I move—

I second.

I just want to ask what the Government’s intention is in connection with this matter. Leave is being asked to introduce new Bills, and the Government owes this side an explanation as to whether the Bills which are introduced at this late stage of the session will be brought up for discussion. The House agreed to place private members’ days at the disposal of the Government; and with great sacrifice on the part of members it was agreed to sit on Saturdays as well. When we asked the Government what further business would be submitted to the House before we adjourn, the Government indicated that it was going to adhere to a certain programme, to certain items on the Order Paper as indicated at that time. But now we find that leave is sought to introduce two new Bills, and I think the Government owes us an explanation.

When we were asked what further business we proposed to dispose of, we invariably replied that a few other Bills would still be introduced. I do not know whether the first Bill was specially mentioned, but it was always our intention to bring such a Bill before the House. We did not confine our programme to the items which were on the Order Paper, and we have always said that further Bills would be introduced. The second Bill was not mentioned, but I personally discussed this with the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) who is specially interested in it. I told him that if it was a non-contentious Bill, it could be dealt with. I understand it will not take up a great deal of time. If it takes up a great deal of time we shall not go on with it.

What about the first?

That is a more important Bill. We did not confine ourselves to the items on the Order Paper, and we said that further Bills might be introduced. This Bill deals with the important question of housing, and I hope my hon. friend will not object to the introduction of this Bill.

Are we not going to finish until August?

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 24th May.

I should like to move an amendment—

As the first amendment is in conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a second time, I am unable to put it to the Committee.

I want to draw attention to the fact that we tried to examine the plan in connection with this new line; and I must say the information we got was very meagre, very defective. We traced the plan to which reference is made in this Bill; but we found that the plan gives very little information. It is practically impossible for us to decide on the information contained in this plan, whether the line, as proposed here, is justified, but on the face of it, as it appears here, it seems to us to be a ridiculous proposal, to say the least of it. The Minister proposes to spend an amount of approximately £500,000 on a short line of 27 miles over soft and even ground. This line goes over the high veld of the Transvaal. It does not look like a railway line through the high veld; it zig-zags more like a spruit. When a railway line is constructed we at least expect it to be in a straight line. There are no mountains here; the whole area is soft and even; but the line zig-zags to such an extent that it looks as though it will never get to its destination. That is our first objection. The second objection is that it is proposed to construct this line with 96 lb. rails. In these days of steel shortage we propose to use 96 lb. rails, although the 80 lb. rails would have done precisely the same work as the 96 lb. rails. During the second reading debate when the Minister explained this matter, I understood from him that a line constructed with 96 lb. rails would cost £495,000, but that an 80 lb. line would cost £281,000. If that is the case, I cannot understand why it is proposed to use 96 lb. rails on a branch line, when 80 lb. rails are used on miles of our main line. One only use 961b. rails where one wants speed; one does not waste 96 lb. rails on such a short line. It is nothing but a waste of money. In any event, 80 lb. rails would have had a life of approximately 25 years. The guarantee of this contract is for a period of 25 years. The 80 lb. rails would have had a life of anything up to 25 years. Why do we waste 96 lb. rails on such a short line when in any case it is not possible to have speed on account of the many curves. I assumed that we would have gradients of one in hundred. With all the technicians we have today in the Railways, it is surely possible to construct a straight line without having steeper gradients than one in hundred. The soil which is excavated in one place is used to fill other places. That is the A.B.C. of railway construction. We are asking for information. We are asking for details in regard to this zigzagging of the line, and we want the construction of a line with 96 lb. rails instead of 80 lb. rails to be justified. With all these curves it is not possible to have speed on this line. It is true that it has been said that no curve is greater than one in twelve-hundred, but even that is unnecessary. As far as I am aware, the earth is soft and the construction of a straight line ought not to be difficult. We make bold to say that this line, if it had been constructed from Witbank to Bethal, which would have had the approval of the whole country and which would have linked the north and east of the Transvaal direct with the north and east of Natal, would have been much more advantageous, to the Administration than this zig-zagging line from Oogies to Van Dyk’s Drift. We feel that the reason which the Minister advanced at the second reading, namely, that he did not want the traffic to be shunted at Oogies or any other place—the trains will pick up the traffic at the mines and run through to their destination—is not a sound reason. The Minister cannot expect us to accept that statement in this House. He expects 3,000,000 tons of traffic per annum. That amounts to 10,000 tons nett traffic every day, which means that anything from 15,000 to 25,000 ton gross traffic may have to be handled every day. That represents more traffic than is handled at Gunhill or Naauwpoort, De Aar or Beaufort West or Touws River, during any one day; and look at the marshalling and yard facilities they have there. It is unthinkable to tell the House that the locomotives will pick up the traffic at the mines, and then run straight through to the destination. Surely that information is obviously incorrect and wrong and misleading. I do not say that the Minister deliberately misled us, but nevertheless that information is misleading; it cannot be done. Extensive shunting facilities will be required, and where you have shunting facilities you need shunting personnel; you need locomotive shed personnel; you need locomotives and you need train personnel. Not only do you require all those facilities, but you require housing for the personnel. For that reason we want to say again that we are sorry that the Minister has taken this matter so far and that he has brought it to such a stage that the House has no alternative but to reject or to approve of it. We feel that with the majority which the Minister has behind him, he will be able to put this agreement through the House, but we say it is not in the interests of the country as a whole; it is not in the interests of the Railway Administration; it is not in the interests of the area which the Railway Administration proposes to serve with this line. We still feel that the correct location for this line would have been from Witbank to Bethal.

Order, order! The hon. member cannot go into that question now.

I want to link this up with the expenditure. If this line had been constructed from Witbank to Bethal, the costs would not have been so high, and the area concerned, the Railways and the country would have derived more benefit from it.

I regret the hon. member cannot go into that now.

We would like to have more clarity from the Minister in connection with the yard facilities, the shunting facilities, the personnel and the accommodation for locomotive sheds. [Time limit.]

I should like to say that I appreciate the care with which the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) has gone into the subject matter of this Bill, but I am afraid it is impossible for me to agree that all the statements made by him as to the nature of the track, the capacity of the line, and so on, are really matters of fact. The route which is being followed according to the plans laid down by the railway engineers may look rather tortuous on a small scale plan because after all there are 27 miles condensed into about 6 inches, and the appearance of curvature is very much greater than is the case so far as the actual line is concerned. The land, despite what my hon. friend says, is not flat. I have a definite statement here from the engineers who surveyed the line that the physical features of the country traversed are difficult, the country generally being of an undulating nature. It is necessary if the ruling grade of one in a hundred is to be maintained and that is essential if we are to carry full trainloads of coal without remarshalling at different points, that the line must follow this route even allowing for filling and cutting. I can assure the hon. member that if anything can be done— if we can straighten the line in any way— I am quite prepared to consider some additional expenditure for the purpose. But the amendment cutting down the expenditure would not help me in that regard. I want to see the line as straight as possible and would rather see it properly laid to begin with because I am satisfied that it will be a line for the future. I would like to see it laid down the best possible way. That will be looked into, but it is not correct to say that we have just run the line along the most convenient route regardless of distance, curvature and levels. Now the hon. member raised another important point in connection with the 96 lb. rails. It is true that 80 lb. rails will carry our heavy engines. But there is no guarantee that the axle load will not be increased. If the line is going to carry 5 million tons of coal, there will be excessive wear and tear on rails of only 80 lbs. weight. The wear and tear will be less with 96 lb. rails, and it is better to lay down the heavier rails otherwise the line will soon have to be rerailed if the traffic is dense and axle loads are heavy. We have to make sure that we don’t have to take up these rails in the next few years; so apart altogether from the speed of the traffic, its weight and density are very important factors. Despite the hon. member’s statement that I could not convince this House that full trainloads will go from these collieries, I want to say again that the trains leaving Van Dyk’s Drift, will be leaving as full trains— they will be carrying on an average 1,500 tons. They will be marshalled at Van Dyk’s Drift, The hon. member has had experience himself, and he knows that as the trucks are filled and marshalled so they will move off. In these circumstances I am afraid I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member, but I can assure him that we shall do our best in every possible way to improve the curvature and the levelling and so on, and that our engineers will take notice of what he has said.

We appreciate the assurance that the Minister has given us, but what he has said has strengthened us in our conviction, if this were necessary, that a straight line is what is wanted. If the Minister wants 5,000,000 tons of traffic to be hauled over that line, and if he wants to protect the line, he should have a straight line built. The Minister knows that a railway line suffers most wear and tear on the bends and it is on the bends and curves that it gives most work and trouble. The Minister says that if he uses 80 lb. rails he will have to renew the line every two or three years. That is not so, and let me tell him that if he builds an 80 lb. line he will not have to renew it every two or three years, not even every five times two or three years. Still, we accept the Minister’s assurance and we shall be glad if he will reconsider the question of building a straight line. I have before me the relationship of the proposed branch line to the old main line, and the curves in comparison with the main line are inexplicable. I shall content myself with these few remarks, but I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that if his information is to the effect that he can just pick up a 1,500 ton train at Van Dyk’s Drift he is also mistaken. One truck is small, the next one is big and another One is short, and the next one is of a different type again. A train is not made up like sausages out of a sausage-machine—you cannot just take it out of a mine. A train has to be made up and if you don’t make it up where it comes out of the mine, or where your traffic is, you will have to do it on the Rand, where you already have most of your accumulation of traffic. You want to prevent a further accumulation and stoppage of traffic on the Rand, and you should make up your train as much as possible at the station from which it starts. You want to keep it away from the Rand as much as you can. If you want to make up a blockload at a starting point, or at a connecting point, you have to have shunting facilities.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I want to move the following amendment—

That will give us the opportunity of discussing the agreement contained in the Schedule to the Bill. First of all I want to point out that there are two dates in the agreement, namely, 9th May and 3rd May. Probably this is only a technical mistake, but if you want to give the correct description of the agreement, you have to give a different one.

What is the hon. member’s point?

That the 9th May is not a correct description. The agreement has two dates. But that is not the main point which interests me. There are a few cardinal points in the agreement to which my attention has been directed and the first is that the mine is debited with only three fifths of the expenses of the line for the purposes of the guarantee. The second is Clause 8 of the agreement. This is a very important clause. The effect of the clause is that the mining company—one of the owners and directors probably is Mr. Oppenheimer— practically gets the monopoly over the line in the whole of this area, especially as indicated in Sub-Clause 8 (a) (i) on page 9. Hon. members will notice that the company which only has three-fifths of the actual costs of the line debited against it for the purposes of the guarantee, to all intents and purposes gets a monopoly over the whole line. If any other company wants an extension on the line—and I understand the object to be to extend it eventually to Hendrina or Carolina—that other company has to approach this company and the Railway Administration, and it not only has to guarantee any possible future loss, but it also has to bear a pro rata share of the loss suffered in the past. Surely that cannot be the intention of the agreement? Is the Administration going to make a present of a whole railway line which is costing £500,000 to this mining company? The result is going to be that no company will be prepared to bear the losses of the past and to cover the losses of the future. That is my main objection to this agreement. The Minister came to this House with the agreement signed and ready. I really feel that the procedure which the Minister has followed has been a very unfortunate one. He should rather, at the beginning of the Session, have asked for a small Select Committee to go into the whole question, but now, right towards the end of the Session, he produces this Bill and with information which is not authoritative. He tells us things which no one with any knowledge of railway work would say, because what he has said is not correct. At the last moment he produces a fully signed agreement with the company and that company will have the lever in its hands, and the Minister expects us to pass it. It is for that reason that I move my amendment so that these two important aspects at least can be reviewed in this agreement. There is another amendment necessary in the Afrikaans text, on page 7, Clause 4 of the agreement, in the second line of the clause. There we find that all the costs of construction and equipment include all the expenditude made by the Administration and charged by the Railways. [Time limit.]

