various races. Let hon. members see the carryings on of the non-Europeans during week-ends. If we go to our towns and our villages in the Transvaal and also in the other provinces, we find that on Saturday afternoons and Sundays one mass meeting after the other is held and those mass meetings, those agitators proclaim their riotous doctrines. And not only do they do that, but literature is widely distributed over the length and breadth of the country. In many instances they have built up a very thorough and systematic propaganda service. The municipal locations and the slums are in a state of ferment, and even in the native areas the natives are stirred up and roused to a state of turmoil. On the farms the labourers hardly get time to sleep because of the propaganda that is carried on at all times. Superficially everything seems to be quiet and peaceful but we should not forget that the native is secretive, and particularly where this kind of propaganda is concerned he is secretive towards the Europeans. From the religious point of view South Africa has already become a sectarian breeding ground. The Minister of Native Affairs himself has admitted that there are no fewer than 72 recognised religious bodies among the natives. But I want to tell him that for every church which is recognised there are at least, another ten or twelve sects operating. We actually have this situation, that the native who is too lazy to work, simply turns his collar front to back and sets up his own church. That sort of thing cannot be allowed, and I predict that we are going to have a period of bitter religious quarrels in South Africa if we allow this sort. of thing to go on among the non-European races. At almost every corner systematic propaganda is carried on among the natives with the object of telling them how unfair the attitude of the Europeans and of the Government is towards them, and that propaganda is carried on on a scale which must astound all those who see it. These things cannot be allowed, and the time has come when they must be stopped. We have all this Communistic propaganda which has been discussed repeatedly in this House. That propaganda is carried on on a scale and with regularity and effectiveness which must astound even the most conservative observer. In many areas a very thorough chain organisation for Communism has been built up. I was astonished during the last few years to find that the hammer and sickle were depicted not as an ornament but as a symbol and a banner on the huts of non-Europeans. I can quote instances in the Free State and thé Transvaal, and I hope the Minister will take notice of this. I also hope that our religious bodies will take notice of it. This evil transcends more deeply than one might realise. But there is another fact which is even worse, and that is that the non-European races and especially the natives, are putting up the hammer and sickle as a totem or a fetish. We know that the native believes in animism, and that the totem constitutes a force in his life, and we now have this most dangerous phenomenon that they look upon the hammer and sickle as such a totem. This is one of the most dangerous phenomena we have come across during the past few years, and it is becoming more and more prominent. The native is also getting organised in regard to this totem conception. If we don’t stop these things, South Africa will have a repetition of what happened in North Africa. There it was not the hammer and sickle, but it was the crescent of Islam which was employed to convert the inhabitants of North Africa into Mohammedans. If these things are allowed to go on here the hammer and sickle will achieve for Communism in South Africa what the crescent has achieved in North Africa among the native tribes of that part of the world. That is a fact which cannot be denied. The time has arrived when this whole position should be very carefully looked into. To put a stop to these things does not mean interfering with religious freedom, or with individual freedom—it is our duty to the non-European races. It is not only our duty to ourselves but also to the non-European races. We dare not allow the non-European races to become the prey of international fortune seekers and adventurers. No self-respecting guardian would allow his ward to become the prey of a fortune seeker and an adventurer, or of doctrines which later on when the child has grown up will prove deterimental to him. And I want to prophesy that if we do not wake up and deal with this evil the day will come when the non-European races themselves will point the finger of scorn at the white man for having failed to protect them in their childhood days from those doctrines, from this agitation and incitement which have done so much harm to them. Just as the child requires the best guidance from its mother, and the tender care of a good father, so that it may rise to the best things in life, in exactly the same way the non-European races require the best guidance from the Europeans to protect them from immoral degeneration and chaos. I hope that I may on some other occasion have the opportunity of saying more on this subject, but in the meanwhile I want to express the hope that the Minister will give. the matter his serious attention.

I am sorry the Minister of Transport is not in his place, as the few remarks I wish to make are particularly addressed to him. Although the Minister during the Part Appropriation Bill has been subjected to much criticism, and had to listen to many complaints, I am not going to hesitate to add, not to the complaints and criticisms, but to the many requests made to him that certain work should be carried out, and I feel confident that those for which I want to plead are fully justified and in every respect can be said to be highly necessary. I was pleased to hear from the Minister that it had been decided to carry out certain major works on the Midland System, but those are work for which we have been pleading for many years, though up to the present nothing has been done. While one must admit that there are many important works required in other systems too, I think we can safely maintain that these works for which we have been pleading on the Midland System are so long overdue that they should be placed very high on the priority list. I shall deal first with the question of the reduction of gradients and the elimination as far as possible of curves on the Midland System. I was pleased to hear from the Minister that it had been decided that this work should be proceeded with when the opportune time arrived. We have had repeated promises of attention being given to this, but have always been doomed to disappointment when we have seen larger and more costly works carried out on other systems for which we maintain there was not the same need and not the same justification. What we ask for is a reduction of all gradients between Port Elizabeth and Naauwpoort or even De Aar to a maximum of one in 80 or even 1 in 100, and the elimination as far as possible of all curves. Several years ago the first step was taken by eliminating the Bellvue Bank between Sand-plaats and Alicedale, then, later on, the line was improved to about 7 or 8 miles beyond Alicedale. The position now is that beyond this point there are numerous grades of 1 in 40 uncompensated which is equal to 1 in 36, there are also a number of curves of 7 chains uncompensated which should be eliminated. This means that while a full train of 900 tons can be hauled by one engine from Port Elizabeth to Alicedale, from that point it has to be double headed banked er split into two. Owing to the heavy grades between Cookhouse and Kommadagga, a distance of less than 40 miles, two engines are required on the downward journey, but the extra engine has to go on to Alicedale, about another 16 or 20 miles, as it is needed there for up-trains. One can easily see what a loss of engine power therè is. I shall now try briefly to show what benefits the Administration will derive as a result of carrying out there improvements. As a result of investigations made some time ago over a period of six months, it was found that the highest gross tonnage hauled in one month was up 87,749 tons, and down 96,141 tons. To clear this traffic for working days would require seven up trains and eight down trains. With the easier grades proposed only four trains up and four down would be sufficient. This would mean a saving of 137,720 train miles per annum, and would represent a saving in time of 45 men between Alicedale and Cookhouse alone in both directions. On passenger trains 702 hours would be saved, a point worth considering. Then, in regard to breakages—there would also be a big saving in wear and tear of rolling stock as owing to the release from strain a lot of saving of broken buffers and other damage would result. With the saying of six engines, which could be released for service elsewhere it is estimated that the consumption of coal could be reduced by about 7,000 tons per year, resulting in a saving not only of the cost of the coal, but also of the cost of haulage, a not inconsiderable amount. In regard to staff, as all trains have at present to be split up at Alicedale, the change over would save all this work and a smaller staff would be required. On the estimated cost of £1,000,000 the interest at the present low rate would be about £30,000 per annum, which I think would be more than compensated for by the saving in working costs which may easily be estimated at more than £30,000. It should therefore prove a paying investment for the Administration—which I am afraid is more than can be said for larger sums spent in other directions. I therefore maintain that it is not only or even primarily in the interests of Port Elizabeth or the Midlands, but of the Administration itself that this work should be carried out with as little delay as possible. I was also pleased to hear from, the Minister that he was making provision for the erection of a very much needed new station. I would like him to tell us how things are going on. He knows better than I do what these conditions are at Port Elizabeth, he knows how necessary a new station is, and I think he will admit that it is even more necessary than many other similar works which have been asked for at other centres. The station is an old building, portion of which has been in existence since the line was opened to Uitenhage about 70 years ago, and I think it is just about time that a new station was put up. I am perfectly well aware that the present is not the time when one can expect work of this kind to be started, but as this matter has been under consideration now for several years I would like the Minister to be able to tell us how the plans for the new station and the general lay-out of all the other works are progressing—whether he is satisfied that as much is being done as can be done in the meantime. I contend that this work is more pressing than many other works of a similar nature which are being asked for in other quarters. Then I was also pleased to hear from the Minister that he intended to make provision for new goods sheds to be situated at the North End of the town. This, too, is a very necessary work, as the City, and particularly the industrial area, has extended very considerably in that direction, and many places which at present are outside the three mile limit will be brought into it. The present sheds are situated at the South End, therefore large quantities of goods are carted from the Harbour to the North End, and then when those goods are sent up country they have to be sent back to the South End. Now the changeover may be expected to result in a big saving in the Administration’s transport, and consequently in a saving of expenses as well. Now I would like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied with the progress which is being made in the work of providing for the new marshalling yards and engine sheds. The sheds, I think, he will admit are an urgent matter, as those, or portion of them, in use at present are about 70 years old, and are approaching the stage when they may be handed over to the Historical Monuments Commission. I think the time is fast approaching when we might possibly be asked by the Historical Monuments Commission to be allowed to take over these sheds. About two years ago when I referred to the conditions under which the men had to work on these sheds, the Minister said that he intended having a discussion with his colleague the Minister of Labour in order to see how far it would be possible to make the Factory Act apply to the Railways. I should like to know whether he has had that discussion, and whether any decision was come to; and may we hope that after that discussion has taken place, some good may result from it.

He said in his Budget speech that it practically all applied.

I am very pleased to hear that; I did not hear him say it; because I think the condition of the sheds is such that if they were privately owned, the owner of the factory would find himself in some little difficulty. If I remember rightly, the Minister, when on a visit to Port Elizabeth a few years ago, promised that provision would be made for the erection of two new berths at No. 2 Quay. I have no doubt that when the war is won and behind us, and when our harbours return to normal working conditions, these will be found to be a very useful addition to the harbour accommodation there. I do not want to draw comparisons with other ports, but I think it is generally admitted that from a working point of view that harbour is the most easily, and I think I can also say the most economically worked. Unfortunately, during the war owing to circumstances beyond the control of the Government, neither Port Elizabeth nor East London harbours have been working their full capacity, so one cannot judge as a result of the past few years working what the effect would be. But I think we can safely claim that we have every right to ask that that should be done, and that extra berthing should be provided there. I do not know, I am only a layman, but I should imagine that the work of providing these two berths at No. 2 Quay present no constructional difficulties whatever, and that it would be a matter of relatively small cost. Then we have been asked also by the commercial community to ask whether it is not possible to consider providing a fifty or even a hundred ton or a floating crane for the docks. I am not in a position to be able to say how necessary it is; I have merely been asked to bring that to the notice of the Minister, and I now do so. Finally, I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to consider the running of a railway line into the New Brighton location. At present the inhabitants of the location are served by motor buses, run by the Railway Administration. I am not asking that the fares should be reduced, because I think, considering the distance the passengers are carried, about six miles, the fares are very reasonable, but unfortunately they make a very big hole in the earnings of the natives, many of whom are employees of the Administration itself. I do not know whether there is any difficulty about this. I am told that there is some little difficulty in the Port Elizabeth City Council, which was not prepared to give the guarantee that would be required by the Railways, but one would imagine that if this provision were made, the Administration might be able to give cheaper transport to people who are very much in need of assistance of that kind. It is well known how well the Port Elizabeth Municipality have treated them with regard to housing, and the rents they charge, but if men in receipt of meagre wages are compelled to go long distances to their work, and have to pay a big proportion of their earnings on transport, one can quite imagine that that places them in a very difficult position. I appeal to the Minister to have this position fully investigated in order to see if some means of transport cheaper than the buses and more convenient to the administration itself, could not be arranged. These are all very moderate and reasonable requests. I think we can fairly say that what we are asking for is not unreasonable, and that these things are fully justified. One does feel a little disappointed when one sees large works carried out in other places, which in one’s opinion are perhaps not so fully justified as what these would be. If these works are undertaken it would be something which would be very much appreciated not only by my home town, but also I think by the whole of the Midlands community. I am well aware that much desirable work must be left to the conclusion of the war, but I do hope that the Minister will see that this more than desirable work will not be relegated to the bottom of the priority list, but will be given a place fairly near the top.

At the commencement of this Session I had placed on the Order Paper a suggestion that in order to show our appreciation of the gallant services of our soldiers the Minister of Finance should make a part remission of income tax to be paid by such soldiers. I specially mention our fighting forces. I do so with a purpose, because if this scheme is brought about I hope that our fighting forces will be given the benefit, and not necessarily all the others who have not been in the firing line. I have now withdrawn that notice of motion from the Order Paper, and it is open for discussion. The Government has improved the pay of soldiers, and it has improved the pensions, for which those who are interested in the welfare of the soldiers are greatly pleased. But now I want to suggest a more tangible form of appreciation in respect of income tax which the soldiers will have to pay in due course. I suggest that this be on a graduated scale. Up to £500 there will be no income tax. Where the income is between £501 and £1,000 there will be 20 per cent. remission. Then up to £1,500 a 15 per cent. remission, and between £1,501 and £2,000 a 10 per cent. remission. Anyone earning more than £2,000 would not receive any remission at all. The first criticism one would expect of this suggestion is that it would not apply to all soldiers; in fact for the time being it would only apply to a small minority. But I contend if this is made a permanent concession to our fighting forces, the soldier of today will be the income tax payer of tomorrow. I think you will find that that is the case in regard to those who served in the last war. I therefore make this suggestion to the hon. the Minister. It will be a constant reminder to our returned soldiers when they receive their income tax assessment, that their past services in the fighting forces have been appreciated and are appreciated by the country. I hope that if this principle is adopted that the Provincial Councils will adopt a similar principle in regard to taxes they charge the community. I now wish to turn to another point affecting soldiers. There is very great dissatisfaction at the way in which assessments are served on soldiers in the firing line—soldiers who are in hospital, soldiers who are on the point of undertaking some hazardous operation in the firing line, have an income tax assessment thrust upon them. I do not think it is fair. I do not think it is right that men who have to undergo this terrible strain should have an assessment form thrust upon them at that time. I think a little discretion should be shown by the department in serving assessment forms on men in the firing line. I have correspondence from a parent who is most indignant that his son, who was lying seriously ill in hospital up North, had an assessment form served on him, and it did not improve his health. This parent has communicated with the Receiver of Revenue and complained about this treatment. I hope that with these few words the hon. the Minister will see that a little discretion is used. I would suggest, as a remedy that assessment forms for those who are fighting in the field should be sent to the adjutant of each regiment, and that he should hand them to his officers or his men, as the case may be, on a suitable occasion. There is another point regarding soldiers which I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister, that is the question of exchange in Italy. I have not the exact figures, but I have had a letter from a soldier who says that the normal rate of exchange for the South African £ is 400 lire, but that the soldiers on being paid, receive only about 130 lire to the £. If that is the case, I think the Minister should look into the matter and if possible arrange for the exchange rate to soldiers to be placed on a equal basis with the civilian rate, that is the normal rate of exchange of the country. With regard to the new tax proposed by the Minister, namely, the extra 2 per cent. on transfer duty, I wish to say how pleased I am that the Minister has met those who are · interested in the sale of property, in not making this tax retrospective. I am very glad he has seen his way clear to meet the people interested and the tax is now accepted by the country as a fair tax. But I would ask the Minister to see that the procedure in registering transfers should be speeded up. The delays which occur in the office of the Registrar of Deeds are simply notorious. It is no exaggeration to say that on some occasions it takes up to four and even six months for transfer to get through the office of the Registrar of Deeds. I ask the Minister to see that these transactions are speeded up, especially in view of the increased taxation. Now I want to make another suggestion that some people may think rather revolutionary. It is recognised by all that the portfolio of Agriculture is a very difficult one, and a very onerous one. We have seen in regard to previous Ministers of that portfolio how they have suffered in health, and we have before us the regrettable incident of the death of the previous Minister of Agriculture, and I have no doubt it is due to the very onerous task which he had as Minister of Agriculture that his untimely death occurred and which we all greatly regret. I would like to congratulate the new Minister on his appointment, and I am not suggesting he is going to crack-up just at the moment; but I want to make a suggestion which I hope he will take into consideration. I know that Boards in South Africa are very unpopular as a rule, and that the country is overboarded, but I want to suggest that another board be appointed, a board to do away with boards. I suggest that a new board be appointed to be known as the Agricultural Board, and when this board is appointed I presume those other boards such as the Mealie Control Board, the Wheat Control Board and the Meat Control Board would be abolished, and that this new board would be given the responsibility of the Agricultural Department in toto. This board, if appointed, should consist of the best brains in the country. I am not suggesting political appointments, but men with brains and experience who will be able to put the Agricultural Department on a proper footing. I suggest that the task of the members should be regarded as a whole-time job, and that their salaries be at the rate of £2,500 a year to enable us to get the best possible men. This board, if appointed, should control our marketing system. They should overhaul the whole marketing system of this country. That is the greatest bugbear of our agriculture, the system of marketing; and I believe if we had a board such as I suggest, comprised of the best brains in the country, that they woud put our marketing on a proper basis. I do not mean that they should take over the actual running of the markets, which are municipal concerns, but they can supervise and see that the system is changed. They could ensure that the producer would get a square deal, and that the consumer would get a square deal, and that the markets are not run simply for the benefit of the middleman. Sir, I commend this suggestion to the Minister of Agriculture.

I am glad the new Minister of Agriculture is in his seat and I want to congratulate him on his appointment. I don’t know whether I should not condole with him on having been given the Portfolio of Agriculture. It has often been said that the Portfolio of Agriculture is the political grave of members of this House. The Portfolio of Agriculture in the political sphere of South Africa could perhaps be compared with the fostering of Indian interests in England. If the Prime Minister in England wants to get rid of a troublesome rival he hands him the Indian problem to solve; he sends Sir Stafford Cripps to India, and that is where he finds his political demise. I think if the Prime Minister wanted to do something of that kind he could have found someone else; surely the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. J. G. N. Strauss) is a most loyal and able supporter of his? There are other members on his side, even in his Cabinet, to whom he could have given that Portfolio, and he would perhaps have achieved the same success as Mr. Churchill achieved in England. It is unnecessary to appoint the Minister of Finance as Minister of Agriculture because he is also loyal and faithful to the Prime Minister, but what about the Minister of Justice? He could have “Gripped” him. We know that the Minister of Justice is a man who pulls strings, and we know he is sabotaging everyone on the other side for his own benefit, and if the Prime Minister had the same political judgment as Mr. Churchill he would have appointed the Minister of Justice as the Minister of Agriculture.