I should like to explain first of all in regard to the two dates, the 3rd May and the 9th May. If the hon. member looks carefully through the agreement he will see that the Angelo American Corporation signed the agreement by virtue of a resolution of directors taken on the 3rd May. The deed then came down here, and the Minister signed it on the 9th May The date on which the Minister signed it was the date on which the agreement was completed. The signatories being so far apart it was not possible to have the two parties signing on the same day. I do not think there is much in the hon. member’s point there With regard to the question of a monopoly, I would point out that this company, together with the two collieries, is guaranteeing to cover the losses on this line. It is true it is only having the capital account assessed in respect of three-fifths of the actual cost of construction and equipment of the railway, because if the company worked alone it would probably be able to do so with a lighter railway. But for our own purpose we are laying a heavier line and one that would probably cost two-fifths more than a line constructed solely for the purposes of the company. We decided to take a percentage basis rather than a fixed sum. The estimates are not always in accordance with the actual costs. The probabilities are in these days that the estimated costs will be exceeded, and to that extent the railways will be better off than if they had assessed, as the basis for payment of charges by the colliery, a fixed sum calculated on the estimated cost. The basis of three-fifths will stand until the quantity of coal conveyed over this railway amounts to 3,000,000 tons or more during the course of the year. When the traffic reaches that figure the collieries will have to pay the charges on the basis of a line with 96 lb. rails; the charges will no longer be computed on three-fifths of the actual costs, but on the actual capital cost of construction. Should any other colliery come in and share in the use of this railway line—if it is a colliery based on this line— its contribution will probably be assessed on the length of the line it had to use; it may only have to use half of the total length of the section; and it will have to pay according to the tonnage of the traffic it consigns over this line. It is only reasonable, however, that a new colliery coming in in this way should pay its share of the losses if any are being incurred in respect of the working of the line. That is all that is provided in the agreement. If the hon. member reads the agreement closely, he will see that the Minister has the right in respect of a new colliery, to charge for a proportion of the two-fifths of the capital cost, in addition to the threefifths. So in every respect the Administration is covered. The agreement is completely fair to the original company who are assuming the first responsibility, and we have made nothing so cast-iron that it would be difficult to implement the conditions. There is nothing contained in the agreement that will prevent any new colliery from starting operations and sharing in the use of the line. In regard to past losses it was felt that the company might pay in respect of three or four years, and then somebody else might come in and gain the benefit. It was agreed that if losses were incurred over a year or two and somebody else came in, they might be reasonably made to pay part of those past losses. But if the line has been operated for a number of years it could not be expected that any new company coming in should have to pay for past losses over that period. So the hon. member will notice in that particular section of the Bill it is laid down that a new company would have to pay—

The Minister will determine whether any user of the line shall pay for past losses or not, and if so what proportion it will be liable for. Obviously the Minister will do nothing to discourage the development of other collieries. The Bill leaves the position completely flexible, and it does not provide for any formula that might prove very awkward later on when it is endeavoured to apply it. The hon. member and the House may accept that this agreement thoroughly safeguards the Administration. It is fair to the company; it does not stand in the way of any new company coming in; and where a difficulty arises, that difficulty has to be solved by the Minister.

The deed of agreement which formed the Schedule to the Bill is the actual document signed by the parties concerned, and is therefore not capable of amendment. As the second part of the amendment, proposed by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) apparently aims at amending the agreement, it can not be put to the Committee.

Would you be kind enough, Mr. Chairman, to explain what the use of this discussion is in the circumstances.

The Agreement as between the two parties has been signed, and this Committee cannot amend the agreement.

Does that mean that the Minister can make any agreement and that Parliament cannot amend it?

The House can reject the Bill when it is discussed on the second reading.

First part of the amendment proposed by Mr. Klopper put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses and the Title having been agreed to, HOUSE RESUMED :

Bill to be read a third time on 22nd May.

I should like to know under what conditions these lands have been allotted to the settlers, at what price and how these people have been notified of the allo†Ment of these lands. And under (b) I should like to know whether tenders have been asked for and what the price is, at what price the land has been sold and in what way these people have been notified that the lands have come on the market.

This was done under the regulations of the Settlement Act. The law provides for it.

The farms have not been advertised.

They are being advertised. All these things come under the Land Board. The Land Board has done the work and the recommendations of the Land Board then have to come before the Select Committee and before Parliament.

I am not quite satisfied. I do not know whether I should mention those people’s names, but I have received a number of letters—I do not know whether the statements in these letters are true—but I am told in these letters that the visit of the Commission to those pars was not properly advertised. What is more, not all those people have been helped. Furthermore, some of these people have had farms allotted to them twenty or thirty miles away from the land where they are living, and I should like to have some further information from the Minister. For instance I should like to know at what price the land was sold to private owners.

The prices are stated in the annexure. The area is one to which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) referred earlier on. There is very little water there. It is good grazing land even though it is bare. But the water is salty, so salty that the stock cannot drink it. The settlers had the opportunity of getting the land so that they could extend there. We did not want to give the land to men who weren’t accustomed to that part of the country because they would not have been able to stand it. The private owners approached me and I promised them that the Land Board would visit those parts and the settlers would be given the first opportunity to obtain the land. When the settlers’ requirements were met private individuals were allowed to expand their holdings. I have the prices of the land here.

They vary from 2s. 6d., 3s. 6d. to 6s. In one instance it is 7s. 6d. I can also mention the names of the people—I have them here. It is perfectly true that a few people were given land which was not near their holdings. They had to take land some distance away from their present holdings. That is the position.

Was the land allotted to private owners under the Settlement Act, or was it sold for cash?

It was sold under the Settlement Act.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Recommendations (38) to (47) put and agreed to.

Recommendation No. (48) put,

I move:

I should like to know whether that means that this report will not come up again?

Oh, yes, it will come up again.

What is the idea?

Motion put and agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :

When the Minister intimated that he was not going to accept this amendment he stated that the reason was that under Section 11 great losses were suffered in connection with advances by th State. I indicated that the Minister was there under a misapprehension, because lan under Section 11 is purchased through th medium of the Land Board. The buyer selects the land; he obtains an optio: on it; the Land Board is asked to inspect th land, and if the Land Board consider that the price is fair the person is allowed to purchase the land, but he is obliged to put down in cash one-third of the purchase price Where losses were suffered it has been where there has been a depression, when such person could not pay any further and th holding has been cancelled because he ha given it up. Then revaluation takes place Losses Can occur just as in the case of th Land Bank or any other banking institutio which gives an advance on land on its valuation of the farm. That could also occur wit them if a depression occurred, and the lan could not fetch its former value. It is only in those special circumstances that a loss occurs. When such a loss occurs the Min ster jointly with his Department is just as responsible as the farmer, because the Lan Board has inspected the land and certifie that the land was worth the price. It only in exceptional circumstances that losses can be sustained in respect of the lam Consequently I feel that the Minister ought to accept this amendment. It is unjust that when a man comes along to borrow money from the State a perpetual servitude should be imposed on the land. When we bring these matter to the notice of the Minister, he says on every occasion that it is “Kemp work.” If that is so, why has this alteration been made? Why does he hide behind things that are not true? The Minister is very unfair. If a person wishes to borrow mont from the State he is told that he can borrow the money but there will be a servitude on his land for all time, and that he will not be able to sell it, to divide it or to make it over to his children, unless he obtain the consent of the Minister of Lands. That is making slaves of our people. Our people do not want to be placed in the category of passcarriers and to have to get permission from the Minister at every turn. However much we have been opposed to these provisions being applied to the other cases, regarding which we had a discussion here, the Minister has, with his majority behind him, just decided that it must be done in those cases. But we still hope that the Minister will accept this motion, so that this provision will at least not apply to people who have bought land under Section 11.

I have already stated by way of interjection that this measure is the Act of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. This provision is in his Act.

Read it from the Act.

If he will read the speech he will see that he stated when the Opposition raised objections to Section 11: “I cannot do otherwise; I must have Section 11 because speculation is becoming too bad.”

Why then are you altering it?

May I just say this, that no comparison can be drawn between a man who goes to the Land Bank for an advance and a man who comes to the Department of Lands to buy land. The man who approaches the Land Bank goes to borrow money, and he can only obtain it on a business basis; that is to say there is a big margin between the real value of the land and the amount the Land Bank advances. The Land Bank only gives 66 per cent. of the value of the land.

Seventy five per cent.

Give me a chance.

Then you must say what is correct.

I maintain that the security that the Land Bank requires is 66 per cent., and the money is given at a rate of interest of 4½ per cent. But in this case a person comes along, a relatively poor man, who has to be assisted, and he wishes to buy land from the department. He is regarded as a settler. He is a settler. The land is bought by the department, and the man does not get transfer before he has paid fully for it, and the rate of interest is about 3¾ per cent. That the State has suffered loss from time to time is indisputable. This also occurred when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was Minister. While he was Minister requests were made from time to time that the land should be revalued. But the hon. member had that experience. He had a Land Board. He allotted farms under Section 11 and frequently he was asked to revalue the farm. I maintain that it is not only 90 per cent. that the State advances; the State goes further. In addition to the 90 per cent. that is advanced, further funds are provided for the purchase of implements, for the sinking of boreholes, for the purchase of cattle, and in respect of improvements.

They also make those advances to an ordinary farmer, but they do not tie up his farm.

But the ordinary farmer has his security. This man has no security to offer. I say that the advances that are made in some instances far exceed 90 per cent. These are not business transactions; they are designed to help to put the man on his feet. He has not adequate security to go to an ordinary commercial bank and borrow money; now he comes to the department and consequently he is regarded as a settler, and he is assisted in some cases considerably in excess of the full value of his land.

I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister in the first place that the settlers who fall under these restrictions are not people who have had to contribute one-tenth. The Minister may not be aware of it, but there was a time when they had to contribute a fifth, and many of those people who contributed a fifth are still settlers. Perhaps the Minister is also not aware that the Land Bank today advances 66⅔ per cent. What is the difference? In the one case where he borrows from the Land Bank it is 66⅔ per cent. and in the other case where he goes to the Depar†Ment of Lands it is 80 per cent., but the difference is this, the one man, the man who approached the Depar†Ment of Lands, must remain a slave for the rest of his life. He cannot become the owner of that land; but the other man can become an independent farmer. The whole argument is nonsensical, and the man has not to contribute a tenth, but before he can get that land he must show that he has sufficient assets to enable him to work that farm. If it is a stock farm, he must prove that he has sufficient sheep and cattle. He must prove that he has adequate implements and capital to be able to work the farm. Eventually he becomes an independent farmer, and that indeed is the whole reason why he makes this application. But what I am objecting to is the deceit that takes place here. That man is not informed at the time he makes his application that this restriction is going to be imposed on him. There is no other word to meet the case; it is deceit. He is brought under the impression that if he contributes his share he can become an independent farmer; he can become his own landlord. Under these restrictions this ground will never become his freehold property. This land will now never be unencumbered. It will remain Crown land in perpetuity. The Minister will have control over it, and that is where the dishonesty comes in. When the man made his application there was no suggestion that he would not in due course become an independent farmer. I say, therefore, that this argument of the Minister’s is quite beside the point. The Minister talked here about revaluation. I want to ask him whether he can mention a single case where he had recourse to revaluation under Section 11. He is unable to cite a single instance.

There were applications.

And not a single application was granted. They were refused revaluation. Many other people had revaluation, but these people under Section 11 did not get it. The Minister did not agree to a single revaluation. So in what way does it further matter to maintain that we had revaluations under Section 11?

I never said that.

The farmers who fall under Section 11 are quite a different type. These are people who have contributed their own money, and they have now been deceived in this way. There is no other word for it. They have been misled by the Government, whom they should look up to as the father who must help them. One cannot find language strong enough to condemn this deception. The Government gets its contributions back in full. All other types of farmers also receive advances. They receive advances for their fencing. They receive advances for their boreholes. They obtain advances from the Land Bank. Why does not the Minister say that he intends to apply this measure to the farmers who have obtained advances from the Land Bank? No, he will not do that. He has already had his day as a Minister and he would never venture to do that. In principle there is no difference between the farmer who goes to the Land Bank and who obtains his advances for fencing from it, and the man who gets an advance under Section 11, except that in the one case the farmer deals with a decent institution, and in the other case the farmer is deceived. We see what the Land Bank is now doing. The Land Bank expressed itself in the strongest terms on this point before the Agricultural Commission. Here they say—[Re-translated]—

That is precisely what we say, and it is what the management of the Land Bank say, people who deal with applications from farmers from morning till night. They say you are going to kill that feeling of independence and responsibility, and that is what the Minister is actually doing. That feeling that the Afrikaner has always cherished, to want to be his own landlord is now being killed by the Minister, and how on earth they can apply it to Section 11 is quite beyond my comprehension. The Government received back every penny of the money that they advanced, with interest, and not only with interest but at a higher rate of interest than what the Government paid. How these people can be expected to remain bywoners throughout their lives beats me altogether. People simply cannot understand it. We want to object as strongly as we can against farmers who have purchased land under Section 11 being brought under this. We object to any settler whatever falling under this, but we specially object in the case of farmers who have purchased the land under Section 11. This restriction is now made to apply in their case, and I maintain that is nothing else but deceit.

We must not talk so much about deceit.

Now you are beginning to talk.

Listen to how they are cackling now.

The hon. member ought not to be so obstreperous.

You are even more obstreperous.

I shall not take any notice of that hon. member. The hon. member who has just spoken has stated that we are introducing a measure here under which the settler will never be his own landlord on his farm. The hon. member knows, of course, that this is not the case.

It is.

You do not understand it. The man obtains his diagram and transfer, and the farm is his very own. All that the Government does is to see that he does not Speculate with the land.

Then of course he is not the “baas.’’

If my hon. friend had a child and that child was not in a position to buy a farm, but he allowed it to buy a farm, and he took all the responsibility on his own shoulders, then would it not be reasonable to say to the child: “My child, I have helped you to get that farm ; it is your farm, but you may not sell it without obtaining my consent”?

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Now the hon. member wants to make a comparison between the settlers under Section 11 and the settlers who buy land through the department. He wants to represent that there is no difference between them and farmers who have bought their farms from the Land Bank. In the past I was also very poor. At that time there was no Land Settlement Act, and I was not able to buy a farm without giving security to the Land Bank, and I could only obtain from the Land Bank a sum equal to 60 per cent. of the valuation of my farm. I had to obtain the balance from other institutions, and I had to work and get more money before I could buy it.

Is that Kommandant’s Kop?

The dentist of Calvinia, the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) knows nothing about the owner of Kommandant’s Kop.

You inherited it from your wife.

The hon. member also inherited a farm, but today he is bankrupt. The whole of Calvinia is bankrupt today. I want now to return to the point. These people who buy through the Land Bank have to give security, and they have to provide so much security that the Land Bank will not suffer any loss if they fail. We know that the Land Bank is a safe institution. The Land Bank has actually suffered no loss. The only loss that it suffered was under Section 20, under the Farmers’ Assistance Act, that is the only loss they suffered. They have helped many Afrikaners under the Land Settlement Act, people who never would have been able to get their farms unless the Government had stepped in and helped them.

Why should they now have to remain the slaves of the Government?

They have paid for their farms; they have worked hard and they have paid for their farms. They are not bankrupt like some of these people in Calvinia. They have worked for their farms. All that is provided for here is that the man shall not speculate with his land. The Minister who now holds the portfolio will not always be there.

Hear, hear.

Hon. members opposite, of course, want the ex-Minister of Lands, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) to hold the office. I suggest that they should read some of the speeches in Hansard that they made in connection with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. We know that it is fortunately the law of the land that the Minister does not hold the post permanently. Nor are parties permanently in power. The Minister is doing his duty to the country as he should do. Hon. members say that this is a national question. I agree. It is a big problem, the raising of the less privileged section of the community, and the Land Settlement Act has been administered by successive governments with that object in view. But it is this Minister’s duty to ensure that what the State has given them, and what they would never have had if the State had not come to their aid, is preserved, and that this land is utilised for its proper purpose. I know that many settlers have sold their land and have speculated, and today they are in the same position that they were in before they acquired the land. We know our history, we march with our history. All that the Minister is doing is to prevent these people speculating and selling their land, to avoid them being again in difficulties. What is wrong with that? If there is one thing that a man really deplores it is to sit here in Parliament and to see how the sentiment of the people is exploited; I would ask any unprejudiced Afrikaner to sit for a while in the gallery and to observe that for himself. We come here today with the principle that everyone must admit it a sound principle, to afford protection by the State to the man who cannot protect himself. For one reason or another these people have not been able to buy land themselves, and the State has helped them to do so, and the State says now that it wants to protect this man and his children. The hon. Leader of the Opposition stated this morning that the effect of this Bill would be to disrupt family life. He is a fine speaker. I give him that credit. But he had no case. Does he mean to say that he wants all his children when they have come of age, to remain sitting at home? I ask him that. If he is a good father he will kick them out and tell them that now they have to look after themselves. The Minister has stated that the small farm is meant for one family, and in the interests of the nation he is not going to permit these farms to be trampled down and exhausted by a considerable number of families.

How large are the “small farms”?

That advocate there does not understand the matter. Ask the lion, member for Wolmaransstad. He will tell you that we in the old Nationalist Party always declared that the farms were always too small and that they should be made larger. That is what we see today, and when we now stipulate that two or three families may not live on the farms the Hon. Leader of the Opposition say that that will entail a breaking up of family life.

Of course. If the son is of age he has to leave; and the father and mother may not live with their son.

I ask the Opposition now straight out, how long are they going to continue with this sort of thing? Are their politics so bankrupt that they have to hold up this Bill for days because we want to protect the less privileged people against themselves? They come along and quote all sorts of examples. Everyone who purchases his farm through the Land Bank has security to offer. I have been through the mill. If a borehole or a windmill is required on a farm the Land Bank is not going to give the money for it unless you can furnish adequate security. But in the case of the Land Board it is quite different. If a borehole is required it is sunk on the farm, and the State accepts the risk and suffers the loss, if any. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) always refers to me as someone with a swelled head. Thank God I don’t walk round in the House of Assembly with a tongue that is bitter and steeped in gall. His whole life is embittered. He vents his spleen against Afrikaners, his own folk. I remember when I was a young man I went to the Provincial Council and how the hon. member evoked my admiration, but in this House I have had nothing but contempt for him, because he goes round disparaging his own people. He is a man whose tongue is always venomous. Now the hon. members on the Government benches are speaking. Until hitherto they have been deaf mutes. The Whip had to go round this morning to make the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) keep quiet.

We are now ready for you.

The hon. member’s mouth is always wide open, but when it comes to the vote he runs away. I turn now to the “small farms.” In my constituency there are “small farms” of 12,000 morgen in extent, and which have been allotted under Section 11.

That the people bought for 1s. a morgen.

Go and buy it today for 1s. a morgen. Will the Minister of Lands accompany me to these farms. He will see there how people with sheep and cattle have to farm with the aid of one or two windmills, and if the windmill is out of order the old man of 65 must go and see whether he can fix it up. In time of drought the sheep all stand there round the windmill to get water. Now this man is not allowed to have any Europeans on his property, and he must drive away his sons. All the cattle are there at the pump to get water. How can an old man of 65 look after that? I ask the Minister to go with me to the Molopo and Kuruman Rivers. There you can find farms on which there are 2,000 head of cattle, and it is a heavy task, especially during a time of drought. The Minister is sabotaging the whole land settlement policy. He will be the cause of these people failing. Naturally, he stigmatises them as poor whites.

And they vote for the Nationalist Party.

Heaven be praised that the poor people vote Nationalist, because they know where their salvation rests. From the time I have been member for Gordonia I have come into contact with a large number of those people in my districts. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) is today perhaps a wealthy man. Does he always work on his farm? If years ago he were told that his son would have to leave the farm as soon as he was 21 what would he have said?

We are not discussing that now.

Hear, hear.

This section has reference to (b).

Sub-section (1) has been disposed of.

I beg your pardon, Sir, but the amendment relates to farms that had been bought under Section 11, that they should not fall under this.

Under the amendment proposed by the hon. member for. Calvinia we have to deal with sub-section (2).

But (b) falls under that. This is one of the things in connection with this section. Hon. members opposite called out: “Hear, hear!” The barrister should explain to them what the implications of the clause are. They really do not know what the Bill contains. Will the Minister say that today he can buy the land at 1s. a morgen, but that the children, when they are 21 years old, must leave the farm. The old man must carry on alone on that huge farm. I maintain that under the circumstances that you have in the North-west, where you have this tremendous heat, a man, after he has passed his fifty-fifth year, cannot look after his farming operations as he ought to. Consequently it is necessary that we should not allow this restriction to be valid in respect of people who bought land under Section 11, so that they may retain their children there. I know of cases where farms have been allotted to widows. I have in mind two instances. Are the sons, when they are of age, to be packed off? While they are still not in a position to take up farming themselves, have they to be turned adrift. The Minister always imagines that he knows the North-West. I am convinced that when he drafted this Bill he never had the North-West in his thoughts at all. From the time I have been a member for Gordonia numbers of instances have come before me of people who have stated that they could not look after their families if they could not have their sons there with them; and today, especially when you cannot get any labour, and when the coloured people will not work, the only thing that people can do is to keep going with members of their own family. Now the Minister comes and lays down, that the people must come to him, cap in hand, to ask whether they may please keep their children there. From time immemorial it has been our policy in our country to make people take pride in their land. Now the Minister wants to destroy all that. As soon as a lad has turned 21 he must be turned out. If the parents die and the place is left to the son, the son will be at some totally different place in the country, he may even have taken up another occupation, and then he has to return and take over the farm. In those circumstances he cannot make a success of it. We want to have a farming community who have a love for the soil. The Minister of Lands never thought about that. He has a large farm at Hutchinson, and what would he say about it if he was obliged to drive away from the farm those of his sons who are of age, knowing that after his death they will have to come and farm there. I know that the Minister has clever sons, but in what respect does his position differ— except that he is well off—from that of the less privileged people who will be affected by this Bill? All that he can say is that he is a capitalist and that he has made provision for his sons. But the poor people who have found a refuge under this Bill are now prevented from keeping their grown up sons on the land. If ever there was a Bill that was in conflict with the background of the Afrikaner and of the English-speaking people, it is this Bill. The hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) would be able to tell us that the pride of the country gentleman in England is that the land must pass from the one eldest son to the next. [Time limit.]