You know that that is untrue.

The Minister of Justice is also a barrister, and if the Prime Minister wanted to appoint a barrister he could have appointed him. The Prime Minister is not only unkind to the hon. member for Germiston (District), but I also feel it can be said that the Prime Minister has been unfriendly towards the farmers of South Africa by appointing someone who is entirely outside the agricultural industry. I do not for one moment want to cast doubts on the devotion, ability and earnestness of the new Minister, but nobody can deny that the new Minister of Agriculture is completely outside agriculture. The farmers therefore feel that this appointment primarily must be regarded as a doubtful appointment, and they are very much concerned about this appointment; they feel it has been an unfriendly one. The Prime Minister apparently felt that himself, because he immediately had to make an apology in his Press for the new appointment, and he said that it had become the custom in South Africa to appoint as Minister of Agriculture people who were not in that industry, and he mentioned the instance of the present High Commissioner in London and the recently deceased Minister of Agriculture. But if anyone ever wants to produce evidence of the fact that a man who is outside agriculture cannot be a success as Minister of Agriculture, then one only has to take the example of the present High Commissioner in London. He conclusively proved that it would be very difficult for a Johannesburg attorney to make a success of the position of Minister of Agriculture. And that is why the Prime Minister had to go out of his way to apologise for the new appointment, and he thereupon said that the hon. member for Germiston (District) was not so entirely divorced from agriculture because he has a rural background—he was born in Calvinia. It reminds one of Lagenhoven’s saying that the “fact that a cat was born in an oven did not make · that cat a loaf of bread”, and even if the Minister was born in Calvinia that fact does not make him a farmer. We know that he has long ago divorced himself from agricultural and from the rural areas. He has become a representative of big interests, an advocate of the Chamber of Mines—all these things go to prove that he has been placed in a very difficult position. I hope the Minister will not, because of his connections with big business, find it impossible to attend to the interests of agriculture. I do not want to be unfriendly towards the Minister but I honestly feel the appointment is not fair to him. However, as the appointment has been made, I want to give him an assurance from our side of the House that we will do everything we can to help him make a success of the most important portfolio in this country. The fact that the Prime Minister had to fall back on a Johannesburg advocate must be regarded as a serious reflection on members opposite, especially on farmer members. Is not there a single farmer member on his side who has the ability to occupy that position? Is there such a dearth of competent farmer members in the opinion of the Prime Minister? Why did he not advertise the post? Isn’t the United Party advertising Parliamentary seats? Anyone who has been reading the newspapers must have seen that a certain number of seats were advertised recently.

Which seats?

Why was not the position of Minister of Agriculture also advertised? The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler), the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson), and the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) could also have applied if the job had been advertised.

You would have been the first.

Yes, the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) would perhaps also have applied, and who knows, with his influence with the Minister of Justice he might possibly have got the job. It is a serious reflection on farmer members opposite, and we cannot be blamed for feeling that there are no members opposite able to look after the interests of the farmers. The Prime Minister himself has no confidence in them. The South African farmers at a time like the present need a particularly sympathetic Minister.

What do you know about the farmers? You are a very bad advocate and a very bad farmer.

And I now hope that as the Minister who has been appointed is still young he will be willing to learn, and that he will prove himself to be a sympathetic Minister of Agriculture. The farmer is also looking for social security today. If there is one section of the community in particular which is looking for social security it is the farmer in South Africa, and the Minister of Agriculture should go out of his way to secure the future of the farmer. What are the farmers’ prospects in South Africa? There is great unrest and great uncertainty. During war time we know that certain products cannot be exported, but what will the position be after the war in regard to export overseas? What, for instance, are the prospects so far as the fruit farmers are concerned? We know we are going to have an impoverished Europe and that there may perhaps not be an export market for our products, especially for our fruit. We find that even our wool industry is threatened and that there is talk of tremendous competition from rayon and synthetic wool, and we do not know whether the wool farmers after the war will be able to depend on any security so far as their product is concerned. So far as the export of our products is concerned, a question arises which will have to have the serious and sympathetic consideration of the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister should not imagine that because there is an apparent prosperity during a time of war agriculture is safe now. On the contrary, so far as the marketing of our products in other countries is concerned the farmer is facing the future with Considerable anxiety.

We want the Government to take steps in advance in regard to post-war conditions. We find that other Governments are doing so. The Australian Government, for instance, is organising the wool farmers of Australia as fast as it can, and is studying the question of what can be done to secure the wool industry after the war. I want the Minister of Agriculture to think in that direction, and I want him to take steps to secure those conditions. But so far as the local marketing of products is concerned there we also feel alarmed at the future. We do not know what is to become of our local markets after the war. At the moment there is a good market as a result of the money put into circulation by the war expenditure, but when the war is over and the depression sets m we may expect a slackening off of the market, and that is why we had hoped that the Government would give this country a marketing system which would give security and safety to the agricultural industry. But the Government’s policy has been very slack, and the Government remains indifferent towards the question of a proper marketing system, Judging from the speech which was made earlier on by the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) there is a strong element in South Africa which is going to attack the Marketing Act.

Hear, hear.

Yes, that hon. member is one of the worst of them. He uses his paper, he uses all the influence he has, and also the influence of the Minister of Justice, to see how far he can incite people against the Marketing Act. That is where the Minister of Agriculture will be faced with his biggest problem. Now I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture not to do an injustice to the farmers of South Africa; this Marketing Act is our Magna Charta. We do not want it tampered with unless it is improved. We do not want it suspended and in that regard we shall keep a careful watch on the actions of the Minister of Agriculture. We shall watch to see whether he listens to the cry put up by speculators, dealers and brokers, and also to the cry of other interests not well disposed towards the farmers, interests which do not care what becomes of farming. We are going to ask the Minister to stand by the farmers and to see to it that the Marketing Act is not touched, and that the Government does not give up the system of control for which provision is made under that Act. The Marketing Act as a matter of fact, was brought into being and the system of control was used for the purpose of improving the position of the farmer when the market suffered from a state of depression, but when the war broke out the Government used the system of control not for the purpose of securing better prices for the farmer, but for the purpose of keeping down prices during war time. We have no objection to that. We do not say the Government has not got the right to step in and prevent prices from soaring during the war, but in that case the Government must not only use the Marketing Act to keep prices in check, it must also establish a proper system of marketing of products for the benefit both of the farmer and the consumer. I want to say this to the Minister. Forget the middleman entirely. He is not entitled to any consideration when it comes to the marketing of products. There are only two sections which are entitled to consideration, that is the farmer and the consumer, and if the Minister approaches the problem from that point of view—from the point of view of those two interests—he will find that we on this side will give him our support. But if he listens to the voice which comes from Hospital and to the voice of other interests representing speculators and traders, which do not represent the interest of the farmer or of the consumer, he will find that we shall put up a big fight against him. We are going to stand bv the farmers and we are going to ask him in those difficult years ahead of us, when there will be serious dislocation, to maintain orderly marketing and to show that he is sympathetically disposed towards the farming industry. Let him remember that if he wants to be a real Minister—a servant of the farmers—and not a servant of other interests at the expense of farming interests. I don’t want to speak at any length. I only want to refer to one final point, to show that the farmers have reason to be anxious, and this point arises from the taxation proposals of the Minister of Finance. There are two small agricultural industries which the · Minister has selected for taxation—and those industries already are the most heavily taxed industries, namely wine and tobacco. I am astounded that the Minister of Finance has not yet taken up the attitude of saying that he has finished taxing those industries. He has taxed them very heavily in the past and in this Budget which, as he has said, he hopes will be the last war budget, the Minister makes a further onslaught on those two industries. We are astounded at the amount which the Minister is getting out of these two comparatively small industries. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he intends reassuring the wine and the tobacco farmers. He has told the public in his budget speech that this tax is not paid by the farmers. That may be the case during the war because there is ample money about, and because of that people can go in for luxury articles such as wine and tobacco. But what will the position be after the war? We want to ask the Minister to promise that he will take this tax into review when the war is over. The fact is that these two branches of the agricultural industry are both branches which even in the past were faced with the problem of over-production. We know that there is a surplus of wine, arid before the war there was also a surplus of tobacco, that being so it will be necessary after the war not to tax these two industries in such a way that the consumption of these particular products will go down in normal times. I want to assure the Minister that with today’s taxation the consumption will go down. It may not perhaps happen during war time but after the war it will go down, and that is why we want an assurance from the Minister in advance that at least after the war, if he cannot do so now, he will review those two taxes. So far as the tobacco industry is concerned there already is a falling off of certain types of tobacco as a result of the existing tax. The Minister last year imposed a tax on pipe tobacco, and do hon. members know what that tax was? The consumption of pipe tobacco in South Africa went down by 24 per cent. That was in war time, so what will the position be after the war. For that reason the pipe tobacco farmers and particularly the small tobacco farmers feel they should be reassured by the Minister that this tax will, not continue after the war—that is, if the Minister is not prepared even at this stage to make a change. If the Minister proceeds with this tax he will dislocate the industry tremendously, and a proportion of our farmers who are comparatively poor will be detrimentally affected, and the whole of their future will be thrown out of gear. There are thousands of tobacco farmers who are making their living out of the tobacco industry. They are producing tobacco, which gives them a gross revenue of £1,600,000 per year. The net revenue cannot be more than about £800,000 and the position today is that whereas thousands of farmers are getting a net revenue of £800,000 out of their tobacco, the Minister of Finance — do hon. members know what the Minister gets out of tobacco? The Minister of Finance gets about £8,000,000. I think the Minister should realise that the relationship is awry. And if the Minister of Finance continues this system of taxation then I predict he is going to wipe out the tobacco industry entirely, and I want to appeal to him to see that that does not happen. If he insists on this tax he should at least promise the tobacco farmers that when the war is over he will review both the tax on tobacco and the excise on wine. There was another matter I wanted to speak about too, but my time is up, so I shall leave it at that.

My time is limited, and I propose therefore to deal briefly with certain aspects of the Budget, and to pass on to deal with certain aspects of taxation, which it will not be possible to deal with at the later stages in the Committee of Ways and Means, and in the passage of the taxation Bills through the House. At the outset I feel that the Minister is due considerable congratulations for his Budget speech. It was a very fine speech, and I think that his Budget in general terms is widely accepted. I think it is a fair Budget, and despite the criticism on the part of some, on whom additional taxation or additional duties are being levied, the Minister has levied the extra amounts on those who can afford to pay them. I think his levy on wine is particularly welcome. How wine could have been allowed to escape an excise duty for all these years, during years when we required so much money for defence expenditure, passes the comprehension of many of us.

What has the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) had to say about that?

The amount of revenue is, of course, governed by the continuation of the Minister’s policy to meet half the defence expenditure from current income. This has involved an additional £1,250,000 in the forthcoming year. There is, however, additional expenditure under a number of other headings, which runs into several million pounds and causes one a little disquiet. Under the many headings, generally throughout the votes, there is additional expenditure, but we have to realise that that expenditure is due to war conditions, is unavoidable, and the responsibility for this extra expenditure can hardly be laid at the door of the Minister. After allowing for reductions in revenue under several headings and for the increased expenditure over and above the expenditure basis for the past year, there is a shortfall of slightly over £5,250,000, and it is this shortfall, which the Minister has had to make good from additional sources of revenue. The Budget he has presented yields all the revenue necessary for the war effort, and that, I feel, is the primary consideration. Small anomalies, little anomalies or inequities, are of no consequence in the big issues before us, and I say again that the new duties are imposed on those, who are able to meet them and stand them. The halt in the increase in the rates of the special war taxes is welcomed, particularly by those taxpayers, who have been singled out specially for heavy taxation, for the discriminatory taxation, which has been imposed as a result of the war. To them and to the critics of the Minister’s taxation policy during the war period, the Budget affords no relief or satisfaction except in two respects. Firstly, no new tax has been levied this year to add to the ten taxes, the ten special war time taxes, levied during the progress of the war. This is a welcome factor, which I hope indicates that we have now reached an end of the policy of multiplying taxes.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When the House rose at the luncheon interval I had just stated that in many respects the Budget was excellent and well received, but that the Minister had done nothing which relieved his critics of their criticism of the taxation measures except for two aspects—firstly, no new tax had been introduced this year to add to the ten war taxes introduced during the war years, an issue which I appreciate, and hope that it will be the forerunner of no further taxation in the shape of new taxes. Secondly, there is the Minister’s remark that a simplification of our tax structure may reasonably be expected, and that “war time taxes must fall away in the transition from a war to a peace time economy. It is a little difficut to understand why we should have to wait until we arrive at peace. It is also difficult to understand the Minister’s statement, in which he said: “It is difficult to stop to repair the weaknesses in a time like the present”. and also: “It will be our task to deal with them as we take in hand the re-adaptation of our system when peace returns”. We hoped for something better, and I would say that despite the Minister’s assertion that “the anomalies and inequities in our system are not as extensive as they are sometimes represented as being”, and his challenge to show him a belligerent country with a system of taxation free from reproach, I should like to ask the Minister to tell this House, which country in the Commonwealth has a tax structure approaching our own in the multiplicity and complexity of discrimatory taxes. I say that in the Commonwealth there is none. I agree that no system is ever free from reproach in the literal sense. I am not critical of minor inequities; they can neither be avoided, nor can they be objected to. The growing tide of objection, and it is a tide which will continue to grow, is directed to the serious and grave anomalies and inequities, the product of a quite unnecessarily complex system, multiple interlocking and pyramiding taxes, some of which are grossly discrimatory, unfair and unjust in conception and in application. Ours is a system which I do submit abounds with serious anomalies. I can give examples, good examples, but time will not permit. A Minister, who introduces a system of taxation measures such as we have had, must, I feel, inevitably expect criticism. I feel he must expect to be asked to redress injustices and grievances and one would normally expect him to welcome representations. It is to me strange that he has been inclined to regard useful suggestions as suspect, and the person making them almost as anti-social, or as a criminal. It is a serious matter and it is strange that, whereas the Minister can introduce an unsound and unjust tax in a time of war, he is only able to think in terms of redress “when peace comes”. Let me take the trades profits special levy. I can see no reason why a tax like the trades profits special levy, which is based on no principle whatever, which is thoroughly bad and obnoxious, should not be removed altogether, and removed now. It is a tax purely on efficiency, levied at source at an average rate of 6s. 8d. in the pound and in its discriminatory effects it can only be described as vicious. It is particularly severe upon persons with smaller incomes—it has not the same severe effect on those with larger incomes. The fact that it is yielding £5,000,000 in revenue is to my mind no argument for its retention. If it is a bad tax yielding that amount it is all the more argument for its early removal. Those who pay this tax, after all is said and done, are in the large majority normal and super tax payers, and the revenue should be raised through the normal and the super tax which are, I submit, absolutely capabale of yielding the amount, and which will do so in a reasonable, fair and equitable manner. This will have the effect of spreading the taxation burden over the broad shoulders of the general body of taxpayers. And if the rates of normal and super taxes are appropriately increased from the bottom to the top—and I make no exceptions—I repeat from the bottom to the top— the required amount of revenue will, I am certain, be forthcoming in a fair and just manner. I only ask for fair play and for the elimination of what is manifestly unfair in our taxation system. Then I come to the excess profits duty, and in particular to its effect on the development of industry. There is no denying that the excess profits duty is an absolutely unsound tax except in one respect, namely it is primarily intended to be a tax at a high rate on excessive profits made through the abnormal conditions in time of war—excessive profits made at the expense of the consumer. In that respect there is much to be said for the tax. For the rest, the tax is in every way negative. It is a tax on brains, energy and enterprise, it is a brake and a handicap on development, and particularly on the development of young and growing concerns. The main problem is not of the Minister’s making. We realise that. It is the failure throughout the world to define satisfactorily excess profit, to define it in a way that the tax will apply to excessive profits or to profiteering. The failure to define it satisfactorily has resulted in a bad compromise, and has resulted in all additional profits made in time of war being subjected to this heavy rate of tax. In cases where there was a substantial pre-war standard of profit there is little or no difficulty. Excess Profit Duty affects particularly new enterprises—some more than others—in which the excess profit is a calculation based upon the capital employed in trade. Where the business is of a nature that requires substantial sums of money, such as banking or a wholesale merchant, there is little fault to be found with this basis. It is, however, quite unsound, where the real capital in a business is measured in terms of brains, energy, enterprise and ability, for which no credit is taken in the capital account. Herein lies the difficulty, but then a further difficulty lies in the statutory percentage of a fixed figure, applied to the capital employed in trade. It is unsound to apply exactly the same rate to every class of business, irrespective of its type or the degree of risk involved, and whether the assets are of wasting character, as in the case of mining, or not; and yet the Excess Profits Duty Act of 1940 did all this without any provision whatever for the establishment of a Board of Referees, which could consider difficult cases and iron out some of the anomalies by award. Banks, merchants, industrialists and mines were flat ironed to 8 per cent. in every case. Naturally, as the Excess Profits Duty increased from 10s. to 15s. in the £, the difficulties have increased. The total tax on excess profit is actually far more than 15s. in the £, because the balance of 5s. remaining after the payment of the 15s. Excess Profit Duty is subject to further taxation; and cases are known to me where the average tax in respect of excess profits is 18s. in the £. The Minister has agreed that the higher the rate of tax the more adverse is the effect of taxation on development. He has cited company returns to establish that there has been no retardation. I submit that is not a fair barometer. A high tax must emphatically impede the development of industry, and if 18s. in the £ is not a high tax, what is a high tax?

Twenty shilling in the £.

There is very little difference between 20s. and the 18s. we have at present. Mr. Speaker, I feel that the time has arrived when the Minister should give this matter his very serious and urgent attention. I feel that it is better to do so now than to wait until peace comes. I feel that it is impossible to abolish the Excess Profits Tax at this stage. I do not see that it is practicable to do so for various reasons, but I do submit that it is practicable to effect some improvements, some alterations in the tax to render it fairer and more equitable and less harsh in its application. I submit that this is practical, and to make a start in doing so without delay will be to start in the right direction; and we will find that when peace comes we will be in the position of being prepared for the peace. My time has expired.