The hon. member has challenged me over the size of farms. I have stated that the farms are usually small. When the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was in office the advances under Section 11 were limited to £2,000. We raised the figure to almost £3,000, but that still implies only a small farm, especially in the Karoo. My hon. friend says that I know nothing about the North West. I can only say that Gordonia has paid a heavy price to have a Cape Town barrister as its representative. He reminds me of the hon. member for Humandorp (Mr. Sauer), who in a time of drought when thousands of cattle had died in Victoria West, was on a visit to that constituency which he then represented. He asked on seeing a pet lamb, why that lamb was so fat. Then he was told that it was a pet lamb (hanslam), and he asked why all the lambs could not be made “hans.” The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) spoke about a farm in Gordonia that is 12,000 morgen in extent. That was a farm on which we could get no water. The present owner let out the grazing and subsequently succeeded in obtaining water. The hon. member then made representations to us that we ought to allot the land to this man because he had found water there, and we gave it to him at 1s. a morgen. There is only one water hole on the land, and the hon. member ought to know that a person with only one watering place cannot farm 12,000 morgen. Even if the farm is 50,000 morgen in extent he can only carry on farming operations on 3,000 morgen if he has only one watering place.

You have yourself stated that he could farm on 6,000 morgen.

I have not. If he has only one watering place, he can at most only farm on 4,000 morgen, and in those parts 4,000 morgen cannot carry more than 1,000 stock, because he is not able to have the stock on the remainder of the land. Of course the representative of Gordonia is ignorant of that. I maintain that the settlers under Section 11 are usually poor people who have been helped by the State to the extent of over 100 per cent. It is the duty of the State to see that there is no overcrowding on the farms. These are farms in the dry parts of 2,000 and 3,000 morgen, and such farms can hardly support one man and his family, not to speak of two or three adult sons and their families. Their cattle trample the veld out of existence, and it is the duty of the State to ensure that this does not occur. This Government intends to see to it that land of this nature is not destroyed and the veld trampled out.

Would there be room for one son?

Not if he has a family, or if he is over 21 years. The Instruction to the Land Board is this, that if a person wants to buy a farm the Land Board must report whether the land can sustain one man and his family on a decent standard of living and whether it can be bought at an economic price. If they report that the person can make a living for himself and his young children, and that the price is right, then the State buys the land for this man. If we permit such a person to keep his adult children there as well, it means that the farm becomes an uneconomic proposition, and eventually that person will be landed in a worse plight than he was in before the Government gave him assistance.

The Minister must not come along here and make jokes about pet lambs (hanslammers) and such things. When he talks about a “hanslam” we involuntarily think of a hanswors (a clown). Neither should he talk about Victoria West, because we know that is a constituency that rejected him.

No, I rejected the constituency.

This talk about pet lambs indicates to us the mentality of the Minister of Lands. On an earnest matter of this sort, he begins to talk about pet lambs. Small wonder that it has taken us six hours to pierce his intelligence to the extent that he will accept a simple amendment. When we have to deal with a serious matter of this sort, we thought that we would have a Minister here who would take a serious view of the matter, and who would not come along with silly, childish stories. I want to propose an amendment, but after the way in which the Minister has acted I am obliged to present the amendment to this Committee. The Minister told us that we do not need to worry about adult sons who will be displaced from the holdings, because the Government looks after these people. Seeing that the Minister has given us that assurance, it is only reasonable that we should adopt the standpoint that the Government must accept the responsibility to provide for those people who have been displaced from the holdings. The position is that these adult children grew up on the holdings. Now they will receive notice that they must quit the holdings. They have spent the whole of their lives on the farm, and they are not accustomed to town life. Provision must be made for them, and it is the duty of the Minister of Lands to provide for those lads who wish to take up farming. He cannot foist his responsibility on to the Department of Welfare. He has already stated that the Department of Welfare is there, but we say that the duty rests with the Minister’s own department, and accordingly I want to move the following amendment—

1. (3) The provisions of section 28 of the principal Act, as amended by subsection (1) (b), shall only be applied after the Minister has made provision for any sons who are of age and who will be removed from holdings as a result of the application of the said section, by allotting other holdings to them or in some other manner.

Then the young men who must leave the holdings can be assisted with another holding or plot. There are many settlements. We are told that during the war much land has been purchased, that irrigation schemes have been constructed, and that provision is being made for people who are returning from overseas. The Minister of Lands has himself stated that there are not enough settlers for the land. A lad on a holding is perhaps 23 years old, and provision ought to be made for him. Seeing that the Minister is going to give effect to this clause, he must do his duty towards these people. He has stated to them that on these particular holdings they are unable to make a living, and in consequence he must see that they get a chance to make a living in some other way. I therefore propose this amendment.

I am not in a position to accept the amendment. The amendment that is moved is one that follows on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) and consequently I cannot put this amendment before the amendment of the hon. member for Calvinia has been disposed of.

Then I can move it later?

Yes, when the amendment of the hon. member for Calvinia has been disposed of.

I understand that the Minister has thought fit to say something or other in my absence. I possess a very poor dog. If there is no one outside he barks very loudly, but if there is someone then he keeps as quiet as can be, just like the Minister. I understand that the Minister told a joke against me when I represented Victoria West. I can understand that because it was the first constituency that I stood for, and I gave him such a walloping there that he has not recovered yet. He opened his mouth there, and when the people looked inside they had no confidence in him. The Minister told a story about my having seen a pet lamb on a farm that was fatter than the other sheep, and that when the people told me that the lamb was fat because it had grown up as a pet, I am supposed to have asked why they did not bring up all the other lambs as pets. I would only say in connection with that that the difficulty with the Minister of Lands was that when he came to Victoria West to oppose me he saw that the people really did not like him. Then he began to spread all sorts of stories about me in order to bring me into discredit with the voters of Victoria West. The voters had more intelligence than the Minister because they believed me and not him. He also had a question put to me as to what the difference was between a “mofskaap” (merino) and a merino sheep. My answer to that was that there was just as little difference between a “mofskaap” and a merino sheep as what there was between the Minister of Lands and a donkey.

I hope that we will talk a little seriously over this matter.

Order, order!

I want to talk about farmers who bought land under Section 11. I hope that the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) will listen.

No, we are not listening.

I want to bring to the notice of the House that some time ago the Government decided to buy land for the natives in order to extend the native areas, and the Government also bought a number of farms from farmers in my constituency. Many of those farmers did not want to sell their farms. They had an affection for their farms. The farms were not bought under the Land Settlement Act. The farmers had bought that land with their own money. The Government came along and said: “We want this land for the natives, so you will have to sell it to us.” The people did not want to sell, but the Government obliged them to sell the land. Then the people looked round for other land, but with the money they got from the Government they were not able to find other farms. Then they were encouraged to buy land under Section 11. Some of the farmers did that. They never thought that the Minister would come along with a law to tie up these lands that they bought under Section 11. I should very much like to draw the attention of the Minister to this matter. It is a serious matter that I am directing the Minister’s attention to.

Just wait until he is finished talking.

I would very much like to put this question to the Minister. Does he think it is proper that seeing that the Government practically forced these people to sell that land, that the Government should now go and pass this Bill and make it applicable to these people? They would never have bought that land if they had known they were later on going to be treated in this manner.

Did these people buy from the Native Trust?

Yes, I repeat that the people did not have enough money from the Government to enable them to buy other land. They were then encouraged to buy Section 11 land. Would it now be proper to make this law apply to them?

The hon. Minister has repeatedly explained that the object he has in view with this clause is to prevent overcrowding; overcrowding can only have one result, and that is undesirable sub-dividing. If we view this matter in its right light, it is interesting to refer to the debate that occurred in 1937 when there was a discussion on the Unbeneficial Occupation of Farms Act, that is, Act No. 29 of 1937.

Do you describe it as unbeneficial occupation if one son remains on a farm?

Before I deal with the then Minister, I would just like to remind the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) of what he said at that time in connection with the Act. He proposed quite a few amendments in connection with this clause in the present Bill. He accused the Minister of having perpetrated an injustice, of being satanic and diabolic and I don’t know what else. The Act of 1937 had in view that where there was overcrowding, that where the land was unbeneficially occupied, the Minister would have the right to expropriate the land, to pay compensation for it, and then to allot the land to other people. The hon. member for Calvinia—I do not know what his constituency was at that time—stated then that he admitted that the law was drastic and that it encroached on the rights of private individuals, but that he realised the necessity for such legislation, and that he only tool umbrage with the Minister because though he wanted to control the then undesirable state of affairs he had not made provision for the future. And that is the big objection that I am mentioning today, namely, that these restrictions will be made of continuous application. Let me just read what the hon. member said.

Don’t run away now, Uncle Louw.

I do not see why the hon. member should be blamed for running away. There is nothing for him to run away from.

I suppose that is where the bomb comes from.

The hon. member stated—

And you call yourself a lawyer.

Is this stupidity or mischievousness?

In the case of that hon. member it is ignorance. The hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) would go so far as to say that the Minister must prevent the testator bequeathing his land in that manner. He said—

It is clear that at that time hon. members were whole-heartedly with us in this, namely, that provision ought to be made against overpopulation and uneconomic sub-division of land. What did the then Minister say at that time? We have heard so much about our violating the Afrikaner tradition and about the tampering with private rights, but the hon. Minister said at that time—

He further stated—

There the then Minister realised his responsibility, and he made it quite clear that as a practical and responsible Minister he was more concerned with economic principles than with sentimental feelings. He stated that it might be biblical but it was not economical. He mentioned the case of Germany and the Netherlands. When he recommended the Act to the House he explained what frightful conditions prevailed on various farms. In the time at my disposal I cannot mention all the cases that he referred to. But just take the case of Waterval. This is what the then Minister stated. He said there were already 1,800 heirs for that one bit of land. He added—

Just imagine three morgen of irrigable land! Are these not precisely the evils against which the present Minister will guard. If that was the danger in 1937, is it not also the danger today? The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) whom we have always regarded as a reasonable man, today used very strong language. He accused us of deceit. Is it deceit if this was regarded as an evil in 1937, to represent it as still being an evil today?

The two matters have nothing to do with each other.

In principle there is not the slightest difference between them. If overcrowding and sub-division constituted an evil in 1937 then it represents a still greater evil today, because in the past seven years there has been further soil erosion. No, my hon. friends are not serious. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) when he was Minister went further and said—

If that was the sentiment of that hon. member and if he at that time received the support of the hon. member for Pietersburg and the other hon. members on that side, who in principle accepted the proposition that the State should intervene in exceptional cases in private rights, in the general interest, do not the same facts apply today? What happened at Waterval? Waterval was expropriated and was then allotted to three persons. The people who had previously

Minister of Lands. If his argument and the argument of the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) are to hold water, then what about people who got advances from the Land Bank under Section 20. They say that if you get an advance from the Land Bank you must have the necessary security. I have particulars in my pocket of a man who received an advance which is twice as large as the value of the farm; I might say three times as much. Why do you not apply this measure to them? If the Government wants to be logical it must do that. I want to say this to the Minister. With the help of the guillotine he has come here to drive this measure through. It will not hamper him, however, to accept our amendment at the last moment. We know that it was never in the Minister’s mind to include farms under Section 11 in this Bill. The Minister knows that that is so. Why will he then, just to be obstinate, not yield on this? [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has said very little about the Bill itself. He has made an attack on me and states that I said that the farmers in Calvinia were bankrupt. I did not do that. I stated that there were certain farmers. I have seen that from time to time in the newspapers.

That is not what you said.

I said there were certain farmers. I say they were Boltmans. I do not know whether they are the hon. member’s family.

Now you don’t know. A moment ago you said they were bankrupt. I will not allow a man in this House to say mean things about another man’s family.

After the election of 1938 the Nationalist Party at Burghersdorp had to have a meeting in order to stand surety for the hon. member’s election costs.

That is an untruth.

Tell us about your family.

The hon. member for Kimberley (District) must not continue with these personalities. I am not going to allow it to continue.

I come back to the Bill. The hon. member dragged me in personally and stated that I had inherited land and asked me how I could buy land through the Land Bank. It is true that I came to Burghersdorp as a clerk and that I worked there for £6 a month. But I did not remain there. I bought a farm there, but not under Section 11; I got money from the Land Bank and if the hon. member wants to make me out to be a liar he can come with me to the Land Bank and he will find that when I bought Kommandant?s Kop I also took a mortgage on it. The hon. member will also obtain there the valuation of Kommandant’s Kop at that time, and he will be able to find out what the value is today and what the difference is. But I did not buy land under the Land Settlement Act. All that the Minister is doing today is to protect the people. I did not pick out Burghersdorp when I spoke of speculation. There may be a few instances there of which I am not aware. In Burghersdorp the scheme was a success. I helped the people in the days when the hon. member was still pulling out teeth. I helped them to obtain land, and they made a success of it. But the Minister knows how many people there are who have speculated in land, and who became poor whites.

Amendment put and the Committee divided :

Ayes—25 :

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J,

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepeol, S. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Noes—55 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steytler, L. J.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Nierkerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

I should like now to propose the amendment that I introduced a little while ago. I will not repeat the arguments that I then used, and I merely move the amendment. The Minister has assured us that we do not need worry over the adult sons and over the parents that will now have to leave the holdings, because the Government will look after them. We take him at his word, and accordingly I move the amendment that the Minister must take care of these people by allotting other holdings to them, or in some other manner, so that they will not be thrown on to the street. I move—

1. (3) The provisions of Section 28 of the principal Act, as amended by Subsection (1) (b), shall only be applied after the Minister has made provision for any sons who are of age and who will be removed from holdings as a result of the application of the said section, by allotting other holdings to them or in some other manner.

I hope that the Minister will accept this reasonable amendment, especially after the statement that he made the day before yesterday, that the Opposition do not need to be concerned over those young men, and over those people who will be moved from the holdings, because there is a Department of Social Welfare with millions of pounds at its disposal to look after these people. We see, however, that that departent has so much money at its disposal that old people are dying of the cold in the streets of Johannesburg. We want to prevent these people getting into a state of poverty and hunger. It is the duty of the Government to ensure that every person in the State will be able to make a living. It has been stated to us that the Department of Social Welfare has means for the care of the people, and later we were referred to the scheme for rehabilitation. That is something which will only come later, if it does come. We want to look after those poor young men and the parents when they receive notice that they must leave the holdings. This Minister is the Minister who must take steps to look after those old men and young people. There are thousands of morgen of vacant land on the settlements. At Vaal-Hartz there are 1,500 unused places where people can be settled. The Minister should place the people there so that they will not be left suspended between heaven and earth. I should like to see the Minister reveal some humanity, and to see him provide havens for these people. Considerable numbers of the people on these settlements are people who were ruined because they espoused the cause of their people and their fatherland. They had nothing at all left over. They had to make an entirely fresh start, and it is the duty of the State to help them. If the Minister has no pity for these young people then he must at least see to it that the old people who receive notice do not need to go wandering round until they die of hunger and poverty. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment, and also to give these people a haven, so that it will not be necessary for them to wander from one place to another. They can be settled on Government land, and other means can also be found for providing them with homes. The Minister must not take up the attitude that they will simply have to go, and that they will themselves have to see that things come right, or that they do no perish of hunger, or some other misfortune befall them. It is not right of the Minister to take up such a standpoint. I hope that even at the eleventh hour he will show some compassion towards these people.

I think that after the speeches we have heard here this afternoon— some of them rather distasteful speeches— the Minister ought to accept this amendment not only on the merits of the amendment itself, but also to restore a good spirit to the House. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. The Government of which he is a member, has proclaimed that it is desirous to see as little unemployment as possible after the war. But if this amendment is not accepted, and if this Bill is carried into effect, it is obvious that some people will be moved from the settlements and that there will be unemployment. In my district there have been people unemployed as a result of their having to leave the land, and the Minister must surely recall that I got into touch with him and that we struggled to obtain fresh work for these people. It took some time for us before we succeeded in that. If this Bill is going to be carried into effect without measures being adopted to place these people on other holdings, or to make other provision for them, then it is going to mean that the Minister of Labour will be confronted with a good many difficulties and a considerable amount of work. I hope that the Minister will endeavour to restore the good tone of the House and to accept this amendment. He ought also to accept it on the merits of the amendment itself. If he does this then he will feel more comfortable in the seat he occupies.

I am sorry that I cannot accept this amendment. I do not think that the hon. member has put it forward seriously. We have placed these settlers on holdings, and are giving them and their minor children a living. How can we be expected to provide also for their adult children?

That is not what the amendment proposes.

As far as I am concerned I have tried to preserve a good spirit in this House. It is true that a bad atmosphere has been created, but that is to be ascribed to the conduct of the Opposition, who have done nothing else but mudslinging; since yesterday they have done nothing but throw mud at me; and they cannot complain if in a certain degree it is returned. I hope that we will come back to a good feeling. I do not think that this amendment is meant seriously.

The Minister argues that we do not mean this amendment seriously. I only want to say this to the Minister, that we most certainly wish to place and maintain this discussion on a level of mutual esteem. We mean this quite honestly, and to me it is a very big problem as far as regards our settlers, and I want to say this to the Minister, that I feel that he is doing an injustice to those young men for whom we are appealing. You have stated that they cannot remain on the holdings and that they must make way on the holdings so that they can go and join the army.

You know that that is not so.

If the Minister says that is not so I want to say to him that that is what his supporters state. As young men they would like to join the army, where they are the sons of Sap parents, but they say that they are not going to render military service when they are not given the privilege of owning a piece of land. You see that it is thus a policy that cuts both ways. I also want to tell the hon. Minister that he knows from personal experience that the best types of settlers you can get for your settlements are those lads who have grown up on the settlements. If you go to the settlements at Hartebeestpoort you will find that numbers of these young fellows have became permanent possessors of those holdings. Under the late Minister Grobler, and also under the previous Minister, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), they were allowed with their parents to occupy the holdings economically, so that they could later on buy the holdings, and today they are in a certain measure self-supporting. Today many temporary holdings have been created at Hartebeestpoort. Through this restriction you obtain such a hold on these people that cancellation of the holdings is the result; it does not lead to permanent occupancy of the holdings, but to temporary holdings.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

I only wish to refer to this, that there are some 39 temporary holding that are being occupied temporarily, and you have a good type of young settler there. By not giving an opportunity to these lads to become permanent occupants you are creating a problem of depopulation in the country and not combating the evil of overcrowding. I want again to appeal to the hon. Minister to accept this amendment, and in doing so to place these young men who want to be farmers on a permanent basis, and thereby effect their rehabilitation.

The hon. member stands up here and he says that he cannot accept for a moment that the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) meant his amendment seriously. Then in the same breath the Minister complains about mudslinging. Now I ask you, in heaven’s name—the Minister stands up and makes an allegation that the amendment is not meant seriously, in other words that it is meant dishonestly—and then you complain about mud-throwing. I do not understand the Minister’s mentality. He makes an allegation, and then he complains about our mudthrowing. I want to say this about the amendment that has been proposed by the hon. member for Pietersburg, that of all the amendments that have been moved—and there is not one that has been proposed that is not relevant—this amendment is certainly one of the most important if a person wants to ensure fairness towards injured parties. I do not want to go over the ground which has already been covered by other speakers. Presuming that the Bill goes through, what is going to happen? A considerable number of young men, as a result of the manner in which the Land Settlement Act has been carried out in the past, have simply accepted that they will continue as farmers with their fathers; consequently they made no other provision. Their parents did not give them any other training. The expectation was held that they would be safeguarded as farmers. Now the Minister comes, and with a stroke of the pen he wrecks these people’s future. He takes up the standpoint that it cannot be expected of him to care for all the sons of the settlers. That is not what the amendment envisaged. What the amendment contemplates is making provision for those sons of the settlers that you are now going to bundle off the land.

All the young men who have turned twenty-one.

Under normal circumstances these sons of the settlers would not have remained there. The Minister knows that, of course. The settlers are not all people devoid of intelligence who would keep their sons on the land if the holding was too small. The settlers are normal people with normal intelligence, and they would only have kept one or two sons there provided they could make a living. If this Bill goes through and remains on the statute book, then the Minister does not need to be afraid that he will be called on even if he accepts this amendment, to make provision for settlers’ sons. The amendment will simply apply to people who the Minister is going to ruin with this Bill, because hitherto they have accepted that they would farm together with their parents, and it is the future of these people that he is now completely destroying. We are not asking that he should provide for all the children of the settlers to the end of their days. The Minister should not forget that he is depriving people of rights that they previously enjoyed. All that we ask is this: In heaven’s name compensate these people in some other manner. You cannot possibly rob them of what was theirs without giving them something else in place of it. This is nothing else than legalised theft, but from a moral viewpoint it is nothing less than depriving people of something to which they are entitled. The Minister stated this morning in the House that he allotted certain farms to certain people, because they were the settlers in those parts, and because they had a better knowledge of farming than the others. But that applies equally to the children of these settlers too. We take it that the Government in the years that lie ahead will continue to help people with land. Now I ask you: Who can the Government help with land to the greatest advantage; people who have knowledge of the land or people who have no knowledge of the land? The State will in future no doubt allot certain Crown land to settlers. Now I maintain that it is just those sons of our settlers who are the men with experience, and who are the best class of people that the Government can find to make settlers of. Why does he refuse then to take these young men as settlers, especially with an eye on the fact that he is now expelling them from these lands? In respect of previous legislation the Government adopted this standpoint, that preference should be given to certain classes of the population as far as concern settlements. Consequently this is by no means an unheard of principle that we are now advocating. If there is any reason why the Government should accord preference to a particular class, for instance the returned soldiers, in regard to lands for settlement, then there are twice as many reasons why they should give preference to the sons of these settlers. I want to put this question to the Minister: Should he put this Bill through and should he travel round the country to various places, and find young men whose future he has ruined, young men who were working on the farms and who together with their fathers were making a living out of their farming, but who were driven away from the holdings by the Government ….