I believe one of the chief tasks of the immediate future will be to remodel our peace-time system of direct taxation. In our post-war planning, direct taxation will occupy a position of pivotal importance. It is clear that our two major objectives in the post-war period are firstly, to develop our national resources in order to increase the national income; and secondly, to bring about a redistribution of income so as to ensure a minimum of well-being for all. It is essential, therefore, to devise a system of taxation which will dovetail with these requirements. Perfection is no doubt unattainable, but it seems to me that the logical steps in that direction are firstly, to abolish all exactions at the source, and tax income only in the hands of the ultimate recipient; and secondly, to abolish the distinction between normal tax and super tax and apply a single graduated scale. The hon. the Minister of Finance has clearly indicated that he is in favour of these changes, at least in principle. It is therefor unnecessary to argue their merits at length. A system of taxation modelled on these lines, would achieve a simplicity which would automatically exclude the possibility of anomalies, and its incidence, however steep, would bear, uniformly on all taxpayers at every income level. And it would have an additional and greater merit. It would enable us to discriminate between two widely different classes of income tax payers. On the one hand, we have a class who by their strenuous èxertions earn an income which is essentially precarious if only because it is subject to the normal vicissitudes of life. Their income must fall off when they are incapacitated by ill-health or old age, and it must cease altogether when they die. On the other hand, we have a class who as a result either of inheritance or of successful enterprise or speculation in previous years, are the owners of fortunes upon the proceeds of which they can live without any need for further exertion. This income will continue to accrue to them when they are ill or old, and, subject only to the death duties, it will be paid to their legatees when they are dead. The existing income tax law recognises no distinction between these two classes; and I believe, Sir, that the time has arrived to impose an additional charge upon the recipients of investment income. A special tax on unearned income is not a new idea, but in view of new and urgent post-war needs, it deserves fresh consideration as the least burdensome form of redistributory taxation. The recipients of investment income enjoy. a highly privileged status. As mortgagees, as holders of debentures and giltedged stock, their claims constitute a first charge upon the annual product of the nation. Therefore any adversity or trade recession affecting the economic life of the country as a whole, cannot appreciably diminish their gross income. During the last ten years alone their share of the annual national product has increased very substantially, and with the continued development of the country they must grow in strength and affluence. An additional impost upon this class can be defended on social as well as economic grounds. Sir, we cannot countenance the growth of a functionless aristocracy in this country; we literally cannot afford it. The Minister, in his Budget speech, emphasised that the new heaven and the new earth could only be purchased by toil and sweat. No class can be exempt from this injunction. The Minister expressed the view that social security would deprive certain elements of the incentive to. work. He expressed this view with just moderation, but there are others who will not scruple or hesitate to use this argument as the spearhead of a concentrated attack on social security. The state, they argue by introducing social security, will lay its dead hand upon the priceless initiative of the ordinary man. If this is true, then those who oppose social security on the grounds that it will deprive the poor of the incentive to work, should, by the same logic, favour a special tax on investment income on the grounds that it will restore the incentive to work to the rich. Yet strangely enough, the opponents of social security are usually the stalwart defenders of a leisured class. They insist that some public benefit arises from the existence of a leisured class, and they fancy they discover some useful function in the lavish expenditure of the rich. But the economist can provide no justification for their indulgence in what has been aptly described as conspicuous waste. The wealth accumulated by their forbears and others on their behalf, employed as capital, no doubt helps to sustain industry, but what they consume in luxury and idleness is not capital, and sustains nothing but their own unprofitable lives. The external evidence of culture, elegance and refinement creates the illusion that a leisured class stands for something important in the life of society, and it is regarded as almost a species of vandalism to tax them out of existence. We are assured that without a leisured class the arts cannot prosper and culture itself must languish. No doubt their patronage extends to the arts, but the artist and the writer whom they select for approval, must reflect their philosophy of life and accept them at their own valuation. Personally, I believe that the artist and the writer have a higher function than to serve as decorative. appurtenances of the idle rich, and the artist and the writer who can find no better market for their wares than the dividend-drawing aesthete will have no place in the more robust world we hope to build. Let us therefore cease to nourish the illusion that a leisured class stands for something important; let them take their proper place as drones in the hive, gorging at a feast to which they contribute nothing. I trust the Minister, when he makes this class the object of his special solicitude, will give due weight to these social and economic considerations. I realise that this special tax cannot be imposed without discrimination. Take, for example, the case of a widow struggling to bring up her children on the moderate savings of her deceased husband. An additional impost on her meagre investment income would be a crushing hardship. It is clear therefore that there must be an inferior limit, say £600 per annum, below which this special tax will not operate. The position would then be that all persons whose investment incomes exceed £600 per annum would have to contribute on a graduated scale on the excess over £600. Personally, I would not hesitate to devise a scale which would produce a really effective discrimination against unearned income. For example, an active businessman or lawyer earning £10,000 a year would be allowed to retain say £6,000, but a person with an inherited £10,000 a year would be allowed to retain only £3,500. Broadly speaking, I believe the effects of those measures would be an increase in the disposition to work, no change in the pulse of enterprise, a moderate but quite supportable fall in the total volume of private savings, and above all a substantial increase in the resources available for social security. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this. If we are to effect a smooth transition from a victorious war to a constructive peace, we cannot rely exclusively on private enterprise, which the Minister described as the mainspring of our system. We must plan for welfare as we do for warfare. It is significant that already many take a grim view of the post-war period. They point to the waste and destruction wrought by this war, to the huge burden of debt we are laying upon the shoulders of posterity, and they predict a prolonged aftermath of poverty and depression. Personally, Sir, I do not share this pessimism. Provided the national effort is properly organised and planned, and provided we are all prepared to work harder than ever before, I think we can face the future with sober confidence. After all, the war, however destructive, cannot affect the fundamental factors making for progress and prosperity. The wealth destroyed by the war is undoubtedly immense, but it represents a minute percentage of the total untapped resources of the earth. As long as the sun shines and the rains fall, as long as the surface of the earth retains its fertility and the bowels of the earth their resources, we shall repair the ravages and replenish the waste; and, moreover, we shall create new wealth, which will not only reach an unprecedented peak, but will, I trust, be more widely diffused among the people.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on the Budget he has brought forward. Very little criticism has been levelled at it, even if we take into account the speech of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). When the Minister delivered his Budget the thought occurred to me that he had rather taken half a bite at a cherry when possibly he had every right to the whole of it. I refer particularly to the increase which he put on the stamp duty on sharebrokers’ notes. He has increased that from 1s. for £100 to 2s. 6d. per £100. In questioning the Minister about the extra revenue he expected to get from this item, he told me that he expected an extra £200,000. That, Mr. Speaker, is quite in contradiction to what I have heard from the brokers themselves. Being a Johannesburg man, I come into touch with a large number of these brokers, and I was told before the hon. the Minister delivered his speech, that he would be very well advised if he increased the stamp duty from 1s. to 5s. per £100. One of the large brokers in Johannesburg told me that if he increased that duty to 5s. per £100, he estimated that five firms in Johannesburg, five large broking firms, would between them collect for the Minister the sum of £1,000,000.

No, no.

The hon. member for George apparently knows more about it than the brokers do themselves. This is not my own information I am bringing, but the information a broker has given to me himself, and I am much more prepared to accept the information that the broker has furnished me with than the contradiction that the hon. member for George has thrown across the floor of the House. Nevertheless, I feel this, that the Minister could very well have increased this tax. He is not hitting the poor man, but he is hitting the rich man. Surely a man who is prepared to buy £100 worth of scrip does not care two hoots whether he pays 1s., 2s. 6d. or 5s. in tax. It is only going to make a difference of a few pence. Take a man who is prepared to spend £1,000 on stock; instead of paying only 10s. he will now pay 22s. 6d. by way of tax. If you put it up to 5s. he will pay 50s. in tax. Do you think that the man who is prepared to spend £1,000 on shares would hesitate for a minute because he has to spend an extra few shillings? Here is a golden opportunity for the Minister to increase that stamp duty up to at least 5s. Furthermore, there is this glorious benefit that the tax is collected at the course. The Minister has no extra expenditure at all in the collection of the tax. I feel that the Minister would be very well advised in increasing the duty as I have suggested, and furthermore when it comes as a suggestion from the brokers themselves I do not think he is going to hurt anybody. My next point is that I would like to urge that all discharged servicemen, members of the U.D.F. should granted some distinctive badge for the service they have rendered to the country. We have heard it stated in this House in reply to questions that approximately 40,000 men and women, Europeans, have been discharged from the army.

Where is your badge?

The hon. gentleman on the other side of the House apparently would like to share in the badges. If they would only come along, join the army and do a job of work, we would be happy to give them a badge. Some of them are better qualified to receive “blowflies” than badges. A large number of servicemen have been discharged from the army, not as the result of any reasons of their own or at their own request. A lot of them have been recalled by the Railways and they have not been discharged as medically unfit. The only men who are discharged from the army today and who are given a badge for the services they have rendered their country are the medically unfit men. But a large number of C gategory men have been recalled from the army, particularly by the Railways and the municipalities and the public service. A large number of A and B category men have. been recalled to the public service, because it was thought they were more urgently needed in their jobs in the public service than in the army. These men have done splendid service for the country, and it was no wish of their own that they were recalled. Still, they feel that they are going round the country under a cloud. Some of them are fairly young men and as they walk around they can sense the feeling that they should be in uniform. Accordingly, I am making the plea on behalf of all ex-servicemen that some distinctive badge should be given to them in view of the services they have rendered; the only exception I would make is that the man must not have been dishonourably discharged. The third point I want to make is on behalf of prisoners of war who escaped to Switzerland. I wish some of the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House would be in the places of those men in Switzerland. We would have less interruption from them perhaps. I put a question to the Minister of Social Welfare asking him what steps he is taking to enable escaped South African soldiers in Switzerland who cannot be repatriated immediately or in the near future, to continue their studies or vocations. The Minister’s reply was—

I appreciate that the Minister has possibly done his best, but I feel that this reply is a little unsatisfactory and that something more could be done on behalf of these men. We are not at war with Switzerland and surely a book entry could be made in respect of the expense. The men in Switzerland at the present time could be paid an extra amount through our Government. I understand that the amount the men receive is only £3 a month. These men are walking round as civilians. Surely to goodness we cannot expect our men over there to be able to exist on £3 a month. A large number of these men are young fellows who would like to continue their studies. I have heard criticisms in this House, particularly from the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) in regard to the Jewish Board of Deputies. I know nothing about the Jewish Board of Deputies, but I have heard that they are doing a very fine job of work in rendering financial assistance to various people, and I suggest that if we can only establish a similar system to that operated by the Board of Deputies it would be able to do a very fine piece of work for our men in Switzerland. I recommend that we might take a leaf out of the book of the Jewish Board of Deputies and thus assist our prisoners of war. We have a fund, this Prisoners of War Fund, which has collected a vast sum of money, and I have been wondering whether we could not use that fund to augment the fund for paying these men who are in Switzerland. I know that the Minister will say that the Geneva Convention comes into this matter, but I feel there is always another way of getting things through, and if other people can do it surely we can do it. And I am confident—I am only putting the suggestion to the Minister —that the prisoners of war fund could be used to get money there. It would not exactly be a Government contribution, but I say it with this reservation, that I expect the Government to honour any payment by that Prisoners of War Fund, and to reimburse that particular fund after the war. I make these two pleas on behalf of the soldiers.

I think the Minister of Finance received very good advice from the last three speakers about the taxes he has imposed and the taxes which should have been imposed, instead of those which he proposes to levy. The hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) criticised the Excess Profits Tax, and like the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) told us in his speech at the beginning of this debate, that hon. member also said that the excess profits tax was smothering development of our industries. Then the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) complained that the people returning from the front could not find work. We have also noticed from the Press that men returning from the war cannot find work. It is a most short sighted policy on the part of the Government and on the part of the Minister of Finance to smother industrial development by means of taxation and thus destroy it completely in many respects. We talk a lot about social security. The only way to bring about social security is to provide suitable work for those people when they return. We should realise that some of the business concerns where those people were employed when they joined up are not in a position today to take those people back because they are doing no business. Even if they are compelled by legislation to re-employ those men they will avail themselves of the first possible opportunity to retrench them. I want to say this about the last three speakers, that they properly criticised the Minister’s taxation proposals, but I did not hear one of them say the time had now arrived to cut down the war expenditure. I have been listening to all the speeches which we have had here for nearly three days during this budget debate from the other side of the House, and I have not heard a single one of those members say that the time had arrived to cut down war expenditure. On the contrary; only yesterday, one of those hon. members opposite said that our national debt had increased by £184,000,000 and he added: “But, after all, what is that”? He also told us that what we could not pay should be left to posterity to pay. He said: “It must be left to posterity”. I am afraid posterity will want to know, if it is left with that debt to pay, what return it has been given for that debt.

They will say we are rotten ancestors.

They will want to know what they have got for that debt, and then we on our side will have to say that we fired everything away through the barrels of the guns and that we have nothing to show for it. For that reason I think the Minister should at least go so far as to protect our industries, so that they can develop, and so that the people coming back from the war will find work. Who could ever have dreamed that after five years of war our expenditure would still be going up today, and that the country would have to bear extra taxes to an amount of £5,000,000 in order to cover that increased expenditure. When I left for this Session of Parliament I expressed the hope, and I said that I was confident, that this year at any rate our taxes would not be increased, but that we would rather reduce the taxes because we would be reducing our war expenditure. But what do we find now? We find that we have to pay another £5,000,000 in taxation. If we want to know why the expenditure has gone up all we have to do really is to look at the way the money is being spent by the Department of Defence. Is there any need today to keep on spending the money we are spending today? Is it not high time that we reduced that expenditure which we are devoting to defence at the present moment? I would almost make bold to say that all we need in South Africa today to maintain law and order is an increased police force. Let hon. members go to Green Point and other places and see what is going on there? We could almost say that a bitter war was still being waged.

Just look at the trains.

Yes, on the trains the position is probably more noticeable than anywhere else. If one sees the way soldiers travel up and down one wonders what these people are doing and where they are going. Look at the crowd of lorries and motor cars that are used by the Defence Department. All of them have good tyres and it does not look as if there is a scarcity of petrol. Yet we are told today that the rubber position is very serious, and the public cannot get any tyres. In my district perhaps 25 people apply for tyres and only three or four applications are granted. There is one thing which the Government should realise, and that is that motor transport, plays a most important part in farming nowadays. Animals are not used to any extent and the farmers use motor transport, but we are handicapped in every possible way today—we are handicapped so far as tyres and petrol are concerned, and new cars and lorries are absolutely unobtainable.

And tractors are not obtainable either.

Yes, that is so, and the tractor is also a most important thing today in farming. When we come to the taxes that are imposed by the Minister we are struck by the fact how that it is so easy for the Minister to find money. He decides that he needs £5,000,000 and he simply imposes taxes on things which we can do without.

Unfortunately we all have to die.

Yes, that is so. One thing we should remember is that these taxes which the Minister is imposing are additional to the taxes which are already in existence. The old taxes which were imposed some time ago are still there. People did not think the Minister would be able to find anything more to tax. But all those old taxes remain and now we find that another £5,000,000 have to be found as well. All these are extra taxes. The Minister has imposed those taxes so glibly and so easily, but our experience of taxation has taught us that once a tax is imposed it is not taken off very easily. I doubt whether, even when the war is over, it will be easy to get these taxes taken off. The hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) in reply to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) said: “Look how prosperous and well-to-do South Africa is.” Well, we admit that there is an apparent prosperity in this country, but the man who comes and tells us that South Africa will continue to be prosperous must be a man who cannot see very far beyond his nose. As sure as night follows day, a reaction will set in.

Here we have another Jeremiah.

As sure as night follows day, a reaction will set in. We know what the reaction was after the last war, and we know the bad times we had to go through. We recollect only too well what type of a Government we had in power at the time. Unfortunately that same Government is in power again. When that reaction sets in, and we have to pass through difficult times again, the country in all probability will do exactly as it did before and give that Government a rest. I heard hon. members opposite say: “Look at the industrial development we have in this country.” I have always been looking for that industrial development but I can’t find it. All I can find is that people are recruited for the ammunition and war equipment factories. We have our iron and steel industry which could have been of great benefit to this country—what is that being used for? The industrial development of this country is concentrated on the manufacture of war equipment, and after the war those industries will disappear as sure as anything. As I have already said, the only way to look after those people who will be returning from the front is to provide them with good employment, and that can only be done by means of the country’s industrial development. When we talk about the reaction which will come about after this war I want to say that the time will come when certain countries in the world will have famine and starvation to contend with. When our farmers were asked to produce, and to keep on producing, they reacted magnificently to that request. The time will come perhaps when we shall be able to contribute our share, if we can spare a little, to help in feeding other countries, because the man who does not help when other countries are starving is no good. But we should be encouraged by the Government to produce, we should have that encouragement now, we should be encouraged to develop; but when we are asked to produce and to keep on producing, the Government should assist us to do so. So far I have not seen anything of that assistance. So far I have seen nothing but discouragement where the question of production is concerned. Now I want to say a few words about the farming industry. Whenever one thinks about farming the first thought arising in one’s mind concerns the control boards. We on this side of the House are not opposed to control boards, but it does appear to me that the control boards are trying to do the impossible, or otherwise they are trying to do too much. We don’t know where the fault lies, but my experience of the Mealie Control Board and of the administration of that Board is that not a single individual in this country affected by that Board or its control has not found fault with it. Even today we do not know yet how the farmers have managed to overcome their difficulties? The farmer who has to feed a lot of natives or coloured workers on his farm and who has to get his mealies from the Control Board found that it took him weeks and weeks, and perhaps months, before he got his mealies, and in the meantime he had to do the best he could. I am afraid my time is up, but there is one question I do want to touch upon and that is the meat position in the country. When speaking about control boards we think the Meat Control Board has done pretty good work. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture is here. I. don’t think I can teach him anything but perhaps we can teach each other something. The control which has been exercised to ensure that no undue quantities of meat are sent to one market has had a good effect. That certainly is the position in regard to the Cape Town Market, and even more so in regard to the Johannesburg Market where a tremendous amount of speculation took place in cattle which was sent there in large quantities. There control has had a good effect. But we now find that the Government wants to go still further. Some time ago it appointed a Commission which travelled all through the country. That Commission issued its report and made certain recommendations. I understand that the Government has adopted those recommendations in general, but now we have again had this unfortunate position which we also had at the time the wool agreement was made.