They will get permission to remain.

I have mentioned here one case after the other where that permission was refused. The people have no other training, and as a result of this measure they will be ruined. Those young lives have been broken and the Minister himself is the cause. Will he be able to sleep well tonight? Will his conscience allow him to sleep restfully at night, like a man who has no remorse? All that we want—it is a reasonable request—is that provision should be made for the children of these settlers whose rights he has taken away. Never mind about the future; the people who buy in the future will know where they stand. But these people who have already been there did not take up the land under these encumbering conditions. We ask that provision should be made for the children of these settlers who obtained the land in the first place free of these conditions. Then there would be a certain measure of compensation for this violation of the people’s rights.

I can understand the Opposition are much in earnest over this matter, but what I fail to understand is the strong language that has been employed. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) stands up and says that the young men are being driven from the farms like kaffirs. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) rises in his seat and says that the Minister is kicking the sons off the farms. I should very much like to know from the hon. member for Wolmaransstad what right he had when he was Minister to remove adult sons from the farms. That is a fact; it happened and now I want to know under what right he had to do it, if he had no legal authority for his action.

But a contract was made with the people.

It has come out now that he also did it.

What is wrong with that? Are you too stupid to see that?

And why did the hon. member drive these people away when he was Minister?

I did not do it in the manner that the present Minister has done.

The fact is that you also did it. That is what I want you to admit. For two or three days now we have been hard at it fighting against this clause that has been inserted in the Bill. If the present Minister had not the right to take these adult sons away from the land, then I should like to know what right the hon. member for Wolmaransstad had when he did this in 1938? It is a fact; he knows that he removed young men from the holdings, and if they today are being kicked off the farms, they were kicked off the farms like kaffirs in 1938. I would like the hon. member to explain to the House. We know that he also has been a reasonable man.

You cannot explain things to people who are stupid.

It ill becomes the hon. member to employ such language. It is unworthy to employ such words. I put a reasonable question, and I want an answer. If he can refute what I say, then we shall accept his word for it, but I have facts that I also can lay before the House, and I should like to hear by what right he cast these young men adrift from the farms.

Amendment put and the Committee divided :

Ayes—25 :

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Noes—55 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Stallard C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided :

Ayes—56 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer , L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—25 :

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I should like to move the amendment standing in my name on page 421 of the Votes and Proceedings—

I will not enlarge on that now. If there is opposition to it I shall do so later. I move.

I cannot accept the first part of the hon. member’s amendment. The second part is acceptable but not the first porition.

This clause is the most important clause of the Bill. It provides that after this Act comes into operation no Crown grant or deed of transfer will be issued which does not contain the provision that the unfortunate settler will not have the right to mortgage or to sell his land; that there will be a servitude on it in perpetuity. He will not have the right to do so without obtaining the prior permission of the Minister of Lands. It will not only be applicable to him as a settler when he sells the land, but the servitude will remain on that land as long as the world stands. It may be the Minister’s policy to do that in the future, but the unfairness of it is that settlers who have had their land for twenty or thirty years, will also come under this provision, We come back to the argument which we advanced on a previous occasion in connection with an earlier clause. These people knew on what conditions they were getting the land. The Minister and the department entered into a contract with them. Both parties signed the contract, and not only that, but the contract was registered in the Deeds Office, so that the public would know on what conditions the man obtained his land. Now the Minister comes along, without having obtained the approval of the other party, without even consulting the other party, and he proposes other conditions which make the man’s deed of transfer and title practically worthless. I received a letter from a bank manager who has had forty years’ experience of this type of business and, inter alia, he writes as follows—[Re-translation ]—

That is the position today.

No, that is not the position today. That condition disappears after the first transfer. The provision applies to the first transfer, and there is no reason why we should perpetuate it. Here we have a bank manager with forty years’ experience, and he states that on such a deed of transfer, the person concerned will not even be able to get a bond. The position is that every owner of this land is placed in the position of not being able to do with the land as he pleases. He has to come back repeatedly to the Minister of Lands. I want to predict what I think will hapen. Let us take this case. A settler has a fertile piece of land which he may be able to sell at a good profit. It is not a question of wanting to speculate. If the Minister could sell a piece of land at a good profit, he will do so. Why should he place himself and his children in a more privileged position than the settlers? If a man is able to sell his land at three or four times its value, why should he be prevented from doing so because he happens to be a settler? It is absolutely unfair and unreasonable to make such a condition applicable to the settler. As I have said, if the Minister chooses to do so in the future, the people will know on what conditions they buy the land, but he wants to apply it to all contracts of lease which have been entered since 1912, and that means, in effect, that there is a breach of faith towards the settler. I therefore want to move the following amendment—

In other words, it will only be applicable to contracts of lease which are issued after this Act comes into operation. It is not the first time that an attempt has been made to insert a clause of this nature. I should like to point out a provision which is contained in the Act of 1925. Clause 23 of Act No. 26 of 1925 reads as follows—

This provision was to the effect that for a period of ten years after exercising his option, the man would not have the right to sell or to mortgage. The identical words of this Bill are used there. But after ten years he was entitled to unencumbered possession of the land. That provision did not however, appear to be practical, and we consequently find that that provision was repealed in the Act of 1941. It was regarded as an unjustifiable provision even for ten years, and it was consequently repealed. The Minister now proposes to apply it in perpetuity.

What about 1937?

Under the Act of 1937, it lapsed after the first transfer. But under this Bill the Minister makes it applicable in perpetuity. In 1925 it was operative for ten years; in 1937 it applied up to the first transfer. It meant that after the settler had sold his land, that provision was no longer applicable under the Act of 1937. But in this case the Minister applies it in perpetuity, which means that that land can never be re-sold without the permission of the Minister. I say that in effect it means that the deed of transfer of the settler gives him a very inferior title. He can do very little with it, as we have heard from this experienced bank manager. I say that this provision in the Bill is nothing but a breach of contract towards those people with whom the Government entered into contracts. The Government is committing a breach of contract. I therefore move an amendment to the effect that this clause will only be applicable to holdings which are granted after the provisions of this Bill come into operation.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept this amendment. The hon. member spoke of the Act of 1937. I now want to read paragraph 16 which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) inserted in the deeds of sale—

That is in perpetuity.

Is that in the Act?

No, it was inserted in the deeds of sale.

I should like to have the attention of the Minister of Lands. When a person becomes a settler, he is approved of. The Minister now states that we do not want to have speculation in connection with settlement lands, and he therefore provides that the land may not be alienated without the permission of the Minister of Lands. I take it for granted that that provision appears in contracts which were entered into after 1937; but what about those contracts which were entered into before that date? I want to advance another argument which is even stronger. I can understand that that may be necessary in the case of settlers who want to sell the land for the first time. But the settler may sell the land to another person, and the position under this Bill would then be that that person too, would not be able to alienate the land in the future without the consent of the Minister. It is a servitude in perpetuity. The person who got the land originally may have died or be missing; the land may be in the hands of other people. We can appreciate the Minister’s desire to protect the settlers But the settler and his whole family may have left the land; the land may be in the hands of completely different persons. With regard to the people who buy land under Section 11, I want to point out that that is not the type of farmer who is usually placed on settlements. It is usually a bywoner who made a little money and who wants to buy land, or a farmer who wants to buy land for his son. They are usually people who do not own land and who are anxious to have land; they would therefore be reluctant to get rid of the land. In my district there is a young man who obtained land twenty years ago in this way. Today he owns three farms, and he could buy me out. Then there is another person who bought land under this section for £1,600. Later on he sold it for £3,500 because with the improvements he had brought about, the farm was worth that. He then bought land at Vredendal, and today he is a well-to-do farmer. I am convinced that if the Minister reconsiders this matter, he will realise that he should not, for the sake of half a dozen people who do not want to retain their land, punish a large number of other people in this way. It is not reasonable to take this step, because if the people sell their land, they know that they will not be assisted by the Department again. These people got their lands under contracts, and the Minister now proposes to encumber their transfers by means of an Act of Parliament. These people are decent people just like the Minister and I, people who want to own something. The Minister knows that it is the ambition of the Afrikaner to own a piece of land. I cannot understand therefore why the Minister wants to make the position so difficult for these people. In my opinion it is unnecessary. I cannot appreciate that the Minister is rendering the country a service in any way. Not only that, but I cannot understand in what way he is rendering the Government a service. One will always have poor people, whatever one does. The type of man who does not want to help himself, can only be assisted up to a certain point and no further. If they have land to sell, they will sell it, and they will never be the owners of land. Their position only becomes worse and worse. It is no use helping that type of person. One cannot blame the Land Board. The Land Board causes investigations to be made; they select persons who, in their opinion, ought to have land. They have the land examined to ensure that the man does not pay too much for it. But it does happen, of course, that now and again one finds people who do not live up to one’s expectations. It is not one’s fault if they get into arrears. No one gives those people credit, because they can never keep anything. The type of man who buys land under Section 11 is not the same type of person as the settler. The settler is usually a man who owns nothing and whom you want to train and make independent. The one type of person is more or less independent when he buys the land. Let the Minister accept this amendment as far as Section 11 is concerned. If any contract is entered into under Section 11, as proposed under this Bill, the man will buy with his eyes open. I do not believe that this is the right way of making the people independent. You are going to make them dependent on the Government for the rest of their lives. I feel therefore that I am entitled to ask the Minister to accept this amendment as far as Section 11 is concerned. If the Minister is not prepared to do so, I can only say that the Minister must go his own way. I am convinced that if this Government remains in power long enough, the time will come when they will get no applications for settlements.

I should have liked to accept this amendment, but’ it is impossible. The hon. member now pleads for people who bought under Section 11, but he must remember that we also have the thickly populated settlements. It is the poor man who buys under that section.

He did, at any rate pay one-tenth of the purchase price.

But after paying his one-tenth, he can apply for loans to erect a windmill, to have a bore-hole drilled, to buy fencing material …

The Land Bank demands that the applicant must be able to farm; he must have cattle.

After the first year the settler comes along and asks for a loan. He may want to buy fencing material; he may want money for a windmill; he may want money for a bore-hole. Our experience is that as soon as the Government no longer has a hold on these people they begin to speculate. I have not got the figures with me in connection with the profit which was made up to a certain point as a result of speculation, but the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) mentioned the figure of £200,000. That is the profit which was made by speculation in connection with farms which were bought under Section 11. The hon. member went on to say that it was unreasonable that the State should give money to these people merely for the benefit of speculators. Our people are only too inclined to sub-divide their land. That tendency was very strong amongst our older farmers, and in due course it gave rise to poor whiteism. The farmer who has five sons divides his farm into five pieces. The farm is only big enough for one man to make a living on it, but he proceeds to cut it up into five pieces with the result that not one of the sons is able to make a living on it, and that must necessarily lead to poorwhiteism. Each son is given a piece of land which is hopelessly too small; the land is ruined and as soon as the land is trodden out, soil erosion takes place. When the Government advances money, it has a vested right to prohibit the people who are assisted by means of State money from sub-dividing; to see to it that no speculation takes place and that they do not revert to a worse condition of poor-Whiteism than previously. The Government must have a hold on these people because once it relaxes that hold, this type of thing happens. I want to be fair, but I want hon. members to bear these facts in mind. Take the case of a thickly populated settlement. Do you know what the position would be if the Government were to allow the settlers to sub-divide or sell without restrictions? Take any settlement—VaalHartz, Brits, Hartebeestspoort. Within a few years the settlement will belong to speculators and capitalists. If we allow sub-division without any control, it inevitably leads to the results which I have described.

Sub-section (3) makes adequate provision for that.

The position is that the land later falls into completely different hands, into the hands of rich people who will then have the benefit of the millions of pounds which the Government spent on the thickly populated settlements. And why should they get the benefit? Surely we cannot allow the land to get out of the hands of the settlers by degrees. Once we allow the land to fall into the hands of rich speculators, we have no further control; they are not obliged to cultivate the holdings. Then there is this further position that great administrative costs are connected with the thickly populated settlements. Roads are constructed; money is spent on drainage. We spend an enormous amount of money on drainage. Take Vaal-Hartz, for example. This year we have an amount of £150,000 on the Estimates which will now come before the House in respect of drainage at Vaal Hartz alone. That is as a result of the floods which recently took place in that area. If we allowed the people to sell and sub-divide, all this money which the Government spent would simply disappear; it would have been thrown away. But not only that, the Government will be under an obligation to administer the land for the benefit of people for whom it was not intended in the first instance. I hope that after this explanation hon. members will be prepared to accept this. It is necessary for us to have this power if we do not want the settlements to come to a standstill. You cannot expect the Government to spend millions of pounds on settlements with a view to assisting poor people if they are going to sell the land within a few years. There are people at Brits who sold at large profits, and today they are without land again. They have again applied to the Government for assistance. We must prevent that state of affairs. I say that if we allow sub-division without any restrictions, it inevitably leads to this state of affairs. The people will come to the Government and ask us to establish settlements; we may spend a million pounds or £1,500,000 on it, and within a few years that land would, fall into the hands of people for whom it was not intended. The people whom we tried to assist would again be without land, and the result will be poor-whiteism on a greater scale than we have had hitherto.

The Minister surprises me. He now tells the House that if we do not take these steps, there will be an end to land settlement. This Land Settlement Act was passed as far back as 1912. Look where we stand today. The Minister tells us that these people have made huge profits, that they sold the land which was granted to them. He says they are speculating with State money and that we cannot allow people who were assisted with State money to make profits. But I want to put this position to the Minister. The Government lends millions of pounds to municipalities in connection with housing schemes. Once those houses have been built and the people have paid for them, they have the right to sell. Those people make profits of thousands of pounds, but the Government has no objection to that. As soon as it comes to the poor farmer, however, he is not allowed to make a profit. The Minister says some of those people are today without land. Can the Minister mention a single name? The Minister told us: “Yes, but there is the Act of 1937?’ What we object to is the fact that this Bill is of retrospective effect. The Act which I passed was only applicable to Crown grants in respect of the future. Our time is very limited and there are still a few amendments which have to be put. I do not want to detain the House therefore, and I move the amendment which appears in the name of the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) and which reads as follows—

I move this amendment because the Minister is depriving settlers of their rights; and it will be left to the Minister’s board to decide these questions. I now want to give the lessees representation on the committee. Those settlers will not allow the land to be taken away from them. And while I am on my feet, let me also move a further amendment which appears in my name. I understood from the Clerk of the House that this amendment could still be put. I move—

This relates to the power which the Minister has to introduce this Bill with retrospective effect. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. It provides that transfers which were passed before this Act came into operation will not fall under the provisions of the Act. I think it is only fair, where a bona fide contract is entered into, where an agreement is made, that it should be observed. It would be grossly unfair to destroy the contract by a stroke of the pen. The Minister cannot go to Courtt, because he will lose hiscase. The previous Ministers of Lands entered into agreements with the people, but the Minister now wants to make use of Parliament to destroy the existing contracts. Are we living up to the duty and honour for which we are supposed to be fighting if by the stroke of a pen we undo what we solmenly undertook? Is it fair to lay down that in the future, for all time to come, no one will be entitled to encumbered ownership of his land? We say that the land which was granted before the date on which this: Act comes into operation should not fall under it, and we therefore move this amendment.

I suppose we will have to take it for granted that as long as our people are represented by different political parties, there will always be a tendency to try to score a political advantage, but we can carry political officiousness too far, and I think in this debate it has been carried too far. We are now being accused of deceit. But what we are doing in this legislation is no more than the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) did in 1937.

You know that that is not true.

It is deceit to put the matter in a différent light and to bring the settlers in particular and the people in general under a different impression. Reference has been made here to principles and sins. If anyone has sinned, the 1937 legislators sinned as seriously and as much as is being sinned today.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Then I must infer from the interjection that the hon. members were wrong in 1937. If they say that they made a mistake in 1937 and if they want the Act repealed and the mistake rectified it is a different matter. But read Section 9 of the Act of 1937. The great objection which we hear today is that we are encroaching upon private rights; that contracts entered into with private persons by the State are being amended by the legislative authority with retrospective effect. What was done in 1937? Exactly the same thing. They want to suggest that as soon as the man receives a Crown grant, this section falls away, but that does not diminish the harm or reduce the sin, because it is applicable to every contract of lease which existed in 1937. There are contracts of lease which have existed for twenty or thirty years, and I challenge any lawyer inside or outside this House, to prove that private rights were not encroached upon in 1937 and that that Act was not of retrospective effect. Every contract of lease which existed in 1937 was affected by the Act of 1937, and restrictions were placed on contracts of lease in that Act. It is clear therefore that the sanctity of contracts was violated in that Act in the public interest generally as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad explained at the time. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad referred to the fact that it was necessary to encroach upon private rights, because State interests came first and that we could not allow State interests to be exploited for private purposes and private speculative gain. For that reason he introduced the Act. No principle was adopted in the 1937 Act which represents an encroachment upon private rights and which is not embodied in this Bill. Let us read Section nine—

That is exactly what this Bill contains. All we are doing now is to apply it generally, and I still say that that was the intention at the time. What reason could there have been otherwise for discriminating between the man who retains his land and does not speculate, who pays for his land and keeps his Crown grant until his death, and the man who sells? Why should we impose a burden on the first-mentioned person while we assist and encourage the man who sells and who may be embarking on a career of speculation? It is considered that the ideal settler is the man who remains on his land and does not sell it. We know that contracts of lease change hands more often than Crown grants. In the ordinary course of events contracts of lease are sold much more frequently than Crown grants. The restriction imposed in 1937 therefore affected all the settlers. Hon. members may know that contracts of lease are ceded three or four times before it comes to the final Crown grant. The same objections apply therefore, and if hon. members presented the position to the people in a different light, they would be deceiving them. For the sake of political gain, they create confusion and unrest and distrust, and we owe it to the settlers not to allow those misrepresentations which can only lead to deception and great, unnecessary sorrow, to be published without lodging our protest. What did the then Minister of Lands (Gen. Kemp) say when he introduced the Bill in 1937? He stated—

Then he goes on to say—

That is what he said. [Time limit.]

I am very sorry, but I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). What is the hon. member’s object in moving this amendment? The principal Act, the Land Settlement Act, gives me the Land Board which is there to advise me in connection with the distribution of holdings.

It is said that if one keeps hammering at it long enough, even the hardest stone will break. We hope the hon. Minister will yet be persuaded. I want to move the amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper on page 790—

Provided that the restrictions imposed under this sub-section shall not apply to a holding allotted in terms of Section 11 of the principal Act, as amended.

Here we are pleading more particularly for the people who buy under Section 11. The Minister states that he wants these provisions in the Bill in order to obviate subdivision. He says it is a curse to the country. We allege that in putting through this legislation, the Minister is resorting to class legislation. He makes an exception in favour of a certain type of person. We are in the process of inciting the less privileged people. We make them feel that because they have nothing even the little they have will be taken away from them. We therefore plead for this amendment. If the Minister says that he wants to obviate sub-division and overcrowding as a matter of national importance, he will get a good deal of support from this side of the House, but in that case it should apply to the whole nation, rich as well as poor, and he should not single out only a certain section of people as he is doing in this case.

I move the following amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper on page 790 and which reads as follows—

Provided that the restrictions imposed under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to any holding in respect of which the tenant has had a lease for a period of ten years or more and has exercised his option of purchase and is entitled to the issue of a Crown grant.

In view of what the Minister stated a moment ago and in view of the provisions of sub-clause 3 with which very little fault can be found, I want to move the following amendment—

The Minister argued that the Government spent large sums of money on places like Vaal-Hartz and Hartebeestpoort and other thickly populated settlements, and that he could not allow big capitalists and landowners eventually to reap the advantage of that expenditure. That is provided for in sub-clause 3, and we have no fault to find with that. Our main objection is to sub clauses (1) and (2) which impose unreasonable restrictions on the people. I agree with the Minister that land under Vaal-Hartz, Loskop, Hartebeestpoort and other places, should not be allowed to fall into the hands of big companies. For that reason we say that we are not opposed to sub-clause (3). What we do object to is the unfair provision contained in sub-clauses (1) and (2), and for that reason I move this amendment. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) stated a number of times that this clause did no more than this party did in 1937 in the Act of that year. I want to remind the hon. member that this Party did not govern in 1937. His Party governed in 1937, and it is his Party which is responsible.

Did you vote against it?

We opposed the Act of 1937 tooth and nail.

Did you vote against it?

Of course we opposed it. Those hon. members are at liberty to say that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) moved it at that time, but it was not this Party. And even as far as that is concerned, members on the other side have been challenged time and again to prove that the Act of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad went as far as this Bill goes. What is more, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad supports the amendments which we moved. And furthermore, if the hon. member for Wolmaransstad inserted this provision in the Act of 1937, why is it necessary to introduce a Bill such as this? I want to advance this argument, however, which I have already used in reply to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet). If a mistake was made in 1937, is there any reason why we should make a bigger mistake now?

Do you admit that it was a mistake?

Of course it was a mistake, and that is why we opposed the hon. member and his Party at the time. If the hon. member for Wolmaransstad did the same thing in 1937, what sense is there in introducing this Bill today? It has been proved sufficiently that this Bill goes further than the Act of 1937. We have no objection to the provisions of sub-clause (3). That shows the fairness of our standpoint. But the other provisions will enroach upon the rights of these people, and we are opposed to them.