I am not going to say anything about the wool agreement now, although I could say a lot about it, but the procedure which was followed before Mr. Attlee and Mr. Waterson signed the agreement led to it only being signed two or three years after it had come into operation. This thing was always like a sword hanging over the heads of the farmers. It dislocated the market. We never knew exactly where we were. As the Government has now accepted the recommendations of the Meat Commission, and as the Government apparently is preparing a scheme, we want to urge that that scheme be placed into operation at once, or be published at once, so that the farmers may know where they are. I received a letter this morning from some one in my constituency, and that letter, inter alia, contains this—

We want to urge the Minister of Lands to see to it that this scheme is worked out and published at once. We want him to give his attention to the question immediately, so that these people may be put out of their anxiety, and we want him to publish the scheme so that the farmers may know where they are.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Finance most heartily on the magnificent and outstanding budget which he has placed before the House. I have had the privilege these last three or four years to hear the Minister submit excellent budgets to this House. I cannot help thinking however, that this budget which he has now introduced excels his previous budgets to such an extent that I can only describe it as the masterpiece of a master brain.

Who said that?

I don’t blame my hon. friend, because a man whose brain is too small cannot appreciate a master brain. This budget in my humble opinion is a symbol of brain power and of talent. There are a few questions in the budget with which I do not agree, but my disagreement is only a difference of opinion, and it is not fundamental.

Now the great brains differ.

I have no time to listen to these trivial interjections from the Opposition; my time is too limited, to allow me to deal with interjections. First of all there is the tax on wine. If I have to judge from my experience of taxes levied on drink in previous budgets, I can only hope that this tax on fortified wines will help to increase the consumption of fortified wine, and to make the consumption bigger than it has been in the past. It is an extraordinary thing in man’s make-up that when he is forbidden to do a thing he goes out of his way to do what he would never have done if there had been no prohibition. If we judge by the taxes imposed in previous budgets, I cannot help thinking that fortified wine in future is going to be drunk on a bigger scale than it has been in the past.

You are talking nonsense now and you know it.

It has been proved. I have no time to deal with these interruptions, but it has been proved that whenever the Minister has taxed drink, the consumption has gone up, and that also applies to cigarettes. Cigarette smoking has increased tremendously in spite of the tax on cigarettes.

Why don’t we tax wheat to make the wheat farmers more prosperous.

I want to put this question to the Minister. In view of the fact that we know that the consumption of liquor increases in war time and that the demand for liquor increases—perhaps because there is more money in circulation, and otherwise ….

And especially the otherwise.

I am taking no notice of the interruptions from the other side, and I want to ask hon. members to keep quiet. I kept quiet when they spoke. I want, to ask the Minister to assure us that when the war is over this tax will be one of the first to be reviewed. We should remember that the wine farmer has had to contend with very difficult conditions in the past, and that he has had a hard struggle. Under very unfavourable financial conditions the wine farmers have had to struggle to get the wine industry back on a sound basis. They succeeded in their efforts by making sacrifices, by using all their energies, by means of hard work, and by displaying great business ability, and I am afraid that if this tax continues after the war it may affect the consumption of liquor and it may have a detrimental effect on the wine farmer. I therefore want t.o ask the Minister to take this tax off after the war. Too many people are disposed to look at the Budget from the point of view of what they get out of it. I have never worried about the question of what a man who can work for himself, who can apply his own talent and his own brainpower to make his way, can get out of the Budget, or can make in any other shape or form. The only question that concerns me is this: What are the possibilities for the future as a result of the Budget? We know there are people who have to live on charity. If a man is physically incapacitated, or is unfit or unable to look after himself, it is the duty of the State to take charge of him. But if a man or a woman can look after himself, the only duty the State has is to provide the potentialities to that individual to enable him to look after himself; and that being the case I am not so much concerned with the charity that is provided by the Budget, as I am with the potentialities which are created.

Who has to get that charity?

Take the aged people, take the semi-fits and unfits who have to get charity and who cannot look after themselves; I shall come back to that point. When I think of how the former Minister of Finance, whom I always looked upon as a very competent Minister of Finance, had to struggle year after year to make his Budget balance without additional taxation, and if at that time anyone had said that within four years we would have to find £331,000,000 for any patricular purpose, it would have sounded so fantastic that we would have replied that the man making such a statement was bereft of his senses, and should be taken to a lunatic asylum, but in spite of that the present Minister of Finance managed to find his £331,000,000, and he has found it in a way to which this country cannot take exception—it does not matter which section of the population it is—nobody can take any exception. Of course, nobody likes paying taxes. We do not mind what other people pay so long as we ourselves do not have to pay. Practically everyone takes up the attitude : “Find the money but. let me off. So long as I am let off I am satisfied. But the war must be won, cost what it may, so long as I am let off paying taxes …. let anyone else pay, but. spare me.” That seems to be almost everybody’s slogan. “Let me have the right to make money in every possible way.” There are too many people who regard this war as their great opportunity to fill their pockets in every possible way. While the one section is fighting and struggling and dying and suffering privations, the other section tries by legitimate or illegitimate means to fill its pockets out of the war. If people make money legitimately I have no fault to find. People who produce indispensable essentials and supply those essentials and who help to provide various requirements for the war effort, and who exert all their efforts and make sacrifices for the sake of the war effort—we find them in the production of food, in secondary industries, and in the field of labour on farms, in the mines and factories, in commerce, in the Public Service, we find them in every sphere during this time of war, we find them honestly doing their duty to the country at a time like the present when all these services and all this production are essential—if those people by their efforts help in winning the war in an honest manner, and are compensated for the work they do, then I say that they honestly earn the money they make. The country demands it of them, and we cannot expect them to do it for nothing. But when we come to deal with a section which is only out to fill its pockets out of the war, and which wants to exploit the sacrifices, the privations, and the blood, and sorrow of the poor Afrikaners, of our soldiers and their dependents, to make big profits—for such people I have no sympathy and no mercy. My advice to the Minister of Finance is to see that every possible step is taken to get out of their pockets the money which has found its way there by these devious methods. Many people by their work on the home front are rendering just as useful services as the soldiers on the war front. But the profiteer who makes usurious profits is a curse to the country and an enemy of all that is noble, upright, praiseworthy and uplifting in our patriotism, as well as an enemy of the best interests of the country. People who deserve the best South Africa can afford to give them are the returned soldiers, the people who are willing to sacrifice their lives and all they have in the interest of their mother country. They have saved South Africa. They have upheld our reputation. They have raised our prestige. They have secured fresh glory for this country and they have created a new future for South Africa. They have renewed and stabilised our national pride. These people must be looked after from now on. We would be failing in our duty if we dare allow them to be neglected or to be overlooked. South Africa and the world will not tolerate it and will not allow it. The events in Russia should be a warning to us. The days of luxury and abundance on the one hand and poverty and misery on the other have gone for ever. It is no use our shutting our eyes to facts. The war has roused feelings and there has been a new awakening among the masses. If we refuse to face these new developments, we shall be forced to do so. What has happened in Russia may also happen in other countries, and it will happen here if we try to evade our duties and our responsibilities to the less privileged classes. I mention this because one of the faults I have o find with the Budget is that it does not go far enough in that respect. I am not so much concerned with financial or materialistic help. Create the possibilities, make it possible for everyone who wants to work and to develop, to help himself and to work out his own salvation. Create the opportunity. Give these people their chance, and teach these people to go ahead by training them to bring about their own independence. Big salaries and big earnings can be dissipated by careless and thriftless individuals, they may be wasted to the detriment of their families. I therefore say give everyone better and cheaper housing. Give everyone the necessary training, education and learning. Give everyone free or cheap medical attention; give everyone employment at a wage which will enable him to live decently with his family. Look after the sick and the aged. Care for the helpless, the unfit, and the semi-fit. Provide for the widows and the orphans. Let us make provision for essential services for the unfit and the less privileged. Create markets, create stability and security of prices for the producers and the manufacturer as well as for the labourer. The labourer is often menaced by unemployment and low wages, the primary producer is threatened by droughts, floods, crop failures and low prices.

On a point of order I should like to have a ruling from the Chair whether an hon. member is entitled to read his speech?

No other industry can be affected to the same extent as the agricultural industry can as the result of various repercussions. We have three sources for the creation of wealth, namely mining, agriculture and secondary industries. When agriculture is affected in any way whatsoever the repercussions are far-reaching. It is only the producers and his whole family and the workers and their dependants who are affected, but the whole trade in agricultural implements, machinery, and essentials in every other respect are affected. The Railways are affected, our postal system is affected, the Treasury is affected, and the country’s whole economic structure is affected. Other concerns can cut their losses by passing them on to others. The agriculturist cannot do so. He cannot pass on the results of crop failures, droughts and so on. He has to be satisfied with what he gets for his products. Look at what the wheat farmers more especially have managed to do during the past few years by means of a stable market and fixed prices. They have avoided the possibility of our having to resort to Burton bread. Let hon. members think of the discomfort they have saved this country. Let hon. members remember the saving in shipping for which they have been responsible. When no shipping was available they provided the country’s requirements. The wheat farmers have gone ahead and on those fixed prices, prices which did not give them a big profit but which enabled them to produce, they saved the country at a critical period. The only thing our farmers ask is: “Give us stable markets, assure us of prices for our products which will give us a living. Provide us with social security and we shall contribute towards providing social security for others.”

Before I say a word or two to the hon. Minister about his very excellent and his almost universally very well received budget I want to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) on the first day of this debate. It was on Thursday last. The hon. member will forgive me if I say that his remarks were in exceedingly bad taste.

Do you think so? I have more brains than you have and I am better educated too.

We have all known the hon. member for Swellendam to be a very hard fighter, a very determined fighter, but with it all, he has always been · clean in his fighting. I want to say that on this occasion the hon. member quite forgot himself

Why do you then talk such a lot about it if you think so?

And his remarks were certainly hitting below the belt. I have tried to discover …

Get on with your speech.

I think I listened to the hon. member without any serious interruption by me, and would ask the hon. member to accord and to extend to me the same courtesy. I have tried to discover the reason for the hon. member’s extraordinary behaviour, and I have perhaps hit upon a possible explanation. My first thought was that—to use the words of the late John X. Merriman—the hon. member for Swellendam was “intoxicated with the exuberance of his own verbosity”.

That was said long before John X. Merriman was born.

But Sir, I came to the conclusion that neither the hon. member’s verbosity nor the exuberance thereof is likely to intoxicate anyone, not even the hon. member himself. My next thought was, perhaps the very excellent K.W.V. wine, about which all this fuss is being made, had something to do with it.

Talk some sense; talk about the budget.

But knowing the hon. member for Swellendam as well as I do, I feel I must eliminate that line of thought. Then I looked back on the results of the last general election, the results as they affected the hon. member for Swellendam, and I think therein lies the explanation of the hon. member’s strange conduct. If the results are referred to it will be found that in the 1938 election the hon. member had a majority of something like 450. On the last occasion—the 1943 election—he had a majority of only 170.

Who was responsible for the delimitation?

I suggest that the real and only explanation of the hon. member’s conduct is that the voters of Swellendam tried to administer a knock-out blow to the hon. member for Swellendam, but they did not quite succeed. They did, however, succeed in delivering a great many effective punches to the hon. member’s solar plexus, and that, I say, accounts for his strange behaviour. The hon. member is really “punch drunk” as a result of having to take heavy punishment in the last election. Now we hear from the hon. member that he has organised a number of protest meetings, some of which have already been held. I express the fervent hope that those protest meetings are not going to be “armed protest” meetings and that the parties protesting will not march to the House in a body, each armed with a large bottle of the very excellent K.W.V. wine which the hon. member is trying so hard to have freed from taxation. If they do that—if each comes so armed—I can see all of us capitulating, not even excluding the hon. Minister himself Now I go on to deal with one or two items in the budget. In the first place I want to refer to this extra tax by way of a surcharge on transfer duties. I think I can fairly claim a modicum of credit for having that tax imposed because during last session’s budget debate I remember advocating that that was an avenue which the Minister might possibly explore. I am glad to see that the Minister has explored that avenue, but I am sorry that he is not levying a much higher amount. As the hon. Minister explained transfer duty in this country has been as high as 12 per cent., and I do not think that an additional 2 per cent. will be very greatly felt. Of course there has been a certain amount of objection to this tax, but I would like to say that any objection does not come from the purchasers of property. They are quite willing to pay the additional tax. The objection comes, as is always the case. from the people who see in the tax some means of preventing them from making further profits. I refer particularly to the speculators in land and people in that line of business. I would ask the Minister therefore to take no notice of their objection. The surcharge on transfer duty has been well received throughout. I now want to refer to tax evasions. I made a few remarks on the last Budget debate, and a few days ago I put a question on the Order Paper and asked the Minister to supply me with certain details in regard to income tax. I want to give the House the Minister’s replies to those questions. First of all let me say that from the 1941-42 report of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue, it appears that there were 147 cases of investigation into the books of income tax. payers and that the total amount of tax, both normal and super tax, assessed by way of penalty and additional tax, was £150,232. That was in the year 1941-’42. There were no prosecutions in that year. I asked the Minister to let me have the figures for 1942-’43, and this is what has been supplied. The number of investigations that took place in that year was 203; the total amount of penalties and additional tax imposed was £148,787, and there were no prosecutions. My point about those figures is this, that there is evidently a very serious evasion and a large number of evasions, because if the authorities undertook Investigations in the case of 203 taxpayers last year, we may be quite sure that a great many of them—additional to the 203 cases of last year—got away with it without having any investigation at all. In view of the large number of evasions that have taken place, and are continually taking place. I want to impress on the hon. Minister that the only way to deal with these chronie tax evaders will be to impose a prison penalty. It is no good fining these people once, twice or thrice the amount of the tax. In addition to that the authorities have the power under the Income Tax law also to imprison an offender, and my suggestion to the Minister is, with a view to stopping this abuse, and stopping this growing practice of evading the just and lawful taxes, that the Minister should make an example of a few of these people, and I am quite sure it will have a very excellent result in stopping, or considerably curtailing, these evasions. The hon. Minister told us too that he intended adding an additional tax on stock brokers’ transactions. I wish to say that I think the Minister should have gone very much further than he has. I think this is a form of transaction that can very well pay a larger amount of taxation. After all why should people who deal in stocks and shares—I mean the share speculator—make profits which are not subject to income tax? No one pays income tax on the profits he makes on the Stock Exchange. Why should people like this pay a lesser tax than the man who makes profits on the race course? Profits made on the race course pay a betting tax. Why should people who gamble on the Stock Exchange be in a more favourable position? I think the hon. Minister might consider the question of increasing that source of revenue. I think it can stand it, and I do not think there will be the slightest objection from the people affected. Whilst dealing with the question of Stock Exchange transactions I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he will not take into consideration the question of reviewing and revising our present Stock Exchange Law. As hon. members know, the position is that the Stock Exchange is controlled under Act No. 34 of 1909 of the Transvaal. It is a preUnion law, administered by the Province. The Union Government has nothing to do with the control, and as I understand the position, the Stock Exchange is run and controlled by a committee, and that committee consists exclusively of stock brokers themselves. In my view that is a very unhealthy and a very unsatisfactory position. We know that large amounts of public money pass through the Stock Exchange, and that the position today is not the same as it was when this law—the Stock Exchange Law— was passed in 1909. It has progressed very considerably since then, and I think the time has arrived for the Government of the day to go fully into the question with a view to some better form of control, some control that would give more confidence in the dealings on the Stock Exchange and in the general conduct of the Stock Exchange. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind, and that in replying to this debate he will give us an undertaking that he will do something of this kind. Finally—I am afraid my time is limited—finally there is just a point I want to make about Unit Securities or Unit Certificates. This is a matter to which I referred in the last Budget debate during the last Session of the last Parliament, and there I made it quite clear that I was not attacking the financial stability of these institutions or the integrity of the persons carrying on these businesses. I know nothing about them—nothing to their detriment. I myself have invested a few pounds in them, and as far as I can see their financial stability is unquestionable. But on the last occasion I did refer to the potential danger that I saw in this position. There is a directorate of, say, five men who constitute the board of one of these unit certificate companies. This board buys up large numbers of shares in the various gold mining and industrial companies. Let us take one example. Take the oldest of these companies, Unit Certificates. I think I am right in saying that they have reached about 50 units already and a unit, roughly speaking, consists of from 10,000 to 12,000 shares, so that it will be seen that Unit Certificates alone has 500,000 shares registered in its name. It is necessary for us as legislators to sit up and to take notice in regard to this aspect, namely whether these few directors will not gradually get into their hands an almost complete control of one or other of these gold mining or industrial companies; and the question we have to ask ourselves is whether it is desirable that that should take place. On the last occasion when I spoke about this subject, I said there were three unit certificate companies in existence. Now I understand there are five. One Afrikaans unit certificate company has just been formed and only the other day the National Unit Certificates Company was formed in Johannesburg. So we now have five of these companies, and this fact gives point to my suggestion that it is time that we should go into the question of exercising some form of control. These institutions handle a great deal of public money. We have exercised, and are exercising, control in the case of building societies and I see no reason why these companies—the Unit Certificates and similar companies should be excluded. The Minister has told us that he proposes taxing these companies and that a certain tax is to be paid on the certificates they issue, but that is not enough; proper and efficient control is needed. Then I also wish to say that the mere fact that these companies have increased in numbers—and increased in a very short space of time, is an indication that there must be a considerable amount of profit being made, I cannot conceive that their service charge is their only means of income. Well, Sir, if I am right in saying that big profits are being made, there is a danger of mushroom companies of this type coming into existence, because of the profits that are being made. There is another point, to which I wish to direct attention and that is that these companies are advertising very extensively, and there is the danger that other companies with less security, and with weaker foundations financially, will come forward and set up these unit certificate companies because at the present time there is no control whatsoever. There is nobody to whom applications must be made, and I say that the time has arrived for the Government to take in hand the question of control, to devise some means whereby any company wishing to undertake this kind of business, is properly controlled, and that it must make its application to the proper quarter. There is one other point in regard to the question of unit certificates. I am not at all sure that this extensive advertising of unit certificate companies is not in conflict with the provisions of the Transvaal Stock Exchange law, No. 32 of 1909. In that law a stock broker wishing to advertise has to get the permission either of the committee in charge or of some other authority. The underlying idea is, of course, perfectly correct and sound, that we do not want extensive advertising in this type of business. In my view, these unit certificate companies fall within the definition of stock brokers, and if that is so. I see no reason why they should be allowed to advertise as extensively as they are doing, when the ordinary stock broker is prohibited from doing so, and I suggest that this side of the question should be explored with a view to bringing these companies into line with the ordinary stock brokers. Large amounts are being spent on advertisements. The daily press does not publish these advertisements for nothing, and all over the place one sees these advertisements. The companies are vying with each other to get advertising space and I say again this is a matter that should be carefully looked into. Finally …

That is the third time you have said finally.

In any case my time is up, so I shall not deal with my last point.

I would like to say on behalf of the agricultural community on this side of the House that we extend a very hearty welcome to our new Minister of Agriculture. We feel that it is not necessary for a man to be a practical farmer to make a success of a job of this kind. We have the wonderful example of the British Minister of Agriculture who came to that position without any farming knowledge, and he has been the most successful Minister of Agriculture Britain has ever had and I hope we will have the same thing happening in South Africa. I can assure the Minister that so far as we farmers are concerned we will do everything we can to make his task an easy one and to help him through his difficulties. The principal point I should like to deal with is the danger of inflation. I feel that this is a very real danger in South Africa. I realise that the Government has been very wide awake to the danger and that it is doing everything it possibly can to prevent it. But pressure is continually being brought to bear on every side and it is their task to resist this pressure. People want increased wages, increased prices for products, and so on, and unless we have a very strong Government we will find that the position will get out of hand and that our last state will be very much worse than the first. We find the same tendency in America. There again I think the best interests of the country can be served by a sensible regulation to prevent prices, and the charges for commodities and for things generally, getting completely out of hand. We have a shortage of goods in this country and we have an increased spending power. Money is undoubtedly piling up in the banks and people cannot find investments for their money. It is becoming quite a worry to them. I heard some remarks from the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) that were not received too well on the other side of the House. Hon. members opposite are, I think, suffering from this form of monetary embarrassment, from having too much money. I should like to suggest that instead of leaving too much of the cost of this war to be paid by posterity it would be a good thing if some of this money was taken today. I feel that increased taxation could quite well be stood by many people who have made a lot of money in this war. I refer particularly to excess profits and the profits that have been made during the war. I think that the Government was altogether too generous in allowing 12 per cent, interest on capital before excess profits are taxed on individual incomes. I think that that basis could be very well revised, and we could take more of these war profits in order to assist in paying the cost of the war and in order to help in the rehabilitation of the men who have fought for us, in order to institute social security and national health services. I think these various objectives are so desirable and so necessary that the Minister will be quite justified in taking a larger share of these excess war profits. I am pleased to see in this connection that the Minister is tackling this question of the purchase of farms and the method that is being employed of manipulating the income tax in order to evade proper taxation. The condition that a person is allowed to spend a considerable sum of money on permanent improvements as a set-off against income, Is I think not necessary today. I feel that with the shortage of material, with the shortage of labour and with the necessity of concentrating on our war effort, that money, time and material could be very much better expended in the national interest in helping to win the war. I think that is a point that could have been taken notice of. I was very pleased to notice the approach of the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) to the question of co-operation in farming matters in place of hitting each other by making bitter speeches. That is a point I welcome. I have worked with the hon. member on agricultural unions, and also with other members on that side of the House, and we have always been able to co-operate on agricultural questions, and I hope that that spirit will continue and that we shall be able to elaborate it and do much better work in that way. I shall do everything I can at all times to carry that out. Then there is another point I should like to touch upon, and that is the interest taken recently in the meat marketing proposals of the Government. This is a question I had a lot to do with, and I think we can all agree that the time is long overdue for this question to be tackled. The Government, we feel, was rather long in getting really to grips with the problem. But possibly the time that we spent on it may have been well spent. We do feel that now the matter has been thoroughly investigated by an independent commission, a commission presided over by a leading commercial man. The commission has recommended that steps should be taken along the lines consistently advocated by the agricultural unions of this country. Now if we can get an impartial commission to put forward a report that is so obviously along the right lines, I think that the time has arrived when we should concentrate in every way to give effect to those recommendations and make a success of the job. I was very disappointed to find that two or three hon. members were still full of doubts and difficulties, particularly the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). I am sorry he is not in his place because I would like to say that I feel the hon. member is inclined to exaggerate the importance of the opinions of a few disgruntled individuals and not to pay sufficient attention to the opinions of the organised bodies affected. The hon. member should be aware that a very important meeting was held at Maritzburg, a thoroughly representative meeting of farmers, who had been considerably stirred up and who were somewhat doubtful as to what would happen; that meeting decided wholeheartedly to support those proposals. They were a representative body. The only little doubt they had was lest these recommendations might be confined to the emergency period. They wanted them to be part of a permanent scheme. Practically their only objection was that they were afraid they might not be permanent, that farmers might be deprived of getting a high price for their slaugther stock during this very scarce period, and then when the emergency has passed they may again be thrown to the wolves. That feeling is, I think, the only little bit of opposition that I could gather from the whole of those arguments; and the hon. member for Pinetown rather gave the impression that the Government had been very remiss in not bringing their proposals in a detailed form into the House so that we could discuss and debate them. I think the hon. member knows that it is not very often great decisions are reached as a result of debates in this House and he will admit that the Government has made a statement satisfactory from the national point of view,, while a statement of the sort he suggested would only create suspicion and not bring about a satisfactory settlement. The hon. member also referred to the marketing boards, and he indicated that he would be very pleased if the Marketing Council and the Boards could be done away with. He indicated that co-operation was not popular in Natal. He instanced the case of the F.C.M.I. that operated 24 years ago, but I think Natal has forgotten that episode. There are several successful efforts on record. There are the wool selling organisations and there are one or two efforts equally successful. I would just like to mention that the farmers in Natal are co-operating very strongly, endeavouring to bring about an improved method of marketing milk, and improved methods for the dairy industry, and one of the obstacles in that co-operation is a large estate that was left to the Government for the benefit of the education of native, coloured and European children, I refer to the Baynesfield Estate, of which the hon. member for Pinetown is one of the executors. That body has been a thorn in the flesh of the farmers in Natal when they have tried to co-operate; so I feel that this question of co-operation in Natal is not a question that they are so scared of. They are trying very hard by improved organisation to bring about better supplies of dairy produce and better distribution. There is a very strong feeling that something should be done at an early stage to bring the marketing of fresh milk under better control than it is at present. The marketing of fresh milk is not under the Dairy Control Board. It was for a short time, but it was found that the way in which the Board was operating the scheme was ultra vires and since that time various attempts have been made to bring fresh milk under a properly organised system of marketing, but all these attempts have failed. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the time has arrived when people in our large towns cannot go on paying the very high prices they are now having to pay for milk. I think that this essential foodstuff should be made available at all times in adequate quantities and at a cheaper price than is possible under the present system. I think that could be done under a system of rationalised distribution, under a body such as the Dairy Control Board. I think it is essential that the Dairy Control Board should control the whole of the industry, and when I suggest that I feel that the record of the Dairy Control Board is such that we could have every confidence that they could handle this matter very well. The Dairy Control Board is in my opinion an outstanding example of successful control under the Marketing Act. It has been referred to by one speaker as one of the boards regarding which there has been least complaint, but no praise was awarded to the Board. It was mentioned about the shortage of butter. All nations in the world in a war of this kind have a shortage of butter. The fact that we had a shortage for a short time is not anything that can be held up against the Board. We know that we have been supplying large quantities of food to convoys, to troops passing our shores, to visitors, and to ships that have been calling here; we have been supplying enormous quantities of food, and the only fault that has been found with the Board was that for a short time there was a very slight shortage of butter. I think it is absolutely necessary that this question should be tackled, and I hope it will be tackled under the Dairy Control Board. Then I should like to say that we on. this side, the farming representatives, welcome the interest taken by the Labour Party in agriculture. The Labour Party have issued a memorandum stating that they had a policy for agriculture. This is not a final document but is a subject for discussion. We are very anxious to try to work with anybody, and particularly with a body like the Labour Party, that has indicated that they are trying to improve the conditions of the underdog, of the people who have had a tough time, and if we can work together and improve the conditions and the lot of the lower-paid people in agriculture, we will be doing a very fine thing indeed. I welcome their attempt to co-operate with us. We sometimes hear criticism of inefficiency in farming. I would like to mention one or two facts that do not quite bear out that charge of inefficiency. We have the wool industry in South Africa that has been established and has progressed to such an extent, that the Australians, the biggest producers of merino wool in the world, have had to put an embargo on the export of sheep to this country. Evidently they were afraid that we were becoming too big a competitor. Then we have had Friesland cattle exported to various parts of the world, and they gained a very high name and very high prices. Also fruit, wattle bark, etc. This question of inefficiency has been stressed, but I would like hon. members to bear in mind that for many years agriculture has been treated as a dumping ground for people in South Africa who. could not make a living out of anything else. All sorts of people have been kept on farms because the Government felt it was better to keep them there than allow them to drift into the towns. That sort of thing has been overdone. I feel that it would be better indeed to encourage them to leave their little farms and to get into the towns. Their children will be better educated, they would have adequate food supplies which they do not get on their poor farms at present. I think if they made for the towns it would be more beneficial to them than trying to keep them on these farms. In the towns they would be encouraged to take up work in industries and their children would have better opportunities for advancement in every way. These, Mr. Speaker, are the main points I wished to make.

I want to put up a plea for our public servants this afternoon, but before doing so I shall touch on a few other points. First of all I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on his budget which has been very well received throughout South Africa. To produce a budget at all at a time like the present is difficult, and I think the Minister deserves the thanks and the admiration of this House for the manner in which he has acquitted himself of his task. In the second place I want to addres a word of welcome to the new Minister of Agriculture. I think his appointment is proof of the fact that the Witwatersrand produces the best brains in the country. Next I want to say that some of the stories told during this debate are calculated to make one’s hair stand on end. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer), for instance, told us about a lady in a tram-car in Johannesburg who is alleged to have said: “I hope the war will go on for a long time because my husband is doing better than he has ever done before,” and—so the story goes on—an English lady got up and pulled her hair and dragged her out of the tram. There is as much truth in that story as there is in so many other stories we have heard, such as that about troops arriving here covered in blood, and about women having been criminally assaulted. I want to say this to the hon. member for Stellenbosch—we have another two months before the prorogation of Parliament and I challenge him to tell the House the day and the date when that incident occurred, to tell it the number of the tram and produce the names of the driver and conductor of that tram-car. I am quite convinced that he cannot produce those facts, because no such thing has ever happened. Then the hon. member made a personal attack on me and asked why I was not at the Front. I could put the same question to him, but let me assure him that I tried very hard to join up and I am quite willing to prove my bona fides. These tactics—trying to cast reflections on members on this side of the House, should stop. I must say that the criticism we have had from the Opposition has been woefully weak. The future Minister of Finance of the Opposition spoke about terrible waste of money, but he did not mention one specific instance. And now let me come to the Civil Service, I spoke about this on the Additional Estimates and I said that there was terrible poverty in this country, and I added that it was our duty to remedy this situation. There is an old saying: “Charity begins at home.” We must clean our own front door first, and that is why I want to refer to the Public Service. There is poverty in the Public Service. If one studies the salaries and wages these people get, one must realise that they are not adequate. I am thinking of all the branches of the Public Service—the Railways, the police and the ordinary administration. I want to deal with this matter from three different points of view, although I am afraid that the time at my disposal will only allow me to deal with one aspect, namely, the Public Service generally, and its relationship to the State. So far as the Public Service is concerned I want to say that I have certified copies of documents setting out the grades in the Johannesburg Municipality. What is the position there? Take the heads of our Government Departments, such as the Secretary for Finance, the Secretary for Education, the Secretary for Agriculture, the Secretary for Posts and Telegraphs, and the Secretary for Public Health, their salaries are £1,800 per year. Comparing their salaries with those of the corresponding posts in the municipal service in Johannesburg—the Treasurer, the Chief Medical Officer of Health, the Chief of the Electricity Department, the Town Clerk, they get salaries ranging from £2,000 to £2,500. Now, I do feel that if one municipality can pay such salaries to its head officials, heads of Government Departments should not get so much less. Take the salaries from top to bottom. Take the assistants. Take the clerks, and the typists and the messengers. I am the poorest member in this House perhaps, but I believe that I pay my native kitchen boy more than we pay our messengers. It is a most unsatisfactory condition, and I feel these salary scales must be revised. How can we possibly expect people to join our Public Service? Is it any wonder that public servants go over to private concerns and to local Governments? It is well known that unskilled labour on the Witwatersrand working for the Johannesburg Municipality get better pay than members of the police force and railway workers. There is another aspect of this whole matter, and that is the question of increases in salaries. The general outlook in regard to the Public Service is antiquated. Take a man for instance whose minimum rate is 10s. per day and whose maximum is 15s. or 16s. per day. In the past these men rose by 6d. per day per year and it took them twelve years to get to the top of the scale; since 1932 however, private concerns have changed their views and the same applied to local governments, and they have reduced the period by half. Where a man had to wait ten or twelve years in the past before he could reach the top of the scale he now reaches it within five or six years. What does that mean? If a young fellow starts work at the age of sixteen he reaches the top of the scale when he is 23. That is the time when he starts thinking of setting up his own home, and when he starts providing for his old age. If increments are accelerated in the Government service, it will cause a lot of satisfaction. Apart from the fact that a man may want to marry during that period of his service and wants to set up a home, such a change of policy would also make it possible for him to take out an insurance nolicy and thus secure his future. He would have the extra money then for those objects. In regard to the salaries of public servants, there is no doubt that we must not delay in changing the position. I want to put forward a few propositions on this subject. My first proposition is that the salary scales and wage scales of Government officials in all branches of the service are inadequate under our modern conditions. Secondly, that if we want to meet the position the increase in wage scales should be more or less on the following basis. Up to 15s. per day—75 per cent. increase; from 15s. to £1 per day—50 per cent.; from £1 to £1 10s.—45 per cent.; from £1 10s. to £2—40 per cent.; from £2 to £2 10s.—35 per cent.; from £2 10s. to £3—30 per cent.; from £3 to £3 10s.—25 per cent.; from £3 10s. to £4—20 per cent.; and above that 5 per cent. The outlook today differs from what it used to be. In the past there had to be increases in pay, the increases started from the top. That is not the modern conception—today we start from the bottom; we start with the underdog. That is the principle which prevails today. The third proposition I want to make is that if we fail to assist now, the Public Service will be so depleted that our work will not be done. My fourth proposition— and this is a subject of special interest to the service—is that there are two things which must be done away with—the one is the system of pigeon holing things and the other is “red tape”. My fifth point is that the Public Service Commission should be abolished. It is an antiquated body. We should have a grading commission in its place, composed of members of Parliament, heads of departments, and a representative of the staff organisation, competent to deal with the affairs of every department. The Public Service Commission is obsolete. A grading committee of that kind could meet when Parliament is in Session. Another important point which hon. members may not realise is that the last commission which was appointed for the purpose of making recommendations to improve conditions in the Public Service sat in 1923. I don’t think the Opposition can make political capital out of this, because that was the last commission of its kind. I wonder whether our Party realises what an important part of our State organisation the Public Service is. In any democratic country the public service is a most important part of the organisation of the State. I do not want to go any further and say that the Public Service in South Africa plays a greater part in the government of the country and in the administration of a country than members of Parliament do, individually or collectively. The Public Service contributes more to the proper management of the country than members of Parliament do, individually or collectively. If we remember that, we must realise the necessity of getting the best possible brains for this important work. I am afraid, with conditions as they are today, we are not getting the best brains. Before I leave this point I just want to say that I feel that the Public Service throughout are deserving praise and gratitude for the way they have carried on during these critical times, and I hope that when the opportunity offers that gratitude will be shown in concrete form. In conclusion I want to appeal to the Minister of Demobilisation and I want to ask him with all due respect to make a statement as soon as possible about the position of returned soldiers and about housing for these people. We want clarity on those points. I have raised those points not from a party point of view, but from the point of view of the country’s welfare. I could, of course, mention any number of individual cases, and I propose doing so at a later stage. Before sitting down I just want to remove a misundertanding. I believe it was the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) who during the Part Appropriation Bill debate said that railway accidents were attributable to the small wages and salaries which railway workers were paid. This has created the impression that those people are dishonest and not loyal.

Order, the hon. member cannot refer to a previous debate and discuss that question now.

This happened during another debate. Very well, then I propose referring to the matter later on. I want ro express the hope that when we meet again the position in regard to our Public Servants will have been improved to such an extent that theye will be contentment among them.

I heard the other day of a member of Parliament who dreamed that ne was making a speech in the House and he work up and found he was. I am in a bit of a dilemma myself this afternoon because through the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) I have been trapped into making a remark which in the Press has been called my maiden speech. I was rather intrigued in regard to the term “maiden speech” and being inquisitive regarding terms of this nature I wrote to the Minister of Finance as follows—

The Minister replied as follows—

Of course not, he is a bachelor.

I am coming to that—

Your virgin effort.