I want to move the amendment which is printed in my name—

I just want to point out that the Act of 1931, to which I referred, made provision for the dry or fever stricken areas where land was given to people and where, it is admitted by the State, that land should never have been granted to settlers. In order to meet these people, the rate of interest was reduced from the usual 4 per cent. to 1 per cent., in order to encourage the people to stay there. These people live on the borders and they had to get the land for practically nothing. It would be grossly unfair to deprive these people of the right to sell their lands. Those lands can only be bought by large cattle farming concerns who are able to buy big blocks of land. Only well-to-do people can farm in that area. I want to point out that the Minister’s Depar†Ment sells land which in their opinion, should not be given to settlers, and that these conditions are not applied to the land in question. On the 10th March, 1944, a public auction was held to sell four farms in the district of Ventersdorp, including Connaught, Drylands and two other farms of 2,803 and 1,817 morgen, respectively, which in the opinion of the depar†Ment was of such a nature that no settler could make a living on it; but these restrictions were not imposed on those farms when they were sold, They can be re-sold without the permission of the Minister. The Minister knows very well that if he had applied these restrictions to those farms, he would not have got a bid. When the depar†Ment itself sells land, these restrictions are not imposed. Since we have settlers in Zoutpansberg, Potgietersrust and Kuruman on the borders of Bechuanaland, where the rate of interest was brought down to one per cent. in the circumstances which I have explained, it will be very unfair towards the people to apply these restrictions to their farms. We should give them the right to sell their land without restrictions, as they deem fit. I therefore move accordingly.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) referred to the fact that it was not his party which piloted the Act of 1937 through the House; but his party offered so little opposition that they did not even ask for a division. The second reading of the Bill went through without a division, as the hon. member will see in column 6,419 of the Hansard report of that year. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) was a member of the Government Party at that time. He did not protest against the Bill. Let me also remind the hon. member for Waterberg that the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) stated this, according to column 6,409 of Hansard—

Just listen to this—

At 5.40 p.m., on the conclusion of the period of three hours allotted for the Committee stage of the Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by the Chairman in accordance with paragraph (1) of the resolution adopted by the House today, and the amendments proposed by Messrs. J. M. Conradie, Naudé, Gen. Kemp and Messrs. Olivier and Potgieter dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—60 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr,. J. H.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Mushet., J. W.

Neate, C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M.J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

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

Noes—26 :

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4 put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—61 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Friedman, B.

Gluckmann, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Strurrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—26 :

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludiek, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

The remaining Clause and the Title having been agreed to,

HOUSE RESUMED :

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments to be considered on 23rd May.

I move—

I shall not take up much time.

Hear, hear.

I am sorry that hon. members opposite apparently do not want to hear me speak. This Bill has now reached its final stage, and I assume that the Minister with the majority that he has behind him will be in a position to have the third reading adopted. As far as concerns the Bill itself, I do not believe that the subject is of such tremendous importance, because the Bill does not propose anything that is either new or practical. I think that this Bill is a big bit of bluff. The soldiers naturally want the Government to do something for them and this is the result of it. In regard to the re-instatement of soldiers, they gain nothing new. The existing Defence Act of 1912 as well as the emergency regulations makes provision for that. It is true that a six months extension is given under this Bill, but that is practically the only new provision. Now the Bill is going to make further provision for the appointment of a board and of local committees, and then there is a clause which is regarded as something original. I am referring to the clause dealing with quotas. These quotas make provision for soldiers who were previously in employment. It is not a difficult matter to obtain work for soldiers who are artisans. It is also not difficult to find work for them if they were previously in employment. But I believe that this quota system will never be brought into practical operation. It is impracticable; it will create difficulties which even the friends of the soldiers will consider undesirable. This Bill, as it has been approved by the House up to this stage, offers nothing at all to the soldiers with which they will be satisfied. It is true that a further scheme is being framed in part, and they think that they will at present be able to appease the soldiers With this Bill. I only wish to say this that after all the promises that have been made to the soldiers, if this represents the upshot of the whole matter, then the soldiers really have reason to be dissatisfied. I feel now that I have said something that I wanted to say and that I have had close at heart. I only want to add that I am grateful that the Minister has made the proposal which he did in connection with the quota system, because I believe it would have been wrong for the Government to have made provision for soldiers who are not Union nationals and who have not done war service with our forces; in other words to make provision for persons who are not citizens of the Union before we look after our own men. We shall of course have a certain amount of unemployment after the war, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister believes that there will not be any unemployment. It is my opinion that we shall begin to pass through a bad time about a year after the war, and then there will be unemployment. I am sorry for any man who has not a job, but I have the greatest sympathy for my own people. I think that it is the duty of the State first to make provision for our own people. I do not expect for instance, that Australia or Canada will make provision for our soldiers, although they have been our Allies. It would be unnatural to expect that. I think the responsibility rests on our own shoulders to provide for everyone who is unemployed, and accordingly I am glad that the Minister has accepted the amendment in connection with Clause 19. I am very sorry that while this Bill makes provision for work for returned soldiers, that no distinction is drawn between the various races in regard to spheres of labour. The Minister has already stated on many occasions that he is in favour of the coloured people and the Europeans having separate working spheres. He had a first class opportunity to make a commencement with this in Clause 19, where he wishes to make provision for soldiers who were not in employment when they attested, or who do not want to return to their previous employment. The Minister could have made a distinction here, and I think that the soldiers who return will require the Government to make a distinction between Europeans and coloured people. The Government have differentiated in regard to payment and other privileges. Europeans are in receipt of a higher wage than coloured people. So that is no new principle. The Minister could have taken that up in this Bill, and that would have given the soldiers a greater measure of satisfaction. I shall be sorry if returned soldiers have to work with coloured people. We maintain that there must be separate spheres of work, and I am sorry that the Minister has not seen to that. With those few words I think that I have done my duty in the last round in connection with this Bill. I presume that the House will accept this Bill, but I am sorry that provision has not been made for the few things that we ask for, in the first place bilingualism on the committees. There too the Minister lost an excellent opportunity to lay down a principle of importance, if he, as he says appreciates the necessity for bilingualism. It is true that the committees will not always be bilingual. They fulfil an important role. Powers are given to them and obligations are imposed on them, and they will have to take statements. I repeat what I previously stated, that all my years of experience has taught me that if you do not know a man’s language, you do not know his heart. You are not really in a position to reaise what he desires. The Minister had an exceptional opportunity here. He cannot tell me that there are no bilingual people to be found. It may indeed be difficult to find them amongst the older folk, but I think the time has arrived when bilingual appoin†Ments should be made on all committees. These men are of more value than unilingual representatives. That is absolutely clear. Some years ago the chairman of the Select Committee was displaced because he was not bilingual. That is years ago. If the Minister thinks that the representatives should be bilingual, as he says, he can influence the organisations to nominate men who are bilingual. However influential a person may be, and however intimate his knowledge of the subject, it is not exactly necessary that he should serve on the committee. The committee can avail themselves of his knowledge by summoning him and hearing his statement. The Minister let slip a fine opportunity. If we are really in earnest when we say that we will enter a new epoch after the war, this sort of stumbling block must be removed from our path. Such committees ought to be bilingual. I realise how delicate a matter it is when you have to deal with the correct relations between employers and employees, but still the principle of bilingualism must be safeguarded in fairness towards both sections of the population. I think that the Minister has been badly advised, seeing that he has stated that hé himself believes in the principle of bilingualism. The Minister also met us in the Select Committee in respect of the appointment of inspectors; they have to be bilingual. He could have extended that in the Bill, and have avoided a source of friction. I think that the Minister is doing too little for the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people. The soldiers are for the most part bilingual, and those who do not know Afrikaans will learn it. A measure of culture is found in the language. It is peculiar that if Afrikaans-speaking and even bilingual English-speaking people meet in a foreign country, they always talk Afrikaans. You can go to Cambridge or to Oxford, but if you meet two Afrikaners together they always speak Afrikaans. The soldiers at the front— there is a number of them back already— tell me that their battle cries even in the case of the English-speaking men, are Afrikaans battle cries, and frequently you hear more Afrikaans than English because the men want the world to know that they are Afrikaners. Thus so far as the language is concerned, the soldiers themselves will offer no objection. But on the contrary, they will be satisfied if the principle of bilingualism is applied. Well, the Minister has let the opportunity slip by, and it is no good talking over the matter, but I am sorry that the Minister did not accept these few amendments. They would have facilitated the creation of starting points to march forward to a new world. For the rest, I cordially hope that the Bill will be a success, although I must honestly say that I cannot see what assistance it is going to be. If this is all the soldiers are going to get I am sorry for them.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) offered certain objections to the Bill. He spoke, in the first place, about bilingualism and drew a comparison between what the Minister has accepted in connection with inspectors and what he will not accept in connection with committees. I would remind the hon. member and the House that the inspectors are officials of the Government, and on that account it is expected that as such they should be bilingual. But the hon. member who has just spoken will recall that this matter was brought under discussion in the Select Committee, and the attitude of most of the members then was that a good understanding is necessary in order to get employment for men, both on the side of the employers and employees. If the relationship is not good, the Bill cannot be a success. If our employers or employees meet together ánd nominate people who in their opinion are the best fitted to represent them, then that choice must be respected as much as possible. Possibly there is a wide field for selection, and they may nominate someone who is not bilingual. Then the Minister has no alternative but to appoint the unilingual man. He is not a Government official, but a private individual who is representing other people.

It is not necessary that he should be a member of a trade union.

We know these are men who represent certain things. Their organisation my say: “This man is best capable of handling our affairs,” and if unfortunately he is unilingual—I admit it is unfortunate—then for the sake of good relations we have to appoint him. As I have said, he is not a Government official but a person who according to the wishes of those people, should be appointed. In regard to officials, I am agreed. I am sorry that the hon. member has tried to belittle the Bill in so far as it affects the interests of returned soldiers. No one can say that the lawgiver is perfect, but the Minister has at least done his best to present a Bill that will make provision for the re-employment of returned soldiers and war workers. The hon. member says this is merely bluff. If in his opinion the Bill is not right, why did he not come forward with a better plan for the soldiers? If he perceived the defects of the Bill, it was surely his duty as a member of the Select Committee, to suggest something better in its place. He has only criticised, but he has not submitted any better alternative. What I did not expect of the hon. member was that he should have said that the provisions of the Bill are identical with those of the emergency regulations, and that everything that is required could have been done under those regulations. The hon. member will, of course, agree that we hope that the emergency regulations will, sooner or later no longer be required. The hon. member said that he is positive that these provisions were possible under the emergency regulations, but the Bill will remain in effect long after the emergency regulations have been rescinded.

I asked for something better.

That is how you presented it. We do not know today how far this Bill will affect the soldiers. We know that this measure represents but a small part of the Government’s general plan in connection with soldiers. To suggest that it is the last word would be entirely wrong. All the parts taken together form the whole. Undoubtedly the Minister has done his best to make provision that these people will be given employment, or taken back in employment. It is no small matter that the trade unions and employers have evinced their satisfaction with the Bill. It is a very big matter. When I think of what the trade unions are surrendering under the Bill, I feel that that in itself is a big thing for the returned soldiers. Thereunder facilities are created which they would never have been able to obtain in normal times. In these circumstances they are being occorded special treatment. The semi-skilled people will now gain an opportunity to receive better wages and salaries than they would have received otherwise. That in itself is a big thing. I am not referring to the other matters. I hope that the way in which the hon. member has discussed this matter represents his true feeling, and that it will also be the attitude he will display towards returned soldiers and war workers. Undoubtedly it is the case that we shall all be faced with the duty of seeing that the people who have gone to fight and who have borne the burden, should obtain a haven in the country that they have served so well.

Hon. members opposite who have taken the opportunity to pass criticisms on this the third reading of the Bill, merely gave us a rehash of their arguments during the second reading and the Committee stage, to which the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) has replied most effectively and infinitely better than I could have done, and I take his reply as being mine.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.