Being, as I said, of an inquisitive turn of mind I took the Minister’s letter to the Librarian. He read it and looked at me as if I was not quite right in my head. Then he rushed for several books in the Library, consulted them, but discovered that there was no book in the Library which deals with maiden speeches. As a matter of fact, according to all the books in the Library, maidens don’t make speeches. That, of course, is quite wrong—I know from experience, because I live with four of them. Having been thwarted in my desire for information I naturally had to fall back on the definition given by the Minister of Finance, that is “breaking virgin soil.” I am a bit reluctant to accept that definition, even from such an honourable educationalist as the Minister because he is not talking from experience, and even though he is a great cricketer I have never yet known that he has bowled a maiden over either on the field or off. Well, I only want to speak on two points. I have been told by some older members of this House that that is as many points as this House can at any time digest. I want to know what is wrong with the Cape Province.

It has a stepmother.

There is nothing wrong with it, we like it.

If anyone says that there is nothing wrong with the Cape Province then there is something wrong with him. I want to know what is wrong with the Cape Province in regard to hospitals.

It has the best hospital in South Africa.

I don’t dispute that. But in the Free State, in Natal and in the Transvaal, hospital expenditure is met by the Provincial Council. In the Cape we of the big cities like Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Kimberley and East London, etc., must of necessity pay half the deficit of hospitalisation in our districts. I want to know why? It is a fact that the hospitals in the first instance are called Provincial Hospitals. The reason why they are given that name, I believe, is because patients from any part of the Province—or even from outside the Province, must be admitted to the hospitals. Not that we in Port Elizabeth would at any time prevent patients from being admitted, but I, on one occasion as a member of the Hospital Board, have seen in the annual report that we have had patients in our hospital—and I am sure Cape Town must be the same—from no fewer than 48 different parts of the Union. We have 64 per cent. pauper patients in that hospital, and the deficit which we had to pay was in one year in the neighbourhood of £24,000. Now, that is almost ½d. rate on the people of Port Elizabeth. I believe it is greater in Cape Town. In the meanwhile the other three provinces get off scot free. It may be of interest to hon. members to know that the expenditure in the City I represent on infectious diseases alone in the last ten years has gone up by 700 per cent. The expenditure on hospitals during the same period has gone up 1,600 per cent. Then again there is a limitation in regard to expenditure on infectious diseases. To this efect that when we reach the limit of £10,000 we get no more subsidy. I do not understand why there should be this difference in the Cape Province as compared with the other three provinces. May I now point out that in the City I represent our rate has increased from 4½d. in the £ to 7d. in the £ in the last ten years. Now, after all is said and done. I have heard discussions here and elsewhere in regard to the industrial development in this country, and I believe that there is hardly any doubt about it, that a great many of those new industries go to the Transvaal and Durban. If there is one way of preventing industries from going to Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and elsewhere, it is by putting an extra rate on the citizens of those towns—by compelling them to pay for health services which the other three provinces do not have to pay for. I could go on talking on this matter for a long time, but I have been told I must not waste too much time in a maiden speech. The next question I want to put is, what is wrong with the children of the Cape Province? Will someone tell me what is wrong? I have asked this question repeatedly. I have asked as a Councillor, I have asked it as a member of the Hospital Board, I have asked it as Mayor of the most important city in the Union, Port Elizabeth—I am glad hon. members agree with me—I have asked this question, “What is wrong? Why should the children of the Transvaal get free education up to matric, and the children of the Cape be denied that privilege?”

Because all the brains are in the Transvaal.

It may be, of course, that the children of the Cape Province having come from a less materialistic stock than the children of the Transvaal, are as well developed when they reach the sixth standard as the children in the Transvaal are when they reach matric, but that is no reason why the children of the Cape Province because of their superior intelligence should be deprived of the privileges which the children in the Transvaal enjoy.

Perhaps it is a matter of charity.

No, there is no question of charity; the Government pays.

Well, it may be a question of faith and hope.

The Government pays for it in these provinces and the Government should pay for it in the Cape Province. I do not want to hurt the feelings of the Transvaal representatives, but may I say this to them very courteously, that they do think that the Transvaal is the hub of the universe.

Just like Port Elizabeth.

The only real connection I have had with the Transvaal at any time has been in sport, and they always want everything up there—in fact they have managed to get control of everything up there. Except rugby, they will never get that.

Or jukskei.

You can keep your jukskei, I don’t want it. I merely want to put these two points forward because I would like the Minister of Finance to give a little more money to the Cape Province so that it can be brought into line with the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal in respect of hospitalisation and education.

In the very short time at my disposal, I do not intend to discuss the financial side of the budget. That aspect has already been fully criticised by this side of the House, as well as by the other side, and if the Minister of Finance takes due notice then he will see that members are not so satisfied with his budget as he imagined. There are two matters over which I feel specially concerned. The first is that the Minister said that the lower income groups and those in receipt of moderate incomes could bear still higher taxation, but that he did not quite know how to apply that taxation. The share speculators have not been taxed, and it will really be shameful if the Minister taxes people with low incomes and moderate incomes more heavily, while he lets the share speculators off. I have risen today to discuss the position into which the meat trade has been forced of late. I represent a constituency where the people are meat producers. In that constituency and in my neighbourhood the farmers breed sheep and cattle which they have been accustomed for years and years to send to the market, and on that basis trade has been built up. What we should now like to have from the Minister is a clear announcement of what the policy of the Government is going to be in connection with the report of the Meat Commission. We have had it from the previous Minister of Agriculture that the Government has accepted that report in so far as its main features are concerned, but we have not yet heard from the Government whether it intends that to be permanent, or whether their intention is merely to accept it for the duration of the war as an emergency measure. The hon. member for Grioualand East (Mr. Fawcett) said that there are a few people discontented—“a few disgruntled people.” There is more dissatisfaction over the position that has been created than the hon. member will admit. I have here in my possession a resolution that was adopted by farmers at meetings at Steytlerville, Jansenville, Willowmore, Graaff-Reinet, and in my neighbourhood. The resolution reads, in the first place—

It appears from auction sales which have been held recently that the price has fallen enormously, and that the new system is not yet in operation. But notwithstanding that the people on the platteland are losing because the position today is that they do not know what is going to happen, and on the other side we find that in the towns the price of meat has remained the same. The resolution continues—

They consider that the producer will get a lower price and that the consumer will have to pay a higher price than at present—

I have said that we should like to have an announcement from the Minister concerning the Government’s intentions regarding the future. At the moment we must accept that this is a war measure. I want to support my contention by an extract from a circular letter that the Central Co-operative has sent to its members—

The co-operative organisation says that this measure is merely a war measure, and I in turn say that if it is only a war measure then the Government has no right to upset the trade so that we do not know what the position is going to be after the war. This arrangement which has been built up in the course of a number of years at the cost of considerable capital expenditure, has worked very well, and now it is the intention to destroy the whole structure with a war measure. The position is that competition will disappear entirely in the controlled areas. We cannot do better than to refer to the line that has been taken in other meat producing countries. In Australia they tried the same system that is now proposed here under the Emergency Regulations. They fixed prices for the producer and the consumer, but they discovered that this did not pay, and they reverted to the competitive system. And if I understand the position properly, the same thing has happened in New Zealand and in the Argentine. So we find that in the three great meat, producing countries in the world we have the position today that the farmers have chosen to make use of the system of competition, because they consider that they will be best served in this manner. I should like to explain what the position is in Australia. A few years ago I was there and made enquiries. There the Government has control over the cold storage, and the Government or the municipalities have control over the abattoirs. In our country we find that cold storage is in the hands of private individuals, and that the abattoirs are also not in the hands of the Government. In Australia the butcher, whether he buys ten or 10,000 head on the market, can take his cattle to the abattoirs. There they are slaughtered and taken to the cold storage or to his butcher shop, and he pays so much a lb. This makes him independent of the man who wants to manipulate the market on a big scale. Now it is sought to introduce this system in our country as a war measure. It is stated that it will help both the farmer and the consumer. But we are convinced that it will only help the big man who has already got a monopoly. He is going to make a profit corresponding to what the farmer loses, and he is also going to make a profit out of the additional price that the consumer will have to pay. If Australia, New Zealand and the Argentine have not accepted that principle of the Meat Commission then I think that we have something to learn from those countries. Here we have not got cold storage facilities. The people who have the cold storage facilities are buying up the butcher shops more and more. They are extending their monopoly further and further. What then is the effect of the report of the Meat Commission? The butcher in the towns cannot go outside to buy. This will mean that the people who buy their stock on the platteland will simply have to buy it from the speculators. Why have the butchers been denied this right to go outside to buy? Allow them to go and buy the cattle there, even if they have to do this to the food controller. Let them buy outside, even though it must go through the controller in the controlled areas, but allow such a butcher to retain the identity of what belongs to him. As is now proposed, it means that the man simply brings his cattle into the pool. He does not know what sheep he is going to get. He has bought a certain class of sheep outside, but he is not certain that he will receive the same class back. If that is the position of affairs as they are going to be brought about, then we cannot endorse it. That is the position as I understand it. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain it to us, but no one has yet been able to do so. But as I understand the position it is only going to create more speculation in the country than we have had in the past. On the other hand, we have to look after the position of the small farmer on the platteland. The big man who is wealthy can look after himself. I am not worrying about him. I am worrying about the farmer who markets 20, 30 or 50 head, and how many people are there not who bring such quantities of cattle on the market? Men of that sort cannot send their small consignment of cattle to Cape Town or Port Elizabeth, and they will be forced into the hands of the speculator. There are dozens and dozens of farmers who find themselves in that position. We feel that the position is very serious, and we should like the Minister to make a clear statement regarding it. We also would like to have information from him on this point. When the cattle arrive in a controlled area, a man who is able to pay cash can obtain the cattle from the Food Controller, but the man who cannot pay cash has to go to the big dealers. The position is that the man who cannot pay cash and who under the system of competition obtained credit, is now forced to go to the big dealer. This will mean that many of these small people will be driven into the hands of the big dealers. At the moment the position is that the man buys where he wants to, because he is able to obtain the necessary credit in the trade that has been built up. He will lose that as soon as this new system comes into operation. I should like to quote from the figures of the Meat Board—and I take it that the figures are accurate—showing what the Co-operative Society has sold and what quantities have come on to the market under the system of competition. I take the four weeks of February. The people had a free choice to send their stock through the medium of the co-operative or under the system of competition, and the figures are as follows: During the first week of February, 1,669 head went through the Cooperative and 11,370 through the competitive channels. The following week 2,995 went through the Co-operative and 11,441 through the competitive channels. For the third week the figures were 2,253 and 11,558 respectively, and for the fourth week 1,980 and 9,490. If we take the four weeks then we find that 8,927 were handled through the Co-operative and 44,159 were handled through the avenues provided by the competitive system. I think that that affords proof that the farmers consider that the competitive system is the best for them. I think that we must not forget that meat is a very difficult commodity to handle. Meat and deciduous fruit are more difficult to handle than wheat, mealies and similar commodities. We find that today great dissatisfaction exists with the Deciduous Fruit Board. Actually the produce is being destroyed. The distribution is so bad that we have to pay 6 a lb. for grapes and 2½d. for a peach. The ordinary man is not able to eat the fruit and there is great dissatisfaction in the country. We hear complaints from all sides and no one is satisfied with the position. When we have to deal with meat and deciduous fruit, then we must bear in mind that they are not commodities that are in the same category as mealies and wheat. We have to deal here with perishable products.

Are you then opposed to control boards?

No, I am not opposed to them; I only want to know from the Government what the position is. The powers proposed by the Commission appear in the Government Gazette No. 3295 of the 21st January; very extensive powers are thereby vested in the Food Controller. I want the farmers to understand what the position is. The Food Controller has the right to commandeer cattle and to inform a man: “Next week you must send so many cattle.” If that is going to be the position, and the people can be ordered about in this way, then the Minister is going to encounter great difficulty I want to know whether this is going to be the permanent policy. If it is only going to be the position for three or six months after the war then the whole matter should be allowed to stand as it is. If one reads the letters, and if one listens to what people are saying, then it is clear that they feel that the change is only going to be effective for the duration of the war. It will be fatal for the farmer and the consumer if that is the case. We want to know what the policy of the Government is. Today it affects not only the platteland, but it will have the effect that the butchers in the controlled areas will be prevented from buying on the platteland. What will the position be then? Gradually the people will be kept away from the markets, and the platteland towns will decline still further. We have had that system there for the last 40 or 50 years. The whole structure of trade and finance has been established on it. The farmers forgather there. If now you prevent these people—for they actually are prevented —from competing in the markets, then gradually these small towns will be wiped off the map. I should like to learn from the Minister what the Government intends to do after the war. The Commission says that they want to see good prices after the war as well. But they do not know how this is going to be achieved, nor does the Government know it either. Then the Government has not the right to scrap the whole system and return to that system when the war is over, and after the old system has been destroyed. On that account there is uneasiness on the platteland. There is only one other thing that I want to bring forward, and that is that I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if the following is a fact: I understand that all the old age pensioners receive cost of living allowances, but in the case of magistrates who are on pension they are not paid any cost of living allowances.

Civil pensioners in general do not receive allowances, but those who have a small pension receive an allowance.

I do not think it is right that when a man has reached the age of 60 years and retires, and he has perhaps a wife and children to support, that he is not granted a cost of living allowance. I hope the Minister will go into that. Magistrates serve the State for a whole lifetime, and I think it is only proper that they should receive cost of living. allowances like any pensioner.

I do not believe that the Minister of Finance will lose a wink of sleep in consequence of the criticism that has been passed on him by the Opposition. In all the budget debates that I have listened to, I do not believe there has been a single one in which less emphasis has been laid on the figures, than in the present case. In previous debates the Opposition has always attempted to produce figures. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) was amusing until he came to his motion, and asked that a committee should be appointed comprised of members of Parliament to enquire whether war expenditure could not be laid out in a more profitable manner. They want to know whether the money cannot be spent more profitably. Why has it come to that? Suddenly members on the other side have seen the light. I do not know whether it is ascribed to their disappointment over the assistance they got from Zeesen during the elections. Now they want the money to be used more advantageously. How can you expect this when you are at war? Only by obtaining equipment and armament of first class standard, the armaments with which you can destroy the enemy. That is what they now want. They want better armaments in order to be able to defeat the enemy. I could understand it if such a propasal came from the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) who has unequivocally declared that he would have nothing to do with the Germans, and that he would fight them if they came here. The difference between him and us is that we want to fight the Germans while they are still far away.

Have you ever fought?

But it amazes me that this should have come from the hon. member for George, who was supported by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). It amazes me that he wants a committee to ensure that armaments are manufactured with which the enemy may speedily be destroyed. A week ago in the course of a debate some members asked why members on the Opposition side had not voiced a single word of appreciation of the efforts of the railwaymen who had contributed so much to the war effort. Then the hon. member for Waterberg replied: “Cannot you understand that we do not want to have anything to do with the war, and that we do not want to contribute anything towards it?” At that time he would not give any praise to those who had done so much to defeat our enemy, but a week later the hon. member comes and says that he supports the hon. member for George in his request for the appointment of a committee to ensure that the money is expended advantageously, in such a way that armaments can be manufactured to destroy the Germans.

What about the contracts the Government have given out?

This has nothing to do with contracts. The hon. member now wants a committee to be appointed to institute enquiries. That money that we have spent is an investment, a security investment from which generations who follow us will derive the benefit. What right then has the hon. member to say that this Government is engaged so far as finance is concerned, in leading the country to a dark abyss. He has not the slightest right to stigmatise this as something which is dragging us to the edge of the precipice. I should like, however, to touch on a few points, and I regret that the Minister for Native Affairs is not here because I should like to know what the policy of the Department of Native Affairs is going to be in the near future with reference to native territories, and I am referring principally now to the territories that lie in Natal, specially Zululand. Up to the present we have followed the policy that when natives are located in such a territory they have to pay a defined sum and then they can farm. Now we find that certain natives have 100, 200, 300 and even up to 1,000 cattle, and that those natives pay the same amount to the Government as the native who has only five animals. There is something radically wrong here. Previous speakers have rightly referred to the fact that soil erosion has increased on a terrible scale, and it is high time that we adopted a policy of restriction as regards the holding of cattle by natives. Then I should like to know from the Minister what his policy is in connection with the lobola system, as it is known in Zululand. The natives pays for his wife, and I want to know from the Minister whether he is going to preserve the system. Lobola is a cardinal principle in the life of a native; it constitutes the social background of the native, and in my opinion it would be wrong to meddle with that at this stage. That is something that the Minister will have to give serious thought to, for related to that stands the question of polygamy. We are actively influencing the native to follow the mode of life of the European, but we cannot on the one side force our civilisation on the native, and on the other permit the practice of polygamy. That is quite preposterous, and as a civilised country we cannot carry on in that way. We have at present 8,000,000 natives and coloured people compared with 2,000,000 Europeans, and if we permit polygamy to continue as at present, then it will only be a question of time when the proportion will be much worse. It is not a thing that fits in with our civilisation. I should like to know from the Minister what his policy is in that connection. We are now on the one hand providing the native with a European system of civilisation, while on the other hand we are allowing him to practise unhindered his custom of polygamy. Recently I read a letter from a highly educated native, and he expresses the view that they are firmly attached to polygamy and will not drop it. I hope that the Minister will give attention to these few points. Then the last point is this, the collection of taxes from the natives. Take a magisterial district such as Losberg. If my information is correct, in that district there is more than £2,000 outstanding from natives, and one native who lives on the Crown lands is five years in arrear. Apparently the police do nothing about it. We must bring about some change here if we want to maintain a sound position. Unfortunately I shall not be here when the Minister comes to his vote, and consequently I am bringing up these points now.

There are various points I propose to raise on this Budget, but to begin with I think I will address my remarks to the new Minister of Agriculture because, Sir, I am glad to welcome him, more particularly because he is like me, largely a consumers’ representative. Like me he is concerned with the problems of the urban consumer, and for that reason in particular I am glad to find for once an urban representative occupying the Portfolio of Agriculture, and I do hope that he will turn his mind to some of the problems that affect urban consumers. I should like him to find an answer, to begin with, to the problem of why the Dairy Control Board should be able to control licences for the manufacture of margarine. This House has been told in season and out of season of the state of malnutrition in the country, and of the state of public health. We have had report after report pointing out that over 50 per cent. of the children of the country are suffering from malnutrition. I have raised the question in the House many times and pointed out the value of vitaminised margarine as a cheap food, and I succeeded so far that I wrung a promise from late Minister of Agriculture that he would investigate this question of the manufacture of margarine with a view to a licence being granted. That promise was given, but in fact nothing was done to carry it out, because the Dairy Control Board is apparently acting as the villain of the piece and most shortsightedly advising against such manufacture. Yes, Sir, the fact remains that margarine is a cheap and nutritious food that can be produced in normal circumstances at prices that will place it within the reach of millions of our poorer section of the people; and let me remind the Minister of Agriculture that we have a population in this country of 10,000,000 and not of 2,000,000, and that 8,000,000 of the 10,000,000 are below the bread line, and to them the existence of a food that is cheap and nutritious and highly vitaminised, as modem margarine is, is a vital matter. We are always being told that we are destroying our labour force in this country, that the native wages cannot possibly suffice to enable the native to keep himself and his family at a reasonable level of nutrition, and yet the manufacture of this highly useful commodity at a price that will be within the reach of the lower income groups of this country has been consistently refused. I asked originally whether the Minister of Agriculture would consider this matter with a view to granting such a licence, and he said he would, but I repeat nothing has been done, and now it is suggested that one of the reasons nothing has been done is the lack of sufficient oils to manufacture these edible fats. That, I think, is due to this, that during the war we are only allowed a certain quota of these oils; but I am quite sure if the Government of this country decided that it was in the interests of the people to manufacture margarine at a price that would bring it within the reach of the lower income groups, then I am sure our quota of oils necessary to manufacture this article of food for our people, would be released, and manufacture could go ahead. But even if it could not oe manufactured immediately, at the moment I want at least to suggest to the Minister that he go into the whole question of allowing the manufacture of an article such as this to be in the hands of the Dairy Control Board; because it seems to me that what is essential really is to amend the Act that puts it under the control of the Dairy Control Board. It does not seem to me that the Dairy Control Board is the correct body to sanction licences of this kind. Frankly they are afraid of it. But I should like to point out that any fear that the Dairy Control Board may have that the manufacture of such an article as margarine would militate against the interests of the diary industry is largely fallacious, because in such dairy countries as Denmark and New Zealand, the manufacture of margarine is freely permitted without harmful result to the dairy interests. The Minister must realise it is a nutritious food that can be manufactured much cheaper than any dairy product can be produced and while the Government spends a lot of money on cheap butter schemes for the lower income groups, the Government can never, and I say never advisedly, hope to subsidise all the lower income groups with cheap butter to the amount that is necessary for the adequate diet of these income groups. The Government cannot susidise and the dairy interests cannot provide an adequate amount of butter, and therefore the obvious alternative is to put within the reach of these lower income groups some substitute like modern margarine at as low a price as they can. That is the first problem I should like to put to the Minister. The second point I should like to make is this. I should like to remind him that last session there was a good deal of feeling in the House as well as the country over the wastage of citrus fruit, and an undertaking was given to the House and the country that in the following citrus season there would be no such wastage and that an attempt would be made to see to it that such fruit as was not disposable economically would be provided free to the lower income groups; and the House and the country were assured there would be no wastage. What was the result? I am particularly interested in this question, and followed it up and I may say that the result of it was that during the last citrus season, notwithstanding the assurances given to the House and the country something like 2,000,000 pockets of citrus were wasted. We had letters in every newspaper from all sorts of people, from farmers too, and even more from the general public, demanding the reason for this waste. There was one letter from an angry grower saying that they had been ordered by the Board to pick their fruit and plough it into the ground. He wrote that he had already been paid by the board, which had paid by the estimated crop and his orchards were filled with citrus which was covering the ground; it was littered with ripe oranges; and the farmer was very indignant at the wastage and rightly. Now I do not know the real difficulty that faces the board in obtaining on the one hand an economic price for the farmer and on the other hand the difficulty of disposing of the fruit without waste. But it is just there I would suggest that the Department of Agriculture should take a hand. It is for the Minister to find a solution for that problem, namely, for paying and economic price to the producer for citrus and deciduous fruit, and" at the same time seeing that the crop is not wasted. If he sees that the fruit gets into the hands of the lower income groups, he will indeed be doing such a service to the community that the consumers will arise and call him blessed. I do realise what difficulties face the various boards, but I am insistent that action should be taken in this matter. I should like to suggest for the consideration of the Minister that possibly the way out would be to have a special department of the Social Welfare Department that would deal with all surplus products, not fruit only, with a view to its disposal among agencies, for instance charitable bodies who would see that the product found its way to the right people. I do know that the Social Welfare Department is endeavouring to work out a scheme but I would suggest to the Minister that the process of working it out is too slow, and that possibly some liaison might be developed as between Agriculture and Social Welfare to deal with this difficulty of over-production on the one hand, and lack of opportunity for consumption on the part of consumers in the lower income levels. So much for the Minister of Agriculture. My next point I want to address to the Minister of Finance, because he is the Minister who dealt with the Motor Vehicles Insurance Act which was put on the statute book about eighteen month ago. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the latest facts that emerge from the report of the Safety First Association. I have been informed, and I have been written to along these lines. It is almost unbelieveable yet it is a fact that seven times more South Africans have been killed and injured on the roads of the Union than in battle during the past four years of the war. I wonder whether the House and the country realise what that means? I know that the answer the Minister has given me on two occasions to the question as to when he proposes to enforce the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act is that the problem is mainly one of staff. But I want to assure him that the time is coming when the country will not tolerate an excuse of that sort. It does seem to me that if this country is losing far more lives on the roads than are being killed in battle, it is high time the Minister should find a staff to enforce the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. Unless he does something of that kind soon the position will arise that there will be a demand for compensation from the people injured on the roads of this country that he will not be able to ignore.

I am constrained to congratulate the Minister on the budget that he has submitted to this House. I have listened to the criticism from the Opposition. There is no time now to go into that, but taking it all in all, I will say this that the best boatsman always stands on the bank.

But these times through which we are passing, during this great war, it is another question entirely to navigate the ship through the great reefs, and this is what the hon. the Minister is doing. Big expenditure is being incurred in connection with the war and the question is whether it is right to incur these expenses. I say it is, and my first reason is that this House resolved that we should participate in the war, and the Minister of Defence took over a Defence Force that comprised just a few bushcarts. Consequently the country knew that there would have to be big expenditure, and on the 7th July the people approved this expenditure and this policy of the Government, and placed their seal on it. Accordingly it is our duty to continue to incur these expenses. As a farmer I feel this. We are very glad that it has been stated today that we are repaying our debts very well. If you examine the reports you will see that the debts to the Land Bank have been brought down in an amazing manner. That makes us all very happy. But I must also thank the Minister very cordially for his promise to do something for the Oudstryders and in connection with old age pensions. As far as the Oudstryders are concerned, I should like to tell the Minister that this is a very difficult position and we expect more. We owe our thanks to the Minister, because he is the first Minister who has given a thought to the Oudstryders and has increased their allowances. But there is a large section of our Oudstryders who are having a difficult time today. They are stuck in our district on small strips of land—in my constituency as well—and they have an income of about £70 or £80 a year, after they have deducted their expenses. Unfortunately, they are not taken into consideration for pensions, and I think that is regrettable. Those Oudstryders are having a rough time. Two years ago one Oudstryder’s income was about £70 or £80, and in the course of two years he had to pay £100 on doctor’s fees. They are experiencing a very difficult time today, and not only the Oudstryders, but that class of farmer who is in receipt of a nett income of only £70 to £80 a year. They are having the toughest time. They do not come under consideration for old age pensions, and they are struggling today to meet their obligations. They are stuck on small plots, and they are having a really hard time. They do not come into consideration for an old age pension or an Oudstryders pension, and they have to struggle to keep their heads above water. We talk a lot in this House about the returned soldier. We talk a lot about high salaries, but I can assure the House that the class I have referred to are drifting one by one into the towns. I beg the Minister to take that into serious consideration, and to try to do something for these people. They are having a very bad time on the platteland. Some of that class of people have perhaps a young native or an old native on their farms, but the strong natives have all gone to Johannesburg to the mines. There they earn £6 or £7 a month, but the farmer on his farm only earns about £70 or £80 per year. Another question on which I should like to say something is the question of thieving. We on the platteland, and particularly in the neighbourhood of Johannesburg, have a very bad time as a result of thieving. I want to tell this House that night after night we sit up in the sheep kraal to try and catch the thieves who steal our sheep. If we catch them then we have to use our own petrol to take them to the police. Such a thief when he comes before the magistrate is sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. I say that the imprisonment should be at least double that amount. It is not only natives who are the culprits. In some cases it is Europeans. Just before I left my constituency, they stole a minister’s car out of his garage. They drove it for about 15 miles, then they took out the battery and took off the tyres and made off. Now one reads in the papers that one accused person who had four previous convictions against him stole a motor car, and he got six months’ imprisonment. I say that that punishment is hopelessly inadequate. We must make the penalties for thieving much more severe. Because the penalties are so light there are such a large number of thefts. The penalties in this country for stock theft and the theft of motor cars are hopelessly light. They must be made much more severe. I have only a couple of minutes left. I should just like to say to the House in connection with the report of the Meat Commission, that we should go to work very cautiously. I hope that the new Minister of Agriculture will tackle this in a very serious way. It is my duty to sound a warning that we must be very cautious in connection with this grading of meat. We who have a little knowledge of the grading system in other connections are feeling very dissatisfied with the grading of our wheat, for instance. Now we come to our cattle. These now have to be graded, and then we get the prices for them. I say that I am very disturbed over this report of the Meat Commission. Naturally we shall have to accept it but we ask the Government to be very careful indeed in connection with this grading of our products. Another thing that hits us hard in our neighbourhood is the Factory Act. I am very sorry that the Minister of Labour is not here at the moment. I have not yet heard from him how he is going to apply the Act. I shall tell you what happened in my constituency. There is a mill there for grinding mealies, and the mill falls under Factory Act. The Minister’s Department sent an inspector there, a woman, and she questioned the natives at the mill: “How many hours a day do you work; where do you sleep; what are paid?” This woman’s visit to that group of natives had the sequel that the owner of the mill received an account from the Department of Labour and had to pay £312 in arrear wages. I want to ask the Government and the Minister to be very cautious as regards the enforcement of the Factory Act. We as agriculturists, protest most strongly against the application of that Act in the platteland.

I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without once again drawing the attention of the House to the Parliamentary procedure of the House. I think the demonstration we have had in this Budget debate, where members are expected to deal with an expenditure running into over £100,000,000 within ten minutes, shows the ridiculous position in which we are placed. I am not going to make any attempt to deal exhaustively with the Budget because it is impossible to do so in the time at my disposal, so I propose to raise only one or two important points which I think I should bring to the notice of the House. Before I go on to that, I would like to say one or two words with reference to the attack made by the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) on the Labour Party the other day. He suggested that the Labour Party is gradually becoming the official Opposition in the House. I do not know whether that was a graceful tribute to the Nationalist Party or not, but possibly that is the kind of transition which this House must definitely look forward to. The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) suggested that we have a responsibility in the Government. Of course we have a responsibility in the Government. He further suggested that we have a responsibility in the Budget. That I deny and deny indignantly and I want to say to the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) that just as we on these benches were not consulted when the Minister framed his Budget, so I am satisfied that the hon. member was not consulted either, and if he had been consulted, it. is quite possible that the Budget might have been worse than it is. This question of Cabinet responsibility is something which can be argued at very considerable length. The Labour Party came to an agreement with the United Party at the outbreak of the war. We gave our promise to the Government to give them our support in the successful prosecution of the war, but never at any time did we tell the Government that we were prepared to adopt their economic policy, nor did we suggest that our freedom to advocate the economic policy which is at the root of our belief should be taken away from us. We propose to advocate our economic policy whenever an opportunity presents itself. The attack was made because of some remarks made by the hon. member of South Rand (Mr. Christie) with reference to the Minister’s policy in financing half of the war expenditure from loan fund, and my colleague had gone on to suggest that inevitably this country will be faced with a decision as to whether or not it should still continue to allow the finances of this country to be in the hands of the private banks. We say no; we say that we are satisfied that even such a financial wizard, such a financial genius as the Minister of Finance, will not in the postwar years, with all his economic ability and with all his hidebound economic orthodoxy be able to steer this country through the postwar period under private finance by private banks. The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) has some very queer ideas about banking, incidentally; he has some very queer ideas about our policy of a State bank, and he trotted out the old worn-out argument about the poor unfortunate widow whose money was at the moment in the possession of the Public Debt Commissioners, and he told us that if our ideas were put into execution, that that money would be wiped out; we would refuse to pay interest, and one presumes that the unfortunate widow would die of starvation. There are a great many widows who would die of starvation, and the very paltry increase which the hon. Minister has now granted, I am quite sure will not make any difference between living and dying. They will still die. But I want to refer to the question of the Loan Funds. We are building up a debt for posterity. Whether posterity will ever be able to pay for it, is another thing, but it is quite obvious that other countries outside the Union of South Africa are piling up debts which they obviously have no intention of every paying. As a matter of fact, Sir, those debts cannot possibly be paid; and nothing in the nature of a post-war arrangement can be made short of writing off the complete war debt. That is quite obvious. Under the financial system as it exists at the moment any attempt to pay debts as between members of the Allied nations, any attempt to impose huge indemnities on Germany or Italy, will inevitably fail, In 1870 Germany by an imposition of a large indemnity on France practically beggared herself and made France prosperous. We found ourselves that it was unwise, that it was stupid to attempt to collect indemnities from Germany, so we did the next best thing, and that was to loan them money to pay the debts which they owed to us. Eventually these debts were wiped off. Even Great Britain defaulted in her payments, and so the world only jogs along by wiping out these debts. And I want to point this out to the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside). We are not the slightest bit troubled about his criticism. In the Union of South Africa the question as to whether we are going to have a nationalisation of the banking system or whether we are going to continue with private banking institutions is one which is coming rapidly to the forefront. The Government is piling up debts; the Government must obviously embark on some gigantic scheme for the rehabilitation of the soldier when he comes back from the war, and the Government will have to decide whether those schemes are going to be financed from Loan Funds through private banking institutions, or whether they will be financed by the Government of this country, utilising its own banking system and its own credit on its own behalf. That is a decision which the Union of South Africa will have to make, and I am satisfied that if we leave the financing of these schemes, which must be gigantic if they are going to be of any use at all, to private banking institutions then South Africa is in for a very bad time indeed. My time is growing short, and I want to deal with one or two points which I believe should immediately be brought to the notice of the Government. I want to refer, first of all, to the boarding houses in Cape Town. I believe that Cape Town today contains more sharks to the square yard than any other town in the Union of South Africa. The treatment which is meted out to the people who come here on holiday or to the people who are forced to come here for the Parliamentarv session—and here I am talking about the hundreds of people whose duties bring them to Cape Town during the Parliamentary session, not members of Parliament but civil servants, railway servants and others—the treatment which is meted out to these people in the boarding houses is scandalous in the extreme. I do not know what possessed the Controller when he fixed the prices which have been fixed. I do not know what is at the bottom of the prices as they were fixed. but what I do know is that advantage is being taken by almost every boarding house keeper in Cape Town to charge the most extortionate prices and to give the most—I would almost say—damnable food and service. If this kind of thing continues in Cape Town, then I think the sooner the Government transfers the legislative capital of the Union to Pretoria the better. These people think it is their duty to fleece everyone who comes to Cape Town during the Parliamentary session, and it works out to the detriment of many people who normally reside in Cape Town. I stay at a boarding house myself where quite half the people are ordinarily resident in Cape Town, but some months ago they were told by the owner of the place that because the Controller had so agreed, they must now pay what is known as seasonal prices, and their board and lodging was raised by as much as 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. They gave notice, of course, but unfortunately there is nowhere else to go. The foxes have holes and the birds have nests but the son of man hath nowhere to lay his head. The policy appears to be this, that those boarding house keepers, once having got the control price laid down, have in many instances reduced their boarding houses from the level of a boarding house to the level of a kaffir-eating house, and the people of Cape Town, particularly the visitors, are very much up in arms. I believe the Government has been approached, but the Government is not prepared to do anything in this matter. It does appear to me that an immediate revision of the prices being charged, particularly in view of the class of accommodation, food and service which is being offered, should be made, or at least the Government should say and say very strongly that if the conditions do not improve, some very stringent action will be taken. I am sorry that the Minister of Transport is not here. The other day I attempted to raise the question of South African transport under the Railway Part Appropriation Bill, and to my astonishment it appears that the Minister of Transport cannot be spoken to as Minister of Transport when we discuss the Railway Part Appropriation Bill. When we are on the budget, it appears that he cannot be spoken to either, for the simple reason that he is not in the House.

He is on his way.

I hope he has got transport. But perhaps, being Scotch, he walks rather than pay his fare. The position in South Africa appears to be that we have accepted willy nilly the statement of the Transportation Board. I am not in a position to say that that statement is either too pessimistic or that it errs on the side of optimism. But very little evidence appears to have been adduced to show that their appreciation of the position is a correct one. But what has perturbed me is the fact that they have more or less laid it down not as an opinion but as a cardinal rule that we are not likely to get any additional public transport in South Africa until the year 1947. If that is the position South Africa is going to be in a complete state of chaos long before 1947 because it is obvious to the average eye that the existing transport conditions are rapidly reaching a serious condition. Even now people who have to go to and from their work are finding that it is one. long continuous scramble. You are very lucky when you get on to a bus, and when you do get on to the bus, it is very much over-crowded. I am prepared to prophesy that if something is not done to alleviate the transport position, we are going to have serious accidents in this country before long. These buses are overcrowded to an extent which constitutes a public danger, quite apart for the inconvenience attached to it, and something can be done. Two or three weeks ago the Cape Town City Council which is particularly perturbed about the position in this town, passed a resolution in which they requested the Defence Authorities to place Defence Transport at the disposal of men and women who are employed to the number of many thousands in various parts of Cape Town. I myself paid a visit to see the men and women in the Air Force coming away from a particular aerodrome in Cape Town, and I found there a queue which was almost a mile long. Those people, being well disciplined, queue up and wait for the bus. In some cases the men walk a quarter mile or half a mile along the road in order to get the bus at the terminus. On the day I was there, it was a very fine day, but I can just visualise what the position is going to be in winter when it rains very heavily and those people have to stand for half an hour in a queue, anything from 100 yards to a mile long, and in the meantime in this particular aerodrome—I happen to know— there are literally dozens of Defence Force vehicles standing there doing nothing. I am given to understand that in many instances they have to be run the regulation 20 miles per week merely to keep them in good order. Surely those Defence vehicles could be made available to run the Defence Force personnel to and from its work. That would in Cape Town and certainly in Durban and Pretoria and Johannesburg, at least give us some alleviation of the present position, but that of course is not going to be enough. I believe that public transport, after the actual necessities of the Defence Force itself, is almost priority No. 1. If we have not got an efficient and sufficient public transport, the people literally cannot get to and from their work, and if things are allowed to develop, we are going to get a position in our country where the people will have to walk 2 or 3 miles daily to their work, a position in a climate such as ours which is impossible. I want to suggest to the Minister of Transport that he should make every possible effort to see that South Africa does get some additions to its public transport. If the hon. Minister will listen to me just for a moment —I am given to understand that recently 1000 chassis were actually imported into the Union. I understand that these 1000 chassis are being held back; that they have not so far been put into circulation. As a result of this there are some firms, who go in for the building of motor car bodies and bus bodies who are working short time, and who have had to get rid of their staff, And yet these chassis actually exist. Whether they are held in reserve I don’t know. I am not saying this by way of criticism but I feel that not sufficient energy has been put into this matter of transport. The Transportation Board have taken the line of least resistance by just putting restrictions on the public and by saying to the public; “You have to make some sacrifices,” whereas they could have achieved much more if they had tried to get transport from America or from England for South Africa’s needs. I want to appeal to the Minister of Transport to use his influence immediately with the Defence authorities because that is where I think the greatest trouble lies. There must be from our observation literally many thousands of vehicles in the control of the Defence authorities which could be released to give some relief to public transport. I have seen in various transport depôts of the Defence authorities throughout the country day after day vehicles lying which are rarely, if ever, used. I have seen a considerable amount of waste in regard to Defence vehicles, and I think if the Defence Department were to go into the number of vehicles they have and the use they could find for them, they would find it possible to release a considerable number of vehicles to assist in this very important matter of public transport. My time is almost up, but I want to come back to one question which was raised here by means of a question, and that is in regard to this completely stupid system of austerity suits which were introduced by someone who knew very little about suits or suiting. The Minister wrote out a very imposing list of how many million buttons were being saved, and how many million yards of thread and cotton were being saved, I asked him in an interjection if he could give me the corresponding figures to show how much was being wasted. The Minister does not appear to have that information. Now, the position is this, that as far as bespoke tailors are concerned—and for the information of hon. members they are the people who make suits to private measures, as distinct from factories—as far as bespoke tailors are concerned, most of their materials have been imported in suit lengths—three yards, three and a quarter yards, three and a half yards, or whatever the case may be, and the imposition of this austerity regulation results in actual waste of material—and the outcome is that people are paying high prices for unsatisfactory suits, and the material saved has to be thrown into the wastepaper basket or in the waste bin because there is no opportunity for repulping that cloth in this country. So all these restrictions really amount to what I would call the height of imbecility. There was a regulation once that the pleats in front of a man’s trousers could still be put in but they must be stitched on. Have you ever heard anything more ridiculous. Well, the result was that the tailor would give his customer a razor blade and the customer just ripped the pleat off. Now, to come to the factories. I do not not know whether they really want the austerity rules released or not, but a number do, because we are now getting to this stage that the factories here are producing austerity suits, while a considerable number of suits are imported into this country from England—and those suits are not austerity suits. You can walk through the shops, particularly in Johannesburg, and find very fine suits there ranging in price from £9 9s. to 30 guineas which are not austerity —and I don’t know what the shipping position is but these importations may increase. The clothing position today is that our own clothing manufacturers will be run out of business if the importation of non-austerity suits is allowed while our own tailors are forced to comply with the austerity rule. Then there are other points. I know of one case where a particular firm possesses thousands of leather buttons, which in the past were used for sports coats. Now, under the austerity regulations that firm is not allowed to use them. What the Minister for Economic Development wants to use leather buttons for I don’t know—whether he wants to use them for austerity I don’t know—or whether he is going to have them coloured with his party’s colours on them, I don’t know either. Why not allow these people to use up what they’ve got? If they are used up we shall have to go without, of course. There are any quantities of buttons in the country. Let us use up the buttons we have. If we need any more, and you cannot get any more, well, you simply have to let your trousers fall down or wear a belt. In Great Britain they are finished with the austerity regulations and the Government there has bought up all the austerity suits to be sent to the devasted areas after the war, and I think the Minister might seriously consider going into the whole of this matter, and as I believe that we shall make some kind of monthly contribution towards the devastated countries after the war we might follow the example of the British Government in this respect. But for heaven’s sake let. us abolish these regulations, and let us for once be in a position to walk out almost decently dressed.

In more than one respect we in this country lag behind other parts of the Commonwealth. That is so particularly in regard to social security, a point which has been emphasised earlier on this session. Another respect in which we lag behind is the extent to which the Government itself is planning, is preparing plans which will enable industry to appreciate what its future is to be. I do not think I am overstating the position when I say that industry and in fact commerce, too, are very concerned at the want of planning on the part of the Government. And the corollary is this, that industry and commerce are themselves unable to plan their own future until it is reasonably clear to them what the Government’s intentions are in relation to industry and commerce. Now, industry to which I want to pay particular attention at the moment is concerned as to the future of private enterprise. I am not now debating the merits of private enterprise as against the alternatives, because I think we have reached the position when we can accept it as Government policy that private enterprise, subject to limitations, which I shall indicate in a moment, is the declared economic policy of the Government. I think that is abundantly clear. Quite apart from the merit itself, the claims which private enterprise, subject to certain limitations, can make, it is perfectly clear that the policy of the Government is, as I have just stated. In the first place it has been laid down by the Planning Council as in its opinion the wisest economic policy for South Africa’s future. We have already had indications which leave no doubt, I think, that that is what the Government has in mind. We had it in the course of an interview by the Associated Chambers of Commerce which represented their case to the Prime Minister in July last year. The Prime Minister then made it clear that the maintenance of private enterprise subject to certain considerations was what the Government intended should be the economic policy of the future. And earlier this session, in the course of the debate on social security, the Prime Minister again made the same point, and I think the Minister of Economic Development recently made the same declaration. But I want to say that it is not enough to have this mere declaration of policy in general terms, because one’s experience is that you can have a declaration of policy even as emphatic as these declarations have been, declarations which leave no room for doubt, and yet you can have, notwithstanding in the day to day legislation of this Assembly, steps being taken which run counter to the exercise of free enterprise. We have had numerous instances of the encroachment by the State upon the field of private endeavour. I believe that there are activities in which it is right and proper, if the prime consideration is the welfare of the State, I believe it legitimate that the State should be itself engaged in a particular industry. That field, however, is strictly limited, and outside of that the Government has made it clear that private enterprise is to have free play, but notwithstanding that repeated declaration of policy I say again that we have innumerable instances of this surreptitious growth. And the danger lies in that this process develops slowly and is not noticed by the public; nevertheless it is a progressive development and the State is becoming more and more a competitor with private enterprise. It is not enough to have the policy of the Government declared in general terms. There must be a degree of planning which will enable industry to appreciate the extent to which in fact the State is prepared to put a limit upon its own activities in the field of industry, and the extent to which it generally intends private enterprise shall have free play. We have had a striking example in legislation which has been before this House only this session, and the Minister will forgive me if I say that it was inconsistent to give voice to a declaration that the policy of the Government was the safeguarding of private enterprise, and at the same time have presented a Bill to the House which enunciated principles running counter to it. I am not now pleading the cause of industry in any sectional spirit, but I am making a plea that the future of industry should be clarified, should be well planned, because I take the view, which I believe is generally conceded, that if we are to have social security to its fullest possible extent, we must have actual and full encouragement given to our industries, our secondary industries, to enable us to enjoy full employment and accentuated productivity and the necessary increase in our national income. I can illustrate the point I have made by referring to this. We believe today still in the Government of the country being a democratic Government, and in theory it is. Parliament in theory is the Governing body. It makes the laws, but in actual practice—and it would be unfortunate if the Government did not realise this—in actual practice the Government of the country has been taken out of the hands of Parliament, and today vests in a large and substantial bureaucracy. I say it is not enough to speak of private industry as the principle which is to be applied in the same way as we can say that the Government of the Union is today a democracy, because it is only that in theory. The same consideration applies to other directions in which it is necessary to take time by the forelock and to appreciate the present drift. I want to say here in passing that I think the country owes a debt to leaders of industry and commerce because of the fact that they have even at long last come to recognise that private enterprise is entitled, to free play only so long as the capital and the industry, and the labour of those who regulate industry, are made subordinate to the welfare of the whole community. That is the doctrine which has fallen from the lips of industrialists time and again of recent years, and this was very crisply and if I may say so beautifully put in a recent address to the members of the South African Federation of Engineering and Metallurgical Associations. And with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would quote this very brief passage as I believe it sums up most adequately the recognition of industry, that its welfare is subordinate to the welfare of the whole community. This is what the Chairman of that body said—

Now, covering the ground as hurriedly as one is obliged to in a debate of this nature, I want to call attention to another direction in which I think the Government should have its attention called to in the present drift. If we are to have our national income increased, and on all sides it is conceded that that must be the case, if we are to have national security, it seems to me that we must radically alter our outlook. Our outlook at present is a restrictive one. We enunciate on the one hand a policy of increased productivity in order to raise the national income and on the other hand we are taking steps unwittingly, perhaps, in order to restrict productivity and our national income. We close the door, for example, to avenues of labour. And here I want to address a word to my friends on the Labour Benches. We have heard from them about the vices of vested interests. I want to say to them that it is time the Labour Party and the Trade Unions realise that they too are vested interests. It is time they realised that they owe a duty in turn to the community, and they must not be prepared to close the door to those who want to come into the field of labour in order to furnish the interests of those who are entrenched and so, too, have vested interests.

What about lawyers and doctors?

I do not see how that applies to lawyers. But as far as doctors are concerned the hon. member is correct. We have had indications that the door should be closed to the admission of more doctors, and that at a time when the country is crying out for medical services, especially for the non-European sections of the population. My friend is correct, I think, in mentioning the medical profession. I say the outlook is a restricted one and that will not help productivity. There is one direction in which I think the commercial community has admirably tolerated a manifestation of this restricted outlook, and that is in regard to the system of control which was introduced at the beginning of the war. Now, I don’t think that anyone approaching the matter sensibly will suggest for a moment that there has not been a need for control. There undoutbedly has been a need, but I do not think it has been sufficiently appreciated by the controllers that this control is a system which cuts right across our established economy, and that it had to be maintained purely on a temporary basis with the recognition that as soon as the moment arrived it must be abandoned. But the attitude of the controllers has been just the reverse, and I think I would be correct in saying that while commerce and industries have been prepared all along to accept the principle of control, they have been concerned with regard to two aspects of it; one, the way control has been administered, and secondly, they have sought an assurance that the Government recognises that this form of restriction, this control, must go at the first appropriate moment. I am sorry that the time did not permit of a debate on this subject for which purpose I gave notice of motion earlier on in the Session, because I believe that it is a matter of paramount importance, not only to industry and commerce, viewed in the light of sectional interests, but because it touches fundamentally the question of State regulation and control for the future. I conclude by urging on the Government that it should indicate to industry and commerce its intention to abolish the present measures and form of control as soon as may be possible in the post-war period, and that such control as is contemplated for the future to ensure that limitation upon private enterprise as will make industry and commerce the servant of the community, will be a wisely devised non-arbitrary and non-bureaucratic control. Such control, in fact, Mr. Speaker, as will ensure the interests of the community in the development of industry and commerce, but will not hamper and thwart that full development, without which the achievement of social security will be impeded and the welfare of the community not be served.

I shall be brief and confine myself to essentials. First of all I want to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Gardens (Dr L. P. Bosman) for his very able address on Monday. He touched on the vital questions of health and education, and I want to add a third matter, and that is the necessity of tackling a well planned national food plan. I do maintain that while we are waiting for the application of the large scale social security plan we should investigate as far as possible our needs locally, and exactly what people do need. I maintain therefore that we should try ro maintain and develop such of our local services as are vitally important to the people as a whole. Now I have one practical contribution to make. In my own constituency I have divided the area into four different parts. I have about 300 men and women who have organised themselves into a series of sub-committees. There are 28 of them in all. They deal with such matters as the aged and infirm; we have a Publicity Committee, we deal with clinics and crèches, native development, economic distress, abandoned people, mentally defectives, epileptics, secondary industry, tree planting, food distribution planning, children’s co-operative enterprises, and so on. The poorer people, before this war, found it difficult to live— how they live today heaven only knows, and we are organising our own food plan accordingly. We have a local development committee dealing with secondary distress. We organise lectures, we seek out deserving cases, and where children require education we try to find education for them. Now, the point I want to make is that these are vital services. We must not allow the deterioration of these vital services pending the application of the large scale plans we have heard so much about and one of the jobs we have to do is to get the people to think and take practical action in relation to the things they need so vitally. I must tell the House that we are anxious to secure facts and figures, and information dealing with these vital matters. On the 15th of each month each sub-committee sends me data sheets giving me the exact operations of the subcommittees. I am able then to tell what is required. It is on the basis of these data sheets that I can approach the various Ministers and hope for some action. Let me point out that my constituency in this way indicates a cross section of what is happening throughout the country. The first data sheets showed a very sorry picture, and there is unquestionably tremendous room for development. Let me repeat there are certain essential services which we must not allow to deteriorate—there are such services as health and education which form the basis on which we must build for the future. We are today getting the people to work for themselves and when social security does come the people will be prepared to meet it. We must see that the demands of the people are satisfied. I commend this plan to the House; it is worthy of consideration, it is a practical plan, it is a plan for the people, and it is a step in the direction of social security.

A great deal of criticism has already been directed at the budget. We hear continually from the other side of the Hcuse how the general public have received the budget. I do not intend to offer more criticisms. I think that the best criticism that I can quote is the result of the Provincial Council by-election in the Zoutpansberg, where the Nationalist Party candidate defeated the United Party candidate. This is, I believe, the first by-election since the general election, and I think it is the writing on the wall when a minority of 211 is converted into a majority of 430. Today I want to confine myself to a subject on which I hope there will be unanimity; I want to discuss something that goes to the roots of our national life, something that affects us as a nation, that will plunge us into the depths if steps are not taken, that affects all of us, whether we belong to the Dominion Party, Labour Party or the S.A.P. Party, it affects all of us, and that is the question of drunkenness. I am not talking about the use of drink but about the misuse of drink, and I want to give the House as much information as I can in the very little time at my disposal. I want to ask the Government who are in charge of affairs, whether they as the responsible body, do not think that the time has arrived when we should concentrate all our energies on the drink problem, whether it is in regard to dealers in liquor, the people who manufacture liquor, the consumers, or anyone else. We must stand together for the sake of our people. Anything that is misused must have detrimental effects. But if there is one thing that has more detrimental results than anything else, then it is the abuse of liquor, and accordingly, I should like briefly to describe what takes place in the Union, in the so-called civilised land in which we live, and I want to indicate how the evil has penetrated and how it is not only undermining our nation, how it is not only undermining individuals and families but how it will also react on succeeding generations. I want to point out how this evil will make us a C.3. nation. If we enquire into the number of people who are convicted of drunkenness in the courts, then I think the House will agree with me that not more than 5 per cent. of people who misuse liquor are found guilty in the courts. I have noted down here a few figures, and I hope that hon. members will accept these figures as correct. These are figures concerning the misuse of liquor. In 1936, in the Cape Courts there were 13,357 coloured people and 1,831 Europeans convicted; in the Transvaal 13,110 nonEuropeans and 3,784 Europeans; in the Free State 612 non-Europeans and 182 Europeans; in Natal 430 non-Europeans and 874 Europeans. I do not want to give too many figures to the House, but you will permit me, Sir, to mention the total number of people who were convicted in the Union in respect of one year. I take the year 1939, not because I picked it out specially, but because it is the last year before the outbreak of war, and in that year 46,317 persons were convicted of drunkenness. I am not going into the number of accidents that have taken place and other troubles that have been caused through drunkenness. Let me mention a few places in the immediate neighbourhood. We all know the village Kuils River. It is a small village, but in the course of a year the sum of £20,000 was expended in the purchase of liquor, that is liquor in bottles, not in tots or in casks, nor does it include wine used in hotels—merely bottled liquor. Take an even smaller place, Lamberts Bay, where you have a coloured population of about 1,000 and a white population of about 300; daily there is sold there 400 bottles of liquor; that is quite apart from the tots that are sold. I do not think it is necessary for me to go further into the frightful use or misuse of liquor, and I believe that if we really want to do the best thing for our people we shall give our earnest consideration to this matter. If you travel around the villages in the Western Province, and if you observe what goes on in the streets, and if we do nothing to stop it, then it is a disgrace to us who claim to be civilised. If a stranger saw the state of affairs in the villages on a Friday after noon or Saturday morning, then he would be shocked to think that this is allowed in a civilised country. What is the result? Unfortunately I have to make many quotations in the short time that I have at my disposal. Otherwise I would have gone more deeply into the subject. I will just briefly quote what people are saying, people who know something about this subject, doctors. I shall mention the names and quote what they are saying over the results of drunkenness not only in regard to morals, but I will show how it undermines the physical standard of a nation. Many of us are under the impression that wine and brandy cause all the mischief. I would like to talk about something that is used very widely in the Western Province, and that is beer. I have before me a book that has been written by four doctors. This is what they say—

[Laughter.] I am sorry that hon. members take up the matter in that way. If they had a little more knowledge of the subject they would not treat it so lightly. I can give them the assurance that the matter is very serious indeed. I am bringing up this matter, because I see how the misuse of drink is breaking up families and ruining many people. I should like to make just a few more quotations to show how the misuse of drink is the cause of all sorts of diseases—

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 9th March.